I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

I move as an unopposed motion—

I second.

Agreed to.

The Bill has been committed in respect of Clauses 4 and 17 only.

Clauses 4 and 17 put and agreed to.

I move—

I shall be glad if the hon. the Minister would deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton).

On a point of order, will the Minister give his comments at this stage?

I promised the hon. member to give him the information as to what actually happened. This item was financed from the Unforeseen Works Vote. At the time the sanction was issued, that Vote was not overdrawn. The debit for this particular work only came in towards the end of March, and at that time the Unforeseen Works Vote had been overdrawn and consequently it had to be treated as unauthorized expenditure. That is why it should not be placed on the Additional Estimates.

On a point of order, I put this question to the Minister.

The hon. member can put it in the third reading.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a second time.

The money we are being asked to vote now in this clause is in respect of unauthorized expenditure for the period ending 31 March 1960. I want to draw the Minister’s attention to what has developed in respect of the alterations to the Blue Train coaches. We are now in this rather ridiculous position, that we are voting an amount of money, £25,000, in respect of which this House has already voted an amount of £4,000 by way of additional expenditure. I want to ask the Minister whether we cannot have an improvement in the way in which the estimates are prepared. I do not know whether the Minister appreciates the position which has developed now. The Additional Estimates have gone through this House, and yet we are now voting the principal sum, Sir, in respect of the alterations to the 19 Blue Train coaches. We are being asked to vote the principal sum in respect of Additional Estimates which have already passed the House. I say to the Minister that although we cannot object to the additional amount being voted here, it does appear to us that the procedure followed, i.e. the debiting of this amount of expenditure to the Unforeseen Works Vote, has led to an anomalous position mainly due to the fact that when this amount was credited to the fund there was not sufficient money in that Vote to cover this amount of £25,000. I would ask the Minister whether it is not possible to obviate this sort of thing by coming forward with items of this sort in the Additional Estimates. I want to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the work was sanctioned in May 1959. The Additional Estimates were introduced in the House on 15 February 1960. It appears that there was ample opportunity for this money to have been voted, because by February 1960, a considerable portion of the £25,000 had already been spent, and the fact that it was credited to the Unforeseen Works Vote and not made a separate item in the Additional Estimates appears to be the reason for the difficulty we are now experiencing. I would ask the Minister to go into this question and find out whether it is not possible for a very close scrutiny to be kept on the Unforeseen Works Vote to make sure that items are not debited to it when the funds have already been exhausted. I might mention that on this occasion the provision of £200,000 in the original Estimates was exceeded by an amount of £99,000. That is what caused the difficulties we are faced with now.

The hon. member is of course aware that all works financed out of the Unforeseen Works Vote are usually listed in the Brown Book, and consequently Parliament is fully aware of what items of expenditure are involved. If the hon. member looks at the Brown Book for next year which has just been tabled he will see a long list of works to be financed out of the Unforeseen Works Vote in the current year.

Was this item listed in the Brown Book?

Yes, it is in the Brown Book for 31 March 1961, at page 101, Item 170. In other words, Parliament was aware of this expenditure and on what the money was spent. At the time this sanction was issued there was a considerable credit balance in the Unforeseen Works Vote, and there was no indication at that time that this Vote would be overdrawn. It was only when this debit came to hand during March that it was found that the Unforeseen Works Vote was overdrawn, and that is why it was listed as Unauthorized Expenditure, but that does not happen very frequently. When it does happen, usually a Governor-General’s special warrant is obtained. I think in the current year the Unforeseen Works Vote was also overdrawn and a special Governor-General’s warrant was obtained to cover it, but in this particular case it was not done. This is an exception.

The Minister has indicated that this item was covered by way of reference in the Brown Book, but that is not so. The Brown Book which the Minister refers to now is the later one. This expenditure, according to my information, was not recorded in the Brown Book for that particular year. The information came too late for the Department to include it in the Brown Book and therefore Parliament had no knowledge of it at all.

Here is the Brown Book. Look at it. This is the Brown Book for the year ending March, 1961.

But we are dealing with the year 1959-60.

This is the Brown Book tabled last session and all the items are listed in it.

But we are dealing with unauthorized expenditure in respect of the year 1959-60, which is the year before the year in respect of which that Brown Book has been issued. There is no question about it that the first information Parliament got in respect of this amount was when it was reported in the Controller and Auditor-General’s Report. As I pointed out, we have already passed the Additional Estimates, but we have not yet approved of the Main Account. That is the aspect which should be gone into and considered very carefully because it is most misleading. Full effect has not been given to the financial control which Parliament is expected to exercise. I mention it because I do not know how many other items there are included in this unauthorized expenditure which do not appear in the Brown Book in respect of the year in which the expenditure took place. There are many items covered by the unauthorized expenditure, but it is only because I took particular note of this item of £25,000 that I am in a position to say that this item was not included in the Brown Book for that particular year.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clause and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister will explain the position in Clause 1 (3) (b), where it says that a statutory body means a local authority, including the Council in any Municipality in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope. Why does it specifically include the council of any municipality in the Province of the Cape of Good Hope? Would the council otherwise not be a local authority?

May I just explain that in the Cape Province the local authority consists of the Council and the voters. Now it is just being made clear that it consists of the Council and the voters.

Mr. Chairman, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain whether his purpose in amending the definition of “owner” is in order to bring it into line with the common law, because the old definition defines “owner” as follows: “‘Owner’ means in relation to immovable property … the person in whose name that property is registered ”. Now in the amending section it says that “owner” includes in the case of immovable property, property registered in the name of a trustee, etc. In other words, it does away with the definition of “owner” by defining it as the person in whose name the property is registered. I would like to know whether this amendment has been introduced on the advice of the law advisers that the original definition in any event represented the common law, and the amendment now is merely to incorporate an additional provision so that everything will be covered.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 5,

I would like to move an amendment to Clause 5 (a)—

This amendment seeks to make provision that in respect of certain types of inquiry to do away with the provision which calls for the necessity of a public inquiry and proper investigation and notice to the public. It is my contention that the two particular provisions in respect of which this right is being taken away are very important provisions indeed. The one provision is a determination under Section 16. Section 16 is a very important section in this Act, because it can deal with the limitation of the right of development or occupation of property where property is not being occupied, the right of reconstruction, etc. Because it makes such important inroads in the rights of the individual, I believe that the deletion of the necessity to hold a public inquiry where proper notice is given the public takes away the right of the individual to be fully protected, and diminishes the liberty of the individual. As the result of my amendment it will read that an inquiry shall be held and a report made by the officer designated by the Minister. The purpose of the amendment is to try to retain what was originally envisaged. We believe that it is vital in this type of legislation that the public who are affected should be given every opportunity to state their case before any board. They should have adequate notice of any intended changes and of any matter which affects their rights, and they should have the opportunity to make the necessary representations. This is an extremely complicated Act and it presents great difficulties to the public. It is an Act which in its form is not the most desirable type of legislation because it does not state its purpose in a tangible way. There are far too many vague references. We believe that one should be much more definite in such legislation. Therefore I think that the amendment which is sought in the Bill, instead of helping the individual as it should, makes his lot a little more difficult, and therefore I move this amendment.

I hope the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller) will forgive me if I go on to another subject in order to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

1. (d) by the insertion in sub-section (7) after the word “under” of the words “sub-section (1) of Section 16bis or by the insertion in that sub-section after the word “affected” of the words “or in a building, or on land or premises other than that affected and by the insertion in that sub-section after the word “area” where it occurs for the second time of the words “or of such building, land or premises ”.

The object of this amendment is to ensure that the Board shall consider the question of suitable alternative accommodation before advising the Minister in regard to a proclamation in terms of the new Section 16bis. In terms of that section, the Minister will be able to limit the purposes for which properties in certain areas may be used, and the effect of the proclamation may well be that people who have lived in an area may no longer be able to continue living there, e.g. if a business is carried on on the ground floor and there are flats on the floors above, and the Minister limits the purpose for which the property may be used to business purposes, the persons living in the flats will have to move. We believe that no one should be moved at least until the Board has taken into consideration whether suitable alternative accommodation exists for them. That is why I move the amendment. That is one question I hope the Minister will deal with.

I also want to raise a query which is related to the one raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in relation to the proposed proviso to Section 5, in terms of which an inquiry may be held by an officer designated by the Minister. This relates to the exercise of powers under Sections 16 and 18, i.e. making determinations as to who shall he able to occupy premises in specified areas and issuing permits. I wonder whether the Minister will tell us, how these investigations are carried out. The point is that in specified or controlled areas you may very well have areas which have not yet been investigated by the Board, and as a result the policy in relation to that area has not yet been considered at all. The Board has no idea whether in future it will establish it as an area for Whites or for Coloureds or for any other race. Assuming that in such an area, where there has been no general inquiry, someone applies for a permit, who conducts the inquiry? If a permit is applied for in an area where there has been no general consideration by the Board, it seems quite wrong that an official in the Public Service should hold the inquiry and then exercise the powers in terms of Sections 15 and 18 as well. Will the Minister tell us a little more about how these inquiries take place in specified and controlled areas where there has not yet been a general inquiry? I can see the object of the Minister where there has been a general inquiry already and the policy of the Board in regard to that area has already been decided. If a permit is applied for, I can see that a public official may well conduct that inquiry. But where a policy has not yet been laid down for the area it seems undesirable that the public official should be able to conduct the inquiry.

Then there is another question. When one reads Section 5 together with Section 15, it seems that the public official designated by the Minister may not only hold the inquiry but he can exercise the powers he holds by virtue of the delegation, i.e. the powers in terms of Section 16 and Section 18. He can exercise those powers without referring the matter to the Board or the Minister at all. He can deal with the matter from start to finish without referring to anyone else at all. Will the hon. the Minister confirm that this is the correct reading of these two section read together?

In regard to the matter raised by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. Miller), I want to state that it is only advertisements in respect of matters which are of no interest to the general public that are affected. In terms of Section 2 (a) and (b) advertisements are in any event dispensed with in matters affecting only individuals. This extends the same dispensation where inquiries are made by officials.

Then the hon. member also said that this is an extremely complicated Act. I am sorry, but the hon. member did not put his amendment on the Order Paper so that I could consider it properly. It is very difficult for me to decide here in a few minutes on his amendment.

*Then the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) moved an amendment to Clause 5. Here the position is that already in my second reading speech in connection with another clause where evacuation would have to take place I adopted the attitude that it was a common-sense matter, and that no authority would simply leave people in mid-air when it evacuates them. They will not be evacuated unless alternative accommodation has been provided for them. It is a matter of common sense, and to make an exception here in respect of one particular sub-section without doing so in another clause where a larger number of people are affected is unnecessary. It is a question of common sense and of a sympathetic application of the Act. One would be landing oneself in enormous difficulties and make the implementation of the Act quite impossible if one were to accede to what he hon. member asked for. Why make a special exception here? In other words, I cannot see my way clear to accepting the hon. member’s amendment. We first want to see how this thing works. It is a new experiment we are making and the hon. member can be assured that the policy is to make alternative provision.

Then the hon. member asked how the investigations would be conducted. I do not know what he means. The persons concerned are of course notified when such an investigation takes place, and then the matter is either investigated in loco or the person is asked to come and see the official concerned. That is all I can say about that.

Firstly, in regard to the question of alternative accommodation, I cannot quite understand why the Deputy Minister thinks that the proposal which I have made will be an exception. The point is that up till now before one has been able to proclaim a group area, which may entail the removal of people, the Board has had to consider whether alternative accommodation exists.

That is my point.

This too is a section under which people may be removed and where they will have to find alternative accommodation and here too it seems that the same considerations should apply. People will have to move and find alternative accommodation, therefore the question of alternative accommodation should be considered before the proclamation is made. I cannot understand why the Deputy Minister says that this will be an exception; surely it is the same principle. Wherever people have to be moved we believe that the existence of suitable alternative accommodation should be considered by the Board before the proclamation which forces them to move is issued. The hon. the Deputy Minister has now accepted as a matter of policy that no one will be moved until there is alternative accommodation. If that is so then, with respect, there should be no objection to his accepting the amendment; it will only put in terms in the Bill what he has accepted as a matter of policy. The principle has been so clearly accepted and already include in Section 5 of the principal Act, that I cannot see the Deputy Minister’s objection to it being accepted in relation to the new proposed Section 16bis, and I hope the Deputy Minister will consider that further. In regard to the other point that I raised as to the type of inquiry, I meant a litle more than just what kind of inquiry. I can see that it is the Deputy Minister’s intention for an official to summon the party concerned, who has made the application for a determination, to hear his case and to weigh the pros and cons, but the point that I am getting at is this: In terms of the amendment proposed to Clause 19 of the Act, that official will be able to take a decision. What I want to know is this: Where the general policy for a particular area has not been laid down, what is going to happen there? It falls within the specified area but the Board has not considered for whom that particular area is intended. The hon. the Deputy Minister now gets an application for a permit for, say, a Coloured person to occupy premises in that area. The question of whether that area is intended for Coloureds or Whites in the future has not yet been considered, and now the official has to consider one application. I want to know whether he is the person who will decide that or will the application for a permit be held over until there has been a general inquiry as to what is intended for that área. Does this official take a decision on his own, without there having been any general inquiry as to the future intention for that area? I hope I have made myself clear on that point.

I am sorry that I did not give the Deputy Minister earlier notice, but unfortunately circumstances prevented me from doing so. I do, however, appreciate the point he has made. The Minister makes the point that all he refers to in the Bill is that in such event no notice shall be required, but in terms of the present section the notice is one which sets forth the matter which is being investigated and invites all interested persons to lodge with the board any representations which they may wish to make. I can appreciate the fact that perhaps for the sake of convenience one does not want to issue notices and delay matters, but how then are there to be any representations? If, for instance, it were to add that no notice shall be required but that the owner or occupier shall be invited to submit his representations, one would be satisfied. The purpose of the objection is not because there is an amendment to the present section but because it does diminish the rights of the individual, and I feel that any diminution of his rights, takes from his the privilege of saying that the legislation is inimical to his interests or seeks to circumvent his right in law. That is something which I am sure the hon. the Deputy Minister would like to avoid. I know that he appreciates, as all of us do, the difficulties of the Act, and that is why I believe that it would be in the interests generally of this legislation and particularly of the people in the country that they should always know that they have the right to make representations to the relevant bodies in respect of any action at all which affects their rights in any way at all. That is the point I would like the Deputy Minister to consider.

I should like to ask the Deputy Minister whether he can give us some further information about the meaning of the word “officer” in Clause 5 (a). This clause states that the Minister may designate an officer to conduct an inquiry and submit a written report, whereas in Clause 15 mention is made of an officer of the Public Service. There is no definition of the word “officer” in Clause 1 and I should like to know who precisely is meant by “officer ”. Does this relate to officials of his own Department, the Department of the Interior, or is it limited to officials attached to the Group Areas Board and. if so, can he also give us some indication of the seniority of the official referred to. because the duties that are imposed upon this officer in this clause are extremely important. They involve the livelihood and the financial interests of many people and I think we should like to be assured that such officer will be a senior officer capable of exercising the important discretion that is entrusted in him in this Bill.

I cannot give the hon. member full particulars at this stage as to whether it will be a first or second grade clerk; it is impossible for me to say at this stage. We make use of the officers available in the Public Service; that is what is meant here. I cannot help the hon. member by telling him now whether I am going to use a first or second grade clerk or a senior administrative officer.

*The point is that in connection with all these cases where investigations of this kind are instituted a clear policy has been laid down either by the Board with the approval of the Minister or by the Board before they advise the Minister; a pattern has been laid down, and if the Minister accepts that advice then we know how to act. In any case, if people are not satisfied with the decision of that official after such an investigation, they still have the right to appeal to the Minister or to the Chairman of the Board. But it is impossible for me now to tell the hon. member which officials I will employ. We will, obviously, use the the most efficient persons who have had special training along those lines and who have knowledge of the policy laid down. That is also my reply to the hon. member who asked what our standpoint is before proclaiming an area. Before one knows what one has in mind for a particular area, it is often clear what steps should be taken in respect of these individual cases.

But if you do not know?

If you do not know you will first wait until a proper investigation has been made, and then you can decide.

And must the applicant then wait?

No, the applicant need not wait. There are means at the disposal of the applicant to get justice if he is dissatisfied.

I must take the hon. the Deputy Minister up on his explanation to the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Butcher). He says he does not know if a first or a second grade clerk is going to investigate this matter and submit a report. Sir, in the course of the second reading debate I raised the principle which I believe is contained in this clause; I think it is a basic principle of justice that when a man’s affairs are inquired into he should have the right to put the other side of the case, and I would like to remind the hon. the Deputy Minister that this first or second grade clerk will be advising the board in their recommendations to the Minister on very important matters—the desirability or otherwise of issuing, amending or withdrawing any proclamation referred to in Section 28, any determinations to be made, the amendment of conditions, or the actual issuing or not of permits. I think if the Minister’s approach is such that he cannot say whether a first or second grade clerk is going to make a recommendation to the board, on which its recommendation to the Minister will be based, then our opposition to the delegation of authority in this Bill is more than justified.

But on any decision there is an appeal to the Minister.

Is the hon. the Deputy Minister not prepared to clarify the statement of his in reply to my amendment, namely that he is only avoiding the question of notice, when I drew his attention to the fact that the notice also contained an invitation to the public or to any persons who are interested to lodge objections or make representations.

As I understand the matter, it is only in cases where a person alone is affected and where it is not of general public interest that we act in this way. As soon as the matter is of general public interest we will still advertise. It is only where one is dealing with an individual that it is not necessary to advertise his name in the Press.

Will there be discussions with this individual?

Yes, that happens continually.

I wonder whether that is quite right. Section 5 of the original Act which is being amended, in providing for the functions of the board in (b) and (c), deals with the functions of the board under Sections 16 and 18. Surely it is not the case that that only the rights of individuals are affected.

It is not important to the general public.

I understood the Deputy Minister to say that there was no need to give notice where only the rights of single individuals were affected.

Notice in the Press.

Well, notice in the Press, of course, is notice. But those two clauses do not only deal with the rights of single individuals; they go much further than that.

You are referring here to the advertisements?

Yes.

But you give him notice of the inquiry that is going to be instituted.

I wonder whether the Deputy Minister would explain it further, because I must admit that I have some difficulty over it when you read it with Clause 5 of the present amending Bill. It does look as though the interests of a large number of people may be affected, and for that reason we suggest that notice should be given through the Press so that all the people whose interests are affected shall have the right to make representations. You see, Sir, if you take the original measure and you deal with Section 16, which is one of those in respect of which it is now provided that no notice under this sub-section shall be given, you find that Section 16, inter alia, permits the Governor-General by proclamation in the Gazette to define certain areas in a specified area tor certain purposes. Well, that is a very important matter. In the same way, in Section 18 there is the question of the use of the land in the buffer strips and here again the interests of more than one person may be very vitally affected. It is in respect of matters of that kind that we feel that notice should be given through the Press by publication, so that those whose interests are affected shall have an opportunity of making representations in the right quarter.

