I intended to move an amendment to follow clause 2. I shall, however, not do so now, because it will be more appropriate when dealing with clause 9, and I shall do it then.

On clause 3,

I move a few verbal amendments which stand in my name on the Order Paper—

These are only verbal improvements to simplify the language of the Bill.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 4,

As clause 4 reads now, when an Asiatic occupies property in a white area, unless a permit is issued—and we know that the permits will have the opposite effect—his occupation of that property is perpetuated. Europeans cannot receive occupation of that property. I wish hon. members opposite to understand clearly that I am not now referring to the red areas where the Asiatics can buy and occupy at will. I am referring now to the white areas. We know that in Durban Indians live amongst Europeans. In some of the best parts of Durban they live amongst the Europeans, and as this clause reads now the occupation of those premises amongst the Europeans will be perpetuated. This clause has nothing to do with the red areas where the Asiatics can buy, but deals with the white areas. As I have stated, in the white areas Asiatics are living amongst the Europeans and they occupy properties in some of the best residential areas. According to this clause, Europeans cannot buy them out there or occupy those properties. The Asiatic occupies that property, and his position there is safeguarded. We can understand what conditions will be perpetuated in those white areas by this clause. This Bill has already accepted the principle of the issue of permits. By means of a permit there is a possibility of buying out an Asiatic in the white area, but that is most improbable. For that reason I wish to move the following amendment—

I want hon. members to realise the position still further. Even though a permit was issued to a European to buy the property of an Asiatic in a white area, that permit still does not give him the right to occupy this property. It must still be occupied by an Asiatic.

Is that not done by means of the permit?

Supposing that a European obtains a permit to buy the property from the Asiatic, it still does not mean that he can occupy it. It must still be occupied by the Asiatic. My amendment is to the effect that when once an Asiatic has vacated the property in a white area, no Asiatic is allowed to occupy it again thereafter. When a European has bought the property it should be occupied by a European. By this means we shall gradually remove the Indians from amongst the Europeans. This is just a reinforcement of the idea contained in Clause 9, according to which permits can be issued. The Prime Minister has stated that it has the same aim as what we want done. We want to strengthen the position, because if we have a weak Minister like the present Minister of the Interior, the permits will work only one way, in the wrong direction. For that reason I move my amendment.

I move the amendment standing in my name on the order paper—

As regards the amendment from the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), I cannot accept it.

It seems as if you do not want to accept any amendment.

No, I cannot accept this amendment. We have already dealt with the question of purchases in European and exempted areas under section 2. We now come to section 4 which deals with the question of occupation, and just as in the case of purchases we lay down that the one section of the population cannot buy from the other section or occupy without a permit. That is the scheme envisaged in the Bill. We have already dealt with the question of purchase under section 2, and in this section we are now dealing with the question of occupation, and we deal with it on the same principle as that which we have already adopted, namely, that without a permit no change of occupation can take place. There are two difficulties which have to be surmounted by any person. A permit must be obtained in order to purchase, and if another race wants to occupy there, a permit must be obtained there also. In both cases the same principle is followed, both as regards occupation and as regards purchase. It is simple and it is the scheme laid down in the Bill, and I cannot agree to it being altered in the manner proposed by the hon. member.

The Prime Minister will remember that the Committee used the whole of last Friday to deal with the question of property rights, to which he referred. He will also remember very well that the point of view of this side of the House was that we should gradually draw a dividing line as regards the right of possession between European and Asiatic in the so called white areas. That was the point of view which we consistently adopted last Friday. To our bitter disappointment and to the bitter disappointment of the whole of the white population, the Prime Minister rejected that sound principle of ours. Now we come here with a second very serious request in regard to occupation, but what does the Prime Minister do? He brings forward this argument. He says: Because I have aready rejected one sound principle, I am not prepared to adopt another this morning. Where will the Prime Minister lead South Africa if he continues along this road? We move our amendment in connection with occupation and plead with all the strength of our souls for the same right of the European to be safeguarded from Indian penetration, but the Prime Minister uses the same nonsensical argument to the effect that he wants to keep the European and the Indian next to each other. I want to state the matter as follows. This clause deals with occupation. I want to state the position clearly, so that everyone can understand it. There are probably such cases in Durban. An Asiatic may own a property or a house in a such a white area, but he himself does not occupy it. He lets it to another Asiatic. But on both sides of that property white people reside. They strongly desire the departure of that Asiatic, so that they can be in the position of having only Europeans living there. Now the lease of the Asiatic is terminated or comes to an end. This amendment now asks that the owner of that property should be obliged not again to let it to an Asiatic but to a European, so that that spot can be cleaned up. It only deals with occupation, but why cannot the Prime Minister realise this position? Cannot he place himself in the position of a decent white Afrikaner next to whom an Asiatic lives, and whose children must grow up there and come into daily contact with the Asiatics and grow up under that influence? Cannot he realise what passes in the soul of that Afrikaner who desires that neighbourhood to be cleared of Asiatics so that he can live in an atmosphere and a vicinity which is healthy for his family and in order that his children may grow up in a sound atmosphere; cannot the Prime Minister realise that? But there is another instance. The Asiatic lives in the red or exempted area, but there are other Asiatics who live in the European areas in Durban. The red areas have been given to them to do with what they like, and the Prime Minister says that the Indians do not wish to live alone, but prefer to live amongst Europeans. Therefore Europeans are allowed to purchase properties in the red areas. The Prime Minister is making concessions to the Indians, but if the Europeans asked for something they would also very much like to have, namely in the European areas only Europeans should be allowed to reside, then the Prime Minister takes no notice of them; he is deaf. The Asiatic is now living in a European area. He probably leases the premises from a European. The people next to him, and probably the owner himself, would like to get rid of that Asiatic. But even though the contract of lease should run to an end, he still has not the right to get rid of the Asiatic. As I read the Bill, even though the premises belong to a European, if once it has been leased by an Asiatic—in other words, if it has been occupied by an Asiatic —the European cannot get rid of such an Asiatic. This clause binds his hands there. I do not know whether we have now made the matter plain enough for members opposite. One feels dissatisfied in one’s very soul. There sit the members opposite. They are supposed to represent their constituency here, but we hear not a single word from them. We in the Free State have no Asiatics amongst us but we are fighting here on behalf of the Europeans in Natal, the Cape Province and the Transvaal. Opposite me sits the Minister of the Interior but he does not open his mouth. He is the man who will have to administer this Bill. He knows so little about the Bill that he cannot even speak about it, so how on earth will he be able to administer it? One of two things is true, and I put the question to the Minister of the Interior pointedly in connection with this clause: Either he knows nothing about this Bill or he has been prohibited from speaking. He must give effect to this Bill, and the white people are going to suffer under it. I again plead with the Prime Minister to accept this amendment for the sake of white South Africa, for the sake of our own continued existence and for the sake of our people who are in great difficulty, and let us gradually eliminate that occupation by Indians of properties in the white areas so that the European can live there in the atmosphere he desires—so that the European can live there in a self-respecting fashion.

I should like the Prime Minister, before he finally rejects this amendment, to think a little of the past and also about the future. What was the reason for the memorandum and the petitions, for the feeling of unrest in Natal? Penetration. We know that the process of penetration by Indians reached a certain point, that it reached a stage where there was a feeling of unrest prevalent amongst the European section of the population. For that reason they requested the Government time after time to adopt measures to put a stop to this penetration. That is as regards the past. We are now dealing here with a Bill which proposes to put a stop to that state of affairs, but if this amendment is not adopted, it means that we leave the position as it is until after there has been further penetration. This House wants the assurance that if this Bill is passed the principle of segregation will be judiciously and gradually applied, and unless the Prime Minister accepts an amendment of this nature, I cannot see how in future he will stop the process of penetration. We will be left in the position as it is. That is the past. Now what of the future? What will we get? Serious clashes, because we know that the Europeans simply will not tolerate being surrounded by Indians, or Indians living in their immediate vicinity. The Prime Minister is continually fencing with permits. These permits will still have to be issued, and everything will depend from that, and it may prevent the process of Indian penetration continuing. Supposing that it can be done by means of permits, what guarantee have this House and the nation that the idea which is the basis of this whole Bill, the idea which exists at least in the minds of most hon. members, will be applied? What guarantee is there? Nothing. That will mean that we will learn nothing from the past, and we are facing the future with a conviction that we are putting an Act on the Statute Book which will have the result that the Government will year after year have more petitions, will have to receive deputations asking that an end should be put to this state of affairs. Why wait for all this unnecessary friction, which can only lead to public unrest and dissatisfaction? Why not put a stop to it once and for all? We know that in the past it has often been stated that it is only the Afrikaners who are intolerant. That is no longer the case today. The eyes of the people in Natal have opened. Natal will be bitterly disappointed when later they will experience the actual implications of this Bill. If we do not accept such amendments at this stage —and it seems to me that the Prime Minister is not prepared to accept an amendment of this nature—we will not be able to apply the process of gradual purification, which is in the last resort the idea which in our opinion forms the basis of this legislation.

We have now been dealing with this Bill for quite a few days, and I had thought that eventually we will have achieved something, but it seems to me that the old saying, “the later the worse”, applies. We make no progress, and hon. members opposite evidently do not realise how blind they are. There are large numbers of them living in the Transvaal and Natal, but they permit this legislation being passed piece by piece. To me as a Freestater it is a conundrum. I cannot understand it. We are gathered here today to retrieve the mistake which was made in Natal, but instead of devoting attention to that and to prevent our getting into difficulties further, hon. members opposite just sit there and let these things pass. By means of this legislation we are making the problem all the more difficult.

The hon. member is now delivering a second reading speech.

I return to this mixed living in connection with which an amendment has been moved by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). I wish to confine myself to that, namely, that the only way to have a dividing line between Europeans and non-Europeans is by allowing them systematically to buy each other out. In this manner one will eventually achieve proper segregation. If one walks a few hundred yards away from the Houses of Parliament here in Cape Town, one will see what this mixed living entails. There are Indians in the same houses as Europeans. One finds spots where Indians do business in the best buildings. They rent the premises, and tomorrow or the day after they are the owners, in amongst the Europeans. One only has to walk up the street a few hundred yards to see what prevailing conditions are, and then you will raise your hands in despair about this mixed habitation. By means of the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg, we want to try to remedy the matter gradually and eventually to eliminate all this intermingling. We are busy sinking, deeper and deeper into a well in which the water is rushing upwards, and the Europeans will eventually disappear from the scene and be swamped if we do not take efficient action now. The communal franchise is given to those people by means of this Bill. Tomorrow or the day after they will ask for more, and they will want the same rights which we have.

The hon. member is deviating from the clause.

I wish to move an amendment to this clause with the idea of carrying through the principle of the Bill more effectually by, in line 55, after the word “occupied” to insert the words “or bond”. The object of this amendment is to secure that there should be no side-tracking of the principle of this Bill by giving a bond on property instead of transfer or occupation or any other device. We all know quite well that the passing of bonds over property does as a matter of fact entail a very considerable amount of real control over the property, and as the definition of “fixed property" stands now it is a very difficult provision to carry out in administration, and it involves the Registrar and other persons concerned actually arriving at the true value of the property, which as a matter of fact may have no certain value at any particular time, with difficulty. Its value may vary according to demand or excessive supply in the particular district in which the property is situated. I think that admittedly creates considerable difficulties, and under those circumstances it is well to provide here that the prohibition against occupation should be accompanied by a prohibition against bonds. The bond holder may have very considerable power and influence over the person who gets the advance on the property, and he may by manipulating exercise considerable power over the property, which is contrary to the principles of this Bill. Therefore I move—

I am sorry to say that I cannot accept this amendment. Even if the amendment were a good one this would be quite the wrong place for it. The right of mortgaging is pertinent to ownership, and not to lease or occupation, so that even from the technical point of view this amendment is wrong and wrongly placed here. This is not the proper place for it.

But do you think it is a good amendment?

I believe it is also a bad amendment. The questions we are dealing with here are those of ownership and occupation, and I think it would be a mistake in this Bill to introduce other considerations and simply to confuse the issue and so to make the Bill a much more difficult and complicated one than it is. My hon. friend will understand that the drafting of a Bill like this is a matter of very great technical difficulty, and once one starts tinkering with amendments in just any part of a Bill one may upset the balance of the whole Bill. My hon. friend has evidently not given very deep consideration to this matter, and in all the circumstances I think it would be wrong to agree to his amendment.

I appreciate what the Prime Minister has said. May I say with respect that I entirely agree that the drafting of every Bill involves questions of a highly technical character. If it were a question of these words being inserted here or in some other part of the Bill which would meet with the approval of the draftsmen and of the Government, I would be willing to withdraw. But the Prime Minister has indicated that that is only really, from his point of view, a side issue, and that he is prepared to oppose the spirit and the intention of the amendment I have moved. In those circumstances I think that we can put on one side the question of whether this is the appropriate place for the amendment or not. I am convinced that it would be effective in this place, but it may be that the insertion of this provision in some other part of the Bill is more artistic. For the moment I am not concerned with the question whether it is more artistic in some other place than here, but I wish to answer the point of substance which the Prime Minister has mentioned. He said that to have a prohibition of this nature would be contrary to his intention and would be circumscribing the scope of this Bill, and his intention is therefore to promote that kind of control over property by Asiatics and Europeans respectively in areas where the rest of the prohibitions of this Bill do not apply. Now it seems to me that he is not really carrying out the intention and the scope of the principles involved in this Bill. Surely the principles are, if I may state from memory in the language which the Prime Minister used in his opening speech in the House, namely, that South Africa had determined to deal with the question of Asiatics on different lines than those applying to Europeans; it was to be a very distinct line of approach in dealing with the one class of persons as opposed to the others. That was quite clear. He even went so far as to say that South Africa had made up its mind on the subject and was determined to do it and, therefore he was following that particular line in introducing this measure. If I accept that as the test of what should go into this Bill or not, surely the control of property in one area should be distinct and subject to different conditions from the control of properties in the other area. Now, the question of control is being too closely circumscribed and limited in the Bill. The purpose of my amendment is to increase the actual scope of the prohibition. If it is undesirable that the occupation of property should take place under certain circumstances, surely the same class of mischief is involved in the bonding of property. You interfere with the control of that property. You give persons a chance to interfere with the control of the property and surely the control of that property is very aptly considered in the same clause where we deal with the occupation of that property. Occupation is merely one form of control. Control can be exercised in various ways, by occupation, and by, I submit, bonding, and in various other ways. I cannot quite see the principle on which the Prime Minister objects to my amendment merely on the ground which is stated. I fail to see how effective control can be exercised when the omission of this form of control, bonding, is permitted. It is quite clear to anyone who has had experience of the effects of bonds on property, who saw the far-reaching character of its control over the person subject to the bond, and therefore of the class of bond holder, that such control can be quite effective. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister and the Committee whether he cannot see his way clear to accepting this amendment. I can only say in conclusion that I would be only too ready to introduce my amendment in any other part of the Bill which the Prime Minister indicated he would prefer.

I am not able to put this amendment as it is not germane to the clause under consideration and should have been moved on clauses 1 and 2.

I imagine that this clause 4 was intended to give expression to the wishes and requirements of the European population of Natal. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister repeatedly told us that we have reached a crisis and cannot afford to wait. I take that one of the causes of the crisis was that pressure was exerted on him by the Europeans of Natal and that this grew in effect. One deputation after the other waited upon him, and the efforts of the Europeans to have segregation became stronger and stronger. They insisted upon Indian penetration being stopped. If the Prime Minister accepts the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (J. G. Strydom) he will be fulfilling the wishes and desires of Natal, but not otherwise. The Prime Minister is continually shielding behind permits. He shelters behind permits. In connection with every clause he refers to the policy of having permits. As the hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) has stated, the present Minister of the Interior is the last man in the world to whom we want to entrust this matter. The Minister of the Interior is sitting right opposite with a fairly good interpreter next to him, and he has sat there all this time but has not yet had the courage to justify his own case. It seems to me as if an atomic bomb will be required to bring the Hon. Minister who will have to administer this matter to his feet. Do hon. members opposite not realise the seriousness of the matter? The hon. member for Boshof has put it very clearly. It is simply a question of occupation in terms of a contract of lease. We desire that when a contract of lease terminates the property in the European area will not again be allowed to be let to an Asiatic, but only to a European. By doing that we will at least have a chance to have purity of race in the European areas in accordance with the wishes of the European population in Natal. If we cannot have that, of what earthly use is the Bill? It seems to me that the Prime Minister rejects every amendment, whatever it may be. I want to ask the Prime Minister not to rush through this amendment. He should not only consider the number of Indians, but also the Europeans. For that reason I direct an urgent appeal to the Prime Minister to accept this amendment, and I also want to appeal to hon. members opposite. They sit there from morning to night but not one of them wants even to try to justify their case. How can we progress in this manner? Let them tell us how they feel about the matter. Apart from that I wish to point out that this clause has been very badly drafted. One finds double negatives in two or three places, and the clause is drafted in such a manner that it is very difficult indeed to understand it. I hope that legislation will in future be drafted more simply and in clearer language.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, may I ask you, in regard to the ruling which you gave? Perhaps I was not quite as alert as I should have been in taking the point at once, but with your permission, may I take it now? You said that my amendment could have been moved under either clause 2 or 3.

