After last week’s bloodless three-day battle, one may now take stock of what is left on the battlefield, and one comes to the conclusion that a cartridge and perhaps also a cannon-shell may be picked up here and there, but that there are also many remnants of ordinary crackers. Now that the dust has settled and we can take stock, one comes to the conclusion that for three days a debate was conducted here which was in actual fact not justified. The only justification for a three-day debate and all the time of the House occupied by it is its many trivialities and some axioms which have long been accepted in the educational field but which were fought tooth and nail. In the first place I must say that I want to pay high tribute to my supporters on this side of the House and to thank them very sincerely, because they have made my task of replying to this debate much lighter. It is beyond doubt that when arguments were advanced here and there by hon. members on the opposite side, they were wiped off the face of the earth by such hard blows that it was pathetic to see what remained of the Opposition’s struggle to keep this debate going. I want to thank them in particular for continuing to be positive in their arguments. They kept the debate directed towards the child and centred on the child, and that is everything in education. What is at issue here is not a group of grown-ups who want to quarrel about the interests of the child, and I hope to advance the necessary proof in the course of my speech that with very minor exceptions here and there the interests of the child, and concomitantly the interests of the country, were in no way served by the Opposition. The speakers on the Government side who took part in this debate provided the necessary arguments, founded on merits, to dispose of the negative arguments of the Opposition, and if this Hansard is one day read by educationists the poor Opposition will derive meagre credit from it.

The Opposition employed two means. The first was to sow suspicion and the second was an attempt to arouse suspicion in the Republic of South Africa. Those were the main features of the Opposition’s contribution to this debate. Their attempt at suspicion-mongering amounted to perhaps the cheapest politicizing ever on a matter which affects the interests and the future of the nation. I do not want to go into that now, but I just want to give a few examples of that. The hon. member for Orange Grove even went so far in his suspicion-mongering as to warn the nation that education would be given a Potchefstroom character by a Minister who derives from Potchefstroom. The hon. member went so far in his suspicion-mongering as to try to create the impression that an attempt is being made here to draw a dividing line between the various groups in the community. He and other hon. members on that side tried to drive a wedge between the Protestant and the Catholic sections of the population. He asked all kinds of nonsensical questions, for example: What is to become of the girls in English-language convents? The hon. member and others tried to drive a wedge between the Afrikaans and the English-speaking people. The hon. member who excelled at trying to drive in this wedge was the hon. member for South Coast, of course. This time the hon. member for South Coast did not merely march, but beat the drums in an attempt to revive an old spirit in order to regain the lost territory of Natal. Mr. Speaker, it was indeed spectacular. Hon. members of the Opposition even went as far as seeing whether a wedge could not also be driven between the Calvinists and the Anglicans, and between the D.R. Church and the Doppers. What a pathetic show; what scandalous behaviour, to use such arguments! At this stage I am not going to reply to points which were raised by hon. members of the Opposition and which relate to the particulars of the Bill. Most of the arguments advanced on the opposite side related to particulars which belong in the Committee Stage. The possible disputes with regard to the particulars can be dealt with at the Committee Stage, but there is one point on which there is obviously some misunderstanding, and that is the question of the application of this Bill to private, to State-aided and to State schools. This relates in particular to the question of providing free books and stationery. I want to make it clear that this Bill does not affect private schools. Private schools which enjoy no State aid, which are completely independent, are not affected in any way whatsoever. Private schools, whether under the provincial administration or under my Department, are not at all affected by this Bill. With regard to State schools clause 2 (1) (a)—i.e. the Christian character—is of application, and clause 2 (1) (b), i.e. free education, free books and stationery, applies to State-aided schools. The question was asked, even by hon. members on this side, why schools which are paying certain fees, “fee-paying schools,” should be abolished? This Bill does not abolish them. In terms of this Bill they retain the right to charge school fees for the purposes of sport, for the provision of extra library books over and above those prescribed, for film projectors, for films, for wall charts, for models and other audio-visual apparatus and aids, etc. Education fees and fees for stationery and prescribed books may not be charged, but in other respects they have a free hand. They are quite at liberty to charge fees for any additional purpose if the parents are willing to pay those fees.

On a compulsory basis?

Yes, they may compel them to pay. There is nothing that prevents that.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the details any further; the details may be dealt with at the Committee Stage. I should now like to deal seriatim with the main objections raised by hon. members of the Opposition to this Bill. The first strong objection was the way in which this Bill originated, the way in which it was submitted to the House and the form in which it is before the House at present. The first accusation was that there was some secrecy, that we did not take the public into our confidence and that there was something sinister lurking behind this Bill. Now, I had only one instruction in this task I had to carry out; I have an instruction in terms of Act 86 of 1962, and the instruction is formulated in section 7. I just want to read the relevant portions of section 7 (1). Section 7 (1) provides—

Not to draw up Bills for me, but to advise me. The second part provides—

The third part reads—

I acted in accordance with the instructions of an Act by calling for advice and receiving advice. In the course of my speech I shall explain the hitches and problems that arose, and why it was not possible to lay this Bill upon the Table of the House any sooner. But on 31st August, 1966, the hon. member for Kensington defended the actions of the council. Let me read to the House what he said after he had read the annual report of the council—

—they may not say too much because they are an advisory council only—

The council itself may not release any information. The Minister receives the advice. It may not speak. The hon. member for Kensington said (Hansard, vol. 17, col. 1827)—

That was the hon. member for Kensington. He then said:

The hon. member for Kensington says: “We have been striving for it for 40 years, and now you are introducing it.” I, as Minister of Education, who have been occupying the post for five years, introduce it after five years. None of the many commissions made any progress, because the matter ended with commissions. How can the hon. member for Kensington adopt that attitude now—that patronizing attitude in respect of precisely what should have happened and how he had wanted it? If I let hon. members in on the problems of getting as far as this, they would perhaps understand the matter. Then they would perhaps understand that this matter could not be dealt with helter-skelter. In my Second Reading Speech I mentioned that it was the primary function of the education advisory council to pay visits to the four Administrators and executive committees. On those visits they found at once that the most urgent problems that called for attention were divided control and the lack of an education policy. Quite soon it was also determined that to negotiate with those cumbersome bodies from province to province would not get them much further. It was then agreed by all four of the executive committees of the Republic that they would form their educational heads into a contact body. That contact body of those five members, together with the five members of the executive committee of the Education Advisory Council, with South-West Africa’s Director of Education as an observer, would receive their terms of reference from their principals and would report to them. The principals, in the case of the provinces, were the Administrator-in-execu’ive-committee, and myself in the case of the Central Government. These people got together and even at their first meeting on 23rd March, 1964, this contact body—I think it is one of the greatest achievements ever gained in South Africa—came to unanimous agreement on the following important matters. I am going to mention them seriatim. The first is that all education up to and including Std. X should be entrusted to the provinces on condition that the Central Government receive certain guarantees in respect of the continued development of all education, but particularly in respect of technical education, which should be embodied in an act of Parliament.

In other words, as long ago as 23rd March, 1964, almost three years ago, they agreed on this point. This contact body reported to their principals—I am now giving the second point—that a national education pattern should be developed. As proof of these points extracted from the minutes, those minutes are at the disposal of the truly interested, studious and intelligent person who does not want to politicize about this matter. Even then they agreed that a national education pattern should be developed. Thirdly, they agreed that the provinces would have an equal say in the development of the national pattern. In the fourth place they agreed that the Central Government would be drawn into the determination of policy through the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. Fifthly, they agreed that the provinces should be prepared to relinquish some of their presently limited autonomy in the development of a national policy in the interests of the country as a whole.

