It was our intention to commence morning sittings on Monday, but I find it is a little inconvenient to start the new procedure on Monday, and it will be better to put it off for a few days. I therefore with leave want to move my motion in the following—

We have now arrived at that stage of the session when in the ordinary course of events we usually proceed to have morning sittings. Nearly all the work of the Select Committees has been disposed of. There will be only one Select Committee, namely the Select Committee on Public Accounts which perhaps will have to continue its work, but as has been the case in the past this Committee can continue in spite of the fact that the House starts at 10.30 in the morning. We think that we are nearing the end of the session now.

When will it end?

As I have said before the Government is aiming at the middle of April as the probable date on which to end the session. I think now that we are starting our morning sittings, namely from the 1st April, it should be possible to get through all the work by the middle of April, and hon. members can make their arrangements here in Cape Town on that basis. The motion I am proposing here is to give effect to the feelings on both sides of the House. We have now reached the stage when there is no need to have long debates and we should be able to conclude the session within a reasonable time.

I do not wish to raise the objections to the Prime Minister’s motion from this side of the House but I should like to have some information from him. Does the Government intend introducing any fresh legislation? Notice was given today of a new Bill. I put this question because if we have to hurry at the end of the session to pass new Bills through the House that legislation will again have to be passed without hon. members having an opportunity of giving proper attention to it. The Prime Minister said there will be no need to have much discussion. I want to point out to him that we are only at the beginning of the Estimates and I hope we shall have a proper opportunity to discuss and to criticise the votes which still have to be dealt with, and I hope there will be no unnecessary hurry. We don’t want to put any obstacles in the way of the Government, but we should like to have the information which I have asked the Prime Minister to give us. I am pleased the Prime Minister has said that he hopes to finish towards the middle of April because members have business to attend to at their homes and it is well for them to know when the session will conculde. But we don’t want to be hurried and we do not want any new legislation to be introduced which we cannot scrutinise in the way it should be done. I shall be very pleased to hear what the position is.

I hope the Prime Minister will be good enough to tell us whether he intends giving time for the City of Durban Savings Bank Private Bill to be proceeded with further this session.

In reply to the hon. member for Wolmaransstad (Genl. Kemp) I want to say that the Government has no intention of putting any legislation before the House which is in any way contentious. There is a War Pensions Bill which still has to be introduced. I do not think that that will be contentious. There are the ordinary taxation measures. There is an Insurance Bill which will go to the Select Committee but it is not intended to put that through this session. It is proposed to send it formally to a Select Committee. Then there is a small Bill dealing with Building Societies, which, so I understand, is not contentious either. Then there is a small Bill in connection with Iscor which is very short and I understand that it is not contentious either. Then there is the War Risks Bill which is also short, and which, so I understand, is not contentious either. Then there is the Bill which has already been mentioned in this House by my hon. friend, the Minister of Finance, in connection with Farm Mortgage Bond Interest. If that is contentious it will not be proceeded with, and it will stand over until the next session.

It is contentious.

Then it can stand over. That is all the work that is to be placed before the House, and all of it more or less relates to the financial work.

The hon. member for Griqualand (Mr. Gilson) has asked what about the City of Durban’s Private Bill. I should like to say that with the best will in the world priority must be given to the Government work at this stage of the session. If there is time for this Bill to be proceeded with that time will be at the disposal of the promoters of the Bill, but I wish the House to understand that at this stage of the session absolute priority must be given to Government work.

That is the end of that.

This clause defines the constitution of the House of Assembly. When this Bill was referred to the Select Committee the general impression was that the report of the Select Committee would be open for discussion, and I hope you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to express our disappointment at the fact that this report cannot be discussed. The Select Committee recommends an amended Bill but the reason why the recommendation has been made cannot be discussed in this House now. It is a peculiar case. Surely there can be very few cases in the history of this House where a Select Committee has studied a Bill, has produced a report, and where that report, especially the Minority Report, has not been allowed to be discussed by this House. We are not allowed to discuss in this House, or to ascertain why the minority says for instance that they have not had an opportunity of considering this Bill.

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

We would like to have known why the Select Committee could not be allowed to hear convincing evidence. We have an amended Bill before us now. Clause 1 concerns the constitution of the House of Assembly, but this is a recommendation which only represents the views of the majority, and the minority has not had an opportunity of saying what its views are.

I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue with that point.

Then I have to be satisfied with that, and I can only say this: that I hope, Mr. Chairman, that in these unusual circumstances you will give us an opportunity of moving further amendments, because I want to draw the attention of the Committee to the fact that this is an unusual case. I am sure it has happened very rarely in the history of this House that a Select Committee has come to a decision and has produced a report and that that report could not be discussed in this House. What we get here now is the recommendation of the majority of the Select Committee and the minority is not given the opportunity of expressing its views.

That is Mr. Speaker’s ruling and I have to adhere to it.

I am not trying to get past Mr. Speaker’s ruling, and that is why I make the request to you, that when we come to the specific clause you will give us an opportunity to propose amendments which will represent our views. This is a most extraordinary ruling, because we only have the view of the majority here.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

Well, then I had better sit down because this clause is merely a consolidating clause and I have no objection to it.

I should like to know from you, Mr. Chairman, whether you are going to rule in regard to the report which has been handed in that no amendment can be moved to this Bill?

If they do not bring about an amendment of the Act.

Would an amendment having the effect of that which appears on page 309 of the Order Paper be allowed by you. That amendment reads as follows—

No, I am sorry, I cannot accept that amendment.

I want to object to the amendment in sub-clause (2). The Delimitation of Constituencies is of a very drastic nature and the provisions are being consolidated here, and I want to point out that the Government has been in a great hurry with this consolidating Bill. It was in such a hurry in calling this Bill a consolidating measure, that one could not help getting the impression that the majority party was in an undue hurry to get this Bill passed as a consolidating measure. They were in such a hurry that they passed through the Select Committee without the necessary evidence.

I am sorry but I cannot allow the hon. member to continue with that.

We are dealing here with an amended clause. The Government now proposes so to amend the clause that it will be a consolidating measure, but that amendment has not yet been accepted, and that being so this Bill is not yet purely a consolidating measure. The Government by making this amendment is turning this into a consolidating measure and I therefore submit that we should be allowed to discuss it. The Bill has not yet been amended. The Government proposes to amend it and in the circumstances I want to ask to give us an opportunity to discuss the matter. My argument is that the Government was unduly hasty in making this Bill a consolidating Bill, and in rushing it through the House in that way. That is what happened on the Select Committee.

The hon. member cannot discuss now what happened on the Select Committee. He can only discuss the clause and nothing else.

Anyhow, I wish to move an amendment. I am not satisfied with the clause as it now reads and I therefore want to move the following—

I regret that I am unable to put this amendment as it would have the effect of altering the existing law. The Bill before the Committee is a consolidation measure and as the Select Committee to which it was referred has reported that it does not alter the existing law, discussion and amendments must be confined to consolidating and clarifying the existing law and proposals to amend the existing law must be disallowed. This procedure was adopted by the House after Mr. Speaker had given his ruling on the subject (V. & P., pp. 321-322) and I cannot depart from it.

This clause again contains proposed amendments which are intended to make the Bill into a consolidating measure, and if we look at the Select Committee’s report we find that evidence was given by the Senior Legal Adviser and by the Parliamentary Draftsman that so far as this clause is concerned, before it was amended, it theoretically amended the Act, but not in practice. I am sure you will not believe me when I tell you that when we moved to call these gentlemen to appear before the Select Committee so that we could cross-examine them on this point, that request of ours was refused by the Select Committee, and the majority party out-voted us. I have never heard of a thing like that before.

The hon. member cannot discuss the actions of the Select Committee now.

We have before us a clause of the Bill. That clause was not like that when we first had it before us. This clause is now moved in this amended form, but the House has not yet decided on this amendment. We did not vote on it, and I am therefore still entitled to say how it came about that this clause has now been drafted in this form, and I am entitled to say what happened in connection with this clause.

The other Bill is no longer before the Committee.

The Minister explained on the second reading what happened for the Bill to be introduced in the House in the shape in which it was introduced, and I am entitled to explain how it happened that the clause is being introduced in the way we have it now before us. I have said that the Government party did not allow us to crossexamine the witnesses.

The hon. member cannot discuss that matter now.

The Select Committee had certain evidence before it which influenced it to propose these amendments. Surely we are entitled to know what that evidence was which influenced the Select Committee to amend this Bill? We should like to be clear on the point. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) said that certain evidence was submitted to the Select Committee and as a result of that those amendments were made, but we should like to know whether that evidence was given verbally or in writing, and whether there was any cross-examination of the witnesses. It may perhaps influence the decision of this House if we know whether those witnesses were cross-examined.

They did not appear.

We should like to know why they did not appear before the Select Committee. We were not members of the Select Committee, and it is no more than right that this House should get that information. I think it is the duty of the Chairman of the Select Committee to explain what actually happened.

As Chairman of the Select Committee whose report is now being considered, I would just point out that the evidence which was led before the Select Committee was in the form of memoranda submitted by the Senior Law Adviser, the Parliamentary Draftsman and the Secretary for the Interior. As regards Clause 2 of the Bill there was no divergence of opinion whatever in the evidence which was submitted. In the evidence of the Senior Law Adviser and the Parliamentary Draftsman, it appears that Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill …

We are on Clause 3 now.

I thought we were on Clause 2. Well, the position was this, as regards Clause 3, that the evidence of the persons whom I have mentioned was submitted to the Committee and that evidence was unanimously to the effect that Clause 3 did not alter the existing law except for a small clarification which was suggested by the Senior Law Adviser and the Parliamentary Draftsman. I think the reason why the Committee, or the majority of the Committee, decided that no further evidence was necessary was the unanimity which existed in the evidence which we had—that is, that there was no alteration in the existing law, and the smaller amendment suggested by them was simply to improve the form of the clause or to clarify the existing law.

They said it was an alteration in theory.

Yes, I am going to put that. The Law Adviser and the Parliamentary Draftsman in their report said that in practice there was really no necessity for an amendment in Clause 3, but in theory they suggested that this amendment might be made although, as they said, in actual practice two censuses had never been taken, one under the South Africa Act and one under the Census Act. They therefore suggested a small amendment which the Committee incorporated in the Clause.

I only want to point out that the Select Committee which was appointed had the right to take evidence and call for papers. We did have the papers, but we did not have any evidence before us. The Parliamentary Draftsman and the legal adviser did not give evidence, and they say in their report that Clause 3, if passed, will in theory amend the existing law, but not in practice. We were anxious to have evidence to determine how one could alter an Act in theory and not in practice. That is a very important question, but the Chairman would not even give us the opportunity to take proper evidence on that clause. In the circumstances I want to say straight out that I feel we are dealing here with a half-baked affair. This matter had not at all been settled in the Select Committee …

The hon. member cannot go into that any further. According to Mr. Speaker’s ruling—

The Committee reported that the Bill does not amend the existing law, and I can therefore not allow the hon. member to discuss this point any further.

That exactly is our objection, that the report is not in accordance with Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

We cannot go into that now.

That means we cannot discuss anything here. If we suggest an amendment, we should surely be able to discuss it. I should like to add something to what the Chairman has said. Our view is that one should have evidence to show whether the Act is being amended or not. There is no such thing as amending an Act in theory, but not in practice. Our point is that we should have had evidence before us.

The hon. member cannot go into that any further.

May I just draw attention to the marginal notes on Clause 3? They say: “Amendment of Clause 3 of Act 2 of 1910.” Consequently, there is question of an amendment. I hope the Minister will reply to that point.

There is something here which is not clear to me, and I should like to have a little more information from the Minister. As the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) has shown, it is said in the marginal note that Clause 3 is an amendment of Clause 3 of Act 2 of 1910. But the Select Committee in its report states definitely that it is not an amending Bill, but a Consolidating Bill. Can the Minister tell us why it is called an Amending Bill if it is a Consolidating Bill? We should at least be clear on that point. I must say that I feel the marginal note is correct because the new piece added by the Select Committee authorises the Governor-General to have a Census taken at any time, even if it is not provided for in the law. Are we to agree blindly to everything the Select Committee says? If the Select Committee says that the Bill is white, are we to say “yes” and “amen” to that; and, if they say it is black, are we to fall in with them? I say that the way in which the Select Committee has done its work shows contempt for the House.

I would just like to say a word on this matter. The hon. member does not seem to understand what happened. If you read the Speaker’s ruling you will find that there is one word, or rather one phrase apparently overlooked by the hon. member, and that is “the consolidation or clarification—not alteration— of the existing law.” The Speaker gave the ruling that where a measure does not alter the existing law, but is merely a clarification or consolidation of the existing law, then amendments can be allowed, but not where the amendment alters the existing law. We are acting upon the custom of the House of Commons, and we had before us the practice of the House of Commons, where one frequently has the position that a Consolidation Bill comes before the House and alterations are made, but they are not alterations of the existing law, because all that they really do is to clarify the position. This Bill is purely existing law clarified, not amended and not altered, and it is strictly in accordance with the Speaker’s ruling. The hon. member for Moorreesburg (Mr. Erasmus) and the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Liebenberg) only raised this question of calling additional evidence at a very late stage. You will notice from the report of the Select Committee that it was agreed that memoranda be asked for from the senior law adviser and the Parliamentary Draftsman, and the Secretary for the Interior. You will find that on page 2 of the proceedings of the Committee. No question was then raised by those hon. members of calling additional evidence.

But that is the usual procedure.

They were satisfied with the memoranda. It was only on page 11 of the proceedings that Mr. Liebenberg moved that further evidence be obtained from the senior law adviser and the Parliamentary Draftsman on the question whether the proposed new Section 41 (1) of the South Africa Act was necessary or not. That was when the Committee had almost completed its deliberations. Then they came forward and asked for further evidence. Then it was quite clear from their attitude that they did not want to examine these people about the memoranda.

I do not think we need discuss this matter any further. The ruling of the Speaker is final.

That is exactly what I am trying to say; the Speaker’s ruling is final.

I think you will allow me in all fairness to point out to the hon. member for Cape Town, Castle (Mr. Alexander), that I had already moved in connection with Clause 2 that further evidence or legal advice should be taken, but that that was turned down.

I have two amendments to be moved, and they are to be found on the Order Paper. I move—

1. (a) the actual amount of all rates and taxes and stand licences, if any, paid in respect of the dwelling, and of the land on which it is situate and which is occupied in connection with it;
2. (b) an amount which the board considers to be a reasonable allowance for any furniture or services supplied by the lessor;
3. (c) any premiums payable by the lessor in respect of the insurance of the dwelling and any furniture therein against fire; and
4. (d) such amounts (if any) as the board may consider it reasonable to deduct in respect of—
   1. (i) collection charges;
   2. (ii) either—
      1. (aa) maintenance and repairs; or
      2. (bb) depreciation not exceeding two per cent. per annum on the actual cost of the dwelling,

gives the lessor an annual return of more than eight per cent. of the value of the dwelling, and six per cent. of the value of the land.

I move—

In line 7, after “occupation” to insert and includes a shop as defined in Section one of the Shops and Offices Act, 1939 (Act No. 41 of 1939)”.

For the enlightenment of the Committee I might say that the definition of a shop in Act 41 of 1939 reads as follows—

1. (a) any premises in or upon which any goods are sold or offered for sale by wholesale, retail or public auction;
2. (b) any premises in or upon which any goods sold or intended for sale as aforesaid are received, stored, packed or unpacked, or from which they are despatched;
3. (c) any premises used as a restaurant, refreshment or tea room or eating house;
4. (d) any premises used as a hairdresser’s or barber’s saloon;
5. (e) any premises used as a receiving depot for articles of clothing or other soft goods which are to be laundered, dry cleaned or dyed; and
6. (f) any premises in or upon which shoes, boots or articles of clothing are repaired, or which are used as a receiving depot for any such goods which are to be repaired.

In regard to this matter, I might say that I think we can count on the support of the hon. the Minister of Labour himself. I think hon. members will recollect that during the second reading of the Bill the Minister of Labour stated in reply to an interjection that he would be quite prepared to accept an amendment such as this, if the House would accept it. In other words, I think that I am quite correct in assuming that the hon. the Minister of Labour will leave this matter open to be decided upon by the House.

I want it.

I might say that it is very essential that a provision such as this should be included in this Rents Bill. I think one of the biggest rackets that you have in your larger cities today is the rental charged for shops, especially smaller shops, and that is really one of the contributory factors to the increased cost of living. There are some shops in Johannesburg which are no more than 10 feet by 20 feet in size, for which they charge up to £60 a month. It is perfectly obvious that if the occupier of that shop has to pay that rental, he has to get the money from his customers, and in respect of all the goods he sells he charges a higher price than he should. I think, therefore, that in a genuine attempt to control this racket and in an attempt to control the cost of living, the House should accept this amendment.