Under clauses 1 or 2.

Well, you see that “fixed property” as defined in clause 1 includes only a bond of a certain limited character. In the definition of “premises” it merely says that it includes any room or apartment in any building. Sub-section (2) deals only with fixed property—“Any person is able to acquire fixed property in the Province of Natal.” That does not include bonds at all, under fixed property. Sub-section (3) deals, in the first instance, with corporations and fixed property.

Now we come to (4), with which we are dealing now. There we have reference to “land and premises”, which is different.

Yes, it deals with occupation.

It is occupation of land and premises, which is fixed property. With great respect I would ask you to consider whether it is not open to me, in dealing with the subject of land and premises, and with a form of control, namely, any bond, which goes far outside the definition of fixed property, in so far as that definition refers to a bond, to raise this point, and whether you should not ask yourself: How is it possible to say that the amendment is out of order?

No, I have already ruled that the amendment is irrelevant, because there are other clauses which have already been passed by the Committee where it would have been more appropriate to move the amendment. In the present clause it is clearly irrelevant.

I should very much like to support the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). The trouble is that clause 4 as it stands here brings us nowhere. Clause 4 comprises a policy without any direction, a circle of a policy; one just stays where one started; it is a merry-go-round of a policy. The amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg gives us a direction to follow. If that is adopted we will immediately have a definite policy in regard to occupation by Asiatics. The Prime Minister must admit that the position in Natal has reached breaking point, and if this amendment is not adopted you will have a state of flux in Natal which will have worse repercussions than we can imagine. I just want to point out that in the City of Durban alone there are approximately 150 Indian retail businesses. That indicates what occupation there is in regard to trade. What about the other position, which is also serious in Durban? In Natal there are approximately 2,126 businesses belonging to Indians, according to the information given by the Minister of the Interior in reply to a question. This shows the seriousness of the position. If the Prime Minister really wants to perform a service to the country he should adopt this amendment. What is more, I should like to point out that what we are asking for is the last drop in the bucket. After the Prime Minister has refused to adopt other amendments, we ask him to make a concession and to adopt this last amendment. Until now he has only taken into consideration the interests of the Indians and the attitude adopted by the Indians. Here we now ask him to concede at least something in the interests of the Europeans. It is only just towards the future of the Europeans in Natal, both English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking, that the Prime Minister should accept this amendment. It is also the desire of almost 100 per cent. of the European population of Natal. I hope that the Prime Minister will at least make that concession.

The clause under discussion affords complete proof of the intention to enable the Indian to hold whatever land he has, irrespective of the circumstances by which it may have come into his possession. I think if the people of the Natal province realised this clause is being carried through, they would be able to apprehend the full meaning of the Bill. I strongly object to the whole of Natal being regarded as a possible possession of the Indians, and that is the inevitable effect of the clause. One would imagine because an Indian has bought a farm under this clause, nobody but an Indian would be entitled to live there. If any European were enterprising enough to buy that farm back again he would have to obtain the permission of the Minister of the Interior before he could live on it. It would appear as though that had already become an Indian area, at any rate in respect of that one farm, but the fact that Indians are in possession of these farms today is the fault of those who were in charge of the administration of the Pegging Act. When appeals were made to the authorities to stop Indians penetrating into areas in which they never before lived, no response of any kind was made. I can speak with clearness about this, because the farm adjoining my own has been bought by an Indian. They followed every known method of trying to delude Europeans into believing that the farm was being bought by a European, and the Minister was not prepared to take any protective action. But the Minister now goes further, and under this clause he practically warns every white man from re-buying that land. He will not be allowed to live on it, he will not be allowed to occupy it unless with the permission of the Minister. So far as possession is concerned, it is marked down as the possession of the Indian, and it only remains for a sufficient number of Indians to come there and to buy alongside this man for them to have quite a considerable area in that locality. One area after another can be dealt with in the same manner under the provisions of this Bill. We must assume that the guidance the Minister has had in the past has been chiefly fallible. I have had sent to me today the minutes of the Town Council meeting at which the Minister was received by the City Council of Durban for the discussion of this very question, and it is recorded in those minutes in regard to a certain property in Durban that the Minister admitted that a blunder had been made. The Department was advised of the intended purchase in a preponderatingly European area by an Indian, and remonstrances were received by them, but not a single indication was given that any support had been given to these remonstrances. One of the councillors, in referring to that case at this meeting at which the Minister was present, referred to a recent case in his own ward where a property in a predominantly European area had been sold to an Indian, and he mentioned, in response to the Minister’s invitation, he was prepared to submit details with a view to the case being discussed. The Minister admitted that a blunder had been made in this case, but remarked it had taken place before his assumption of office. I state that in fairness to the Minister. But the same people who advised the Minister subsequently were also advisers of his predecessor, and this merely confirms what I have said in regard to the danger of placing reliance on those Boards, who all too infrequently take in hand the affairs of the public and do not act with infallibility. In the case of this clause, I understand that one of the notices of motion already handed in aims at the negativing of this clause. I shall in my amendment move that in the event of the clause not being negatived, my amendment be accepted. At the proper time I shall move that all references to the Board shall be negatived. I move—

I do not know whether the hon. member realises the effect of his amendment is that all present occupation will be frozen. That is to say a European will continue to occupy property which the European occupies now and all property occupied by Indians must remain occupied by Indians. It freezes the property. This clause 4 makes provision for changing, for improving, for sorting out, under a system of investigation by a board with the approval of the Minister. The very idea of this Bill is to effect an improvement of the present situation, that improvement to be guided by the Government itself under proper advice. Now my hon. friend proposes, perhaps unwittingly, to leave possession absolutely intact and to stereotype it by law.

It shows a want of confidence in the Minister.

I do not think it is a case of want of confidence in the Minister, but rather a way of dealing with a difficult matter. The intention of the amendment may be all right but the way it is proposed it will have just the opposite effect to what is intended.

In this Bill we are now providing for the residential segregation of Indians in order to safeguard our European society, a policy to which I subscribe.

I beg your pardon.

We are providing for the residential segregation of Indians in so far as this Act provides for certain areas where they should reside and where Europeans may also choose to reside. And there will be areas which will be classed as European areas where Indians would not be allowed to reside.

How can you say that in view of the very definite statement that was made by the Prime Minister that this Bill does not provide for segregation at all?

I have explained the position that it is not a case of where Indians will be segregated into purely Indian areas, but into free areas, where it is a matter of choice whether Europeans wish to live in those Indian areas or not. If any of the hon. members opposite or their followers by choice decide to live in such areas they can do so. But it is in the discretion of the European not to reside in an area set aside where Indians can also reside. [Interruptions.] The point I want to make it this: I feel quite convinced that the Indians are not desirous of living amongst the Europeans at all, as long as they can earn a living by trading in European areas in a reasonable although limited way. [Interruptions.]

They have said they are.

I do not believe that is really their desire. They may say so because they may consider it the thin end of the wedge. I think the Indians would be perfectly satisfied as a community to live amongst themselves and not to seek residential areas among the Europeans. I am satisfied about that. They are afraid of economic segregation and starvation. But let us appeal to our own consciences, remembering that we are sitting in this House as the guardians of the Indians; we can look upon ourselves as that at present. What have we done? We brought them here. Under the laws of the land, not illegally nor unlawfully, they acquired land and established businesses in Durban. Though that is the case we are met today with amendments to the clause from the other side, and they express their views quite openly and without hesitation, that the amendments are so designed that ultimately the Indians as a community would lose their present properties as they can only sell to Europeans. We are the guardians of those people who have not the franchise, and they are at our mercy, and in the circumstances some of the language that we employ is not very dignified, in fact offensive to the Indians, especially remembering that we are guardians and that they are connected with a very great Empire containing a population of over four hundred million people. This sort of language will not do us much good, internationally or otherwise. The proposed amendments also indicate the economic destruction of the Indians. The amendments on the previous clauses and the amendments suggested here are aimed at the total exclusion of Indians from those areas now occupied by them in business and hon. members will not deny it. That is what the Indian is afraid of. He is afraid that we are shielding behind social segregation because that is what is believed socially to be a popular political cry today, but behind it all the Indian is afraid of his economic segregation and ruination. With the colour complex in this country hon. members think they can set about economic segregation. But hon. members in their houses employ coloured people. They drive us in our motor cars, they work side by side with Europeans in industry, and the same thing applies in commerce. Europeans enter their shops to buy from them. By their amendments hon. members wish to get the Indians out of areas where they have bought land under laws passed by this Parliament. We are responsible for that position and we cannot act without a conscience, or hard-heartedly. If I give my vote for the economic destruction of these Indians in this way without adequately compensating them, knowing that we brought about this state of affairs, I would be unworthy to sit as a member of this House. We must hesitate when we have these amendments aiming at the economic destruction of the Indians. If the Indian is a menace to the European trader is it because of Indian support? No, it is on account of the support of the Europeans themselves. Therefore I am wholeheartedly with the Prime Minister when he says if an Indian wishes to dispose of his property it can be sold to an Indian. I am not going to deprive the Indian of what he bought under the law of the land, compelling him to sell or let only to a European and thereby limit his market with the resultant depreciation of the value of his property.

On a point of order, we are discussing occupation now and not the right of ownership. We are dealing with article 4; we are not concerned with the right of ownership.

The hon. member must confine himself to the question of occupation.

The principle is exactly the same whether you do it by occupational segregation or ownership; it is the same thing. The amendment indicates that he can not let the property to an Indian but must do so only to a European. [Interruptions.] If I have touched the hon. member’s conscience then I am glad. Here is a case where an Indian owns land and we do not want him to let it to an Indian. Hon. members must bear in mind when they think of taking a harsh step such as is contained in the amendment they should not let political influences run away with them. We are dealing with human beings. I hold no brief for the Indians, but I am trying to think conscientiously in view of them not having the franchise and having acquired this land lawfully. All parties in this House have had an opportunity to introduce legislation on the subject, but we have neglected to do so. We have all been party to this neglect, and now we must deal with the subject as men of honour, never forgetting that these people have not got the franchise, and if we as Europeans and as Members of Parliament of all parties have neglected to stop the Indian infiltration in the past, we should not now be revengeful and make the Indians suffer for our neglect.

I am astounded at the speech made by the hon. member in view of the very clear exposition of the principle given by the Prime Minister last Friday, and I have no idea how the hon. member could have got up and voiced the sentiments he has. I quite realise the hon. member is domiciled in the Transvaal and is engaged in cutting up Natal to suit his own convenience. We are the chopping block, he is the chopper. But what I want to draw the attention of the Committee to is this: We are obsessed by two points, Europeans and Indians. We quite forget there are other people except Europeans and Indians.

Syrians.

Yes: But under this clause we deal with Asiatics and Europeans. There is nothing in the clause to prevent an Asiatic letting these premises to an Asiatic. Although he will not occupy property in a European area there is nothing to prevent an Asiatic owning property in a European area and letting it to a native. I move as an amendment—

Now that the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) has spoken, just look at what is going on over there. The hon. member kicked over the traces, and the Whip is scolding him for doing so. He was forbidden to speak and he did speak, and the Whip is scolding him for it. That is exactly what happened on Friday, and it is going on today, and I predict it will continue. There they sit; they may not speak, but the hon. member for Vereeniging kicked over the traces. I am not at all surprised that the Prime Minister told them not to speak. If all of them were to make the blunders which the hon. member for Vereeniging made, it would be a disgrace if one of them were to rise and speak. Let us just take the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging. He rose to speak; he kicked over the traces; and what did he do? He rose and, instead of advancing an argument to repudiate the viewpoint of this side of the House, he rose and repudiated his own Prime Minister’s statement. Can we be surprised that they are forbidden to speak? But why did the hon. member do it? He wants to have something somewhere in Hansard so that he can also tell his people that he advocated segregation, in spite of the fact that the Prime Minister clearly stated at the various stages of this Bill that the Bill does not envisage residential segregation. The Prime Minister made that clear. There he sits. Let him deny it if he wants to. Have we ever witnessed such a spectacle in connection with such an important matter? For days on end we have had the statement from the Prime Minister that he does not envisage segregation here, and here we have a frontbencher on his side standing up to salve his soul and his seat and saying that it is segregation all the same, and he kicked over the traces because he had no right to speak.

And he may not speak again

No, he may not speak again. What is more, at the commencement of this debate what the Prime Minister said in connection with another point was repeated. The Prime Minister said very clearly: “I cannot separate the Indian, the Asiatic, from the white man, for he wants to live among the Europeans.” He said this at the second reading; he said it at the Committee stage, and he said it when we dealt with the instructions to the Committee of the Whole House. At each stage of the Bill when we pleaded with the Prime Minister to agree to separate the white man from the Indian, he replied frankly that the Indian did not want it, that the Indian did not want to be separated from the white man, that he wanted to live among the Europeans. Throughout we have based our arguments on this maxim: Why should you give in to the will and wishes of the Indian, and not study the white man’s will?

That is a distortion.

And after all this the hon. member for Vereeniging comes along, and this is his argument: “The Indians do not want to live among the Europeans.” Have you ever heard anything more scandalous than this? After all this time, he still says that the Indian does not want to live among the Europeans, and when he was told by way of interjection that the Indians do want to live among the Europeans, he replied that even if the Indian says so, he does not believe him. Have you ever heard anything more ludicrous in this House? I do not think that when this building was erected one single worker, one single builder who built it, ever thought that such a ludicrous remark would be passed in the House of Assembly. The hon. member says that even if the Indian himself says that he wants to live among the Europeans, he does not believe him. And what else does his argument contain? He rounded off this forbidden speech of his with a fiery plea to the effect that the Indian is the wronged person in the country, and that his rights must be satisfied, and the hon. member went on: “You want complete segregation; nevertheless, we cannot have segregation, for the Indians are employed in our homes as servants; the non-Europeans live in our homes as servants; they sit in our motor cars and drive our cars; how then can you have segregation?” And the conclusion one must come to is that the hon. member for Vereeniging will be quite happy if he can live in that red area and if coolies can live around him, just as servants work in his home and sit in his motor car. But the hon. member for Vereeniging is, after all, getting something on record which he can show to his people. I repeat that the amendment introduced by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) is very reasonable, and no sophistries such as those from the hon. member for Vereeniging can make us change our viewpoint. It is the viewpoint of white South Africa; it is the viewpoint that we want segregation; we want a division between European and non-European; we want to safeguard white civilisation for the nation in the future, and it is against this viewpoint that they sit there powerless, at their wits’ end, past redemption and desperate, and if the Prime Minister has one prayer in his heart at the moment, then his prayer is this: Save me from my rescuers, as the hon. member for Vereeniging endeavoured to do.

It seems to me that the whole discussion of this clause 4 revolves around the last line of the clause which permits the Minister of the Interior to grant permits for the exchange of accommodation. I do not want to say anything about the Minister of the Interior in his absence, but it is quite possible that in the future we might have a Minister of the Interior who would abuse this privilege. I would like therefore to ask the Prime Minister whether he would not agree with the amendment which is in the Votes and Proceedings relating to clause 12, which requires an applicant for the exchange of ownership to advertise in a local paper. I think the Rt. Hon. gentleman will agree that this amendment in clause 12 should also apply to clause 4 and a great deal of the objections would be removed and it would give the people an opportunity to make their voice heard when there’s any proposed exchange of property which they do not approve of. I asked the Prime Minister whether he will not consider accepting this amendment.

In this clause there is nothing explicit to prevent an Indian from leasing his land to a native. Supposing an Indian has 100 morgen of land and no provision is made under a provincial or a municipal ordinance that he may not subdivide it, he can them subdivide it into small holdings in the heart of a European area, and he can place a large number of natives or even a group of Indians there. We know that the administration of this Bill will be in the hands of the Minister of the Interior. He is at the head of it. He has already laid down a policy and furnished evidence of the direction he will take in connection with the permit system. In Durban he gave a plot to an Indian in Tenth Avenue. A European deputation together with two members of Parliament went to him and begged him to cancel the permit, but he refused to do so. It is simply proof that the Minister will not withdraw a permit he has given to an Indian. It is because we have these facts in front of us and because we see this danger —that in European areas not only Indians can be placed on holdings, but even a large number of natives, which actually makes the position worse—that we ask the Prime Minister in all earnestness to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) because it will solve this question. The amendment is clear. It indicates the course to be taken, and we want to appeal to the Prime Minister to correct the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). In his introductory speech the Prime Minister stated clearly that the Indians do not want segregation. He put it very clearly, but that hon. member has contradicted him. He said further that economic segreation would be fatal for the Europeans. Our experience is that economic segregation would be beneficial to the Europeans, for we have the unfortunate position that in certain circumstances Europeans have to buy from Indians. I will quote a small place like Balfour in the Transvaal. There are six businesses there, and all of them are in the hands of Indians. Where must the Europeans buy? They are compelled to buy alongside the Indians. I say that economic segregation is necessary for the protection of the Europeans.

