I move—

Agreed to.

House in Committee:

Instruction stated to Committee.

Clause 2:

There are just one or two minor points upon which I should like to have some elucidation from the hon. the Minister. Under subsection (2) we have the functions of the college, and then there is reference to secondary and part-time education. I wonder whether the Minister will explain to us what class of students is being catered for here and the nature of the instruction they will get.

Would the hon. member mind repeating that because I could not hear?

Under subsection (2) (a), in the case of students who are no longer subject to compulsory school attendance in terms of any law, there is reference to such secondary and other education on a part-time basis. I should like to know what class of students we are catering for here.

The provision in subsection (2) is that vocational education may continue to be provided to full-time students. That applies to all colleges and will be invoked whenever necessary. That is the idea. It refers to the working youths. They can also attend these classes.

Although the technical college itself will be an institution for higher education, it will be able to make provision for that class of student?

That is the idea.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

I wish to move a small amendment here—

This follows upon a request made by the heads of the technical colleges. Unfortunately I received it a little late. The heads say that minor lettings are made, such as lettings of halls for functions that may take place, and it is difficult to deal with these lettings in the ordinary way every time, because they are not long-term lettings; they are only for ad hoc cases. They find it a little difficult, and therefore I move this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

In this clause we are dealing with the four technical colleges we have to-day. In what manner does the clause make provision for the establishment of a technical college similar to the one that the hon. member for Algoa discussed yesterday? Will it be possible to add to this number if they are declared technical colleges?

Yes.

Dealing further with this clause, is the hon. the Minister making provision for the establishment of institutions, in the four centres which are expressly mentioned here, to take the place of the existing technical colleges? The existing technical colleges to-day provide for children from Std. VI to Std. X. I know that provision is made here that these colleges can continue for a time to provide this education, but is it the hon. the Minister’s intention to provide alternative institutions when this provision is invoked and that instruction is no longer given in these institutions?

Only two of the technical colleges still have appendages of higher education. The Pretoria Technical College still has a higher technical education department. Room still has to be found for them elsewhere. The Cape Town Technical College still has a commercial high school attached to it. The idea is that both these sections will be taken away under the Vocational Education Act as separate institutions eventually, as soon as buildings and accommodation are available. For the time being they may continue to exist in their present form. The idea is that separate vocational schools, commercial high schools and technical high schools will be established instead of expanding the colleges and allowing secondary education to continue at the colleges.

That answers the first part of my question. I should like to hear also whether it is the Minister’s intention ultimately to establish more technical colleges for higher education.

Yes.

I refer particularly to the technical college in my “home” town, Pietermaritzburg. We have there a technical college which meets a crying need. It is most essential that we have such a technical college in Pietermaritzburg, but I can see—and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will agree—that there is also a need in Pietermaritzburg for a technical college for higher education. I assume that in time the hon. the Minister will see fit to declare our existing technical college to be a college for higher technical education. This brings me back to my original point: Will provision be made for both types of education?

What do you mean by both types of education?

As I understand the Bill, provision will be made at these colleges for advanced technical education for those beyond the matriculation standard and for the education which is at present provided by the technical college in Pietermaritzburg, between Std. VI and matriculation.

At this stage it is impossible to say precisely when and where the extensions will take place, but as the need increases and where extensions are necessary, they will be made to either the secondary section or advanced technical education. At the moment I cannot tell the hon. member when Pietermaritzburg will get it. We shall have to see in course of time what the needs are.

I would like to ask the hon. the Minister a question in regard to the Witwatersrand Technical College in relation to apprentices. In the platteland areas, as the Minister knows, there are no facilities for the teaching of technical subjects to apprentices, but correspondence courses are available from the Witwatersrand Technical College. I think the vast majority of youths who are apprentices have not matriculated. Is it the intention to discontinue these correspondence courses provided by the Witwatersrand Technical College or are these courses to be conducted by some other institution?

Technical education is a very expensive form of education and boarding facilities are provided as far as possible where it is difficult for students to attend a technical college. Correspondence courses will be expanded according to the requirements, but at the moment we are dealing with a measure which only confirms the status quo of all the institutions and which raises these four colleges to the status of institutions for advanced technical education. We are not going any further than that, and at the moment we cannot foresee everything that will still have to be done. The national interest and the requirements will determine what is to be done in the future.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

I wish to refer the hon. the Minister to the first sub-clause. This sub-clause seems to give the reply to the question I raised under the previous clause, that is that certain institutions and classes may be declared to be college for advanced technical education. I may say that this answers my question. But this proviso is added—

Do I understand that to mean that a university may not have a technical college attached to it as a department of the university? Is that correct?

Yes.

It will be completely independent and have its own governing body?

Yes.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 8:

I would like to move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper—

This is a very simple amendment. May I explain what is the intention underlying my amendment. The hon. the Minister has made provision in clause 8 for the constitution of the council. We are all agreed that these councils should enjoy a measure of autonomy. I think the hon. the Minister himself is thinking along those lines. As I said in the Second Reading Debate, I think he is rather reluctant to grant that autonomy as graciously as he ought to do, and therefore the Minister says in the Bill as it stands to-day that he will be able to nominate at least half the number of members of the council of the college. I pointed out that if there were 15 members, which is the minimum number, the hon. the Minister would then be nominating eight, and I do not think that is the measure of autonomy that we are anxious to give to the council of this college. We do not expect that the hon. the Minister will agree to the measure of autonomy that we grant to a university, although the Minister is represented on the council of a university as well; he is represented there but naturally he does not have the number of nominees that he has under this measure. My proposal is that instead of the Minister nominating half the number of members of the council, he should nominate one-third. He will be familiar with the organization of our governing bodies, our school boards, in the Transvaal. In the Transvaal in the early days they had to discuss this question of autonomy; they had to decide to what extent these school boards should have representatives of the Department on them. They decided to do it this way. They said that four members of the six would be elected and two would be nominated by the Administration. If there were 12 members, eight would be elected, and so on, always on the basis of two-thirds. The hon. the Minister is familiar with the organization in the Transvaal. In the constitution of these colleges, I should like to see the hon. the Minister nominate five out of the 15 members. The other ten should come from these other authorities. The members nominated by these authorities would be very reliable people. There would be representatives from the federations of industry, the chambers of commerce, the sakekamers, municipalities and so on. In the case of the Witwatersrand Technical College, there would be representation for Johannesburg, Boksburg, Benoni, and the towns on the West Rand. We would then get the kind of representation the hon. the Minister wants. The only difference is that the proportion of his own nominees under my proposal will be a third and under his proposal it will be at least a half. I put this to the Minister. I hope he will be able to consider it sympathetically. I think it is constructive. I think it is in the spirit of the Bill itself.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Kensington in his suggestion to the Minister in regard to this amendment. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the fact that in terms of Act 30 of 1923, the number of members the Minister was entitled to appoint was up to four. I wonder whether the Minister can give us any valid reason why he feels that system, which has apparently functioned satisfactorily for many years should now be changed by laying down by statute that there should be a greater proportion of members nominated by the Minister. I feel that the local bodies are in a position, with due respect to the Minister, to decide who would best serve them on the council. I believe that it offers these local bodies a wider scope if they have a larger source of members.

I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will be good enough in his reply to indicate, in regard to clause 8 (1) (d), what the intention is of the words “or other body”. Paragraph (d) reads as follows: “One person appointed by each local authority or other body nominated by the Minister for representation on the Council”. I should like the Minister to give some indication as to what type of other bodies he has in mind in that paragraph.

While I am on my feet. Sir, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 133 of the Order Paper, which reads as follows:

To add the following subsection at the end of the Clause:

(9)

1. (a) The council may appoint, with the approval of the Minister, additional members of the council: Provided that such additional members shall not be entitled to vote at meetings of the council.
2. (b) The council may appoint committees of the council, including persons who are not members of the council: Provided that the chairman of each such committee shall be appointed from among the members of the council.

I should like to refer to paragraph (a) of the amendment first. I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that this particular provision has existed in previous legislation. I say from my experience that it has served a very useful purpose. I know that in so far as some technical colleges are concerned, this facility has been used on occasion to record appreciation for loyal service to the college on the part of members of the council who have served the college well over a long period. They have invested such members with a form of life membership. I wish to point out that it is only with the approval of the Minister, so it will not mean any unilateral action on the part of the college. These members have no vote, but it means that the contribution they have made to the college in the past is available for the benefit of the council in the present and in the future. In view of the powers of limitation which the Minister always has by virtue of his approval being necessary, I should like to suggest that the Minister receive this suggestion with sympathy.

In regard to paragraph (b) of my amendment, which deals with the appointment of committees of the council, I should like to say that in this case too this provision appeared in the original Act. Strangely enough, it is a principle which has been embodied in many more recent Acts. I can mention a few. This power of a council or a body to appoint committees has been provided for in the National Advisory Education Act, the Coloured Persons Education Act, the Monuments Amendment Act, with which we dealt a few days ago, the Drugs Control Act and the Atmospheric Pollution Act. In all of these measures the wisdom of this provision has been accepted and I believe the necessity for it has been established. As I said yesterday in regard to the question of consultative committees which can stem out of this provision, I believe that it is a very important function in the efficient operation of the technical College Council. I know that in the Cape Technical College this practice has been adopted. I know that it functions very satisfactorily in the Natal Technical College. The various consultative bodies can include medical technologists, pharmacy consultative committees, printing consultative committees, and various other bodies in which specialists in their particular departments can be used to give the council very valuable advice. It is advice which can assist in the compilation of syllabi, the handling of examinations and as regards the wishes of the trade or profession concerned. Speaking from experience, I can say that it is advice which can prove extremely valuable. Here again we do have a safeguard. Although the members of the committee need not be members of the council, they are always under the charge of a member of the council, because it is laid down that a member of the council shall be chairman of the committee. It is with these ideas in mind that I ask the Minister if he is prepared to accept this amendment for the more efficient operation of these councils.

Mr. Chairman, I deeply regret that I cannot accept these amendments, and for the following reasons. I shall first deal with the amendments of the hon. member for Kensington. His proposal was intended to restrict the Minister’s nominees to only one-third. Once again I have to point out to the hon. member, as I did in the Second Reading, that the State bears plus-minus 90 per cent of the costs of such technical colleges. The hon. member for Berea referred to the 1923 Act. At that time the proportion was different from the present one, but then the State’s contribution to the costs of such technical colleges was approximately 50 per cent. In view of the fact that the State has such a high interest, it is therefore not justified that outside interests should simply recommend expansions and changes for which the State has to pay. That simply cannot be done. As hon. members know, the State has the majority in the case of all technical and commercial high schools, and now the hon. member wants to make that the minority. That financial contribution certainly justifies the full 50 per cent representation called for by the Government.

As regards the hon. member for Berea, I just want to say that the original Bill sent to those technical colleges provided that a council should consist of 15 members, and the only representations they made were that it should consist of more. I accepted their representations and that is why the Bill provides that the council shall consist of “not fewer than 15 and not more than 30 members”. In my view the additional members whom this hon. member wants to be added are quite superfluous and unnecessary. If the hon. member looked at subsection (3) he would see that it would make the implementation of that clause virtually impossible. I really fail to see how such a cumbersome body could want more advice and take more decisions than a council of 30. I think that to expand it even further would have the result that there would be more cooks spoiling the broth and less being done. In recent times it has been my experience that a one-man commission does much more than a five-man commission. Too much is said and too many minutes are compiled, because everybody has to say something, with the result that little is achieved. I am really not prepared to do this, nor can I see the logic …

[Inaudible.]

We do not need the hon. member; he may also leave, then we shall finish more quickly. As regards the committees I want to say that the council may appoint as many ad hoc committees as it pleases, but it cannot vest executive powers in them. Nor do I suppose that is what the hon. member wants. Without legislation it may appoint as many ad hoc committees as it pleases. That is why I think it is unnecessary. I therefore regret that I cannot accept these two amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I am very glad to have had the assurance from the hon. the Minister that as far as the appointment of committees is concerned, it will be quite in order for ad hoc committees to be appointed because I believe that will serve the purpose and provide the power which the technical colleges wish to have incorporated in the Act. If there is no objection to that, then the system will be able to continue. In regard to paragraph (a), I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the original Act, Act 30 of 1923, section 6 of which states that “the council of every declared institution shall consist of not less than 10 or more than 30 members.” Then the provision was made for the appointment with the Minister’s approval of further members. As far as I know, although my memory does not go back as far as 1923, many of these councils have consisted of members up to their full quota for some time. The councils have seen the necessity and usefulness of appointing these additional members with no voting power. When this Act was passed in 1923, I submit that the technical colleges of those times were much smaller organizations with much more limited scope than those which exist to-day. Therefore I feel that this provision is more necessary to-day than it was then. I believe that the very fact that one could make use of people who have rendered this service to the council, will not hinder the council or delay it in its deliberations but could speed it in its deliberations.

Mr. Chairman, I think there is a great deal to be said for the case of the hon. member for Berea in regard to paragraph (b), namely “that they may appoint committees of the council”, because we must always have in mind that these institutions are moving from the autonomy which we are granting them now to autonomy similar to that of our universities. That is the dominating thought throughout the whole Bill. If that is the case, then surely it is desirable that they should be enabled through the Bill to co-opt members and that these members should serve on committees. Even though they are ad hoc committees, they could co-opt members who are not members of the ordinary council. I think that is a very important point. So much for the amendment of my hon. friend.

I come now to the amendment I proposed and I should like to deal with the Minister’s argument. I see his point of view. He says that the Government financed these institutions to the extent of about 90 per cent. That is probably true but we are looking forward to a future, and I am thinking of my own province and particularly of Johannesburg where industry and commerce will assist in financing these bodies. The greater the autonomy we grant them, the greater the possibility of receiving that financial aid. The Minister says that 90 per cent is a very high figure, but what is the figure for the universities to-day? The department’s subsidization of universities amounts to over 70 per cent. As recently as last week a speech was delivered by a very distinguished educationalist speaking on behalf of Potchefstroom University, namely Prof. Bingle. He said that the subsidies received from the Government to-day were not sufficient and he pointed to the example of other developed countries, especially Britain. He spoke of these developed countries where the subsidization is very much higher. I think the hon. the Minister’s argument of trying to gauge the degree of autonomy by the subsidy that he is prepared to grant, is not a very good argument and does not put him on good ground there. I would therefore ask him to reconsider it. I think that is fair. If he is going to give them autonomy surely he should say that he will appoint a third and if he is not satisfied with the conduct of these institutions, as his predecessor in 1955 felt that he was not quite satisfied, he can come forward with legislation. My feeling is that the development of these technical colleges to technological institutes is what we should encourage. We should have confidence in them. We should say: “We want you to run the colleges so that the Minister will co-operate and not dominate”. That is what I suggest very seriously.

Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington. I want to repeat what he has said: Must the degree of representation of the Government be governed by the amount of money which is given by the Government? Has the hon. the Minister no confidence in the educationists of this country?

No.

I hope that all the educationists of this country heard that. I want to go further and refer to the hon. the Minister’s colleague. The hon. the Minister for Community Development in the last few days praised the youth of this country and said what a fine crop of youngsters they were. This can be ascribed to our system of education. Our universities rate amongst the best in the world. They are autonomous although, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, they have a 70 per cent subsidy by the Government. We look at these new institutions for higher technical education in the same light as the technological universities which exist overseas. These technological universities are fully autonomous and they are doing a wonderful job of work in those countries. These of ours can, and I am sure they will, do a wonderful job of work in this country. It is these sorts of statements that make us suspicious. Why does the Minister insist? Why must he have this control? I want to re-pose the question: Has the Minister no confidence in the educationists of this country?

I want to go back to another point which was raised by the hon. member for Berea to which the Minister has not as yet given us an answer, and that is the provision in clause 8 (1) (d).

I will do so now.