There are one or two difficulties in connection with the definition of “dwelling” that I want to ask the hon. Minister whether he has considered. Dwelling is defined, as the Bill now stands, as being exclusive of the land which is let with it. It is defined as—

And later on in this clause, a distinction is drawn between a dwelling and land for the purposes of fixing a reasonable rent. I want to know from the hon. Minister whether there is anything to prevent an evasion of the Rent Board fixation of rent happening in this way. Supposing there is a certain amount of land which is worth something, attached to the dwelling house. Is there anything to prevent a landlord who is desirous of evasion, cutting off a bit of that land and letting it separately to the same lessee and charging a disproportionate price for the land that he has cut off from the premises? That seems to me to open the door to evasion—the fact that a dwellinghouse is not so defined as to include the land upon it. I also want to put this question to the Minister, whether he or his advisers consider that the definition of “dwelling” is so framed as to cover the case where a plot of land is let for the purpose of putting up a little house there—a shack. We know that on the Cape Flats there are large land companies which let land to natives, coloured people, and to Europeans in some cases. They put up pondokkies there, and very often the rent charged is very high. The pondokkie is erected by the tenant, and I am not certain whether this definition of dwelling would include such a case. I take it that the Minister has considered points like these; but it does seem to me that it would be better if the definition of dwelling were so framed as clearly to include such cases. I do not want to move an amendment, but I want to ask the hon. Minister to consider these points. Now where I do want to move an amendment is in this definition of value. The value is left to the Rent Board, but they are told to take into consideration certain things, one of which is the actual cost of erecting such dwellings, and another is the municipal or divisional council valuation. The municipal valuation is almost always a complete farce. It is far below the value, or it may even be above the value; and all that is left is the sworn valuation. Now, I do suggest that instead of putting in these paragraphs which are calculated to cause confusion, simply to alter this definition to read as follows. I move—

I am anxious to hear from the Minister as to whether that definition of dwelling will cover the case of where a tenant puts up a shack on a plot of land that has been leased, because there are grave abuses going on, particularly in the Cape Flats, where large companies are charging large rents for miserable plots of sand, on which people are putting up these temporary structures.

An amendment extending the provisions of the Bill to shops would require an instruction from the House and I am therefore unable to put the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman).

I would like to hear from the hon. Minister what would be the position of the Rent Board that has to fix the value. Assuming the cost of erection of a dwelling house is £3,000, and say the municipal valuation is £2,000 and the sworn appraisement is £4,000. What has the Board to take into consideration? It seems to me that if you lay down certain conditions and you then say “inter alia,” they can take into consideration any conditions. You may have this case. A man may build an expensive house in Cape Town in a good residential area. Then he may get a lot of coloured tenants around him, and this will result in the value of the house being reduced by 50 per cent. immediately. The Municipal Council, in making valuations, has to take into consideration the replacement value of the building, and it also has to fix the price of the land, having due regard to the prices fetched at sales during the past. It is not the market value of the property which the Municipal or the Divisional Council takes. It is the replacement value. That is what the ordinance says. Now a valuator would come and take the market value. The cost of construction may be a great deal more than the value of the building. Now which of these factors must the Board take into consideration?

Are you supporting the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) ?

Yes, I think he is quite correct. If you say to a rent board “inter alia you should take these factors into consideration,” they will do so, it is true. But which one do they take into consideration first, the cost of construction or the municipal valuation, or do they take the appraiser’s valuation? I think the best course would be to get a good valuator, a man who has had long experience, and who knows the value of properties. If these conditions are inserted, the rent board will take these factors into consideration, but how they will do it I do not know. This is how the clause reads—

You do not bind them to just these considerations; they can take into consideration anything, but inter alia they must take into consideration these factors. I feel that if you fix the value you should simply take the value as being a reasonable value, and that would be according to the valuation of an experienced valuator. Surely there should be men who are able to do this valuation and who are able to see what the property is worth. I feel that something should be done there. The Boards would only take into consideration these three factors, and they would stick to that. They make no reference to the actual value of the property. We must not forget that conditions rapidly change. A man may build quite a decent place in a residential area in Cape Town, for example, and in ten or twelve years’ time the coloured people have built around him, and then the value of the property will drop. You should take the market value, and on that the man should be entitled to his rent. I do feel that the property should be appraised by a sworn valuator. That would be the fairest.

The point of this definition of “value” is to link it up with the definition of “reasonable rent.” A reasonable rent is defined in the Minister’s new definition as a rent which gives maximum annual return of 8 per cent. on the value of the dwelling, and 6 per cent. on the value of the land. Therefore it is necessary for the Minister to insert a definition of “value.” I agree with the criticism that some of these criteria mentioned here are apt to be misleading. Let me tell the hon. Minister my experience; I believe it is the universal experience that divisional councils and municipal valuations today do not represent more than two-thirds of the value of the land. Therefore, supposing you had a rent board which fastened on the divisional or municipal valuation and values the house at two-thirds of what it is worth, then your 8 per cent. and your 6 per cent. fails to be a true test of what is a fair rent. If you take your 6 per cent. or 8 per cent. of two-thirds of the value of the property, then you decrease the rent, so you militate against the true intention of this Bill, namely, to fix a reasonable rent; and so if you put in this Municipal or Divisional Council valuation, you are actually going in the direction of defeating the objects of the Bill, and if instead of that the Minister would accept the suggestion made by the hon. member for Cape Western, and eliminate these three factors, to substitute the following words: “which the Rent Board, having regard to all the circumstances of the case, determines to be a reasonable value” … then you place the onus entirely on the Rent Board, and it no doubt will call in to its assistance specialists or assessors, but once you mention certain matters such as this, you create difficulties. Let me point out some of the difficulties which may arise. You mention in (a) the actual cost of the erection of the building, but you say nothing about improvements. A man may have spent a great deal of money in improvements subsequent to erection. In this section you mention only the cost of erection, and you eliminate so far as I can see from the consideration of the Rent Board the value of improvements. The next thing you speak about the cost of erection of the building, and then you speak about the valuation of the land. As far as I know municipal or divisional valuations proceed on the prairie value of the land and takes no account of improvement.

No, that is not so.

I am talking of municipal practice, supposing the land has been terraced, supposing a windmill and well have been placed on the land, as far as I know, and I speak only for municipalities which I know of, that would not be taken into account in assessing the value of the land. That might be so in a Divisional Council valuation, but of that I know nothing.

That is quite correct.

In the case of a municipality they take the prairie value of the land and make no allowance for improvement. I have been trying to point out as a friendly critic, and one not at all hostile to the Minister, that this should be made more elastic and better results would be achieved if you have confidence in these Boards and leave the determination of the value to them. That is as I see it, having regard to all the circumstances I think we should eliminate these three factors which, as now defined, may be actually misleading and may lead to wrong results.

In view of your ruling, sir, in regard to the amendment that I moved to include shops in the scope of the Bill, I wish now to move that you report progress and ask leave to sit again, to enable me to give notice of an instruction to the Committee. I think the matter is of sufficient importance to warrant this procedure, especially in view of the fact that the hon. Minister is not adverse to an amendment such as that which I moved. I think the House realises that it is absolutely essential that a Bill of this nature should include shops. I move—

Mr. Chairman, I hope the Committee will not agree to that. I know it is not my hon. friend’s object; I will concede that to him, but the practical effect of this is going to be that we will not get the Bill through this year. I am telling him what is my own fear, and I would rather have this Bill without the shops than not have any of it at all. I do ask the hon. member to withdraw that, and I will make him this promise. I am equally anxious with my friend to get these shops into the Rents Bill, but we cannot fit it into the Bill as at present arranged, that cannot be done, because we would have to recast the whole Bill, and it would take the rest of the session. As the Prime Minister only this afternoon informed the House, we are close to the end of the session. I ask my friend to rely upon me that I shall do my very best to have an amendment to the Bill brought forward next year which will include shops. I am convinced that we must have shops controlled in the manner in which we are proposing in this Bill to control dwellings. We must have that. Of course, if my hon. friend questions my bona fides, then there is no more to be said about it, but I can assure him that it is my intention to bring this forward as an amending measure next year. You won’t get it in any case this session, so please allow this Bill to go forward.

I think the hon. Minister should accept this. Circumstances may arise over which the Minister has no control, and he may not be able to bring forward his amendment, including shops, next session. I well remember when this Rent Bill was being discussed and passed through the House, the hon. Minister promised us definitely that an amending Bill would be introduced, and in it he would include shops. He then very much regretted his inability to include them in the principal Bill. I am not going to say that the Minister has gone back on his word, far from it, but it seems to me that there is nothing to prevent the Minister from inserting it in the present Bill. He said himself that he would welcome an amendment of this nature if it were moved, and he would be prepared to accept it and include shops. Now, the Minister has the opportunity that he desires, but he does not wish to take advantage of it. I know the Prime Minister has said that he is anxious to get through the Government work as soon as possible, but I see no reason why this Bill, if it includes shops, should not be passed this year. I understand it is the Government’s intention to give time for the Durban Savings Bank Bill, and I do say that this is of greater importance than the Durban Bill. I can speak from experience about these shops. I myself for many years paid £170 per month for two shops in Durban. That has got to come out of the consuming public, the public have to pay for that, and it is not a question of a few shops, but of a few hundred thousands, I should say, in South Africa. If ever there is an opportunity for including shops and making this Rents Act a really satisfactory job, that opportunity is now. The Minister will get the assistance of the entire House, and there will be no necessity to leave the Bill over until next year. The redrafting should not be a very big matter, and I feel certain that with the support the Minister will get, he will be able to get the Bill through. I think the Minister should accept this suggestion, because he has said on several occasions that he wants to include shops in the Bill. I hope he will withdraw what he has said in this debate, and welcome this opportunity to include shops in the Bill.

What is the necessity for including shops at the moment? If it was a fact that there is no control over shops, there might be a good deal in what has been said.

The present control is not sufficient.

The hon. member says it is not sufficient, but has he tested it out? The Rents Bill, Act 26 of 1940, which this Bill is designed to amend, contains a special chapter giving the control of shop rents into the hands of the National Supplies Board, and the extraordinary thing to me is how little advantage has been taken of that fact. I note the number of people who have made efforts to have their dwellings controlled, the cause of the tremendous number of applications to the Rent Board, but why on earth don’t those who rent shops approach the National Supplies Board? It is not as though there is not control at all, and there is plenty of time to consider the matter. I hope the Committee will not accept this motion.

I am afraid the Minister’s argument is completely fallacious. Evidently he does not know what the provisions of Act 26 of 1940 are. That Act provides that rents of shops shall be controlled, but it does not empower the National Supplies Board to reduce the rent in any way. The only thing that it does is to freeze the rents of shops and without the consent of the National Supplies Control Board, no shop rent may be increased.

That is quite true. But why waste time over this when you know that you cannot get it.

It is not a question of wasting time. Evidently the Minister is under the impression that all social legislation that comes before this House being a step in the right direction, should therefore be accepted by acclamation. It is the duty of members of this House to criticise all such legislation. I think it is absolutely essential at this stage, that shops should be included. I don’t agree with the Minister’s argument that there will not be time to put the Bill through. If the Bill is of sufficient importance I am perfectly convinced that the Prime Minister will give time for it to be discussed; if it is not of sufficient importance, the onus rests entirely on the Government, if they want the Bill to be improved they must provide the time; if they don’t want it improved, then they can scrap it. We should be given the opportunity to move this instruction so that shops can be included.

I want to support the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). I do so because I also want to ask for an instruction from the House in regard to boarding houses.

That is a different question.

I would also have moved that we should report so that I could have the opportunity of asking for an instruction from the House in regard to this matter. Then there will be two matters for an instruction, the one in connection with shops and the other in connection with boarders and boarding houses. Lodgers find themselves in most deplorable conditions. The Rents Act safeguards the tenant from ejection while boarders in a boarding house can be told to leave on a month’s notice. The position is this, that this Bill makes provision for the tenant of a House but it does not protect the lodger, as I have shewn.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion that the Chairman report progress.

It is on those grounds that I want to support the motion because I have this additional matter in regard to which I want to ask for an instruction from the House, so that we can make provision for this matter in the Bill.

I also want to appeal to the Minister of Social Welfare. It will not wreck the Bill. We can go on with the other work in the meanwhile, and afterwards we can again go on with this Bill. Let the Minister test the feeling of the House on this question. If the House is in favour of it the Minister gets what he wants. The Bill is quite ineffective so far as shops are concerned, and that is why it seems to be no more than right that we should also make provision for shops. This session will last about another four weeks, and we have ample time. In the meanwhile, we can carry on with the other work. It will not take the House long to decide on these instructions, and if the Minister gets an instruction from the House which strengthens his opinion, then he can get what he wants. I don’t want to ask for anything unreasonable, but I feel compelled to support my hon. friend in asking the Minister to do this. If the House decides then that it does not want to include shops, well, that is not our fault. It cannot take up much time. The position on the platteland is that the people cannot get 8 per cent. A time may come, however, when such a Bill may be necessary, but if it is necessary for houses that are rented in other parts of the country, then it is all the more necessary in regard to shops out of which people have to make their living, and, what is more, if a man has to shift his business from one locality to another locality he is probably going to lose his business. It is therefore a matter of vital importance to that man to have this matter settled. I say again that it will not take up much time, and we have a considerable amount of time left this session. I therefore appeal to the Minister to agree to give the hon. member the opportunity to move his instruction.

The Committee divided:

Ayes—41:

Badenhorst, C. C. E.

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Liebenberg, J. L. V.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, N. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—60:

Abrahamson, H.

Acutt, F. H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Christopher, R. M.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hooper, E. C.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Lawrence, H. G.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steyn, C. F.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

I wish to move an amendment to the amendment of the Minister on page 473. I want to add after “depreciation” “not exceeding 2 per cent. per annum on the actual cost of the dwelling”, the words “or where this is not ascertainable on the sworn valuation thereof”. The object of that is really to round off the section, because there will be many cases where it is impossible to ascertain the actual cost of erection of a dwelling. There are cases where dwellings have changed hands a number of times, or have been in existence for a great number of years. In cases of that kind it would be difficult to ascertain the actual cost, and where that is not ascertainable the Minister ought to allow a sworn valuation in order to decide the amount of depreciation allowable. I move as an amendment to the new definition of “reasonable rent” proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare—

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the three methods which are laid down for determining the value of a building—or the three methods that have to be taken into account, and I want to tell him that it is going to be very difficult always to determine what the building costs have been. There may be cases of one individual erecting a building for £1,000, while the next man will put up the self-same type of building for £200 or £300 less. One may have anomalies of that kind. Then, secondly, the Minister provides that the Divisional Council valuation or the Municipal valuation can be taken. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has already pointed out that our usual experience is that the Divisional Council or the municipal valuation only gives two-thirds of the value of a property. On the other hand, in some parts of the country we have instances where the Municipality and especially the Divisional Council values on a particularly high basis. That particularly applies to the Divisional Council because the Land Bank takes the Divisional Council’s valuation into account, and it used to be the custom to value on a particularly high basis in order to enable people to get bonds. The result is that in some areas the valuations are low, while in other areas again the valuations have been high. The argument used is that for taxation purposes it makes no difference whether the valuation is high or low. The Boards impose their rates in accordance with their needs for running their affairs. If the valuation is low, the rates are high, and if the valuations are high, then the rates are low. It amounts to the same thing in the end, so we have these distinctions in various parts of the country. Then the Minister speaks of a sworn appraisal. That will not pay either, unless the Minister is prepared to put a provision in the Bill that the valuators are to be appointed by bodies such as Municipalities or the Divisional Councils for those purposes only. Then we can get a basis to work on, but as it is put in this Bill—I can give the Minister the assurance that injustice will be done and the valuation will not be fixed in a fair and just manner.

I think we had better try to understand where we are in regard to this matter. The question the hon. member has been dealing with, and the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) also, is what shall be the ultimate value of the house and the land for the purpose of computing what is a reasonable rent, and the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) asked upon what shall be based the 2 per cent. as depreciation. Let me deal with the first one first, namely, this question of the value to be assigned to the house and the land for the purpose of computing a reasonable rent. It has been argued by most members that it would be well to leave this to the Rent Board. In other words, we should give the Rent Board no guide at all and let them work their own sweet will. And in arguing that way the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. Warren) tried to give me a concrete example of a hypothetical nature—if I may put it in that paradoxical way. He said the original cost is so much—that is if it is known at all—if it has not been lost in antiquity. The valuation of the Municipal Council or of the Divisional Council is so much, and of the sworn appraisers so much —and then here is what the Rent Board has to do: Well, what is the Rent Board to do under the hon. member’s system? It is lost in a haze. But what have we done here in this clause.? We do not propose in this Bill to say to the Rent Board: “You have to take the original cost or you have to take the valuation of the Municipality, or alternatively, of both, or the sworn appraisers’ valuation.” We don’t say that. We simply say: “You have before you the whole picture so that you have everything in front of you, and then you can draw a medium line.” And in the end it may save further discussion if I inform the Committee what is going to be our method of administration. In the large towns at all events we propose to have our own valuers under the aegis of a Central Control Board, so that you will have persons used to make valuations and people recognised as being capable of making valuations, and being in our own employment—if I may use that expression about so high and mighty a person as an appraiser,—but you have somebody who will not be subject to any influence. Hon. members know that you can get all kinds of appraisers. You can get some which are very low and others which are very high in regard to the same property. Now, we propose to eliminate any possibility of discrepancies by having our own valuers, and where we cannot have our own we propose to have the next best thing; we propose to have a sworn appraiser known to the locality and who knows the locality. The Rent Board need not take any of these computations as a basis for their own valuations. They will have everything before them and they will know—the valuation of so and so is this. The valuation of that party is that; and we come to the conclusion that a reasonable figure is something in between that.