Before replying to the criticism of my amendment, may I deal with the speech of the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood) who is not now in his place. The hon. member asked us to remember that there was no intention amongst the Indians to live alongside of Europeans; that there was no evidence of any such intention. Well, I should like to say that the evidence was pretty substantial. The figures published on 10th January, 1946, show that since 1942 the Indians have bought in Natal, in predominantly European areas, no less than £4,000,000 worth of property. If they did not intend to live in that property they must be very high-minded people who are buying property for Europeans to live in. The whole of that property is today either included in the exempted areas or it is prevented, by the clause we are discussing, from being occupied by Europeans, excepting in cases in which is was occupied by the Europeans from the fixed date. That is surely staggering evidence against the hon. member’s very lighthearted statement in this House. I hope hon. members will realise that this is a serious subject which does not admit of flippant arguments of this nature. Now, with regard to my amendment I have said all along that I am wholly opposed to any board having unlimited authority in this matter at all. I do not believe in these boards, and as a matter of fact I do not think it is possible in the composition of this board to get a board with complete integrity. Therefore I am against boards. I say that it is far better, if there’s going to be any further penetration, that that penetration shall only take place by the will of Parliament, and that only by Act of Parliament shall we be permitted to deal with this matter in future, and that is my object in moving that it is even better to leave things as they now stand than to give the board this authority to issue permits; because I honestly believe that most of these permits will be issued in favour of Indians.

Hear, hear.

And I believe that this method of putting in one class the prohibition against European penetration, or Indian penetration, will merely have that effect. The Indian is the man who is constantly striving to get more and more land in the prohibited area, especially in farming areas. The European farmer is guarding against the days of depression that are to come and has no spare money at the moment. He is not backed by building societies in Johannesburg who seem to concentrate on giving enormous sums of money to these Indians to buy land in prohibited areas. I am completely opposed to that being facilitated, and I would rather that we should have a standstill in which no one should buy additional land at this stage. I hope that the day will soon come when we shall realise that Europeans are entitled to get back the land that has gone out of their possession, especially in the farming areas. You will find such a cry arising presently against this proposition to give the Indian continuous possession of land in farming areas that the Government will be bound to take notice of it. I am therefore by no means ashamed of my amendment. My amendment is intended to prevent any further issue of permits by this board, because I am convinced that the permits to be issued by the board will favour the Indian section, and the Indian section only.

I cannot refrain from mentioning the very peculiar speech which was made on the other side, and at that by a front-bencher, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). In a short speech he made it very clear that this Bill stands for segregation. But when he came to the end of this short speech, he once again tried to trade on the so-called humanitarian principle of promoting the policy of equality. I want to put this question very clearly: What right has a front-bencher on the other side to charge us in connection with our viewpoint of segregation, to say that it is unchristianlike and unjust towards other races? What is inhuman and unfair in the old racial policy of racial separation between European and non-European; what is unjust and unchristianlike in the policy of segregation, which was the conception of the Voortrekker, the conception of the Afrikaner and the conception which we recognise on this side of the House? I want to bring to the attention of the front-bencher on the other side who wants to act as moral instructor to us on this side that we on this side who stand for segregation and who are therefore champions of racial separation and racial differentiation do not by holding that viewpoint contribute to racial annihilation, which must be the result of mixing. We have put our policy very plainly to the other side so that they cannot accuse us on this side of being the champions of a policy designed to destroy racial separation. We on this side stand for a policy of racial segregation; we stand for differentiation of races, and the differentiation of races is a God-made creation. It is not an unchristianlike and unjust viewpoint on our part, for we submit to the conception of creation that we desire to uphold racial differentiation.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

I referred to the possibility of Indians allowing natives to occupy property in their possession, and in looking at the clause I find that to my mind while occupation is expressly barred in the case of Europeans, when it comes to Asiatics it is open. I therefore propose to insert in line 61 “or member of an aboriginal race.” This may be somewhat of a departure from the line of argument that has preceded this, but notwithstanding any laws which may prevent occupation, I feel it is better to be safe than sorry. I can quite understand that occasions may arise where an Asiatic who is prevented from letting premises to another Asiatic or a European may let these premises to a native.

I am not able to put this amendment as it is foreign to the subject matter of the Bill as read a second time.

I do not dispute your ruling, but may I draw your attention to the definition of Asiatic in clause 31 of the Bill where it deals with “class of person known as the Cape Malays,” and it also deals with the withdrawal of status as a European from a person who marries an Indian.

I suggest to the hon. member that he can raise this point when we come to clause 31.

Amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to, and amendment proposed by Mr. Marwick put and negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. G. Strydom put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—46:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Conradie, J. H.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—70:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 5,

As I could not have it inserted under this clause in the form of an amendment, because it would have been contrary to the contents of the clause, I had to compile a new clause which will take the place of clause 5, if it is rejected, namely—

1. (a) in areas in the Province of Transvaal set aside for Asiatics under the provisions of any Act it shall be competent for—
   1. (i) the owner, whether European or Asiatic, of any land or premises, to sell or dispose of such land or premises only to an Asiatic;
   2. (ii) the owner or occupier, whether European or Asiatic, of any land or premises, to transfer the occupation of such land or premises only to an Asiatic;
2. (b) in all other areas in the Province of Transvaal it shall be competent for—
   1. (i) the owner, whether European or Asiatic, of any land or any premises, to sell or dispose of such land or premises only to a European;
   2. (ii) the owner or occupier, whether European or Asiatic, of any land or premises, to transfer the occupation of such land or premises only to a European.

This clause is very simply and clearly put. It relates to both possession and occupation of Asiatics, as well as Europeans, and it relates to European areas as well as Asiatic areas. But the principle is very clearly laid down that in the Transvaal there will be definite segregation. I would just like to say that as far as land ownership by Asiatics in the Transvaal is concerned, this question has been quite clearly arranged. Let me, without going into the matter, quote a few of the Acts. Legislation in connection with the subject began with Act No. 3 of 1885, as amended in 1887. Thereafter it was continued with the Gold Act of 1908, articles 130 and 131, and after that followed Act No. 37 of 1919 in connection with land ownership and businesses of Asiatics. As a result of the report of a Parliamentary Committee in 1930, the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Act was passed. This Act added a new article 131 (a) to the Gold Act, and added various articles to Act No. 37 of 1919. In 1932 the Feetham Commission was appointed, and as a result of their recommendations the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Amendment Act (Act No. 13 of 1936) was passed, which amended articles 130, 131 and 131 (a) of Act No. 3 of 1885, as well as Act No. 37 of 1919. These are a few Acts in connection with the matter. But there is something else I want to emphasise, namely, the possibility which is created under those Acts of separating areas in the Transvaal, but, unfortunately, most of the Acts have not been enforced, particularly not articles 130 and 131 of the Gold Act, and also not Act No. 3 of 1885. In its report the Feetham Commission made an important statement, namely, that until 1919 articles 130 and 131 of the Gold Act were not enforced. The Feetham Commission declares that it was simply a dead letter and that nothing was done. The result was that the Indians, who had truly become adept in discovering loopholes to evade the law, gained possession of land in various areas of the Transvaal on a considerable scale, and by Act No. 37 of 1919 it was legalised; the land which they had gained possession of illegally was granted to them legally. As I have said, the Indians are masters at evading the law, and in this way a large number of Indians gained possession of land in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal we find a rather motley position. I will readily admit that this Bill is in a small measure an improvement on the existing position. But if this policy I have proposed is accepted, and if this article is rejected and my amendment is accepted, then it means that for once and always the Transvaal will have briefly, concisely and clearly adopted a policy which is the traditional policy of the Transvaal, and will have laid it down clearly in the Act. For that reason I appeal to the Prime Minister to compromise with us in the case of the Transvaal. It is a very serious matter for the Transvaal. If there are difficulties and doubt in connection with Natal, then as far as the Transvaal is concerned there can be no doubt. The whole history of the Transvaal and its viewpoint in connection with this question is clear and explicit. The Transvaal did not want to have the Asiatic there, and as he is there it wants him separated. With this proposal we are only laying down the traditional policy which the Transvaal has always made clear, not only towards South Africa but towards India and the whole world. There can be no doubt about the question. If the Bill is not amended in this way, then the black spots in the Transvaal will continue to exist. What we are proposing here is that we will have definite segregation between Europeans and Indians. The practical application thereof will be a boon to the Transvaal. Up till now the whole position in the Transvaal has been rather fluid as a result of neglect on the part of the Government, and as a result of this legislation it will still remain rather fluid. There is the question of permits. The whole history of the permit system in the Transvaal is very unpleasant history. Just the other day the Indians succeeded through the permit system in acquiring a place in a European area which nobody dreamed they would acquire. Permits were issued in Pretoria in the heart of a European area, so that Indians could acquire plots and occupation there, and this happened in spite of the protests which were made not only by the town councils, but by the whole Transvaal community. This position simply continued, and a very unpleasant state of affairs has been created. The position is very unsatisfactory, and it is becoming more and more unpleasant. With this policy we envisage getting rid of those black spots in the European àreas, and we say that the Prime Minister can really and truly not object to that. The permit system in the Transvaal has a very unpleasant history attached to it. There are quite a few black pages in the history of the permit system. We have no longer any confidence in the permit system, and the sooner we decide and lay down clearly in the Act what the position is, the better it will be for the Europeans and for the Asiatics. The Indians will then know where they stand, and they will be educated in this matter. We have no confidence in the present Minister of the Interior, who has to issue the permits. He represents Natal; this is a matter of the greatest importance for Natal, and up till now he has not uttered a single word. I hope that he will rise now and tell us what his policy is in connection with this question in the Transvaal. His whole attitude towards this legislation gives us the impression that his is the dark hand behind this legislation pulling together the strings of equality. [Time limit.]

I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he cannot see his way clear to accepting the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). The Prime Minister cannot accuse the Transvaal, as he did in the case of Natal, that it is its own fault that the Indians are penetrating there. He said that we have to pay for the sins of the fathers. Because the fathers sinned in Natal, sacrifices have to be made in this legislation. As far as the Transvaal is concerned the Prime Minister cannot say that. After the first Boer War of 1880-’81 when the Indian from Natal started penetrating, the Transvaal introduced legislation, but the British Government rejected that legislation. The Transvaal Government compromised by acceding to certain demands made by the British Government, and from then onwards we have had these difficulties in connection with the penetration of Asiatics. This also applies to the enforcement of the Act of 1885. The Transvaal can therefore not be accused of not trying to put an end to Indian penetration. As the hon. member for Wonderboom said, each time it was evident that the Indians were penetrating from one place to another. They evaded the law, and today in the Transvaal there is hardly a town that the Indians have not penetrated. We stand for segregation between Europeans and nonEuropeans, and I want to appeal to the Prime Minister to listen to us in the case of the Transvaal so that for once and for always there will be an end to that penetration. The hon. member for Wonderboom rightly said that we have no confidence in the Minister of the Interior. In the past it has been evident that he has used his power to issue permits to Indians to acquire land in European areas and to establish themselves. Recently a permit of that nature was granted by the present Minister of the Interior, and now this legislation is being entrusted to him, and he has to decide whether permits should be granted to Asiatics to purchase and to occupy properties. Spots can now be established under this Bill where Indians will go and live. We stand for complete segregation. Where penetration has already taken place, we must improve the position by stipulating that those properties can only be sold to a white man. I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will grant us this right we are asking for in the case of the Transvaal. I appeal to the members of the Transvaal, such as the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie), Zwartruggens (Mr. Henny), Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo), all of them people who represent constituencies in the Transvaal, where there is penetration in their own towns. There is penetration in Rustenburg in the middle of the town. In my own constituency there is penetration. As regards Piet Retief, the member concerned will tell us what the position is. This penetration must be stopped. If the Prime Minister accepts this amendment, the Indians will slowly disappear from European areas and go to areas which are set apart for Asiatics. Whatever the Prime Minister has decided in connection with Natal, I hope that as far as the Transvaal is concerned he will remember that our descendants fought against this penetration and that we fought against it. The Indians evade the law. We have one report after the other which testifies to it. The Indians penetrate into one town after the other, and with this Bill we want to put an end to it.

May I briefly state a few facts in connection with this point. I want to address my remarks particularly to the members of the Transvaal. We are all interested in this matter because it concerns the European civilisation, but since we are dealing here with the Transvaal particularly I hope members representing Transvaal constituencies will be good enough to listen to our arguments. The position in the Transvaal differs from the position in Natal. There we had no prohibition on the right of occupation and the right of ownership before the passing of the Pegging Act. In the Transvaal the position is different. The Act of 1885 laid down that an Indian may not buy land in the Transvaal, and under that Act the Government also had the power to prevent Indians from penetrating into European areas, as far as occupation was concerned, by establishing separate areas, streets and locations for the Indians. The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) informed the House that those laws, as a result of the influence and the threats of the British Government, were not applied. Apart from the fact that the Indian evaded the law, however, the legal position in the Transvaal was that Indians were not allowed to buy land, and it was the intention that they were to live in separate areas, streets and locations. The Indians ignored the law. They formed companies with a view to acquiring land and notwithstanding the provisions concerning separate areas in the street, they established themselves everywhere amongst the Europeans. After 1902 Ordinance No. 17 of 1905 was passed empowering the town councils to set aside certain areas for occupation by Indians. That law became a dead letter. In various towns we find these so-called locations for Indians, but they do not live in those locations. They found loopholes in the law and penetrated into European areas. Act No. 30 of 1936 was then passed. That Act empowered town councils to set aside areas where Indians could acquire land. Section 2 reads as follows—

1. (1) (bis). The Council may alienate and transfer to an Asiatic any land situate in an area set apart as aforesaid, and an Asiatic may acquire the ownership of or any other interest in such land:
   PROVIDED that both Houses of Parliament have, by resolution authorised the alienation to Asiatics, of any land situate within that area.

In the Transvaal, therefore, we have the position that provision was made for racial separation, for areas where the Indians may acquire ownership. In the rest of the Transvaal the Indians could not acquire ownership, and originally the idea was that they were not to be there at all. I do not want to go into that now, but we know that the Asiatics found loopholes in all those laws, and today we have the position that they have penetrated into one town after another. The Prime Minister himself knows that the Asiatic does not pay any attention to the laws of the country, but he makes attempt after attempt to evade the laws of the country and to resist legislation of this nature. The present position is that notwithstanding all these laws with regard to occupation and the right to acquire property, the Asiatic has penetrated everywhere, into all the European towns, except in the new towns where there are servitudes which provide that occupation and the right to acquire property may not be granted to Asiatics. That is the position in the Transvaal towns with the result that Asiatics are living cheek by jowl with Europeans and they more and more are penetrating into European areas. I hope therefore that as far as clause 5 is concerned, the Prime Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment suggested by us. It will not be introducing a new principle in the Transvaal, as is clear from what I have just said in connection with the position in the Transvaal. In this way we shall gradually succeed in removing the Indians from European areas, both with regard to occupation and the right to acquire property. We shall then have purely European areas both with regard to the right to acquire property and with regard to occupation, and we shall also have areas for the Indians on exactly the same basis as was laid down under the Act of 1885 as well as in Ordinance No. 17 of 1905, which provided that areas may be set aside where the Asiatics will have the right to acquire property. We now have the provisions of Act No. 30 of 1936 as well as section 10 of Ordinance No. 17 of 1905, and I want to indicate now what the position is going to be if we do not accept this amendment. In those areas which are intended for the Asiatics, there is nothing to prevent the Asiatic from transferring his rights to a European. The whole object of these laws which I have quoted and of the Bill, if we are to take the Prime Minister seriously, is to have separate areas for the two races, and that object may be totally frustrated because there is nothing to prevent an Asiatic from transferring his right of ownership in an Asiatic area to a European.

In practice that will not happen.

The hon. member says that in practice it will not happen. Does he not know that there are Europeans who would be prepared to sell any place as long as they see an opportunity of making money?

The position will be the reverse.

I want to go so far as to protect the hon. member against himself. I say that there are Europeans who do not care what happens to European civilisation and who would buy in those areas if they saw an opportunity of making money. The hon. member knows how many Europeans have in the past sold land to Asiatics.

That is why I said that the position would be the reverse.