The hon. members of the Opposition are now arguing in a circle as regards the question of autonomy. In paragraph (b) of his amendment the hon. member for Berea asks that the Act should authorize the college council to expand through the appointment of committees by the council itself. The hon. the Minister has already replied to that point. Any council is entitled to appoint committees in connection with certain matters. The Minister also referred to them as ad hoc committees. Such a council can appoint persons even outside the council concerned, if it comes to the appointment of persons on ad hoc committees created for certain purposes. Any university council, for example, is entitled to do so, and that right is not excluded in this measure. In other words, the autonomy which the colleges will have automatically, the hon. member wants to be restricted.

The hon. member for Kensington spoke about “reliable people”. He said that the persons who will be elected or nominated by the various concerns, the donor bodies, to serve on the college council will be “reliable people”. Are we to assume, then, that the persons appointed by the hon. the Minister will not be reliable people too, people who will be appointed by virtue of their knowledge of education and of their being educationists? I think the hon. members on the opposite side are merely indulging in suspicion-mongering as far as this Bill is concerned, by implying that matters will take a turn for the worse and by not trusting the Minister with regard to this matter. In other words, the hon. members are now raising the proverbial ghosts as far as this specific clause is concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Berea the following as regards clause 8 (1) (d), i.e. the clause that relates to other bodies. The object of that is that if it is not known as a local authority, if it performs the functions of a local authority, or if it is a body which actually merits representation but does not as yet enjoy representation—for example the Chamber of Mines, I.D.C., etc.—that body may be named there. A local authority, a city council, whatever the case may be, may not take so much interest, it may perhaps take very little interest and in terms of that clause such a large body will in fact forfeit representation. That is the only object of that provision.

The hon. member for Kensington is making a very big mistake by comparing the universities to the technical colleges. There is no basis for comparison whatsoever. A university is autonomous, regardless of the subsidy it receives, there is a limited number of members nominated by the Minister. But these are not autonomous institutions—they are semi-autonomous. They are semi-autonomous in the sense that they are legally incorporated to perform certain functions themselves. But in reality the Government has a very large and important say in the development of these technical colleges, because here regard cannot be had only to the subjects students offer if they want to study under certain existing courses. The Government should be able, from above and through its own representatives, to say that it is in the country’s interests that a technical course be designed with a view to a certain field for which no provision has been made. The technical colleges cannot be allowed to take that decision. Universities train every student in a certain course or degree to which the student seeks admission, or which the university offers. There is therefore a very big difference.

There is also a further difference. The various bodies which are granted representation may nominate individuals who are all so to speak of the same kind and who think similarly as regards the development that may be necessary. There may perhaps be industrialists in such vastly superior numbers that there must also be other people who adopt different lines. Sometimes there are outstanding individuals in such a community, people who are great educationists but who are left out because they cannot actually represent such a large body by reason of the fact that they have already retired from active life. Unless the Minister has this wide choice, he cannot make that council so representative by augmenting it.

Apart from sound control the Minister’s actual task here is to give a seat to all the various concerns that should be represented on such a college council, and not to make it a one-sided council. As regards control over the college’s domestic affairs, I just want to say that the Minister never exercises control over domestic affairs through his nominees. The Minister has no time to concern himself with such matters. The hon. member should remember—and on this point he actually agrees with me—that education does not simply mean inculcating technical manual skills in people. There are all kinds of other factors that also contribute towards a person’s education, and it has to be seen to that the necessary representation exists to take care of that and devote proper attention to it.

I really feel that I have now set out this matter very clearly. I do not want to become suspicious, nor am I suspicious, but I do think we are harking back too much to the position 40 years ago, that is in 1923. We should rather look at the present tremendous development that has taken place.

I am not suspicious. I appreciate the Minister’s point of view.

I know that. That is why I say that I consider this a very good arrangement. Once again I may just ask hon. members to wait until I have appointed the college councils, when they can accuse me of any mistake I may have made, if there be reason for accusations.

Has not the Minister in his last speech rather given the reason why he should accept the amendment of the hon. member for Berea? He said he would like to be able to nominate as many people as he can, at least as many as the others, and with the power to have more, because he wants to have as broad a choice as possible, he wants to appoint them on as broad a basis as possible. Is that not exactly what the amendment of the hon. member for Berea seeks to achieve? It also seeks to have representation of those persons that the council would like to have, that institution would like to have, namely local persons on as broad a basis as possible. So the provision is suggested, as in the 1923 Act, that they should in fact have that power to appoint persons who cannot in any way vote. Whatever dangers the hon. the Minister feels may exist in a council not having the majority of his nominees, do not exist in relation to the amendment of the hon. member for Berea. There must be many occasions where one would in the case of an institution like this, and particularly in relation to the sort of institution that one hopes these technical colleges will grow into institutions with an expanding horizon of interest; I visualize that they will move more and more into the technological field. They are expanding to-day at a greater rate than in any other field, and so one may find that one wants someone representative of the electronics industry, for example, to guide the council. It is no use saying that there can be a subcommittee. That is not the point. The point is that the council as such deliberates on matters of policy and as to the fields into which it proposes to go, and then it should have the advantage and the benefit, during such discussion, of such a representative. How else one is to achieve this I do not know.

I am sure we all appreciate how much more is achieved when you get together with a person and you discuss the matter around the table. That is much more advantageous than having a report of a sub-committee to deal with. So I hope the Minister will reconsider the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea, on the basis of the Minister’s own argument in regard to his power to appoint the majority of members on the council so as to give a broader representation. I do urge upon the Minister that he should at least look into this and perhaps in the Other Place introduce such an amendment. But we cannot now determine into what fields these technical colleges will go. The object of the Bill is that these institutions will expand into technological colleges such as one has overseas, places like the Massachusetts Institute of Technology or Caltec in Passadena. That is what one envisages will happen to these institutions, that they will be of a clearly technological nature. This field is absolutely unlimited. I hope the Minister will give us his views as to whether that argument which he produced does not perhaps support the amendment of the hon. member for Berea.

As far as the 90 per cent costs are concerned, I really do not understand the Minister’s argument. It is true that the State subsidizes up to 90 per cent, but why does the Minister feel he must have control just because the State provides most of the money? Why must he have control of the council? I do not think the Minister has answered this satisfactorily. I know he is not saying that he cannot trust them with the spending of State funds, but the argument he produces does not appear to hold any water. He has other remedies. If in fact the council pursues policies which the Minister does not approve of, then he has his remedies in terms of the Act. He has provided for an inspectorate. He has his means whereby he can see what the council has decided and how his decisions are being implemented. I hope the Minister will give us the benefit of his views on these matters.

I am afraid I have nothing to add.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 10:

I move the amendment standing in my name—

The only object of this amendment is to clear this provision and its interpretation of all doubt, that salaries are to be added. The Public Service Commission says it is not enough to mention salary scales, because the salaries must also be guaranteed.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

I move—

This is intended to allow a member of the staff of certain institutions which become colleges to remain a member of the Public Service Pension Fund if he was a member previously and wants to remain a member. It is his choice. There are frequently complaints about these things, to the effect that if they have to switch to another pension fund they are in a less favourable position, but here they are left the choice. If they want to choose a new pension fund which is better than the present one, they may do so, and if they want to stay with the old pension fund they may do so too. This is a very good amendment.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 12:

I want the Minister to assist me here. This is the question of the registration of students at the college. Clause 12 (a) is straightforward. That we understand. It is an institute for higher education, advanced technical education, but I want to come to (b), which says that “unless the student has obtained any qualification, whether of an academic or a practical nature, recognized by the Minister as a qualification entitling him to such registration …”. Now, we have been accustomed to the Joint Matriculation Board recognizing equivalents. I want to know whether this is going to be an equivalent, or is it another separate qualification that the Minister can accept? Is it another qualification altogether, and not the matriculation qualification referred to in (a)?

In the Second Reading debate I explained that there are people who have gained practical experience, without writing theoretical examinations, to such an extent that they can actually be regarded as technicians. If such a person wants to take up further study in his particular line, he will be allowed to do so without having the matriculation certificate. There may also be immigrants with other qualifications which are not actually regarded as the equivalent of the matriculation certificate, and who should also be allowed by virtue of their technical knowledge. This is therefore merely an attempt to prevent the exclusion of people who do not have the matriculation certificate but who do have the knowledge and the skill. It is sometimes unfair to refuse people admission merely because they do not have the matriculation exemption certificate, particularly if they want to study in a technical field.

It is not necessarily an academic qualification, as in (a)?

No.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Naturally I have no serious objection to this question of the medium of instruction, but I wonder whether it is necessary to lay this down. One or two suggestions have occurred to me; I do not know what the Minister thinks of them. I would suggest first of all that the Minister might consider not going further than the word “Minister” in line 4. The clause would then read that they would decide the medium of instruction in consultation with the Minister. I gathered that the Minister would like to be able to say how they are to deal with the matter. Does the Minister feel that is necessary?

I just want to explain that the clause, as it stands, actually affords protection to a large number of English-speaking lecturers at the technical colleges who are very capable but who are so old that they can no longer learn the Afrikaans language. We adopt the attitude that we should help those people to some extent. We cannot simply kick them out. These are bilingual institutions. But as far as new appointments are concerned, we insist that the lecturers should be able to lecture in both languages. The hon. member wants to do the English-speaking lecturers a disservice by deleting the words after “Minister”.

I think I agree with the hon. the Minister. There is no difference of opinion. But having made provision for consultation with the Minister, I feel that it is rather tying his hands to say how he is going to negotiate. I want to give him a free hand in dealing with the council. If he wants it this way I have no objection, but it seems to me that it would be better the other way.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15:

I want to speak on sub-clause (b), to which I also referred in the Second Reading Debate. Provision is going to be made for inspection in regard to any matter affecting, amongst other things, “the admission of students and pupils and the teaching and training provided”. I do not know whether we should have inspection of the teaching and training at an institution of this kind. I can quite see the point made by the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading Debate. As I understood him, he said that a situation might arise where there might be difficulty with a lecturer and that it might be necessary to have an inspection. I hope it will be on very rare occasions. I do not think that a post-matriculation institution should have an inspection. I do not think that a training college for teachers should be subject to inspection of the methods used by the staff. As a matter of fact the hon. the Minister is aware that in the inspection of a high school, the inspection is very often just of a formal nature. It is really just an educational discussion more than anything else. I do not like the inclusion of the words “and the teaching and training provided”. I am quite prepared to leave the words “the admission of students and pupils”, but I do not like the idea of inspection of the teaching and training provided. Can the Minister tell me in what circumstances this might be necessary?

As an ex-inspector of schools the hon. member for Kensington knows that he sometimes came across situations where he himself was surprised at the fact that a man who called himself a teacher was simply not capable of presenting his subject-matter to the pupils; that the contents of what he offered were quite inadequate. Let us suppose there has been a persistently high quota of failures in a certain subject; then the fault has to be looked for somewhere. We are now in fact trying to determine the cause of the high percentage of failures at universities, and let me say that in all due respect to the many good lecturers at our universities, it is sometimes a pity that there cannot also be inspection at universities. There are some lecturers who have a very sound knowledge of their subject, but they cannot get that knowledge across to their students with the result that the students suffer. The man is so clever that he does not know what to do with all his learning, but it is an art to get that knowledge across to the students. To be able to do so one has to be a born teacher. One has to know how to get one’s knowledge across, whether to a grade one pupil or to a university student. All we are providing here is that inspection may take place. We are not saying it must take place. Circumstances may arise where it may be necessary to have such an inspection. I agree with the hon. member for Kensington. I also hope that it will very seldom be necessary to use this power.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clauses 16 to 21 put and agreed to.

Clauses 22 to 26 put and agreed to.

On a point of order, Sir, the last clause that we dealt with was clause 15. Which clause are we dealing with now?

After clause 15 had been agreed to I put clauses 16 to 21 and they were agreed to. Thereafter I put clauses 22 to 26.

On a point of order …

Order! If hon. members sit talking while I put the clauses, then I cannot help it.

Surely, Sir, you should have warned the Committee that you were going to put the clauses in block.

I did warn the Committee. I did so twice before I put the clauses.

May I suggest, on a point of order, that the Committee should take one clause at a time, even though we have no discussion on them?

We have been following this practice in the case of all Bills containing many clauses. As far as these clauses are concerned not a single amendment has been put on the Order Paper. That is why I put the clauses in groups of five. Five of these clauses are not even as long as one clause in some other Bills.

New clause to follow clause 27:

I move—

1. (a)shall advise the Minister on such matters relating to the colleges as the Minister may refer to it; and
2. (b)may advise the Minister on any other matter of common interest to the colleges in regard to which it considers it necessary to advise the Minister.

I do so on request of the hon. member for Berea. I consider the proposed clause to be an improvement.

I believe the wording of the clause completely fulfils the wishes of the Association of Technical Colleges and I am sure I am speaking on behalf of these colleges and of the council itself when I say that the hon. the Minister’s gracious acceptance of the proposition put forward has earned their sincere appreciation.

It is a very fine gesture.

New clause put and agreed to.

Order! I should like hon. members to listen, because I am now going to put clauses 28 to 31.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I should like to point out that when the Committee Stage started each clause was put separately. Should we not continue to do so during the entire Committee Stage?

Order! No hard and fast rule has been laid down.

Is it not the position that in the case of bills containing a large number of clauses on which there will be no discussion the procedure of putting them in groups is adopted and the committee warned beforehand?

Order! It is in the discretion of the Chairman. In any event, if I put a matter twice and nobody gets up, I regard it as being disposed of.

Clauses 28 to 31 put and agreed to.

Clause 29:

I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to clause 29, i.e. the regulations clause. I should like to ask him whether he could in the Other Place give consideration to a practical implementation of the status given to the Association of Technical Colleges by inserting an amendment to read something like this: “The Minister may after consultation with the Association of Technical Colleges …”. There are many precedents for this. Although I do not want to waste the time of the committee I should like to refer to certain of these precedents. There is the Drug Control Council which functions on this basis. There is a similar provision in the Atmospheric Pollution Act, in terms of which there shall be consultation between a board and the Minister. Then there is the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act which also has a similar provision; and others. I think this is a useful provision to have in legislation and, therefore, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give consideration to a similar provision being inserted in this clause, if necessary in the Other Place.

I just want to bring it to the hon. member’s attention that the new clause, 28 (b), clears the way for technical colleges to advise the Minister “on any other matter of common interest to the colleges in regard to which it considers it necessary to advise the Minister”. The implementation of clause 29, with which the hon. member was concerned, may therefore take place in accordance with this provision. I therefore do not think it is necessary to include such an amendment.

I appreciate what the Minister has said but I wish, with respect, to point out that in the other legislation I mentioned it was seen fit to include such a stipulation and, under the circumstances, I should like to see it being done in this Bill as well.

Clause put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Chairman, I move as an amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with an amendment.

When the House adjourned yesterday, I was dealing with the question of the prohibition of alterations and additions, of sub-division and the penalties involved. I was also dealing with the fact that the board’s discretion was now being removed in regard to revaluing in cases where this provision had been offended against. Well, the Minister smiled and I came to the conclusion that he did not agree with my point of view, but in checking the matter up quite an amazing fact came to light. Clause 14 of this Bill deals with the imposition of penalties. In this clause I found a provision which I should like the hon. Minister to explain to this House. In the proposed new section 50 (1) (i) it is provided that any person who—

The new section 32 (10) states:

If a disqualified person or a disqualified company disobeys the instruction contained in the new subsection 32 (10), he becomes liable in terms of the Community Development Act to a fine of R1,000 or two years imprisonment or both. The new subsection (2) states that:

In other words, what this means is that a person who disobeys the freezing order for a slum clearance scheme or a renewal scheme, for what is exactly the same offence, namely for sub-dividing land, erecting buildings or altering buildings, becomes subject under a slums clearance freezing order to a fine of R500 or one year, whereas for exactly the same offence in terms of the Community Development Act, a disqualified person or company becomes liable to exactly double the penalty. To me that seems contradictory, and I should like the hon. the Minister to investigate this and to let the House know in his reply why there is such a fantastic difference. I should also like him to deal with the reason for the severity of these penalties. One wonders why he imposes such terrible penalties on these people who fail to comply with these orders. One or two arguments which have been put forward is that if a mortgagee fails to furnish a statement, then surely he will be the only person prejudiced. That is one line of thinking but according to this Bill if a mortgagee fails to tell you how much compensation he wants, he becomes liable to these penalties. Who is going to be the person to suffer? Not the Minister or the board, but the person concerned who is not going to be paid out, or his loans paid, if he fails to furnish particulars of the amount of money he wants. He will not have his bond paid back and so on. He must furnish these details.