When the hon. member for South Coast got into his stride and became more and more angry with himself, he told us: That Minister over there, he forced them into it. I am telling the hon. member now: Three years ago, give and take a few days, his Natal Director of Education or his representative accepted that. Not once was a vote taken in that contact body.

He is not a public representative of Natal. He is an official.

Mr. H. Lundy, the chief inspector, was the Natal man who served on that contact body—or was it perhaps Mr. Biebuyck? Yes, it was Mr. Biebuyck, the Director of Education. Mr. Lundy is a member of the council. He reported back. Why was no objection lodged by the Natal Executive Committee at the time? Why did they not make a fuss then? They made a fuss only when this hon. member noticed in December that there was an opportunity to do some politicizing, and cracked his political whip. But I do not want to start off with the hon. member now. I want to end with him. Those people also decided that the provinces were prepared …

How can those officials defend themselves if you blame them like that? You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

Sir, if the hon. member is really interested, he may get the minutes and read them. He will see that it is recorded in the minutes that it was submitted to the Executive Committee of Natal.

Blame me. I can defend myself.

This hon. member has a great deal of medicine coming to him. He will still get some castor-oil. These are only sugared pills. [Interjections.] Hon. members must listen to me. I am now going to state my case. Here are some points in respect of which agreement was reached by a contact body established with the approval of the executive committees and the Minister. Those people had to report to their principals. They met on various occasions through the years. I am just giving the first points in respect of which they reached agreement, even three years ago. For the sake of interest I may just say that a well-known provincial educationist—not from Natal—expressed the following opinion on the occasion of that meeting, when agreement was reached on those points. I just want to mention this to show how far the extra-political people have advanced towards great unity in the Republic of South Africa, and how sadly that shows up some of the party-politicians with their provincialism, which they display in season and out of season. He said (translation)—

These hon. members, or rather a small group of them, have such an obsession with the idea that if we touch the tradition of the past we are breaking it down, and that we want to destroy it.

I mentioned the meeting of 23rd March, 1964. At a subsequent meeting, on 25th November, 1964, this contact body achieved further clarity and provided that (a) education should have a Christian character with guarantees of non-prejudicing of dissentients, and (b) that it should have a national character in the sense that pupils should be prepared for being able to assume their rightful place in the community, not in the world but more specifically in our own country. After protracted negotiations and deliberations this contact body eventually reached the stage, at its meeting on 25th june, 1965—I cannot deal with the entire history, of course—where it could recommend the principles on which the National Education Policy Bill could be based. They recommended it. Those education men recommended it without interference for one moment by anyone from the outside. They said that these principles could now be accepted. One of the principles provided that the mother tongue, English or Afrikaans, should be the medium of instruction. To comply with a request from Natal at that time, that formulation was substituted by the following: That the mother tongue, English or Afrikaans, shall be the medium of instruction with gradual equitable adjustment to the existing practice. That was Natal’s request. Natal did not say that they condemned everything. They said that they admitted that the principle of mother-tongue education was correct, but that it should be borne in mind that they had a long history behind them. There is parental choice, and we cannot simply sweep that away at once and say that it must now be mother-tongue education. There are many arguments against that. Additional school facilities will be needed, and an additional system is coming. For that reason we included it in this legislation with gradual equitable adjustment to any existing practice. That applies only to Natal. I am not talking about mother-tongue education now, because I am coming to that in a moment.

That is not correct. That is not what they asked for.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is now calling me a public liar. In that case I have no other defence than to submit to the House the minutes in which the decision was recorded. The hon. member may see these minutes, but he will not have the decency then to apologize to me for the fact that he called me a liar. The very last moment he is trying to get political advantage from this for his sinking party. The principles I have mentioned were adopted by the full council on 19th August, 1965, and recommendations were then submitted to me. [Interjection.] The hon. member will hear something else. For the sake of the record I want to say that it was said here so many times that the members of this council were not the right people or that they did not have the qualifications to judge in this regard. The previous member for Hillbrow, Dr. Steenkamp, asked me a question with a lengthy reply. I cannot give the reply in this short debate, of course, but I am going to give the names of those people for the sake, perhaps, of some of the younger members who have not had an opportunity to become acquainted with them. The chairman of this council is Dr. C. H. Rautenbach, principal of the University of Pretoria. The body is constituted as follows: Two deputy chairmen, Professor H. J. Bingle. who used to be a professor of education and has since became principal of the Potchefstroom University. Professor Jordaan is the second deputy chairman. He was the principal of the Teachers’ College in Pretoria. Miss E. C. Steyn, member of the executive committee, is the principal of the Afrikaans Girls’ High School. Mr. S. G. Osler was the principal of a private school in Natal and is the other member of the executive committee; Mr. D. F. Abernethy, who is the principal of the Boys’ High School in Pretoria; Mr. L. C. Bruwer, who is the principal of a training college in the Cape Province; Mrs. De la Bat, who is an authority on the education of the blind and the deaf at the Worcester school; Dr. W. K. H. du Plessis, who is the chief inspector of the Department of Education, Arts and Science; Professor T. S. du Toit, professor of education at the University of Stellenbosch; Professor J. J. Fourie, professor of education at the Free State University; Mr. N. C. Gracie, who is the president of the correspondence colleges and who is also a man who takes a strong interest in swimming galas; Professor R. E. Lighton, who is professor of education at the University of Cape Town; Mr. H. Lundie, chief inspector of Natal; Mr. A. G. S. Meiring, at present director of education, and at that time deputy director, of the Free State; Mr. D. Miller, who is now retired, but who is an absolute authority in the field of mathematics; Professor J. D. Mulder, deputy director of education in the Transvaal; Miss G. C. Paver, principal of a girls’ school in Durban; Professor C. J. Potgieter, principal of the Teachers’ College in Pretoria; Professor S. J. Preller, professor of education; Dr. P. M. Robertse, director of the Bureau for Social and Educational Research; Dr. E. L. G. Schnell, chief inspector of the Cape Province; Mr. J. T. Slater, principal of one of the Eastern Cape schools; Miss M. L. Spies, principal of the Oranje Girls’ School in Bleomfontein; Mr. J. A. Stander, formerly deputy director of education in Natal; Mr. S. Theron, deputy director of education in the Cape Province; Dr. J. T. van Wyk, director of education in South-West Africa, and Mr. H. A. Whitecross, chief inspector of schools in the Transvaal. Mr. Speaker, I gave these names for the purposes of the record. Now I challenge any member on the opposite side to tell me that this is not an fair cross-section of the educationists in South Africa. I challenge them to say, so that the people may hear it, that these people are not qualified to give the country an education policy. Hon. members should now tell the world that these people are a bunch of educationists at universities, training colleges, secondary and primary schools of various kinds, both Afrikaans-and English-speaking, who are interested in education. I want them to come and tell me that these 26 persons whose names I have read are not qualified, because these hon. members think that they are qualified to judge.

As a result of that I then received this advice. Now I want to tell the hon. members what the advice was. If they will be so kind as to open their Bills before them and to make notes, they will find that there is not one provision in this Bill which is not included in the advice given to me. That is my first challenge. Hon. members on the opposite side must make notes to see to it that I do not tell a He The draft Bill which the hon. member for Kensington mentioned is, as he quoted it. drawn up in lay language. Hon. members will notice, for example, that the Bill on Educational Services, which we are still to deal with, is represented by only two lines in the advice which was given. This is no Bill in the sense that I shall introduce it. The draft reads as follows. The first section is the customary definitions clause.

Order!