You mean that the Control Board would in every case make the sworn appraisal.

Oh, no, the Rent Board will have all these things at its disposal, and where they think it is necessary, if there is no sworn appraiser under Government aegis in any particular district, they can refer to the Central Control Board if necessary.

Who is going to pay for that?

The State is.

Is the State going to pay for every valuation?

Yes, we are not going to charge anyone for it. That is a fair responsibility for the State to shoulder in order to see that its citizens are protected. That is one of our contributions.

The Minister did not answer the point I raised—it is a point which I must admit worries me very much. And that is whether in a case where a plot of land has been let for human habitation and the tenant puts up a house for himself whether he can be charged anything the landlord likes. As I read the definition of “dwelling” that is the position. I emphasise that in this area, round about Cape Town, you have some of the worst landlords in the world. You have companies which let some of these sandy bits of ground to coloured and native people and they put up a pondokkie and then they are charged a heavy rent without any services being provided. You could not take into consideration the cost of erection. They have erected the house themselves and the rent should be very low. I propose to move in this definition an amendment to deal particularly with this type of thing. I have moved as follows—

That makes it quite clear then that the definition covers cases where land without a building has been let for human habitation, and the habitation is subsequently erected by the tenants. And as I say, provision of that kind is very badly needed, and the present definition of “dwelling” does not seem to cover it. Also, under the definition which I move, it will stop a landlord evading the Rent Board; say a house is situated on land which can be cut up. This provision will stop the landlord from evading the Rent Board by cutting off a bit of his land and letting it separately to the tenant at an artificially higher rate. He will not be able to do that if the definition is amended in the way I propose, because the mere fact that he called a bit of land a separate property would not hold water. I hope I have made clear what I mean. My reason particularly is that I want to stop these land companies from charging unduly high rents for these small bits of land on which these poor people are living and on which pondokkies have been erected.

I want to come back to this definition of value. The Minister said that as he visualised the matter the Rent Board when considering any application will have before them the whole picture of the position as it is. That is to say, they will have before them the cost of erection of such a dwelling, they will have the municipal valuation or the Divisional Council valuation, and any sworn valuation of such dwellings or land, and in addition the Minister said that the sworn valuation will be paid for by the State. But as a layman I do not think the way this clause reads will compel the Rent Board to have all three before them. It simply says they will have to take into consideration, inter alia, all these things— any municipal valuation or Divisional Council valuation, or any sworn appraisal, and so on. From the way it reads now I contend that there is no compulsion on the Rent Board to take into consideration all these matters. It is still open to the discretion of the Rent Board whether they will take all three into consideration or just one or two. I think they should be compelled to take all three into consideration. As the hon. member for Kensington has said, if the Rent Board had to take into consideration only A and B—that is, the cost of erection and the municipal valuation—what would the position be in fact? That house was originally erected in a new suburb. The land valuation was very low, and the cost of erection was very low. The cost might have been £1,000 originally. That area appreciates in value and instead of the value being £1,000 it may be £2,000, £3,000 or £4,000. I can quote numbers of cases where that has occurred. Take Mayfair. You could have bought a stand at Mayfair not so very long ago for £100 and you could have erected a house there for £900. That was eight or nine years ago, but that has changed. The whole area has appreciated in value, and the whole position should be taken into consideration. If they take the municipal valuation into consideration it amounts to this: the municipal valuation of the ground is made when the township is laid out. The original selling price of the land is taken into consideration in the valuation. Let me give you another instance: take Emerentia. The original price of a stand there was £275 or thereabouts. That was the original price, but today that area has considerably appreciated and you cannot buy that same stand for less than £500 or £550. That should be taken into consideration. And that is why the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) states that the municipal valuation is no criterion of the true value of the land or dwelling. And then the municipal valuation may be only two-thirds of the market value —that generally is the case. I contend that this clause should be so drafted, firstly to compel the Rent Board to take everything into consideration. The original cost of the dwelling, if it is obtainable, secondly the municipal valuation, and thirdly they must have the market value of that property, and to obtain that it must be compulsory for them to obtain a sworn valuation by a valuator who is experienced and who knows what the ruling prices in the particular areas are. That is the object of the amendment which I have moved.

As I see this, the most important words in this section are the words “value which the Rent Board determines to be reasonable”. There are the governing words: The other is explanatory. The object of this clause is to give a key — a guide as to the elements which might influence the Board in coming to a decision, but the great thing is that the Board must determine the reasonable value and then it gives only certain things which may be considered in determining that reasonable value.

Why not say that they must take all these things into consideration?

It is not conclusive, it is only qualifying, and the clause only explains what are the elements that may be taken into consideration.

We want it to be conclusive.

May I give an instance. Hon. members know and perhaps more so in a city like Johannesburg and Cape Town that there are areas which suddenly become connected up by a bus — those areas become of far greater value than they were before — before there was transport facilities. The question of drainage also has a considerable influence whether a particular area is going to be sought after or not. These are all elements, but you cannot specify them all.

Of course you can. You need only specify the market value.

You have to take so many things into account.

Why should’nt you?

The main purpose is to have the value fixed by the Rent Board — to have a value fixed which it considers reasonable, and then, when you have determined that, then you say regard shall be had — not that this is the final factor in deciding the value — regard shall be had, to matters which shall be taken into account and of those are the three things which are specified here. But that is not conclusive.

Make it compulsory then.

It is still competent for any person to bring forward any additional facts, either at the instance of the landlord, or of the lessee. But there is one point — a landlord or lessee must not fail to bring a sworn appraisement before the court — I cannot imagine the lessor, if it is in his favour, failing to bring a sworn appraisement to the Rent Board. I think this clause covers the difficulties which hon. members have advanced. Now, the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) raised the question of the value of the land.

In certain particular circumstances.

Now one thing is perfectly clear. The only value of land which can be contemplated here in this subparagraph is first of all the land which the house stands on. As soon as you go beyond that then I say that you are going to get into deep water because you have to decide how much additional land you need — you may get into agricultural areas — you may get into an area where kitchen gardening is carried on as a business — you don’t know where you are going to end.

That is not the type of thing I was referring to.

You can only just take the house with the ordinary amenities which belong to that dwelling, into account. The moment you say that you have to take additional land into account and you wish to protect yourself against all kinds of dangers — and I can clearly see that there are certain dangers — you are going to land into such serious difficulties that I don’t know where you are going to end.

Will it cover the case where the lessee has erected a building?

The land which is intended here is the land on which the dwelling is erected and everything connected with it. That is the only land that can be intended. You are taking the house and the land—the only land which can be intended is the land on which the dwelling is erected.

Supposing the tenant erects the house?

I still think that is covered. It is the area of land covered by the dwelling. And I can see no difficulties in regard to that.

What about the case I mentioned?

And you must link it up as the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Blackwell) has pointed out. You cannot read this as portion of the clause without linking it up with the definition of reasonable rent which is immediately before it in the same clause.

For the convenience of the Minister of Social Welfare I shall speak English.

I am much obliged to you.

Now I don’t want to be obstructive, I want to help. But I do feel that you are looking for trouble unless you make the position perfectly clear in this clause. You have two or three lawyers standing up on one point and they all differ from each other.

They always do.

This is a very important matter. And the question at issue here is “What is a reasonable rent,” and of course, a reasonable rent depends on the value of the land. This is a painful thing sometimes.

It is much more painful to the tenant.

I want to tell the Minister that I have been valuing land for almost thirty years.

Very good, we shall probably call you in.

And I have some very painful experiences I remember on one occasion where an heir had inherited half an estate and in the estate there was one farm. The attorney administering the estate valued the farm at £2,500. My valuation was £8,500. The Master accepted the £2,500 because this gentleman administering the estate was quite honest — I have no doubt about that. Within two months after the Master had accepted that valuation that farm was sold in the public market for £9,000. That will show the difference of opinion you can get. Now I don’t suppose any tenant of a house will object if the owner of a house does not get more than 8 per cent., but it will make a very bigdifference if a £9,000 property is valued at £2,000 and the rent is based on the £2,000— the owner will not get his 8 per cent. then. Now to say in the definition that value means the value which the Rent Board considers to be a reasonable value for such a dwelling or land—is not going to lead you anywhere. If you left it at that and the Board made a mistake you could appeal to the Control Board. You can now. But that is not all. The clause goes on and says: “Regard being had, inter alia, …” They fix a reasonable value. It is not that they may take one of the three factors into consideration, or that they must do so—they may have regard to anything. But they must have regard to one of these three things. I take it what the Minister wants to achieve is that the man who is the owner shall not be treated unfairly—he wants him to get a square deal, but he wants the other man also to get a fair deal. Now, if that is so, you must take the value of the ground— you must take the marketable value. The man may have paid very much more for the property than it is worth. I have had to buy a property next door to me because my neighbours were undesirable.

You do not expect the tenants to pay more just to meet your convenience.

No, no, that is not my point. What you want is the marketable value of the land, and the only way to get that is by valuation, and as the Minister of Railways told us, valuation is not an exact science. If the property is sold by auction, what it is sold for is usually accepted as the market value. It is accepted by the Government every day. If a property is sold by public auction the price realised, the purchase price, is accepted as the market value.

You do not want to leave it to the judgment of the Rent Board.

If I knew that they were going to be good and honest fellows I would not mind, but I am afraid the Minister may die tomorrow, and you may have someone else in his place. That is the danger.

Don’t be afraid of that.

The bigger danger is that the Minister will not die.

Yes, it seems to me that the hon. member hopes so.

There is a lot of wishful thinking going on.

The position is this, that the Rent Board may not be able to do all these things. The Minister has already told us what kind of people he is going to put on the Board, and I am afraid he is not always going to put on the very best people. And even the Minister himself does not seem to trust the Boards—he is already putting another Board of Control over them. If he does that—what are we to think? He should lay it down definitely in this clause that they must be compelled to take all these factors into consideration. If he does not they won’t know where they are. I had intended moving an amendment, but my hon. friend, the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) says that he has an amendment which will meet all my objections, so I will leave it to him to do so.

My objections, I think, are not precisely the same as those of my hon. friend on my left (Mr. S. E. Warren). I say there is nothing definite laid down—no definite procedure is laid down; the Board is not under any compulsion to take certain matters into consideration, and I think that is wrong. We have found that Rent Boards usually consist of very ardent party supporters. They are not appointed because they have any specialised knowledge of the valuation of property, and reasonable rents—they are appointed simply because they are very good and ardent party supporters—that is why they are often appointed to Rent Boards and similar bodies. Bearing that in mind, I consider it essential that some procedure should be laid down, so that the Rent Boards can act fairly and justly to both tenant and landlord, and I think it is essential to tighten up this definition of “value”. I therefore move—

Under this they are compelled to take three matters into consideration, and I think it is necessary that all three should form a basis on which their decision must rest. The same position is followed by the building societies. When a loan is applied for a building society sends its valuator out. He arrives at certain decisions. They take the purchase price of the land, the cost of erection of the building, and they also take into consideration the municipal valuation of the land and the dwelling. And on that the building society decides to grant a loan. That has been found to be very sound. They are not allowed to give more than 75 per cent. of the value of the property. You find that the building societies have always taken steps to safeguard themselves, and on the whole they take these things into consideration; they accept that as a basis in the valuation they make, and for the loan they grant. They take the cost of erection, the purchase price of the land and building, and the municipal valuation. In that way you can arrive at a very clear figure, a figure that will be very near to the real value of a particular property. I think if the Minister accepts this amendment the Rent Board will have something definite on which to work, and they will be able to make decisions that will be perfectly fair, both to the tenant and the landlord.

No, sir, I am sorry I cannot accept that, nor can I accept the contention advanced by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). I want to remind the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) that this is a tenant’s protection Bill, designed to protect the tenant from being mulcted in too high a rent. When you say you accept the wording indicated by the hon. member for Fordsburg as applying to the Rent Board, that is to say, to bring it within the purview of the Rent Board, we immediately instruct them by law to take the original cost if ascertainable. The original cost of the land is reasonably hopeful to be obtained. The original cost of the dwelling is another matter. Supposing the Rent Board can discover the original cost of erection, that is absolute, that is what it cost a man to build.

What about improvements?

The improvements would be taken into consideration as well, but what my friend is wanting is a valuation which is not the result of the effort of the owner of the property, but the increased value resulting from community effort. That I am not prepared to allow, I am not prepared to allow the tenant to be mulcted in a false valuation. In other words, the landlord is not to get the advantage of an increased valuation that he has had nothing whatever to do with. I want to temper the wind to the shorn lamb, the landlord, and I therefore give an alternative method of arriving at a valuation. The one is the municipal valuation, which may be low, it may be too low for the market valuation, but may still be very high as contrasted with the original cost. For instance, take a piece of land at prairie value, it appreciates because of community efforts and becomes infinitely higher in value than its original cost. Then the sworn appraiser comes along and values it, and he makes as his most important factor what it will sell at. That is the point made by my friend over there. That is what the public will pay for it, but that is not necessarily its value at all. It may be a fictitious value and very frequently is.

It may drop.

Sometimes it is approximately the actual value, but that is very seldom the case, and sir, in order that there shall be no mistake and in order that the Rent Board shall not be bound to any one of these or all three of these methods, I say to them “You take these into consideration when you are examining the position, and then bring your own commonsense and judgment to bear upon it and decide what is a reasonable rent under these circumstances.” Now, may I say to my hon. friend for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno), who is interested in the question of land sharks, there are varying degrees of land sharks. I refer to the kind of dwelling that he called pondokkies, sometimes made of wattle and daub, sometimes of paraffin tins, and so on, of which there are many shining examples on the Cape Flats. Now does my hon. friend expect me to try and burden the Bill with all the clauses that would be necessary to cope with this situation? My hon. friend’s amendment may or not deal with the situation, but the fact is that he is trying to clutter up the Bill with a wealth of language that nobody will understand, and which is going to confuse the Rent Board, the members of which I want to be simple, honest fellows.

They mustn’t be Labour men then.

Let me tell my hon. friend that I recently appointed a committee which really amounts to a commission to enquire into that whole system of land tenure, and the acts of exploitation that are being practised by people who own land there. I believe there is one particular company whose name stinks in the nostrils of some hon. members here. We have a committee enquiring into their machinations and that committee is a fearless one. It is presided over by Mr. Britton, an ex-magistrate, a man whose whole career demonstrates that he is immovable on points of principle. It is composed also of high officials in the various departments interested, Public Health, my own department and one or two others, and one or two people from outside. Their report will be acted upon, I can assure my hon. friend, but don’t let us complicate this Bill with anything of this sort now. Then with regard to the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis), he wants us to make it perfectly certain that there shall be 2 per cent. upon any form of depreciation. The only depreciation you can consider in connection with this matter is depreciation on the actual cost of the house.

Plus improvements.

Yes, plus improvements that is taken into account.

Supposing you cannot find out what the cost is?

Then you have to make an estimate of what the cost is.

That is all I am asking for.

My friend wants it in such a way that he is going to protect the landlord every time.

Of course not.

Yes you do, and I am not going to subscribe to that.

The Minister must not be surprised if we take a very considerable time about this clause, because it is the crux of the Bill. I am sorry to say the explanation which he has given, instead of clarifying the matter, has from my point of view made confusion worse confounded.

Then it would be just as well for me to withdraw my amendment. I shall do that. I am only too happy to leave the Bill as it was.

I wish the Minister would treat this as a serious matter and not as a political joke. It is a very serious matter to tens of thousands of people in this country, and I hope that the Minister will treat it seriously and not think it can be pushed through without careful consideration. I hope he will not try to score debating points off members who happen to criticise the details. The Minister said that in every case he wants the actual cost to be considered, and the fact that the neighbourhood may have improved in value should not be taken into consideration.

I did not say that.

The Minister said where the actual cost is ascertainable that has to be taken into consideration, and community development no landlord is entitled to have brought into consideration. I want to point out the absurdity to which that position leads. You may have two erven next to each other, and one has a house on it which was built ten years ago at a cost of £1,000. The ground may have cost £200, but today that same ground is worth about £600. The adjoining vacant erf is worth £600, but instead of it costing £1,000 to put up a similar house to the one on the other erf, it may cost £1,500. That is to say, it may cost £500 more to put up a house with the same accommodation. What is going to be the position? Is the one house to be let for £6 a month, and the other with exactly the same accommodation on similar ground be let for £12 or £14 a month? That is grossly unfair.