[Inaudible.]

But there are opportunities for the Minister to deal with this. We will argue this matter at the Committee stage. I am merely arguing about the principles of these matters which are incorporated in this Bill. If an owner refused to co-operate then surely in terms of section 45, the Minister can appoint arbitrators and have the matter settled. Why then this fantastic penalty? If it were a small penalty I would not have any argument but a penalty of R1,000 or two years imprisonment or both is a very severe penalty indeed. When one takes into consideration that in most cases, I should say, 99 per cent of the cases with which the Minister is dealing here, these are perhaps ignorant people and people who are poor. To them a R1,000 is a fantastic amount. It means a lot more than it does to us arguing this Bill academically in this House. These people are as a rule not rich because group areas affect the poorer classes of people. That is generally accepted by members on both sides of the House. I am not arguing that point but I do believe that these penalties should be reviewed. They should not be applied to people who are only harming themselves and not the Minister or the board. As somebody remarked just now, these are in fact vicious penalties. Another penalty arises if a man subdivides his property. Surely to goodness when an area is proclaimed or frozen, the hon. the Minister’s department notifies the deeds office. If he subdivides his land, surely the subdivision will not be registered. Until it is registered, what harm has this person done to the Minister in terms of the provisions of this Bill? He has done no harm at all. If the system is such that the hon. the Minister does not notify the deeds office, then surely this Bill should be amended so that it was made a condition that the hon. the Minister did so and immediately froze the land as far as the registration of subdivision was concerned. Surely that is the way to tackle it rather than to place the onus, by way of penalties of up to R1,000 or two years, on the person concerned.

There are other small points in this Bill with which I should like to deal. In clause 3 the hon. the Minister takes powers and remedies against borrowers. It is rather interesting that in the White Paper which he has furnished, and for which we are incidentally very grateful, he tends to apologize for making any loans at all. His attitude is quite interesting because it would appear that the Minister felt that we would take exception. He says, “The board is however empowered to grant loans to individuals and the board has recently in exceptional cases granted such loans for the furtherance of its objects”. It is in the nature of an apology. I hope that his attitude remains such because I should like to see these matters go through the normal accepted channels. I should like to see building societies, etc., grant loans for the purchase of and additions to these places wherever possible. I know that there are cases when the Minister agrees to improvements in an area which is affected where a building society or a local authority can obviously not grant any money. I think that in such cases provision should be made for the board to do so. I hope that these remain the few exceptional cases in respect of which such loans are granted.

They were exceptional cases because we did not have the machinery to recover the money which we now will have.

He makes provision for the recovery of money from these people and steps which can be taken against them. He says that it is similar to the Housing Act. But one wonders why the hon. the Minister does not adopt the ordinary procedure through the courts. At first glance the procedure adopted here rather denies the person concerned the right to put up a case in defence although he might have a very good defence. It is doubtful to me whether he has an adequate opportunity of in fact putting up that defence as he would be able to if this went to an impartial court and the court decided between the department and the individual concerned. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider that aspect. I think it is quite important especially in regard to the individual concerned.

The only other point which I want to touch on is the question of the effect of clause 3 on deeds registry. The legal profession is very jealous of the whole system of deeds registry. I think that they are justified in taking up this attitude regarding this particular clause where the Minister is making rules and regulations affecting the change of ownership, etc., when his colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, has appointed a committee which I understand, although I do not know what its terms of reference are, must go into this whole question of registration and how it shall be best affected and to review the whole question and report to him. Surely it would have been a good thing if the hon. the Minister had perhaps awaited the outcome of the report before he decided to amend the Act in order to alter the method of registry.

In conclusion I should like to say that we are going to accept this Bill as I said at the beginning of my speech because I think for the first time in legislation concerning group areas, there are signs of a twinge of conscience in the minds of members on that side of the House. I think that this is the first time that I could rise and say that I support legislation of this nature because it gives some benefit to the persons affected by it. This side of the House is supporting this Bill because the benefits derived from the fact that the affected people will not have to pay an appreciation contribution for five years and a reduced one in the sixth year and then returning to normal in the seventh year, I consider to be an improvement which will benefit people and which will help them to re-establish themselves in areas where it is going to be costly for them to do so, on a far better basis than they can possibly do when they have to pay the 50 per cent of what is regarded as profit at the moment but which of course in many cases is not profit at all. It is an adjusted price because of the depreciation of the value of our money. So they have not necessarily had in the past to give 50 per cent of their profit, but they have had in fact to make a contribution from the actual recovery value of their property.

With those few words I should like to say that we will deal much more fully with this during the Committee Stage when we will move amendments where we feel them to be necessary. In the meantime we support the principle of this Bill because we believe it will in fact benefit the people affected.

Mr. Speaker, when one considers the main principles of these amending clauses to the Community Development Act, then one comes to the immediate conclusion that the foundation stones on which community development, and, more than that, sound community development in South Africa rests, will be strengthened considerably by these measures. They are being strengthened as such because they are now also being adapted to new circumstances and new developments. When one believes that these new measures will be passed by this House, then one feels certain that we have made much progress in the field of community development in South Africa.

However, in order to understand these new measures, their background, their meaning as well as the need for them, it would be better if we not only tried to determine for ourselves what is meant by these new measures, but also what is meant by the concept of community development. An important committee of the United Nations described the concept of community development as follows: “The expression ‘community development’ is used to give expression to the processes through which the attempts of the community itself are coupled with those of the authorities in order to improve the social, economic and cultural conditions of the community.” In 1948 during a conference of the then Colonial Administrators which was held at Cambridge, England, this concept of community development was defined as: “A movement to promote better living for the whole community.” Community development is therefore a universal concept and ideal, and most Western countries adhere to it. Recently it has been Greece, the Netherlands and West Germany in particular which, to a large extent, have been putting into effect the ideal of community development. The well-known T. R. Batten wrote in his well-known book “Communities and their Development” of 1957—

Community development is therefore no new concept. All the governments of the civilized world have been trying to attain its ideals. What is new, is the emphasis which is being placed on it, and not the principle.

As far as South Africa is concerned, this very important aspect of our political economy was for many years disgracefully neglected, until the National Party Government came into power in 1948. Under the U.P. Government we did in fact have a Housing Department, but as far as community development in its full scope, as we and the civilized world know it to-day, was concerned, we had little or nothing. Before the National Party Government could proceed with its major task of community development, certain foundation stones had to be laid and certain precautions had to be taken by means of important legislation. It so happens that all this important legislation which was so very essential was opposed to the bitter end by the hon. Opposition. The hon. member in fact admitted to that earlier on in this debate.

As I have said, certain precautions had first of all to be taken by means of legislation before we could pursue our policy of community development, and sound community development at that, in South Africa. The important legislation which followed in that connection was of course in the first instance the Group Areas Act, after that there was the Group Areas Development Act, the Rents Act and the Housing Act. On 4th August, 1964, the late Dr. Verwoerd reorganized the entire Department of Community Development, and on that occasion he had the following to say (Translation)—

It is obvious therefore that where one has to do with the reorganization of the Department of Community Development, the statutory powers, functions and duties arising from these Acts which I have just mentioned should be transferred and entrusted to the Minister of Community Development. But in order to give full expression to this very great ideal, this great endeavour to attain sound community development in South Africa, legislation had first to be passed, namely the Community Development Act. That is in fact the principal Act to which this amending measure refers.

It is very interesting to note what the attitude of hon. members on the opposite side was in respect of this Act. As is of course understandable they opposed this Act in its entirety. But if one reads the debates which were held at that time one comes across these classic expressions which we have also heard recently, i.e. “excessive arbitrary powers are being bestowed upon the Minister … the Minister is putting up a lot of hotch-potch buildings and creating future slums”, and then the most disgraceful of all, “the operational scope of the Act is being extended to the whole Republic”. And that, Sir, happened four years after we became the Republic of South Africa.

I want to state here that in my opinion the people of South Africa are in general very forgiving, and that applies particularly as far as politics are concerned. But the people of South Africa will probably not find it very easy to forgive the attitude which the hon. members on the opposite side have adopted in respect of this Act, because one naturally realizes that in this country, a country which is first and foremost a rapidly developing country, there is a very great need for vigorous community development. If one also takes into consideration the fact that we are a country which accommodates different population groups within its confines and that because of our rapid industrial development large numbers of people have moved to the cities because they could make a better living there, then one realizes that in order to deal with these problems vigorous community development is necessary in this country. But through misconceptions and semi-academic subterfuges the Opposition at that time decided to oppose the principal Act. Nevertheless. the measure was piloted through this hon. House and to-day stands as a veritable milestone on the road to sound community development, not only in South Africa but also I think in the entire Western world. This Act has finally dealt a death blow to the entire laissez faire policy of the opposite side, a policy in which the hon. member over there also believes, and it has paved the way to sound community development in South Africa.

But because this principal Act has had a very wide impact, because it ranges far and wide in the field of sound community development it is understandable that amendments will have to be made from time to time. The learned Judge De Villiers has on occasion stated: “No legislation can provide for every contingency.” It is obvious therefore that certain amendments would have to be made to this principal Act as well. The most important amendment is contained in clause 1, where the concept of basic value is defined. This clause, read together with clauses 5 (a), 6 and 7, immediately gives us the impression that the main principle in this Bill is to give the owner, because circumstances allow it, more protection than in the principal Act. Where the State in the case of community development has to rely very heavily on sympathetic human relationships it is a good thing that we are in this case regarding the State and the individual together as a silent partnership in which the State and the individual are two partners: and because the State is by far the stronger partner it is also a good thing that the weaker partner is taken by the hand and treated more advantageously than the services which he contributes to the partnership really justify. This clause and the consequent clauses 5 (a), 6 and 7 which provide that the value appreciation contribution be done away with and that the value depreciation contribution should remain in existence is, when seen in the broad sense, one of the attractive aspects being introduced in this Bill and we want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that circumstances have caused him to be able to make concessions now in this regard.

As far as the hon. member for Umlazi is concerned, I think I can safely say that during the late hours of yesterday evening’s debate he aroused a good deal of surprise in this House when he indicated that the Opposition would support this new measure, or something to that effect, because he levelled so much criticism at the measures in this Bill that I am not quite certain now what they are going to vote for and what they support. In any case, I am prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. But now the hon. member has said that he has had the privilege—and I think that it was a very dubious one—of being able to vote now for the eleventh time against this principal Act and its amendments, and he also mentioned the Group Areas Act; in other words, this Act and related Acts. Now I realize why the hon. member for Umlazi voted against this principal Act and related Acts, he did so because these Acts are diametrically opposed to the laissez faire policy which the United Party pursued for many years, that policy which allowed a Korsten to develop in Port Elizabeth, a Windermere here in Cape Town, a Sophiatown in Johannesburg and a Cato Manor in Durban. But that is not all. It is that policy which allowed those terrible conditions and suffering to continue unabated.

It seems to me you prepared your speech yesterday.

If the hon. member would only listen he would agree with me. I can also understand why the hon. member for Umlazi could not vote for these Acts in the past, but what I cannot understand is why there was such a note of satisfaction in his voice when he made this major confession here. When it is stated here time and again that the Bantu population in the cities has increased by a few thousand, then it appears to me that they take a kind of sadistic satisfaction in this phenomenon and then omit to mention the actual facts of the matter and omit to say in addition that if it had not been for the measures which this Government had taken, that population would have increased, not by thousands, but by hundreds of thousands. The hon. member for Umlazi also said that this new Bill had not been circulated well enough, and I think he referred to the Law Society. I can only deduce by implication that he meant that apparently every member of the public of South Africa should have received a copy of the Bill. He creates the impression that he doubts the autonomy of this House of Assembly to make laws, when necessary, to ensure the good administration of the country.

The hon. member also expressed criticism in regard to the modus operandi in respect of the value depreciation clause. Here I want to tell the hon. member straight away that this clause, in my opinion, is going to activate those people who have up to now been unwilling to sell their properties. But if he thinks that he has in this way been given another means whereby they can delay sound community development in South Africa, I want to give him the assurance that he will not succeed in attaining that end.

Furthermore, the next objection was that the calculation of the basic value, i.e. the basis on which the basic value was calculated, or in other words, the market value, was supposedly incorrect. Since we in this country are experiencing the tendency for property values to increase because our population groups are all increasing, surely it is obvious that the value of immovable property must also increase. Any sworn appraiser can tell the hon. member that. If one has determined the basic value and the value of the property increases, the Act does after all make provision that no increase contribution will have to be paid within the next five years. But if the owner is unfortunate and the value of that property did not, owing to unavoidable circumstances, increase, or if the value were to decrease, then the State still undertakes to pay the value depreciation contribution. In the past there was no prohibition as far as making additions to buildings were concerned, but if an owner had in fact made additions, he had the right to make application to the board for those additions to be reconsidered when determining the basic value. The board then had the discretion as to whether or not they would undertake that reconsideration. This new Bill merely states the discretion in another way. It states that one may not make alterations but that one may apply to the board to do so and that if the board approves one’s application, one is bound when determining the basic value to take these alterations into account.

The foundations of community development have been very clearly and soundly laid in South Africa. To-day we are merely improving the facade of the building. I think we have really made great progress in the field of community development in South Africa. In conclusion, the late Dr. Verwoerd stated the following very simply and clearly when the Department of Community Development was reorganized, and I think this applies for the future as well: The Department of Community Development must lend a hand and see to it that all population groups are properly established and housed and that healthy communities develop. I think this new measure—in fact I am convinced it will—will contribute towards the sound and effective implementation of this great directive.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (Central) was obviously disappointed to find that the Minister’s endeavours to improve the Community Development Act are to receive the support of this side of the House. I do not intend to follow his example of trying to squeeze the last drop of political advantage out of what I believe is a purely administrative Bill that we are dealing with here this afternoon. But I will say this to the hon. member that he is a little naïve if he thinks that his quotations from works and books on community development in Europe and Britain are applicable to community development as it is in South Africa, which is intended to implement the Group Areas Act.

Our legislation is much in advance of theirs.

I want to say to the hon. the Minister, as the hon. member for Umlazi has said, that we welcome several aspects of this Bill and that we welcome it in general although we will have some comment to make in regard to various matters, and I propose to deal with them now. Sir, we welcome it because we welcome any attempt to alleviate the hardship which does result from the implementation of the Group Areas Act. When we look at this Bill and its general contents we think that the Minister is moving in the right direction, but the main difficulty that the hon. the Minister has is his tremendous difficulty of dealing with the intangible if he wants to ensure completely equitable treatment. He is dealing with the intangible of opinions of individuals as to what market value is. He is dealing with the intangibles of the formula affecting the determination of market value. I believe that those are the basic difficulties experienced by his Department in the implementation of this Act, because of the intangible aspect of the problem with which he is faced. Sir, what he is having to do is to adapt principles, which are applicable in the normal course of events, to abnormal circumstances. In other words, he has to take into consideration factors which are normally considered in determining a market value in the normal course of supply and demand, and then apply those in some way when an abnormal situation has been created because a large number of people have to move from one area to another area involving a change of ownership of properties.