Hon. members should listen, because they have challenged me. The hon. member for South Coast took great pleasure in asking, “How many Bills were there? Tell us how many Bills were there?” This is the one which has now been tabled, and this is the other one on which this Bill and the one which is still to come were based after I had read about everything the contact body had done. I am now going to read from it. As I have said, the first clause contains definitions. The second clause comprises only two lines, namely, “The non-university education of Whites mentioned in the schedule to this Act shall be entrusted to the provinces.” On this advice we had to draw up a separate measure, namely one in respect of educational services. That is the first point of advice that they gave. The next point of advice is as follows: “In terms of Act 86 the following shall be the broad, general principles of the national education policy—(a) that education in public schools shall have a Christian character, with due respect for the religious convictions of others.” This principle was embodied in clause 2 (1) (a) of the Bill before us at present. The next subsection is, “The mother tongue, English or Afrikaans, shall be the medium of instruction with equitable adjustment to the existing practice.” We find that in clause 2 (1)(c) of the Bill. The third point is, “Education shall have a broad national character.” That is included in clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill. The fourth section reads as follows: “Compulsory education and the limits relating to school age shall be uniform”, and that is clause 2 (1)(d).Then we have, “Instruction at public schools shall be free, without prejudice to such exceptions as the Minister may initially approve.” That is contained in clause 2 (1)(e). Then, “The parents shall be given a place in the education system”, and that is clause 2 (1) (h). Clause (g) of the draft reads: “The teacher shall be given a share in educational planning”, which is clause 2 (1) (i) of the Bill before the House.

Will you please read the clause about mother-tongue education again—I must have misheard it.

They say here: “that the mother tongue, English or Afrikaans, shall be the medium of instruction, with equitable adjustment to the existing practice.” That is their wording.

The Bill provides just the opposite.

We can discuss that at the Committee Stage. I want to show hon. members that I did not grab the principles of the measure before us at the moment from thin air. I found them in this draft. There was a fourth clause in their draft Bill, in which they said that the Administrator shall coordinate and arrange the implementation of the national education policy in respect of—

1. (a) uniform limits relating to compulsory education …”

Order!

That is clause 2 (1) (b) of the Bill. We have the same provision in the measure now before us. We merely said that the education policy shall be determined after consultation with the Administrators. We have combined these two clauses. The draft then deals with the question of courses, which may be found in clause 2 (1) (g). It is just the one word, namely “courses”. Thirdly, “The provision of education in accordance with the ability and aptitude of and interest shown by the pupil and the needs of the country, with due regard to the advisability of maintaining any diversity which circumstances may require.” That is clause 2 (1) (f) of the Bill before us. Then follows, “Equivalent certificates”, and that is clause 2 (1) (g). The next is, “The initial retention and maintenance of existing schools, which are transferred by the Minister from the Department of Education, Arts and Science to the provinces.” We shall find this aspect in the Educational Services Bill. Clause (f) of the draft refers to “conditions of service of teachers, particularly with a view to the development of education as a recognized profession”, and that is clause 2 (1) (j). Then, “Provision for education through the medium of the mother tongue”, and that is clause 2 (1) (c). The people who drew up this draft gave us even more power, which we did not even use. They said, “Any other matters which may be in the interests of education”. The Minister was given a free hand. We did not even include this provision: we did not even mention it. This draft furthermore mentions the committee of educational heads, which we incorporated in clause 6 of the Bill. The last point dealt with in this draft is the definition of higher education, which is now to be amended as a result of the fact that the Central Government is transferring these schools to the provinces, and that is dealt with in clause 44 of the Educational Services Bill. That, Mr. Speaker, is the full advice submitted to us.

Will you make a copy of that document available to us?

Yes, the hon. member may have it now. He may have it with pleasure and compare it with the Bill. A preamble was attached to the draft, of course, namely “whereas … and whereas …”, and our legal advisers rejected it. Once we had got as far as that, I discussed this Bill with the administrators, after it had been drawn up by our legal advisers in more or less the form now before the House. I asked them to discuss the principles of this measure with their executive committees.

Was there no discussion with the executive committees on the original draft?

No consultations were held with anybody on this original document. The principles contained in this were, as I have said, accepted. I have just read them to hon. members. After the contact body had formulated them, they were accepted by the principals individually, and every principal discussed it with his own people. I do not know who did not do that. They had to discuss it with their people and tell them that these were the principles. After I had heard from them that they agreed on the principles, this measure went to the legal advisers in order that they may draw up a Bill. After they had commenced doing so, they said that it was impossible to formulate it in one act. They proposed that the principles be split and the policy embodied in one Bill and the new educational services in another. After that had been done, I gave every administrator and executive committee a draft of the Bill, as drawn up by the legal advisers on 3rd September. After they had received that legislation, there was some response. Natal also received it, and in that regard I shall now read a letter, from both the Administrator and Mr. Wilks, a senior member of the Executive Committee of Natal. He also wrote a report, known as the Wilks Report, with which I shall deal a bit later. The charge levelled by the hon. member. For South Coast—and now the hon. member should listen closely—is that the Natal Executive Committee never accepted this Bill. Is that correct?

This one.

Very well. It is virtually the same. I shall give the hon. member a copy of that one as well. I shall give the hon. member a copy of the one they received, and then he may tell me the difference. Under the date 6th October, Mr. E. C. Wilks wrote to me as followed—

That was on 6th October. You will notice, therefore, that there is one objection, and that relates to parental choice. That is the essential objection and Mr. Wilks made no secret of that; they fight it tooth and nail and they will have none of it, and it is of cardinal importance to them that it remains that way in Natal. I repeat that notwithstanding the fact that the principal received a report from his representative on the contact body, the adjustment would, on his suggestion, be gradual adjustment. But I also received a letter from the Administrator of Natal dated 18th October, 1966, in which he said (translation)—

And then we find this sentence—

They accept it. The hon. member for South Coast said they had never accepted it. He may come and take another look at the two Bills; he says this is a different one. I am now going to read what Natal’s reservations were, and this is a letter from the Administrator, and not just from an official. It comes from the Administrator, the person whom the Government holds responsible. He says that in clause 1 their reservation is the following—

But that has nothing to do with this Bill.

I know it has nothing to do with the Bill, but if I omit a paragraph they will be saying to-morrow that I did not read the complete letter. Now I want to refer the hon. House to the Next Bill we have to deal with, where in clause 9 (8) it is provided that not merely three but even four subjects may be offered with the approval of the Minister. Here we made a concession. That was the first concession.

I have already read that from Mr. Wilks’ letter and I shall not read the entire paragraph again. Here the Administrator said in parentheses: “Personally, I have no objection to the clause,” and there are many Natal people, and also many English-speaking people, who have no objection to the clause.

That is another misgiving on the part of the Executive Committee—

I have already made it clear in my reply exactly what is meant by that. I therefore think it is clear to them, too. He then elaborated on this matter, and asked about free text-books, etc. I have already mentioned that. We may discuss that at greater length in Committee.

Of course, if sound reasons can be advanced why there should be a difference, that will happen. Surely we are not laying down the laws of the Medes and the Persians here. One has regard to the practice. And we informed them accordingly. [Interjection.] I am telling you what those people’s objections were.

Well, we made it not one but two. They also have an objection to clause 10 (5) and (6)—

Well, if by that those people mean that they want vocational education and academic education fully integrated under one roof, then I say frankly and openly that I am not in favour of that, because it will simply mean watering down either one or the other, and I am not in favour of this great, sprawling American system of having schools under one roof. The vocational schools must be kept separate from the academic high schools, with the necessary adjustment if there are not enough pupils to take a commercial course. It is expensive education and it has to be handled in this way.