To whom?

To the tenant, why should one tenant be charged £12 or £14 for the same accommodation that the other man assessed to pay £6 for? That is only one aspect of the matter. It also leads to this result—I am taking now the case quoted by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). You may have a case where the cost was £2,500, but the value as indicated by the market value, is £9,000. Now, if the Rent Board were to base its rent on the £2,500, what would the landlord do? He would sell the property at once, and the new owner would come along and turn the tenant off. That is not going to do any good.

He cannot do that.

Of course, he can; he can acquire the property for his own occupation. The landlord will always sell the premises to an owner for occupation by himself if the Rent Board does not give a fair value. I ask the Minister not to be afraid of criticism, but to face it and say he is prepared to see that Rent Boards assess rents on a reasonable basis and frame his provisions in the Bill accordingly. This type of Act depends entirely on its administration. If you have good, sensible people on your Rent Board, then there won’t be much trouble anywhere, because they will try and hold the balance fairly, but I remember the last occasion this Rent Bill came before the House the Minister promised that he would see to it that sensible people would be put on the Boards. We have not, however, succeeded in getting many of them. I would ask the Minister rather to let this particular clause stand over, and let us get on with something else, so that it can be considered from the point of view of drafting a clause which will ensure a reasonable valuation upon which rents can be based. As far as my amendment is concerned, the Minister says that where the actual cost of the dwelling is not ascertainable, the Board would ascertain the value, but the law does not allow them to do so. As the law stands, the owner must bring along the actual cost of the dwelling, but in many instances the dwelling may have passed through several hands, and it may be impossible to ascertain the cost. Only in these circumstances do I ask the Minister to accept an amendment which enables a sworn valuation to be taken into consideration.

I must say it is not very encouraging to me to go into Committee with various people who find fault with measures that I have brought before this House. The speech of the hon. member who has just sat down has been very discouraging, indeed, because the whole of this amendment of mine is due to collaboration with the hon. gentleman, and an effort to meet his objections to the Bill. If he is going to persist like this, I am going to withdraw my amendment. I agreed to alter this clause as it was originally drafted after collaboration with the hon. member, but it seems this was a complete waste of time. I shall have to think very seriously in future whether I shall take the trouble to consult people, as I have consulted the hon. member and one or two of his friends.

I think the attitude of the Minister deserves some comment from hon. members of this House. Because an hon. member makes a reasonable criticism of the Bill, the Minister stands up and starts to threaten him that if he does not stop wasting his time he is going to withdraw the amendment. One must therefore accept the position that the Minister does not agree to amendments because he considers them to be in the interests of the Bill, but merely on account of party political pressure.

Say what you like about it.

Another thing that appears to be not very creditable is the fact that the Minister seems only concerned about one section of the population.

Not at all.

I do not think I stand back for the Minister in regard to my sympathy for the tenant. The Minister’s whole standpoint is that landlords are all people who should be banned from South Africa. He is only concerned about the tenant, the poor tenant, who is being mulcted. He is the only one to be considered when discussing a Bill such as this. I was always under the impression that the Government was there to see that justice is done to all sections of the community, and not only to one section. Evidently that is not the view of the hon. Minister of Labour. Apart from that, the hon. Minister’s arguments against the amendment are certainly not arguments that hold any water. I think he should follow the advice of the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis), and leave this clause over until he has an opportunity of fully discussing the matter with his department. He may come to a different conclusion in regard to the amendment after he has done that. I want to emphasise the arguments used by the hon. member for Pretoria (City). The Bill as it stands now does not protect the landlord. The Minister must always bear in mind that all landlords are not necessarily big capitalists, not all men in the big property class who are out to mulct the poor tenant. I am perfectly convinced that he has never been a landlord, and he probably never will be either.

What is amusing about that?

I have found that at least 75 per cent. of landlords are working men.

They have nothing to fear.

Most of them are small wage earners, who have put by something and bought property to make provision for their old age. The majority of the houses in Johannesburg—I am not speaking of Parktown—but the majority of houses in the working-class suburbs occupied by these people whom the hon. Minister wishes to protect, are owned by small wage earners getting from £30 to £40 a month. I do not see why they should not have protection. It is only plain justice that these people should also be protected. The amendment I moved is merely an effort to protect these men who have probably been more thrifty than the tenants who occupy their houses. Usually these people don’t pay cash down, but spread the capital payment over a period of years. The Minister used the argument that if a dwelling and land appreciate in value, it is due to the efforts of the community as a whole. I can quote him an instance where the original purchase price of the land and the cost of erecting a dwelling amounted to, say, £1,000, but owing to the appreciation of the particular area, the eventual cost of the dwelling and the land was very much more than £1,000. The hon. Minister argues that the only thing that should be taken into account is the original cost of the dwelling.

That is not true.

On several occasions the Minister has made statements, and when challenged on them he has denied that he made them. I interjected just now that we should have a gramophone record to reproduce what he said almost immediately.

You are getting down again.

I will never be able to reach the level on which the Minister continually finds himself. I want to press the Minister to accept this amendment, it is absolutely essential to give the Rent Board something definite to work on. The Minister said he wants them to have a picture of the whole matter, and I want to give them that picture. Give them the cost of erection, the municipal valuation, and the market value which includes improvements, and let them form their conclusions on that. There is nothing wrong with that.

I want to answer the Minister in connection with his statement that the clause was redrafted on my representations. It is perfectly true that I and the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Trollip) saw the Minister in connection with this matter and pointed out to him that the clause, as drafted in the Bill, made certain verbal alterations which necessitated the complete reconstruction of the clause so as to enable the provisions, like collection charges and cost of maintenance to be deducted. In the clause as originally drafted, these could not be deducted and if the landlord got 8 per cent. after deducting the actual amount of rates and taxes and allowance for furniture or service supplied by the lessor, then he could not deduct any collection charges, cost of maintenance or depreciation. The hon. member for Brakpan and I pointed that out to the Minister, and we persuaded him to take the opinion of the law advisers as to whether we were correct, and they redrafted the clause in accordance with our view, and that is the reason for the amended clause. But in amending it the Minister has again altered it, for example, he said “You may have maintenance and repairs” or not and “depreciation not exceeding 2 per cent.” The Minister is quite determined that that must be the position, and I am prepared to argue that, but I do not want the Minister to say that that clause was redrafted in accordance with my wishes, because that is not correct.

I never said that either. I did not say “in accordance with his wishes,” it was a redraft of the clause in order to meet as far as possible the point he put forward, but I would not give them all, I would not concede everything, and that is the reason of his opposition today.

I want to refer again to a point I brought up on the second reading. I specially asked the Minister to let the House know something about these definitions but the Minister in his wisdom, refrained from answering any one of my questions. I cannot understand why he left me out. I now want to put a definite question to the Minister. When the Rent Board has to adjudicate on the value of property they have three things before them, the original cost, the municipal valuation and the sworn valuation. Supposing the cost is £1,000, the municipal valuation £1,250 and the sworn valuation £1,500, which of the three is the Rent Board going to accept to decide upon?

I am sorry for these interludes, Mr. Chairman, but the Minister seems to get very cross, especially when criticism comes from his own side of the House. I want him to understand that there may be in cities landlords who oppress the poor tenant, but this Bill will operate all over the country, and in the country places there are many people who own houses and those houses represent all their savings. Frequently a man acquires a house, and it is all he has to leave his wife and children. I am not prepared to stand back to anyone in my advocacy of the poor tenant. I reckon I have done as much in my life as anyone else in standing up for that class. But I want the Minister to understand that unless the Rent Board has proper guidance and unless the board itself is composed of people who are intelligent, there is going to be trouble and injustice. I take it the Minister does not desire to see injustice done either to landlord or tenant, and if that is so he must bear with us. He cannot expect us to accept what he has put in the Bill if we feel that it is wrong. I have no doubt he has a wide experience, but something must be evolved to meet the situation here. I would like to suggest to him that he allows the clause to stand over, and let us go on with the rest of the Bill. He cannot expect that we are prepared to go on unless we can get our way, because we feel that we are right. We want to see justice done not only to the tenant but also to the landlord, because we do not consider that all landlords are rogues. We know that many people have put all their little savings into small properties, and perhaps are able to live on the rents, and if you are going to do injustice to that type of person …

Where is the injustice?

Let me just tell him. The position is this. The Minister interjected, the fact that the community development brought up the value of property was not going to benefit the owner.

That must be taken into consideration.

There was an interruption that there might be a reduction in the value. That may be so. That is what I anticipate. You cannot keep the value of property or land stable, and you are not going to do it by this Bill or any other Bill; you are not going to do the tenant any good by this clause, because if I as a landlord cannot get a reasonable return on my money I am going to sell my property to someone else who will live in it and then you are going to do harm to the tenant. I submit that if the Bill as it now stands is put before the Rent Board they will not know where they are. They will say: “The land costs so much and those are the surrounding circumstances” and what they are going to base their opinion on you don’t know. You do not know where you are. You want to get the thing into such a position that when these simple gentlemen whom the Minister is going to put on the Board go into the matter they will know exactly what to take into consideration. And by the way the Minister speaks about “simple gentlemen”—I hope the word “simple” in this case has not got the same meaning as it has in Afrikaans. If the decision which those “simple” gentlemen come to is such that they do an injustice — well, I would be to blame if I failed to do my duty there. Even though I have to talk here until 11 o’clock at night I shall do so. You have set three things down here. You say to the Board “You must consider these three things”. I ask: “Which of these things must be considered first?”

Three things among others.

You may consider others but you are not compelled to. It does not say in which rotation, it does not say which you are going to give preference to. I am not going to vote for a thing if I do not think it is going to do any good. I am not doing this for political purposes; I have no axe to grind, and I have no houses to let, but I shall fight this thing until I know that it is put right.

But it is right here.

No, it is not, I say that this is misleading, and it is not going to do justice to the tenant or to the owner. And I say that the Minister is looking for trouble, and if he feels that he is not going to accept any amendments from this side because it may involve him in some difficulty, let me put this to him — he can take it to his department and consult them. I want to appeal to the Minister again to let this clause stand over. It is done every day.

What is the use, we shall have the whole discussion over again.

The Minister of Finance did it the other day in the Insurance Bill. It is done every second. There is nothing out of the ordinary in it. But if the Minister is so obstinate that he insists on the thing going through in the form he wants it, well, he has to take what is coming to him.

I want to appeal to the Minister. There seems to be a doubt in the minds of many of the hon. members about the way this clause is drafted, so much so that people are not clear of the ultimate working of the Act.

We are quite clear—it is wrong.

In the City of Cape Town and round about, in the direction of Goodwood, there has been a good deal of trouble in the working of the Valuation Board, and it is quite possible that the Rent Board may have difficulty, especially in regard to a question whether the appreciation of a property should or should not be allowed. I want to appeal to the Minister to allow this clause to be redrafted so that it may be absolutely clear what is meant, and so that there can be no ambiguity; if that is done I am sure the House will accept the position. I therefore hope that the Minister will agree to the suggestions that have been made here to let the clause stand over.

I also want to appeal to the Minister to allow the clause to stand over for further consideration, so that we may get on with the rest of the Bill. I think I am justified in asking that because my colleague, the hon. member for Stamford Hill (Mr. Acutt) made a very fair speech on the second reading. He has given a tremendous amount of study to this Bill, and he brought a number of points to the Minister’s attention to which the Minister did not even condescend to reply. The same thing this afternoon. He asked for information on this clause but the Minister simply did not reply. He gave information to some other members, but that does not justify the Minister in refusing to give information about a particular clause to a member on this side of the House. It is his duty to get up and give the information asked for. That is not the way to treat hon. members of this House. We are certainly not going to allow ourselves to be treated in that fashion.

What are you going to do?

We shall take very good care and see that the Minister extends the courtesy to us to which we are entitled, or we shall know why. Evidently the Minister’s supporters have upset him, because they do not want the Bill to pass as it stands now. There are many members on this side who feel that some amendment should be made. Just before I left Durban I had a lady call on me to consult me about a little property she had. She was an elderly lady and she was almost in tears, and she said “If Durban puts up the rates, I shall not be able to exist on the little money I am getting from the bit of property I have.” She was very distressed; she said: “I am not old enough, although I am a semi-invalid, to get an old age pension, and the little money I get out of my property only just makes it possible for me to hire a little room and get a bit of food.” I shall have to sell that property, and what then?” Now, that position may arise in a number of cases.

You would have avoided all that trouble if you had voted for the Durban Savings Bank Bill.

No, then we would have been in worse trouble. Now this is a matter which concerns us in Durban. We have had sudden depreciation of values in a very large number of cases. I am referring to Indian penetration. An Indian will buy a house in a European area, he will pay a large amount of money for it, and what happens? The houses in the immediate vicinity will immediately drop in value—the depreciation in the valuation may be as much as 25 per cent. How are you going to deal with a situation of that nature if the clause remains as it is? A house worth £1,500 drops to £1,000. The Rent Board will say: “We must take the original cost of the house as £1,500 even though it is only worth £1,000 today. But according to the Minister’s instructions we have to take the actual cost of the house although the value today is 25 per cent less.” I cannot see any harm in the Minister agreeing to this clause standing over. I do foresee difficulties. We are all anxious to see rent exploitation done away with, but we do not want a state of affairs which may have the very opposite effect to what the Minister anticipates. And as he has not defined in this Bill who are to be the members of these Rent Boards the position is going to be very difficult indeed. The Minister says “The members of the Board will be simple people.” Well, there are many people drifting about, but they may not be as simple as the Minister thinks.

It seems to me that all the simple people are in Greyville.

I wish the Minister would tell us who are going to be on these Rent Boards? We have a large number of ex-magistrates in this country. If the Minister were to say that the Rent Boards shall consist of ex-magistrates we would have some good grounds to go on. But now we do not know whom he may put on those boards. We have had experiences in the past of political appointments being made to those Boards. The Boards may just carry out what they think the Minister’s wishes are, and we should have some safeguard in that connection, so that we may know that the Rent Boards can be relied upon to do the right thing. I can see tremendous dissatisfaction arising as a result of this clause, so much so that the Minister may have to come to this House again next year and say: “I am sorry, we have had all this trouble last year; now I want another amendment to put this matter right.” We do not want that if it can be avoided, and the Minister has the opportunity now of seeing that the position is put on a proper basis What objection can there be to this clause standing over and then, if necessary, being amended not only to the satisfaction of the House but to the satisfaction of the public outside.

I don’t think anyone was criticising this particular clause. This clause is trying to define certain things. Now, what is the difficulty to which the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) has directed the attention of the House. He says a lot of difficulties may arise out of contingent circumstances through property depreciating, and he quoted the instance of property depreciating in Durban as a result of Indian penetration, as he called it. He says the Rent Board will find itself in difficulties in determining a reasonable rent because property which was valued at £1,500 is now only valued at £1,000. So one assumes that the Rent Board will be called upon to fix a higher rent than the owner would be prepared to ask. If the value has depreciated the owner will fix his rent values on the depreciated value, and it will certainly not be for the Rent Board to increase the rent. But in most cases appeals to the Rent Boards for reductions will come from the tenants, and I think the difficulty which the hon. member for Greyville foresees will not arise and can never arise.

I think it has been very plainly shown that the general concensus of opinion of members of the House is that this clause should stand over for further consideration. And I do not think the Minister has given us any valid reason for refusing to accept the amendments moved by myself and other members. After all, what we are proposing will make it very much easier for the Boards to function efficiently, while in addition adequate protection will be provided both for the tenants and for the landlord. The amendment which I have moved, namely, that the Rent Board will be “compelled” to take certain matters into consideration is a very fair one, and the Minister has not given any clear explanation why he will not accept it. He told us that he visualised that the Rent Board would take these matters into consideration. Why is he opposed to the Rent Board being compelled to take these matters into consideration? That he has not explained to us. We have explained that there are so many relevant matters which must be taken into account before the Rent Board can come to any equitable decision in regard to the amount of rent that must be charged. You must take into consideration the market value of the property, and by that I mean the price which the landlord paid for the property, and surely by making it clear in the clause what is intended the Minister will achieve the very object he sets out to achieve, but if it is not made clear the result may be that instead of a landlord getting a return of 8 per cent. he may only get 2 per cent. or 3 per cent. Surely that is not fair. I don’t let houses. I do not own houses that I let but I have dealt with large numbers of properties and I find frequently that where the original cost of a property was, say, £1,000, the property has appreciated to such an extent that the value has gone up to £1,500 or £1,600. Now, should in such cases the landlord be entitled to a fail’ return? The landlord is entitled to protection and so is the tenant. There are many points to be taken into consideration, and the Rent Board should be compelled to take all these factors into consideration.

They have the alternative before them.

I don’t want them only to have the alternatives; I want them to consider all those factors.

The position is perfectly clear.