This only goes to show that there are Europeans who do not pay any attention to this type of thing as long as they can make money. That is the one portion of the amendment. The other portion of the amendment is that in the European areas—and now I hope I shall have the support of the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie)—where Asiatics are living in the heart of the town, as in Rustenburg, for example, we will obviate the position that Asiatics will be there for ever, but there will be an opportunity to make those areas European areas once again, because here we lay down that the rights of ownership in those areas may be transferred to Europeans only.

That happened before 1885.

That does not matter. Let me just say this. I would be very interested to know how many properties were transferred to Indians in the Transvaal before 1885. It must be very few. The properties that were transferred to Indians were all transferred as a result of evasions of the law, because the Indians established limited liability companies, and that is what the Prime Minister tried to prevent in 1919, and to a large extent that attempt was a failure.

We are now rectifying the position.

It is not being stopped. [Time limit.]

I want to move the following amendment this afternoon—

The effect of it will be that it will not be possible in areas of the Transvaal to grant land to Indians or Europeans by means of a permit, but if such a transaction takes place, it can only take place with the approval of this House. Up to the present the Prime Minister has been fairly hesitant in accepting any amendment. I should like him to think of the Transvaal. I have in mind particularly my own constituency, and I am thinking more particularly of the church and the school, which are completely surrounded by Asiatics. Unless provision is made in this Bill to enable us to buy out those people eventually, and compelling them to sell to Europeans only, it will in all probability result in the church and the school being surrounded by Indians for ever. That is the practical position there. We are not viewing this matter from a general standpoint only; we are not looking at it in a vague way. We take practical examples as the position exists today. That is the position in my constituency today, and if this clause is left in its present form, I feel that the position will remain just as it is for all time to come, and there will be no solution. If this problem is not being solved anywhere, what is the object Of this Bill? What is the object of this Bill unless provision is made for a gradual elimination of Indians living in European areas or for the elimination of Europeans living in Indian areas? It will be appreciated how strongly my constituency, and particularly the church and the school, feel about this position. This position prevails in the very centre of Krugersdorp, and I hope, therefore, that the Prime Minister will be a little accommodating and accept this amendment, so that those people may have the assurance that at some date in the distant future the school and the church will be surrounded by Europeans, and not by Indians. Then there is the position, too, of many private owners in that particular area. It will be appreciated that the people living near the church are anxious to stay there. The rectory was situated there in the past, and the minister had to flee and take up residence in another neighbourhood. There are many Europeans living there today who are totally surrounded by Indians. On the opposite side of the street there are Indians. Their next-door neighbours on both sides are Indians, and behind them are Indians. If it is laid down that in the future these transactions are to be approved by Parliament so that that area may eventually become an Indian area or a European area, as the case may be, the public will at least have confidence in this measure. It may be said that it cannot take place immediately, but we can at least look forward eventually to such an exchange and a clearing up process if this amendment is accepted, but if things continue in this way the position will be hopeless. I want to make a serious appeal to the Prime Minister. It is very good sometimes to be determilned, but one can overdo everything. I do not want to accuse the Prime Minister of stubbornness, but I want to ask him to be accommodating. He knows how difficult the position is, and the accusation which has been levelled against Natal cannot be levelled against the Transvaal. In Natal the people are reaping the bitter fruits of a historical mistake. The Prime Minister himself stated that Natal had made a historical mistake. The Transvaal is not in that position, but since we now have the opportunity to rectify the position, we can still make a historical mistake if we do not take advantage of this opportunity. I want to ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness to accept this amendment. I do not think its acceptance will seriously interfere with the Bill. It is a slight amendment, but it will nevertheless give the people hope for the future. I feel that it is a reasonable amendment.

I want us to consider the position as it is. It is, of course, a question of great importance, and it is not necessary for us to make impassioned pleas in this House. We are faced with an actual position that we are anxious to take into review now.

We cannot hear you.

I am sorry; I shall speak more loudly. This clause deals with the question of the occupation of land in the Transvaal, not the question of the right of ownership or the acquisition of land, but it deals with the occupation of land in the Transvaal. The previous clause, clause 4 that we have disposed of, dealt with the occupation of land in Natal. Now we come to the question of occupation in the Transvaal. What is the position in the Transvaal today, not with regard to the purchase of land, but the question with which we are dealing here, namely, the hiring and occupation of land? The position is this; there is nothing to prevent Asiatics today to occupy land in the Transvaal, apart from the gold fields.

You mean that an Indian is free to occupy land?

Yes. I am referring to the lease and occupation of land. In the Transvaal Indians are free to hire and occupy land, apart from the gold fields, for which special provision was made. What this clause proposes is that in the future it will not remain free but it will fall under the control of the Minister, advised by the Board which is to be appointed. Let us adhere to the facts. These are the facts. There is no restriction at present with regard to the hiring and occupation of land; it is altogether free. We are now going to restrict it, and it is stated in this clause that no Asiatic will be able to occupy land in the Transvaal in the future unless he gets a permit from the Minister. We must take the position as it is. The dispute in the Transvaal has always been in regard to another question, namely the question of the purchase of land.

Not only in that regard. That may have been the dispute between you and them, but it has not been the dispute between them and ourselves.

It is laid down under Act No. 3 of 1885 that the Asiatics cannot buy land except in areas assigned to them by the Government. In the past, to a large extent, these areas were not so assigned.

They were assigned, but the Indians did not buy there.

Yes, they did not make use of it.

You could not force them.

In the majority of cases the purchase of land in the Transvaal was effected by means of the establishment of companies. Companies were formed for that purpose and even the Act of 1919, for which I think I was responsible, was framed in such a way that its provisions could be evaded and they were evaded. Under the Companies Act all sorts of practices and malpractices were resorted to in order to evade the Act of 1919 and to give the Asiatics openings to become the owners of land in some way or another. That is the position. As hon. members know these malpractices were investigated by a Commission.

The Feetham Commission.

Even before the Feetham Commission it was examined by the Murray Commission and the Murray Commission made a number of recommendations and suggested ways and means of closing the loopholes and the recommendations of the Murray Commission are now being confirmed and put into effect in subsequent regulations of the Bill, and according to the views of our law advisers that question is now in order and a stop will be put to evasions of the Act of 1919. Another aspect of this matter is the question of the gold fields, and hon. members know that special legislation was introduced dealing with the ownership of land and the occupation of land by Asiatics on the gold fields. There is special legislation in this regard and that legislation is specifically being left out here. We are not affecting the position. There were certain malpractices which the Feetham Commission examined, and the recommendations of the Feetham Commission are also being confirmed in this Bill. I am not going to deal with the question of the gold fields therefore; we are merely closing certain loopholes. The remaining question therefore is the question of occupation. The malpractices which take place with regard to property are being eliminated by this Bill; the question of establishing companies is now being put in order and the question of the acquisition of properties is being put in order. The question which remains to be dealt with is the question of occupation. It would seem that hon. members do not fully realise this. It is still an open question in the Transvaal and under this Bill it is being dealt with in the following way. We say that we are going to apply the control system to occupation in the Transvaal as well, that is to say, that in the future no Asiatic will be able to lease or occupy land, whatever his purpose may be, unless he obtains a permit from the Government, and such permit will only be issued after investigation by a control board: and in later clauses it is explained that the investigation will be published. Everything will be published and everything will be done quite openly.

The alteration which is being made here is, therefore, a very big alteration in the existing position in the Transvaal. In the future, if this Bill goes through, it will no longer be possible for people, as far as the Transvaal is concerned, to lease and to occupy land without restrictions. The Indians will now come under the compulsory measures, under the control system of the Government, and the Government can then deal with the matter on its merits and see to it in the future that there will be no inter-mixture of the population.

May I just put this question; the existing inter-mixture is, therefore, allowed to continue even where it is unlawful?

There is nothing unlawful there.

I do not know what the hon. member is referring to.

You say it will obviate an inter-mixture in the future?

Yes.

But what about the existing inter-mixture?

Since 1939.

Why since 1939?,

Because the Pegging Act then came into operation.

I want to know whether I am explaining this Bill or is someone else doing it? Impassioned appeals are being made to the House. I want us to understand and I want the public to understand what the true position is, and the true position is that in clause 5 we are trying to close up an existing loophole, under which this extensive occupation in the Transvaal is taking place. We are closing it in this sense that in the future we will put a stop to leases in favour of and occupation by Asiatics which has taken place in the Transvaal quite lawfully up to the present. I think we are going a long way here in rectifying what has been an omission up to the present and what has been done lawfully. Now for the first time we are placing the occupation of land in the Transvaal, apart from the gold fields, under these compulsory measures, and there is, therefore, a very great improvement from the European standpoint, and I can recommend it to the House. I cannot accept the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). It confuses the question of the right of ownership with occupation and it seeks to introduce provisions which are in conflict with the whole scheme of the Bill, as we have it before us. We are dealing here with the question of occupation. We deal with the question of the right of ownership in subsequent clauses, but here we are dealing with the question of occupation and we are dealing with it in the manner I have explained.

I understand that this clause deals with occupation, and I entirely agree with the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister when he says that a tremendous amount of controversy, opposition or ill-feeling—call it what you will — was engendered and still remains in the Transvaal, and indeed elsewhere, due to the fact that Indians were by surreptitious methods able to circumvent the law as it existed at the time. That is perfectly true, and insofar as that is being overcome, one is very pleased indeed, but the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not quite right when he insinuates, as it were, from that, that there has been no trouble aroused as a result of occupation.

There has been.

Exactly, there would have been no need at all to introduce this clause if there had been no trouble. That was recognised by the Prime Minister in the drafting of this Bill. We have to take it that a tremendous amount of trouble resulted from occupation, not only from purchase and acquisition, and the Prime Minister seeks to control that, and as he so rightly says, it is being controlled now in this Bill. That is as far as future occupation is concerned. But occupation that has been accomplished hitherto remains. That is the Prime Minister’s point. But in future, occupation in similar circumstances will not be permitted, save and except by permit from the Minister of the Interior. That is the point, and it is just that control that we are cavilling at.

Why?

I will tell my hon. friend. I am not going to use precisely the same arguments I have used before. First we have to save the Government from itself. Now, do you or do you not know your Indian? I ask that question very seriously indeed. How is the control proposed? It is by a board composed of 50 per cent. Indians and 50 per cent. Europeans, selected I suppose by the Government itself, presided over by some person the Government selects; and, incidentally, he has two votes in case of equality of voting, he has a casting vote, as well as the deliberative vote, in certain circumstances. I object to that in principle, I do not believe in any man having two votes; but that by the way. Apart from the chairman you have equality of votes. Knowing the Indian cannot you conceive the tremendous financial bombardment by the Indian big guns on the personnel of the board? They will only have to concentrate on one of the other members. Can hon. members, on the other side of the House particularly, see what an invidious position we are placing one or both of the European members of that board in? Knowing our Indians I must again urge that point; one can conceive the tremendous financial concentration on these European members.

You mean bribery?

Yes, bribery. I thought hon. members would have understood what I was driving at. Bribery! Bribery is part of the general technique of the Indian financier. Whether or no a member of the board conforms, it is not putting members in a very nice position to have this concentration of bribery on the part of the big Indian financiers. That is the first point. This board has to recommend to the Minister; and then, what an invidious position the Minister will be placed in. [Interruptions.] I hope I am not going to have my words twisted again as they were twisted on another occasion in this House. The Minister will be in this unfortunate position, he has to vote for or against. He has to decide on the one hand in favour of a little further intrusion on application, and I must press this point that there is no publicity given to the application …

There will be in this Bill.

You are going to accept that?

That is in my own amendment.

I am glad to hear that, it helps somewhat, the fact that the application will be published to the wide world. But there comes the invidious position of the Minister who is the sole decider whether that permit shall be granted. It is an application for a further intrusion into a European area. The Minister has to decide whether that intrusion shall be permitted or not. If he permits it a furore is aroused on the part of the European section who are vitally concerned. He will place himself in an unenviable position vis-a-vis the Europeans. If he refuses then the full weight—and we have seen something of it in connection with this Bill—the full weight of the Indian irritation will have to be borne by him. Is that fair to the Minister? Would it not be far better, and that is the ostensible object of the Bill, to prevent further penetration by Indians. That is the ostensible object of the Bill; and why not do it? Why not do that at once and not leave any loophole at all? The Rt. Hon. gentleman himself admits the Indians are very clever indeed in discovering loopholes in the law. Do you mean to tell me that a law like this is going to stop what we all seek to stop, for many reasons, sociological and from the point of view of preventing internal dissension? If there is to be a division make it at once. The door is still there because it is still up to any government who desires to shift the boundary of the European or the Indian zone to do so. It is up to that government tö come to Parliament for a decision on the merits as to whether the movement of the boundary should be permitted. But this is a division that is likely to be abused considerably, and it will hold up the Minister concerned to obloquy. I do urge upon the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister in the circumstances to take his courage in his hands—there is nobody with more courage than he—and see this out and have the one completely distinct from the other. There can be no question of this, all the applications will be made by Indians to make further inroads into European territory. I urge on the Prime Minister that they should give this their serious consideration. If you set out to divide the Europeans and Indians from each other, do it and do not retain openings for doing otherwise.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister stated that clause 5 only deals with occupation in the Transvaal. The Prime Minister himself knows what the licensing courts have done in the past. They have realised that all businesses are falling into the hands of the Indians, and this Bill does not go far enough in that respect. It still allows Indian occupation to continue under the permit system. That is our great difficulty. We do not know how the Board is going to be constituted. All we know is that there will be two Indians on it. But in any event everything still falls under the jurisdiction of the Minister of the Interior. We know what his policy has been in the past. Where a licence or permit was refused to an Indian, it was subsequently granted by the Minister. The greatest difficulty may result from this. Can we take it for granted that this Board will be comprised of impartial persons and not people who will be negrophilists or whose sympathies will be pro-Indian? We have not got that assurance, and the door is being left open for Indian penetration on a greater scale than is the case at the present time. In the Transvaal the position is that Indians are already owning land in European areas. In my constituency the town council has done everything in its power to remove the Indians, but it has been unsuccessful. The Indians will not move. The Indians will now ask the Minister concerned or the Board for a permit to become the owners of land. I do not see how it can be refused under this clause. Take the case of an Indian who lives in a European area at present; he wants to become the owner of the property he occupies. If this Bill were to provide that these people can be separated and that they may not live in European areas it would serve a useful purpose, but this Bill does not go as far as that. Under this Bill Indians and Europeans may live in the same areas and the Indians may acquire properties.

No, they cannot acquire property.

But they continue to remain in occupation. The Indians have found a loophole in that respect by establishing limited liability companies. A few weeks ago I was in Nelspruit. The local Indians, by the expedient of establishing a company, bought land in the very centre of the town, in the main street, and today they are erecting a very fine building there. They have everything under their control. Take other platteland towns. Indians are penetrating into the best areas. There is nothing to prevent the Indian under this Bill from remaining there from generation to generation, and the present position whereby Indians and Europeans are living cheek by jowl is allowed to continue. The Indians have their businesses in these areas, and they usually live at the back of their business premises, even if it is in a European area, and there is nothing to prevent the permit from being transferred to the heir of the Indian upon his death. We would like the Prime Minister to understand that there ought to be segregation once and for all between Europeans and non-Europeans. We have seen to what extent penetration takes place, and one asks oneself what the position is going to be in ten or fifteen years. This may be the last opportunity to do something to check the Indians. Let the Prime Minister accept this amendment, or at any rate the main portion of it.

I am really very sorry that the Prime Minister refuses to accept this amendment. The position on the Witwatersrand is very serious in certain areas. It has become so serious that on 16th October, 1944, the Johannesburg City Council accepted a very big scheme. This scheme can be put into effect provided legislation in that regard is passed. I just want to point out what the position is. It is stated in the report which I have before me that—

The City Council of Johannesburg views this matter in such a serious light that it actually decided upon separatism in every respect, not only between coloureds and natives, but it wants to go so far as to separate the Asiatics from the coloureds and the natives. It aims at complete segregation and is prepared to undertake a scheme costing £3,000,000. We also find that a large tract of land was set aside for Asiatics at Diepkloof, near Johannesburg, but the Asiatics refused to take this land. That is the position that has arisen on the Witwatersrand. If we can obtain absolute separatism by means of legislation with regard to the occupation of land in the Transvaal, we will make this scheme a practicable one. When the Prime Minister referred to the Act of 1919, he had to admit that it was evaded in every respect. Loopholes were found and the law was evaded, and unlawful occupation took place on a big scale. The question arises why we should regard land, which was unlawfully occupied, as being lawfully occupied. It is unlawful. This may be the last opportunity we will have to solve this problem, and for that reason we ask the Prime Minister to meet us and to accept this amendment which presents a practical solution in this respect.