We now come to the actual crux of the matter. I have told you the history of this Bill and I have gone out of my way to demonstrate to hon. members that this Bill is well planned and well conceived, that numerous conferences and consultations were held and concessions made, for if we had not done that, it would have gone the way of all previous commissions since the Jagger Commission. We would have made absolutely no progress. For that reason, if this matter were blown up in public and if it were exploited as the hon. member for South Coast did when he heard the first whisper and tried to make a political case of it—where would we have got? What disunity we would have had here in our own ranks! I think the hon. members should be grateful for the patience shown by all concerns involved in the matter. In particular I want to pay tribute to the chairman of that council, Professor Rautenbach, who handled the council with the utmost patience. I had the honour of opening the first council meeting, and I may tell you that the representatives of the provinces and others glared at each other across the table. They mistrusted each other quite as much as hon. members on that side mistrust me to-day. There was quite as much suspicion-mongering as we have had in this debate from hon. members on that side of the House. They thought that one was going to lose and the other gain. Eventually Professor Rautenbach fused that group of educationists into a body which co-operated and produced results. We should therefore pay the highest tribute to those people. If only hon. members of the Opposition had consulted members of that council, they would have found that no decision was ever forced on to one group by the members of another group by means of a majority vote.

The three principles which were actually at issue in this debate and on which most of the speeches were made, are the Christian character of education, the national character of education and mother-tongue instruction. The other points raised here relate to particulars which we should rather discuss at the Committee Stage.

What about the principle of central control?

The hon. member may grouse and grumble as much as he likes, but the principle of central control has already been accepted. I have nothing more to say about that. The principle has been accepted, and it has been accepted on ten points. My task is merely to eliminate the present misunderstanding, not to plead that there should be central control. In my Second Reading speech I gave the reasons why there should be central control. My present task is merely to point out the misconceptions attached to these three major principles.

I shall first deal with the question of the Christian character of education. Mr. Speaker, in some cases the approach of hon. members to this matter amounted to veiled blasphemy; in other cases hon. members professed lofty ideals; but it was surprising to see how naïve some people can be, how stupid they can pretend to be and what question they can ask you, questions such as: “What do you mean by ‘Christian character’?” “Will it be this or will it be that; will it be this way or will it be that way?” In order to have absolute clarity and to leave no doubts whatsoever about the meaning, I formulated my interpretation of the “Christian character of education”—and I do not want to change one word in that. My interpretation of “the Christian character of education” is that education shall build on the basis of the traditional Western culture and view of life which recognize the validity of the Biblical principles, norms and values. I challenge any hon. member to tell me that that is sectional; that it includes one group of Christians and excludes another. I repeat that what is understood by “Christian character” is that education shall build on the basis of the traditional Western culture, not the present one in its decadent and watered-down form, but as we knew it since Jan van Riebeeck arrived here more than 300 years ago as the first bearer of the civilization, the culture and the religion and its Christian character, and as these were then carried to the remotest corners of this country of ours. Education shall be built on the basis of the traditional Western culture and view of life. What is the foundation for that traditional Western culture and view of life? The Biblical principles, norms and values. Those are the only ones we recognize as valid.

In the second place hon. members of the Opposition asked me what I meant by “national”, but before they asked the question they supplied their own definitions; they interpreted “national” as “National Party” and as “indoctrination”. Those definitions are naive, childish, ridiculous, silly and inane. I could add a few more words if you would allow it, Mr. Speaker. We say that education shall have a broad national character. This is my definition. By “national” it is understood that education shall build on the ideal of the national development of all citizens of South Africa, in order that our own identity and way of life may be preserved and in order that the South African nation may constantly appreciate its task as part of the Western civilization. That is what I understand by “national” when I am dealing with education, but when I am fighting the United Party my interpretation of “national” means something quite different; what I mean then is the National Party, and then I am grateful to have such a weapon for fighting the United Party. But here I am dealing with an educational law, and any educationist in the country will tell you that what is meant here by “national” is national development, as I have already explained. Think of the joy in the hearts of all true South Africans when we could declare the Republic five years ago; then we cleared the way for national unity and said: “Let us forget the wars and the disputes of the past.” Mr. Speaker, it is the hobby-horse of the hon. member for South Coast to keep these things alive. That is the only way he can remain the member for South Coast; he can retain his seat only by making his supporters believe that the National Party Government wants to make Nationalists of their children. It is tragic that a man as experienced as the hon. member for South Coast should propagate that kind of thing here. He knows that what he said here was void of all truth. Mr. Speaker, if America, with its different population groups, could succeed in becoming a unified nation under the Stars and Stripes of America, and if Switzerland, with its three population groups, could succeed in bringing about national unity, our way is also clear. The public outside is building national unity, and hon. members of the Opposition who try to destroy it here will not succeed. Their numbers will merely dwindle more and more in this House. In due course they will disappear, and the small group which is more level-headed than the hon. member for South Coast will then join us in the struggle to bring about the desired national unity and to inculcate a national character in our education.

The last principle I want to discuss is the principle of mother-tongue education. Mother-tongue education is the accepted principle on which all education is built. This principle is accepted so generally that there is no member in this House who would dare to say that instruction should not be given to the child through the medium of its mother tongue. I do not think there is one hon. member on that side who will say: “No, it is not necessary.” Everybody agrees. I made it my business to see what a Natal person had to say about this matter, particularly in consequence of the strong objections to the Natal system which are entertained by my own supporters on this side.

I consulted the Wilks Report of 1946. It is the same Mr. E. C. Wilks. I just want to read to you some extracts from what Mr. Wilks had to say, but before I do so, I want to tell the hon. member for South Coast, following on what was said by hon. members from Natal with regard to neglect of the Afrikaans child—I do not want to go on beating this race drum, as the hon. member for South Coast did—but if at this stage he can bring me one English-speaking child in the entire Republic of South Africa who did not receive fair treatment and who was forced by the National Party Provincial Councils of the Transvaal, the Free State and the Cape to take his classes through the medium of Afrikaans, I am prepared to withdraw this Bill immediately.

Will that apply also to Afrikaans-speaking children?

I shall tell you what Mr. Wilks said in respect of what happened to the Afrikaans child in his schools. In paragraph 74 of his report Mr. Wilks says, inter alia—

Please note—

Here Wilks says unequivocally that he admits that. That is what we said right at the beginning. That is the attitude we adopted at the outset. How dare the Opposition resist mother-tongue education? How dare they tell us that in Natal parental choice has always obtained, that it should stay that way and that the child should therefore suffer as a result? Here is a man who investigated the matter. He continues. In paragraph 75 he says—

Just what the hon. member for South Coast said: The parent is master of the child, and it is the democratic right of the parent, and therefore the parent must choose. Wilks continues—

He admits that. That must happen. Although the parent has that right of determination, the State must step in and save the child from the unwise parent. He says—

That is exactly what we are doing now. The skimpy fig leaf held up by the Opposition is the fine slogan: “The right of the parents.” Of course I have a right to my child, but if it becomes clear that from certain external motives I force certain options in life on to my child, for which the State has to pay, then we say: “No. So far and no further.” In paragraph 76 he concludes with the following words—

What are we doing wrong? There is so much indulgence that we said immediately: Mother-tongue education must come, but with gradual adjustment. That was done with a view to and at the request of Natal, in order not to scare the people by telling them: Tomorrow, immediately, this and that will happen. As long as I am there, I shall make it happen as soon as possible, because it is the child who suffers. The political aspirations of the hon. member for South Coast, as leader in Natal, leave me stone cold as long as the child in South Africa has to suffer; whether an English-speaking or an Afrikaans-speaking child, we need them in our country.