The hon. the Minister has said that he is attempting to eliminate some of the hardship resulting from the determination of basic value. Here his difficulty as I see it is simply that if in a residential area in any town one house is offered for sale, in most cases you will find that there are far more buyers than one interested in the purchase of that house, and in that way a market value is determined for that particular dwelling. But if that dwelling is one of 40 or 50 which suddenly are to offer on the market because of the declaration of a group area, then you immediately disrupt the normal laws of supply and demand which affect the determination of value. The Minister, in clause 1, has suggested an improvement in the method of determining the basic value of the buildings as distinct from the basic value of the land. The basic value is to be determined at a date immediately prior to the basic date. I want to suggest to the Minister that although his clause is effective in part it does not quite achieve the object which, according to his explanatory memorandum, he sets out to achieve. First of all, the basic date never comes out of the blue in any particular area. It is known to the public; it is known to the property owners that the proclamation of a group area is under consideration, and immediately that fact has a depressing effect on the market in that particular area. If those negotiations go on for a long time it is very difficult to say what was a true market value immediately prior to the basic date. Let me give the hon. the Minister an instance. He is well aware of the history of the township of Macassar. There was uncertainty for a number of years as to whether that township would remain White or become coloured with the result that there were no sales. A revision court is sitting trying to determine a market value when there were no sales on which they can base their opinion, and that is vacant land, not buildings. What the hon. the Minister now suggests will clearly be of assistance in placing a value upon buildings but I do not think that even there he has gone far enough. I want to put this proposition to him: Take a building which is situated near to public transport—a 5-roomed house on a plot of 5,000 sq. ft.— and the same building situate miles from public transport. Under the Minister’s proposals in this measure those buildings will have the same value being the cost of construction less depreciation. The market value of the ground is taken into consideration but not the market value of the building. The market values of those buildings would be vastly different although they would have the same value based on cost and construction. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister—and I propose to move such an amendment in the Committee Stage—that he should determine the valuation of the land and the building as suggested but that the rest of the definition in clause 1 (b) (iii) (b) after line 30 be deleted and that he should say instead that the joint value should be not less than the market value, not that it shall not be more than the market value, but that it shall be not less than the market value. That will meet the position of a property in an accessible area which is to be sold and the market value of which is, of course, much higher than the market value of a property which is in an isolated position.

The next point I want to come to is the difficulty caused by the delay in the settling of basic values. The problem here is that with the passage of time between the fixing of the basic date and the fixing of the basic value, memories become dulled and the evidence is sometimes not available. Sir, when the hon. member for Umlazi was dealing with the short period for a notice of appeal, that is to say, a 21-day period in which an owner must object, the hon. the Minister suggested that if that period were lengthened it would lead to a disruption of the work of the revision court. I want to say to the Minister from my experience that if that date was changed from 21 days to three years, it would not disrupt the work of the revision court which is operating in the Peninsula. I want to give the Minister a case: A certain white person purchased a property on the Cape Flats in 1948 for the sum of R5,000. In 1957 it was valued for rate purposes at R5,430. I might mention that this man is a disability war pensioner. On the 9th November, 1962, he received a letter from the Department saying that the provisional value of this property which he had purchased 14 years earlier for R5,000 and of which the municipal valuation was R5,430, was R3,000 and that he must object within 21 days. The objection was lodged within 12 days. In the meantime he lost the sale. He had a sale arranged at over R5,000. He waited from November, 1962, until April, 1963, when he was advised that his objection had been overruled and that the valuation would be fixed at R3,000 but that if he wanted to appeal he must do so within 21 days. The appeal was lodged on the 16th April, 1963. By August, 1965, nothing whatsoever had happened, but in the meantime he had found a Coloured buyer and had sold the property for R3,600. The Department then came forward and suggested that they could now agree to the basic value being fixed at R3,580 since he had sold his property for R3,600. In other words, he was to get no benefit in respect of the loss which he had sustained because of the declaration of this area as a Coloured area. Sir, that was in August, 1965. The letter giving this short notice to the owner ended on this note: “If no reply is received within 30 days, arrangements will be made for the appeal to be considered by a revision court.” Well, the Department was notified within seven days what they could do with the offer …

What?

That they could reconsider it. Then there followed another period of silence lasting from August, 1965 to the 2nd April, 1966. On the latter date the individual concerned was informed that he would be advised as soon as the revision court was appointed. Well, this court was appointed some time during 1966 but the excuse which followed then was that the chairman had gone overseas on a three months holiday and that the court, could, consequently, not consider the matter. The last epistle in this story came on the 2nd December, 1966, stating that this matter could now be considered by the court. This then is the case of a man who was held to the period of 21 days within which he should appeal, a period which the Minister even now is not prepared to extend. The case I have quoted is not an isolated one. I am aware of the problems facing the Minister in trying to determine these valuations but they are of his own making. It is of the Government’s own making because it is their legislation. Hardships are numerous. I have given the Minister particulars of one case but there are many others in the same position.

I now want to move on to clause 3 of the Bill. The legal fraternity appreciates that the proposed new section 18A does not contain a novel provision in that a similar provision can also be found in the Housing Act. But members of the legal fraternity generally feel that there are dangers if the procedure proposed in subsection (8) of the proposed section 18A being permitted. This procedure is starting to grow, i.e. the short-cutting of the normal procedure of registration of transfer. Therefore I think it would be advisable, as the hon. member for Umlazi already pointed out, for the Minister to consider dropping this provision until such time as the committee appointed by the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing as reported on Deeds Office practice. There are certain small amendments which can be introduced with the omission of section 8 at the present time without losing the benefit of the remaining provisions of the proposed new section 18A. I have already dealt with clause 6 on which I intend proposing an amendment extending the period of 21 days. Therefore I should now like to move on to a consideration of clause 7 of the Bill. This clause we welcome. We welcome the provision that the penalty imposed on the profit above basic value is not to be enforced within the 60-month period. We welcome this. I believe it will assist matters.

Here again I should like to ask the Minister to ensure that the individual owner who wants to sell is not placed at a disadvantage vis-d-vis the Group Areas Development Board. Let met quote a case to the Minister. A case occurred in the northern areas of the Peninsula where a white man owned a very nice home. Eventually that area was declared to be a Coloured area. The owner then decided to sell it to a Coloured man. He had lived in that home with his family for a long time and had grown an orchard and so on. Eventually he selected a Coloured businessman of Cape Town whom he thought he should like to see in his house. He had this Coloured man and his family to have a look at the house. He showed them around the place and told them that they could take over because he had to move out. They decided on a price, a price which was, of course, subject to the preemptive right of the board. The price was a very low one because the owner was not interested in making money out of it. He had to leave and he wanted to help this particular Coloured man to acquire a home. But what happened? The board exercised its pre-emptive right and bought the property from the owner who wanted to sell and then went along and sold that same property to the same Coloured businessman at an increased price.

That is a common practice.

It was sold to the same Coloured businessman but at an increased price. I have particulars here of another case where a certain area was declared for Coloured occupation. One of the white owners there found a Coloured purchaser. He offered him certain plots in the proposed township at a negotiated figure. The man then had a look at the conditions of the title. Certain plots had been zoned for business purposes, others for single residential, etc. However, the European owner within a short time found that he had lost this sale because the prospective purchaser had now become interested in certain plots owned by the Group Areas Development Board. This prospective purchaser told the board that he was interested only in business plots to which the board replied: “That is easy. We can re-zone these for business purposes.” So I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to give an assurance that where an established township is converted from White to Coloured, or from Coloured to White, there will be no alteration of the zoning of the plots within that township by the Department until such time as all the affected properties have been disposed of —either bought by the board or disposed of by the owners themselves in the normal market. After all, a man who has bought a plot in a township with business rights expects a return which he can expect from a plot with business rights. He does not want to find that the plot next door is re-zoned for business purposes and immediately the market value of his plot is depreciated considerably. I should like the hon. the Minister to give the assurance that the board will not utilize its power of changing the zoning of an area in order to induce a sale to the disadvantage of other owners.

I now come to clause 11 where, in subsection (2) of the proposed section 42, it is provided that if compensation is payable in terms of this Act to a person whose place of residence is not known, that money is retained in Government funds and not paid into the Master’s Office. Naturally I have no objection against this procedure because there is no point in the Government paying it out from one control into another. However, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister does not consider it to be advisable to accept an obligation to publish annually in the Government Gazette the names of all persons whose addresses are unknown and for whom moneys are held. The Guardians Fund publishes such a list every year. I think if the State is to retain this money in its possession because of the fact that the persons concerned cannot be located, a similar provision should be made in this regard.

Is the Master not obliged to do that in any case?

He is obliged to do that but now that the Government is no longer obliged to pay these moneys over into the Guardians Fund particulars will not be published. Therefore I should like to see that the State Department concerned holding these amounts on behalf of the persons concerned should adopt a similar procedure as that adopted by the Guardians Fund, i.e. to publish annually a list of the names.

It is a purely administrative matter, but I think it should be tied in here to make the position clear. There is of course the other aspect that in the Guardians Fund the money earns interest at a compound rate. I do not know whether it is the intention that the untraced creditor will have the same benefit of an accrual of interest in respect of the funds which are retained by the Government and not paid out. The other matter, to which the hon. member for Boland has just drawn my attention is whether this money is to be retained for a period of 30 years, or for what period it will be held available.

There is one final matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. That is the confusion at the present moment regarding the freezing of properties by proclamation, and the question of proclamation under the Group Areas Act. Those dates can be different. The provisions in regard to valuation and compensation are different. I want to know from the Minister whether he will make the necessary provision in this Act at a later stage, and accept the suggestion that the Group Areas Act proclamation take precedence over any affected property proclamation under the same Act. I hope the Minister can give consideration to this matter. In the Committee Stage I shall move the amendments in conformity with the points I have made this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I think we can be grateful for the progress we have made in the direction of implementing legislation which actually forms the basis of the good relations prevailing among the races in South Africa. If we look at the tension and even riots which prevail in other countries where a different principle is being implemented—different from separate development as contained in this Bill relating to group areas—we see that it is not a mere coincidence that we in South Africa are experiencing racial peace and progress.

There is another aspect which may determine the extent to which progress can be made. If one has to take somebody in tow and he digs in his heels and puts up resistance against every step one has to take, the main energy expended on giving effect to one’s progress, is directed at dragging along somebody who is reluctant. However, the moment such a person is willing to co-operate and to negotiate in regard to problems which may arise, positive progress can be made. I think this is, as the Opposition admits, the first time we have reached a stage where progress can take place. Some of the minor principles will be negotiated now, but the basic principle of the Act has now been accepted. It is the first time this has happened in respect of this fundamental legislation which affects our entire pattern of racial peace in South Africa. I think we may be grateful for that. I anticipate now that we shall make progress with the rapid implementation of this Act and of the pattern which will contribute to the further development of racial peace in South Africa. With amendments such as those contained in this Bill—especially the amendment in terms of which affected persons are now being granted a period of five years in which they themselves may dispose of affected property at a price higher than the basic value, and in terms of which they may retain the full benefit from such dispositions—I anticipate that they will be instrumental in encouraging people to cooperate with the Community Development Board instead of putting up resistance. I want to express the hope that the Opposition will give their blessing in this respect as well, not only in this House, but also in practice when they address political meetings, or when they advise individuals who consult them. That is probably its most important aspect, namely the personal contact which is being made with people affected by this legislation. The amendments which are being effected, are amendments which are in all respects instrumental in effecting a more rapid implementation of the basic principle of the Principal Act. To my mind also the principle in respect of more severe penalties will not be applied to people who are not obstructing the implementation of group areas development on purpose. They will only be applied to persons who are purposefully refraining from co-operating in any respect or are even doing the opposite, namely thwarting it.

I think that, if we are able to enjoy the co-operation of the Opposition to this extent at present, we have already made significant progress. I trust that we shall enjoy this co-operation not only in this debating chamber, but also in practice, when they are required to give advice to individuals.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, for want of something better to say, opened his remarks by saying that he was glad to see that members of the Opposition were beginning to support the principle of an Act which brought “goeie gesindheid”—I think those were his words—and “rassevrede”. He gave me the impression that this good feeling, the “goeie gesindheid” which in his opinion existed, and the “rassevrede” came about because of the Group Areas Act. Let me tell him, as a representative of the Coloured people, that I have never and will never accept the Group Areas Act. The Coloured people have never and will never accept the Group Areas Act, but they have no alternative.

Do you want mixed residential areas?

No, do not ask me this stupid question about mixed areas. That is a very old bogey. It is worn out. I was in politics when that hon. member was still at school. That is the question that was asked me at that time and I am still being asked it. [Interjections.] I am not discussing the Group Areas Act, but I want this hon. gentleman to understand that no group of people has suffered more under the Group Areas Act than the Coloured people, but they now realize that they have to come to the Minister …

That is not true.

It is, Sir. These people are at all times unwilling to move away from their property and they are unwilling sellers. Mr. Speaker, you will not permit me, and that is the reason why I shall not go into the principle of the Group Areas Act. I know what you will say to me, so I will not raise that matter. The hon. member said further that he expressed the hope that the affected people would co-operate rather than cause opposition. They cannot help themselves. They do not want to, but they have to. But in the process thousands of them have been hurt badly. Thousands of them have lost thousands of pounds.

On whose behalf are you speaking?

On behalf of the Coloured. Sir, I particularly did not want to go into these matters, but they were raised. I should like to tell the Minister that I welcome those clauses in the Bill which give owners an opportunity of at least staying for five years in an affected property, and to find a purchaser within that period without suffering any loss. If we have to discuss at great length the question of basic values we will be here for a long time yet. I do not think that hon. members realize just how much Coloured people have lost through the fact that the basic values have always been a considerable amount less than what they had paid and what the market value of that property had been at all times. I have dealt with hundreds of cases and not in one single case has the basic value been anywhere near the market value or the municipal value or what the man originally paid. I should like to remind hon. members that I once asked in this House by way of a question on the Order Paper how many properties the Government had purchased under their pre-emptive rights, what prices were paid for these properties, and what the sale prices of those properties were. I did not receive an answer, because the then Minister told me that it would involve far too much work, too many figures would have to be examined, and therefore he could not supply me with that information. It would be most interesting to have that information.

Order! The hon. member is wandering far and wide from the Bill and introducing all sorts of extraneous matters.

I should like to talk about the Bill, Sir.

Must I ask the hon. member to speak about the Bill?

No, Sir. I want to speak about basic values, basic values mentioned in the Bill. I now want to come to that and that is why I mentioned it. These basic values as applied in practice are far too low. I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to include in the Bill a provision that regard should be had to municipal valuations as well. I think that municipal valuations are, after all, a guide in many instances to the value of property. It should not be left to these valuators who come to value a property on a basis which does not bring them anywhere near the correct figure or what the people concerned want. With your permission, Sir, I should like to refer to certain abuses that have come to my notice in regard to this question of the freezing of properties and of making it possible for affected properties to be sold.

It has come to my notice—I have no direct proof to give to the Minister, but I have been told of these matters by many people—that certain White people with money available bought properties from Coloured people in an affected area, painted the houses up a little bit, made them a bit better, and then sold them at an enormous price to White people. This Act has led to certain speculators making a fortune. The people who suffered are the Coloured people. But the Coloured people are not free of this charge either, because in certain proclaimed Coloured areas land barons have bought up large tracts of land at almost next to nothing, and when people who have to vacate an affected area want to build their own homes they find that the prices of land have gone up so such an extent that it is almost impossible to buy. These are some of the malpractices taking place as a result of the implementation of this Act, and in the result some Coloured people have unfortunately found themselves with great losses.