I want them all to be taken into consideration merely as a basis. I explained that that was done by the building societies. They take three factors into consideration.

Yes, but they are lending money.

They are in a worse position. They have to protect themselves. They have to safeguard themselves to such an extent that they must see to it that they do not grant a higher loan than what the property is worth, because otherwise if the borrower cannot pay and the property is sold the society will lose. Therefore they have to protect themselves, and they take all three factors which I have mentioned into consideration. That is the original cost, the municipal valuation and the purchase price of the dwelling.

They have to be sure of their money.

Of course theninvestment must be sound. And that is why I say they arrive at a very equitable basis.

Only from their point of view.

No, from everyone’s point of view—from the point of view of the lender as well as that of the building society. The building society must know that they have proper security for the money they lend. And the lender also wants to know that he is getting value for his money. He knows that if he pays £2,000 for a £1,500 property the building society is not going to lend him £1,500 on it. So the valuation of the building society also protects the borrower. I want to appeal to the Minister to allow this clause to stand over, even until later this evening, so that he may have an opportunity of discussing the matter with his department. I therefore move—

I want to support the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). I put a question a few minutes ago to the Minister, but he has declined to answer me.

I have not declined to answer you, don’t be unfair. I have not had a chance.

The Minister has refrained from answering any of the points I put in my second reading speech. He completely left me out of the picture.

He was not interested.

I made a very constructive speech; I even went so far as to pay a compliment to the Minister.

Yes, that must have been very constructive indeed.

I put a direct question to the Minister just now and I want to put another one to him. Take a case of a property costing £1,500.

The motion before the House is that the clause stand over. The hon. member must not discuss that now.

Very well, sir, I support the motion that the clause stand over.

Why don’t you second it?

The Committee divided:

Ayes—42:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G.

Bekker, S.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Dönges, T. E.

Du Plessis, P. J.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fouche, J. J.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—55:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T B.

Burnside, D. C.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman. C. F.

Mushet, J. W.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, W. P.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

I again want to appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). The Minister got his way in the division we have just had and I now ask him to accept our amendment. Surely the Minister is not so stupid and so headstrong that he fails to see the necessity for a change. I don’t want the Minister to get annoyed simply because members on his own side of the House have asked him several times to reply to their questions. You cannot always get your own way. You are not always right.

Nearly always.

I am afraid he is nearly always wrong. There is uncertainty and there is a difference of opinion about this matter. Let the Minister think out some way of putting these things right. If he is a big man he will get up and say that he will allow this clause to stand over so that he can consult his department and put the matter in order. If he does not do so I am afraid I cannot look upon him as a big man. The Minister must not think that we move this amendment simply because we are in opposition. We are in earnest with this matter. I can quite understand that if there is a plot of land on the other side of Zeekoe Vlei and a tin shanty is put up there it is impossible to exercise control. I quite understand that, but I do think he should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg if he will not agree to the clause standing over.

The motion for the clause to stand over has been rejected.

I again want to ask the Minister to accept the amendment and not to adopt the attitude of a bull in a China shop. I really think the Minister is unreasonable, and if he keeps on getting annoyed he will only have trouble.

I should like to ask why the Minister has not answered my question. The whole country is seething with discontent at the manner in which he is carrying on, using the war situation to put through all sorts of legislation which the country does not want. He is holding the country to ransom in order to put through his Socialistic legislation. I put reasonable questions on this subject and he has declined to answer them. I will put the question to him again. Take an instance where a property costs £1,500; the municipal valuation is £1,250 and the sworn valuation £1,000. These three values are put before the Rent Board, and I ask him to tell me which of these three has got to be accepted by the Board.

I must ask hon. members now not to repeat arguments.

I merely want to answer the charge brought against me by the hon. member. I think it was a charge of discourtesy, because forsooth I did not answer a question which the hon. member put to me. The whole course of the debate was going on, and I have not yet had time to reply to anybody, but with regard to the point that he wants answered, I have already answered it twice to the Committee. If the hon. gentleman was not here then it is not my fault, and sir, I have yet to learn that it is the business of a Minister to reply to the same query over and over again, because his seat does not happen to be occupied by the member who puts it. Now I will answer his question in quite another way. I am not the Rent Board, and the Rent Board is charged with the duty of arriving at a valuation.

I have no intention of repeating arguments that other members have used, and I want to approach this matter from an entirely new angle.

The hon. member must not repeat his own arguments.

I have gone through the original Rent Act of 1920, the amending Act of 1940, and in neither case was provision made for a definition of the word “value”. This is the first Rent Act in which we have a definition of “value”. The object of the hon. Minister in introducing this Bill, according to his second reading speech, was that there was a lot of rent-racketeering going on, and he wanted to check that. Higher rents were being charged than should be charged. That is a very laudable object, with which we all agree. There should be no rack-renting, and no tenant should be called upon to pay a higher rent than is justified. There is no disagreement on that point, upon which the House fully supports the hon. Minister. All we want is that there should be equal justice for both the owners of the property and the tenants. We should not only consider the interests of the one to the exclusion of the other. And now, what difference will this definition of “value” actually make? Will it improve matters? Will it result in more equitable rents being charged? Will it result in the elimination of rentracketeering? I don’t think so. This clause is merely a guide to the Rent Board. There has been no guide in the past, although I think the Rent Boards have acted in the past very efficiently. They have, to the best of their ability decided matters, and I think I may say almost in every instance in the interests of the tenant. Every complaint that has been before the Rent Boards has invariably been decided in favour of the tenant. The Minister now proposes to give them a guide. In the past they have acted quite satisfactorily; they have decided cases on their merits. Now it is proposed to put in this definition, and we want the basis upon which the Board will come to its decisions definitely stated, so that the landlord can be assured of fairplay. We want this because we do not know who the members of the Board are going to be, and we don’t want the interests only of the tenant to be taken into account. That is why we want the Minister to accept the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis), which is designed to ensure justice for both parties. I want to appeal to the Minister. He is not showing strength by merely refusing to accept all amendments. I must contend that he has not given a good explanation why he refuses to accept that amendment, which is in the interests of both tenant and landlord.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Molteno put and negatived, and the first amendment proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare put and agreed to.

Omission of the definition of “reasonable rent” proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare, put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Davis was then put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—36:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Naudé, S. W.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Rooth, E. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wentzel, J. J.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

Noes—56:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Collins. W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure. P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Neate, C.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Trollip, A. E.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

Wallach, I.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Amendment accordingly negatived.

The new definition of “reasonable rent”, proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare, was put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “regard being had, inter alia, to”, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—55:

Abrahamson, H.

Alexander, M.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Burnside, D. C.

Clark, C. W.

Collins, W. R.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Deane, W. A.

De Wet, H. C.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henderson, R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman. C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Mushet. J. W.

Neate, C.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sonnenberg, M.

Sturrock, F. C.

Stuttaford, R.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Wallach, I.

Wares, A. P. J.

Warren, C. M.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—31:

Bekker, G.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bosman, P. J.

Bremer, K.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Fagan, H. A.

Fouche, J. J.

Geldenhuys, C. H.

Haywood, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Le Roux, S. P.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman. B. J.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van Zyl, J. J. M.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Vosloo, L. J.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wilkens, Jan.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.

I move—

I move—

In line 9, after “Minister”, to insert “one of whom shall be a magistrate or retired magistrate, and one of whom shall be a sworn appraiser who has knowledge of property values in the area in the jurisdiction of the Board concerned”.

Business suspended at 6 p.m., and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Evening Sitting.

When the House rose at 6 o’clock I had just moved an amendment providing for the appointment as members of the Rent Boards persons holding certain qualifications, namely, that one of the members of every Rent Board should be the magistrate of the district or a retired magistrate. That is the practice that is usually followed at the present time. I think with regard to most Rent Boards that are appointed, the Minister always makes a point of either appointing one of the resident magistrates as Chairman, or if the resident magistrate is unobtainable, a retired magistrate. In addition, this amendment provides that the other member of the Rent Board should be a sworn appraiser, who has knowledge of property values in the area within the jurisdiction of the Board concerned. I am sure that after the Minister’s refusal to accept the amendment that was moved by members on this side of the House in regard to the definition of values, he should agree to this amendment which provides for the appointment of a sworn appraiser, a retired magistrate, or a magistrate as members of the Board. At the present time it frequently happens that ardent party supporters are appointed members of the Rent Board, whether they have knowledge of property values or not. The Minister shakes his head, but I could mention names of people who have been appointed members of the Rent Board.

The Minister said that they must be simple people—members of the Labour Party.

In other words, my hon. friend thinks that “simple” and “Labour Party” are synonymous. The fact remains that in order to get this Rent Board to work efficiently and to enable the Board to give decisions that are equitable, both to the tenants and the landlords, it is absolutely essential that the personnel of that Board should consist of persons above any suspicion, persons who will not take any party interests into consideration, persons who will not be biased either one way or another. Surely there can be no objection to a Rent Board of three members, the Chairman of which is the magistrate or a retired magistrate, and one member of which is a sworn appraiser. I think it is absolutely essential that a member of the Rent Board should be a sworn appraiser, a man who has knowledge of the properties in the area. I am sure that in a case such as that he will be able to give a very impartial judgment, and at the same time the Board will have the benefit of his expert knowledge. The additional member may be a man who is a representative of the tenants. I do not say that the Minister should do that, but he will be at liberty to do that. But if you have a Board constituted in such fashion you will have a Board which will not only endeavour to carry out the terms of this Bill, but it will be a Board which will have knowledge of the matters they have to decide upon, and it will be a Board which will be able to judge impartially and give judgments on the merits of the case, and not be biased one way or the other.

I want to move the amendment standing in my name on page 473, reading as follows—

The intention of that amendment is that the jurisdiction of the Rent Board shall be confined to the poorer type of tenant—the person who can live in a house costing more than £3,000 can well afford to look after himself, and if he is charged too high a rent he can afford to buy a house for himself. In legislation of this kind in other parts of the world there has always been a limitation placed on the rental or the rating value of the property controlled by the Rent Boards. In England the Rents Control Act of 1933 provided that the Board should not have jurisdiction where the ratable value exceeded something like £55 per year, and in New Zealand the Fair Rents Act of 1936, Section 31 (c) provided that the Act should not apply to any dwelling house let at a rent exceeding £156 per year, whether or not such rent is computed on an annual basis. I see the difficulties in fixing the standard on the basis of the rent because then the lessor may ask too high a rent in order to exclude the property from the jurisdiction of the Rent Board, but if you accept the municipal valuation as the test I think it will be fair to say that the Rent Board’s jurisdiction should be limited to the capital value of £3,000. The Minister may say “what about flats?” but I think the Act could easily be amended to make it clear that it is intended that flats should be included. I am only dealing now with dwelling houses of the type which it is intended to cover. So I move my amendment.

As I intimated on the second reading I feel that the provision made in this clause does not authorise the Minister to fix the area of the Board. It says: “The Minister shall constitute as many Boards called Rents Boards as he may deem necessary,” and then it deals with the area for which it is appointed. But there is no provision made there, the same as there is in the old Act which this is taken from, that he may fix the area of jurisdiction of that Board. He may notify what the area is, but this section does not authorise him to fix the area. By implication you may say that he has the right to fix the area. I would have liked to have seen the clause drafted otherwise. I want to move an amendment in connection with it so as to put that right. I move—

That is the first part of my amendment. It means this, that he shall have the power also to fix the area and the jurisdiction of each Board appointed. And then I add to that also what I said on the second reading, namely, that the local authorities should be consulted in connection with the matter. They are the bodies who deal with these people directly. I take it that in big centres there will be no trouble. I doubt whether there is any need for it in small centres. Now I move the following in that regard. That is the second part of my amendment. I move—

It means that the Minister shall not declare any area which falls within the jurisdiction of a divisional or municipal council without first having obtained the consent of the municipal council or the divisional council concerned. Of course, people sometimes think that municipalities and local boards should not have powers to deal with matters of any kind. They seem to think that these municipalities are usually made up of people who are not able to do so. Well, I have had many years of experience of these bodies. In a municipality you get every kind of voter. The lessee also has a vote. You get every part of a community represented on that Board, and if there is any need for such a Board I take it that the Minister will agree with me that no community desires their affairs to be interfered with by anyone else unless there is a need for it, and in the past we have not had such Boards in the country districts, and I doubt whether they would serve any useful purpose. We do not want unnecessary interference with the ordinary business of the community. I take it that that is the reason why curtailments as far as the powers of these Boards are concerned are provided for in other countries. I said that on the second reading I said that I felt that where there were lessees wealthy enough to pay high rents they should not be controlled, they could look after themselves. The people we want to help are the small men—the men who pay rents from £10 downwards—of course in the small centres it is only the wealthy people who pay as much as £10 by way of rent. I feel this, that if that is the position, that if we as a House accept the fact that you do not want any unnecessary interference with the rights of people, then the local bodies should be consulted before any steps are taken. They should be approached. The Minister may protect himself by taking unto himself powers to prevent unnecessary retardation of the work he is trying to do—if unduly high rents are charged and a local authority refuses to fall in with his request for the appointment of a Board—then the Minister can take to himself powers to appoint a Board even if the local authority does not want it, but in any case I think the Minister should try to find out what the communities desire. The proposal here is to give the Minister the power to fix the area, and the second part of my proposal is to let the Minister consult the local authorities concerned before appointing a Rent Board. I do not think anyone can take exception to that, it is reasonable, and I therefore move in the hope that the Minister will accept my proposal. These communities, after all, have to be consulted in many other ways. They are there to represent the people and I do not think my request is unreasonable.

When the Minister in charge of this Bill was replying to the second reading debate he gave the House some indication of the lines on which he would fill up these appointments for Rent Boards. He went so far as to make one of the most extraordinary statements that I have ever listened to in my long Parliamentary experience. He said that whoever was put on these Boards, or whoever was not, he would not appoint a single lawyer to serve on any of these Boards. If I have misunderstood the hon. the Minister I shall be very glad to be corrected at once because it is no use my speaking under a misapprehension, but that is what I understood the purport of his speech to be, that lawyers as a class would be debarred from service on these Boards.

He only said it as a joke.

If it was meant as a joke then I shall sit down at once and let the Minister say so, but if it was meant as a serious declaration of the Minister’s policy then I must deal with it. I am prepared to give way at once to the Minister if he wants to correct me. If that represents his intention, if that represents the policy of the Government, if that is the feeling with regard to those boards throughout the country then I can only say that we shall have to examine this clause, this sub-section (3) which gives the Minister the power of making appointments to the Boards, very carefully. In sub-section (3) you say that a Rent Board shall consist of not less than three members appointed by the Minister. If the Minister tells us that it is his intention to exclude from service on these Boards one particular class of the community, then I think we are justified in asking him to explain what is behind it, and when you remember that the class of the community to which he refers is the legal profession then I am justified as a member of that profession in standing up in this House and saying that we as a profession resent very much the implied slur upon us and upon all the students of law in South Africa in such a statement. I should like to remind the Minister that the Cabinet of which he is so distinguished an ornament has at least six lawyers in it—the Prime Minister, the DeputyPrime Minister, the Minister of Justice, the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, the Minister of the Interior, the Minister of Mines the Minister of Agriculture,—and I believe I may add, or I may shortly add to that list, the Minister of Finance.

Oh, no.

Well, one of these days we may have the pleasure of welcoming him into that circle. But seriously if it is meant as a statement of Government policy then I cannot refrain from saying that it is one of the most extraordinary statements I have listened to in this House. I believe as one who is very proud of being a lawyer that the standard of public morality in any country is largely the standard of the morality in the legal profession. The lawyers of the country fill its Bench. The Bench of South Africa is appointed from the Bar. Every magistrate is a trained lawyer, and throughout this House in every party, and in every corner, there are lawyers who are proud to be members of their profession, and I do not think one of us would sit down for a moment, or tolerate a declaration which excluded lawyers from any kind of body, whether legislative or administrative. I have not heard any proposal to exclude from the Rent Board members of the calling to which the Minister belongs in his nonministerial moments. If there were such a proposal the Minister would resent it. I hope it will not be necessary to move an amendment. I hope I shall get the Minister to say that in making appointments of members to these Rent Boards he will take the best men, whatever their qualifications may be, to whatever party they may belong, from whatever section of the community they may come, and whatever profession they serve.

I think it is about time I intervened. It is very unfortunate that the hon. member who has just spoken has built up his case on a foundation which does not exist. I told him while he was speaking that it was not so.

I did not hear you say it.

What I said was apropos of a request that a tenant and/or a landlord should be represented before this Rent Board by their legal representatives, and I said I was not going to have anything of the sort, and I may say that the reason is this, that we want this Rent Board to examine the thing free of argument. That applies to the Rent Board and the Control Board, and I am putting a bar on no section of the community, none at all. They will be put on as men, not as lawyers. They will be put on just as men—just for what they are, and not because of their profession.

Only as party supporters.