I do not think there is anything left to reply to. The rest of the debate was handled by members of the Government Party and Hansard is there in evidence of what took place. Before sitting down I just want to say that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) produced a bundle of telegrams. I want to tell hon. members this: My private secretary has not had an opportunity to count all the letters and telegrams I received, but they run into thousands. I want to tell the hon. member that many of them came from Pietermaritzburg (District). Particularly after the speech made by the hon. member, I received a whole bunch of them this morning. I just want to tell the hon. member that this may be his last innings here if he performs like that. My conviction has been strengthened, because I have been asked from all quarters, by English and Afrikaans-speaking people, not to budge an inch with regard to this legislation and to have this Bill placed on the Statute Book with the utmost despatch, because it is in the interests of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated, I am not moving the amendment of which I have given notice.

I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for not moving the amendment. I want to thank him very sincerely for withdrawing it. It is a gesture which is much appreciated, not only by me as a representative of the Coloured people, but I am sure also by the Coloured people of South Africa. The principle embodied in this Bill has, of course been accepted. Arising out of this Bill, I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider, as part of the honour which is to be paid to the dead, the erection of a cenotaph, something which is, after all, an accepted principle in all the countries of the world where homage is paid to graves and unknown soldiers’ graves. All the battlefields of all the wars can be commemorated in one place. Although we do not want any apartheid in this. I feel sure that if such a cenotaph was erected in a place predominantly occupied by Coloured people as a symbol of the honour paid to the war dead, it would be acceptable. I want to give that thought to the Minister. I see that the principle in the Bill is the creation of memorials and gardens, and so on. I do feel that if in South Africa there could be established, either in the main cities or else in one city, or wherever the Minister may think fit, something on these lines, an unknown soldier’s grave …

Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member that he is asking the Minister to do certain things which, in terms of the Bill, have to be done by the board created by the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to give the Minister the thought.

Order! It is not the Minister’s concern at this stage.

I hope that the hon. the Minister might at some time or other give the board the power to establish such a monument.

It is a statutory board.

Nevertheless, Sir, I hope that the Minister will be able to do something on those lines.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the hon. member for Boland, but I think one of the difficulties is that this board which deals with pre-1914-1918 war graves would have to create some cenotaph covering a history from 1700 to 1910. I think that would be a difficulty. I think the hon. member’s suggestion is rather a matter for the Imperial War Graves Commission.

I want to refer to the amendment which stands in my name on the Order Paper, namely the addition of a new paragraph (d) which is to the effect that the board should compile and maintain registers of the situation of graves referred to in paragraph (a), as well as the personal details of persons buried therein. I have discussed this matter with the Minister and, as suggested, with his department, and I am aware that in clause 4 of the Bill, in paragraph (j) for instance, reference is made as follows: “to establish and keep a register of all graves repaired or maintained”. Similarly paragraph (1) provides for the publication periodically lists of any graves. But I do not feel that those paragraphs cover the point which I wish to have included in the Bill, and that is the duty with which it was originally charged, namely to maintain a register. I hope that the Minister will accept this amendment, as he indicated during the Second Reading of this measure that he would do. I move—

Mr. Chairman, I have no objection to what the hon. member is proposing, although I am nevertheless a little concerned because I feel that we should not overload the War Graves Board too much at the outset. However, I shall accept the hon. member’s amendment as a principle, because I think it would be a good thing if we could have a register so that we might know precisely who was buried where. When we have the time and the necessary funds to rectify these matters, that may be done. I shall accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed on the Order Paper and reading as follows—

1. (a) to purchase or hire land or buildings or to erect buildings and to alienate such land or to terminate or assign any such hire;
2. (b) to purchase, take on lease, hire out or alienate any movable property;

Because the board has now become a corporate body, certain provision has to be made for keeping books and so forth. It is merely a consequential amendment. The Treasury insists on this amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 5:

Mr. Chairman, I am not moving an amendment to this clause. I have received representations from people in Natal, where, as I pointed out during my Second Reading speech, a great deal of money has been spent. I now have the figures, and it appears that from various sources something like R30,000 per annum is being spent by three separate bodies. I merely rise to ask whether the Minister, when appointing these members of the board, would give consideration to the representations of people from existing organizations. I think it is a reasonable request—I think the Minister probably already has it in his mind. I do not want to suggest that there be two from Natal, which is the request I have received. I simply say to the Minister that I think it would be reasonable where these bodies are concerned, having paid money year after year to quite a substantial amount, and being very interested in this matter, for the Minister to receive nominations from these people with the opportunity of giving Natal, say, two representatives. I would be very happy if the Minister would agree to that.

Yes, I will accept that.

Clause put and agreed to.

New clause 12:

I move—

12.

1. (1) Members of the board or of any committee thereof (including co-opted members) may be paid in respect of the performance of their duties as members of the board or of any such committee, such travelling and subsistence allowances as may be prescribed.
2. (2) Any allowance which may become payable under section (1) shall be paid out of the funds of the board.

Agreed to.

Clause 13 put and negatived.

New clause 13:

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow clause 12:

13. The funds of the board shall consist of such grants (including grants-in-aid by the State or the government of any other country), donations and subscriptions as may from time to time be made to it or be payable to it.

Agreed to.

New clause 18:

I move—

That the following be a new clause to follow clause 17:

18. The books and statements of account of the board shall be audited by the Controller and Auditor-General.

Agreed to.

Clause 18:

I move—

In line 44, after “preceding” to add “together with a balance sheet and a complete statement of income and expenditure for that year”.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 20:

I move—

To add the following as a subsection (2) at the end of the Clause:

(2) Regulations prescribing the travelling or subsistence allowances which are payable to members of the board or of any committee thereof (including co-opted members) shall be made in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

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

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, in my exhaustive second reading speech on the National Education Policy Bill I enlarged, amongst other things, on the importance of education. Because in the Educational Services Bill we are dealing to a considerable extent with vocational education, I should like to supplement the ideas expressed in the aforementioned speech on the importance of education by letting the spotlight fall on a certain more materialistic aspect to make us realize even more fully that we will have to be prepared to spend a larger portion of our national product on education.

Education is an investment for human potential. The industrialist invests capital in buildings, machinery and other equipment and he expects those investments to pay dividends. These kind of capital investments are carefully considered because the future of the industry is directly involved. Investments of this nature were, until quite recently, regarded as the only true investments and amounts which were allocated to education and training were to a large extent regarded as donations towards a deserving cause, which could perhaps in an indirect way benefit the industry.

However, research has revealed that these amounts which industrialists spend on education must not be regarded as donations but are in fact a capital investment, an investment which produces tremendous dividends. This investment may in fact be termed “human” capital.

Particular attention is to-day being devoted to investments in “human” capital, particularly after industrial leaders realized that the excessive offering of industrial equipment to countries which do not have this “human” capital at their disposal definitely did not have the expected results. Economists then came to the conclusion that production could be raised only when justice was done to both kinds of investment, namely investment in “nonhuman” capital (equipment), as well as in “human” capital (trained people).

From the aforegoing it is clear that one of the most important factors in economic growth is the result of the amount of training the employee has had; the grade of training received by persons in key positions and the training of all who have to deal with the maximum utilization of human potential.

Money spent on education is therefore not a donation with dubious results and significance, but is, as economists firmly point out, an investment in one of the most profitable production factors, because it provides trained people.

Experience gained with the rendering of assistance to undeveloped states by various world powers, has drawn attention very emphatically to education as the key to economic growth.

A number of research projects in this field overseas has also indicated with certainty that countries have benefited tremendously by the increased education or training of their people. That research has also indicated that a country’s industrial progress is directly linked to the investment in “human” capital of that country.

In our own country we are at present experiencing a remarkable economic growth^*, and connected with that we notice an ever-increasing demand for highly trained personnel. Although the educational institutions are producing qualified persons to an ever-increasing extent, demand is still exceeding the supply.