May I just repeat that in all cases where persons are affected they receive notice and can make representations in some form or other at the investigation. All we are providing here is that in respect of these specific cases it is not necessary to advertise in the Press, but they receive notice in any case. They in fact receive notice and the only question is whether there should also be an advertisement in the Press.

But will every person whose interests are affected be known?

Yes, they will see the notice.

Question put: That the word “may ”, in line 11, proposed to be omitted, stand part of the Clause,

I wish to move the following amendment—

Mr. Chairman, this new Clause 7, which supersedes the original Section 7 of the Act of 1957, is very important. In terms of the original Act, Section 20 (8) laid down that before the Governor-General on the advice of the Minister could issue proclamations, he first has to have the recommendation of the Board. It was a wise proviso that this should come first from the Board, and not merely be at the Minister’s discretion. In terms of the original Section 7, the Minister was required to appoint as an ad hoc committee or a standing committee of the Board to take over the functions of the Board in an area; such standing committee or ad hoc committee consisting of not less than two persons. There was, however, a proviso which said that where one of the members was unable to serve, whether through illness or other cause, the remaining member could continue to form the ad hoc committee. So under certain circumstances, although the law required the appointment of at least two members, one member could continue to do the work, and to that extent the Minister may merely be trying to regularize the situation which existed. We favour very strongly indeed the maintenance of the two-man ad hoc committee or standing committee of the Board, do do not wish to write into the law that this committee can by law, now not merely by accident, be reduced to one member.

There are various matters which an ad hoc committee, or a committee acting in the place of the Board, will have to investigate and to recommend on prior to the formulation of regulations. If one looks at the original Section 1 of the Act, sub-section (4), one finds that before the Governor-General may make proclamations in regard to the attendance at any public place of entertainment or the partaking of any refreshment, he first had to get the considered opinion of the Board. Now it may well be that the Minister feels that one man is sufficient to inquire into such circumstances and that there is no need for two people to do so. Likewise the original Section 10 of the Act, sub-section (2), says that the Governor-General may define the ethnical, linguistic, cultural or other group. Once again the Minister might explain to us, and he might be able to persuade us, that in respect of that type of inquiry one member of the Board is quite adequate. But in respect of the main function of the Board, the important function of the Board, which is the proclamation of group areas, in terms of the original section, Section 5 (1) of the Act, we can see no reason why this should be referred to merely one person. In fact this is the kind of consideration which should be given the greatest possible attention; we would like to see the Minister not to resort to appointing even a two-man commission to investigate the desirability of having group areas or not. But there may be certain practical reasons why the hon. Deputy Minister wants to continue to have the right to appoint a one-man sub-committee to deal with the work of the Board. So we are prepared to concede that if his arguments are valid, he should have that power in respect of all things other than the proclamation of group areas.

The effect of the amendment which I have moved would be that the Minister could have a one-man standing committee acting in the place of the Board to investigate a wide range of matters of a lesser nature, but in respect of the main function of the Board, that is the function of the Board as set out in the original Section 5 (1), which is the kernel of the Act, namely the proclamation of group areas, we believe it is absolutely essential that more than one mind should be brought to bear on the issue. We believe that if you are going to take such fundamental and far-reaching steps as recommending to the Minister that areas should be proclaimed, with all the effects it has on the local community and all the effects it has on the surrounding communities, then at least consideration should be given to it by more than one person. So we hope the hon. the Minister will heed this request. I think he realizes that in sub-section (5) (1) the main functions of the Board are defined and that he will see that at least in respect of the exercise of the main functions of the Board, two people and not one person will act in place of the Board.

During the second reading debate we drew attention to the provisions of this clause and pointed out how much we disliked it. The position is that at the moment this Committee has passed Clause 5 where the question of notice in certain cases has been decided, against us, against the amendment moved by this side of the House. I want to say at once that in my opinion that again strengthens the position of asking for the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) being accepted. Here we feel that it is altogether wrong that one man should be vested with the whole powers and authority of the Board in respect of the very important duties that the Board itself has to undertake from time to time. We appreciate that the Minister may be in difficulty because of lack of personnel. Quite frankly if that is so, I believe the Minister should increase the personnel. He should not hesitate to increase the personnel if that is the trouble. But it seems to us inconceivable that those important functions and duties can rest purely in the hands of one man, more particularly if you look at the concluding paragraph of Clause 7, which introduces a new sub-section (7) in the principal Act, and it says—

The question of procedure sometimes has been the crux of the whole matter that has come before the Board, and here again the Board may be one person. So the one person has to conduct the whole investigation, he is going to have the quasi-judicial powers to hold the investigation, and where questions of procedure arise, he is going to determine the procedure for himself. We think the whole principle is wrong, and we hope that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept the amendment.

I really think there is some misapprehension on the part of hon. members. The amendment being introduced here is in order to bring the legal position In line with what we have found to work best in practice. There is the Group Areas Board with a number of members. Then there is an Executive Committee, the members of which all serve full time at head office. But there are other members of this Board who are located at various points in the country. So, for example, there is a member of the Board in the Cape Division here, there is one at Port Elizabeth, in Natal there is more than one, there being one for Northern Natal and one for Southern Natal, and then for the Free State and the Northern Cape and the Transvaal there are two members. Now the position is that under ordinary circumstances when an area has to be advertised for investigation and the investigation has to take place, it is these individual representatives of the Board who are stationed at the various points who take the lead in conducting the investigations, and they then report to the Board. But now we also provide for the appointment of ad hoc committees. The idea is that in cases where difficulty is being experienced, or where the matter is complicated, where a serious position exists, or where it will not be easy to obtain a clear demarcation, the members of the Executive Committee will be used as members of such an ad hoc committee, and they then really assist the representative of the Group Areas Board stationed in that area. So in fact we cope with the difficult cases by appointing members of the Executive Committee for the moment as ad hoc committee members. I hope hon. members will not object to this, because in any case when such a one-man committee or an ad hoc committee has made an investigation and submitted its report, this report must in any case be submitted to the full Group Areas Board, because no advice is given to and no report can be submitted to the Minister unless the full Board has approved of it. In other words, this is done merely to facilitate the work.

Why is that not stated here in so many words?

That is precisely what stands here. We are making provision for a practice which has been evolved over the years. The original idea was that there should be a board which would travel right throughout the country. That is no longer the case to-day. We have individual representatives of the Board stationed at various points. Then there are the ad hoc committees which may be appointed in special cases. If the hon. member looks at sub-section (5) he will see that it reads as follows—

To speed up the work in practice, we have already been following a certain course of action, and this is merely intended to embody it in the Act.

It is quite possible, as the hon. the Minister says, that the amendment he is now introducing will be designed to speed up the working of the Act. It may well be that the original conception of the Board as a board which would travel around, has been found unworkable. I cannot however help repeating that the whole of the proceedings falling under this Act, the whole of the work to be undertaken by the Board is work in connection with one of the most delicately balanced functions of any administration, dealing with human beings, human families and their everyday life, and no matter how well the individual to be appointed as a one-man committee may do his task, no matter how sincere and earnest he goes about his work, it is throwing a terrific responsibility on that one individual to have to submit a report which is of such far-reaching consequences for the lives of the people it affects. No matters whether the report is considered subsequently by the Board …

That is why we make provision for this ad hoc committee.

The only evidence the Board will have to guide it will be the report which is based upon the findings of the one-man committee, and in a matter of this sort that is not sufficient to take action upon. It is no good blinding ourselves to the fact that there has been very adverse criticism of many of the actions of the Board and many of the actions of committees dealing with these matters, and you hear all sorts of stories, maybe without foundation, but nevertheless they are said. I do not think it is right to put the members of such a committee or the members of the Board in that position, no more than that it is right to put the individual affected by the decision in the position of feeling that may be justice has not been done in his case. We often hear it said that when you deal with justice, not only must justice be done but should also appear that justice has been done. And I do think that axiom is more necessary in regard to this particular type of administration than in respect of anything that we have got on the Statute Book. Therefore I most strongly support the amendment with regard to the appointment of one-man committees. The principle is wrong. The only thing that one can say in favour of it is that it may expedite the work of the Group Areas Board. That is all to the good, because Heaven only knows that it is work that requires expediting, but this is not the best way to do it. It may be that the individual has this intensive local knowledge, this personal knowledge of a particular area and the people that he is dealing with, but it still puts a responsibility on the shoulders of one individual which should not be placed on one man, and it still puts doubts in the minds of many families who may be affected by the decision reached if their case is being dealt with by one man.

The hon. Deputy Minister has said that the practice in fact is that when a difficult position has to be investigated, a member of the Group Areas Board in whose area it falls is of course on the investigating body, and in addition members of the executive committee come down to take part in the inquiry. Well we feel that every time the possibility of a group area is investigated, it is such an important matter that it warrants more than one member being on the committee. The hon. Minister has said that in fact that is the practice to-day in any difficult case. Well, does the hon. Minister accept that the investigation, preceding the proclamation of a group area is in every case of sufficient importance to justify members of the executive committee coming to join the local member of the Board to make the investigation? Because we feel that there should definitely be more than one member of the Board investigating the matter before any group area is proclaimed. And therefore the hon. member for Pinelands has moved this amendment. The hon. Deputy Minister has said that there are certain safeguards. He has said for instance that in any case the Board has to consider the report which is written by the committee of investigation, which may be a one-member committee. He has to report to the Board as a whole before the Minister is advised. That may be so, and that is to some extent a safeguard, but we do not believe that it is a sufficient safeguard, because obviously the person who is on the spot is the person who is carrying out the most important function, because he visits the area concerned, he is the person who receives the evidence from interested parties. That function is much more important, or at least as important, as the later consideration which must take place before the whole Board. The actual inquiry is most important and therefore we believe there should be at least two members of the Board conducting such an inquiry. As a matter of practice we hope that the hon. the Minister will appoint more members of the Board to be present at such an inquiry. Therefore we urge upon the hon. the Minister to accept the amendment of the hon. member for Pinelands. In fact we have doubt as to whether we should not go further and ask that for all purposes at least two members should form a committee. Would the hon. the Minister give some indication as to other functions of the Board which he believes can be carried out competently by one member sitting as a committee? The hon. member for Pinelands has for instance referred to the question as to which areas Section 1 (4) shall apply, the effect of which is for instance that sitting in a restaurant is regarded as “occupation ”. Another function would be to decide whether a particular sub-group shall be a separate sub-group in terms of Section 10. Would the hon. the Minister tell us of other functions of the Board which he believes can competently and safely be carried out by a single member sitting as a committee? We doubt whether there is any function of the Board which is sufficiently unimportant to warrant its being carried out by a single member. But certainly as far as the inquiry is concerned into possible group areas, we are satisfied that it is undesirable for a single member to sit on such an inquiry alone, even though he has to report to the Board. We hope that the hon. the Minister will accept this amendment. In practice I think in almost every case the hon. Deputy Minister will have more than one member sitting to examine possible group areas and I hope it will be written into the laws as a safeguard.

I noticed that the hon. the Deputy Minister several times referred to ad hoc committees. But I want to point out that this clause does not deal only with ad hoc committees. There are two different kinds of committees referred to in this Bill. There are standing committees and ad hoc committees. Quite frankly I think that this amendment could have gone further in regard to the standing committees.

The hon. the Deputy Minister makes great play of the point in Clause 7 (5) that the ad hoc committee, which may be one person, has to report to the Board, and only the Board then reports to the Minister. The Minister never gets a report from an ad hoc committee of one person.

Yes, it is included in the report of the Board, it is attached to it.

Yes, it is included in the report of the Board, but the Board makes its report to the Minister. The Deputy Minister’s point was that it is not simply one person who has comprised the ad hoc committee and who makes his report, and that it does come under the scrutiny of the Board.

In matters of this kind I want to emphasize that the feelings, the concern and the approach of one person can be the dominating factor, not only in regard to his own investigations, but only that one member has access to the Board. Who else has access? The ad hoc committee of one man is the only one who has access to the Board and sees his colleagues in order to put his case forward. His case, for the purpose of substantiating the report that he has put in by way of an ancillary report for the Board itself, is virtually valueless. That report can be of no great substance under the procedure here set out because, one man having carried out the whole of the investigation under this procedure as laid down, now produces that report to his colleagues who know nothing whatever about the circumstances and the conditions under which he carried out his investigation. They see his report and, quite obviously, they are going to be impressed and they are going to be influenced by the report. It seems to me that in practice there will be a tendency for the Board to simply act as a rubber stamp in approving of the report that they have from their colleague. I think that it is unthinkable that it should be otherwise. It is going to be a most extraordinary state of affairs if, without any knowledge of the circumstances, which are well within the personal knowledge of only that one man, the Board should then quarrel with the decisions he has put forward and the conclusions he has arrived at, or any recommendations he may feel justified in making. I go further and say that in those circumstances that man will resign from the Board on the turn if that were to happen. If, in fact, the recommendations he was making and the steps he was recommending were to be the subject of an adverse recommendation by the Board to the Minister, that man would resign.

I do not think there is any great value to be attached to that report. I must admit that with regard to the standing committees detailed in he first part of this clause I am filled with alarm because, if I read the clause correctly, it virtually means that in respect of various areas which will be defined, the Minister—not the chairman of the Board who sets up the ad hoc committee and who appoints one of his own colleagues for the purpose of this inquiry—but in terms of the first part of the clause we are dealing with the standing committee can be a committee of one appointed by the Minister. And that person is a standing committee for the whole of that area in respect of those matters which may, from time to time, be handed to him for investigation and report. I find it very hard to believe that there is real wisdom behind such a decision. You are virtually putting that man into an extraordinary—I nearly said privileged—position but may I say influential position, vis-à-vis the administration of the Act. That man is going to be in an extraordinarily influential position. He would be a permanent kingpin, if I can use the term, around which the whole of the investigations are carried out from time to time in respect of that area. Quite obviously he will be the person who will have to be persuaded in respect of this or that point of view, concerning every matter that comes before the Board for investigation. Because he will be the Board for the purposes of that particular area. So that an individual in an area stays there as a permanent standing committee and builds up round him, ultimately, the whole of the administration of the Act, in practice. I think that that is very undesirable indeed. I go no further than that, but I do hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will have second thoughts about the desirability of having a standing committee of one or an ad hoc committee of one—or any kind of committee of one, notwithstanding that the decisions of such committee may go before the Board for ratification and then on to the Minister, as the case may be. That, I think, is inadequate authority to really substantiate a recommendation or a report coming from a committee of only one person, whether it is an ad hoc committee or a standing committee.

I am afraid that hon. members are seeing dangers where none exists. It works effectively to have members of the board stationed at various points in the country where they are on the spot and can deal with problems which arise there. But let me say this now. Before such a standing committee, even though it consists of only one member, can report to the board an investigation must first be made; and before an investigation can be made there must be advertisement of the proposals. Now we take a lead from the reaction to that advertisement of the proposals, viz. whether no objections are raised or whether serious objections are raised to such proposals. Let us take a town like Kuils River as an example. Supposing that certain proposals are publicly advertised viz. how Kuils River should be delimitated and it appears from the objections received that these are contentious proposals, in other words that there are many difficulties and objections to it, then we would not use this one-man committee for it. But in many cases where advertisements appear in respect of towns, hardly any objections are raised. The original proposals are drafted in consultation with the local town council, because the town council knows best what the planning in such a town is, and when the proposal is advertised, not even a single objection is received because the public accepts it. There are such cases. There it is easy for the standing committee of one member to conclude the work. The moment he has finished his investigation and has written his report, that report goes to the Group Areas Board. But it is not only his report which goes to the board, but also all the evidence for and against the proposals. If he has held an investigation in loco, all the evidence in favour of the proposals and all the evidence against it is included with the report which is then submitted to the Group Areas Board. Then when the board has to come to a decision it has all the evidence for and against, the diagrams and the report in front of it. When the board then makes its recommendation, all those documents are submitted separately. The Minister has before him not only the report of the committee, but also the evidence. In other words, the Minister has the full picture, from the advertisement right up to the final report submitted to him by the board. Hitherto this has worked well, and the position is that the standing committees actually work more efficiently because they are on the spot and because they can deal with these cases at once, whereas otherwise they would have had to wait for an itinerant board to arrive there one day. But the moment when, with reference to the advertisement, one gains the impression that there is strenuous objection to the proposals, the members of the Executive Committee are instructed to institute an investigation together with that person, because in those cases one wants to have two or three or even more men to do the job. That is how it works in practice and I can give hon. members the assurance that no difficulty will arise from this. On the contrary, I think it is in the interest of the public and in the interest of those people whose cases are dealt with in this manner.

I have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister very carefully on the two occasions on which he has spoken, but I cannot help having the feeling that he is trying to minimize the important effect of this amending clause. In the first instance, he is doing so by minimizing the influence of the standing committee. I think that one should read Clause 7 (1) very, very carefully indeed. It says—

It is the prerogative of the Minister to appoint a standing committee to take the place of the board.

But the Minister also appoints the board.

That is very important, Mr. Chairman. In other words, when the hon. the Minister does not want the whole of the board to consider a matter he is completely free, in terms of this amending clause, to appoint one individual, and that one individual will not be responsible merely for conducting an inquiry. He will not be responsible for conveying his views to the board. He, to all intents and purposes, becomes the board in respect of a matter to which the Minister has referred. If, in general terms, it is necessary to have a 12man board then I find it difficult to understand the Minister when he says that in certain instances he is prepared to accept the opinion or the advice of one person whom he selects, and who may be in a minority on the board as far as views are concerned.

But that is not so.

That is the position. The Minister, in terms of this clause, might circumvent the board by appointing a one-man standing committee to take the place of the board. I think it is extremely important that the hon. the Minister should realize that while streamlining may be an important thing, while it may be important to have efficiency, almost invariably two men can give a better report based on more collective wisdom than can one man. We think it is tremendously important that whenever important matters are referred either to a standing committee or when the chairman appoints a special ad hoc committee to conduct an inquiry in respect of matters referred to in terms of Clause 5 (1), that at least two men and not one person should act for the board.

I want to support the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay), and others, because it is important in this matter that justice not only be done but that people should feel that justice is being done.

But these standing committees have been working for years and years.

I am very surprised that the hon. the Deputy Minister now tells us that these standing committees have been working for years and years. If that is so, have they been acting out of conformity with the existing law? And if, in fact, they have been acting perfectly well for year after year, why is it now necessary to do what he says he has to do to regularize and to legalize the position? Do I understand that the hon. the Minister is now telling us that, in spite of the fact that the original Section 7 required a two-man standing committee, in practice a one-man standing committee has been acting?

The hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head. I understood him to say, over the floor of the House, that this has been working practice for years and years. Now, Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister not to try to force us too far. We are not at all happy about the idea of having a one-man standing committee, even for these other matters such as contained in Clause 1 (4), or in Section 10 (2). We would like to see even those referred to a two-man standing committee. But we do ask that in respect of proclamations of group areas, in respect of the functions laid down in the original Section 5 (1) which is the prime function of the board, that at least in respect of those he meets us. It is important that where you are dealing with proclamations, with complete changes of communities and the lives of communities, that no matter what has been done in practice in the past, as far as the law is concerned it should be quite clear that not one man but that two men should bring their minds to bear on the subject before the Minister acts. I am quite sure that the hon. the Deputy Minister can meet us in this matter and that it will not seriously complicate the work of the board. I am equally sure that when two people consider the pleas made to the board or to the investigating committee, they are more likely to present a balanced report to the board, or they are more likely to present balanced decisions for conveying to the Minister than one man would be in respect of these important items.

I think the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin) is trying to be difficult. The hon. the Deputy Minister made it quite clear to us that it was customary, before an inquiry was held, to advertise that area. Usually, in the case where city councils cooperate, the recommendation of the city council as to the race is used as basis when advertising. As has been said quite rightly, the city council knows best how to zone the area under its jurisdiction. It is quite clear that in quite a number of cases this position is generally accepted by the area concerned. In the past it has been the experience in practice that in a case where there is not a flood of complaints and objections, one person attends and the matter is finalized to the satisfaction of everybody.

Together with the secretary.

Yes, and the officials who assist such a member of the board. But the point remains that it makes no difference whether it is one or two people—the hon. member said that two people would submit a more balanced report—the fact remains that the whole board must consider the report of this person. That is the crux of the matter.

Do you know what is happening?

Mr. Chairman, the report of this person must be considered by the whole board. I agree that the question of group araes is an important one. But I do not think it is necessary—I am saying this for the information of the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld)—that for the purposes of fulfilling the function of the Group Areas Board under Section 5 (1) of the principal Act more than one person should conduct the inquiry in all these minor cases. It has worked very well in the past. All the Minister is doing now is to put the matter right from a legal point of view, to legalize what has been happening in the past. Furthermore, he wants to lay it down in the Act that, where a difficult case arises, it should not be taken for granted that the standing committee consisting of one person will deal with it and conduct the inquiry but that in such specially difficult cases the chairman of the board may send a member of the Executive Council who is au fait with the whole position and who is twiddling his thumbs at head office, to conduct the inquiry either alone or together with a local member. I do not know why hon. members regard this provision as being such a very bad one. There are instances of small places on the platteland where the game is not worth the candle and where it is unnecessary to send a large number of people and where one person can do the work to the satisfaction of the local people concerned. That, in my opinion, remains the most important thing—if the inquiry can take place to the satisfaction of the people concerned. That has worked well in practice and for that reason I think we should keep it as it is.

The hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé) may be correct when he says that there are cases where objections are not raised or that there is general satisfaction. He may be correct when he says it is undesirable that there should have to be more than one member of the board to conduct such an inquiry. I submit that there will be very few of those cases indeed. But even assuming that there are a few of those cases where there is satisfaction with the proposals made, surely it is no great hardship for a second member of the board to be present at the inquiry. It may be that there are cases where a second member of the board would be unnecessary, but that is going to prove the exception rather than the rule. We would like to see that safeguard in the Act.

I do not accept the fact that because there are no objections therefore everyone accepts the proposals. There may be hundreds of cases where people do not actually come and object before the board, or lodge their objections, but nevertheless object most strenuously to the proposals. They may not be aware of their rights or they may not want to go to the trouble of appearing.

No. no! The hon. member knows better than that.

But surely that is so?

Surely the hon. member knows better.

But you may get a person who does not know that he has the right to object to the board. I do not agree at all with the hon. the Minister’s interjections. Surely there are many cases where proposals for group areas are advertised and people may have the most strenuous objections but may not actually lodge their objections in writing. So that merely because objections are not actually lodged, it does not mean to say that the proposals are received with general satisfaction.

That is one aspect of the matter. Even though there may be cases where the proposals are not contested, nevertheless we believe that those cases are the exception and we believe that there should be the safeguard of at least two members. I now want to take the hon. the Deputy Minister up on another point where I believe he may well be under a misapprehension. The hon. member for Parow has said that the report has to be submitted to the board and has to be considered by the board in full. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister also said that. But the effect of Clause 7 (1) must be considered in conjunction with Clause 7 (5). It is true that Clause 7 (5) says that the committee which is appointed under subclause (4) must make a written report to the board. But that board may be a one-man standing committee for the area. If the hon. the Minister will show me how he gets round that interpretation then we in this corner will be glad to consider it. But as far as I can see from this clause, the Minister may have a standing committee of one in, say, East London. Now he also appoints that member to undertake inquiries in terms of Clause 7 (4). All that that member then has to do is to report to himself. He represents the board as a standing committee in that area. Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please read Clause 7 (1) together with Clause 7 (5).

I have read it and I have discussed it with the law advisers, and I am quite prepared to accept their opinion.

Well, read it now.

It says one or more members of the board.

Mr. Chairman, this is not at all clear. Clause 7 (1) clearly says that the Minister may appoint a single member to be the standing committee to carry out any of the functions of the whole board. And it then says—

So that within a particular area a standing committee of one may exercise all the powers of the board, and surely that includes the right to hold an inquiry.

For the inquiry. Then you read 7 (5).

I am reading, first, Clause 7 (1). There may be a standing committee of one to carry out all functions of the board in a particular area. That includes the right to advise the Minister.

The Deputy Minister is now confused.

Well Clause 7 (1) appears to me to read that way. Then when one reads Clause 7 (4) and 7 (5) together we find that the Minister can appoint a single member as an ad hoc committee to go into a particular inquiry and to advise the board in terms of sub-section (5). That single member has to give a written report to the board. But the board in that area may well be a single member and that single member can carry out the functions of the board and advise the Minister. To me the clause definitely seems to be in those terms and to allow of that possibility. If that is so then we certainly cannot accept the clause as it is. We should like to make quite certain in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), which amends Clause 7 (4), that at least two members shall sit on any inquiry.

The hon. member has read this clause to the House in which (4), for example, provides that the chairman of the board may appoint a committee consisting of one or more members of the board. The immediate impression you get, Sir, is that it will be the chairman of the central Group Areas Board. The Group Areas Board is a central board. It is not the one-man ad hoc committee to which the hon. member has referred. I am not a legal man and I am, therefore, unable to analyze this matter, but I know how it works in practice. Where an inquiry is conducted under the Group Areas Act one, two or more members of the Group Areas Board are appointed—according to the seriousness of the situation which depends on the number of objections that have been lodged—to hold a public sitting similar to a court of law. This clause refers to those sittings. Once these people have held their sitting they make their decision. The whole idea underlying the Group Areas Act is that neither the members who conducted this local inquiry nor the members of the ad hoc committee can make a decision; neither can the central Group Areas Board make a decision. They are only there in an advisory capacity to the Minister. The people who have to decide what is to happen with a group area are the members of the Cabinet who are guided by the recommendations of the Group Areas Board but not by those of this ad hoc committee. The Cabinet is guided by the recommendations of the central Group Areas Board, which is a big body. The various local members, the ad hoc committee to call them that, are all members of the central Group Areas Board, as far as I know. All the members come together and having discussed a matter from A to Z they submit a recommendation to the Minister, a recommendation to which they have come after having considered every aspect of the matter. I want to emphasize this point, Sir, namely that hon. members now try to make us believe that these people who conduct the local inquiry—it makes no difference whether it is one or two or three—make the final decision. That is not the position. They are only acting in an advisory capacity. Then there is another point. If the Government is not satisfied they recommend that a re-investigation should take place. We had the case recently at Paarl where there was a great deal of dissatisfaction and a fresh investigation was instituted. For the purposes of that investigation additional members of the Group Areas Board came from Pretoria to attend the sitting in order to draw up a fresh report jointly, a report which will probably eventually be submitted to the Minister. The important point is that the friends who moved this amendment and who objected to this clause, tried to create the impression that the people who conducted the inquiry also made the decision. That is not the case; the Minister makes the decision.

Mr. Chairman, I cannot understand the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé). He says “Oh, if there are a few people in a small area, why should more than one man go?” Surely it does not matter a bit how small in number or how insignificant the people are, they are entitled to a fair hearing which is not dependent upon the decision of one man only. Why does a Judge have assessors? Why does a Judge have a jury? Why does a magistrate have assessors? Because then other points of view can be brought to bear even in the case of a man who knows his job as a Judge does.

But we are providing for that.

What the hon. the Deputy Minister is providing for is that the Judge or the magistrate should hear the case and then call the assessors in and tell them what he thinks of the case. How can the hon. the Deputy Minister suggest that to me when he has said “This one man will go then he will report back to the board and the board will be influenced by what he says ”? Any man can be prejudiced. He might be honestly prejudiced. He might be dishonestly prejudiced. He might have certain preconceived ideas. It might be a case of sheer obstinacy. Human nature being what it is no one man’s opinion should really be taken in deciding on a matter as important as this. The fact that it is only a small area does not matter. There may be one person whose interests are heavily involved and he has a right to have justice done to him. Why cannot there be at least two people, because one man may easily be prejudiced? I cannot understand why the Minister is so obstinate about it. Here we are trying to help him and to see that justice is done. It is absolutely wrong to say that it needs only one man to put the case to the board and not the case of the people as such, because they, the board, are bound to be influenced by what he says and base their final decision on the lead he gives them, and the Minister (if it is referred to him) will be influenced in turn by what the board reports to him.

The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) should not get so excited. I have a great deal of respect for him but he is now entering a field which can be dangerous if he does not know how the law operates. I want to say this to the hon. member. It is not the board but the Minister who makes the final decision.

Who advises the Minister? Surely the board does. And who advises the board? This one man.

The point is this, that in order to facilitate matters the custom has developed over the years not to concentrate all the members of the board in one place and to make them travel from one place to another. To-day members of the board are stationed at central points throughout the country. Before such a person conducts an inquiry he has to advertise what he intends doing.

Do not think because I was a Minister I am a fool.

Because the hon. member was a Minister he should understand these matters so much better, otherwise I can understand why there was such confusion. The hon. member did not implement the provisions of the Group Areas Act. That was why we were eventually faced with shanty towns such as Windermere. But that is not relevant at the moment, Sir. What is relevant is this that this one-man committee may conduct an inquiry in cases where no serious complaints have been lodged and does the hon. member want to tell me that in many court cases there is more than one Judge on the bench? In this case the hon. member cannot compare the one-man committee with a Judge, because the final decision does not rest with the one-man committee or with the board, but with the Minister. The one-man committee or the ad hoc committee merely constitute the machinery which is at the disposal of the Minister to supply him with the facts. However, the report of the one-man committee who conducts the inquiry does not merely reflect his opinion, but it also contains the evidence which was given by everybody concerned and when the whole board comes to a decision and advises the Minister, what is submitted to the Minister is not only the opinion of the board but also the evidence and suggestions which have been made. It often happens that the Minister is not satisfied with the decision taken by the board, it also happens that he is not satisfied in cases where the board has agreed with the local committee and he then refers it back and orders a fresh inquiry. The final decision rests with the Minister. The hon. member has raised a subject which is not worth getting excited about. The hon. member for Pinelands raised the matter when I said that that had been the custom for years. Perhaps I did not make myself quite clear. He concluded from what I had said that we had actually been acting illegally. What happened was that the secretary for that particular area was designated for that specific purpose on each occasion and that was a cumbersome method. It is better to have a one-man committee to deal with minor cases and the ad hoc committee to deal with the more difficult cases. Experience has taught us that. I have nothing further to say in this regard except that I do not envisage any problems of this nature.

I do not want to labour the point, but it seems to me that the Minister has still made out no case whatever for the principle he is endeavouring to adopt in the amendment. The Minister has tried to make out the case that the final answer comes from the Minister who has all the information at his disposal. But the original basis of the whole of that information comes back to the one-man committee which carries out the investigation on the spot. If that one-man committee’s report is worth anything at all it must be taken notice of by the local board and the Central Board and finally by the Minister, so that whatever decision the Minister finally comes to, he has had to be guided largely by the foundation on which the information is built, and that is the report of one man. I do not believe that one man in this case should influence the decision on a matter so important as this. I think it is quite wrong that when we are dealing with the lives of the community, when we are dealing with dispossession of their homes and all that goes with it, one man should influence the decision. I see no reason why the scope of that inquiry should not be widened. I do know this, and I have no doubt that it partly actuates the amendments before us, that it is essential for the Minister and the Cabinet to try and bring some light to bear on the administration of the Act, to try to get over the bitterness and the opposition which that Act has created. We are all agreed that there is probably no Act on the Statute Book that requires more amendment and has had more amendment than this Act. But it does not help to make it work any better from the point of view of the feelings of the people who are most affected. That is the basis on which we put our case. It is not so much to make the Act work more smoothly, although any responsible Opposition will do what they can to help there, but what we are concerned about is that the well-being of the people affected should be the prior consideration. It is not only the individual who is affected by the inquiry but a group or class as a whole who will be affected by the decision of one or two people. There again it comes back to the main issue, that in matters so important as this a committee of one man is not likely to give satisfaction to the people concerned and will only cause further trouble in the long run.

I feel sure that if this debate has convinced the Minister of anything, it is that there are two sides to every question, because on this very simple clause this afternoon there was a clear conflict of opinion. I can understand that we differ on the argument, but let the Minister help us to get agreement on the facts. I think that where the Minister has become confused, was in not separating the two committees established in terms of Clause 7. One is a standing committee which may take over the functions of the Board, and which committee is appointed direct by the Minister, and the other is merely an ad hoc committee which may or may not be appointed at the discretion of the Chairman to assist the Board in conducting its inquiry. Let us understand that there are two separate committees which are being dealt with, and let us look at the composition and the functions of these committees. I would like to know from the Minister whether my interpretation of the function of the standing committee is not correct, first of all that on the instructions of the Minister this committee can become the Board or take over the functions of the Board in a particular area. This is not a matter of legal interpretation but of basic English. It says that the Minister may in respect of any area appoint a standing committee consisting of one or more members of the Board to carry out in such area the functions of the Board as he may specify. In other words, the Minister may say to one individual: You shall become the Board, and the Board is telescoped from 12 members to one. If that is the case, will not the Minister concede that this one individual has not got to report anything to the Board as a whole, but that he may report direct to the Minister? If that is so—and I wish the Minister would indicate whether that is so or not, because this is the crux of our argument. Am I correct here? It says that the Minister may appoint one man to take over the functions of the Board. One of the functions of the Board is to make recommendations direct to the Minister. Surely one is correct in interpreting this clause as meaning that this one individual who is appointed shall report direct to the Minister as if it was the full Board reporting to the Minister. So the standing committee can become the Board, to all intents and purposes. We have gone a long way in meeting the Minister in this regard. We would like the standing committee under all circumstances to consist of at least two people. The Minister has explained his practical difficulty and we have gone as far, against our inclinations, to agree to accept this, but not in respect of the functions of the Board as set out in Section 5 (1) of the principal Act which deals with the proclamation or deproclamation of areas. If somebody acting for the Board is going to advise the Minister on the proclamation or deproclamation of areas, we suggest that it should be at least two people. In regard to the other functions we will not obstruct the Minister, but in respect of proclaiming areas in terms of Section 5 (1) we believe that the Minister would rather have the advice of two people and not of one. Our earnest plea is not that he increase the standing committee to two under all circumstances, but whenever you are dealing with proclamation of group areas the least we expect is that when somebody is acting for the Board it should be two people and not one.

As far as Clause 4 is concerned, once again we press for two members to form an ad hoc committee. I believe that justice is more likely to be done if consideration is given to an issue by two people instead of one. We accept that as far as Clauses 4, 5 and 6 are concerned that ad hoc committee must report to the Board and the final recommendation will go from the Board to the Minister. But once again we ask that in respect of proclamations at least two people should bring their minds to bear on the subject. I would like to hear from the Minister whether our interpretation of 7 (1) is not correct and reasonable.

I do not think the hon. member for Pinelands and other members should try to take the matter too far. When a committee consisting of one man is appointed and a one-man committee is appointed in a certain area I cannot see, the way they argue, that where a single member acts as a board in a certain area the Minister still has to appoint a sub-committee to advise that member. We should not take this matter to the extreme. We should not make the position ridiculous. It is clear to me that if the Minister has the right to appoint a committee consisting of one member who has to report to the board, the board will at least have to consist of more members than merely that member himself, and that is why I think hon. members are tilting at windmills. They put up skittles with the object of knocking them down and I think this is nothing but obstruction.

I think this is somewhat confusing. In terms of Clause 7 (1) the Minister appoints one or more members of the board to form a standing committee. In terms of Clause 4 the chairman of the board may appoint an ad hoc committee to conduct a certain inquiry. There are therefore two committees, one being a member of the board appointed by the Minister who performs all the functions of the board. In other words, the Minister in point of fact appoints sub-boards consisting of one or more members in a certain area. Over and above that the chairman of the board may appoint an ad hoc committee to assist with the inquiry if necessary my difficulty is this, arising out of the questions asked by the hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Eglin), that it is not clear to me whether this sub-board which consists of one man and which is appointed by the Minister has to report to the Minister via the principal board or whether he can report direct to the Minister, seeing that he is empowered to fulfil all the functions of the board. I think the matter will be solved if it is stated clearly in sub-section (5). “In terms of this clause the committee appointed … must report to the board.” This ad hoc committee must report to the board; it cannot report direct to the Minister. The question now arises: What is meant by the board in this case? I take it that it means the full board. The chairman of the full board appoints the committee. But the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has reason to believe that in view of the fact that a sub-board has been appointed in respect of an area, this ad hoc committee may report to this sub-board which consists of one member and not necessarily to the board as a whole. I think the Minister ought to change the wording so that it is clear that where the Minister appoints the sub-board …

Nowhere is there any reference to a sub-board; they are standing committees.

Clause 7 (1) gives the Minister the right to appoint a standing committee consisting of one member and that committee has the same power as the full board.

He has to report to the full board.

It does not say so. I think there is ground for confusion. It is not clear whether that member who acts as a sub-board has to report direct to the Minister or not, or whether he should necessarily report via the full board, whereas on the face of it, it is clear that where the chairman of the board appoints an ad hoc committee it has to report to the board but it is not clear what is meant by the board. Must he report to the chairman of the full board or to the minor board or sub-board which has been appointed for that area?