I should like to point out to the Prime Minister that on numerous occasions in the past exemption has been granted to Indians in connection with their rights, first in 1919, then in 1932 and now again in 1946. Someone has put it this way: “You may do with the Indians what you please, but just as little as you will succeed in stopping an east wind with a sieve so little will you succeed in stopping the Indian from finding a loophole.” They will find some loophole or other; and whenever evasions have taken place we have condoned it and granted exemptions. It is part of the policy of the Indians to penetrate into European areas, and to rely on the clemency of the Europeans to grant them exemption. I want to point out that it was never the intention of the Act of 1885 to allow the Indians to occupy business premises in European areas. For that purpose bazaar areas were set aside for them. At Middelburg, for example, there was the case of a certain Ismail Suluman versus the Magistrate. This Indian proceeded to trade outside the bazaar area and a case was instituted against him. The court gave judgment in favour of the magistrate. The British Government interfered and lodged its protest, and although Chief Justice de Villiers as arbitrator gave judgment in favour of the Act of 1885, the British Government still continued to interfere in the matter. That is the type of interference we have had in connection with these matters from the British Government. Today we are again perpetuating contraventions. I agree with the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) in respect of the exemptions which have been granted, but let us try to win them back gradually so that we can comply with the original intention of the Act of 1885. The idea of the old inhabitants was always that there should not be any expansion in the Transvaal as far as the Indians are concerned. That was also my idea as a member of the old republics. Let us restore the position so that it will conform to the original intention. This Bill is another victory for the policy of Gandhi when he lodged his protest —“the pressure of the thumb protest”. He incited the Indians in Natal and scored a victory. And although evasions have taken place here he has scored a victory on their behalf in that these evasions have been condoned. Let us put a stop to it once and for all and gradually retrace our steps instead of continually giving the Indians greater and greater opportunities of establishing themselves.

The Prime Minister has explained the position under the Gold Act in the Transvaal. As far as the rest of the Transvaal is concerned, I want to refer him to clause 2 of the Act of 1885, in which it is clearly laid down that the Government will have the right to assign specific streets and areas to the Asiatics. Then there is the further provision as far as occupation is concerned, that it will not be applicable to Indians who live on the premises of their employers. That was a concession to the British Government, and this also led to the evasion of the law. As far as occupation is concerned, the position is that clause 5 of this Bill is bringing about an improvement in the Transvaal in certain respects, because the Indians will now be able to occupy new premises only if they obtain a permit. That may be an improvement, but with the convictions and the views and the philosophy of the Minister of the Interior and of the Minister of Finance, what guarantee has this House got that it will be an improvement? We know what the views are of the Minister of Finance in regard to the provisions of this Bill. He is solidly opposed to these provisions, and we cannot assume that the permit system under clause 8 will bring about any improvement. On the contrary, it may make the position worse. There may also be a deterioration in regard to the only aspect where the Prime Minister claims that this clause brings about an improvement. Now I want to refer to another position in respect of which this clause will make the position worse. Take the case of the European owner who enters into a contract of lease with an Indian. Even if he terminates the contract he is compelled to lease the property to another Indian. I hope hon. members on the other side fully realise the implications of this clause. If any property is lawfully occupied by an Asiatic at the date when the Act comes into operation—assuming that an owner in the town of Rustenburg has leased a shop to an Asiatic—he is not free to lease the shop to a European unless he obtains a permit from the Minister.

He is, of course, free to do so when the contract has expired.

The Prime Minister has not read this clause. Clause 5 lays down the following—

The Asiatic is in lawful occupation if he has a contract of lease entitling him to occupation.

When the contract of lease expires, he is no longer in occupation.

Yes, he is no longer in occupation, but if at the fixed date the property was lawfully occupied by an Asiatic the owner is compelled to let it to another Indian, and he can only get rid of the Indian if he can obtain a permit from the Minister of the Interior.

No, he can cancel the lease when the contract has expired.

The position is that if on the fixed date the Asiatic lawfully occupies any property, that property must again be leased to an Asiatic. In the future it can only be occupied by an Asiatic. It is clear that in this respect the Bill does not improve the position but makes it worse. I want to ask the Prime Minister to give his attention to this matter. I am not interpreting this clause incorrectly. That is the effect of it. If an Asiatic hires a shop from a European and the European sells the shop to another European, the latter cannot get rid of the Asiatic under the provisions of clause 5. The Prime Minister ought to give his attention to the amendment we have moved. We cannot leave the position as it is at present. Under this clause such a property must be occupied by an Asiatic for all time to come. The power is in the hands of the Minister of the Interior, and we must fully take into account his attitude and the attitude of the Minister of Finance in this respect. The Prime Minister will notice on the Order Paper that we propose to move an amendment in connection with clause 8 with a view to seeing whether we cannot improve these bad provisions in connection with the permit system. Our amendment will have this effect that the Minister will be able to grant a permit only where the transfer is to a European and not where it seeks to give occupation to an Asiatic. It will be an attempt along those lines to obviate the bad effects of the Bill. Then I want to deal again with the question of the right of ownership. This clause does not deal with it, but the Bill does, and the other part of the amendment which I propose to move deals with the right of ownership, because in this respect the Bill is defective. This Bill unfortunately does not affect the position of Indians who have obtained the right of ownership in European areas, in whatever way they may have succeeded in doing so. In other words, in places like Rustenburg and Nylstroom where the Indians have taken up the very centre of the town, that position will now be perpetuated unless the Prime Minister accepts this amendment to alter the position gradually and eventually to accomplish what is contemplated in clause 19. Under that clause the Prime Minister visualises the establishment of Indian townships. That is laid down by sub-clause (f) of clause 19. This clause takes over the position which exists under Ordinance No. 17 of 1905 and Act No. 30 of 1936. I say that under clause 19 townships can be established for Indians, but what is the position going to be? Separate townships will be established for Indians, but the present position is being perpetuated, and that will mean that there will now be two Indian townships—one which is to be established under the existing law, in addition to the Indian township which already exists in the centre of many towns. Take a place like Krugersdorp. The very centre of Krugersdorp belongs to Indians, and under this Bill the Prime Minister is going to perpetuate that position. If a measure of this kind is to be placed on the Statute Book, why is it not framed in such a way that it will really be effective? All our pleas to the Government to make a clean sweep have been rejected, but surely the Government can accept this idea of gradually reaching the same satisfactory state of affairs where we will eventually have total separation. The Government can only do that by accepting an amendment such as that of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel). I do not see that any injustice will be done. It will be remembered that the Prime Minister held out the prospect that that is what will eventually happen. I hope he is not indifferent towards such a contingency. If he is not indifferent towards such a contingency, why cannot he accept this amendment? If he accepts it we can bring about that state of affairs, and the ideal of having separation between Europeans and the Indians will then materialise. But as this clause reads at the moment it will simply mean that the position of the Indians amongst the Europeans will be perpetuated, and if further Indian townships are established under clause 19 it will mean that the Indian will have two townships, one of which will be in the very centre of the town, and the Europeans in those towns will be powerless, because as a result of this provision they will not be able to get the Indians out of their towns. I want to make a very serious appeal to the Prime Minister. It is clear that he has not realised the implications of this clause, and I want to ask him now to give his attention to clause 5. The legal position is as I have put it to him. I hope he will now give his attention to it and realise that we cannot pass this clause as it stands.

It is clear from the speeches we have heard that there is this difference between the exposition of hon. members on the other side and the views of members on this side. We firmly believe that the effect of this Bill will be the desired effect and members on the other side doubt it.

What is the desired effect?

I do not want to enlarge on that matter, because there is another point that I want to touch upon. I shall leave it there. We firmly believe that this Bill will have the desired effect.

What is that?

Apparently hon. members on the other side have overlooked a principle which was accepted by this House as far back as 1913. They object most strongly to the fact that in the areas coloured white we are not making provision to prevent the Asiatic from selling to another Asiatic. But when we go back to the Native Land Act of 1913, we find the following provision in section 1 (1) (a)—

Except with the approval of the Governor-General—

In other words, in an area which was regarded as a European area under the Act of 1913, certain natives who owned land were forbidden to transfer the land in question to anyone except a native. They were not allowed to sell it to Europeans without the permission of the Governor-General. Years later we had the native laws. It took us ten years to pass those laws, and in those ten years and even in 1936 when those laws were finally passed by Parliament, no provision was made to repeal this clause. Apparently the objection which is now being raised by members on the other side is an objection which they did not hold in the past. If they were in such great earnest they would have availed themselves of the very first opportunity to repeal that provision of the law. They would have said: “We want to remove the black patches and we are going to prevent natives who own land in European areas from selling the land to anyone but a European”. Now we come to the urban areas. In Act No. 46 of 1937 which amends the Native Land Act we find that section 3 (1) contains exactly the same provision, namely, that a native in an urban area will not be entitled to sell his land to anyone except a native without the permission of the Governor-General.

That is in the native territory.

The principle is the same. In both cases, both with regard to the platteland and the towns, there were certain areas which were owned by natives; These areas where the natives owned land were not set aside for them. I recall a case of this kind. The farm Aapiesdoringdraai in the Steelpoort area was given by President Kruger to Manok. It did not fall under the native territory. It was transferred to natives. They cannot transfer it to anyone else except natives. If they want to sell it to any person other than a native they have to obtain the approval of the Governor-General. The underlying principle in that case is precisely the same as this. We have these black patches in European areas. Members welcomed this provision. During all these years when the native Bills were under discussion they did not once object to it. Moreover they know that those black patches have not increased but that they are gradually being bought out by Europeans. We notice that these black patches have considerably decreased. I am making an appeal to members on the other side to give this legislation a change and in due course they will agree with us that this contemplated legislation will have the desired effect.

I should like to draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the fact that in introducing this Bill he warned the Indians not to invest capital from elsewhere in properties in the Cape Province. He warned them that if they did that, legislation would later have to be introduced to undo what they had done. In the Transvaal we are faced with the same position. The Indians have entered the Transvaal; they have bought and occupied properties in a manner which was tantamount to an evasion of the law. If the Prime Minister now refuses to rectify what was done unlawfully and if by legislation he condones what the Indians did, what is the use of warning them at this stage to be careful? They will simply ignore this warning, because they will expect a similar Bill to be applied to them at some future date in order to condone their action. By rejecting our amendment the Prime Minister does not alleviate the position in the Transvaal. Then I want to come back to a point that was touched upon by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). It seems to me that the Prime Minister is not clear on this point. The hon. member explained to the Prime Minister that in terms of the Bill, where an Indian leases a shop from a European on the latter’s farm, the European cannot lease the shop in question in the future to anyone except an Indian. The Prime Minister says that when the contract of lease expires or when the owner cancels the lease, he has the right to lease the shop to a European, but in an urban area he has not got that right.

He has not got the right anywhere.

I am setting out the Prime Minister’s explanation. We must have clarity on this point as to whether there can be a difference between a business on the platteland and a business in the town. According to the Prime Minister’s statement the person on the platteland will be entitled to transfer the contract to a European, but in our opinion he will not be able to do so. I think it is very important to have more clarity on this point, and I want to ask the Prime Minister in all seriousness to be more explicit on this point. One hardly finds any Government member getting up to contradict us and to find fault with our arguments on this side. That clearly proves to me that our claim on this side is very reasonable. One of the few members who got up was the hon. member for Vereeniging (Lt.-Col. Rood). The hon. member for Boshof (Mr. Serfontein) got him into such difficulties, however, that later on he was completely confused. He went so far as to say that if we allow servants to live in our backyards …

Order, order. The hon. member is now advancing the same argument as was advanced by the hon. member for Boshof.

In any event I fully agree with him. In the Transvaal we have an Indian population of approximately 30,000 only. In Natal there are more than 200,000 Indians and we notice today what difficulties are being experienced in Natal. Last Friday we tried in vain to persuade the Prime Minister to accept a similar amendment with reference to Natal. There is not such a big Indian population in the Transvaal as yet, and I think there is still a chance today to save the Transvaal from the position in which Natal finds itself, by accepting this amendment.

The interpretation of the clause given by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has my hearty support. I think it is the only correct construction to place on it. The position is that the “fixed date” is the date which decides what kind of premises are occupied on that date. The status of the premises on that date—if I may use the expression— defines the colour of those premises. It is not a question of the position altering again if that right of occupation lapses. It can only change if a permit has been asked for and obtained. That is the only thing that can change it. Thus we have the instance cited by the hon. member for Waterberg regarding the trading premises leased by an Asiatic on the fixed date; they remain premises which can only be occupied by an Asiatic, in perpetuity, unless a permit is obtained. But now I wish to go further. Apparently the Prime Minister did not realise it, if one may judge by his interjection here, but the position is even more serious than this, and it is that in reference to trading premises that are used exclusively for trading purposes and not for occupation. Clause 5 provides absolutely no protection. Clause 5 is specifically excluded by clause 7 (2) in respect of trading premises. Thus even the position that the Prime Minister believes to exist in respect of the case mentioned here by the hon. member for Waterberg does not exist at all. When you read clause 7 (2) you will see that the provisions of clauses 4 and 5 prohibit no one from occupying any land or premises used exclusively for business or trading purposes for the carrying out of which a licence is required by law. Thus, as far as trading premises are concerned, the protection the Prime Minister thought existed in clause 5 does not exist at all. It goes even much further than what the hon. member for Waterberg believed. In other words, in respect of new areas there exists today absolutely no prohibition on the owner of premises in a white area, if I may so express it, from leasing those premises for trading purposes to an Indian. He can do this freely even though on the fixed date they were not leased to an Indian, and you will see how serious the repercussions of that are. So long as he does not reside on the premises in which he carries on business, an Asiatic may today acquire as many new properties as he wishes without a permit. He does not even need to get a permit. It is a very serious position that is being created by this Bill, and I do not know whether hon. members on the other side are entirely acquainted with the lengths to which this Bill goes. But, apart from the trading premises, I shall attempt in ordinary language as simply as I possibly can to give a clear picture of the position that is being created by the Bill. You have a farm with jackalproof fencing. In the past there were holes in the jackal-proof fencing. Jackals came through the holes. What does this Bill do? It says: I shall close those holes, but I shall admit jackals all the same in certain cicumstances, namely, with a permit. But what happens now to the jackals already inside?

You are not allowed to kill them.

You cannot drive out the jackals that are already in there, not even with a permit, unless they desire that themselves. In other words, the jackals have to come and ask for the permit if they had the right to occupation there on the fixed daté; then it must remain for another jackal, even though the jackal may still be outside. That land may not be sold or let by the owner of the farm, it must be reserved for another jackal. You will see if it is put in that way it gives protection to the people who have already come in through the holes. What we are asking here in this amendment is that the owner or the occupier, if the occupation right of the present holder lapses, will not have the right to lease to another Indian or to grant him the right of occupation, or the Indian who is in occupation may not sublease to another Indian. This is what we are asking here, that we should not need to wait until the jackals already in come along and say that they now want to leave; we must not wait until they come and ask for a permit to leave. But we say: If your right has lapsed you must go out, and you may not lease or give occupation of those premises to any person other than a European. And it is that position that the Prime Minister wishes to perpetuate. Take the case the hon. member for Waterberg mentioned here. On the fixed date an Indian was in occupation of a shop on my farm. He had to remain there; he could not leave; even if his occupational right expired it had to be leased to another Indian, unless a permit is obtained. If you have a Minister who will not grant a permit, that jackal will for ever remain in that camp, and that is what we do not want. We desire that the jackal who has come in should remain as long as the occupational right exists, but when that occupational right expires then the owner should not again have the right to lease to another Indian, and that Indian must not have the right to a new lease contract for occupation after his present contract has lapsed. I think if hon. members opposite, especially members from the Transvaal, gain a proper understanding of the implications of this clause, they will feel that what the Prime Minister professes he is doing is something that can only perpetuate the evil that exists at present, and then they will not be able to ao anything else but support the amendment of the hon. member for wonderboom (Mr. Nel).

I was glad the Prime Minister said that he wished to make very clear to the Committee this clause in the Bill before the Committee is asked to vote on it, and to obtain clarity I should now like to ask the Prime Minister a reasonable question. I ask him whether it is the case or not that this clause as it now stands in respect of occupation will even legalise illegal occupation.

It is legal occupation.

Even the illegal occupation?

No, it must be legal occupation. The clause says: If it was legally occupied by an Asiatic on a fixed date.