Industrial development and economic growth is proceeding apace in South Africa. Tremendous investments are being made in “nonhuman” capital and large amounts are being spent on education and training, but the development and exploitation of human potential is not keeping pace. Still more intensive attempts must be made to try and take up the backlog. Immigration of trained persons does not offer a permanent solution. The human potential of this country must be developed to the utmost. Progress cannot be allowed to be impeded by the unnecessary loss of human potential. There are too many pupils who do not follow suitable courses. There are still far too many promising pupils who do not obtain admission to a university and there are still far too many first-year students who fall by the wayside in spite of having the necessary abilities. Education is directly linked to economic growth and therefore to the progress of the country and that is why education must now receive attention from the House of Assembly, which is the highest authority.

However, man’s potentiality does not consist only of the degree of training he receives, because the quality of the service he renders is closely linked to the degree of training he receives and to his integrity. Investment in “human” capital has greater value therefore when the education and training of that individual goes hand in hand with his upbringing, that is to say, when the shaping of the individual as a whole is taken into consideration.

A country does not only need a trained population, it also needs an educated population, and both these aspects are furthered by education. Seen in this light, effective educaton is only possible if the people who undertake the task of education are themselves of the highest quality in respect of qualifications and character.

The Republic of South Africa is in the unique position that its white minority has to “carry” the entire population, that is to say the white population provides employees in those fields requiring higher training and qualifications.

With the increasing emphasis on education, a certain measure of correspondence with industry is discernible, which amounts to this: The raw material of the “educational industry”, the young child, is the primary school child or the high school child, and the end product is the qualified and trained employee.

Production in this “industry” has increased tremendously in all countries, including the Republic. The number of schools, colleges, and training institutions which are being completed daily, testify to this. The establishment of new universities and the extension of the existing institutions are all signs of tremendous growth in the “educational industry”.

Education for all is necessary because it is the means whereby the standard of living of the population is raised, whereby productivity is increased and the life of the individual enriched. Education is essential for those who want to undertake the leadership, in whatever sphere. On a political, economic and technological level, resolutions of the utmost importance are continually being taken. For the sake of the future of the country, those with whom the decisions rest must be capable of farranging thought in order to understand implications and to act with the highest degree of responsibility. It requires a teacher with well developed personality, into which is integrated an exceptional educational background and training, to develop leadership in an effective way from an early age amongst children so that the fruits thereof can be plucked in their maturity.

In a country such as this, with its heterogeneous population where leadership necessarily emanates from the white population with its centuries-old cultural lead, the most important task is to retain and preserve particularly the intellectual and moral qualities. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my Second Reading speech on the National Education Policy Bill, the National Advisory Education Council, in close consultation with the Heads of the Educational Departments and their mandators also recommended, amongst other things, that the divided control over education be terminated by the provinces transferring to the Department of Education, Arts and Science the technical, commercial and domestic science high schools, and that I accepted the recommendation.

As recommended by the Education Council this transfer will be accompanied by certain guarantees which may be briefly summarized as follows: (a) the Minister of Education, Arts and Science is invested in terms of the National Education Policy Bill with the authority to determine within the framework of ten main principles the national education policy in respect of all branches of education for full-time school-going youth up to and including Std. X or matriculation, which must then be implemented by the provinces, (b) Clause 9 of the Education Services Bill, which supplements the aforementioned Bill, provides in the first instance for the provinces to hand over the schools which I have already mentioned, but with the proviso that: (i) The vocational school buildings which are already in the course of being constructed, or the construction of which has already been approved by the Minister will, upon transfer, be completed.

By the Central Government?

Yes, by the Central Government.

Next I come to the second provision: (ii) The nature and objectives of the technical and commercial vocational education as it has been up to now shall remain unchanged; (iii) the fixed rights and privileges of the staff at such schools will remain protected.

(c) Clause 13 provides that the Minister, to the exclusion of any other authority, may conduct examinations at, inter alia, all institutions providing vocational education. The syllabuses and courses, etc., are drawn up in collaboration with commerce and industry. The examinations which have to be written are acknowledged examinations, and we would be creating great confusion in South Africa if we did not see to it that they remained in force. In this way examination standards will be maintained. Clause 9 (2) provides that the Minister may, at the appropriate time, transfer some or all of these examinatory powers to the provinces if he thinks fit.

As a result of the termination of divided control over education, it is of course also necessary for the definition of “higher education” as contained in section 17 of the Financial Relations Consolidation and Amendment Act, Act No. 38 of 1945, to be revised. This is done in clause 44 of the Bill. As formulated at present, the Department of Education, Arts and Science will be responsible for the following types of education for Whites—(a) education at a university level; (b) education provided in art and maritime training schools and colleges for advanced technical education; (c) special education for the categories of handicapped children mentioned in schedule 1 of the Bill; (d) education intended for persons who are no longer liable to compulsory education, education such as that provided in apprentice schools, part-time classes and schools for the full-time technical training of adults.

In terms of clause 2 (4) (b) industrial and reform schools will still fall under the Department of Education, Arts and Science.

Mr. Speaker, the question may now well be asked why the education provided at art schools, schools for special education and industrial and reform schools are still included under the concept of “higher education” in spite of the termination of divided control. The reply is simple. As you know, industrial and reform schools are established in terms of the Children’s Act, Act No. 33 of 1960 to provide committed behavioural deviates with highly specialised education. Three government Departments are concerned in the process of admittance and treatment, namely the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions, the Children’s Courts of the Department of Justice and the Department of Education, Arts and Science. In the interests of these children it is absolutely essential that there should be the closest co-operation among the three bodies concerned. This close co-operation will be impossible if the schools were divided up amongst the four provinces. Such a step would therefore be detrimental to the children, and that cannot be allowed. There is only one art school and a few schools for the various categories of handicapped children, with the result that it would be uneconomic to transfer these schools to the provinces. In addition it would create all kinds of problems for the provinces if the schools were to be transferred to them because children from other provinces must also be admitted to these schools.

The rest of the Bill is merely a consolidation of the Vocational Education Act. Act No. 70 of 1955, and the Special Schools Act, Act No. 9 of 1948, in so far as it will relate to the branches of education which will remain under the care of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. One result which this will have is that the provinces will now have to make their own legislation for those categories of special education which will be their responsibility, and to do this they will have a period of approximately two years.

When I heard the hon. the Minister make his Second Reading speech, to which I think no one in this House will take any great exception, I thought back to the other two Bills we have had. I think it is an almighty pity that these three Bills were not published together some months ago so that the whole country, the education departments and the people interested in education could have seen what the general plan is. We now see what the general plan is after studying this Bill. We first had the Advanced Technical Education Bill, then the National Education Policy Bill and now finally we have this Bill which is called the Educational Services Bill. It is such a pity that they were not all available so that we could have seen the whole picture. The picture is now revealed and, of course, the hon. the Minister’s speech has assisted us. We naturally all agree with the hon. the Minister’s general observations about the importance of education in a modern state. Those are things which are accepted by all of us. This is a new deal in secondary education, especially vocational education. The hon. the Minister says that it will be introduced gradually. He cannot by a stroke of the pen change the system overnight. There has to be a gradual change-over, especially in regard to staff; that is one of the greatest difficulties; but altogether this is a step forward. Sir, I think the key to this Bill is the three schedules. When you start with the third schedule you see immediately what the importance and the effect of the Bill is. There are many Acts of the past which now have to be repealed because we have a new deal, and this new deal we have is shown very clearly in the other two schedules. The first schedule sets out the categories of children for whom the Minister will be chiefly responsible. The commercial subjects and the trades set out in Schedule II are to a great extent now being handed over to the provinces. If that is the case then there are only one or two things that I want to ask the hon. the Minister. In discussing the conditions of service of teachers, did he consult the teachers’ associations? How did the teachers’ associations feel about this handover? Are their positions in the service impaired in any way or are they satisfied with this change-over? This change-over from the Central Government to the Provincial Government could mean that the position of the teachers is not as safe and sound as it was before. That is my first question.