Section 1 (1) of the principal Act says that “board” means the Group Areas Board established by Section 2. Section 2 reads—

In other words, the Group Areas Board is defined in the principal Act. When we talk about the “board” it is immediately clear what is meant, namely the board which was established in terms of the principal Act. All we are doing here is to give the Minister the right to appoint standing committees from amongst the members of that board, not sub-boards. The power of the board is also defined. The Minister may ask one of the committees to inquire into a certain matter on behalf of the board but where Clause 7 (5) provides what these committees have to do, it is also clearly provided to whom they have to report. They have to report to one body only namely the board as defined in the principal Act. It says—

And there is one board only, the board appointed in the manner as explained by me. What we are seeking to do here is something which is not provided for in the Act. Assume for a moment that there was a vestige of truth in what the hon. member for Pinelands said. What the hon. member really tried to say was that what we were asking for here was the right to appoint one person to conduct an inquiry, and that we then want an ad hoc committee consisting of members of the board to report to this one member who will then simply report direct to the Minister. Well, everything is possible in life, Sir. It is possible that we may all go insane within a few seconds but it is very improbable that any government will be so stupid as to act like that seeing that they have at their disposal the services of such a board and seeing that Clause 7 (5) specifically lays down to whom that committee shall report—“a committee appointed under this section shall submit to the board a written report ”.

I wonder whether the Minister will allow me to put this to him, because this is the crux of the matter. Will the Minister allow me to put this point to him in regard to Clause 7 (5), where it refers to a committee? May I point out that the Committee does not deal with any matter in respect to which it has carried out an investigation. It only deals with an investigation in terms of Section 5. In terms of Section 5 it must report to the board. It must not report to the board in respect of any investigation carried out. Section 4 says the chairman of the board may appoint a Committee of one or more members to conduct an inquiry under sub-section (5). It is not the Standing Committee. The Standing Committee does not report to the full board when it carries out an investigation under Section 5. It is the ad hoc Committee which is only empowered to act in terms of Section 5 (1), and it must report to the full board. The Standing Committee can carry out any investigation it is entrusted with. It seems obvious that the ad hoc Committee under Section 4 can only be appointed to inquire into matters in terms of Section 5, and sub-sec. (5) says that the ad hoc Committee must report to the full board in regard to its investigation under Section 5, and not in respect of any matter it investigated. I think if there is confusion it arises from the fact that in the commencement of sub-section (5) it says “a committee appointed under this section ”. That looks as if it may mean a Standing Committee or an ad hoc Committee. It obviously does not mean a Standing Committee because the ad hoc Committee can only be appointed to deal with matters under sub-section (5), and it is only in respect of its inquiry under Section 5 that it reports to the full board. If it carries out an inquiry in terms of Section 16 or Section 18 or Section 22, it does not report to the full board, but only in terms of Section 5. I put that point to the Minister.

I want to emphasize that in terms of sub-section (1) the Minister may appoint a member of the board to do certain prescribed work. It will be quite logical for such a member of the board who has been appointed by the Minister for a specific area, to report direct to the Minister. In terms of sub-section (4) the Minister will appoint the chairman of the board and it is quite clear from sub-section (5) that that ad hoc Committee has to report to the board itself, but it is not at all clear, however, from subsection (1) whether that one member of the board, who has the same power as that which vests in the board, should approach the Minister via the board or whether he may approach the Minister direct in order to submit his report. This is the confusion which the hon. the Deputy Minister should try to clear up. In view of the fact that the Minister appoints one member of the board as a Standing Committee, it is logical to expect him to report direct to the Minister and not via the board, unless it is specifically provided otherwise. As far as the ad hoc Committee is concerned, it is clear that it cannot report direct to the Minister; it has to report to the board as a whole.

I told hon. members a few moments ago that when we speak about the board it was clear which board we had in mind, namely the board as defined in Section 1 and appointed in terms of Section 2 of the principal Act. The board has to perform certain functions which are defined in Section 5—

1. (a) the desirability or otherwise of issuing, amending or withdrawing any proclamation referred to in Section 28;
2. (b) any determination to be made under Section 60;
3. (c) the issue of or the amendment of the conditions of any permit under Section 18; and
4. (d) any matter relating to the administration of this Act which the Minister may refer to it.

In other words, Section 5 lays down the functions of the board. Clause 7 (5) now provides that “any committee appointed under this section ”—Standing Committees and ad hoc Committees—in respect of the functions laid down in Section 5, shall submit a written report to the board. I am at a loss to understand hon. members’ difficulty.

I only want to make one point with the hon. the Deputy Minister and that is that an appeal has been made from this side of the House for the committee to consist of at least two members. The Deputy Minister knows perfectly well that a number of the amendments which appear in this Bill have been suggested to him by the present board which over a period of some years now has gained a considerable amount of experience with the practical unravelling of the sections of this particular Act, and I think that nobody is in a better position than they themselves to tell the Minister how people look at things from different points of view. The Deputy Minister himself said in his opening address that his purpose was to alleviate some of the difficulties which presented themselves to the various groups of our community who are affected by this Act. The only way in which you can alleviate these difficulties obviously is to appoint people who have had an opportunity of understanding and appreciating what the administration of this Act entails in practice. All that we are asking for is that the responsibility should not be placed on the shoulders of one person. It is obviously better to place the responsibility on the shoulders of two or more persons who can bring their minds to bear objectively on this subject, because if a mistake is made it can have very serious consequences. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of all the problems which arose in various areas of the Transvaal when the Act was first implemented with a certain amount of vigour and where there was a certain amount of protest. Even those who sat on the boards of inquiry found difficulty in properly interpreting and implementing the Act. It is because of these problems and difficulties that the hon. the Deputy Minister has had to come along, so soon after the consolidation of the Act, with so many amendments in order as he himself says, to correct errors and to facilitate the administration of the Act. I cannot understand the Deputy Minister’s obstinacy in this matter. All that is being asked for is that the decisions in these matters, which may be almost irrevocable, should be taken by more than one person, because in terms of this particular section that one-man committee will report to the board. I accept that it is the board which will make the recommendation to the Minister, but the board is not prepared at that stage to re-investigate the matter; the board then accepts the report of a one-man investigating committee. Sir, this is a busy board …

They need not accept it.

It need not but it can. If the one-man committee prepares a sufficiently convincing report, the board sitting as it does at its headquarters in Pretoria will make a recommendation based on that report.

They do not sent it up to Pretoria.

Where else would the report be considered? The board will not come down to, say, a little town in the eastern Transvaal in order to see what the particular official has been doing. He will present his report to the board and he may present it in person. Let us assume that he goes to the extent of seeing the board personally and that he is a very persuasive speaker. His point of view may differ radically from that of a number of people on the board, except that they do not know the actual circumstances. The Minister himself may then be embarrassed because obviously the protests of the public cannot be silenced. There may be a proclamation but at this stage the protest of the public cannot be silenced. I think the Deputy Minister would be well advised, while he is trying to facilitate the administration of the Act, to allow the responsibility to be placed on the shoulders of more people. I do not think that asking for a two-man committee of inquiry is asking too much. In fact, if anything I think it would be of great advantage to the board to allow a two-man committee to deal with the matter rather than leaving it entirely to the discretion of one man. I do not think it is fair to put one man in this difficult position, where he has to make decisions which may arouse a great deal of criticism. All this could be avoided. After all, this is not a pleasant Act to administer and all one wants to do is to try to coat this bitter pill with as much sugar as possible, because to everybody affected it is a very bitter pill.

We have listened to the hon. the Deputy Minister and we still differ from him on the interpretation of the law. I only hope that he is not going to be in the embarrassing position of his predecessor in having to come back year after year to clear up these difficulties which the Opposition pointed out in advance.

If it is necessary I will do so.

Let us rather get the law straightened out now than place the Minister in the embarrassing position of having to come back repeatedly to this House. Secondly, quite apart from his interpretation of this clause which we contest, I want to adhere to the point which I made at the outset, that in respect of the vital matter of proclamation, we still believe, in spite of everything the Deputy Minister has said, that it would be in the best interests of the country and that justice is more likely to be done if more than one mind was brought to bear on this matter before a recommendation was made either to the Minister or to the board. For these reasons I am afraid we have no alternative but to press our amendments.

I have an amendment on the Order Paper but before moving it I wish to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question about the effect of this clause. The effect of my amendment would be to omit the first part of the proposed new clause and to leave the section as it was. The effect would be that the prohibition which up till now has existed in relation to agreements would remain. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s proposal is that the prohibition should now be on the acquisition of property. The effect of the amendment is that the prohibition should remain only on an agreement to acquire. The hon. the Deputy Minister has given an explanation to the Other Place and also when he introduced this measure, and there may well be merit in the object which he seeks to achieve. At present certain agreements are rendered invalid, and in practice I understand that this does create uncertainty and hardship in certain cases. That has been confirmed. But at the same time the amendment of the Deputy Minister, if accepted, would prohibit certain things which are allowed at present and which in my view should continue to be legal. For instance if, in a controlled area, property is inherited, then that bequest would at present be quite legal, even if it took place across the colour line. I think the effect of the Deputy Minister’s amendment would be to render it illegal. Similarly, if an agreement had been entered into before the commencement of the principal Act whereby a person was to acquire property, that would have been legal in terms of the existing section whereas the Deputy Minister’s amendment would render it illegal. I think that that is correct in law. and I think there should be some proviso to safeguard those particular instances. I am in agreement with the Deputy Minister that in the future perhaps the amendment which he has proposed would be an advantage, but I nevertheless think the amending clause which he proposes would render illegal these two things which up to now have been legal. Can the hon. the Deputy Minister say whether that is correct; whether these two types of acquisition which could take place quite legally in the past, by inheritance and in terms of a written agreement entered into before the Act, are now being made illegal, and would the Deputy Minister consider a proviso which would retain those two possibilities.

As I read this clause it is going to make the position of the Coloured people much more difficult and much more serious. Sir, a “controlled area” is defined in the principal Act, which says that a “controlled area” means any area which is not a group area … ”, but part of a controlled area does become a group area at one time or another. Now I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to what really has taken place in an area not far from Cape Town where Coloured people applied for permits in a controlled area to acquire property. These permits were granted only a few years ago, and these people acted in good faith and put their savings into these properties, only to find that a few years later the Government declared that area to be a group area for a group other than for those people to whom the permits were granted. That is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs and a lot of Coloured people were permitted under permit to purchase property in a controlled area, and the Minister has come a few years later and declared it to be a group area, in this case for Europeans, and these people had to move again.

This Clause 8 only gives the Minister further powers to ruin people. He can give a permit under Clause 8 as envisaged under this amendment, but there is no security of tenure for these poor people. They don’t know where they are, because in two or three years’ time the Minister can say: “I now declare this to be a group area and I am not interested whether you have got a permit or not, you have got to go out again.” Sir, you can’t play fast and loose with the feelings of people the way this Government has been doing, and I would like to see this clause expunged from the Bill, or otherwise we should get some satisfaction from the hon. the Minister that if he does give a permit in a controlled area, he will see to it that these people shall remain and that they should not be there at the pleasure of the Government. The position should not be that somebody can come along and say: “You granted permits to 18, 20 or 80 Coloured families; we think you have made a mistake.” We know the pressure that is brought to bear on the Government as far as group areas are concerned, and under Clause 7 the hon. the Minister can now appoint one man who will decide whether the Government should not have granted these 20 or 40 or 80 permits and whether these Coloured people have to go. I raise this in protest because we have actual evidence of what happened in the past. I want to add one further example. I am told that many Coloured people bought property under the permit system, on what we call “hire purchase Now the Minister has cancelled all that. These agreements shall be of no force or effect. The status quo must be restored. A man who has sold the property must give back all the instalments he received, and the poor Coloured people who bought homes under the hire-purchase system, have got to go again. Surely the time has come when the Coloured people, who suffer, as we know, very deeply under this Act, should at least know that when they get a permit, they will be there for the future and for life, and that they will not again be chased from pillar to post, chased away as if they are cattle and not human beings. I protest most strongly against this type of legislation.

I want To tell the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that I am informed that the hon. member’s deduction is correct. But how many cases of that nature will arise?

What about the cases of hire-purchase agreements to which the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) has referred?

I repeat that there are few cases of the kind to which the hon. member has referred, and then they are cases where the people have inherited the property. I will go into the matter raised by the hon. member for Boland and ascertain whether the position warrants that we bring about a change; whether there are as many cases of hardship as he alleges.

I shall give the necessary information to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Yes, the hon. member can let me have the information. I want to say to the hon. member, however, that he should get out of the habit which he has developed of getting up in this House time and again and objecting to something or other. Time and again he gives us instances where people are treated unfairly and being terribly oppressed. That takes the hon. member no further. The hon. member should raise the points which he wishes to raise and we will be reasonable and investigate them, but he should not use the discussion on every individual clause as an opportunity to paint a gloomy picture to the country.

I am pleased the Minister has said that he will investigate this matter, especially the agreements that were entered into before this Act was introduced.

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to

On Clause 9,

Mr. Chairman, this clause substitutes Section 13 of Act 77 of 1957. and the memorandum says that Clause 9 simply corrects errors that were made in the consolidating Act and contains no new provisions. Undoubtedly the wording of the new clause is simpler than the wording in the original Act. I wonder, however, why the hon. the Minister could not try further to improve on the original section, because if one looks at the definition under Section 10 of the original Act of persons belonging to the different groups, it becomes so complicated that the whole operation of the Act must become almost impossible. People assume chameleon-like appearances in South Africa under the definitions of the Group Areas Act. Persons who are classified as belonging to one group or one race according to general associations or acceptance, will change their group if they happen to marry persons of another group, and, of course, as group membership in our social set-up in South Africa is regarded, such a person will then obtain inferior status in this country. Now if at any time in future he divorces that person or perhaps his wife dies, then he reverts back again to the original group from which he stems. Of couse, it is discretionary, but it can happen. A man can change from one group to the other. Take, for example, a Coloured woman who was married to an African in terms of this Act. If the African dies or she divorces him, she can then be reverted to her previous group. This leads to so many additional difficulties where people own property in the correct group for Group Areas purposes, and their status changes, they may have to sell that property, unless they get a permit. Is there no way in which the Minister can obviate cases like this which really must lead to the most incredible confusion?

In this case I must rely on the law advisers and they say that the restrictions imposed were merely intended to apply to the case of change of group by a person. In drafting an amendment, it was decided to correct an error. It was found that the section which had only been introduced in 1952 had been made retrospective to 1950 and that the section in effect prohibited the disposal of properties concerned to members of the qualified group after the properties had been included in group areas for ownership. In a group area for ownership the legality of a position necessarily depends on the group of the transferee and the group of the transferor is irrelevant. It is accordingly proposed to substitute a new Section 13 in which all these errors had been corrected.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I intended to move the amendments standing in my name, viz.—

1. (4) Whenever the purpose for which a property may be occupied or used has been restricted by virtue of a proclamation under sub-section (1), the owner of the property shall be paid an amount equal to the reduction in value, if any, of such property due to such restriction.
2. (5) The amount of compensation payable in terms of sub-section (4) shall in the absence of agreement be fixed by arbitration in accordance with the provisions of Sections 2 and 3 of Act No. 6 of 1882 (Cape of Good Hope).

I have had notice from the Clerk of the House to say that this amendment is not in order because it requires a warrant from the Governor-General before it is put, therefore, I am unable to put it, but I hope that my intention is clear. The point is that in terms of the proposed Section 16bis, the hon. the Minister can declare an area in which property may be used for a particular purpose only, and I think it is generally accepted that the reason why he is seeking this power is that he wishes business to continue in certain properties, but that those properties should not be used for residential purposes, and that in fact people who live above such properties will have to move out if the section is applied in that way. So far as I can see there is no provision for compensation. The purposes for which the building will be able to be used will be limited. Whereas previously it could be used for business purposes as far as certain parts of the building were concerned, and for residential purposes as far as other parts of the building were concerned, now the hon. the Minister has got the right to limit it to one of those two. The value of such a building may very well be reduced. Very likely it will be reduced; because accommodation which was available for certain purposes, may now no longer be used for those purposes. It is true, that in terms of an amendment towards the end of this amending Bill, building land or premises which has been specified in a proclamation under Section 16bis, may be included in the definition of “group area” for the purposes of the Group Areas Development Act, but I cannot see how that is going to enable the hon. the Minister to provide for compensation, unless he actually buys in that property, unless the Group Areas Development Board buys in that property in respect of which the purpose has been limited. Will the hon. the Minister tell us how the Group Areas Board will proceed? If they limit the purpose for which a particular building may be used, do they intend to buy in that property and then to re-let it, perhaps to the previous owner, to continue his business? Because if that is not done, then I cannot see that the Minister will be able to pay compensation for the reduction in value of the property. It was with that in mind that I wished to move the amendments on page 278 of the Order Paper which provide for arbitration. I am unable to move that amendment, and unless the hon. the Minister can satisfy us that proper provision will be made for the payment of compensation, we shall certainly vote against the clause on that ground alone.

I want to say immediately that apart from the fact that you, Mr. Chairman, have refused to accept the amendment, the hon. member has raised something which is worth while investigating. As a matter of fact I have already asked that it be investigated immediately, but if an amendment is necessary to enable us to take the necessary action, it will have to be made to the Group Areas Development Act. I want to tell the hon. member that we will consider the matter during the recess and if necessary we will amend the Group Areas Development Act early next session.

I wish to move the following amendment—

During the second-reading stage of this Bill, the hon. the Minister put forward that this was a relaxation. Of course we accept that it does in fact allow people to trade and live away from the area. It has, however, certain objections. First of all, this is an attempt to control the use of land. I mentioned this before to the hon. the Minister, and I mention it again, that it not only controls the occupation of a building but it controls the use of a building, as such it cuts right across the face of town planning. As I explained to the hon. the Minister, in a province such as Natal, if this clause goes through, as it is, you will have three town-planning bodies, namely, the local authority, the province and this body under the Bill. It will cut across licensing because the Minister under other clauses can specify another use for the building than the use to which it is being put at the present moment, with a subsequent upset of town-planning. I believe that this amendment of mine will largely correct the position. It will enable the Minister to allow a building or site to be used for the purpose for which it was being used at the time of the proclamation, and it can only be changed as a result of a request by the owner that it should be used for some other purpose.

This particular amendment in Clause 12 contains another principle to which we take strong exception. We are prepared to admit that the Minister’s idea, and correctly so, is in certain portions of his amendment, to alleviate the position of people occupying for business purposes. I think we dealt with that fully at the earlier stages of this Bill, but it does again impose the principle of occupation by permit. Certain portions of the building can be used for specified business purposes— a permit can be given for the use of such portions of the building for such business purposes. But it will be next door to impossible for any business of an extensive nature to have to exist under permit, a permit which can be revoked at any time, there being no real time limit at all applied to it. There is the question of stock investment, capital investment, all the features that go to make up a successful and a sound business—they must be thwarted by the fact that from month to month the owner of that business is never sure that he is going to be allowed to continue his occupancy. It is laid down quite clearly in sub-section (2) that those premises cannot be used for any other purpose, except as specified under the authority of a permit.