There are many of them who have penetrated illegally under the old laws. That gave rise to the Pegging Act. The Prime Minister said so. I would merely say that our aim with this amendment is as follows: The Prime Minister said with us that a situation exists that is wrong, and that situation has arisen where mixed occupation has occurred, and now we want to put an end to that intermingling of homes, but where there is mixed living we also want to remove it. The difficulty is that that spot, that diseased spot, remains there. It does not help to say now that you are going to treat the rest of the body but that you will do nothing at the seat of the disease —to that sore. And this is the point in connection with this Bill. Nothing is being done to that sore place. I would ask the Prime Minister whether he sees no chance of introducing legislation to make provision for creating a healthy position over the whole of the Transvaal and the whole country so that where there is friction and where that friction every day leads to clashes it will be eliminated. Does he see no chance of doing that? That is what we wish in this amendment, and let me put it in this way. If this clause is adopted as it stands it means this, that the Europeans who are now living alongside the Indians will be in the position I have already explained, and I will put it again as I did this morning. Here we have A, B and C alongside each other. A and C are Europeans but B is an Indian. I am only speaking now of occupation. They are living alongside each other and these Europeans, A and C, are in trouble on account of B living between them. Now I want to put this question: So long as B wants to live there so long can this law do nothing to him. He cannot be removed from there. The Prime Minister knows this is so. He knows that as long as the Indian desires to live between these Europeans—it depends on his wish—so long is this law unable to touch him even with a permit. For the sake of clarity I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether that is so or not. It is so, and now we ask again why should we have a position such as this that is unsound and which is the cause of the symptoms that have necessitated this legislation—why should we allow those conditions to remain? Can we with a clear conscience go to the country and say to the country: Here we are making an attempt to solve that problem if we allow those sore spots that are there simply to remain untouched and untreated and allow them to fester and expand. It was very strange to me that the hon. member for Ermelo (Mr. Jackson) stood up here and stated that the desired position will be achieved with this clause as it stands but he does not tell this Committee what the desired position is. Is that not remarkable? Here a member of Parliament stands up in this House and he argues for a state of affairs which he regards as desirable, but he refuses to define what that desirable state of affairs is in his opinion, and here the hon. member for Ermelo has revealed that he and his friends on the other side are divided on an important matter such as this, and consequently the hon. member for Ermelo may not say what he wishes to, because then a second man will also say what he wants to, and a third man will do likewise. We do not know what the hon. member for Ermelo considers the desirable state of affairs, but I assume there are members on the other side, even though there are only a few, who regard the desirable state of affairs in the same way as we on this side do, as a state of affairs in which there will be separation of Europeans and non-Europeans. But the hon. member may not say this, and if he does say it then the Minister of Finance can rise in his place and say that the desirable state of affairs, in his opinion, is one of intermingled homes.

As he said at the Witwatersrand University.

But what seems to me to be the most serious and the most tragic phenomenon of the whole day is this: Numbers of members sitting on the other side do not know what the implications of this Bill are; they do not know for what they are voting when they vote for the clause, but they thought—and I say this explicitly and emphatically—they thought it did not matter if they did not know what stood in the Bill because the Prime Minister knew at any rate, and what do they discover now? Now they discover that the Prime Minister himself is ignorant of the implications of that clause. It has been very clearly put to him by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) what the present position is and he mentioned the specific case of a lease being terminated and when that lease is terminated those premises cannot come into the hands of the Europeans. He presented that point with great clarity; anyone could understand it, even a child, and I expected, and I think hon. members on the other side also expected and are still expecting, that the Prime Minister would rise and make it clear to the hon. member for Waterberg that his interpretation is erroneous and that his, the Prime Minister’s, interpretation is right. He did not do so. He knows perfectly well that the interpretation given by the hon. member for Waterberg is absolutely correct. He knows that the proposition of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) is entirely correct. When he made an interjection he gave the impression that he would regard it as wrong if this was not so.

If the Act is as we interpret it then he would regard it as wrong.

Yes, if the Bill is as we interpret it he would consider it wrong. I would again put the question to the Prime Minister; he has apparently consulted his law advisers. Let him frankly tell the House what interpretation the law advisers gave to this point mentioned by the hon. member for Waterberg, and if the law advisers say that the construction placed on it by the hon. member for Waterberg is right he is faced with this alternative: Either he must defend the fact that the Bill states that the Indian will remain there in perpetuity even when the lease expires; or, he must introduce an amendment making provision in the sense of what we are advocating here, and that is separation. We have had many disappointments, and if the general public could have attended this debate from the 25th of last month I have not the slightest doubt what their verdict would be in regard to members on the other side. But in order that our disappointment and the disappointment of the general public will not be intensified I would again ask the Prime Minister, in a friendly and reasonable way, to stand up and reply to the point that was made by the hon. member for Waterberg, and to give the House and the country an explanation of that point.

We are now giving him a chance.

Here we have a serious difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) and the standpoint that the latter took up supports what the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) said as to the actual legal position in connection with the interpretation of this clause and I ask the Prime Minister’ in all fairness whether this is not a good reason to wish that this clause should stand over until one knows exactly what the position is.

There is such a serious difference of opinion between the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom), whose attitude in connection with the legal position under this clause is endorsed by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges), that I want to ask the Prime Minister in all fairness to kt this clause stand over until we know precisely what the legal position is in connection with the interpretation of this clause. I hope the Prime Minister is right in his interpretation of the clause. If that is the case, it meets our position, although it is not what we want. As I read it, the hon. member for Waterberg is correct. Let us take a simple example. Take the case of a farm in a district like Pietersburg where a site has been leased to an Indian. He lives there; he occupies it. His contract of lease will expire in two years. Before it expires this Bill becomes law and comes into operation by proclamation in the Government Gazette. The owner of the land, as this clause reads, will then not have the right to lease the land to another European. He will not be allowed to lease it to a European. Surely that is not reasonable. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister says that the hon. member for Waterberg and the hon. member for Fauresmith are wrong; but why not put the matter beyond all doubt by providing that upon the expiration of contracts falling outside an Asiatic area, or whatever these areas may be called, the Asiatic will no longer have the right to obtain the site. Then it will be clear. I think the Prime Minister himself feels that as he put it originally it was not right, and I want to ask him to let it stand over so that there will be an opportunity to make sure what the position actually is. If the position is as stated by the hon. member for Waterberg, let us make the necessary provision. Surely that is fair, because the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Waterberg are agreed as to what the position should be, but the hon. member for Waterberg feels that it is not covered by this clause. I want to move therefore—

Since there is a difference of opinion and since it must be clear to the Prime Minister that his original interpretation was wrong, surely it is no more than courteous to allow this clause to stand over.

Put this proposal to the vote.

When I gave my interpretation of the clause the Prime Minister stated that it was wrong, that it could not be correct. In other words, if the position is as I put it, the Prime Minister is also opposed to it and he is in favour of the lessor having the right, upon the expiry of the contract of lease, to lease the property to whoever he pleases. The Prime Minister has come to the conclusion that his original interpretation was not correct, and in all fairness we can surely expect the Prime Minister to say that until such time as the clause has been amended to conform to his intention, we will not pass it. According to the Prime Minister’s remarks, it is clear that the effect of this Bill is not what he intended. If that is so, why does the Prime Minister allow this clause first to be rectified because he realises that an injustice has been perpetrated? I think it is unheard of that in conducting a debate on a serious matter such as this the responsible Minister should get up only once on each clause, and whatever arguments may be advanced he does not take part in the debate again. Surely that is discourteous to the House. We are not dealing with this matter in a frivolous manner; we are advancing the most serious arguments. His own lawyers tell him that we are right. What is our position going to be if members of this House are treated in this way, and, moreover, by the Prime Minister? The Prime Minister is adopting an insulting attitude. He adopts the attitude that it does not matter what we say, even though he realises that he is wrong; he has taken up a certain stand once and for all and he is not going to depart from it. Surely we cannot behave in that way in Parliament, and in that way there can be no co-operation. Why does the Prime Minister place legislation before the House if we are not allowed to discuss it? If he himself realises that he is wrong, what is the use of arguing and bringing legislation before the House? In that case he might just as well apply the guillotine from the very beginning; explain the clause for five minutes and then apply the closure and let us vote upon it. In that case he will be the only person to talk. The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister is not only making a farce of this House but he is adopting an attitude which is really unworthy of him. The hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé) made a fair proposal, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister now realises that this clause means something quite different from what he told the House at the beginning, he ought to accept this proposal until the clause has been put in order. I think we can expect that of the Prime Minister in all fairness.

I should like to discuss the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel).

The Committee is now dealing with the motion that the further consideration of the clause should stand over.

I should like to support this motion and state just a few reasons why I support it, particularly in view of the position in the Transvaal. There are many cases of occupation; the position is serious, and for that reason the Prime Minister ought to accept this motion. I want to mention a few examples.

The hon. member must confine himself to the motion of the hon. member for Pietersburg (Mr. Naudé).

I should like to mention a few examples to indicate why this motion ought to be accepted. There is the question of trading licences. In 1945 no less than 6,467 trading licences were issued in the Transvaal. That indicates how important this matter is. But that is not all. The Minister stated in reply to a question that in the Transvaal there were 3,499 commercial businesses….

The hon. member cannot go into that now.

My submission is that the question of trading licences is relevant to this clause and the reasons why this clause should stand over. The hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom) has referred to the position of sites which have been leased and trading licences which have been issued in connection with those sites.

The hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) must confine himself to reasons as to why this clause should stand over.

On a further point of order, my submission is that the reasons advanced by the hon. member are reasons why, in his view, this matter should stand over. The hon. member for Waterberg mentioned only one specific example which constitutes a danger. My submission is that the hon. member for Wonderboom is in order.

The hon. member cannot go further into the details, but must confine himself to the motion that the further consideration of this clause should stand over.

The number of existing London businesses….

The hon. member may not go further into the details.

In any event, I want to conclude by supporting this motion most strongly. It has now been proved that there is a difference of opinion, and for that reason the Prime Minister ought to accept this motion.

The Committee divided:

Ayes—48:

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Noes—74:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Strafford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Motion accordingly negatived.

I should like to move my amendment on this matter. I move—

The hon. member does not need to put his amendment. If the clause is rejected he can move his amendment.

I understand your ruling is that the hon. member can only move his amendment after the clause is rejected. I wish to move the following amendment—

The Prime Minister will see what the purpose of the amendment is, namely, to put the position as the Prime Minister thought it stood. When he replied to me he said that when the lease expired the European could, under this section, lease the land to Europeans. It transpired this was not the case and that the position is as I have put it, namely, that if the European leases the land or the shop to an Asiatic who is in legal occupation of it on the fixed date that European cannot, under clause 5, lease that property to anyone else except an Asiatic unless he obtains a permit from the Minister. Consequently I now move to insert in the clause that if a European has given a lease of land or premises to an Asiatic, which is regarded as legal occupation, then on the expiry of the lease he can lease the land to any other person, without obtaining a permit under clause 8. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister was in the first instance under the impression that what I envisaged with my amendment was really contained in the clause, I want to make an appeal to him to accept this amendment. Then the clause will mean what the Prime Minister thought it meant in the first instance. I hope that not only the Prime Minister but members on the other side will agree with me that we shall have to modify the clause in such a way that where an Asiatic leases a store or other property from a European, that European will have the full right without the consent of the Minister to lease it to a person other than an Asiatic.

The Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister has just told the House that this clause 5 improves the position in the Transvaal. This is, however, not the case, it does not improve the position. Take the position of a farmer who has leased a shop on his farm to an Indian for three years. He always had the right, when the period of three years elapsed, to lease the shop to someone else. Now, however, the Prime Minister imposes a restriction on that owner so that he may only lease to an Indian.

What about the permit?

The permit system is an incidental matter that we cannot take into consideration here. The Prime Minister has stated that the position has improved and I am proving that this is not the case. If I had a farm and there was a shop on that farm that I leased to an Indian, I was at liberty on the expiry of the contract to lease the shop to a European. But under this Bill I may not do so. I am obliged to lease it to an Indian again, although I may wish to lease the shop to a European. That is an abridgment of my right. How hon. members on the other side can convince me letting this clause 5 go through I cannot understand.

You forget that he can do it with a permit.

In connection with that, a committee must be consulted. There is a whole rigmarole in connection with the matter. The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) is a lawyer, and will he tell me that this clause 5 is not an abridgment of the legal position of a European owner? Previously a man did not require a permit; it was not necessary for him to make an application, but he had the right, and now he has to make application so that the decision is being left to someone else whether he may lease the shop to a European. The position has been fairly put by the hon. member for Waterberg (Mr. J. G. Strydom). It is a curtailment of the rights of Europeans in the Transvaal, and I cannot realise how members on the opposite side cannot see that. They are now going to resort to a Board that will have to decide on the matter. The decision of that Board is not final, they only advise the Minister. The hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Madeley) has already shown what influences may be exercised on the members of the Board and on the Minister. If the amendment of the hon. member for Wonderboom (Mr. Nel) is adopted, all that difficulty will be at an end, and then the Prime Minister can say that the position has been made easier. But how he can say at present that the position is being rendered easier and more favourable to the Europeans in the Transvaal I cannot fathom when I look into the provisions of this clause.

As the law stands now in the Transvaal, if a European owns a site which he has leased to an Indian, whether it be in town or on the platteland, he has the right, after the expiry of the lease, to lease it to any European, and there is no law to prevent it. This clause now prevents the European from doing so. Moreover, not only the European who entered into the contract is forbidden to do it, but if B has a farm on which a shop has been leased to a coolie, and A subsequently buys the farm, he, too, is not allowed to lease the shop to a European. He cannot do it unless the Minister grants him a permit to lease the shop or land to someone else. The right of the European is simply being handed over to the Indian. Has the hon. member for Pretoria (District) (Mr. Prinsloo) something to say perhaps? Now the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. Faure) and the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. J. M. Conradie) say that this man can obtain a permit to lease the land to a European. I want to say this: What assurance have they got that the Minister of the Interior or the Minister of Finance will grant such a permit? Let me put it to the test, and I hope the Prime Minister will be prepared to reply. Take places like Nylstroom, Rustenburg and Bronkhorstspruit, for example….

The shops on the farms have all been leased to Indians by Nationalists.

The hon. member is talking nonsense. I could mention numerous cases where shops have been leased by S.A.P.s to Indians.

I am referring to Rustenburg.

I could mention numerous cases where shops have been leased to coolies by S.A.P.s. The hon. member must not talk such nonsense. It will pay him better not to make any interjections, because every time he makes an interjection he makes a fool of himself. Take those three places I mentioned a moment ago. There is quite a number of Indian shops which have been leased to them by Europeans.

Not at Bronkhorstspruit.

If the hon. member goes to the registration office he will find out that what I am saying here is true. Let me put this test. The Prime Minister refers to clause 8, which makes provision for permits. Will he give me a guarantee that in the towns of Rustenburg, Nylstroom and Bronkhorstspruit permits will be issued if the European owners of those shops want to lease the shops to Europeans?

It must be investigated.

While his Government is in power not a single European will be given a permit to lease those shops to other Europeans. The Prime Minister is not prepared to give me such a guarantee, but I am prepared to give him that guarantee.

Your guarantee is not worth anything.

I am saying that to hon. members on the other side, and in a few years time they can see for themselves whether any European has leased property, formerly occupied by an Indian, to a European shopkeeper. Not a single permit will be issued.

How do you know that?

I can tell it from the Prime Minister’s attitude. At the beginning of the discussion on clause 5, when I pointed out to the Prime Minister that it was unfair to prohibit a European from giving a lease on his property to a European without a permit, if the property in question was occupied by an Indian, the Prime Minister stated that that was not the position. In the meantime he has discovered that his attitude is wrong, and that the legal position is as I explained it to him. I then asked him in all fairness to accept an amendment which will so amend the clause that it will be in conformity with his original intention, and the Prime Minister refused to accept it. He had an opportunity of amending this clause to read as he thought it should read, namely, that the European will have the right to lease such property to a European, and he refused to do it. That ought to be clear to every child, and having regard to that I predict that no permits of this nature will be issued, and I have not the slightest fear that I am wrong.

This matter is very serious and it is becoming more and more serious. In my constituency there are various shops on the platteland which are being leased by Asiatics from European owners. Those European owners will not have the right to remove the Asiatics from their land, and in those circumstances I say that this is an encroachment on private rights. In Lichtenburg there are quite a number of Asiatics on farms who have hired sites for trading purposes, and now I have to go back to my constituents and tell them that as the law now stands they cannot get rid of those Asiatics. They will feel bitterly disappointed and I believe they will definitely declare themselves against this Bill. Then there is another matter that I should like to bring to the notice of the Prime Minister. I have said that the Asiatic acquired land in a very cunning way. That is the case in Lichtenburg, too. We know that in areas where Asiatics live the neighbourhood is not always tidy. This matter became so serious that one of our Dutch churches was obliged to sell the church building to get away from the neighbourhood in question. The Prime Minister can institute investigations and he will find that the congregation is now having another church built. They sold the building to the Transvaal Provincial Administration and they did so at a great loss in order to get away from that neighbourhood. Then there is another Dutch church which is exposed to the danger of Indian penetration. We had hoped in Lichtenburg that at some future date we would be able to rid ourselves of the Indians who had pentrated into that area, but in terms of this Bill we will never succeed in doing it. We will be at our wits’ end if this Bill goes through. Do hon. members on the other side realise what our position is? I am extremely sorry that the Prime Minister does not want to accept this amendment. I also want to state very clearly that we do not believe in the permit system. We will not be able to remove the Asiatics as long as we have to obtain permits. The people will not be able to get those permits. I am convinced that this is a very serious matter and I want to make an appeal to the Prime Minister to be accommodating in this case and to accept this amendment.