I said earlier on that I welcome this measure. I think that it is a very great improvement, and I think it will come to the Coloured people as good news. I am particularly pleased about these clauses which provide that after the properties have been valued they may be sold within five years, and that the provisions of the Act will not apply as regards payment of 50 per cent. I think these are excellent improvements to the Act.

The hon. member for Green Point raised the question of 21 days. I see that the Bill provides for an additional 21 days in some instances. I personally think that these periods are too short. I should like to suggest in the Committee stage that they be extended. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister—I know that instances of this nature have occurred amongst some Coloured people—what the position will be if the owner of property dies after he has received notice that his property is going to be valued? Until an executor has been appointed the deceased estate has no legal representative. The appointment of an executor takes longer than 21 days. Therefore I should like the Minister to consider some amendment or other to provide for instances where for some good reason, such as death, it was not possible to comply with the 21 day requirement, so that the Minister will be in a position to allow them to apply after the prescribed date.

I now want to deal with one or two clauses of the Bill. I notice in this Bill that once a property has been frozen or dealt with or affected, the owner cannot alter, extend, or make any addition to the property. I should like to tell the Minister of a certain matter which came to my notice but a few months ago. In that case a Coloured man had to move away because the area in which he was living was declared white. He purchased a house in a Coloured area whilst his house in the white area remained unoccupied. During his absence vandals visited the house and smashed the house to smithereens. In the meantime a basic value was placed on the house. The property however was damaged to such an extent that it was almost destroyed. This man in his innocence and believing that his property had to be replaced in a good state of repair, spent several hundred rand. Thereafter he went to the department and complained that not only had they valued his house far below what it had cost him as well as far below the municipal valuation, but he also advised them that he had spent quite a sum of money—I think it was R800 or R900—on the damaged house to have it in good condition for prospective purchasers. He asked them whether they would not add that amount to the basic value of the house. The department never did. The man appealed, and do you know what the result of his appeal was, Sir? Not only did they refuse to add the money which he spent on repairs but they reduced the basic value by a further R200. Are hon. members trying to say that these people are not suffering, are not losing money? That house was a very beautiful house. [Interjections.] I am not in the habit of putting a case before this House unless it is absolutely true.

I should like to say, in conclusion, that I welcome any attempt by the Government to do away with slums. I have no sympathy with slum-owners and I think that any steps that the Minister takes to deal with slums should be welcomed. But I want to ask the Minister this, and I want him to be honest with me. All of a sudden there is this change of heart. Has it anything to do with District Six or with those areas where the Government will take some time before it will be able to implement group areas? Lastly, I want to ask the Minister, seeing that he has now had a change of heart in regard to this most unfortunate Bill, from our point of view, will he not give those people who have suffered a chance by making it retrospective for a year or two?

Order! The hon. member may discuss that on another occasion.

That is the appeal I wanted to make to the Minister. I hope that the Minister will give those people an opportunity by changing the date, 1st February, 1967, which is in the Bill, to some earlier date. I hope my plea will not fall on deaf ears.

This afternoon the hon. member for Boland kicked up quite a fuss and made wild statements. If a braaivleis gathering will make him change his opinions, he ought really to attend one. The hon. member tried to suggest that only one race group was being affected by the implementation of the Group Areas Act, but that is not true, surely. The hon. member displays great ignorance by making such statements. In my constituency there were a large number of established, prosperous White dairy farmers who had to make way in order that a proper township for Coloureds might be established there. I want to tell the hon. member that the Whites have always been prepared to make those sacrifices which have to be made in order to bring about this racial separation all of us want. That group of people in my constituency made sacrifices for which they cannot be compensated by any amount of money, because the type of dairy farming they carried on there they will not be able to carry on anywhere else. But the hon. member does not even know about that. I am surprised. The hon. member also suggests that the Coloureds have never accepted the Group Areas Act. If that is the case, if Whites stand on street corners protesting against these laws and prompting the Coloureds not to accept them, I cannot blame the Coloureds. White ladies, the well-known Black Sash, stood on street corners in order to protest against that Act, and Coloureds and other non-Whites stared at them. If we have an Opposition which is so negative; it does not astonish me that the non-Whites will not accept the Act. But should the hon. member approach the voters in his constituency and pointedly ask them whether they want the Group Areas Act, they will all tell him that they do, because at present they realize what advantages this Act holds for them and because at present they are aware of the fact that they were misled by certain Whites into rejecting these laws.

I just want to say to-day that I welcome this Bill and I want to express my thanks to the Minister. [Interjections.] Let me put it this way. One cannot expect anything else. Both the Minister and the Department of Community Development we have, are wide-awake, and that is why they are able to see the causes of friction in these laws and try to eliminate them in this House. It is not necessary for them to wait until those causes of friction are pointed out to them by the Opposition one day; they see them of their own accord and remedy them. That is why I welcome this Bill. In order to carry through our policy of separate development and segregation, we must, in the first place, provide proper housing for those who are affected. We must clear all the slum areas and we must see to it that everybody is treated justly. These amendments which are now being effected in the Act by means of the Bill before us, make it very clear that the Minister is doing everything in his power to remedy what was wrong. That is why we are so delighted to have the privilege to-day of being able to discuss this Bill. We know that in any place which is proclaimed, the owners who must leave that area have to find alternative accommodation somewhere else, and they usually have to do so at greater expense because it is a seller’s market to-day. Consequently such people usually have major problems in finding the necessary financial means for the purpose of obtaining alternative accommodation. That is why we are so glad that these changes in clause 1 are being made, so that these people may be put in a better position to obtain such alternative accommodation. Now I should just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can perhaps attend to this point, namely the fact that owners of established business undertakings in proclaimed areas are affected by the proclamation of such areas. They have built up goodwill there over the years. If such an area is proclaimed and the inhabitants move away, it goes without saying that goodwill decreases in value. Now I want to ask whether the Minister cannot consider introducing goodwill as well under clause 1, so that the valuation may be made on the basis of the value of the goodwill on the day before such an area was proclaimed. I think this is a very reasonable request and I hope the Minister will attend to that matter.

There is another aspect I want to refer to, and that is the changes which are being effected in clause 5. I, who come from Johannesburg, am particularly delighted—in contrast with the attitude adopted by the hon. member for Umlazi—that change is being made. We know how the provisions of the old Act were abused by certain bodies and persons in Johannesburg. We also know that we in Johannesburg are saddled with a City Council which is very lax in doing things the right way. The result is that the course of action followed by that City Council played right into the hands of these people. When these areas were proclaimed, certain people started erecting buildings all of a sudden, irrespective of whether there was any need for doing so, and the City Council was only too eager to approve those plans, and just after that those people put in heavy claims against the Department of Community Development for those unnecessary buildings. I welcome this clause and I am grateful that those abuses will now be stopped.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. the Minister and his Department once again that I believe that when this Bill is placed on the Statute Book, the implementation of this Act will take place much more rapidly and thoroughly because then we shall succeed in obtaining the co-operation of everybody affected by the proclamation. In my constituency there are still slum areas which we should very much like to have cleared up, but under the old set-up we had delays because people were always afraid that they would not be treated fairly. We know that when this Act becomes known, those people will accept that the intentions are sincere and that advantage will not be taken of them. We also have other areas which are still to be proclaimed in order to accommodate certain race groups, and it may be possible, contrary to the statement made by the hon. member for Boland, that it will also be Whites who will have to move out because other race groups may have to be settled in their areas. It is always the position that once one has settled somewhere, one does not like being uprooted. Here it is a case of everybody having to contribute his share in order to make this concept of separation a success. We should like to see this done with the least possible inconvenience caused to those who are affected by it. We are pleading that every effort should be made to see to it that this will take place with the minimum of inconvenience. Then we shall get the co-operation of these people and it will be possible to implement this policy much faster, so that we may have that harmonious coexistence of the various race groups as soon as possible. I welcome this Bill and once again I wish to thank the Minister and his Department for it.

I wish to associate myself with those hon. members who have welcomed the principles contained in this Bill. I can assure the hon. the Minister and the House that the present situation acted to the detriment of the Coloured people to a very great extent. That does not mean that Whites were not affected in many instances, but the people mostly affected were the Coloured people. I have personally appeared on behalf of my Coloured constituents at over 60 sessions of public investigation in regard to the group areas, and my experience has invariably been that when the proclamation appears in the Government Gazette, you find that you might put up the strongest possible case logically, because of the way in which the residence of Coloureds vis-a-vis Whites develops in a certain town, but when the proclamation eventually appears you find that economic considerations outweigh all other considerations with the Board.

The position unfortunately is that in the Coloured areas the houses are of a poorer quality than in the white areas. In other words, it is cheaper to move the Coloureds than to move the Whites, and invariably you find that it is the Coloured people who have had to move. I do not condemn that and I do not say that this was done purposely because of the fact that the people involved were Coloureds, but nevertheless the fact remains that it is invariably the coloured people who have to move. Sir, everybody in this House will agree with me that nobody relishes the thought of being uprooted from the area in which you have lived for many years and from the home in which you have lived for many years and for which you have paid with money earned by the sweat of your brow. As I have said, in most cases it is the coloured people who have to move and they are the people who have a basic value placed on their homes. They are bound by this basic valuation. If they are fortunate enough to sell above the basic valuation they have to surrender 50 per cent of the difference and if they cannot sell at all or if they have to sell for a price lower than the basic valuation, then they are compensated to the tune of 80 per cent. Sir, I can personally testify to the hardship and the deprivation suffered by coloured constituents of mine and also coloured people in areas in the Peninsula which I know very well. Sir, I must associate myself with the remark made by the hon. member for Boland to the effect that not only unscrupulous Whites but white people in strong financial positions were given a golden opportunity of going into areas predominantly occupied by Coloureds before those areas were proclaimed group areas and before basic valuations were placed on the properties in those areas, and of buying properties belonging to Coloureds at low figures. Where they really had their chance to make a substantial profit was in those areas which the Department decided to clean up quickly. The Department of Community Development then bought up the properties in that area at the basic valuations. The surroundings were such that Whites would not risk their capital by buying property there. People who could afford to purchase or to build a house preferred to go elsewhere or to build their own homes. When the Department of Community Development buys up properties, they either sell them out of hand to private individuals or they hold public sales. Those properties are usually sold for a song. What happens then is that white people come in and make a few alterations to the property at very little cost; the properties are painted, a little jerry-building is done, and those properties are then let—not sold—to white people in the lower income group who cannot afford to purchase their own home but who are looking for accommodation. We know that there is a shortage of accommodation for Whites, particularly in Cape Town.

They made a lot of money out of it too.

The hon. member for Boland remarks that these people made a lot of money out of it. I can personally testify to that although I took no part in these dealings. In this connection I would like to mention Brooklyn, for instance, which is now again known as Ysterplaat. If hon. members go to Brooklyn they will get a clear indication as to what I am talking about. I could quote many other examples. However, the fact remains that this measure relieves these people for at least five years of the threatening sword of Damocles hanging over their heads. I agree with the principle of the Bill. But, Sir, I still have reservations in regard to the way in which the basic valuation is determined. I do not for one moment wish to represent myself as a very great authority on the value of properties. We know that property values vary from place to place, and we know that the circumstances which affect property valuations may differ greatly from area to area, but I have gained the impression over the last eight or nine years that in many cases the valuators seem to be under the impression that it is their duty in determining the valuation to favour the Department. One is simply shocked when one goes to the municipal offices in certain places to see at what prices properties change hands and one compares with those prices with the valuations placed on the properties of displaced coloured persons. One simply cannot understand how the valuator, who is supposed to know the area and who is supposed to know market values, could have arrived at his figures. Sir. I wish to quote a case in point, a certain town in the Outeniqua constituency. At this stage I am not mentioning any names but I am perfectly willing to give the Minister documentary evidence to support what I am saying here. In this particular town the valuator for the Department of Community Development valued certain properties belonging to Coloureds who had to move to another area, at 45 per cent in some cases of the municipal valuation which was made in 1961. But that is not the worst. Sir, in introducing this Bill the hon. the Minister told the House that one of the reasons for this amendment was the fact that property values had increased all over the country in recent years. We realize that is so, but here you have a case where five years after the municipal valuation properties were valued at 45 per cent of the 1961 municipal valuation. The gentleman who is the valuator happens to be the only attorney in that town. There is an old Afrikaans proverb which says that: “In die land van die blindes is eenoog koning.” So we find that this gentleman is also the mayor of the town. This gentleman had access to the municipal records to see what the municipal valuations were; but that is not all. The same person was a member of the Valuation Court in 1961. The worst part of it is that there is only one attorney in this town, and if these people wanted to object within 21 days they had to travel 20 miles to the nearest town to consult an attorney and to lodge their appeal against the valuation. Sir, I welcome the extension of 21 days but one can understand that it is very difficult for people who work a full week to hire transport and to go and see an attorney in a town 20 miles away. I am only mentioning one example; I do not say that this is the practice of the Department and I do not say that the Minister is responsible for this, but unfortunately in determining the basic valuation many mistakes were made and in 99 per cent of the cases the people who suffered were coloured people. Sir, I am not going to dwell on that at further length but I have a few questions that I should like to put to the hon. the Minister in supporting and welcoming this amendment. These questions may clear up quite a number of difficulties experienced by people affected by this legislation. The Minister in his Second Reading speech said that property values were going up. We appreciate that, of course, but my question to the Minister is this. Will reconsideration be given to the position of a person who has a basic valuation placed on his property and who cannot get a satisfactory price within five years but who, because of unforeseen development in the area, is able to sell the property after the expiry of five years, at a figure which is above the basic valuation? I wish to mention one example which shows that it is obviously possible that such a development might take place. We know very well that no white people are going to live in the dwellings presently occupied there by coloured people. It is obvious that what will have to be done with District Six is to demolish the existing properties and to replan the area. The whole character of District Six has changed in recent years since the municipality of Cape Town started building Boulevard East. We do not know how District Six is going to be replanned; we do not know which side of it might be the Hillbrow of Cape Town and which side might be an area for light industries, but an owner of property there might very well find himself in the position that for five years he is unable to raise the basic valuation. In the sixth year, as a result of the fact that the replanning becomes generally known, the value of that property goes up, and my question to the Minister is whether in those circumstances the basic valuation will be reconsidered? Will it be possible for him to apply for a reconsideration to the Department? Sir, I am putting an objective question. My second question is this: If a sale of the property is negotiated during the five years, will the Department still exercise its preferential right? We know what the position is now. If an affected property has a basic valuation placed on it and the owner of that property negotiates a sale he must first consult the Department before he can conclude the deal, and the Department has the right in that case to exercise its preferential right. Will this preferential right apply during the five-year period of grace that is now being given in regard to the basic valuation? My third question is this: As I understand the amendment, the appreciation contribution will be 25 per cent on the basic valuation in the sixth year if the property is not sold in the first five years. The appreciation contribution will be 50 per cent in the seventh year. As I read the Act there is a discrepancy between what is laid down in these circumstances and what is laid down in the case of the removal of a property from the list of affected properties. As I understand the position, the position is that in the case of a removal, the seller in the sixth year has to pay 50 per cent. Why not 25 per cent as in the case of an outright sale of property not removed in the sixth year? My fourth question is this: Do the provisions laid down in the Government Notice in Government Gazette Extraordinary of the 18th June, 1965, still apply in the five-year period? Because we find that in Cape Town, so far as District Six is concerned, you have a restricted area under this proclamation, but that restricted area is not defined on the map in the same manner as the proclaimed area. The boundaries vary. Does it mean that during the five-year period or thereafter the Department can still exercise its preferential and/or pre-emptive right? Sir, I am not greatly concerned about the provision of quite a substantial penalty when a person makes alterations to a property or sub-divides the property without the permission of the Department, because as I understand the position, what the Department wants to ensure is that it will know of such alterations or sub-divisions so that it can ascertain, before giving its permission, whether such alteration or sub-division will fit in with the planning of that area. I can well understand that, but I should like to know whether the Minister can give the House the assurance that the applicant in such a case who seeks permission to sub-divide or to alter, will be told why his application cannot be granted if it is rejected? Will he be told that the proposed sub-division or alteration will not fit in with the proposed re-planning of the area? And Sir, if so, (b) with the planning envisaged will that applicant be told what planning is envisaged in order to give him an opportunity to replan his alterations or his sub-division in such a manner that it would fit in and be to the satisfaction of the department in regard to the re-planning scheme? With those few words I wish to conclude and will greatly appreciate it if the Minister were to give a clear answer to these few questions that I have put in all sincerity, not only for my own benefit, but for the benefit of those thousands of people that are being affected by community development and this amendment.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down made the statement that as a rule—he used the word “invariably”—it is the Coloured population which has had to move as a result of the proclamation of group areas and the establishment of communities.