Then there is the other feature that the Minister made it plain in the earlier portion of the debate that only the portion of the premises used for business purposes can be so used, and that where under existing conditions, or prior to that particular change, the owner may have used a portion of the premises for occupation (and the other portion for business purposes) he will no longer be permitted to occupy the residential part of the premises which he previously occupied for this purpose. There is no question about it that the hon. the Minister will again reply that it is still a concession, but the hon. Minister will find that he has put another load on his shoulders, because it is going to be next door to impracticable under the proclaimed areas system, to utilize the residential portions of a large number of premises in this country which were designed purely for residential purposes, for any other purpose than that for which they were designed and built. It will mean again the imposition of a further penalty on the owners of the premises. Although, as a result of the relaxation afforded by this amendment, such a person will be able to continue in business, he will have a considerable portion of his premises completely redundant, and it will be next door to impossible to let it for other purposes, and that portion will lie on his hands for maintenance and all the other things that entail expenditure. It is the type of amendment which appears on the surface to be doing good, but which in practice will be found to be most difficult to administer and is likely to cause a substantial headache not only to the owners, but to the Board and the Minister himself.

The other feature is covered by the amendment just moved. It is dealt with by that amendment in an endeavour to alleviate the difficulty we foresee, but as a whole it is an amendment which will require quite a lot of careful examination and adjustment before it achieves the end which the hon. the Minister himself, I think, has quite honestly set out to achieve: to grant some relief to the owners by not dispossessing them of their livelihood and their business. I would urge even now in this Committee Stage that the hon. the Minister should give more thought to that particular aspect. Once the area is proclaimed as a proclaimed area for a certain class, it is only that class which will be able to make use of the remaining portion of any such building, and in nine out of ten cases, with the exception maybe of very large premises they will find that it can only be used for the one purpose, for which it will be debarred by the permit itself.

The hon. the Deputy Minister told us that he considers this to be a major concession in the Bill. I must say, however, that weighing up the pros and cons I am not at all sure that the additional disadvantages which this new Section 16bis introduces do not outweigh any advantages in the form of the concession to be able to declare a property an area for business purposes only, in other words, to allow people to continue to trade there, although they are no longer allowed to reside there. The reason I say that, is that in practice—I hope the hon. the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—that in practice in fact, in the case of Indians who were living and trading in so-called defined areas, they could continue to use those premises for any purpose whatsoever. Up to now as long as they occupied those premises before a certain date, 31 March 1951, they could continue to do so for any purpose whatsoever. So in fact this provision now introduces restrictions in those specified areas where no restrictions previously existed. So where an Indian for instance was allowed to trade in this particular property, if the hon. the Minister now decides to make that area an area for residential purposes only, he loses his trading rights; or if he decides to make it an area for industrial purposes, he will also lose his trading rights. Previously, before the hon. the Minister could do that, he had to go through the whole machinery of proclaiming the area a group area for a special purpose. So it gives the hon. the Deputy Minister greater powers in restricting the use to which property in defined areas can now be put, and there the disadvantages may be greater than the advantages, although I believe the hon. the Deputy Minister intends to use this as a concession wherever he can do so. But I want to say that from that point of view we do not consider this to be a particularly advantageous clause. I also want to point out that the market value of the property is affected by the fact that where previously the property could be used for any purpose whatsoever, now under 16bis, it is to be used for one specific purpose only, and this obviously has the effect of limiting the amount which could be received for that property if it were sold. I think the hon. the Minister himself has realized that because in a later clause, I think 29, he brings all the properties under 16bis under the Group Areas Development Act. In other words, the properties can be expropriated by the Board itself. So that on balance we do not consider this clause to be a particularly “liberalizing” clause. I used the word in inverted commas because of the particular connotation this word has in South Africa, and although the hon. the Minister has kindly said that he will investigate the matter raised by the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) we still cannot agree to this clause.

I just want to say that we welcome the approach of the hon. the Minister on this matter of compensation. The hon. Minister has said that he will go into that question. That meets one of our objections. But another basic objection to this clause remains. When we were dealing with Clause 5 I moved an amendment that a proclamation should not be issued in terms of Section 16bis until the Board had considered the question of alternative accommodation and had advised the Minister on that matter. The hon. the Minister was not prepared to accept that in relation to proclamations under Section 16bis, although it is already in the law in relation to the proclamation of group areas. We say that exactly the same principle applies here: People can be removed for residential purposes from premises which they occupy, and we say that it should be written into the law that the Board shall consider the existence of suitable alternative accommodation before they advise the Minister in regard to a proclamation. The hon. the Minister has not accepted such an amendment and therefore we have a basic objection to this clause. We do also have reservations about limiting buildings for use for one purpose only where a building was used for more than one purpose. It may lead to very great wastage indeed. The alterations may have to be substantial to put it to another use. So we have reservations on that point too. After all it is quite common to find a building used for business purposes on the ground floor and for residential purposes upstairs. That is not actually what the Minister is objecting to. He is objecting to it being done by certain races, and so it is a racial approach here. We are not satisfied that the proper approach has been made to this problem. So one of our basic objections remains. As the provisions in respect of suitable alternative accommodation is not written into the Act although we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister is prepared to consider the question of compensation, we nevertheless must vote against this clause.

This amendment has obviously come about as a result of the problem which presented itself to the board with regard to the implementation of the term “occupation ”. The board was confronted by the difficulty that it was unable to allow a person to carry on business in an area where occupation was controlled and that person, in terms of the proclamation controlling that area, was disqualified. That was because the term “occupation” meant actual physical habitation. The board was unable, in terms of the Act, as it stood, to create a division of the site for occupation into residential and business premises. The intention of the hon. the Deputy Minister in introducing this amendment to the Act is obviously to enable the board, when dealing with the question of Group Areas or the defining of any area of land to, at the same time, permit a specific use for that piece of land or that area of land. In other words, as the Deputy Minister said in his second reading speech, his objective is to enable the board to permit the occupation of a certain area of land for business purposes only whilst, at the same time, excluding its occupation for residential purposes, and so limiting the use of that particular land, premises or area.

In doing so, there has been a fear expressed that the reason for this amendment is also to permit the board to define the use of those premises itself. It may permit the board, following policy from Government sources, to confine the specific purpose of that land or those premises for a particular type of industry or a particular type of trade. And so, in a sense, not only specify a purpose but also to limit that purpose in a manner which conforms not with the desire of the owner or the trader, but with the desire of governmental policy. That, I think, is a fear which the hon. the Deputy Minister should meet, and should certainly allay so far as the affected persons are concerned.

The purpose of this amendment is that when the board does allow land or premises to continue to be used for a particular purpose, it shall be used for the purpose prevailing at the time of the promulgation, or prior to the actual promulgation. So that the individual who makes the application shall at least have the assurance that he will be entitled to continue trading in the same business in which he had been trading previously, unless the owner of the premises would like to change that. Then, only, should the board give consideration to the actual definition of the type of business which may be carried on. If, on the other hand, it is the intention in promulgating any land or premises for a specific use, to use the general term that is made use of in town planning, for instance, for business purposes or industrial purposes, then I think that the clause should be very much clearer and should clearly define that it intends, in providing a specific use, to do so in the broad categories to which we are accustomed under our town planning legislation. Failing this there is a definite fear—which may be a misleading fear or may be a fear which has no basis—but it is a fear which will certainly arise in terms of the wording of this clause.

I think the hon. the Deputy Minister has an opportunity in terms of the amendment which has been moved, to set those fears at rest and, perhaps by trial and error, to come back later, in a year or two, and make any change that is necessary. But at least he has the opportunity of giving an assurance to those persons for whom the hon. the Deputy Minister may claim he is providing a certain relaxation of the harsh provisions of the Statute, that they will not lose any of the rights that they have at the moment. This is a very real fear, and the criticism contained in the amendment is not directed merely at the Statute, it is a criticism which is in the material interests of people who earn their daily livelihood from the use to which the land is being put at the moment. If there is a desire on the part of the Government to ease these harsh provisions then, I believe we should be very much more clear and definite in what we are doing. Far too much of this particular Act is so vague that it requires a great deal of ingenuity on the part of the board which has to interpret it and implement it reasonably. That is why we are having these constant amendments. However, one does appreciate that an effort is being made to ease the situation. Cannot, therefore, the effort be in a direction which will lay at rest any question of fear in the minds of the people to whom this means so much? The hon. the Deputy Minister knows, and has had proof as a result of the determinations following on the previous Act, even prior to the consolidation in 1957, of what the literal interpretation of this Act can mean in the financial life of a large community in this country. It is because they have been faced with the stark realities of the implementation of the Act that the Government has come forward with amendments. One does not decry those efforts. But one does hope that they will go very much further because, after all, if we are to administer this law with justice as was foretold at the time of its original introduction, then we must administer it with justice tempered with wisdom. Let that justice not be lightly handled, but let it be enshrined in the law, with a sense of wisdom which will give satisfaction to those affected by this legislation. And let them also have a sense of security as to what the State is providing for their benefit.

I, very sincerely indeed, would like to see amendments made to this Act with that crystal clarity that would leave no doubt in the minds of those persons who are affected by this provision of the Act, that the amendments so made are—as the Minister has put it—ostensibly in their interests.

In order to meet hon. members to some extent, I am prepared to move the following amendment—

How will that help us?

Mr. Chairman, it will help to this extent that we hope this will render nugatory the prophecies of hon. members that by declaring these special areas we will unwittingly clash with town planning and other schemes which have been established under the guidance of local authorities. Just as in the case of groups areas where the Administrator has the right to make objections and to try to make them conform with the planning which is taking place in his own province, he will also be consulted in this case and he given the opportunity to object. I think this is a concession which I can make and this is proof that we are seeking co-operation in so far as these proposed areas are concerned. I am afraid I cannot go further than that.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain to us how the amendment he has just moved will meet a case of the type we are boggling at. In the early stages the hon. the Deputy Minister made it clear that he was making a concession in regard to business premises. Let me take the case of an Indian trader who is living in a double-storied building, living upstairs and trading on the ground floor. As I understood it, the concession was that upon receipt of a permit that Indian trader could be permitted to continue trading in those premises, but not permitted to reside therein. The premises themselves are in a specified controlled area and, therefore, can only be occupied, for any purpose, by people of that particular race group. In this case it would be the Indian group. Therefore the owner of those premises has to move out to an area set aside for residential purposes for the Asian group. But under permit he can continue to occupy the bottom floor for the purposes of a specified business. This being a proclaimed area, and being specified as a business area, there is no one else who can occupy those premises except another person of the same race. The one who was occupying it, has had to move out. How is the amendment of the Deputy Minister to the effect that the Administrator would be consulted, in any way going to affect that situation? I can understand that it will have an effect when it comes to dealing with new buildings to be erected where, I assume, the relaxation would not apply in any event. But in the case of existing buildings, where a person of a particular class owns the building, lives in it and trades there, how does the amendment have any beneficial effect? I have in mind an actual case of premises of that nature, where the reverse has been the case for over three years. This is a case of a very substantial building consisting of two shops on the ground floor and a residence on the upper floor. The upper floor has been occupied by the owner who js in business in another shop. He has had to rent this other shop while his own two shops have stood empty because he is not permitted to occupy them. For three years they have stood empty, he has paid rates and taxes on them but has been unable to rent them to anyone else. Yet he has been allowed to live above his empty shops. Now we are going to reverse the position. If a man in that position receives a permit he is going to be allowed to trade in those shops but will not longer be allowed to live above them. And nobody else but a person of his race group will be allowed to occupy the premises over those shops. I would like the hon. the Deputy Minister to explain how he proposes to overcome a situation of that nature.

There is, of course, another difficulty which arises. In the fairly large businesses of some of these people, it is essential for some protection to be afforded to them during the hours when the premises are closed for business. But the owners have to move and live right out of the area. What protection is going to be afforded their business premises during the hours that they no longer have access to them? However, the main objection is the question of occupation of that portion of the property which has to be vacated in terms of this so-called concession.

The amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister does not help me at all. My problem is this: This clause is an effort to vest the administration of the Group Areas with the use of land or the use of a building. It is not only the right to declare what particular group shall occupy it, but to what use it shall be put. Once that is done the Minister is vesting the Group Areas Administration with the functions of a town planning board or a town planning authority. I cannot see how that can possibly work, if three different authorities are going to have the right to plan the use of land in one particular area. I have already told the hon. the Deputy Minister that in Natal this will mean that the local authority, the province and the Government will all be attending to town planning. This is going to cause the biggest mix-up that you can imagine. It must do, because each one of those bodies is going to give permission for the use to which that particular piece of land can be put. The fortunate man who goes to the Group Areas Administration for permission will probably be all right, because government authority will over-ride all others. But what about the unfortunate individuals who go to local authorities and get permission to use a piece of land for a certain business purpose? If that individual and his activities do not meet with the approval of the Group Areas Administration, he is going to lose out. He can spend a lot of money on developing his site for a specific purpose—I quoted them in the second reading—such as a drive-in cinema; he can use it for that purpose and suddenly find he has to vacate it. Last week in Durban I saw permission granted, in the Queen Street area, for a huge block of flats with shops underneath, for non-European occupation. But what is going to happen when Group Areas come in there? I believe that that block of buildings, together with the land, will cost £100,000 to £150,000, or more. What is going to happen to that when the Group Areas Administration comes there and says “you can occupy the shop but you cannot occupy the flats above ”? What is going to happen? The town planning authorities are going to issue licences allowing a particular type of trade to be carried on in the bottom portion of that building. The Group Areas Administration can copie along and say “You cannot use them for that purpose you must open another type of business, in the building ”. Where is town planning going to begin and where is it going to end? Why does not the hon. the Deputy Minister come to us and say “I am going to attend to all town planning in every area where you have a colour problem ”? Then he would be getting nearer to the problem, because he might just as well do that and cause less confusion— or more, I do not know which. But at least you would have one body attending to the job whereas here you are going to have three. Frankly, this will result in such a mess that it cannot possibly work.

Therefore, Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister must see that the amendment he has put forward cannot possibly meet the case. Why does the Government want to control the use of the land? I know that under the Group Areas Act the Government can control the occupation of the land, but in terms of this clause they distinguish absolutely between the group which will occupy it and the use to which it shall be put. That is where the confusion is coming in. They have never done that before. This is a new line in Group Areas control, where the Government has the say as to the use to which a building shall be put. I believe that the Minister is going to get everybody into trouble and is going to cause a lot of hardship. I ask him seriously to reconsider my amendment which, I believe, will overcome this difficulty. If he will accept that he shall have the right to lay down who shall occupy, but not the use to which that building is put, then I believe he will save everybody a lot of headaches.

It is difficult to discuss amending legislation of this nature with hon. members opposite. From the very nature of their position in this House, they must oppose legislation, and it has now become clear that they do not always do so with logical arguments but that they often, as they have done for the whole of this afternoon, come along with arguments that the so-called rights of the individual are being affected. I would like to point out to hon. members opposite that in nine out of ten cases where amending legislation is introduced it is usually done to facilitate the administration and the application of such legislation. Where the administration and the application of the legislation have to be facilitated and made more effective, that is done particularly to ensure that those people who cannot be brought within the scope of the Act and who perhaps find loopholes will also be included and that provision will be made for them also. In such cases it is often quite possible that their rights are affected, but I would like to ask hon. members not only to advance moral but also logical considerations in the sense that the administration of this legislation, the principle of which has already been adopted, must be made effective in practice. With regard to town planning, the hon. member who has just sat down said that the concession …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the clause.

I am there now, Sir, in regard to the town planning. The hon. member who spoke just before me said that in his province there are now three bodies who will have a say in the object for which properties are used. I am not sure what the position is in his province, because very often peculiar things are done there. But as far as I know, the local authorities are under the control of the Provincial Administrations. If the Governor-General now makes an award in this case, from the nature of the matter only two bodies would be concerned with it. On the one hand it is the Minister who makes the award by way of a proclamation issued by the Governor-General, and on the other hand the Provincial Administration of the province concerned, which in the final result exercises control over everything done by the local authorities. Now the hon. the Minister has said that he is making a concession, viz. that before anything can be done there should be consultation between these two bodies. If the hon. member now says that this is not a concession, I really do not know what it is. The hon. member will remember that in the second reading I said that he was raising a good point because he said that more than one authority would have to deal with the matter. But, Sir, now there is co-ordination; there is consultation and the possibility that the one authority will make one award and the other authority is being eliminated by the concession made by the hon. the Minister. I really think the hon. member should abide by that and accept that it is really a concession of great importance in regard to the objection he raised.

Now with regard to the former practice, the hon. member moved an amendment that the use of the site or building concerned should be confined to what it was used for before. I think, with respect, that the hon. member will realize that if the Minister were to agree to it the bottom would be knocked out of the whole object of this clause. This clause would then be practically useless, because if town planning is essential then it is also essential to deviate from the present use of a particular site or building. And if that is not necessary, then town planning is not necessary either. I call it town planning because it is in line with the ordinary accepted procedure of town planning which we all know. That is why I feel that nobody in this House should consider that the hon. the Deputy Minister would be able to accept something like this because it would negative his whole object. That is why I conclude by asking that hon. members should not expect the impossible and that they should not merely argue emotionally or sentimentally but also logically and with a view to the practical application of these provisions.

The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) has set forth two very good reasons for which we object to this clause. But I want to say that they are not the only reasons. There is another reason which, I think, should be explicitly stated, and that is that we in the Progressive Party are strongly opposed, in principle, to the compulsory removal of individuals from their property. This clause, introducing as it does, a new principle in the division of a combined residential and business economy—is one of which we also very strongly disapprove. It is quite obvious that any such action under this clause would have the effect of gradually undermining the economic stability of businesses that have been built up in this manner.

The hon. the Deputy Minister made great play of the fact that he regarded this clause as a concession because it enables him to make a proclamation empowering the Group Areas Board to remove the owner of a property for residential purposes, whilst allowing him to continue to conduct his business at the premises. I am quite certain that no non-European in this country, whether he be a Coloured or Asiatic, who is affected by this clause, would agree that this can in any way be regarded as a concession. After all, I do not think the hon. the Minister has fully taken into account the economic effect on non-European business, involved in the removal of an owner from residential quarters on the same premises. There is, first of all, the question of supervision. Let me say here, Mr. Chairman, that very often these business premises are sited in areas which are conspicuous for the absence of adequate police patrolling and, consequently, the question of supervision, especially at night time, is a very important one.

There is also the question of what will happen to the business if, due to his removal, the owner finds that his insurance rates are substantially increased, or if he finds that because of the lack of supervision at all times, day and night, he is less credit-worthy and therefore finds it considerably more difficult to get credit from the industries and wholesale merchants which supply him in the normal course of business. Surely it must have the effect of eventually depreciating the chances of effecting a sale of the business as a going concern.