Question put: That the words “except under the authority of a permit issued under section 8” in lines 73 and 74, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the clause, and a division was called.

As fewer than ten members (viz. Messrs. Acutt, H. J. Cilliers, Derbyshire, Madeley, Marwick, Neate, Col. Stallard and Mr. van den Berg) voted against the Question, the Deputy-Chairman declared it affirmed and the amendment proposed by Mr. van den Berg negatived.

Amendment proposed by Mr. J. G. Strydom put, and the Committee divided:

Ayes—49.

Acutt, F. H.

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Erink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Madeley, W. B.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz, F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

Tellers: J. F. T. Naudé and P. O. Sauer.Noes—77.

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis, A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson, R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P. V. G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H. J. L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Amendment accordingly negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 6,

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the following amendment to clause 6 of the Bill as printed—

I wish to move the amendment standing in my name—

Well, under the provisions which the Committee has accepted up to the present time, the matter is of first class importance to the owners of the neighbouring buildings as to what this determination may be. It is not only a question whether the owner is affected by the determination which is here made, but it is a question which all his neighbours on the other side of the street or on the same side of the street may be very much interested in indeed, and yet this clause provides that the person who can put this machinery into motion is the owner. He has to put in a written application; and he can put in his application without anybody else knowing, and at any time he chooses. He may for certain reasons think it is better to keep quiet for a time, and he might put in his application at a particular moment when he thinks others have gone to sleep. He may quickly, and without any notice being taken by those who surround him, make his determination. In his written application he can, I suppose, set out the facts which have a bearing upon the decision. I presume that it is on the statement of facts contained in this written application that the determination will have to be made. The Board, and in due course the Minister, will have to come to a conclusion on the facts, and the facts may not be stated accurately or completely, and a wrong decision may be given. Surely, Mr. Chairman, it is right and proper that any other person who is interested, and who might have other ideas as to what the facts are, should have the opportunity of placing his views or statement of facts before the tribunal who make the decision. There is no provision for them in this draft clause as it stands, and the amendment which I propose will disturb in the least possible way the framework of the Bill. I have in the amendments for which I am responsible endeavoured to observe what the Prime Minister commented on this morning, i.e., the undesirability of proposing something which will have a destructive effect on other clauses of the Bill. I have reduced the proposals I have to make to the very minimum, and I suggest here that “the owner” should be supplemented by “any person interested”. I ask the Prime Minister to accept that; it can do no harm, and anybody may avoid some very important and very wrong decision by bringing a proper statement of the case to the notice of those who have to act.

I move the amendment standing in my name on page 449—

In this clause there seems to have been an entirely illogical distinction drawn between property owned by an individual and property owned by a body corporate. So far as the individual is concerned where he owns land which is not occupied he has the right to occupy that land himself or through some other person of his own race. As far as the company is concerned, in terms of the definition in clause 1 an Asiatic company is an Asiatic company, and a European company would be a European company, but where an Asiatic company owns vacant land the right it now has to put people of its own race on to its own land is interfered with by this clause. I do not understand why this distinction is drawn. The position before this Bill becomes law would be that an Asiatic company could, if it liked, let land to Asiatics, and it seems to be contemplated where you have an Asiatic company a decision has to be made whereby it may have to put European tenants into the premises. You are going to compel an Asiatic company to be the landlord of Europeans, and vice versa, you are going to compel a European company to be the landlord of Asiatics. I do not see any reason for that under the scheme proposed by this Bill and the amendment which I move will preserve the same basis of decision as to who is the occupier of vacant land, whether he is an individual or a company. Companies have been given a racial character as far as the Bill is concerned. An Asiatic company is defined and any company falling outside that definition would not be an Asiatic company. The intention was not to take away the available living space for this class of non-Europeans—I think the Prime Minister made that clear—and I urge him to accept this amendment, that where Asiatic companies have legitimate claims under the law as it exists before this Act comes into force, and have acquired land, they should have the right, in the same way as an individual, to put people of their own race into occupation of the premises or land.

I wish to point out to the hon. member for Cape Western (Mr. Molteno) that a distinction is made here, and distinct procedure is laid down with respect to companies, because so much controversy arises with these companies, partly Asiatic or mostly Asiatic. It is in order to tighten up that procedure we have made a special case, in sub-section (2), of the companies so that a closer check can be kept on their proceedings.

With regard to the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) that for owner”, where the owner is a company, there shall be substituted “any person interested” I think surely that is much too vague. In any case under clause 12 this application has to be published, it has to be examined. My hon. friend will see that under clause 12 every determination to be made under clause 6 (2), which is the matter in question here, shall be published for the information of the public. The whole procedure is laid down in the amendment I am moving. I am moving an amendment for the publication of these applications, there is due consideration, nothing can be done sub rosa, there can be no secrecy or evasion. So it is quite unnecessary to substitute “any person interested” for “owner”. All those interested will get notice through the publication of the documents. I do not think this amendment is called for.

The Prime Minister puts his proposition in a way which I submit is self-destructive. He says all persons interested will have a chance to put their their objections under the amendment he is moving to Section 12; and in the next breath he said that the words “any person interested” are too vague. If they are too vague why is the opportunity given to persons interested to make their objection under clause 12? If it is too vague in the one case it is too vague in the other; if it is sufficient in the one case it is sufficient in the other; and I do not think that the Rt. Hon. gentleman himself, or the board, or the Minister or anybody else would have the slightest difficulty in saying whether an application or a statement of fact was made by the person interested or not.

May I call the Prime Minister’s attention to the wording of the amendment he proposes in clause 12, “before advising the Minister”. It does not say “before making a determination.”

The determination is made later by the Minister.

It does not say that the board shall publish before advising the Minister. I think the wording must be slightly altered to make it perfectly plain that it is before the board considers the matter that the application shall be published. It would do away with any ambiguity.

I think that the Prime Minister’s suggestion that the point is covered by clause 12 is really not a complete answer. It is true in terms of clause 12, as it will now be amended, all parties interested will have notice and they will have an opportunity of lodging their objections. But I think the point the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) wants to emphasise is that every party must have the right of initiating, not merely complaining afterwards; he should have the right to set in motion the proceedings under clause 6. The other argument of the Prime Minister is that the words are too vague; but are they so vague? Apart from the point that has been made that they are used for the purpose of section 12, and that the Prime Minister apparently is of opinion that the words are not vague in that connection, it has been a general practice in the Statute Book to employ the term “person aggrieved” and it has never been said that the words are too vague to be given a definite legal connotation. If the phrase “person aggrieved” is not too vague why should “any person interested” be too vague? So I think even on that ground the Prime Minister’s argument does not sound very convincing. But if there is any doubt about the matter, about formulating it into more precise language, would the Prime Minister undertake to have that amendment put in at a later date in order to make it less vague and to make it cover the same ground as is covered by the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District)?

It seems to me that the clause as printed denies to anyone but the owner the right to put into motion the procedure set out in the Bill. Surely circumstances may frequently arise in which a person other than the owner may find it desirable and necessary to take action which the owner is permitted to take. It seems to me it would be only reasonable to make this term sufficiently inclusive to allow such persons to act in a case of that kind. There are so many people affected by the circumstances of Indian residence, or the absence of it, that I cannot think of any circumstances in which the term “any person interested” could be barred on the ground that it was too vague, or that it would include too many people. The owner may hold the property, but his presence there may be an offence to a very large number of people, particularly if he is a man with a bad record.

As the clause stands it would apparently lie in the hands of the owner to secure there never should be a determination at all. The only person who can put this machinery in motion is the owner. Supposing the owner does not take any action then what is contemplated here is a decision and a determination which will settle the matter definitely is hung up and is sidetracked and is avoided altogether. I do not know whether the Prime Minister and his advisers really contemplated that and intended that. On his own interpretation of this clause, from the very introduction of the clause, it is desirable that corporate bodies and companies should get a determination. As the Prime Minister said, this has been one of the most fruitful causes of dissension. If it is desirable to get a decision it is desirable to get a decision at the first opportunity. The person most interested in avoiding a decision may be the owner, and yet the setting afoot of all this procedure is confined to the owner himself, whose interest it may be not to have a determination of any kind or description.

I will explain to you, I do not think you understand it.

I am glad the Prime Minister is going to explain it, and I hope that in the course of his explanation he will see cause to accept the amendment. Mày I point out that in his own amendment to clause 12 the invitation he proposes there is being given to “all persons who have an interest therein.” Why then tell the Committee that the expression I used was too vague; it is the very expression he uses.

I think there is some misunderstanding by my hon. friend. I am surprised an acute lawyer like him should miss the point. The Bill lays down that where a company erects a building or has land for occupation it cannot be occupied at all unless its character is first determined. The person who is most interested to have the occupation is the owner. The owner wants to have his property occupied, but he cannot have it occupied because its character has first to be determined—whether it is Asiatic or European. So he makes application. So he makes an application. He wants to have the character of his property determined. When he makes this application he has to publish a notice in the newspapers, and bring it to the notice of all concerned, and all concerned can object to the occupation of this property by Asiatics or Europeans, as the case may be. I think the position is perfectly plain and simple. It is workable. It is the only way in which it can be done. It is for the owner to make the application. It is to his interests primarily to see that the character of his property is determined. Otherwise he cannot let it.

He cannot use it.

That is so. It seems as clear as a pikestaff, and I am sorry my hon. friend cannot see the point.

The Prime Minister will forgive me if I say that his explanation is exactly what I expected it to be, namely, a repetition of the phraseology of the Bill as it stands. The hon. member admits on the one hand that there may be people interested, because he takes credit for the amendment which he is going to introduce to say that everyone who is interested shall have a chance to be heard. Now, in his so-called explanation to me he says that the owner is the only person interested because he is primarily concerned with getting his property occupied. He may be. But he may not put forward his case at once. He may put forward a certain statement of fact, or he may not. He is following the very course that in his latest commandment the Prime Minister proposes to introduce for securing that ab initio other persons than the owner may institute this machinery.

Amendments proposed by Mr. Molteno put and negatived, and the first amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Question put: That the words “the owner” in line 21, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause, upon which the Committee divided:

Ayes—79:

Abbott, C. B. M.

Abrahamson, H.

Allen, F. B.

Ballinger, V. M. L.

Barlow, A. G.

Bekker, H. J.

Bell, R. E.

Bosman, J. C.

Bosman, L. P.

Bowen, R. W.

Bowker, T. B.

Butters, W. R.

Carinus, J. G.

Christie, J.

Clark, C. W.

Connan, J. M.

Conradie, J. M.

Davis,. A.

De Kock, P. H.

Delport, G. S. P.

De Wet, P. J.

Dolley, G.

Du Toit, A. C.

Du Toit, R. J.

Eksteen, H. O.

Faure, J. C.

Fawcett, R. M.

Fourie, J. P.

Friedman, B.

Goldberg, A.

Gray, T. P.

Hare, W. D.

Hemming, G. K.

Henny, G. E. J.

Heyns, G. C. S.

Hofmeyr, J. H.

Hopf, F.

Howarth, F. T.

Humphreys, W. B.

Jackson, D.

Johnson, H. A.

Kentridge, M.

Latimer, A.

McLean, J.

Maré, F. J.

Moll, A. M.

Molteno, D. B.

Mushet, J. W.

Payn, A. O. B.

Payne, A. C.

Pieterse, E. P.

Pocock, P. V.

Prinsloo, W. B. J.

Robertson. R. B.

Rood, K.

Russell, J. H.

Shearer, O. L.

Shearer, V. L.

Smuts, J. C.

Solomon, B.

Solomon, V. G. F.

Sonnenberg, M.

Steenkamp, L. S.

Stratford, J. R. F.

Sullivan, J. R.

Tighy, S. J.

Tothill, H. A.

Ueckermann, K.

Van der Byl, P.V.G.

Van der Merwe, H.

Van Niekerk, H.J.L.

Van Onselen, W. S.

Visser, H. J.

Waring, F. W.

Warren, C. M.

Waterson, S. F.

Williams, H. J.

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

Noes—48:

Bekker, G. F. H.

Bekker, H. T. van G.

Boltman, F. H.

Bremer, K.

Brink, W. D.

Cilliers, H. J.

Conradie, J. H.

Derbyshire, J. G.

Döhne, J. L. B.

Dönges, T. E.

Erasmus, F. C.

Erasmus, H. S.

Fouché, J. J.

Grobler, D. C. S.

Haywood, J. J.

Kemp, J. C. G.

Klopper, H. J.

Le Roux, J. N.

Le Roux, S. P.

Louw, E. H.

Ludick, A. I.

Luttig, P. J. H.

Malan, D. F.

Marwick, J. S.

Mentz. F. E.

Neate, C.

Nel, M. D. C. de W.

Olivier, P. J.

Pieterse, P. W. A.

Potgieter, J. E.

Serfontein, J. J.

Stallard, C. F.

Stals, A. J.

Steyn, A.

Steyn, G. P.

Strauss, E. R.

Strydom, G. H. F.

Strydom, J. G.

Swanepoel, S. J.

Van den Berg, M. J.

Van Niekerk, J. G. W.

Van Nierop, P. J.

Vosloo, L. J.

Werth, A. J.

Wessels, C. J. O.

Wilkens, J.

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

Question accordingly affirmed and the amendment proposed by Col. Stallard dropped.

Remaining amendment proposed by the Prime Minister put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On clause 7,

I beg to move the amendment standing in my name—

Sub-section (3), of course, depends on subsection (2), which narrows down very sharply indeed the provision which has been previously accepted. The provisions of sections 4 and 5 which the Committee has already accepted are not to prohibit any person from occupying any land or premises exclusively for the purpose of carrying on a business or trade for which a licence is required under any law. This provision throws it entirely open to any Asiatic to occupy any property anywhere exclusively for the purpose of carrying on a trade or business. I will deal with the question of a trade licence in a moment, but that is the effect of these clauses, that for business purposes, as opposed to residential purposes, any Asiatic, or European too, can occupy any premises for business in any place. Mr. Chairman, that seems to me to be a colossal error, which cuts straight across the line of division drawn between the treatment of matters of Asiatic policy and matters of European policy. The trouble that has developed and which we all regret very deeply concerns the carrying on of businesses It is quite true that the juxtaposition in residence has perhaps been more important in the towns, but the acquisition of business premises in juxtaposition to those of the other races is an increasing source of trouble, and an increasing source of potential irritation, to which this Bill is supposed to give the quietus as far as possible. I feel that if this right, this unlimited right, to occupy premises for business purposes is extended in this way, much of the policy underlying this Bill will be defeated and its object will be destroyed. In the main streets of our big towns it will cause serious irritation to have competition of this kind continually going on. I do not think any town in the Union is likely to be exempted from it. Certainly I have seen in the newspapers recently reports that this type of competition, this type of Indian penetration, is now becoming a matter of considerable importance in the Cape Province. It is no longer confined to the Transvaal or to Natal. As regards the Transvaal, the Committee will remember that it has been Indian penetration in trading matters and the juxtaposition of trading stores owned by the two races that has been the main bone of contention. In Natal it may have been that the main contention was residential, but that is certainly the position in the Transvaal; and here, under sub-section (2), we are excepting from these sections which provide for the differentiation in treatment of the two races as regards premises on which business is done. It seems to me that this is the spirit of the Bill and therefore I move this amendment.