Oh, no; well, of course, my friends would be satisfied if the lawyers appointed were mostly Nationalists.

The trouble is that you will not appoint any Nationalists.

I am not debarring any profession, nor would I try to suggest to my colleagues that that should be done.

What about parties?

It may be that we can find a decent man on the Nationalist side—it is somewhat extreme, but still there is a possibility.

What about the Afrikaner Party?

Simple but honest men. No, I do assure my hon. friend of this, that if he read that into my remarks then, he, unconsciously, of course, misconstrued what I said. There is to be a selection of the best men for the job, whatever they may be. Now that brings me to the amendment of my hon. friend over there, about the number on a Board being three. He wants the Board to be composed of a resident magistrate as Chairman, and then he wants a magistrate … no, …

The resident magistrate or a retired magistrate.

Yes, either the magistrate, or if unobtainable a retired magistrate, and a sworn appraiser —and he must be a local sworn appraiser, because he must know the locality. I cannot agree to that at all. In the first place, we have usually put the resident magistrate on as Chairman of the Board. But now when you want to make it obligatory, then I cannot accept it because there may be circumstances which make it impossible to have a magistrate or a retired magistrate. With regard to the sworn appraiser, there is no point in that, because the valuation will be placed before the Board under the circumstances provided by the clause we have passed. It is a question there of accountancy, of arithmetic and commonsense. My hon. friend may shake his head, but that is the viewpoint I hold, and that is our practice. I don’t exclude the sworn appraiser any more than I exclude the legal man. I cannot accept the amendment. The hon. member here wants to exclude the dwelling above £3,000 occupied by not more than one family. Why not protect the rich man as well as the poor? I am always being blamed for thinking only of the unfortunate man with a pick and shovel on his shoulders. I have been accused of being prepared to let down the fellow who has property of £3,000 value. I want my friends to help me to demonstrate to the House and the world that I regard even the rich man as something to be protected, and therefore I cannot accept any of the amendments. Then my hon. friend over there is anxious to secure that unless the local municipal authority concerned consents I should not appoint a Rent Board. I cannot accept that; I am quite prepared to consult them, but I cannot allow them to be the deciding factor in the application of a Union law. We never know what the composition of a Municipal Council may be in any particular areas. It may be entirely composed of landlords. With regard to defining areas by the Minister, I thought that was clear enough, but if the hon. member thinks it is not sufficiently clear, I am quite prepared to accept an amendment on that ground. My department informs me that the wording is quite sufficient to give the Minister power to define the area for any particular Rent Board.

I must say I find it very difficult indeed to follow the Minister’s objection to what appears to be a reasonable proposal of the member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman). It can only be defended on this ground, that nobody who knows anything of his job is going to get an appointment on any of these Rent Boards. I would like to draw the attention of the Minister to sub-section (6), which provides that members of the Rent Board may hold their appointments during the pleasure of the Minister. What do these words mean? I would be glad if the Minister could explain them. Do they mean that if the Minister thinks their decisions have not gone in the right direction, he is going to turn them out? I think we must recognise that these Rent Boards are judicial bodies with very important functions, and I don’t think they ought to be under the whip of the Minister. Their appointment should be for a definite period and I think the Minister should give the House the assurance that appointments will be made for a definite period, and that during that period they will not be interfered with. They must have some security, they must be able to judge fairly without any fear that if their judgments are not approved by ministerial heads, they will probably not be reappointed. I think the Minister might reconsider that clause, so that there may be some security of tenure for the appointees.

I should like to tell the Minister of Social Welfare that I still do not think he has the power to determine the areas. I also think that in spite of what he has said the fact that he is in Parliament is dependent on the will of his constituents. He has to carry out the wishes of his constituents, and as such he has to carry out the wishes of the voters of the whole country. The Municipalities depend on the votes of the public; even the poorest man has a vote and even the tenants have votes. Consequently we get people of all classes in the Municipalities. In Durban we even find a number of labour members on the City Council.

That is a terrible thing.

Yes, it is terrible, but we cannot help it. I feel that before Rent Boards are appointed on the platteland the Minister should get the consent of the Municipality concerned. The Minister takes up a different attitude and he will naturally avail himself of the majority to have my amendment rejected. If he starts by looking after the rich people he will not stop at that. If there are poor people who cannot look after themselves then I can quite understand the State intervening to help those people against the landlords, but where we are dealing with people who an afford to pay £35 per month for a house— in our part of the country they could almost buy a house for that—if the Minister starts looking after that class of people so far as house rents are concerned, then he won’t be able to stop at that, and he will also have to look after other things. I may be wrong but I do not think he will induce the Government to agree with him. I don’t think they would like the Minister to poke his nose into private affairs of this kind. They don’t want to interfere in private business. I feel that the motion of the hon. member for Pretoria City (Mr. Davis) is wrong. He has not thought it over very carefully, but of course, he only wanted to draw attention to it. It is no use his moving it because be is certainly not going to vote against the Minister. We saw this afternoon that they only talk on the other side of the House and when it comes to voting they walk out. Anyhow I feel that the amount should be restricted and the fact that all other countries have a restriction is proof of the fact that those countries are keen on looking after people in receipt of small salaries, so that they will not be exploited by unscrupulous landlords who want to charge exorbitant rents. The Minister is not prepared to accept such an amendment and I must therefore assume that he also wants to act on behalf of the rich people. I have another amendment which I want to propose and I move—

The Rent Board has to have three members. If we leave the clause as it stands now any number may be appointed, and the Minister—I don’t say this Minister—but any future Minister can give jobs to all his pals. It is a case of jobs for pals and I feel that three members are quite enough. I fail to see why such a Rent Board should have more than three members. The Minister apparently is also under the impression that there will be three members because he spoke several times of three members. If one has three members on a Court to decide on what is a fair valuation of a property and what is a fair rent, and if they cannot come to any decision, five will not be able to decide the matter either.

What about alternate members?

If members cannot attend, others may be appointed in their stead. That right is there. There is provision for alternate members. In the circumstances I feel that three members are enough. If we do not delete the words “at least” it means that you can have fifty members, and that may give rise to the sort of position which we all want to avoid. I therefore move my amendment.

It seems to me that some of our friends here are now beginning to quibble about words, and I fail to understand the spirit—I fail to understand the spirit of the hon. member behind me who has made an attack on the Minister. I don’t think there is any justification for that attack. The hon. member accused the Minister as though he were unfair in every possible respect, and he gave us to understand that he had no faith in the appointments made by the Minister.

I did not say that.

But the hon. member indirectly insinuated it. The hon. member also said that the success or otherwise of the Act would depend on the way it was administered. That means that he feels that the Bill is quite a good one but he has no confidence in the Minister’s administration of the Act. I think the hon. member cannot deny that the Control Boards or the other Boards appointed by the Minister of Social Welfare are head and shoulders above the others, and he certainly need not worry himself about that. There is another matter I take exception to and that is the sneering remarks about the Labour Party and its position on some municipal councils. I can assure those hon. members that if they knew anything about municipal councils they would realise the good work done by representatives of the Labour Party on those councils.

Where?

Johannesburg. Where was that council before the Labour Party became so strong on it? I don’t intend discussing the Labour Party, but I think it was wrong of those hon. members to sneer at it. I could also make certain remarks about municipal councils on the platteland where the Nationalist Party used to be in the majority.

You go on talking.

I am challenged to say what I know. I can mention the Municipal Council of Zastron which used to be controlled by the Labour Party. I am going to give hon. members over there what they ask for, only don’t let them run away again. The Labour Party had control of that Council, and when the Nationalist Party got control again, it did not take three months before every man employed on subsidised relief works had to go because they refused to pay their contribution, with the result that all those people employed on relief works were kicked out.

The hon. member cannot discuss that now.

I realise, Mr. Chairman, that I have strayed somewhat from the point, but I was challenged. I don’t propose going into it any further. I mentioned it in reply to the challenge by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren). If there is any more sneering of this kind I shall give other instances if I get the opportunity. The hon. member for Swellendam argues in a circle. It is true that the Minister has said that he does not consider only one section. He wanted to prove that he was not as one-sided, not as partial as hon. members tried to make out, but now the hon. member says the Minister is going even further, and that he is also protecting the money lenders and the rich. The hon. member said that the Minister should not stop at the fact that he could help the people drawing better salaries in regard to their rents, and at the same time we are told that the Minister is also protecting the rich who have invested their money. People who draw decent salaries and who live in decent houses are now suddenly to be considered rich. The conception of hon. members opposite is that those people are rich. Rich people who have invested their money don’t need any protection, but the man in receipt of a fair salary is definitely entitled to protection. How often have not members opposite asked for protection to be given to the middle class man as well. And that is what the Minister does here, yet now we are told he must not do it, and in the same breadth the Minister is told that he must go further and protect those large institutions which invest huge amounts of money. To my mind the Minister is not only consistent but also perfectly entitled to refuse to accept amendments of this kind. I think this Bill goes quite far enough and any attempt to put obstacles in the way of its passing are uncalled for. I want to tell my hon. friends that they should remember that what they are doing here may rebound on their own heads. Don’t let them imagine that this thing will only cut one way—the sword they are handling is a double-edged one and it may cut their own throats.

I hope you will not call me to order, Mr. Chairman, because the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) has been allowed to give such a distorted representation of what happened in my constituency that I must put him right. He said that as soon as the Nationalist Party came into power in the Municipality of Zastron things went so badly that all the labourers were put off. Zastron is one of the areas which has its full quota in regard to subsidised labour. It cannot get any more. In regard to housing I want to say that there is not a single dorp on the platteland which has done more during the past two years than Zastron has for its poor. What the hon. member has said here is completely devoid of any foundation. I am proud of Zastron and I cannot allow anyone who knows nothing about the conditions there to make such distorted statements.

I am surprised that the Minister will not accept the amendment of the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman), because it is a perfectly sound and good amendment, which I think will save the Minister from accusations which may be made in the future. There has been some considerable talk throughout the country that these Boards are being brought into being as jobs for pals, jobs for wornout party hats, and that is what we want to save the Minister from, At the time the Pact Government was formed there were queues waiting for jobs that the Ministers had promised, and we don’t want anything of that sort to happen because of this Bill. Since the Minister has mentioned that the one man on the Board should be a man qualified in accountancy, let us see if we cannot accommodate the Minister in that way. He has suggested it is a question of accountancy, and I ask him, if I move an amendment that the Board shall be composed of two magistrates or ex-magistrates, or one magistrate, one sworn appraiser, and one chartered accountant, will he accept that? I think that gets him out of his difficulty. I don’t want to move it, but is he prepared to accept it? He suggested earlier in the stages of this Bill that if we moved to include shops he would accept it. He has explained the difficulties that have arisen in connection with that. He finds it impossible to accept that, and we must take his word that it is not possible to have the Bill redrafted on account of the shortness of the session. That is most unfortunate, and I am sure is frightfully disappointing to the Minister. Now, let us help him along with this Bill, and now that he has suggested a member for the Board, it is only right that we should help him to get that member on the Board. He has suggested a chartered accountant, and I put it to him that if I move that, will he be prepared to accept one magistrate, one appraiser, and one chartered accountant? There is no party in this House which gets so much criticism as the Labour Party in connection with this “jobs for pals” business, and let us do all we can to prevent the Minister from facing accusations of that kind in future. With regard to the suggestion of the hon. member for Pretoria, City (Mr. Davis), that these appointments should be for a definite period, I think the Minister, in the Bill as drafted, is laying himself open to most severe criticism. He is the one man in the House who has always been against dictatorial powers. He has been loud against Nazism and the Hitler movement, and if there is anything the Minister objects to it is to a man having dictatorial powers, since dictators cause trouble in the world. I suggest in this Bill the Minister wants to become a dictator. He says: “I will appoint the Board, and if they don’t do what I want, if a member does not do what I want him to do, out he will go”. That is the meaning of it; he is only there during the Minister’s pleasure. Can you imagine a man being on a Board under these circumstances? He will be thinking all the time, “What does the Minister expect me to do in this particular case? If I go against the tenant or the landlord I may lose my little job”. He will have that in mind the whole time. The Minister has been the one member of the House most loud in his denunciation of Boards that have been brought into being, and he should be very careful when he is bringing a Board into existence, to avoid any suspicion of this kind. I make these suggestions to the Minister, as I am most anxious to improve the Bill, so that he will be able, at the next election, to go to the country and say: “Look at the wonderful Bills I gave you”. We don’t want half-way miserable Bills, full of difficulties that will recoil on the Minister; we want something that will stand for some time without serious amendment. If the Minister accepts these suggestions I think they will be a big improvement on his Bill.

I want to say in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) that my advice to him is that he should confine himself to his duties as interpreter.

I think the hon. member should leave all these personalities out now.

Well, sir, I may intrude upon your ruling, but I must congratulate the Dominion Party on their attitude tonight. At last they have shown some independence of spirit. We must, however, remember that the British Empire is not under discussion tonight.

And if it were, would they be of any value?

I am afraid not. But, Mr. Chairman, if other parties who form the coalition on the other side would show more independence of spirit they could assist the Opposition to get better legislation through the House. I think the Minister said he does not want a board of experts. He does not want a board of persons who know anything about the job they have to do. But in other Bills that have been before the House, the Minister has always pleaded for the representation of one or the other class. I remember in regard to the Shipping Board, the Minister was loud in his plea for representation of the workers and the trades unions on that board. How frequently in the past we have heard him pleading for representation by all classes of the population. His contention has been that how can a board possibly judge a matter when the personnel of that board have no intimate knowledge of the subject on which they sit in judgment? This is a case in point. The Minister now maintains that the personnel of the Rent Board should be people who have no knowledge of property or property values, people who may never have been either landlords or tenants. He expects them to give a fair and equitable decision. I cannot understand the attitude of the Minister. In fact, his argument is such that we cannot think that he advanced it seriously. Surely when you have a Board having to decide on such an important matter you should have members on that Board who have a knowledge of the matter. I have pleaded for the appointment of a magistrate or an ex-magistrate on the Board. The Minister says yes, we have had that in the past, and that is the practice of my department. But then he says, “What if they are not obtainable?” I do not think that that occasion ever arises. We have not got a Rent Board in every little village or every little hamlet—the Rent Boards are confined to the larger cities where there are probabilities of rent racketeering, where exorbitant rents are charged, and in every such instance there is always the resident magistrate available, and if he is not available then it is possible to obtain the services of an exmagistrate. And the other member should be a sworn appraiser. What is a sworn appraiser? He is not necessarily a landlord or a man who himself owns houses which he lets. He is merely a man who has a knowledge of property values, who has been appointed by the Master of the Supreme Court and is expected to be a man of the highest integrity. That man with his specialised knowledge is able to give a clear and definite and equitable valuation of property. The Minister said “We shall appoint sworn appraisers on the Rent Control Board.”

No, don’t misunderstand me.

Apparently we have again misunderstood the Minister.

Did you think I said that we were going to appoint sworn appraisers on the Control Board? … No, I said we might appoint sworn appraisers.

The Minister says they will engage sworn appraisers, they will utilise the services of sworn appraisers.

Yes, exactly.

Why should there be additional expense by engaging sworn appraisers in addition to members of the Rent Board? Surely that is not justified. It is not justified to engage additional men merely to give advice. If they are appointed as members of the Rent Board then the Rent Board can make use of their services when and where required. That is an additional argument for the acceptance of my amendment. I have moved for one member to be a magistrate and the other to be a sworn appraiser. The third can be a man the Minister decides, probably he will be a party supporter, but at least you will have one man who will be absolutely impartial, a man who has had legal training, and a man upon whose judgment every one will be prepared to rest—that is, the Chairman of the Board, the magistrate or the ex-magistrate. In addition, you will have your expert. The Board is not limited to three members. The Minister can increase it to four or five members, and he can appoint any additional other members he thinks fit. He can appoint representatives of the tenants if he thinks it desirable, but I maintain that it is essential that there should at least be one man who is absolutely impartial, who will take the part neither of the tenant nor of the landlord, and another man who has a specialised knowledge of land values.

I am very glad the Minister turned down the suggestion of the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) to give local authorities the veto on the constitution of Rent Boards in their areas. As it is, there is sufficient incentive for pressure groups of local people to attempt to control policy on local authority. I would rather see the pressure in the other direction. In other words, I would like to see machinery set up by which local associations of tenants could compel the Minister to constitute a Rent Board if they so desire. I am not suggesting that the present occupant of the office of the Minister of Labour would be unwilling to constitute Rent Boards. It is quite evident that he would constitute them, but we cannot count on his always being Minister of Labour. But as the tenants are unorganised, there probably would be difficulty in setting up machinery for their being able to require Rent Boards to be appointed, but I should like to have the assurance from the Minister that whenever he is satisfied that a representative body of tenants desires a Rent Board to be set up he will set one up. I am sure he will do so, but no doubt it would give satisfaction if that were on record. Now, I must say that I share the apprehensions of the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) as to what these words mean about members of a Board holding their appointments during the pleasure of the Minister. I do not see the reason for these words. Here are people appointed in a judicial capacity to exercise judicial functions and in the courts of our country, and wherever else judicial functions are exercised, it is thought desirable that their members should as far as possible have security in their offices, and I personally cannot see the reason why these words in sub-section (6) have been inserted, and also in sub-section (3), where it is said that these members are to be appointed upon such conditions as the Minister may determine. I do not want to move an amendment to delete these words. There may be reasons for these words being there. But I should like to ask the Minister why these members have to be appointed on certain conditions? The Bill defines their functions. Presumably these people are appointed to carry out these functions, and they are to be remunerated according to the scale laid down by the Minister. Therefore it is very difficult, indeed, to see what these conditions can refer to. Does it mean that they are in some cases only to be allowed to exercise some functions, or what do these words mean? I am sure that the Committee will be indebted to the Minister if he will explain that.