Therefore, if one views the operation of this clause from these points of view, one finds that the clause is certainly no concession. On the contrary, what it amounts to is that it will provide for the gradual strangulation of this type of non-European business. Quite apart from the business aspect, there is also the additional aspect that the persons affected are going to be put to considerable expense in removing themselves and their families to some other area for residential purposes; an area in which, possibly, not all services will be available, such as transport.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

When the debate was adjourned I was explaining how the provisions of Clause 12 would have the effect of forcing an Indian who had been obliged to dissociate his business premises from his residential premises to carry on his business in such a way that he would be gradually strangled economically, and I pointed out that that would not be the end of the story, because he would be forced to move to a residential area, not of his own choosing, having to eke out a precarious living on a permit from the Minister, and when he got to the new residential area he would there be faced with all the additional costs of running two establishments. He would have to maintain both buildings and pay rates in both instances, and he would certainly have additional transport costs, knowing that in the new area to which he would be forced to take his family there might not even be transport facilities. From both points of view he will suffer. On the other hand, if any European chooses to come into the area which he has recently vacated and erects business premises and builds residential accommodation also on those premises, not only would he not be placed in a position of equality with his European competitor, but the position would actually be reversed.

The Minister, in dealing with the question of compensation, stated that he would look into the matter and, if necessary, make provision in the Group Areas Development Act for compensation. But surely the Minister must have considered the question of compensation arising from this clause. I would like to know on what basis he proposes to adjust the compensation, because there is such an infinite variety of circumstances that can arise, that it seems to me to be a question which would almost baffle the wisdom of Solomon to get a fair basis on which compensation can be assessed.

One comes finally to the question of the motive which prompts the introduction of this clause. I think the hon. member for Parow (Mr. Kotzé), with his rather disarming frankness, gave the show away when he said that this provision would assist “in clearing up what was otherwise a predominantly White area and to clear up isolated spots occupied by Asiatic and Coloured traders who cannot easily be moved either because of the high expropriation cost or for humanitarian reasons ”. So this clause is destined to short-circuit these difficulties. Moreover, the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) said: “That in future the Indian will have to compete with the White trader on an equal footing, because, in future, he would also have a home about five miles from his shop, just as in the case of the White man, and he would also have the expense of travelling from his business, and would have to compete on an equal basis with the White man, and he would not have the advantage of living on his business premises with no travelling expenses, and thus be in a position to cut prices.” If the Minister wants to create the impression that he is implementing this legislation with a sense of impartiality towards all races, he should assure us that some simultaneous efforts are being made in other directions to ensure that the Indian and the Coloured population, who are otherwise subjected to all sorts of restrictions, are going to be systematically removed. In point of fact, these disabilities which are being imposed on them by this clause are being added to disabilities in other directions. It seems to me that if the intention of the Government is, as these two hon. members have stated, that the Government wishes to impose certain disabilities on the Indian trader in order to force him into other occupations, I suggest that they would do better by simply introducing group areas rather than strangle these individuals very slowly in this manner. I would remind the Minister of the statement made by the Minister of Bantu Education reported in the Natal Daily News on 22 June 1956, “that the Indians would be only too pleased to get out of the country after the effects of the Group Areas Act had been felt I also quote a statement made by Mr. Theo Gerdener, the then Provincial Councillor in Natal, reported in the Daily News on 12 January 1956, that “the policy of the Group Areas Act would break the commercial stranglehold which the Indians seem to have on some towns and districts ”. I suggest that if the Minister wants to create a favourable impression here and overseas at a time when it is important that South Africa’s standing should be high, he should do something to assure everybody that those objectives I have quoted from Government spokesmen are not in fact the case, and give us adequate grounds for believing that these presumptions that these are the motives of the Government are not true.

I do not think we are discussing under this clause what people have said or did not say. That is not relevant. What is relevant is that we are taking power, after thorough investigation and report to the Minister, to proclaim certain areas for certain purposes. It is a new field we are embarking upon and, therefore, we cannot have the reply to every question which might possibly be asked. No investigation has yet been held. We have not yet seen the implications of the matter as a whole. Those will only be apparent to us when we have made the investigation and have obtained the evidence. The prerequisite for the implementation of this clause is that there should be a public investigation where evidence can be heard and where people can lodge their objections. We will learn from that. The hon. member now expects me to do something which they tell us all the time should not be done, viz. to pass legislation before we have the whole picture. It is not possible to do so before we have held the inquiry and the Minister has received the report. We will probably find ourselves up against difficulties, and then we will come back to this House to remedy them. That is what this House is there for. I am not going to deal with the points raised by the hon. member.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) that it is a pity he did not put his amendment on the Order Paper, because he had enough time to do so, in order that we could have considered it properly. But I have now had to consider it over the floor of the House, and, as I understand it, it means just one thing, namely that, if I accept it, I might as well withdraw this clause, because I would then be emasculating the clause. The hon. member wants us not to use a building for a different purpose from the one for which it was used before or at the date of the proclamation, except with the approval of the owner. But one may find the position where one is dealing with an area, and we know of such areas, where the building is hopelessly inefficient, and for that very reason we want to make the Development Act applicable, so that, in terms of that Act, we can use the building for the purposes for which it is required. There may be an old building or there may be buildings on sites which can appropriately be used for a different purpose, and by applying the Development Act those changes can be made. I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment, because that would emasculate the whole clause.

I just want to mention a few points again which were mentioned during the course of the debate. Firstly, I provide in this amendment that there will be consultation with the Administrators. By doing so, we bring this clause into line with other provisions of the Group Areas Act, so that the Administrator will be consulted before a group area is proclaimed. As the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) correctly remarked, the Administrations are there to assist in eliminating a conflict of views. There will be proper consultation. In the second place, I have told the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that I intend reconsidering the whole question of compensation, if the Development Act does not work effectively, and I will then amend the Development Act in order to comply with those requirements. But we need time for that. Particularly when we start investigating such areas will the difficulties become apparent, and we shall be able to amend the Act accordingly. It is not necessary immediately to proclaim an area if it has been investigated. In other words, it is not necessary to do an injustice to people by publishing a proclamation too soon.

In the third place, I just want to say that this clause now gives us the first opportunity to start doing something which we have never yet had the right to do, namely to institute investigations for these purposes. I cannot say more about this clause than this. I can imagine that hon. members would like to ask a whole number of questions. We will take cognizance of that, and, in the light of this discussion, we shall certainly try to proclaim these areas in such a way that the least possible hardship will result. But, on the other hand, hon. members cannot get away from the fact that this is a progressive and practical step in order to facilitate the application of separate residential areas. That is the whole object of the clause.

In the opening remarks of the speech just made by the Deputy Minister, he put his finger right on the fundamental weakness of this type of legislation which makes us as an Opposition oppose it. The Minister conceded that it was quite impossible for him to have all the answers at this stage and for him and his Department to foresee all the implications of this amendment. I am prepared to concede that the Minister is moving in the right direction, that he is making certain concessions, but that fundamental weakness remains. It has been the criticism of the Opposition right throughout that the Government is rushing this type of legislation on to the Statute Book without proper research to ascertain the implications and the repercussions that will develop when they try to put it into operation. The Minister says that when difficulties arise he will come back to this House to amend the legislation. In the name of Heaven, has there not been enough amending legislation yet? Is there any lawyer in the country to-day who can really grasp the Group Areas Act? And the people who suffer under it. what hope do they have of understanding it when you accept as the basis that you pass the legislation and when later you find its difficulties you will come back to amend it. I know that is an accepted principle in many things and that when difficulties do crop up which no one can foresee, the legislation is amended, but in this case we are attempting to point out to the Minister the difficulties we know by experience which exist and the traps he is walking into. The hon. member for Ceres gave us a lecture as to our duty as an Opposition. When the hon. member has been in the House a bit longer, he will probably realize that the Opposition also has a responsibility and that it is our job when we can foresee difficulties to acquaint the Government of them and not to oppose just for the sake of opposition. But in this case the Minister has told us that he cannot be expected to foresee the trouble, but that if it arises he will remedy it. In the meantime the people who are caught between the millstones will be ground into dust. They will lose whatever they have. I will quote a case where within the last three years a magnificent modern building was erected with the permission of the local board and of the local authority, in which there are very fine business premises on the ground floor and a very modern residence at the top. What will happen to that man now when he is forced to move out and live five or six miles away and travel in and out to his business? Again I appeal to the Minister to give this problem further consideration and not force the owner to leave the upper portion of his premises empty. It will be in an area which can only be occupied by a certain specified group and therefore nobody else can live in it. Assume it is a White area. Then do I understand it is Government policy to allow the ground floor to be occupied by Asians for business purposes and allow the upper portion to be occupied by Europeans? These are some of the implications we can foresee from our practical experience, and we are trying to assist the Minister by bringing them to his notice. In regard to the Minister’s suggestion of referring the matter to the Administrator, I still fail to see how it can assist in alleviating the difficulties which will arise.

I feel the Minister has got a little mixed up here between Clause 12 and Clause 14, because in reply to my amendment he spoke about the state of buildings. Frankly, I do not see that this enters into the clause, although it may enter into Clause 14. What I am trying to do in my amendment is to offset to some extent the uncertainty which the Minister has brought into this Act by now taking unto himself or to the Board the power to determine for what particular purpose the premises should be used. Flowing from that, there will be a great deal of uncertainty, and all my amendment seeks to do is to say that the premises shall be used for the purposes for which they are being used at the time of the proclamation. In other words, they must be licensed, if it is a business, and surely the Minister will not interfere with that. If it is a cinema, I am sure the Minister does not want to interfere with it. So what has the Minister got to lose? All he gives in this amendment is the right to people whom he himself has said he will allow to continue to trade in an area where they will become disqualified persons, but they cannot live there. If he intends to do that, surely he will be prepared to give them a little security and the knowledge that they can continue to carry on the trade they are carrying on at present, and that in a year’s time the Minister will not say: You are carrying on a general dealer’s business now, but next year you must sell silks. I am carrying this to absurdity, but that is the type of thing that can be done. Surely local licensing authorities and town-planning have already decided that the business can be carried on there. I do not know why the Minister now wants to control the use of that land or building when it is already controlled. Why cannot he give these people some security, some knowledge that as long as they carry on that particular type of business they can continue to trade there?

I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown in regard to the reply given by the Minister because it is quite clear that Section 16 deals with the Minister’s powers in regard to the occupation of buildings, whether they are new or old or in the process of erection. There the Minister has full power. What worries me is that in regard to the point made by hon. members on this side, the Minister is now taking power in regard to the use of those buildings. This is a new departure. The Minister has not really explained to us precisely what is in the back of his mind. There must surely have been cases which arose where for some reason the Minister or the Board has felt that circumstances are such that it would be desirable to acquire the power to deal with the use of such buildings, as distinct from the race of the occupant. What are the circumstances which have arisen? If I understand him correctly, the Minister says time will tell and if necessary he will amend it again. But this is fundamental to our objection to the Bill. The position is that there will be permits, permits, permits, and I frankly admit that the extension of that principle from our point of view is extremely bad, but we think that the administration of the Act in this way is also extremely bad. Why does the Minister not issue a proclamation for a group area and deal with it under Section 16 and be finished with it? Why does he want to get at the use of the building so that he can order the use of a building on the ground floor for a certain purpose and the use of the top floors for a different purpose? Why does he want to order the use of a piece of land in an area for a certain purpose, and possibly the use of the buildings erected on that land for another purpose, and by a different racial group, because it follows that under Section 16 it must be a different group? Will he allow an Indian to continue business on the ground floor, and above that there may be residential quarters for other Indians? Under Section 16 he is occupying the ground floor and his race are occupying the floors above. Does the Minister really believe that it is possible in a case like that to allow the Indian to carry on business on the ground floor while residing elsewhere, and bring in Whites to occupy the top floors? Is that what is at the back of his mind? We are seeking information. We have pointed out the difficulties and we have had the difficulties underlined by the Minister himself when he frankly admitted that he cannot foresee the ramifications of this clause. But there must be a history behind this, and what is it? Will the Minister tell us why he takes these powers, which he says will be nullified if he accepts our amendment? Why should it be nullified? It will only be nullified because he will be prevented from ordering the use of existing buildings for a purpose other than the purpose for which they have been used. If he wanted that power, our amendment would be acceptable to him, but the only reason why the amendment is not acceptable is that he is not prepared to permit the continued use for the purpose for which they are being used. He wants to be able to order their use for some other purpose. Why does the Minister seek this power?

Hon. members must now tell us what they want. This clause makes a very great concession to the Indians. As I pointed out at the second reading, it is a very great concession to distinguish between their residential areas and their places of business. As regards the determination of the purpose for which a building may be used, the existing legislation already makes provision for that.

In which section?

I think it is Section 18. I want to say this. Here we are trying to give the Indians or a disqualified race the opportunity to continue with their business activities while we remove them to another area as far as their homes are concerned. The hon. member for South Coast has referred to buildings which have business premises below and flats above and he wants to know what the Minister is going to do. All I can say is that the Minister will have to decide that point at the proper time in the light of the then prevailing conditions. A permit can be issued to the people to remain there. He may also decide that he does not want to allow them to stay there. Seeing that this is an attempt to allow these people to continue with their businesses, which is a very great concession, I just want to ask hon. members what more they want? Hon. members must make their standpoint clear. They must say whether they want disqualified persons to be able to continue living in any area they like, or whether the Minister should have the right to decide whether they may continue to do so.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) has actually put his finger on the pulse of the whole situation. I can talk with some knowledge of the position in Johannesburg where the city council was obliged to deal with the matter before an inquiry under the Group Areas Act and recommended to the board that certain areas which by tradition had grown up as areas of occupation for certain groups should be preserved. Those areas grew up not only for business purposes but also for dwelling. They have not had sporadic spreading over the city but have in time confined themselves to certain sections of our city and have so maintained themselves in harmony with the rest of the community. You have a very similar situation in Cape Town where you have certain quarters inhabited by certain sections of the community for a long time, which have acquired a certain atmosphere and tradition. The purpose of the Opposition to this particular clause is to try to preserve that particular situation.

And maintain mixed occupation.

No, there is nothing mixed about this. There is mixed occupation, but not necessarily mixed group areas. In Johannesburg you have the situation in Fordsburg, which has been occupied for many years by certain sections for business purposes and also for residential purposes. One of the main fears in regard to the present clause as it is drafted is that there might possibly be an interference in the type of trade that is carried on. The suggestion of the last speaker, however, is that there might be a fear on this side of the House that there might be interference even with the type of general occupancy which includes the residential side. I wonder what harm there would be in the whole matter if, whilst preserving residential separation there was no interference with the traditional form of living, namely of having businesses on the ground floor and residential occupation on the upper floors because, after all, once one has agreed to maintain a certain type of occupancy on the ground floor on land which is expensive, because it is almost in the heart of the city, why should these people be denied the right to develop upwards with regard to the remaining right of buildings on that particular property? That is an important problem, because it can turn an ordinary reasonably priced property into an extremely expensive proposition. I think the main purpose of the amendment is obviously to preserve the status quo in regard to business undertakings, but in view of the speech we have just heard I cannot see why the Minister should fear the possibility even of the residential quarters maintaining themselves in those areas. The reason why I raise this issue is because the Deputy Minister, in introducing the Bill, referred only to the preservation of business premises. Why he should have confined himself only to that aspect in drafting the clause, is something which we do not appreciate. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) spoke about these large blocks of flats which had been built in a place called Queen Street and Grey Street in Durban where, in addition to the business premises on the ground floor, the town-planning board had permitted seven to eight storeys to be constructed for residential purposes. That is the trouble which faces Durban. Johannesburg, on the other hand, has other problems because of the expensive nature of the ground that is involved and which may now, under this clause, be limited to the ground floor or possibly one additional storey for business purposes. I think, Sir, that if the hon. the Deputy Minister realizes that it is time to meet the situation in a realistic manner, he will not only accept the amendment but declare himself immediately, in so far as his policy is concerned, that the board will have complete freedom in the choice of the use to which these premises should be put and not be limited by the hon. the Deputy Minister’s statement which deals only with the business which is conducted in those premises. I think, Sir, that if the hon. the Deputy Minister were to make a statement to that effect we would be able to understand the position better and this side of the House may have a more sympathetic appreciation of what the Minister intended to convey in the theme of his address namely the desire to bring some laxity into the harsh provisions of the Act and the intention to alleviate the difficulties and the problems that face the groups who are involved in this very involved and complicated machinery of law which is seeking artificially to create barriers to suit the peculiarities of life in this country and at the same time to bring some measure of justice in its application.

It is now quite clear what the hon. member wants. I am very glad that he has made this speech. It is now clear what the whole position is. This new Section 16bis which is now being inserted provides that there can be a specially specified area in which Indians may be given the right to continue with their businesses while they are removed to their new residential area. In other words, instead of removing them together with their families and their businesses to the new area, we are now giving them an area in which they can continue with their businesses while we remove them as far as their homes are concerned. Let me make it quite clear: Such a specified area is not a group area. It is not an area which has been set aside for Indian occupation or as a group area for Indians. This is a temporary concession which is being made to such a disqualified group to allow them to carry on their business The hon. member now urges that we should make the same concessions in respect of their residential rights. In other words, the whole object of this clause would therefore be defeated. Let me say this clearly: As regards existing buildings I can foresee that the Group Areas Board and the Minister will grant permits governing the occupation of those buildings. But I can also foresee that if we were to grant what the hon. member advocates in the case of the Indians, for example, the Indians would say: “Let us now erect seven or eight storey buildings because we shall be allowed to live there.” Mr. Chairman, that would defeat the whole object of this legislation; it would defeat the whole object of the concession which is being made here. It is quite clear that if such a concession were made, instead of the Indians moving to a new residential area, they would erect huge buildings and would live in them in their thousands. Let me repeat that this provision does not deal with group areas; this is a temporary measure to give the disqualified group an opportunity to continue with their business. But if we gave them an opportunity to develop upwards, to erect multi-storied buildings where they would all be able to live together, we would be defeating the whole object of this measure. Then we would not be able to move them. I think hon. members are expecting too much. While we are already making a concession, they are asking for too much in asking for a further concession as regards rights of occupation.

I want to react immediately to a point made by the hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt). He said this was a temporary measure. Is the object of this clause merely to allow these people to remain there temporarily for business purposes? This is an important new thought that has been introduced into the debate. Is the idea that an Indian trader, for instance, shall only be allowed to carry on his business in that building for a certain time?

That is my interpretation of the clause.