I said “in the vast majority of cases”.

Yes, but you used the word “invariably”. I want to agree with the hon. member as far as that is concerned. But before I agree with him and say why, I should like to make the statement that in more than one place White urban areas have been made available to the Coloured population. These are urban areas which were good White residential areas. I am thinking of a residential area in Paarl, for example, of residential areas in Bellville South and also in other places. Surely that has happened. I concede to the hon. member that it has not happened frequently, but it has happened. Let us therefore also bear in mind that it is not only the Coloured population which has made sacrifices, but that Whites have also done so and that they are still doing it. In addition there is the tendency that when a White residential area is proclaimed a non-White group area, those properties depreciate rapidly and the Whites there frequently lose more than the Coloureds do when a Coloured group area is proclaimed a White group area. In conceding to the hon. member that in the vast majority of cases it is the Coloured population that has to move, I nevertheless want to tell him that there were many important reasons why that had to happen and in fact did happen. In general planning in respect of the housing and residential areas of our Coloured population has been very poor through the years. And we need not reproach each other for that. Let us simply admit that it was so. Virtually every urban area in South Africa provided glaring evidence of that, namely that Coloured housing was extremely bad. There was no planning and in most cases those people had to be satisfied with the shanty areas. There were the exceptions of Coloureds who through their own ambition and thrift built themselves proper houses. Let us admit that too. But in general our Coloured population was housed very poorly, and the planning of their residential areas was very bad. And in view of the fact that we have now commenced with the separation of group areas and community development, and that in addition we are faced with a tremendously rapid increase in our Coloured population—which the hon. member will concede—it was indeed necessary to take into account the Coloured population figure and its rapid increase in re-planning and establishing new communities. In other words, in view of these circumstances it was necessary during the past years to set about matters with some foresight. Residential areas had to be established where proper space could be provided for further expansion. Surely we could not permit discovering after some years that we had once again landed ourselves in a corner and that people simply had to be cooped up in restricted areas once again. That was an important reason why the Coloureds had to move frequently. Since the Group Areas Act came into operation the active planning of Coloured housing in South Africa has actually been undertaken for the first time in history. And as we now have some perspective after so many years, the hon. member must also concede that in this respect we have done good work. A tremendous deal of progress has been made and on several occasions I have heard from Coloureds, too, that they now admit that although many of their people are still opposed to the Government a tremendous deal is being done for them, and that they appreciate it. Let us therefore, in discussing this amending Bill, bear in mind while looking back to-day, after ten or 15 years, on the progress made with regard to the replanning of our urban areas and also the replanning of residential areas in our towns, that we have done good work as regards the resettlement and the establishment of proper residential areas for our Coloured population. I shall leave the hon. member for Outeniqua at that, and I am grateful that he agrees with me in that regard. I want to add that if a present one finds a Coloured community inhabiting the slums of a town or city, it goes without saying that those are the residential areas and houses which should come to notice with a view to clearance and replanning. And that is also one of the reasons why the Coloureds of necessity had to move so frequently. It is not because the Government simply wanted to protect the Whites and to allow them to stay in the houses they had always occupied or which their parents had built for them. It was simply the result of the fact that the Coloureds occupied the poor residential areas and shanties. It was therefore not merely an economic consideration. It was also a social consideration. And in this respect we have similarly succeeded in clearing up many of the bad old residential areas and shanties occupied by those people, and in providing them with better housing in their stead. It was therefore no surprise to me when the hon. member for Umlazi got up to-day and said that after the 11th or 12th amendment to the Group Areas Act this was the first time he could say that he supported the principle. He supports even the principle. So even the United Party is becoming sensible as the years go by. And as the years go by they will perhaps learn some more. We have therefore also made some progress as far as the United Party is concerned and as far as our concept of the essential nature of group areas is concerned, of the necessity for establishing communities and of the good results achieved through the years. It is true that in the process many people suffered damages. That was inevitable. In working with a human machine we could not really avoid that. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that even to-day there are people who are perhaps slighted because it is human beings who serve them and who have to implement the Act. And who among us is infallible? But by creating and establishing group areas and new communities we have created a new order in South Africa which has put a new aspect on our social pattern and on our housing conditions. And the credit and honour for that are due to the National Government and the National Party and its policies. And now we have reached the stage where the hon. the Minister, with the experience of years, can introduce an amending Bill, not in an attempt to cause further injustice or damages to people who perhaps suffered injustice or damages in the past but, on the contrary, to endeavour on the basis of that very experience to obviate the points of friction as far as possible and to help people to adapt themselves in the process of the establishment of new communities.

In this amending Bill we see a provision, for example, that prohibits people from simply adding to their buildings without permission from the Board and later claiming compensation. There is a restriction, but most of the clauses in this amending Bill actually contain concessions to people who may be affected. In this regard we are thinking of various provisions in the Bill. We are thinking of the concession and consideration in clause 1 (b), in respect of old and dilapidated structures. We find provision for loans to persons in exceptional cases, if necessary. We find the concession with regard to appreciation contributions. As I have said, I think that in this case it is usually non-Whites who benefit, because it is usually areas allocated to Whites which appreciate, and now those people have an opportunity to sell those properties and to derive the full benefit from appreciation if they sell within five years.

We have the further concession of a possible additional 21 days’ period of grace after notification. Those people will then have more time to arrange their affairs, to procure legal assistance, etc. Mr. Speaker, I maintain that this proves that with the experience of years the hon. the Minister is making a sincere endeavour, on the basis of that experience, to make it easier for people to adapt themselves to the process and to fit in with the Government’s programme for the establishment of communities, to help them and to cause them as little prejudice as possible. We are therefore grateful that in doing so he has proved that the Government is not only engaged in implementing a measure with determination, but is seeking the co-operation of the people affected by it as far as possible and is making it possible for them to adapt themselves easily.

Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to establish is that the hon. member for Umlazi, in saying that we are going to support this Bill, does not and did not accept the principle of the Group Areas Act. Let that be fixed firmly in our minds. We are dealing with amendments to an Act, amendments which the hon. the Minister feels will be an improvement on the existing state of affairs in dealing with specific aspects of that particular Act. I think we should, as well, fix firmly in our minds what we are dealing with this afternoon. In the course of my remarks, I would like to put to the hon. the Minister some of the difficulties which have arisen and ask him whether these difficulties will, in his opinion, be eliminated in future in dealing with this very thorny problem. I want to say here just in passing that the remarks by the hon. member for Boland are absolutely correct. The Coloured and Indian communities have felt the full impact of this legislation almost in toto. It is no defence for hon. members on that side to say that White persons have suffered under similar circumstances. That is no argument in dealing with this particular problem. It is quite obvious that the Coloured community, and to a lesser degree the Indian community in the Cape, but very materially in Natal, have suffered very serious hardships. But we are not discussing that subject to-day. We are trying to alleviate these by some amendments in this particular amending Bill.

The first thing I want to say is that I cannot understand exactly the meaning of the clause which deals with the basic value, because as the hon. the Minister knows, it has been a bone of contention for many a long day, that basic value does and has not borne any relationship whatsoever to market and municipal value. He is now endeavouring to set matters to rights. As I read the amendment I think the best thing that can be said here is that at least the market value is the value which should be dealt with because the hon. the Minister is now going to give relief to people who have been required to pay over 50 per cent of the profits on the sale of their house, if such a word is correct. It is really the surplus they obtained over a fictitious figure, which is very low, and is not a profit at all. That is to be eliminated.

I can understand the anxiety if the hon. Minister can do that, because it is a simple way of more or less putting a bit of pressure on persons to move, so that by five years, if they can dispose of their property in that time, there will be nothing more to be paid by the owners of the land or the seller of the building or property.

Nevertheless I would like to suggest this to the hon. the Minister. There are cases on record where even five or six years, which is when the 25 per cent comes in, and seven years when it becomes 50 again, where Coloured persons, Asiatic and Indians, for whom I speak, are unable to move for reasons which have nothing to do with the Bill. It is because the local authorities, whose mission and job it is to provide townships, are not dilatory, but slow, for very good reasons, financial ones and others. They do not provide the townships. You find that traders in these old townships, which have now been declared White, have no shops to go to in the new townships. I have had a lot of experience of this. It is absolute gospel. The municipalities build these townships first and so does the Department, but provide shops only as an afterthought. That then is one good reason. The second reason is that even if there is property available, which I might call a roof over a man’s head, for the affected property owner to go to, it is very often of a standard far below the type of property which he occupied. But because of the class of person he is (there are not sufficient of them), the local authority does not provide a better type of accommodation for him. The selling of plots for those people is very often a slow, longwinded and dilatory process. These are things for which I think the hon. the Minister must make provision. Even though he is making this concession of waiving the 50 per cent for a period of five years, there are cases, and they can happen, where persons at the end of that time may not be in a position to move, although they may even want to do so.

The other matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister, is this. When the new date is declared, the proclamation appears. From that date, I take it, in regard to new affected properties, a period of five years will run. I see that the hon. the Minister refers to a date retrospective to February.

May I ask the hon. the Minister what the position is in regard to the affected properties which are two, three or four years on the affected list. What is to happen to them? The hon. member for Umlazi tried last night to deal with that aspect. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister …

They have five years as from the 1st February, 1967.

Thank you very much. That answers the question. I just wanted to make sure. I notice that buildings used for schools, religious schools or for similar purposes, are excluded. What is to happen in regard to those? There are many cases where there are schools and buildings belonging to religious institutions which are in Coloured areas now declared white, or which had been built in white areas which had never been declared at all and are now just declared white. What happens to all those? Are these people going to get some consideration? How is the compensation to be calculated? I would like to ask the hon. the Minister just to give some thought to that aspect. Then there is the question of persons finding themselves in an affected area, who decide quite straightforwardly to approach a building society and to get the value of the property which is now going to be white. They get the promise of a loan and on the strength of that, they buy a piece of land in another area or a house in a Coloured area. Then the municipality steps in and declares that original property a slum. As a result the building society is no longer interested. This type of case causes very great hardship, and cases of this nature do exist. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is the position in that regard.

The hon. member for Langlaagte spoke about goodwill. Well, I wonder what is the position regarding traders who actually have their entire clientele removed. There are no shops that they can go to, there is no place in which they can trade, and they find themselves more or less in the middle. That applies in most cases to Asiatic and Coloured traders. I will be very pleased if the Minister will tell us something about that problem.

The other point I should like to raise concerns property which is bought or taken over by the department. I believe that the time has come when that type of transaction should receive the full glare of publicity. I say this, Sir, because there is no doubt whatsoever— this point was raised by other speakers and therefore I will not labour the point—that many people have made a great deal of money out of affected property.

United Party people.

Many people have done that. The hon. member must not bait me to quote names. This debate is going at a very nice level; so let us not now start throwing names about. I think that matter should receive the attention of the Minister. Affected properties which are required by the department should be disposed of in a manner which is to the benefit of the owner of the property, which in this case is the department, and no private treaty deals should be entered into under any circumstances. Properties should be disposed of by way of public auction. Then we will begin to get somewhere and straighten out this problem which faces all of us. Hon. members who represent the Coloured community will confirm what I have already said. The Coloured people in particular have been exploited to an extent which is really shocking, and I think that the Minister might look into the position with advantage to all of us, particularly to persons who are not quite sure where they stand because of the fact that they are simple people who do not quite know what they ought to do. All sorts of “sharks” approach them and make propositions even to the extent of getting a percentage of the loss when the property is sold below a certain price and 80 per cent of the loss is borne by the Department.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Would it not be much better to discuss these matters when my Vote comes up for discussion, as they really have nothing to do with the Bill now before the House?

I agree wholeheartedly with the Minister.

If the hon. member agrees then why does he discuss these things now?

Mr. Speaker, the reason is quite simple. Certain hon. members on the other side have discussed a fairly wide range of matters not strictly relevant to this Bill, and this is not a reflection on the Chair, Sir. Very few hon. members on the Nationalist side talked about the Bill at all. As I say, Sir, that is no reflection on the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, there are many affected property lists in existence. Do all those lists now automatically become cancelled and are they scrapped?

I think I have now covered the grounds satisfactorily. I have tried to keep as close as possible to the Bill, which really only has three or four items, but they are very important and very vital ones. I trust the hon. the Minister will reply to the points raised by me.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Karoo began his speech by saying that we must not think that the support which the hon. member for Umlazi promised to give to this legislation on behalf of the United Party—the party to which the hon. member for Karoo also belongs—means that they are now accepting the principles of the Group Areas Act.

Where do you get that from?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for North Rand is still suffering from the shocks he spoke about; one must therefore please excuse him. It was interesting to hear this remark from the hon. member for Karoo, because the attitude which the Opposition adopted here to-day is in any case totally different from that which we have been used to in the past. But if what the hon. member for Karoo is saying here were true, namely that their support of this measure does not mean that the Opposition accepts the principles of the Group Areas Act, then I should like them to-day to entertain the prospect of our doing away with the principles of the Group Areas Act and see how adverse the reaction from the Opposition side as well would be to that.

Order! The principles of the Group Areas Act are not under discussion at all. They were accepted as many as 14 years ago.

Mr. Speaker, you must please forgive me if I allow myself to be distracted by remarks coming from the opposite side of the House.

We have also heard in this debate, also from the hon. member for Karoo, about the “hardships” in terms of this legislation, as well as in terms of the Act which this measure seeks to improve and amend, which are being suffered by Coloureds in particular. The impression is being created that it is only the Coloureds who are supposedly suffering hardships. The hon. member for Piketberg has already pointed out that is by no means the position. In numerous communities in my own constituency it was not the Coloureds who were being adversely affected. It was not the Coloureds who were having to give up properties which had been in their families for generations. It was the Whites. [Interjection.] I am not saying that is wrong. The hon. member’s argument is quite fallacious.

Order! Certain hon. members have said that this debate is getting away from the subject of the Bill. I am now going to confine the debate strictly to the Bill. The hon. member has wandered away from this measure entirely now.

I shall gladly …

You are running away.

No. I am not running away. I do not make a habit of running away as that hon. member does. I can understand their wanting to run away after what I have said here. Mention was made here of “hardships” which were being experienced. Well, this measure wants to eliminate those “hardships”.

Why are there hardships?

Wait a minute, we are coming to that.

Order! The hon. member for Transkei must please keep quiet. He is interrupting far too much.

Mr. Speaker, is it not a fact that certain people who were affected by the Act also benefited from it? Nor did they only benefit in the sense that they had been removed.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing what has been done in terms of the Act. This measure is an amendment to the Act in order to effect certain changes. The hon. member must discuss the amendments.

Mr. Speaker, I am now discussing this amending legislation to the extent it affects the original Act, to the extent in which the principles of the principal Act are affected.

Order! The hon. member was relating what the original Act had done up to the present.