I wish to deal with the amendment moved by the hon. member by Pretoria City (Mr. Davis), the practical effect of which is to exclude certain properties from the application of this Bill. The hon. member appeared to find difficulty in phrasing an amendment which would place certain properties beyond the scope of the operation of this Bill on the pure grounds of the amount of rent to be paid. I have myself on the Order Paper on page 481 an amendment to Clause 21 which seems to me to be the more appropriate place to deal with this matter, and there I have suggested an amount of £12 10s. 0d. per month beyond which the Rent Board would not be able to function. I am not wedded to £12 10s. 0d. per month, may I say at once. My only reasons for it are this, in other countries of the world we know …

The hon. member must not discuss that now.

I am dealing with it on the principle.

The hon. member is dealing with his own amendment to another clause.

I am dealing with it on the question of the application of the restriction of the Bill because otherwise it means a multiplicity of discussion—of the same thing. The hon. member has moved that when a property is of a certain value then this Bill should not be applicable to it. If the hon. Minister will throw out a suggestion to me that he will consider it on Clause 21 I have nothing further to add, but on the principle which is involved, of making this Bill restrictive in its operations may I say to the Minister that in other countries where a Rent Act is in existence, it is restricted in its operations. The second reading debate was based on the assumption that the whole structure of the Bill was built up on the foundation of protecting the man who is the poorer member of our community and therefore should receive a certain amount of protection and not to assist those who are able to help themselves. It has even been suggested that a man should not pay more than a certain proportion of his earnings for rent. The man who is paying £12 10s. 0d. per month, if 20 per cent. is the actual figure to be applied in practice, would be earning something over £800 or £900 per annum …

The hon. member is again arguing on his own amendment to another clause.

Then may I put it to the Minister that the application of the Bill should not go beyond a certain point so as to help those who clearly on the second reading were intended to be assisted, and not those who require no assistance, by the provisions of this Bill.

Why don’t you want to help them?

Because they can help themselves.

That is no argument.

There is no reason why if a man wants to live in an extravagant flat and have extravagant furnishings he should be assisted—we have to assist the people who cannot help themselves. I suggest that the Minister should indicate that he will accept an idea of that kind. It will save time at a later stage, more particularly as that was the idea underlying the discussion on the second reading—that the object was to protect certain sections of the community.

I have another amendment. It will be noticed that the members who are appointed to the Rents Board are appointed upon such conditions as the Minister may decide—I take it also as far as their fees are concerned, because there is no provision made in the section. But it goes further. The hon. member for Greyville has already said that these people shall be at the mercy of the Minister. They can only remain there as long as the Minister decides to keep them there. Now, that has been put in twice in the same section. He has put it in in this subclause (6). The members of the Rents Board shall hold their appointment at the pleasure of the Minister. And then the clause also says this: “A Rent Board shall consist of not less than three members on such conditions as the Minister may determine”. Why he wants to put it in twice I don’t know, but I feel that if a man is prepared to take an appointment which may be cancelled at any time, well, let him take it, but why should the Minister specially put in a clause that they can be dismissed at any time. In other words, that they are just serving at the pleasure of the Minister —which means that as long as the Minister wants them there they can stay there. It seems very unfair to me. I want the Minister to understand what the position is. This Rent Board is an important body. It has to decide very important questions. It has to decide on questions which may run into thousands of pounds. They have to decide whether a poor person can live on the rent he is getting from a semidetached house, and in the circumstances I think you want at least one member on a board of that kind who is absolutely impartial. If you do not want trained men on the board you at least want a board which can decide on facts. Does the Minister think that he can take any man from the street and get him to decide a question on facts? He may be as “simple” as he likes, but he cannot do it unless he is trained. If such important matters have to be decided then I feel that these men, these members of the board, should have some security of tenure. They should be appointed for a certain time, and they should be paid a reasonable remuneration. I don’t want it specially defined in the Act, but they cannot be there just at the mercy of the Minister, because hon. members must understand what it will mean. It will mean that these members of the Rent Board will have no say at all. The Minister can dictate anything to them, and if they do not do what the Minister dictates, he can dismiss the lot of them. They will be at the Minister’s mercy, and if they don’t do what he wants them to do—out they go. The Minister may be a very reasonable chap …

Don’t be so doubtful about it.

But he may not inflict his feelings upon them—he may not be able to make them realise that his ideas should be carried out. Or, again, he may be gone tomorrow, and there may be another man there.

Not tomorrow.

Well, I am quite sure that he is not going to come back next year. At any rate, it is not reasonable that a body of responsible men who are supposed to be impartial should be there at the mercy of the Minister. The position is this: The Minister said he had no objection to a limitation of the number of members of the board, provided the limitation was reasonable, and he suggested there should not be more than five. I still think he has power under this to appoint six—three and three alternates.

But the alternatives are not executive.

Well, the clause says not less than three. Anyhow, so long as there is some limitation I shall be satisfied. The Bill now says he can appoint as many as he likes—he can appoint fifty if he likes. If he considers five would be reasonable, I am prepared to withdraw my amendment, and to put in place of it “That there shall not be less than three and not more than five”, but I leave it to the Minister to move that. I move—

I shall leave the other amendments to the Minister, and we can then see what his proposals are.

I am rapidly coming to the conclusion that this Bill, when it is passed—if ever it does pass—will be the most perfect piece of legislation we have ever passed.

It won’t be unless you accept some of these amendments.

Of course hon. members in moving those amendments are all actuated by the desire to improve the Bill.

Do you doubt that?

No, I don’t. The hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) is specially loud in his asseverations that his chief anxiety is that I shall be protected against adverse criticisms.

I am trying to protect you against yourself.

I bow in my gratitude to my hon. friend who has my keenest admiration, but he will forgive me if I completely ignore it from now on.

That’s no change, that is what you have been doing ever since we started.

Quite! And a man gets what he deserves.

That is just rude.

May I say that I quite recognise the anxiety on the part of some hon. members for the limitation of the number of members of the Rent Boards. I may say that there has been no limit up to now, but these boards invariably without exception have no more than three members. There have never been more than three members, and I want to say this to my hon. friend, if he notices the amendment I have already moved about the remuneration being fixed in consultation with the Minister of Finance … could you have a better check in regard to the numbers appointed to the Rent Board than that?

Yes, you could have a very much better check.

Oh, no, my hon. friend does not know the Minister of Finance.

I think we know him only too well.

As a matter of fact I shall let the House into a secret, and my hon. friend over there in particular. He may remember that the Bill as originally drafted had no reference to consultation with the Minister of Finance. Well, my hon. friend the Minister of Finance came down on that like a hundredweight of bricks, and he said: “Oh, no, I am not going to leave the question of remuneration to the sweet will of the Minister of Labour.”

He evidently does not trust you.

Not a bit of it, and he is wise. I have frequently advocated that the most essential part of a Cabinet is social welfare, labour and finance, and that those portfolios should be held by one Minister. I know who would be …

What would happen if you were Minister of Finance?

Well, I think we would do very well, but I said that one Minister should have those three jobs.

The only question is who should have those jobs, you or I?

I, of course. I daresay we can settle that little difference outside. No, I am quite prepared to agree to that limitation, though in actual practice there is that limitation, and then, of course, there are the alternates. I move this—

The clause will then read—

I am quite prepared then to leave the subsequent sub-sections as they are, namely, that there shall not be more than three alternates. After all, you don’t want an alternate for everyone. Now, my hon. friend is very much concerned about the conditions. You have just that state of affairs now. We have not made any substantial alterations in the Act so far as conditions of membership of the board are concerned.

That is why you have had so many appeals.

What appeals?

Appeals to the Supreme Court, of course.

We had no Control Boards until we had the Emergency Regulations.

This is not the Control Board.

The Control Board has not been in operation, except under the Emergency Regulations.

I think you are getting mixed up.

No, I am afraid my hon. friend is getting mixed up, and there have been very few appeals even under the Emergency Regulations. But, after all, this is a storm in a tea cup. These are the conditions obtaining today. We are only perpetuating them, and the main point in this Bill is that we are reducing the amount a landlord may get on his money to 8 per cent. maximum on the house and 6 per cent. on the land. That is really the main point. Those are the main alterations, and, if hon. members don’t agree with those proposals, let them contest them when we come to them, but please leave off baiting me on these niggling little points, all of which are in operation today, and on which we do not propose to make any changes. If hon. members will do that we shall be able to get on very much better.

With leave of the Committe, the amendment proposed by Mr. S. E. Warren in line 8, to omit “hot less than”, was withdrawn.

I want to assure the Minister that we are not trying to bait him.

Well, you are dissembling your efforts very well then.

If we were trying to bait him the discussion would certainly take on a very different complexion altogether. If this is considered baiting the Minister then all I can say is that he does not knowing what baiting is. We are merely trying to improve the Bill which is not good. This is not baiting.

Well, you are a past master in the art.

And we are doing our duty and trying to improve the Bill, and if the Minister had only shown that sweet reasonableness of which we had a trace in his last remarks—if he had only shown that a little earlier—we would have got on very much better, in fact the whole Bill would have been passed by now.

I don’t think so.

In his heart the Minister really agrees with all the amendments from this side of the House.

You must think I am very simple.

Oh, come, come, the Minister could not point to one amendment which was moved from this side with the object of delaying the passage of the Bill. Let me assure the Minister that none of these amendments have been moved with the object of delaying or retarding the Bill. But surely it is not necessary to maintain the attitude which I am sorry to say the Minister has always maintained, and still maintains, that if a thing was good forty years ago, it must still be good today. The Minister must change with the times and if we find that the Rent Boards did not work efficiently in the past ….

But you said it did, you said it worked very efficiently.

No, I say that they have done their best under difficult circumstances.

Oh, no, you said they work very efficiently.

Well, now we want them to work even more efficiently. In regard to the other matter, namely subsection (6) which was raised by the hon. member for Swellendam (Mr. S. E. Warren) that the members of the Rent Board shall hold their appointments during the pleasure of the Minister, and that members who are not State employees may be paid such remuneration as the Minister may determine, I think even the Minister himself will admit that that is a most uncomfortable power for any Minister to hold—that he may appoint members who may be there only during the Minister’s pleasure! They may be appointed today but in a week’s time they may also be told to get out. Surely the Minister himself must see that that is wrong. How can he expect any rent board, or any self-respecting member of a rent board to endeavour to carry out his duties in an impartial manner when he knows that behind him is the Minister, and if he acts against the wishes of the Minister he will get the order of the boot. I don’t think that is what the Minister intends; surely he does not want a body such as that. These rent boards act in a judicial capacity, and they should not be continually in fear of getting the sack.

If they turn out to be no good what are you going to do?

Who is going to be the judge of that? The Minister. There is not going to be one board only appointed, but a number of boards, and in addition there is going to be a control board which will have to review the decisions taken by individual rent boards. The Minister has that check already. In this Bill the Minister sets himself up as the judge as to whether any particular member of the rent board is not carrying out his duties in an efficient manner. If he is convinced of that he will probably sack that member. I don’t think that was contemplated by the Minister. It may be a power that will not be abused, but it will be definitely open to abuse and will be a drag on the efficient working of the board. The members should be appointed for a definite period, six or twelve months at least, and during that time the members can act in an impartial manner, knowing that their positions are safeguarded. If a member is not safeguarded, he will have to continually have his eye on the Minister. If he doesn’t do what the Minister wishes he will probably be kicked out. I support the hon. member for Swellendam, and I really think the Minister should again show that reasonableness that distinguished him a few minutes ago, and accept the amendment.

What is the amendment?

To delete subparagraph (6) and insert a provision that they be appointed for a definite period. The Minister can decide on what period.

You want that in the Bill?

Yes.

I am sorry the Minister does not feel disposed to reply to me, I supported the second reading of this Bill and congratulated him on it, and I got nothing but abuse in return. If the Minister is not prepared to reply to me in the matters I brought to his notice, I shall be compelled to ask the House for a decision on these two items. I wish to move—

That will mean that the board will be appointed for a definite time, and whether the Minister agrees with their decisions or not they will have some security of tenure, if only for one year. I don’t want to be accused of delaying this Bill, but I feel I shall have to leave it to the House to decide on these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I want to meet the point made by hon. gentlemen over there. I have told them what has been the practice, but to make it perfectly clear that there is no intention just to boot a fellow out because of his not playing the game, though it can be done at the end of this period that is suggested, I am prepared to move this amendment in line 26, between the words “Minister” and the word “and” to insert the words “for a period of not less than one year.” Then it will read—

The words “during the pleasure of the Minister” must come out, you cannot have both.

It has been suggested to me that we can get over the difficulty by adding to the subclause “provided that such an appointment shall be for not less than one year.” The clause will then read—

We know what you mean; why not leave it to the report stage? If you will give us that assurance we will accept it.

Certainly. When I say it shall be done it will be done. I will get the law advisers to draft something to make that limitation of one year. I am advised now, sir, that we can attain our object immediately by deleting the words “during the pleasure of the Minister” and placing therein the words “for a period of one year.”

That is my amendment.

Well, it has now the imprimatur of the law advisers.

I don’t want there to be any misunderstanding. An individual cannot be appointed “during the pleasure of the Minister while at the same time it is provided that he shall be appointed for one year”.

That phrase will be properly drafted by the legal advisers.

But I think that a year is long enough. I don’t think it should read “not for less than a year”. I think it should be defined that the period shall be a year.

The Minister has not proposed his amendment.

No, but he wants to move an amendment. I have moved as an amendment to delete the whole of this clause. If we can agree on it I can withdraw that, but there was a proposal now and the Minister intends introducing a motion at the report stage after having consulted the legal advisers which will make it unnecessary for me to move my amendment. But I am anxious that we should understand each other. I don’t want those appointments to be for a period of one year. The two things conflict with each other; if we understand each other I am willing to withdraw my amendment in that connection; if the Miniser moves his amendment and if it takes the place of mine I shall be satisfied.

I have just received advice from the legal advisers.

The Minister is now prepared to accept this amendment, and I am sure it will be a big advance in the efficient working of the Boards. I want to press my amendment in regard to the appointment of members. I do not fully agree with the member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) that the board should consist of two magistrates or ex-magistrates and one chartered accountant. If he supports my amendment it will serve the purpose, namely, that one member should be a sworn appraiser. I don’t know what the necessity is for a chartered accountant. Surely it is not necessary to have a chartered accountant to calculate what 8% on £1500 is, even the hon. member for Greyville can calculate that. I refer the Minister to the original Rent Act of 1920. It is provided there that every board shall consist of a chairman who whenever possible shall be a magistrate or exmagistrate or officer in the public or railway service, and not less than two other persons appointed by the Governor-General. In that Act it was stipulated that the chairman at least should be a magistrate or an ex-magisttrate, and in practice these appointments have always been made. In this new Bill that provision is omitted, there is no assurance that in future a magistrate or ex-magistrate will be appointed as chairman. I am sure the Minister will do his best to make this appointment, but the Minister may not always be there.

I am getting quite worried about these constant suggestions that I may not be a Minister for long.

I think it is a fact that the hon. Minister will not be there very much longer, at any rate not as a Minister. I think it is essential that we should retain this provision in this Bill. The chairman should be a magistrate or exmagistrate, and one of the other members should be a sworn appraiser with a knowledge of the work and a knowledge of property values. I hope the Minister will see his way clear to accept this amendment.

I am anxious to support the hon. member for Fordsburg (Mr. B. J. Schoeman) in his desire to have incorporated in the Bill that the chairman shall either be a magistrate or an ex-magistrate; the integrity of these boards should be above suspicion, particularly in the minds of the public, and I think the public will be very much better satisfied if a magistrate or ex-magistrate is chairman. It has worked well in the past and I suggest it would be as well to incorporate that provision in this Bill. As to the other two members, it seems to me to be sound that one at least should be a sworn appraiser, but as to the third member I, unlike the hon. member for Greyville (Mr. Derbyshire) do not feel that the Minister’s hands should be tied. There should be a place open at the board for some suitable person whatever his occupation or vocation may be.