If that is so, Sir, then this clause contains no concession whatsoever. The hon. member said not only in his last speech, but in the one immediately before, that this was a big concession. Let us examine to what extent it is a concession. The hon. the Deputy Minister does not have to declare a group area, he can define it in terms of Clause 16bis. There is no provision at the present moment for adequate compensation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has virtually agreed with this in saying that he will consider this aspect during the recess and if necessary amend the Group Areas Development Act. It is quite clear that at present there is no adequate provision for compensation to be paid to those people who have to move and to the owners of buildings who can only only use their buildings for a limited purpose.

Secondly there is no safeguard written into this clause that before a person can be moved out, for one or other reason, the board must consider whether there is suitable alternative accommodation available. Thirdly, the hon. the Deputy Minister has not said that he recognizes the difficulty of the people who run their businesses on the basis that they can also live on the premises. Obviously this is an advantage to those people if they wish to do so. The argument has been advanced that many White people live in Rondebosch for instance and carry on their business in Cape Town, but they do so of their own free will—they have a choice. But in some cases the Indian trader prefers to live on his premises because he prefers to run his business on that basis; possibly for the purpose of keeping late hours, possibly for economic reasons or because he may be able to look better after his business if he lives on the premises. There are many reasons why he may prefer to live on his premises, but in terms of this clause that will now be denied him.

But now a fourth aspect comes into the picture, Mr. Chairman, namely that it is purely temporary.

That is not a group area.

Of course this is not a group area, otherwise this could not have applied at all. I now want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister what his intention is in regard to ownership of these properties as defined in Section 16, because Section 16 only deals with occupation. It is quite possible that the Deputy Minister may, while declaring a property in terms of Section 16bis for occupation for a limited purpose by a certain group of people, declare that area a group area at a later stage in which other people are entitled to ownership, so that in due course, at the latest on death and in the case of a company after 10 years, the ownership will pass to another group. And once the ownership must pass to another group there is even less security than the occupier has now. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether he will comment on this new idea which has entered into this debate that this is only a way of giving temporary relief to these Indian traders and that the ultimate object is to get rid of them.

The hon. member has argued as though the Group Areas Act contains no provisions in this regard at all. He has argued as though this is a new principle. I want to ask hon. members who have participated in this debate: Would they prefer this amendment to be omitted? Do they prefer the existing provisions under the Group Areas Act? Hon. members lose sight of the fact that under the Group Areas Act the position is that an area in which there are businesses can be set aside as a group area and after a certain period such persons must obtain a permit if they want to continue with their businesses and those permits are of a temporary nature. Eventually they will have to move their businesses. No other provision is made. Hon. members have raised objections because these persons will not be able to live next to their business. But what hon. members refuse to understand is that under the presently existing provisions, it is not a question of their not being able to live there, but if the area is set aside as a group area, they must eventually remove their businesses to another area as well. The Government and the hon. the Deputy Minister have now introduced a provision which represents a concession in that, instead of the persons affected eventually having to move completely in terms of the provisions of the Group Areas Act, there will be special areas in which they can retain their businesses. And now hon. members are objecting to this provision. The hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) and other hon. members have objected to the fact that people will have to move and that they will not be able to live next to their businesses. But they forget that under the provisions of the Group Areas Act, once an area is declared to be a group area, such a person must also move his business. No, Mr. Chairman, I do not understand the attitude of hon. members. If it were not for the fact that one has to think of the interests of the persons concerned, I wonder whether the hon. the Deputy Minister should not drop this amendment completely. That would, however, be to the detriment of the persons concerned and hon. members opposite are not acting in the interests of the persons affected by acting as they have to-day. Their actions are in conflict with the interests of the persons affected, irrespective of their race. This is a concession; it is in their interest that these special areas should be proclaimed where they will be able to retain their businesses.

The hon. member for Pretoria (West) (Mr. van der Walt) and the hon. member who has just sat down tried to introduce a different line into the debate altogether. Let us get this thing quite clear. I want to deal with the hon. member for Pretoria (West). He is now accusing me of trying to ensure that if an Indian—he was talking particularly about Indians—wants to build a big building above his shop he should be allowed to do so, so that he can dig himself in and that if my amendment were accepted the hon. the Deputy Minister would not be able to move him because the building would be of no other use. Let me put the hon. member right on this point. What I am trying to do is this: The hon. the Deputy Minister has said that he is making a concession by allowing a man to continue to trade on his present trading site. Now, is it a concession if he allows him to trade in a building that has eight floors of flats at the top and a ground floor in which he conducts his business? Now the Minister tells him that he can continue to trade there— that the building is for trading purposes. The Act says “be occupied by or used only for a particular purpose ”. If it is for trading alone, can the man afford to pay the rent for the whole of the rest of the empty building? What we are trying to do, Sir, is to try to find out from the hon. the Deputy Minister what he is going to do with the rest of the building. What is going to happen to it? We do not know. We have no indication about that, Sir. If he makes this concession and allows them to remain there and to trade, we want to know what he is going to do with the rest of the building. The Deputy Minister must not ask us to give him the power and that we must then wait and see how things turn out. The Deputy Minister can tell us now exactly what is going to happen to a specific building, he does not have to wait to see what happens. He knows where the buildings are, he knows what their value is, he knows what accommodation is available in those buildings. The hon. member for Natal (South Coast) (Mr. Mitchell) asked why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not tell us these things. I, too, wonder that, Sir. We have been trying for some considerable time to find out eactly that: What will the Deputy Minister do in cases such as that; what will he do with the rest of the building? But I do not want the hon. member for Pretoria (West) to come and get these two issues mixed. The point is that I have moved an amendment which I still hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will accept. He has said that he will not accept it, because it is not clear. But it is perfectly clear, Sir. I have explained the purpose of my amendment to the Deputy Minister. Now, if we are going to confuse the issue of the amendment with what is going to happen to the rest of a building, and we have repeatedly asked the Deputy Minister what he is going to do with the rest of the building, then, of course, my amendment does not stand a chance, because we are confusing two issues. I do want to clarify that point. These are things that we know are going to happen. In the area occupied predominantly by Indians in the central city of Durban, which we call a working area, for want of a better name at this stage, that position will arise, and we want to know what is going to happen there. I have not got a clue, and I have not been enlightened during the passage of the Bill hitherto. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in that particular area there are many such buildings. Those buildings do exist; they are not flights of our imagination. They are buildings which exist, and we want to know how they are going to be sorted out. We do not believe that they can be sorted out justly under this clause. Let the hon. the Deputy Minister please tell us, so that we will know where we are, and so that we may know exactly what he intends to do with these buildings.

This clause gives me the power (a) to differentiate between residential areas and business areas and (b) to have an inquiry instituted in respect of such a proposed area. Evidence will be taken in public at such an inquiry. Only when an inquiry has been held and a report has been submitted and the Minister has been given advice, will he be able to act. Now the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. H. Lewis) and other hon. members want me to say what I am going to do before an inquiry has been held. That is what it amounts to. Why then is the inquiry necessary? We have admitted that there will be difficulties. The main object is that we shall have the power to establish such special specified areas where necessary, and before they can be established an enquiry must be held and recommendations submitted, certain difficulties will arise. We therefore say that we shall make use of the Development Act in these areas in order to meet the difficulties. I have gone further tonight and I told the hon. member for East London (North) (Mr. van Ryneveld) that if the provisions of the Development Act are not adequate, and we encounter fresh difficulties, we may have to amend that Act to provide for such circumstances as we may have to meet. What more do hon. members want of me?

Repeal the whole Act.

I am most certainly not prepared to commit the Government and the House at this stage on matters of this nature which must still be investigated.

The hon. the Deputy Minister referred during his introductory speech to “business purposes ”. He now says that, until the matter is investigated, it is impossible for him to give an assurance as to what he will do about these premises. I agree with him on that point, but I cannot understand why the hon. the Deputy Minister did not make it clear in his introductory speech that it was possible that the premises could be used for purposes other than exclusively business purposes. That is the difficulty facing us tonight. We want the hon. the Deputy Minister to give us an assurance to-night that the Board will be able to lay down, not only that the premises must be used for business purposes, but for residential purposes as well. If the hon. the Deputy Minister will give us the assurance to-night that the use of such buildings by the group concerned will not be confined to business purposes alone, we shall be satisfied. Mr. Chairman, that is all we ask.

I am not satisfied that the hon. the Deputy Minister is seeing the position of people, no matter what race they are, who are living in a multi-storeyed building where the ground floor is used for business purposes. Section 5 of the original Act, I think sub-section 7—I am speaking without my book—provides that when a proclamation is issued under Section 20 of the original Act— that is in respect of a group area for occupation or ownership—no such recommendation shall be made until such time as the board has investigated the whole question of alternative accommodation for the people who are displaced. Quite frankly what I am afraid the Deputy Minister is losing sight of is the fact that we are not concerned only and solely with the question of the business premises of the owner of the building who has got business premises on the ground floor, but there are people living in those other storeys up above. They have no relationship with the business on the ground floor at all. They are not associated with the business at all. They may be people who merely have accommodation there. This clause has nothing to do with the declaration under Section 20 of the Act where an area is proclaimed. That was why I said at an earlier stage that I was not sure whether it would not be more fair to everybody concerned if the Deputy Minister were to use the Group Areas Act as at present constituted instead of this clause which the hon. member behind him has said is merely a temporary expedient. This clause deals only with the business premises; it is a temporary expedient. It does not even purport to be an expedient to deal with the people above the business premises and there may be dozens and dozens living in the storeys above the ground floor where the business is. What of those people, Sir? They are not protected under Section 5; they do not enjoy the protection which they would have enjoyed had the area been proclaimed. I would like to see a general clause in the Bill which will provide that in any circumstances provision will be made for the resettlement of people who have been dispossessed. That unfortunately is not the case as the law stands at the moment. I want to ask the Deputy Minister whether in dealing with this group of traders to which reference has been made by members opposite, he is losing sight of the fact that he may be dispossessing people; that they will be losing their ordinary domicile. These people are not interested in trade, they have nothing in common with the traders who will be carrying on their business on the ground floor of these premises.

I move—

In other words I want to omit the paragraph here which is deleting paragraph (b) of subsection (2) of Section 17 of the principal Act. Now, Sir, if you look at the principal Act, you will find that sub-section (2) (b) of Section 17 says—

1. (b) under any agreement lawfully entered into before the first day of July, 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into on or after that date …

The Explanatory Memorandum simply says that Clause 13 is rectifying a consolidating error. I contend that this goes much further than just rectifying a consolidating error, because what it means in effect is that persons who previously were occupying property under a lawful agreement entered into before the first day of July 1957 could continue so to do although it was only a verbal agreement. There are many such verbal agreements which are operating and under which people are occupying premises. Now if this clause is accepted, it means that all these verbal agreements lose force in law and only written agreements from now on will enable people to continue to occupy those premises. So I don’t see how any stretch of imagination can construe Clause 13 as simply being an amendment which rectifies a consolidating error. This clause has particular effect for Indians trading in rural areas, that is to say areas outside the jurisdiction of a local authority. There are many such Indians trading on farms and in rural areas, and many of them trade under verbal agreements.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Does this clause mean, if it is passed, that verbal leases will be violated?

That is precisely what this means. All verbal leases which were entered into prior to the first day of July 1957 now fall away.

That is a breach of contract.

Whether it is a breach of contract or not, I do not know. But it is certainly more than simply rectifying an error. It is an important amendment to the existing law, as far as I can see. As we have already pointed out, the so-called concessions under this Bill are very limited in scope, and now we find that persons who are trading in rural areas outside the jurisdiction of local authorities, who were occupying premises and running businesses under verbal agreements, now no longer have that right. So this is another restrictive clause. It means in effect that the hon. the Minister is able to achieve a purpose again without going through the necessary machinery of having group areas proclaimed. He can dispossess Indian traders of their rights to trade on these premises. We contend therefore that this is yet another restrictive clause and therefore we will have to vote against it.

I hope that the hon. Deputy Minister will deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton, because if the hon. member is correct then, if this clause is accepted by the Committee, it will mean that solemn agreements entered into by way of contract are violated. True they may be verbal agreements, but they are none the less conclusive agreements, and they would go by the board as I understand the argument put forward by the hon. member for Houghton. Does the hon. Deputy Minister agree with the contention put forward by the hon. member, because this raises a question of fundamental principle, the question of whether this Legislature should seek by legislative enactment to interfere with the sanctity of contract. I am open to correction, and that is why I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will say whether the view put forward by the hon. member is correct. If the hon. member has not correctly stated the proposition, then my objections on this score may fall away, but if in fact this clause, if implemented, means that in future a lessee may not be allowed to rely on a verbal contract for his lease, but must be able to show a written contract-, retrospectively at that, then it seems to me that that is a monstrous interference with the right of individuals and the right of contract in this country. The law of contract is based upon a bipartisan agreement, two parties entering into an agreement, say a lease. There is the lessor and the lessee and in terms of our Roman Dutch Law, it is perfectly competent for any two parties to enter into a lease verbally. It may very well be that the hon. the Minister is not consciously seeking to do so, but the effect of this amendment in Clause 13 would mean that he is seeking to do so, and any man must be presumed to intend the reasonable consequences of his acts. What the hon. the Minister then is presumed to be seeking to do is to violate the sanctity of a verbal contract. This affects everyone, whether he is an Indian or a European or a Bantu; this is not racial legislation, no specific class is referred to. Any man who has entered into a verbal contract may, if this clause goes through unamended, find that that contract is violated by the provisions of the Bill and he is now compelled to produce a written contract and retrospectively. That is how I understand the argument of the hon. member for Houghton. How on earth am I, who indeed leases premises for the purpose of carrying on my legal practice, to produce a contract? My contract is a verbal contract. Suppose I am called upon to-morrow to produce a written contract. I could not do ft, and then I may be evicted from my premises. And that contract must be predated, before 1957. What a monstrous situation would arise! But there is no difference between that possibility and what is postulated by the hon. the Deputy Minister in this clause! It would be a monstrous thing if I could be turned out of the premises which I occupy by virtue of my practice as an advocate of the Supreme Court, merely by virtue of the fact that I cannot produce a written contract going back to 1950. I have got a verbal contract and that is a binding contract in our law, a contract which the Supreme Court of South Africa recognizes. But this clause, if unamended, will mean that there will be this direct violation of the sanctity of contract, of the ability of one member of the South African community to enter with another member into a solemn contract which can be recognized. If the hon. member for Houghton is wrong, my argument falls away. But the hon. Minister cannot sit there silent, inarticulate and hope that this clause is going through by virtue of the majority of the other side. He must get up and tell us whether this is correct or not. Is the hon. member for Houghton right or is she wrong? If the hon. the Deputy Minister can tell us that the hon. member is wrong, I may have to revise my opinion. But until the hon. the Minister gets up this Committee is not in a position to vote on this clause.

I hope the hon. Deputy Minister is going to deal with the point raised by the hon. member for Houghton. This is not a light matter and I do think that we are entitled to an explanation from the hon. Deputy Minister.

I have discussed this point with the law advisers and they have informed me that an amendment introduced in 1955 confined the exemption here provided for to written agreements, but was expressed to come into operation only on 1 July 1957. Before that date the legislation was consolidated and the paragraph was re-written in a way which so far from introducing this restriction, considerably broadened the scope of the exemption, and opened the door to practices which the Act was largely designed to prevent. The amendment consequently introduces nothing new but restores the status quo as it existed before the consolidation.

What the hon. the Deputy Minister has said surely does not get away from the fact that the consolidated Act which is now being amended, does make provision for verbal contracts to satisfy the law for the purpose of this particular clause, and the amendment we have before us now is demanding that it should be a written agreement.

It restores the position as it was prior to 1955.

Mr. Chairman, the consolidated law which we have now in this particular Section 17 says this in sub-section (2) (b)—

Now if this amendment in the Bill before us is carried, that clause will read—

That is how it will read. So that all reference to an agreement lawfully entered into before 1 July 1957, falls away, and that kind of agreement referred to is of course a verbal agreement, because after that it proceeds to deal with a written agreement. That language is used twice in this long section and in both cases reference to a verbal agreement falls out of the Act. I am sorry, but we cannot take cognizance of what was expected or was not expected in respect of past legislation. We have an Act, a consolidated Act, which presumably—I have got no reason to doubt it— went before a special Select Committee appointed for the purpose of consolidating the legislation. I am sorry, Sir, but in a previous clause in this same Bill we have got in the White Paper reference to the fact that all that was happening in that particular clause was to put right something that was not picked up correctly in the consolidating Act. I may say that these references are being made in that manner to failures in the machinery provided by Parliament to see that the consolidating Act is indeed only a consolidating measure and that it is not a consolidating and amending measure. I go so far as to say this in regard to this particular clause: If this Clause 13 came to us as a Bill, not as an amending clause in an omnibus measure like this, but standing entirely on its own merits or demerits, without other portions of the Bill around it, it would be a hybrid measure. Surely it is of such importance to the people who can be defined, that it would surely be considered to be a hybrid measure. Here you have a group of people who are being denied their rights in terms of this particular Clause 13 which we are asked to pass. They are people who have got perfectly valid agreements which have been recognized by the law in the past. They were not written agreements, but as the hon. member for Salt River has pointed out, agreements are not necessarily valid merely because they are written, and in this case the law recognized them as valid agreements. And we come and simply by “Those in favour will say Aye” and “the Ayes are in the majority ”, deprive these people of their rights. This would be a hybrid Bill, and it would go to a Select Committee and people would have the opportunity to come and give evidence in respect of the destruction of their rights. That is the position, and I view with very deep concern a clause like this in respect of which the White Paper simply says that it merely puts right something that was not picked up when the Act was consolidated. I regret that very much indeed. Let me say that once doubt is cast in this House on whether a measure is in fact a consolidating measure and not more than that when a certificate is presented to this House, then I think we are going to land in very great trouble indeed. I do ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to realize the extreme seriousness with which we must view a situation such as is being created by Clause 13.

I want to get back to what I regard as a very serious aspect of this particular clause. I find it difficult to understand the attitude of levity or unconcern with which the hon. the Deputy Minister regards the sanctity of a contract. At the present time this House is considering a new Constitution for the Union of South Africa and a great deal has been talked about good faith and goodwill and understanding between the peoples of the country, and I want to say that it is of paramount importance that we should observe the elementary precepts of good faith and goodwill and honest dealing between man and man in this country. Let me remind the Committee, because I have no doubt that most of the hon. members opposite have not read this Bill, of the provisions which are being altered. The Act which this Bill seeks to amend says this—

It is quite clear that the existing Act, unamended, exempts any disqualified person who has lawfully entered into an agreement before 1 July 1957. And a lawful agreement is a verbal agreement, as well as a written agreement. A contract is not invalid because it is not written, signed and sealed. A contract is valid where two persons are ad idem, where two parties come to an agreement and verbally agree to do a certain thing. That is as binding as any written contract may be. And then the section goes on to say—

Now if this amendment is passed, then the clause will read that the provisions shall not render it unlawful for any disqualified person to occupy premises under any written agreement lawfully entered into before 24 April 1950. So what the Minister is asking this Committee to do is to violate verbal agreements and written agreements. He asks the Committee to violate any verbal agreement which may have been entered into at any time, and he is asking this Committee to violate any written agreement entered into after April 1950. He is seeking to tear up written contracts and to treat with contempt verbal contracts. We have heard, Sir, in the history of the world of scraps of paper. Here the Minister is seeking by this section to treat as scraps of paper honourable agreements entered into by two parties in writing if they were not entered into before 1 April—it should be 1 April, but it is actually 24 April—1950. I say that that is a monstrous thing to do.