No, Sir, I am a long way past that stage. I said that I would no longer allow myself to be distracted by certain hon. members on that side of the House. I was discussing the benefits which had been obtained under the existing legislation and which will be obtained under this legislation which is now being discussed. There were also, as in the past, benefits. They are not only “hardships”. Emphasis has to-day been placed on hardships. I now want to discuss the benefits in terms of the legislation. The benefits have no bearing on the fact that people are removed to better neighbourhoods and better living conditions in line with what the Minister is envisaging with this legislation, i.e. the creation and development of decent group areas. The benefits also relate to the fact that some people have gained financial benefit out of the situation.

Order! These matters were dealt with under the principal Act which already exists. The hon. member must not discuss them now.

In terms of this legislation as well, Mr. Speaker …

Order! The legislation now before this House has not previously been applied.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation deals, inter alia, with the compensation which is paid to people. The basis of remuneration has in fact been changed, but it still remains remuneration. I hope you will agree with me on that point. I am now arguing about the question of remuneration which people receive under the legislation in its present form and as it is going to be amended. I want to make the point that apart from the alleged “hardships”, people are also going to benefit in terms of the legislation as it is now being amended.

That is the fourth time you have said that.

There were deficiencies in the Act in its previous form. There were deficiencies which occurred particularly in certain exceptional cases in respect of the determination of basic values. I myself experienced a case where a certain area was proclaimed as a Coloured area. Many expensive beach houses for Whites had already been built there and after proclamation and before valuations could take place the Coloureds simply converged on that area so that the Whites felt that they no longer wanted to go there, and those buildings were damaged. At the stage when the valuation had to take place, the valuators took the condition of the houses, as they then were, into consideration, which was not the right thing to do. That is why I sincerely welcome the new principle in this Bill in respect of the determining of basic values. I think it is the attitude of the Minister, and quite rightly so, that whether it is a white, a Coloured or an Indian who is affected, the rule must be that person must not suffer any loss in respect of actual expenditure which he incurred on that property.

And what about the people who have already suffered losses?

I think the greatest loss has been suffered by the political party which is represented by that hon. member.

A further principle in the Bill which I want to welcome is that value appreciation contributions will now disappear after the first five-year period. I regard the advantage of that as being that it will encourage people not to delay for years before they effect alterations to those properties. It will act as an inducement for them because, with the current value appreciation each year of land and properties they will not lose out, and the profit which they make will be one to which they are entitled.

In summary I want to say that this legislation is a further tightening-up measure in regard to something for which we were regularly reproached in the past. It is said that we come forward each year with amending legislation. But they are further tightening-up measures which prove how serious the Government is about achieving success with the creation of healthy communities in South Africa, and for that extent, no matter how slight it is, to which the Opposition supports the legislation we want to convey to them our sincere thanks.

I want to deal with certain aspects of this Bill, but before I do so I would like to refer to the remark made by the hon. member for Um-hlatuzana. The hon. member thanked the Government for this Bill which promotes peace amongst the races. Sir, I would suggest that he knows nothing about what the other races are thinking, or about their hardships.

On what clause is the hon. member talking now? The hon. member should discuss the contents of the Bill.

The other point I wanted or raise is that the hon. member for Outeniqua suggested that the Coloured group had been probably more affected by the Act than any other race group. I would like to suggest that after the Coloured group, the next group most severely affected was the Indian group. The reason for that is quite simple. Neither of these two groups has a voice in the Government and therefore they can be haphazardly moved anywhere in the country and they cannot be heard to protest. [Interjection.] It is all right for members opposite to make a noise, but they apply the philosophy of blotting paper, which blots off the spots but does not eliminate them and merely transfers them somewhere else. I would suggest that they apply a little humanity to their politics. The Minister said: “My Department acts with the greatest measure of circumspection when people have to be moved and when the rights to properties of people are affected.” I find that in fact strange when one looks at the hardships caused by this very Act and the amendments we are dealing with. If one goes to Durban one soon realizes that the basic values set—and here I am now directly on the Bill, Sir—have no relation whatsoever to the real values. It happens that a person in Durban will get a basic value set on his property and he is expected to move into an area for his particular race group, but the money he receives does not in any way help to set him up in the new area. This is a very great bone of contention among the Coloureds and the Indians, despite anything that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana might say. We have instances where just recently an acre of ground with an old house on it was sold in the Indian area for R37,000. I would like to know how many Indians can afford that.

This Bill cannot prevent that. That is something quite different. Bring it up under my Vote.

What clause in the Bill is the hon. member discussing?

I am talking about basic values. In Umgeni Road the basic value was set at R 10,200.

Basic values are not determined in the group areas where the people are going.

In this particular case the value was set at R 10,200. The owner objected and the revision court approved a value of R 14,000. The board has now appealed against its own decision. I would suggest that the time has come when consideration should be given to a commission to go into the values set. Talking about hardships, in Riverside, in Durban, a mosque was exempted under the Act, but the house in which the priest lived was taken under the Act and the priest had to leave. But the hon. member over there says there are no hardships. The other point raised was the question of where property is taken over by the board and then the tenant pays rent to the board. It has happened many times that the tenant lives in that property and pays rent to the board and then he gets evicted because he fails to pay his rent, but in the meantime the board owes him thousands of rands for the property they have taken from him.

The hon. member is discussing administration. That does not fall under the Bill at all.

The point I wish to make is that although this Bill shows a slight improvement in the position of the people affected by it, the advantages remain with the Department. There has been a slight improvement, but the Bill still has no soul and no heart. It is a heartless measure.

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on existing legislation and he must withdraw that remark.

I am suggesting that this new amendment …

Order! The hon. member is reflecting on existing legislation not affected by this Bill and he has no right to reflect on existing legislation. He must withdraw that remark.

I withdraw it. Sir. On the question of values, although the advantage now lies with the owner during the five years that he not had to pay 50 per cent over to the board, I still suggest that hardships are caused because the values set are not realistic. They do not enable the person so affected to move into a new group area on the same basis on which he was in his old area. I suggest too that this has had a great effect on the family life of the people affected by this measure and the five year period does not make up for that. Sir, when I talk about family life it is common knowledge that the Indians occupy large houses and that when members of their families marry they move into those properties. They are now forced to move out and they have to move into the type of dwelling that we as Whites occupy, and that has had a disruptive effect on Indian family life.

And they have to pay much higher prices than Whites.

Through no fault of their own they find that they have to pay out far more than they received for their properties and generally for something not nearly as good. In Durban a white person can in fact usually buy a residential property of a similar type at a price which is a good deal lower than the prices paid by members of the Indian community.

That is the fault of the Durban City Council and I am now going to let them have it.

It is not unusual for an Indian to pay R15,000 for a property which would cost a white person no more than R10,000 in a comparable area.

Order! Under what clause is the hon. member speaking?

Sir, I am talking about the valuations.

Under what clause?

Under clause 1. Another aspect which is seldom taken into consideration is the question of the disruption of Indian family life. They move into new areas where they have to pay very much more for their property; bus fares are involved; schools are involved and it is only the very wealthy Indian who manages to come out and whose family life is not disrupted by the harsh measures of this Act. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana has passed the remark that very few people are affected by this Act, but it seems to me that the hon. member for Umhlatuzana practises the Hungarian proverb of smiling up and pressing down.

What a ghastly smile it is.

I think another matter that needs investigation is the question of valuators. It is common knowledge in Durban that there has been great discontent in regard to the valuators. It is felt that generally these valuers are the servants of the Department.

Order! I want to remind the hon. member that the principal Act is not now under discussion. Only the amendments which are being made by this Bill are under discussion. The hon. member has said very little indeed about the amendments. His remarks have been confined to the principal Act.

On a point of order, the hon. member for Stellenbosch referred to the hardships under the existing Act; that is why we are supporting this amendment.

I ruled the hon. member for Stellenbosch out of order. The hon. member may continue.

Sir, I want to cite a particular case and I wonder whether hon. members opposite will think that this creates no hardship. There was an incident— and this has happened on more than one occasion, where the board took over a property and then charged the previous owner rent. In a recent case the board evicted the tenant of a property on a Saturday morning, and when they arrived to move his furniture he asked them not to put it outside but to leave it in his garden. They were also warned that the housewife concerned had a heart condition but this did not mean anything to the Department; they simply moved him outside and the wife ended up in King Edward Hospital. I am mentioning this because this Department of Community Development …

Order! That is a matter of administration which should be raised under the Minister’s Vote; it has nothing to do with the Bill.

May I address you on a point of order, Sir? Clause 3 (5) deals with the question of a sale by public auction, and the consequence of that, with respect …

Order! The hon. member was talking about administrative matters. He was referring to the eviction of people. That is not a matter which is dealt with in this Bill.

Sir, that is a consequence of what is provided for in the new subclause (5).

Order! That is very far-fetched.

May I close by saying this: The Department of Community Development has become the biggest land owner, the biggest estate agent, the most vicious lessor in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, what we have before us, as you have rightly remarked, is certain amendments to the existing Act, and I should like to confine myself briefly to them. They are amendments which, precisely as the hon. Minister and his Department intend, will rectify as far as is practicable matters which were possibly being done incorrectly under the old Act. If any proof is necessary of the sympathy of the Government for a matter which is most certainly not without its problems for all racial groups, then it is to be found in the amendments which are time and again being introduced to improve the existing Act. This debate has afforded the Opposition an opportunity of discussing these amendments and, if necessary, proposing further improvements. But I saw little signs of that being done. I therefore want to confine myself to what is being envisaged by this measure and what is, to a large extent, being achieved by the Bill.

It has been found that with the valuations referred to in section 1 of the Act people may suffer a certain measure of injustice, and these things are to a large extent now being rectified in this Bill. I do not want to say that everything is being fully rectified. It would be foolish to deny that there can be a difference of opinion in regard to valuations. But it is being provided here when and how valuations should be carried out, and if hon. members of the Opposition had read this Bill together with the original Act there would not have been statements like the ones the hon. members for Karoo and Outeniqua made here against officials and against part-time officials of the board who are sworn appraisers.

They can be wrong.

Yes, I admit that they can be wrong, but I want to tell the hon. member who made that interjection that there have been judgments in the court which have subsequently been rejected by the Appeal Court. Does that mean that the administration of justice in South Africa is faulty? Does it not mean that at least we acknowledge that people can be wrong? It is embodied in the Act and its amendments that possible errors can creep in. May I point out to the hon. members that it is not the final step when a valuator, even if he is a sworn appraiser, has made his valuation. Have they not read that these people who are being affected have the right to appeal to this court in the first instance, and that in the last instance provision is even made for an appeal to be made against such a valuation to a Judge plus two other members appointed by the Minister?

How long does a person have to wait for that?

I respectfully maintain that how long a person waits for that does not make any difference. A reflection has been made here and you will remember that it was stated by an hon. member that a man lived 20 miles away and it was asked how he was supposed to make use of the next lawyer? Such arguments have been used as if they were the final word. That is just not correct.

I just want to rectify the matter by saying that the Act still affords the owner protection. It is a strange thing, and we have seen it more than once in the past, that when one comes to the valuation of land one finds that when land is needed by the State the value of that land shoots up in the eyes of the owner. Have we not seen that happen when land has been expropriated for State purposes? It was ordinary land which suddenly increased tremendously in value. People are then inclined to hang on to their land—which is what this legislation now wants to prevent. The State has decided that it needs the land for community development and that it must begin to purchase it. When that happens certain people hold on to their land in the hope that the others who are being forced to sell will at least push up the value of their land. We have also experienced that kind of valuation. We have experienced another kind of valuation as well and I should like to ask those hon. members why they are now talking about “sharks”. That is so. I concede that point because one does find those people who try and take advantage of the misfortune of others. May I ask hon. members this question: Is it really for owner-occupiers that they have been pleading for throughout, or is it for those people in those areas who have accommodated scores of people in one place at the highest rentals and have been receiving rack rents? Are protests being made on their behalf against the value of their land from which they have been making fantastic incomes? Why did they not object to that?

What clause are you discussing now?

I am talking about the same clause, Mr. Speaker, and I should like you to reprimand me if I digress. I am talking about the same clause which was referred to a moment ago and in regard to which the hon. member on the opposite side was protected by his Whip.

The rapportryers …

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that if you call me to order for not discussing the clauses, I will not go and hide behind any Whips. At the same time I want to say that I invite the hon. member for Durban (Point), although I know that I myself do not cut too trim a figure, to go despatch riding with me. He will never come back alive.

Coming to the next point in respect of these amendments which have been introduced I should like to request the friendly attention of this House for an amendment which has become necessary and which relates especially to certain town councils who enjoy the same support from the Opposition as certain other people do. I am referring here to sections 15 and 32 of the principal Act where provision is now being made in this Bill to prevent what was allowed in the past by some of the town councils and what was used by certain exploiters at the expense of the State and at the expense of certain poor individuals from happening in future. I now want to plead with the Opposition to go and hold speeches about those people living in District Six, especially since I have seen how, in this beautiful landscape of the Cape, they have been confined in places into which more and more people have continually been crammed in order to obtain more rental, where walls have been built on and more corrugated iron slapped on with the approval of certain boards and with the approval of these people who are now so very concerned about them. [Interjections.] If the Opposition can prove to me that these slum conditions have developed here since the National Party came into power then I will give them something to their credit. They cannot prove it. Now we are rectifying this matter in the Act with this legislation to the effect that these people can no longer effect improvements and then come back to the State and say to us that they now want payment for these improvements which have been made. They must first go to the board before they can make any such improvements. I think the country ought to accept this particular clause with gratitude, and those local authorities which want to co-operate ought to be glad of the protection it will afford. Those local authorities which do not want to co-operate in the implementation of this policy to the benefit of all population groups ought to take warning now. They cannot continue with this kind of thing any more because the board and the Government will now be supervising these matters.

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the outburst of the hon. member for Witbank and what he told us about District Six, I should like to tell the hon. member something about District Six. He has probably been round it and seen the slum areas. He is quite correct but who is to blame for those areas but this Government. [Interjections.] I can tell the House that the people in District Six have been waiting since 1950 for this Government to make up its mind to declare the area either white or coloured. In the interim period owners of property there were in the position that they did not know whether they had to go or stay with the result that the property has become as it is to-day.

May I ask the hon. member a question? Where were those dilapidated buildings in 1939 when the United Party was in power? Were they not there during the period 1939 to 1948?

If the hon. member had been here in 1939, which quite obviously he was not, the buildings which he sees as slums at the present moment were not dilapidated then. I can tell the hon. member that if he goes up to District Six he would see some of the most beautiful blocks of flats built by the City Council for the Coloureds. I should like to remind the hon. member that we have one of the largest maternity homes in this country in District Six and that the Provincial Administration has been prevented from rebuilding that hospital since 1950 because the Government could not make up its mind as to what group area the hospital was situated in. Let me therefore throw the responsibility right back to the Government for conditions in District Six.

I should like to speak on clause 1 in relation to District Six. We welcome the amendment in this Bill because it is going to offer some relief to property owners. But what is the position? Let us take District Six and the declaration of market value. As I told the House, since 1950 this Government has been playing around, they blame the City Council, although the City Council was not to blame, trying to make up their minds as to what race group the area would be proclaimed. In the meantime the property there was allowed to deteriorate by this Government to the extent that you see to-day. I agree with the hon. member for Witbank there are slums there. The Government decided to freeze the area known as District Six by Proclamation 809 of 1965 which completely froze this area for development. Property could not change hands other than by sales to the hon. the Minister’s Department. District Six is frozen for ten years.

What has that to do with this Bill?