I am grateful to the hon. and fair member for being good enough to allow me a free hand in regard to one member, it is very charming of her and I am grateful to her for making me that concession. The usual practice is to appoint a magistrate as chairman of the board, but I do not think the Minister should be bound to invariably appoint a magistrate or ex-magistrate. I want, in my more or less poor capacity, to have a wide selection whoever they may be. I have yet to learn that an ordinary member of the public may not be of as high integrity as a magistrate or ex-magistrate.

He has not the experience.

I want the Minister, whoever he may be—if the gloomy prognostications of the hon. member for Fordsburg turn out to be true — I want my successor to have the right to exercise his discretion and make his own selection.

The provision is in the Act now, and will you not accept that same provision in this Bill?

No, I hope that the Committee will support me. There is no reason why we should not have a completely free hand in regard to the personnel of the board. I do ask the Committee to reject the amendment that it should be obligatory on me to put a sworn appraiser on the board. I have set up a large number of these boards; I suppose more have been set up since I have been in office than ever before.

That is why they have made such a mess of it.

No, they have not. Let me tell the Committee what the procedure is. It is generally on the advice of the magistrate that a rent board is set up; he is asked to recommend the porsonnel and usually his recommendation carries tremendous weight. It is only after that that the Minister exercises his discretion. So once again I must urge that there is no reason for this amendment, and I must again use the expression this is a storm in a teacup.

I think sub-section (3) requires a little explanation. It says “the Minister may appoint these boards on such conditions as he may determine.” I cannot see the need for those words, because the object of the appointment of those boards is set out in the preamble, and why should the Minister have the wide powers conferred by these words? I ask him to delete them.

The Minister does not seem to appreciate that this is a most important part of the Bill. The magistrate is an independent person who is experienced in weighing up facts, and the Minister lays himself open to criticism when he says he does not want a man like that as chairman. I take it that the rent board will operate in more than one district, and there will be a choice of magistrates. I feel that the chairman should be one of the magistrates in districts under the jurisdiction of a board. The Minister is laying himself open to serious criticism when he says: “I am not going to have it said to me that I must appoint a magistrate as chairman.” The whole question is whether this Bill is going to be a good one or not, and you cannot have the work done properly unless you have decent people on the board. It is a provision which has worked well in the old Bill. The only thing I can see is that the Minister wishes to have dictatorial powers, in other words, no one else shall have any say. I say that he is making a mistake and I make an appeal to him. If he does not want to listen to us, well, he can do as he pleases.

I must ask hon. members now not to repeat any of their arguments. They have been saying the same thing over and over again.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, I do not think we are repeating ourselves; we are putting up new arguments in support of our amendments.

We have had these arguments over and over again. I am only warning hon. members not to repeat what they have said before.

Well, I am going to put forward some arguments which have not been used before. I have some very important points to make with regard to the Minister’s refusal to accept this amendment. The Minister said that the practice in the past has always been satisfactory and he asked why it should not be continued. The Minister seems to take great exception to the fact that members are endeavouring to improve the Bill and make it more workable by moving amendments.

You know perfectly well that I do not object to that at all.

I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that in the Act of 1920, Act No. 13 of 1920, that is the original Act, the constitution of the Rent Boards was covered by clause 1. There was only one section without any sub-sections whatever which provided for the constitution of these Rent Boards. This has been unamended for a period of twenty-two years. I think it is in the interest of the amendment which I moved, and in the interests of the Committee that I should read this provision in the 1920 Act.

I think it is quite unnecessary, I think the hon. member is trifling with the Committee by reading a clause of an Act which has been referred to on several occasions already.

I must take exception to that.

I have given my ruling.

This clause has not been referred to at all and it has not been read. If you say that I can’t read it I must ask for a ruling from Mr. Speaker.

I think it is quite unnecessary to read that clause.

With all due respect, Mr. Chairman, that clause has not been read and it is most relevant to this discussion.

I have given my ruling.

On a point of order, I fail to understand how you can prevent an hon. member from reading a clause from a law which relates to this debate.

The constitution of the Rent Boards has been discussed here the whole evening and I cannot allow it now.

Not on this point either? This clause has not yet been quoted. How can the House follow the hon. member’s argument if he is not allowed to quote this clause?

He can refer to the clause.

But hon. members have not got the Act before them, and surely the hon. member should be able to give other hon. members his reasons.

I cannot allow it.

In regard to this matter, if you will not allow me to read this clause I move that the Speaker’s ruling be asked.

We have been discussing this matter of the constitution of the Boards the whole evening and it is merely a repetition of the arguments which we have had before, and I have given my ruling against the hon. member’s contention now.

I beg to differ, there is no repetition.

If the hon. member persists in repetition and refuses to accept my ruling I must ask him to resume his seat.

Then I think that we should ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling whether an hon. member is entitled for the purposes of his argument to quote a clause from an Act? The ruling you have given is so drastic that we must ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

The hon. member tells me that that clause has not been quoted yet. Perhaps you are under the impression that it has already been quoted.

I have moved an amendment on this section.

I thought the hon. member was rising to a point of order.

Yes, I am speaking on a point of order.

What is the point of order?

I should like the hon. member to be allowed to read that particular section …

I have ruled on that point.

Because I may be able to withdraw the amendment which I have proposed, but until I know exactly what is in the stction, not having had the time to study it, I am not in a position to know exactly what it contains. So if the hon. member may be allowed to read that section I may be able to withdraw the amendment which I put in.

I feel that hon. members have been discussing the constitution of the Board the whole evening, and to want to read the clause now which has been discussed the whole evening is wasting time.

I can only say that I have not heard the clause read and I should like to know what it says.

Well, look at the Act.

But this clause has not been read out in the House yet. How can you prevent it now?

I want to submit this to you, Mr. Chairman: That the Clause I propose to read is not the clause before the Committee. It is clause 1 of Act No. 13 of 1920. That is the original Act—the Act which was adopted by this House in 1920. I want to read the provisions contained in that Act.

The hon. member has the whole evening been discussing the constitution of the Board and his argument has been based on the previous Acts, and now at the close of the evening he wants to read the clause itself—it is wasting time.

Do you rule then that if a particular clause has been discussed in spite of the fact …

I say that the constitution of the Board has been discussed all evening, and the hon. member after all this time again wants to read a clause which has been under discussion constantly. It is nothing but a waste of time and I rule that the hon. member cannot do so.

And if new arguments are raised?

No new arguments have been raised.

I want Mr. Speaker’s ruling.

I am not prepared to ask for Mr. Speaker’s ruling. This is a matter which rests entirely with me—it is a question of relevancy.

This is a vital clause. The whole confidence which the public will have in the Act depends on the constitution of the Rent Board. I would appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment for the simple reason that the intention is …

We are on a point of order now. I thought the hon. member was discussing the point of order.

The point I wish to draw attention to is one that has been discussed at some length …

The hon. member is now discussing my ruling.

Cannot I appeal to the Minister to meet the wishes of the House in a matter which is not raised with the object of stultifying the Bill, or retarding it, but with the object of strengthening the personnel of the Board, intimating the direction in which we would like the Minister to go …

I want to warn hon. members that I have already ruled that there is a vast amount of repetition, and after my warning they should be careful not to repeat their arguments.

In regard to this matter I want to draw your attention to the fact that the amendment I have moved has commended the support of all sides of the House.

I have given my ruling.

I must say that I don’t think your ruling is impartial.

The hon. member has not got the right to question my ruling.

I am questioning your ruling, I am saying …

The hon. member must not question my ruling.

I want to say that I consider …

The hon. member must discontinue his speech.

I beg to move—

That the Question be now put.

Upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—44:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Henderson, R. H

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, I. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares, A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

Noes—29:

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, J. G.

Swart, A. P.

Van den Berg, C. J.

Venter, J. A. P.

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen. D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

First amendment proposed by Mr. Warren and the amendment proposed by Mr. Davis put and negatived, and the amendment proposed by the Minister of Social Welfare in line 8 put and agreed to.

Amendment proposed by Mr. B. J. Schoeman put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—27:

Bekker, G.

Bezuidenhout, J. T.

Boltman, F. H.

Booysen, W. A.

Bremer, K.

De Bruyn, D. A. S.

Fouche, J. J.

Hugo, P. J.

Le Roux, S. P.

Lindhorst, B. H.

Loubser, S. M.

Louw, E. H.

Malan, D. F.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Schoeman, B. J.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strauss, J. G. N.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Venter, J. A. P

Verster, J. D. H.

Viljoen, D. T. du P.

Warren, S. E.

Wilkens, Jacob.

Wolfaard, G. v. Z.

Tellers: J. J. Haywood and J. F. T. Naudé.

Noes—44:

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Bell, R. E.

Blackwell, L.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowie, J. A.

Bowker, T. B.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Faure, P. A. B.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedlander, A.

Gilson, L. D.

Gluckman, H.

Goldberg, A.

Henderson. R. H.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hirsch, J. G.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys. W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Klopper, L. B.

Long, B. K.

Madeley, W. B.

Miles-Cadman, C. F.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Pocock, P. V.

Quinlan, S. C.

Robertson, R. B.

Shearer, V. L.

Solomon, B.

Sturrock, F. C.

Sutter, G. J.

Van Coller, C. M.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van der Merwe, H.

Wares. A. P. J.

Tellers: G. A. Friend and J. W. Higgerty.

I have an amendment to this clause—it is printed on the Order Paper. I move—

I want to move an amendment as follows:—

It will be seen that this is a similar amendment to that which I moved on clause 2. Clause 2 provides for the establishment of the Rent Boards themselves. Clause 3 provides for the establishment of the Control Board. I take it that the object of appointing a Control Board is for the purpose of reviewing cases brought before them; I also take it that this Board must act in the nature of an appeal court; in other words, that decisions from the Rent Boards can be appealed against and that these appeals can go to the Control Board. The Minister has found it necessary to appoint a supervisory body, but I think it only right that the personnel of that supervisory body should consist of people who will not only be impartial—should consist of members who are not only in a position to judge on facts, but who should be able to judge the facts entirely on their merits. In addition they should be members who have knowledge of the work which they are called upon to do. It will be remembered that the Minister said that the parties who appealed would not be allowed to have any representation before the Control Board. In other words, if a tenant or a landlord is dissatisfied he will not be allowed to appoint a lawyer to assist him at the appeal. I believe I am right in saying that the Minister told us that the Appeal Board—that is the Control Board—would have relevant documents before them, and on these documents —on the records of the decisions of the Rent Board, they would have to base their judgment. If no such provision is made for argument before this Control Board, if the parties concerned are not allowed to appoint any legal representatives, to represent them before this Control Board, the least one can expect is that the members of this Board shall be persons who can not only judge the facts on their merits, but also persons who have a knowledge of the matters on which they have to give their decisions. That is why I have again moved an amendment similar to that which I moved on the previous clause. That is why I move that we should have a magistrate or an ex-magistrate and a sworn appraiser on the Control Board. Then we shall have men there who have knowledge of these matters—which often are very intricate, upon which they must pass an impartial and fair judgment. If you have a sworn appraiser there you will have a man with knowledge of property values in a particular area. I think whatever objection the Minister could have had to this amendment in regard to the Rent Boards he should welcome it in regard to the Control Board. He should welcome having a Board of Review there consisting of an impartial chairman and of members who are experts in that particular line. I cannot see any reason why the Minister should refuse to accept this amendment in this particular case.

I am sorry I cannot accept the amendment. One has a greater objection to accepting it in relation to the control board than the rent board, if that is possible. The arugment the hon. member advances is that he wants a magistrate or an ex-magistrate, because that official is more likely to be impartial. Now that is a grave reflection on the rest of our citizens, and I cannot see that the argument holds water, because we can find equally impartial people who are not magistrates or ex-magistrates. So much for that. Now he wants a sworn appraiser, but if we have a sworn appraiser on the control board he will be a hindrance rather than a help, because of the point that has been made with considerable success that a sworn appraiser in one district has very little knowledge of values in another district. That becomes more so when you centralise the control board and you ask a sworn appraiser to sit in Pretoria or Johannesburg, and he is asked to adjudicate upon values in parts of the country of which he has absolutely no knowledge. He consequently would be a danger father than a help in a case like that. Let me say finally that the whole purpose of the control board, well not the whole object but a large portion of it, is to co-ordinate the efforts of rent boards and lay down general principles for their guidance, and you want commonsense men having a knowledge of arithmetic and not necessarily of land or house values, to be on the board. Besides, how can you select a valuator or a sworn appraiser when we know they vary so much one from the other in estimating what is the true value of property even in districts well known to them. You have on the one hand a man who has evidenced himself as giving high values, and on the other one who is addicted to low values. Where are you going to draw the line, and what guidance is the board going to get from one of these? I hope hon. members will not press this but be satisfied with their success on the last clause.

I am sorry to say, and I say it with all due deference, that apparently the Minister does not appreciate what the position is. I want to be quite candid, and I say we have enough control boards, and we don’t want any more. Even the name “control board” is a misnomer in this case, because it will control nothing. It will really be a board of appeal. I want the Minister to follow me, this board sits as an appeal board from the rent boards. Nobody is entitled to address this body, and we do not know what sort of evidence they are going to have before them. When you have a man like a magistrate who has had a lifetime experience in assessing facts and conducting cases, you know where you are. It is not just a question of a man’s integrity. I take it that anybody who is appointed by the Minister will be honest. The Minister talks about commonsense people, but I don’t know what the Minister means by that.

No, perhaps not.

I want to have there men capable of judging and fixing an equitable rental that is reasonable under all the circumstances. How they are going to do this I don’t know; the Minister will probably know better than I do. Apparently they are not going to take any evidence, but probably the board will have submitted to them the valuation certificates. I want to be candid, I was never in favour of this control board, and I still think it is unnecessary. The Minister said in his second reading address that his idea was to appoint three of the high officials.

No, I told you the composition of the existing board.

It seems to me that the Minister has come here with a piece of machinery which there is no justification for to my mind. He says this board’s decision is going to be final, and you cannot appeal from it. I think the country should know this, that the Minister is going to set up a rent board whose decisions can be appealed against, but the appeal board is to consist of people who have no training of a legal kind, and no training in sifting facts, they are going to be commonsense people, and their decision is final. There is no question of addressing these people, but these three men are going to decide what the rents are going to be. Now, when a thing like that happens one looks for reasons, and the Minister cannot blame us if we look for reasons. I don’t think this board is necessary at all, the work that they have to do can be done by the different departments. In all my life I have never yet heard of an appeal board that consists of commonsense people without any training whatever, and these people are going to affect the well-being of all propertyowners. In the country districts you get hundreds of people who own perhaps two houses, and that property represents the whole of their life savings, and one becomes perturbed when one realises that their interests are going to be in the hands of people who have no training for the job they are expected to do. You are upsetting the whole business and taking away people’s rights. I cannot think that the Minister would do a thing like that, you would not expect a reasonable being to do that. According to the present draft the Minister can make every appointment at his pleasure. The Bill says—

I feel that when a rent board has done a thing which is not correct, you as least should have the right to go to a court which is impartial and consisting of people trained in judging facts. A sworn appraiser must have a knowledge of values, otherwise he would not be appointed the Master.

Why do you get such varying values in regard to the same property?

As long as you have human beings you will have human failings, but you want to get the best man you can. You are going to appoint men who have no knowledge at all of values.

The appointee may be an appraiser; I want a free hand.

A sworn appraiser must at least have some knowledge of how he makes his appraisement, and it is not necessary for him to live in the area. I feel that you must have a man at the head who is able to judge facts, and knows what is to be done in the case of appeal. If a man owes me half-a-crown and I take him to court I know the court is at least impartial. But this is not a case of half-a-crown, it may be a matter affecting hundreds of thousands of pounds, and you should not insist upon having unqualified people on the board. If he persists in this he is going to have trouble. I have never heard of such an idea before in my life. I shudder to think that we have got to rely upon the judgment of people with no knowledge of the matters with which they have to deal. We do not think of appointing a magistrate or a judge unless he has some knowledge of what he has to do.

I am not surprised that the hon. member for Swellendam should shudder. The whole of his criticism has been directed against the personnel of certain individuals who may be appointed in the Minister’s discretion to this control board. I am quite prepared to leave the discretion to the Minister rather than to set down in this Act that the three members of the board should be first of all a magistrate, secondly a sworn appraiser, and thirdly an individual who may be appointed at the Minister’s discretion. We have in Clause 1 already decided what shall be placed before the consideration of these boards, and the hon. member for Swellendam is now seeking to bind the Minister’s hands and compel him to appoint people who will be actuated by their own particular points of view.

People who know something about their job.

I take it any tenant knows whether or not he is paying too much rent, and every landlord is prepared to say he is not getting too much rent. If there is to be any value in either the control board or the rent board, then one must have unbiassed, unprejudiced, responsible individuals capable of measuring the evidence placed before them. I object to any limitation being placed on the discretion of the Minister in determining beforehand what is to be the personnel of this control board. I am not prepared to support any attempt to place a limitation upon the discretion of the Minister.

I move, sir—