I would say this, further, with regard to the licensing provision here, and occupation which is exclusively for the purpose of carrying on any business or trade for which a licence is required under any law: what is the influence of that? Is it intended that where the carrying on of a business does require a licence, the Prime Minister considers that the possibilities of a licensing officer refusing such a licence are a sufficient safeguard in this respect? I imagine that that must be so. But the Prime Minister does not need me to remind him or the Committee that it is not in the power of a licensing officer to refuse a licence on the ground of any question of race with which we are primarily concerned in this Bill, and therefore I submit that it is quite idle to rely upon, if it is intended to rely upon, the effectiveness of this as being any safeguard at all. Our courts of law have decided —and I believe it was upheld in the Appellate Division—that a licensing officer is not entitled to refuse a licence on the ground of the race of the applicant. He is concerned with other considerations which are strictly laid down. But in this Bill the object is just to take into account racial differences. That is the whole object of the Bill. If it was not desired to do that, and it was not desirable to regulate these things, we would not have had the Bill before us. We know that in this Bill we are taking powers to regulate the racial relationship in residence, business and everything else, and unless this sub-section here is deleted this inter-mixture in business relationships all over the Union, and especially in Natal and the Transvaal, will not be overcome. It has been a constant source of trouble, and is a menace to peaceful relationships in future. I therefore move the deletion of these two sub-sections.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment which I wish to move, and which is printed on page 450, has almost exactly the opposite effect to that which the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) is moving. The clause, as the hon. member explained, provides for the exemption of business premises from the restrictive intentions of this Bill, but only where they are used simply and solely for the occupation for trading purposes. It does not exempt the acquisition of properties for trading purposes, nor does it permit the residence of traders on the premises which they are using for trading purposes. Now, Sir, the amendment which I am moving has the intention of exempting from the restrictive clauses of the Bill the acquisition of properties to be used for trading purposes, and the rights of those who are using these premises for carrying on a trading business to reside on the premises they are using for that purpose. Now, the Prime Minister has, I think, given us to understand that he feels that the dangerous implications of the ordinary segregation policy in restricting economic opportunity must be avoided as far as possible in the application of this Bill. He is committed, by his own statement, to the progressive improvement of the economic and social position of the Asiatic and the Indian population. He admits by the very implications of this clause as it stands that opportunities for trade are an extremely important avenue of economic development for the Asiatic population; and it is because he admits that, that I am hoping sincerely he will consider the acceptance of this amendment. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has moved the exclusion of business premises from the exemption in this Bill, on the grounds, he says, that the proximity of European and Asiatic trading interests has been a fruitful source of friction between Asiatics and Europeans in the past. That contention is not borne out by the Broome Commission itself. The Broome Commission in its report noted that in Durban the Council made no complaint in regard to trading sites at all. It stated further that the increase in the number of sites occupied by Indians in Durban since 1927 was negligible. In regard to the rest of Natal, where it found that there had been an extensive development of Asiatic trading before 1927, it maintained that there had been nothing that could be regarded as a dangerous extension of trading rights after that, and it made the very pertinent point in that regard that while the development of transport facilities was tending to centre business activities in the larger centres, in the outlying districts of the Province there were opportunities which had ceased to attract the Europeans, but still remained attractive to the Indian with his fewer material needs, and his greater concentration on business. In the circumstances I feel that the case that business interests should not be exempted has not been made; and here I want to remind the Committee again of what I am sure the Prime Minister has constantly in his mind, namely, that the Indian community is not in a position to elevate its economic and social standards by taking in its own washing. It is very important that the Indian community should have the opportunity for trading rights which it has hitherto enjoyed in Natal. In this connection I want to remind the Prime Minister that the restriction on the right of acquisition of property for trading pin-poses is going to be a serious handicap to the Asiatic trader who wants a trading licence. The Asiatic trader who does get a licence is going to be left at the mercy of the European or some other owner in the matter of getting premises in which to carry on his business. I think that provision is going to nullify the exclusion which the Prime Minister is granting in this Bill for trading premises. So far as questions of occupation are concerned, it is quite obvious that it will be practically impossible for an Asiatic to take advantage of the right of trade which is implicit in this clause where the trading site desired is in a rural area. In a rural area, if he is to be refused rights of residence in his trading site, he is entirely dependent on the right to reside on his business premises. In a rural area it is impossible for a man to carry on an effective business unless he lives on his premises. That has been established in our native areas. In those areas, where we rent sites to Europeans or to others for trading purposes, that always carries with it an automatic right of residence. In all the circumstances I trust sincerely that the Prime Minister will consider the acceptance of the amendment which I have moved. I think it is a just claim on behalf of people whose other avenues of investment and development are being very rigidly circumscribed by this Bill; and without these rights which I have asked for in this amendment, the right of trading is going to be an empty concession to them.

In the matter of the power of the licensing courts, I do not agree with the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). It is perfectly true as the hon. member says, that the licensing courts may not, in terms of the law, reject applications for licences purely and simply on the grounds of race, but I want to remind the hon. member that the licensing courts are not called upon to state the grounds of their rejection, and although I do not want to cast any reflection on the bona fides of the licensing courts, I do not doubt that there are occasions on which the racial element exercises a considerable influence. Now where a man can say: “I have a right to buy a property; this is going to be my shop,” I imagine he has much more likelihood of getting a licence than if he has to try to rent a shop from somebody else. The rural situation is particularly important. The Asiatic trader is still in the position that he can offer a very valuable service to the rural communities in the country, but that service, both to himself and to the community, is going to be restricted very considerably, unless he is to be allowed the rights of residence and of acquisition which I suggest, and I trust the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister will accept this amendment. I move—

Mr. Chairman, with regard to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard), I would like to draw the attention of the Committee and the Prime Minister to the map which accompanies the explanatory memorandum to this Bill. In the small map, which shows Durban and its environment, you will find that there is an area marked in red following what we term the new railway line to Mariannhill and Cato Ridge, and on both sides of that railway line you will find that it is all red, but before you come to the old main line and the main road from Durban to Pietermaritzburg and Volksrust, you will find that that is not coloured at all. And here is the point, practically every business from Durban to Maritzburg on that main road is held by an Asiatic. That is the position. Practically every general dealer’s business on the main road from Durban to Pietermaritzburg and Volksrust is held without exception by an Asiatic. When it comes to licences and premises where Asiatics may carry on business, even though they may not acquire premises, they will retain possession of these premises in a large number of areas and places along the main road and old main railway line, and I see no bar to the erection by them of other premises in these areas which may be owned by an Asiatic for trading purposes, although he may not reside there. That is the position which the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) will obviate. I think the matter is of sufficient importance for the Prime Minister to investigate thoroughly.

I wish to support the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). We are here dealing with a very dangerous clause, clause 7 (2). It is a clause that is in absolute conflict with the whole principle of control on which this Bill is built, as the Prime Minister has stated. He has rejected the principle of separation. Instead of that, he says the scheme of the Bill is the principle of control, in other words that the position must be stabilised. Those premises that today are occupied by Asiatics must also in the future be occupied by Asiatics, and those that today are occupied by Europeans must also be occupied by Europeans in future except when a permit is obtained. This is the principle, or the scheme, of the Bill, as he has explained it. But now in this clause we say farewell to that scheme. Now there is no further control; there is no question of stabilisation of the existing position. As far as trading premises are concerned, under this clause any Indian has absolute liberty to occupy land in any place for trading premises. This is an important departure; it is an evil and it does not fit into the pattern, into the principle of the Bill. It is something entirely foreign and I cannot really understand that the Prime Minister, after watering down the principle of separation to this principle of control and of stabilisation of the existing position, should further water down that principle of control, and in regard to trading premises give the Indian absolute liberty to occupy new land in any place, in any area, even in a European area. It is no longer a question of the jackal that is already in, but now he has given an opportunity for another jackal to come in, and that without a permit. They can come in to their hearts’ desire and settle in any place.

So long as they only sell curry and rice.

I do not know whether hon. members on that side of the House who live in Natal and the Transvaal realise the full implications of this provision.

Do you wish to prohibit trade between Europeans and Indians?

If that member can say anything that is relevant to the discussion I do not mind him interrupting me, but his interruption is just as irrelevant as his reasoning. But I say it is absolutely clear that we have here to deal with a feature that is foreign, we have here to deal with something that is absolutely strange to the nature of the Bill, and we should like to know the reason for it. Why is the Prime Minister now prepared even to throw his diluted scheme overboard and to give the free right to any Indian to occupy land to his heart’s content for the purposes of trade? Our legislation in the past has been strewn with examples of evasions of the law in respect of this matter. We have continually had to come with legislation condoning illegal acquirement of land by Indians, but it is not here a question of condoning Indians who secured land illegally, but here the gates have been thrown open wide and it is stated: You can come in here whether it is a European territory or not; we are not going to stop you; the only provision is that you may not live on the premises in which you carry on trade. That is the only qualification. Consequently we have the position when one reads the two provisions together that the Indians who are now in occupation in European areas even though they are living on their premises can remain there, not merely until their right of occupation has expired. When their right of occupation has expired the owner of those premises must again grant them to an Indian unless he is granted a permit. The Indian to whom he gives them may also live there. But apart from that, those who were not in occupation on the fixed date can take up occupation of business premises under this clause. They can take up occupation under clause 7 in any area, and I say that is a principle that is foreign; it is an absolute renunciation of the whole scheme, however watered down it may be, the whole scheme of control. We know that that scheme is defective enough when it comes to the question of control of a race like the Indians who have shown genius in the past in driving a coach and four through the Act. But now there is no attempt made even to apply the system of control in respect of them.

Does not the control lie in the granting of licences?

But what abount control in this? The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) has shown that no licensing board may today refuse a licence on grounds of race. They may not do so. If they do this it is illegal. Where are the controls then? It is not connected with the licences.

They do not need to give their reasons.

Now the hon. member says that the licensing court does not need to give its reasons. Is that an honourable way of doing it, not giving them the reasons, is that ethical? Is it morally justified to say now we are going to prohibit them in a roundabout way while we want to keep them out, why cannot we have the manliness to say that in this Bill? Now the hon. member for Pretoria (East) (Mr. Clark) suggests we should do it in another way. We must gain control by telling the licensing courts that they must not give licences to Indians, and I tell the hon. member now that the licensing court may not do that. The law does not allow that. Now he says we can do it but we need not give our reasons. Is that an honourable way of solving the problem? Hon. members on the other side have said a lot here about the question of right and justice. But I ask, where is the morality of conduct such as that of the hon. member for Pretoria (East)? If it is sought in that way to defend the violation of the scheme of the Bill, then I think the Prime Minister can say: Protect me from my friends. I ask the Prime Minister why he wishes to transgress the scheme of this Bill—the so-called scheme of control. We do not approve of it. We think it is defective, that it has shortcomings, that it gives opportunities for evasion. But there is, of course, a sort of control. What the Prime Minister proposes here, however, is the negation of all control.

I would appeal to the Prime Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Cape Eastern (Mrs. Ballinger). In the earlier stages of this discussion the Prime Minister suggested that the attitude of those who sit on these benches was not sufficiently practical with regard to this legislation. I want to point out to the Rt. Hon. gentleman that I can conceive of nothing more practical in regard to this legislation than the attitude of the Provincial Council of Natal. Vast numbers of people affected by this Bill live in Natal. The Natal Provincial Council passed a residential property ordinance which restricted occupation and acquisition of land by Asiatics in Natal to residential premises only. The restriction was applied to urban areas only, and only to residential property, and the first Broome Commission pointed out that the Durban City Council, that has been to the fore in making restrictive demands of this nature, never even raised the question of Asiatic trade. As far as the urban areas of Natal were concerned, the trade figures were given by the first Broome Commission and were very small indeed. This is the type of proposal by which we can make some test of the demands behind legislation of this kind. The kind of objection by people who do not want to live side by side with people of different colour or culture or religion is the sort of demand that can be understood; it is the sort of demand the Indian people themselves tried to satisfy. But here, as far as I can see, the demand made in the amendment by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard) relates to competition between two sets of traders. Reverting to the proposal by the hon. member for Cape Eastern, if it is unobjectionable —and it should be unobjectionable—that a man should be able to occupy property for the purposes of trade, what is the objection to his acquiring such premises? What is the objection to his owning property that he requires for his trade? You admit he can carry on his business there, so why should he not own the shop to carry on his business? So far as residence is concerned, as the hon. member for Cape Eastern has pointed out, particularly in rural areas the prohibition of residence is in fact, as conditions exist, a prohibition to carry on business, because he cannot acquire other premises, if he has a country store, other than his business premises. This whole controversy was, originally, in the main one as to juxtapositional residence. It was only when the Broome Commission sat that the question of ownership was dragged into the picture at all, and later there came the demand for restriction as far as economic rights are concerned. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said that the question of Indian trading was a cause of irritation. Does the hon. member suggest that because something is causing them irritation, a body of traders should be able to come to the House and say: “Put a stop to this, it is causing us irritation”? Or does he mean by “causing irritation” that the consumer is agitating against the trader? If so, the remedy is in the consumers’ hands. He need not go to a trader if he does not want to. If it is a rural area I can assure the hon. gentleman the store is there either because the trader was there first or because the local people wanted him there. I feel that this is not a consumer’s demand that has been made for this restriction which is demanded by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). If it was a consumer’s demand the consumer has it in his power to refrain from buying at the store. Therefore it means a demand from traders, and I submit in a purely economic matter of this kind the Government and the House ought to take independent decisions as to what the future economic system should be and whether we should allow the competitive system to operate. All that this amendment amounts to is a request that these purely economic rights of Asiatic traders, which for generations were outside the field of this controversy, should be interfered with in the interests of the Asiatic’s competitors and hot for the benefit of the community as a whole. If the rights of the Asiatic trader are not operating to the benefit of the community as a whole, the public have the remedy in their own hands.

When the Rt. Hon. the Prime Minister explained the object of the Bill in the second reading he said there were too many loopholes in the previous Act so he had to come with this Bill to close them up. But from what I can gather from the debate this Bill will create more loopholes. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Staldard) has proposed an amendment to prevent the Indians expanding further, but it seems to me as if the Prime Minister is taking no notice of it. After the exposition of the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges) it is clear to me that this measure means very little. Consequently I said that I could not vote for the Bill in any of its stages. That is why I withdraw, because the Prime Minister intimated to us that certain demarcated areas would be separate, but it appears they will be nothing of the sort and that, though I am no lawyer, I was right when I said that in its present form clause 7 offers enough loopholes for them to take advantage of if they wish to. If we wish to exercise control we must accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). Otherwise there will be no control over trading premises and they will be at liberty to squeeze out the white man in these areas. You should not forget for a moment that Europeans cannot compete with these people. They have to go under. The living standard of the Indians is not the same as those of the Europeans. Their standard of training is not the same and as a result of that Europeans, of whatever section, cannot compete with them. Consequently there is great danger if you allow further loopholes by which these people can obtain further rights and compete with Europeans. Eventually we will be beggars in our own country and the charge against the Prime Minister will be that in his old age he will have been the cause of this misery that is brought on South Africa. I would ask the Prime Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). It is a very fair and reasonable amendment and it will redeem the position.

If former legislation in connection with the Indians amounted to patchwork, then this Bill, especially as regards clause 7 (2), can be described as nothing but a sieve. The Prime Minister has stated that he is now introducing a new scheme to promote the ideal of segregation. I have already pointed out that by means of this scheme of the Prime Minister we shall never attain the ideal of segregation. But now it is clear to everyone with a little logic that this scheme will simply be one without any basis if this clause remains as it is at present. I do not wish to deal at length with the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). He put the matter very clearly and was supported by the hon. member for Fauresmith (Dr. Dönges). I do not wish to repeat what they said, because the position in connection with this clause is clear. I, however, just wish to mention the figures which the Minister gave this year in connection with licences issued. Last year in Natal 7,503 licences to trade were issued. That number of people can now get premises there in order to trade. There are 2,126 businesses in Natal. In the Transvaal the position is just as bad. This year 6,467 licences to trade were issued. These 6,000 people may obtain premises there, and can occupy them. There are 3,489 Indian trading concerns in the Transvaal, shopkeepers. In one year, in 1945, in just these two provinces, 14,000 licences to trade were issued. But I go further. In reply to the question of how many licences were issued between 1939 and 1943, the reply was that no fewer than 43,000 licences were issued in that period to Indians, allowing them to trade. These 43,000, if they are new licences, can occupy 43,000 premises in order to trade. That creates a disturbing state of affairs. The Prime Minister should really be reasonable here and accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District). If he is in earnest with his plan it is very essential that he should accept this amendment.

I wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Col. Stallard). May I say it surprises me to find how the almost unspoken wish of the Indian is sought to be translated into law by this Bill. I have been interested in this question of Indian legislation for the best part of 25 years in this House alone, and I have never heard it is a great grievance amongst the Indians even where they do not own property. One has been interested in their enterprise in regard to ownership of property, but this is the first evidence I have had they wished to be catered for in the areas where they may seek to lease property. What would be the result of this? The authorities would be unable to prevent Indians from getting leased properties right in the heart of the European trading area and establishing Indian islands in those centres. It would lead to confusion worse confounded. The situation is bad enough as it is in some of the larger towns of Natal. In places like Ladysmith, Stanger and Verulam there is scarcely a European trader left. That results, of course, from the overwhelming penetration by the Indians. The Indians have occupied street by street, and they are there enthroned, one would take it, for good as the owners and occupiers of those houses and of those stores and of trading centres. Now we are to start to give them the further right in other towns to lease property and to occupy that property for trading purposes, although it does not belong to them, and that to me is a new departure, and I am surprised to find in a Bill like this, which is supposed to be the basis of settling this question, this invading of European areas in such a barefaced way.

At 6.40 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with the Sessional Order adopted on 31st January, 1946, he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.

House Resumed:

The CHAIRMAN reported progress and asked leave to sit again; House to resume in Committee on 9th April.