Secondly, I would like the hon. the Minister to explain something which is not quite clear to me from the terms of the Bill. Will the schools under Schedule I be controlled now by councils which will deal directly with the Minister? I understand Schedule II; that is quite simple. I see the definition of “vocational education” is still the same in this Bill as it has been since 1955. I have said frequently that all education is vocational education. When a doctor goes to a university we say, “He is a university man because he has spent several years there”. That is, narrowly, vocational education. It is vocational education at short range. When a man receives what we called in the old days a liberal education, we meant by a liberal education study chiefly of the humanities, that is what I would call educational at long range where he is preparing for life as a human being and as a citizen. In this case we have here, I should like to have clarity about this point of vocational education. I think the figure mentioned is eight hours a week. If they have more than eight hours a week devoted to these vocational subjects, then it becomes a vocational school. The ordinary school in a province teaches bookkeeping, shorthand and typing, etc., and it may not go beyond that figure. I do not know how we can overcome that difficulty. We discussed it in 1955 in detail. But we should not emphasize the fact that vocational education is different from any other education. We should rather get people to understand that a boy or girl who goes to a vocational school is not receiving an inferior education. It is just as sound as the other forms. I asked the hon. the Minister whether the conditions of service had been discussed with the teachers’ associations, especially the disciplinary regulations which are laid down here. If he has done that, and I am sure that the hon. the Minister will tell us in his reply, there is only one point remaining which I should like to discuss. We have dealt now with the technical colleges and the educational policy, and we now come to vocational and academic education up to Std. X. Does the Minister intend introducing legislation for nursery schools? Is it his intention to have a plan from the cradle to the grave? Is there a plan to do so? If so I should like to ask him whether the Bill can be published because I know that in Johannesburg we have nursery schools. The municipality of Johannesburg has done some valuable work in financing the work of the nursery schools. I should like the hon. the Minister to deal with that point in his reply. As far as the Bill is concerned I want to say that we accept the principle. As far as the principle is concerned, he has our wholehearted support.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the questions put by the hon. member for Kensington. In the first place, he asked whether the teachers’ associations were satisfied as far as the take-over of these schools by the provinces was concerned. Of course, they were rather taken aback right at the outset because they knew what they had but they were not so certain about what they were going to get. That was the first reaction, and it was, of course, a human one. After the legislation had been submitted to them they understood it fully and also saw unequivocally that all their present privileges, for example, in respect of salaries, conditions of service, leave rights, etc., were being guaranteed in this legislation. The hon. member for Kensington will remember that precisely the same thing happened with the take-over of the technical colleges when we introduced the Vocational Education Act. When the sections of the technical colleges and higher technical and higher trade schools were taken over at that time, the prevailing position and conditions of service of those teachers which we took over from the technical colleges, and who were private teachers, were maintained. We still have many of those old teachers who are to-day perhaps working under completely different conditions of service than those in the present Bill. When they receive better treatment with this new deal, they will accept it. However, they have now been reassured and they are satisfied.

Are they satisfied with that?

They are quite satisfied with that, The councils mentioned are the existing advisory councils at the technical high schools, the commercial high schools and the domestic science high schools. All that we are doing there is to let the existing advisory council continue to exist. In future they will continue to function just as they are functioning now.

Will the appointments remain the same in future?

Exactly the same. In regard to the question of vocational education the hon. member wanted more clarity in regard to the eight-hour maximum. That was the problem previously, and it will always remain a problem, which we want to prevent, and I think the hon. member for Kensington as an educationist will agree with what I have just touched upon in my reply, namely that if one has these types of schools, if we have the domestic science high school pupils, the technical high school pupils, the commercial high school pupils and the academic pupils all under one roof then it will for the most part be only the principal who will take the initiative, or a school committee or school council, or a parent committee, to ascertain what should receive most attention. Then one finds that one or another of these sections are neglected. That is why I said that higher technical education is the most expensive form of secondary education in that we must keep these schools separate. In the Vocational Education Act of 1955 one finds that they are not in any way integrated with the normal high schools, but are in fact integrated with the commercial subjects, such as shorthand, typewriting and bookkeeping for example. There was then the tendency in the normal high schools to take more and more of these subjects. If they got weaker pupils then they would simply have to take these subjects. However, commerce was very dissatisfied with the products which were being turned out. They said that they were neither one thing nor the other and that such a person was not a trained typist in the full sense of the word. They simply did not have that understanding of commerce which one finds in the higher commercial schools. With all these problems they then restricted it to two subjects, or eight hours per week. That was an agreement between the Central Government and the provinces in the Vocational Education Act of 1955. The hon. member will remember that I said in my reply: “At the request of Natal,” i.e. that more of these subjects must be given. I am quite willing to do so, because that remains the arrangement. They may not do more than that in the academic schools. If they want to give more then they must, as is now still the case under the old Vocational Education Act of 1955, ask the Minister’s permission.

Mr. Speaker, is the hon. the Minister and his staff familiar with the modern movement, especially in the British Isles, towards the comprehensive school? Provison is not made for that here. Will this matter be considered in the future?

I do not think that we should fall for that joke.

I personally do not have a great liking for the comprehensive school. That is what we have the advisory councils for, Suppose the National Advisory Council came to light with this matter. I could then refer it to them and say: “Give us a report on this matter, judged on an educational basis.” That is something for the future. I do not think we must worry about it. We have tried to maintain as far as possible the status quo as it is at the moment in this legislation. From this point we must see how it develops because if education remains static it will decline. It must always grow, and we do not know what the growth will be in ten or 15 years’ time. We shall merely leave it to our successors then, Kindergarten education has been allocated to the provinces. The provinces are now going to organize and undertake kindergarten school education. We therefore have nothing to do with them here.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

This is a short Bill, and before saying anything at all about it, I already want to recommend that it be passed. Hon. members I will recall that in terms of the University of Port Elizabeth Act, 1964, half the number of members of the senate had to be professors of the University of Stellenbosch and Rhodes University. As hon. members also know, the intention of that was, inter alia, to ensure right from the outset that the curricula and examinations would be of the same standard as those of our older universities. As hon. members will also recall we are organizing the Rand University on similar lines—in other words, half the number of members of the senate will be professors of the Universities of Pretoria and Potchefstroom until such time as that university is firmly established. As regards Port Elizabeth, as I have said, that was done to ensure right from the outset that the curricula and examinations would be of the same standard as those of our older universities. However, it was also the idea that as the university grew to maturity, it would suggest amending legislation which would enable it to rely less and less on outside aid. Three years ago, at the time of the establishment of the university, it was not possible to say with any degree of certainty exactly when and how that was to be effected. Therefore, I was not prepared at that stage to attempt anticipating future events in the provisions which this House considered at that time, but left it to the council of the university to ascertain in the course of time what developments necessitated adjustments and to suggest the necessary amendments subsequent to having done so.

For conducting examinations, an examiner from another university has been appointed in terms of the Act for the purposes of “any such examination or other test that serves as a final test of a student’s degree of competence in any subject or course leading to a degree, diploma or certificate”—once again to guarantee the standard right from the outset. In this form the relative section 17 contains a number of elements which makes its implementation, as I learn from the council of the university, difficult for the senate of the university. At the request of the council of the university I have therefore consented, after consultation with the rectors of the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes, to introduce legislation amending the University of Port Elizabeth Act (No. 1 of 1964) in this and certain other respects.