Naziism!

The hon. member has Naziism on his brain, because he was an incipient Nazi, he has never become one, he had never the courage to become one. I am talking now as one who believes that it is vital for the sanctity of the state and for our national prestige to preserve the sanctity of contracts. This clause goes very far indeed. It does not merely seek to violate any verbal agreements, but it has also the effect of tearing up any written agreement which may not have been entered into, signed and sealed, before April 1950. In those circumstances I want to move that this clause should stand over to give the Minister an opportunity to reconsider it.

No.

Then I move—

Mr. Chairman, I regret to say that the explanatory document which was issued by the hon. the Deputy Minister is most unfortunate, because I think it is misleading. This White Paper indicates that under Clause 13 the amendment now rectifies a consolidating error. I am afraid that the hon. the Deputy Minister, unwittingly—because I do not think he intended to mislead the House— has asked us to accept a very serious amendment. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will be fair enough to concede this argument, that in 1957 when this Act was amended it gave the impression to the Coloured people that any agreement into which they entered as a written agreement up to 1957 would be legal, and that they would be entitled to occupy land in an area and that it would not be affected because of the Group Areas Act. I think it is worth while to read this Act once more. It says—

Then it goes on to say—

1. (b) under any agreement lawfully entered into before the 1st day of July, 1957.

That is an Act of Parliament passed in 1957. That was a consolidated Act, and the people who bought land under hire purchase agreement are now to be prejudiced. Coloured people entered into these agreements, and that is why somebody has now sent me a note on the matter. I regret to say that if the information in this note is correct, that Coloured people have already been told, before this Act was passed, that they will have to go because those agreements might as well be torn up and thrown away as being without any value, then it is a very serious matter.

It is a breach of faith.

It is a very serious matter, and I will read this note to this Committee. It says this—

In other words, these people now find that they cannot proceed with their purchases and it is obvious that difficulty now confronts the owners and the purchasers of these properties in regard to cancellation of the sale, the payment of the deposit and coming to an agreement with regard to compensation to be paid with regard to any improvements which may have been effected to the properties.

It seems that people have already been told, in advance, that these hire-purchase agreements which they entered into before 1957 are now going to be of no force and effect and are going to be cancelled. What I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister is this: Only four years ago, in 1957, we passed this amending legislation and gave out to all these Coloured people that they would be entitled to purchase these properties, and that if they did purchase them before 1957 it would be lawful for them to occupy that land.

It was consolidating legislation on top of that.

Yes. Now I am going to ask the Minister, will he not come to the assistance of these people who acted in good faith and upon the laws consolidating our legislation. Surely the hon. the Deputy Minister cannot legislate against these people after only four years? If the hon. the Deputy Minister says that as and from to-day there shall be no such agreements entered into, then I can understand it, because people would be acting with their eyes open. But these people acted in good faith and in terms of legislation passed by this House, and now they find that after four years they are prejudiced. The hon. the Minister cannot, with due respect, say that this is merely putting right an error. It is a very drastic error, a grievous error and it will cause a lot of suffering to hundreds of people. I do not want to talk about the tragedies of the Act. I am not talking about the Act, I am talking about this clause. And surely this legislation must have cost hundreds of Coloured people thousands of pounds—or it may cost them that money which they may now lose.

The simple question is, do you keep your word?

Order, order!

I am not going to go so far. I am going to make this appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister, and I am sure it is going to have an effect: Will the Deputy Minister consider allowing the people who have made these purchases up to to-day, in terms of the Act, to keep those agreements in full force and effect. I do not think the hon. the Minister will be so hard that he will refuse that request. I trust that he will give it favourable consideration.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) is an old member of this House and one expects him to act in such a way that younger members such as I can retain our respect for him at all times.

Do not forget that I once protected you.

Do not be personal.

What I object to …

Do not forget that I once protected you.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the hon. member cannot help himself. Perhaps we must leave him to his fate. Then hon. members who are front-benchers and former Ministers must behave better than the hon. member has done towards me to-night. If the hon. member wants to fight I can also hit back. He must not think that I shall allow him to shout me down. That is what I object to. I expect the hon. member to behave like a gentleman.

Then the hon. member has done something else; he has tried to move heaven and earth to prove that what we are really doing is to deceive this House. But the hon. member has not done his homework. He is a former Minister of Justice. He is a practising advocate but he has not done his homework. He should do his homework before making accusations of such a nature. I have called in as witnesses the law advisers who have informed me of certain past events. Let the hon. member examine the original Act and I refer him to Section (2) (b) which provides—

Or leased.

It goes on—

Does it not also refer to “under lease ”?

Mr. Chairman, am I addressing the Committee or is the hon. member? I am reading out the provisions of the original Act to the hon. member.

I am quoting from the original Act.

If the hon. member wants to put a question, then he should do so in the proper way.

May I put a question?

I am not prepared to answer a question. The original 1950 Act provided—

The Act was then amended in 1955. I find that Section 7 of that Act provides—

And then, if the hon. member will read further. he will find in Section 7 (2)—

In other words, we are quite entitled to contend that when the legislation was consolidated a serious error slipped in. What we are doing here is to revert to the status quo as it existed in 1955.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to reply to the point I made earlier. If we made a mistake then we have to rectify it. That I understand. But the hon. the Deputy Minister must try to understand that I am trying to be constructive and to help the Coloured people whom I represent in this House. If. in truth and in fact there has been a mistake and it has led people to believe that that is the law, shall we not now come to their assistance and say “We will not benefit by our mistake as legislators, we will not prejudice you because we made a mistake ”. Should the hon. the Deputy Minister not therefore put these people in the same position as they got into by virtue of this mistake, and not prejudice them? All I ask is that the Deputy Minister will make it possible for the people who acted in good faith in terms of this Act not to be prejudiced. Surely that is a reasonable request. Surely that is a request to which the hon. the Minister should concede. If he says to me “I will think it over and I will try to help …”

That is an English mistake.

You must now listen to me.

If the hon. the Minister will give me his assurance that he will not prejudice these people then I am prepared to accept that assurance. But he must not sit quietly and say “We have made a mistake therefore all the people who have acted in good faith should be wiped out in accordance with our mistake ”. This is a most unfortunate thing and I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister will accede to my request.

Mr. Chairman, I am not concerned with these ribald interjections from the side. I am concerned with the sanctity of contract.

Are you referring to the contract you made with the United Party?

I entered into no contract with the United Party. I was a member of the United Party but I never entered into any contract. [Interjections.]

Order, order!

The hon. gentleman is annoyed to-night, but I do not propose to deal with his impertinence. He was impertinent to me. I did apologize to him earlier but he did not accept my apology for interrupting him when he was replying. Having done that, I will not tell him that he has a lot to learn, as a young Minister, and if he wants to get the confidence of this Committee the sooner he realizes that there are some members of this House …

I will never take you as an example. [Interjections.]

The sooner he remembers that there are some members of this House with more experience …

Order, order! Will the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Lawrence) be less personal please.

You, Mr. Chairman, did not pull up the hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order, order!

Mr. Chairman, I am not being personal, I am merely replying to the Deputy Minister. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I merely said that the hon. the Deputy Minister, who has great capabilities, will do better if he deals with the merits of the case and does not indulge in personalities.

The gravamen of my attack on this clause, and of my support for the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) is that this clause is a violation of the rights which were given by the 1957 Act. It is perfectly plain that in 1957 there was an Act, the long title of which is—

Control of the Acquisition of Immovable Property, and the Occupation of Land and Premises and Matters incidental thereto.

That is the Act. It is a consolidating Act. Now what is the purpose of a consolidating Act? The purpose of a consolidating Act is to make clear what the law is. Surely a consolidating Act …

Order, order! The hon. member is now going far beyond the scope of this clause.

No I am not, Mr. Chairman. The hon. the Deputy Minister …

Order, order! I say that the hon. member is going far beyond the scope of this clause. Will he please come back to the clause.

With the greatest of respect, Sir, I say that I am not. With the greatest of respect, I say that I cannot refer to this clause unless I refer to the Act which it seeks to amend. Are you suggesting to me, Mr. Chairman, that I cannot …

Order, order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling or resume his seat.

Well, Mr. Chairman, if you will tell me what I cannot say I will certainly abide by your ruling. I have always been under the impression—and I have been in this House for quite a number of years now—that if an Act is amended or sought to be amended, I am allowed to refer to the principal Act. I am now referring to the Act which this clause is seeking to amend.

Order! The hon. member must not argue with the Chair. The hon. member may now continue.

I have the greatest respect for you, Sir, and, as a referee, I would like to obey your ruling, particularly in view of the prestige which you enjoy in this House as a referee. But you must make it easy for me to follow the ordinary rules of debate. I find it a very novel proposition that I cannot refer to a principal Act which is sought to be amended by a Bill before this House.

Order, order! I am assisting the hon. member. He spoke about the consolidated Act and the purposes thereof. That is not under discussion by this Committee at this stage. Will the hon. member now continue.

I have referred to the principal Act which it is sought to amend. It is the Act which is being amended. I have it in my hands …

Order, order! That Act may be dealt with only in as far as it is affected by this clause.

I have referred to the fact that the long title of that Act is to consolidate the law relating to these matters. Then I come to this clause which seeks to amend Section 17. Surely you will allow me, Mr. Chairman, to refer to Section 17?

The hon. member may refer to that section only.

I am delighted to know that, Sir, because I did think that this Bill was dealing with Section 17 in terms of this clause, and I thought that I would be allowed to deal with it.

Section 17 of the principal Act—and that is a consolidating Act—told the whole world and, incidentally, it told all persons concerned in this country, that they would not fall under the mischief of this section—and I am using that word in the legal sense—that they would not be hit by this section, if they were persons who occupied or owned premises under any agreement lawfully entered into before the first day of July 1957, or any written agreement lawfully entered into after that date. My whole point is that in terms of this consolidating measure, as the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) pointed out, various racial groups in this country were told that they had specific rights. They were told that in a consolidating measure. And a consolidating measure is presumed to lay down with clarity what the law is. My quarrel with the hon. the Deputy Minister is that he is now going back on what the people of South Africa were told in 1957. It certainly does not weigh with me that the Deputy Minister now comes along and says that the Government made a mistake in 1957. It certainly shows the folly of having to amend the Group Areas Act every year. I have no doubt there are mistakes and we are always going to have mistakes. In the old days of the United Party one said, when this Act was introduced in 1950, that we were going to have amendments every year. And we are having amendments every year. But that is no reason for this Deputy Minister to come before this Committee and say: “The Government solemnly promised the people something in 1957 and now we are going to abrogate that; now we are going to tear up written contracts that were entered into before 1950; now we are going to violate verbal contracts.” That, to me, is a monstrous thing. And it is no excuse to say that it is a mistake. It is no mistake to say it is a casus omissis…

Order! The hon. member must pass on to new arguments now. That argument has been used by him on several occasions.

But they are the only arguments against the clause we are dealing with.

Then the hon. member must resume his seat.

My argument against this clause, Mr. Chairman, is that the Deputy Minister has now come forward with the ridiculous suggestion that because this Government, which we have always said is inept and incompetent and makes mistakes …

Order, order! There is a rule in regard to tedious repetition …

I have not once to-night said that the Government was inept, Sir, but I agree that it probably sounds tedious to some hon. members of this Committee …

Order, order! Will the hon. member please resume his seat.

Yes, I will, Sir.

May I tell the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) that I have quoted the 1950 Act and the 1955 Act to show that when this legislation was consolidated a provision which was in conflict with the 1955 Act, was embodied in the consolidating legislation. In other words, when the legislation was consolidated a new principle was actually included, which was in conflict with the principle of consolidation. After all, consolidation presupposes that one simply embodies in the consolidated legislation decisions which Parliament has already taken. What happened in this instance was that a paragraph was inserted which was in conflict with the legislation Parliament had already adopted.

We admit that.

Then in the second place, this provision deals with controlled areas. It reads as follows—

It deals in the first place with controlled areas. In the second place it deals with occupation and not acquisition. There is a vast difference.

But answer my point.

I am not discussing the hon. member’s point at the moment. I am making my own point. Section 17 (2) (b) which we are proposing to amend, only relates to disqualified persons and the Act already lays down who disqualified persons are. The hon. member is therefore wide of the mark. He must remember that we are dealing with controlled areas and with occupation, and that we are dealing with disqualified persons.

Order! The hon. member for Salt River.

Furthermore I want to point out that we are faced here with the position that in fact a new principle slipped in which was in conflict with a decision of this Parliament and which was in conflict with the practice that new principles are not inserted in a consolidating measure.

I think the best that can be said so far as the consolidated Act is concerned is that a mistake was made. Now, Mr. Chairman, it is perfectly clear, and you will be as well or better aware of it than any other hon. member, that when a consolidating measure comes before the House we cannot amend it or change it. The Select Committee that deals with it is in the position to deal with it; to make the position clearer and read plainly and so forth. But we in Parliament can do nothing about it when a consolidating measure comes before us. We have had that consolidating measure in 1957. The point I want to make is this: I hope that the hon. the Deputy Minister is not going to stand on the law here. Quite frankly, we are dealing with the homes and the properties of people, in most cases people unable to protect themselves. If the Minister is satisfied that as the result of a bona fide belief that the consolidated measure of 1957, in so far as Section 17 was concerned, could be acted upon and was acted upon, will not the Deputy Minister protect the interests of those people who acted in terms of that provision? That, I think, is the crux of the matter. I do not want to argue about the law here and an amendment there, or the meaning of words. Let us get down to the heart of the thing. If the hon. the Deputy Minister can say with certainty that there are no such people, that the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) is misinformed, then we must take it that he has carried out an investigation, that he knows his facts when he says there are no such people, that nobody is prejudiced. But I do submit, in all seriousness, that as we in Parliament cannot challenge any clause in a consolidating measure that comes before the House once it has passed the Select Committee, how much less are people outside these four walls in a position to be able to say the Government has gone wrong in that consolidating measure? Can they say “A mistake has been made in that measure, Parliament did not know what it was doing and three or four years hereafter Parliament will try to readjust the position ”. In the case of an ordinary civil contract, if you make a mistake you cannot, three or four years later, come along and suggest that you have been prejudiced by the mistake you made.

We have a Bill before us to-day which is amending an Act of Parliament. This is not a Government Act. This Act does not belong to the hon. the Deputy Minister or the Government, it belongs to Parliament. This is an Act for and on behalf of the people of South Africa. If, in the process of that Act, people have perfectly legitimately and properly read Section 17 as it is in the consolidating measure and have taken legal and appropriate action in terms thereof and have purchased property and are now prejudiced, then I ask the Deputy Minister to do something to protect those people. Will he not protect their interests? It is as simple as that. I hope the hon. the Minister will find it possible to say that he is not prepared to allow private people to be prejudiced by this unfortunate error that has crept into a consolidating measure. I think that that would really be a shameful thing so far as we in Parliament are concerned. It will be a thing that would never be permitted if it seriously affected a large number of European voters in this country. I say that in all seriousness. But it is going to affect people who just cannot afford to get their positions adjusted. In terms of the Consolidated Act of 1957 I appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give an undertaking that he will find the necessary means—we do not want to move amendments —to meet these people. Let him discuss it with the law advisers and find some means of protecting the interests of the people who bona fide believed that the law was as reflected in Section 17 in the consolidating measure. I hope he will do something along those lines.

I should merely like to add to what the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. Mitchell) has said, that one appreciates his delicacy in refraining from referring to the fact that, were such an error to have occurred in an ordinary commercial contract, then the signatories to that contract, even though they suffered a disadvantage through an error of this nature, would have been bound by the contract. Particularly is that so if that contract had remained undisturbed for a period of four years. As I say, the hon. member very delicately refrained from referring to this particular fact.

I do not think it would be very difficult on further consideration, and perhaps a reference back of this clause until the resumption of this debate, to try and protect those who have been unwittingly misled by the provisions of the Act. There is a further consideration, a danger which, fortunately, the Government has escaped, and that is that if there were to have been any decision of the law courts on this particular section, there is no question but that the courts would have been obliged to accept the actual letter of the law. This type of law which is restrictive must then be observed in its narrowest sense, which means that the law would have been observed literally. In that case, any aggrieved person who had appeared before the courts, on an interpretation of this section would have received a judgment based on the date actually set out in the Act, so that no argument could have been sustained which might have suggested an interpretation that the law had been incorrectly amended in this consolidating measure.

As I said in my premise, it was merely the delicacy of the situation which prevented the hon. member for South Coast from being much more direct in his suggestion to the hon. the Deputy Minister to give some thought to those people who are affected. It is not even a question of seeking any amelioration of the law. It is merely a question of this Committee facing up to its responsibilities in that, Parliament having consolidated a measure and finding after four years that it has committed an error, it should not legislate retrospectively as to prejudice people, but rather seek to restore the situation without prejudice to those, who unfortunately may have been adversely affected or may have been led to a certain point of view by the provisions of the law.

I am glad that the tone of the debate has now changed and that the submission I have made is accepted, namely that this is an error which slipped in. I just want to point out that this Bill is not of retrospective effect.

It is.

It is not being made of retrospective effect. My information is that the legal contracts entered into prior to 1 July 1955, are valid and in the second place that written contracts entered into on or after that date will be valid, and that until the present amending Bill comes into operation, such contracts will be valid. That is the information I have been given by the law advisers.

Mr. Chairman, I think it necessary for me to point out to the hon. the Deputy Minister that in a book written by Mr. F. P. Rosseau, the 1957 Act is printed. I accept what the hon. the Deputy Minister has said because in this book the author does indicate that there has been a mistake. He says—

The hon. the Minister must therefore appreciate that we realize that there was a mistake. But this book also says that Section 17 (2) provides for a host of general exemptions, the trend of which has been to cause little or no disturbance to the established way of life in the areas concerned. In this book the Act of 1957 is published, and it is distributed throughout the length and breadth of South Africa, and people have acted on that 1957 Act. I would ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to appreciate that we concede that there was a mistake. We appreciate the necessity of putting this right. But surely he must concede that certain people have been prejudiced. Will he now help these people who have acted bona fide in terms of the Act as it was then cast?

At 10.25 p.m. the Chairman stated that, in accordance with Standing Order No. 26 (1), he would report progress and ask leave to sit again.