I am going to talk to the Minister about the basic market value. It is a result of the actions of the Government that the market value has been depressed. The market value in District Six has been depressed by this Government. The hon. the Minister’s Department has been buying property there. They have bought 16 properties. Eleven of those properties are below municipal valuation. The public cannot understand why the hon. the Minister’s Department must have its own particular type of valuation, as against provincial or municipal valuation. They have their own ideas of valuation. The value of the property in District Six has over the years been depressed by the present Government’s action. You have the position to-day where it is declared a white group area. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister, I learned that none of the property the Minister acquired can be sold. It cannot be sold until the re-planning has been completed. We shall have to wait another eight years for that. What is going to happen in the meantime to the property in District Six? Some of the houses, built of mud and brick, were built in the old days and there are some fine properties in District Six, but they are rapidly deteriorating. We must blame nobody else but this Government. If the Government waits long enough, it will get the property for nothing. This might not fall under this Bill, but what is going to happen to those people who have been moved?

Order! The hon. member is going beyond the Bill.

I should like to deal with the other areas adjoining District Six, as far as Salt River and Observatory, which are all declared group areas. There we have the same position. The hon. the Minister’s Department is acquiring houses there. They are allowing them to deteriorate.

You are discussing policy now.

Yes, that is a different matter.

I should like to explain the position. In this Bill the hon. the Minister is amending the method of determining the price of property. As a result of the Minister’s policy, of not getting on with the job, the market value of the properties in the area I am talking about is dropping every day. The basic values are dropping every day. If he is going to continue at the present pace the people are going to suffer. We have the position to-day where there are properties in certain areas which have been purchased by the hon. the Minister’s Department …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I cannot understand how hon. members can argue that is the result of this legislation. If it is argued that it is due to delays in respect of proclamations and subsequently delays in respect of resettlement, in other words that those problems are brought about through the actions of the Department of Planning on the one hand and resettlement on the other hand, it has nothing to do with this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to reply to the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Bill now. I have allowed him a lot of latitude, but he must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Clause 1 of the Bill, according to the Minister’s own White Paper, deals with the question of basic values. It revises the basis on which they should be made. Clause 2, according to the hon. the Minister’s own White Paper, deals with frozen areas. The area the hon. member is talking about is in fact a frozen area. It alters the conditions he applies to frozen areas. You cannot subdivide as well as alter or add.

The hon. member may proceed, but he must confine himself to the Bill.

I accept your ruling, Mr. Speaker. It is difficult to keep to the narrow line without getting into the political arena. But there are no two ways about it. When one looks at District Six, one rather looks down one’s nose at it, but at the same time the people there are suffering hardships. I would say that property owners there are suffering in respect of their sales to the hon. the Minister, because the basic market value is depressed. I think the Minister will accept that. I hope that one day, when this property is put up for public auction, the Minister will realize that the basic market value at which he is purchasing the property will bear no relation to those prices. Under normal circumstances, the property in District Six would sell at a very much higher price. It does not only affect Coloureds. It affects Whites as well. It affects both race groups. Both race groups own property there. That is why we welcome this Bill. It is an improvement on what we had. We do not like the original principle of the Bill, but this is an improvement. I would ask the hon. the Minister whether he can prevail upon the Department of Planning …

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

I ask the hon. the Minister whether his Department can acquire as much property as possible so that we can at least get on with the planning of District Six, and remove it as the eyesore it is to-day, not only to Cape Town, but to the whole of South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, such a large number of question were asked and problems were mentioned that it will be difficult to reply to them in full during the short time before the adjournment of this House this afternoon. Therefore I am merely going to try to select the most important matters and go into them. Let me say at once, where we are dealing with legislation which meets with the approval of both sides of this House, that I find the attempts of hon. members opposite to charge my Department with responsibilities which do not belong there and their attempts to bring accusations against me and my Department, in other words attempts to make political gain out of this legislation, very unfortunate. I am sorry that they used this opportunity to drag in other matters and to drag them in in such a way as the hon. member for Port Natal did who wanted to charge my Department with responsibilities which squarely rest on the shoulders of the Durban City Council. I just make this statement. I shall not go into that. We shall have an opportunity to discuss that at a later stage.

Various matters were raised. I want to start with clause 5, namely the prohibition on the alteration of or addition to affected properties. I was told that was unfair in that it removed the Board’s discretion to compensate an owner of an affected property at a later stage for any alteration or any addition he made to his property. That, however, is not the case. That is not true. What does happen is the following. As the Act reads at present he has to obtain the approval of the Board for the erection of a building or the alteration of a building on an affected site. As the Act reads at present, he can obtain approval. If he obtains such approval, the Board has to effect an adjustment of the basic value for him. The only thing which this clause deletes, is the provision in respect of that person who makes alterations off his own bat without the approval of and without prior consultation with the Board and then subsequently approaches the Board and says, “I have completed the erection of an entirely new building.” Let me quote you an example. At Bronkhorstspruit an unqualified person owned a shop on a site. It was a fairly large site. Without the approval of the Board he erected a large block of flats, worth hundreds of thousands of rand, behind the shop. That was done without the Board’s approval. That did not fit in with what the board had planned to do there. He approached the board afterwards. The block of flats was worth hundreds of thousands of rand. He erected it without the Board’s approval. It did not fit in with the Board’s plans for that area. He approached the Board and pleaded for the basic value of his property to be adjusted in accordance with the new value brought about by this new alteration. That person had to be told, on account of the fact that his building did not fit in with the Board’s planning, that he could not be compensated for that additional building. He suffered a loss, and his case is one of the unfortunate ones.

Who passes the plans?

The local authority.

That is not all that is required.

But the local authority often does not take the development plans of the Community Development Board into account. I am not going to make myself and this House subject to the arbitrary decisions of town and city councils here and there. We cannot and dare not allow that. For that reason we now tell such a person that he may make alterations and may erect a new structure but that in each case he first has to obtain the approval of the Board. If he does so without the Board’s approval, he has to be punished.

The complaint was made that the penalty in this regard was too severe. The penalty is a fine not exceeding R1,000 or imprisonment for a period of two years whereas the penalty in respect of a similar action in a frozen area is a fine not exceeding R500 or imprisonment for a period not exceeding one year. But here one has two matters of a different kind. The penalty provided for in subsection (1) of the new section 50 which is substituted for the present section 50 of the principal Act by clause 14, is that which relates to any obstruction of the board’s activities. Any person who only makes a false statement to an inspector or a valuator, or any person who only resists or interferes with those persons in the performance of their functions, is subject to a fine of R 1,000 or imprisonment for a period of two years. This is already contained in the present Act. In other words, we are following exactly the same pattern in this measure, namely that a heavy penalty will apply to actions causing any delay in the implementation of the Act. The penalty in subsection 2 relates to frozen areas and not to the development of group areas. It relates to the clearance of slum areas, which, of course, is something quite different. For that reason too, it is incorrect to contend that it is wrong to write into this Bill that an owner who does not send in his claim or a mortgagee who does not send in details, shall be made subject to these heavy penalties. We are not making him subject to them now—he has always been subject to them. The only thing we are now doing is to define this more clearly. This is all that is done in paragraph (f) on page 18. It is merely a clearer definition of what is already contained in the Act.

The question was also asked why it was necessary to make the subdivision of property situated within an affected area an offence in terms of the Act, seeing that any subdivision made must be registered by the Registrar of Deeds. No subdivision can be made without the necessary registration. I hope the hon. member for Umlazi will listen now because he asked this question. He said the Deeds Office had to register such subdivision and that it was possible to stop them there. But if we want to do that we have to make the Registrar of Deeds the watchdog over the provisions of this measure. In other words, in order to create such a state of affairs, the title deed of each affected property has to be endorsed in the Deeds Office that it is in fact an affected property.

There is a register in every Deeds Office.

That cannot possibly be done because the Registrar does not have any such list. One of the major problems of the Registrar of Deeds is in fact the large amount of work which has to be done with a staff which is too small as a result of the shortage of manpower. Now it is suggested that an endorsement be made on each of the title deeds in order to prevent any subdivision of such land. This is an impossible suggestion.

As regards the position in respect of the mortgagee or the owner, hon. members wanted to know why it should be an offence if such persons failed to put in their claims, because, and this was the argument, if such persons did not claim it simply meant that they forfeited any income or compensation they could have derived from that. But, Sir, that is not the point. The point is that the Community Development Board has to negotiate with those people with regard to taking over their properties. If the person does not say what price he wants for his property or what mortgage he holds in respect of such property, it is not even possible to commence negotiations in connection with the price to be agreed on eventually. Negotiations can only be commenced when the owner says what price he wants. When they are informed that their properties are going to be taken over by the board, they simply dawdle and give no attention to the matter. They do not say what price they want for the property. This is a deliberate attempt at delaying the implementation of the Act. And this is the deliberate attempt at delaying the implementation of the Act which we simply cannot allow. Things have to proceed; the Community Development Board proceeds and the person’s property is expropriated. But it is not possible to enter into further negotiations, it is not possible to agree on a price because the person does not say what price he wants. He first has to say what price he wants before negotiations can be entered into and before, if necessary, arbitration can be resorted to in an attempt to determine a fair price. For that reason it is necessary to have a penalty which is applicable to a person who fails to state what price he wants or who fails to furnish the necessary particulars which can result in an agreement being reached. As I have said, this is already contained in the Act, and it is only being clarified now, in order to make prosecutions in this regard easier and more effective.

I was also asked whether it was necessary to write into clause 3 of the Bill the procedure to be followed for merely noting a transfer in the Deeds Office. It was said that the legal profession objected to that. Well, we are aware of that. We are aware that the legal profession objects to that in principle because it believes that it should deal with matters of that kind. Hon. members asked me whether I would not rather keep this provision in abeyance until my colleague, the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, had investigated the matter. But this is a principle which has already been accepted and which is already embodied in the Housing Act. This principle is of the same tenor as the one already embodied in the Housing Act and is intended for similar cases as those mentioned in the Housing Act. Therefore this is not a new principle which we are introducing here.

We always get the assurance that it will not be extended. But now you do so again.

Why may a good principle not be extended?

It is not a good principle.

Of course it is.

Order! The hon. the Minister must not allow himself to be distracted by interjections.

Mr. Speaker, surely I may say when a principle is a good one.

This afternoon the hon. member for Green Point once more displayed the tendency to take a few snatches from occurrences about which one does not have the full details, and to generalize on that basis in such a way as to place the Community Development Board and the Department in an unfavourable light. When he does that, the hon. member makes basic mistakes in his reasoning as well as incorrect statements. And if he does that, Mr. Speaker, then I say that it is not worthy of the hon. member, because the hon. member said the board rezoned an area after properties had been affected and after the development of that area had commenced. Section 15 (7) of the Community Development Act provides that the board shall, in the exercise of its powers, comply with the provisions of any applicable law relating to townships and town-planning, except in so far as the Minister after consultation with the Administrator concerned otherwise directs. Consequently the board cannot undertake rezoning on its own. It has to be undertaken by the town councils and by means of the ordinary procedures. The exception is when the Minister directs otherwise after consultation with the Administrator. Section 20 (2) provides as follows—

As far as I am aware, neither I, nor my predecessor, ever amended any such zoning by ourselves, and that could only have been done with our personal approval. If there was any rezoning, such rezoning followed on a rezoning scheme requested by the municipality or by the Community Development Board and the municipality, and which was considered and recommended by the Townships Commission. In other words, the normal procedure was followed. This then means that arbitrary rezoning did not take place.

The hon. member also referred to the publication of the list of moneys kept in trust by the Master. That must follow automatically as one of the duties of the Master of the Supreme Court.

That has now been deleted from the Act.

No, it has not been deleted from the Act. Previously my Department had to keep that money in trust and the Department had to publish a list. What has now been deleted is that my Department has to keep the money in trust. I now delete that provision and I say that the Master of the Supreme Court is to keep the money in trust. However, the Master, in terms of the laws under which he operates, is obliged to publish a list from time to time of all moneys which he keeps in trust in respect of persons who have not been traced or are unknown.

Then the hon. member referred to a single case of an owner of an affected property which the owner wanted to sell to a qualified person for an amount which he said was really lower than the actual value of the property. Thereupon the Community Development Board exercised its pre-emptive right and subsequently sold the property to the same person. But a very important principle is involved in this matter. It should be borne in mind that if the owner of an affected property sells his property to another person for less than the basic value he is entitled to a depreciation contribution of 80 per cent. It is more than likely—I am not saying that this did happen in this case—that if a person’s property is valued at R6,000, for instance, he may get a qualified person to buy the property from him for. say, R4,000 plus R2,000 under the counter. He then receives and additional amount of R1,600 from the Board as a depreciation contribution. That has to be guarded against. For that reason it is the policy of the Board, where a property is going to be sold for less than the basic value, to buy the property for that amount and to pay the depreciation contribution to the seller. In nearly all such cases the Board sells the property at a reasonable price to the person to whom the original seller wanted to sell, at a price which such person offers or which is decided upon after negotiations and which merely covers the Board’s expenses in this connection. Therefore a good reason exists for this provision. It may be that unfortunate cases may occur as a result of the application of this principle, but, Sir, “hard cases don’t make good law”. The hon. member must remember that.

I now come to the question of the basic values and the changes which are being effected. This is one of the most important changes which this measure effects. Basic values are not something which my Department determines. The important amendment which is being effected here is in fact to determine the basic values as they were before the declaration of a group area. In other words, what they normally would have been had a group area not been declared. That is the very amendment which we are effecting now. As I said before, my Department does not value the properties. Sworn valuators do so. If the person concerned is not satisfied, the case goes to a revision court to which sworn valuators are appointed, and if he is not satisfied there, the case goes to an arbitration court of which the chairman is either a Judge or a retired Judge or an advocate who has more than ten years’ experience. That court then determines the value. Hon. members repeatedly alleged that the basic values were determined entirely too low. Let me now tell hon. members this. Since basic values have been determined and affected properties have been bought and sold, a total amount of R1,700,000 has been received in respect of appreciation contributions. But in respect of depreciation contributions—that is the 80 per cent contribution—we have paid out R6,200,000. In other words, the vast majority of properties were valued at a higher figure than they could fetch on the open market.

Is that not the effect afterwards because of the alteration in valuation?

No, I have gone very carefully into this entire matter and I can assure this House that, because the State is involved in the matter, it is the natural reaction of people to believe that their properties are worth three times as much as that of another person in which the State is not interested.

I was also asked whether this matter related specifically to District Six. I was asked whether this amendment I was effecting to abolish the appreciation contribution for five years was aimed at District Six in particular. The reply is no, it is not related specifically to District Six. District Six will, of course, receive the benefit thereof. May I tell the hon. member that in District Six the benefit is not going to be derived by the Coloureds, as he thinks, but by the Whites who own 76 per cent of the properties in District Six. Indians own 19 per cent and Coloureds only 5 per cent of the properties.

The hon. member for Langlaagte asked me about goodwill. The Act already makes provision for goodwill. The hon. member for Boland asked me a number of questions. He asked me whether a change in basic values would come about. The reply is no. When basic values have been determined, they remain unchanged unless there is an increase or a decrease in value. An increase in value may follow on the improvement of the property and a decrease in value on the neglect of the property. If there is an increase in value as a result of the State’s planning, we pay a contribution. He asked whether the pre-emptive right would continue to exist during the first five years. The reply is that it will continue to exist during the first five years. He also asked whether the pre-emptive right would still be applied in frozen areas after five years. Now, Sir, there are two kinds of areas of this type. The one is within a proclaimed group area where the normal rules apply, and the other is a frozen area outside a group area. There the Community Development Board buys at an agreed price or at a price determined by means of arbitration. The hon. member also asked whether applicants in group areas who wanted to build or subdivide would be given the reasons for the refusal if permission was refused and would subsequently be allowed to replan the buildings. This a matter to which we shall have to give close attention. I do not think, however, that I can give an undertaking that reasons for the refusal will be given in all cases. We shall, where it is at all possible to assist a person in effecting developments or improvements which fall within the pattern, give him the necessary assistance.

Hon. members raised various other matters here with which I do not deem it necessary to deal in detail now. I think they can be dealt with more effectively and in greater detail during the Committee Stage.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.