Clause 1 of the Amendment Bill now before this House empowers the council of the university, as in the case of the University of Cape Town, to issue guarantees, without a cash surety, in order to enable members of its staff to obtain 90 per cent building loans. In terms of clauses 2. 3 (c) and 4 of the Bill the provisions of the remaining section 7 of the Higher Education Amendment Act, 1946. which is to be repealed, are being incorporated in the University of Port Elizabeth Act in order to provide for the appointment of committees. In this regard I may mention that this amendment will be effected in respect of every university as a result of the fact that that other legal provision is to be repealed. Clause 3 (a) and (b) of the Bill provides that representatives of the University of Stellenbosch and of Rhodes University will only serve in the senate of the University of Port Elizabeth when curricula and courses are being considered at, say, one or two meetings per annum, provided that amendments or rather, curricula or courses, suggested between such meetings are forwarded to members of the senate in writing for approval or disapproval. If they are accepted by majority vote, they are deemed to be approved and if they are rejected by majority vote they are deemed to be disapproved, unless they are subsequently approved at a meeting of the senate of the university, at which meeting Stellenbosch and Rhodes are to be represented. Clause 5 of the Bill provides that the faculty of commerce and administration shall now become the faculty of economic sciences. This was reauested by the council of the university. economic sciences. This was requested by the council of the university. Clause 6 makes provision for a wider selection of examiners because in many cases the best examiner, according to the council of the university, is a person in private practice or possibly even a retired professor. Clause 7 deletes an obsolete provision.

I think that on both sides of the House we are very reluctant to criticize any legislation which is introduced to amend constitutions of universities. We, at any rate, are reluctant to do so, On this side of the House it is a fundamental principle which we have laid down that the autonomy of universities should be recognized—in other words, they should conduct their own affairs as far as possible. Our duty is to assist them. The amendment proposed in clause 3 of this Bill is, to my mind, a very necessary and important one. It provides that those persons appointed under subsection 1 (d) of section 10—

This is a step forward. Then there is also the appointment of sub-committees to which the hon. the Minister referred. I think every amending Bill he has so far introduced has made provision for that. Such a procedure makes for the smoother running of the affairs of a companv. A university, where we look upon it as being an autonomous body, is similar to a comoany—it is for instance a corporate body and as such capable in law of suing and being sued.

Under the circumstances we support the Second Reading of this Bill and wish the Council of this University every success with the progress they are making.

As a member of the council of the University of Port Elizabeth I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to give my support to the amendments proposed here by the Minister. It may be that some members of the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes, who have been serving on the Senate of the University of Port Elizabeth up to now, may regard the amendment contained in clause 3 of the Bill as a measure for pushing them aside. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to pay tribute to those members of the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes who served on the senate of the University of Port Elizabeth, for the way in which they contributed their share towards the development of this young university. Where it is possible for a council of a newly established university to function immediately upon being appointed, that is not so in the case of a senate of a university.

The first meeting of the senate of this University was held by the representatives of the council of the University only, because staff had to be appointed. The senators of the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes subsequently joined their ranks and in the beginning they virtually had to devote all their energies to the development of this young University. In that regard they made a tremendous contribution and had to make many sacrifices. Preparatory work had to be done, staff had to be appointed, and the foundations of the new University had to be laid. For that purpose they often had to journey to Port Elizabeth, something which had to be to the detriment of their own Universities because then their services were not available to their own Universities. For that reason I should like to pay tribute on this occasion to those people for the services rendered by them to this young University during the first years of its existence. One representative, a professor of Rhodes University, was almost entirely responsible for the design of the new University’s academic dress. That in itself was a major contribution. But in course of time the University of Port Elizabeth got its own staff and approximately 50 professors have already joined the staff of the University. In terms of the principal Act the number of professors nominated by the Minister from the other two Universities had to be no fewer than the number of professors of the University of Port Elizabeth itself. Consequently they have to attend meetings in equal numbers. We should naturally like to retain the services of those people because they are people who have a great deal of experience. In a growing university, however, it is necessary to hold frequent meetings, some of only a minor nature, with resolutions that are not so comprehensive. For that reason the amendments contained in this Bill have definitely become essential. Those senators of the Universities of Stellenbosch and Rhodes who will in future only be called to Port Elizabeth for certain work, may perhaps now feel that they are being pushed to the side and for that reason I should like to give them the assurance on behalf of the University of Port Elizabeth that we should very much like to make further use of their services even in a full-time capacity. It is felt however, that the University of Port Elizabeth is now able to undertake its own work to a larger extent.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Kensington said on behalf of this side of the House. We want to express our appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the amendments which he is effecting here. I must say that it is really astonishing that these amendments have to be effected at such an early stage in the existence of such a young university, namely that it was capable of constituting its own senate and that it need hardly make any further use of the assistance it received from the University of Stellenbosch and Rhodes University. I want to say that we in Port Elizabeth are proud of the fact that this University has made such rapid progress, particularly if one considers that more than 800 students will be enrolled this year. We want to extend our warmest congratulations to the University, wish it everything of the best for the future, and thank the Minister for the amendments proposed here by him on behalf of the University.

I just want to express my thanks to hon. members for the splendid support as well as for their clear insight into university developments. I am grateful for that. I think the University of Port Elizabeth has cut its teeth sooner than we thought it would.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

During the Second Reading Debate we listened with interest to the remarks made by the hon. the Minister about the object he is seeking to achieve with the amendment of the definition contained in this clause. The Minister referred to two aspects, which are mentioned in the Hansard report. he spoke about the problem of an inferior dwelling which is suitable for purposes of the present occupants thereof, and the market value of which may rapidly deteriorate should the area concerned be changed from one occupied by, say, Coloured people to one occupied by white people and should there be rapid development. The second point which he referred to was the question of a dwelling which deteriorated rapidly after the proclamation of a group area. The new definition of “basic value” does not, I suggest with respect, meet the situation where the market value of land plus building exceeds the market value of the land determined according to the Act and the building value according to the cost of construction. That may well occur, and I think that I indicated to the Minister during the Second Reading that that difficulty might well arise in a dwelling situated near public transport, near to the centre of the city. One might find that the owner of property of that sort might be adversely affected by the definition which is now included in the Bill. For that reason I placed on the Order Paper an amendment to clause 1 proposing that the basic value determined in this way for the land together with the construction costs of the buildings should not be less than the market value of the whole. That can frequently happen if the market value exceeds those two basic values. It is the converse of the position which the Minister proposes to deal with or which it is attempted to deal with, Accordingly I move—

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak in support of the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Green Point. It has been said of this clause that, whilst the hon. the Minister has now at last brought the term “market value” into this Bill and related values to it, he has nevertheless done so in a restrictive sense. I believe that what we want here is to make the use of this term more realistic so that it will redound to the benefit of the person concerned. I believe that the proposed amendment adequately does that because it says that, “together with the basic value of the land shall not be less than the market value of the land with buildings thereon as at the basic date”. If the valuators believe that it should be more I believe it to be a good thing—it is a good thing because a man would then get more for his property. I believe that that can safely be left in the hands of the valuators. But at least the value of the buildings and the land shall not be less than the market value at the time. The Minister in his White Paper explained that the two things were valued at different times. I quite honestly do not understand what he meant by that, This is what the White Paper says—

Then he goes on to explain it—

Now, surely, Sir, the valuation under the Act has to be on the basic date anyway.

It may be before the basic date.

Yes, but he does not have to put this in to make it clear. He refers to the value of the land immediately prior to the basic date, which is correct, but in the case of the joint property, that is valued at some other date. How can that be done under the Act? How can the other part of the property be valued as at some other date, because surely it has to be valued immediately prior to the basic date? If that is so, and according to the White Paper this is the Minister’s reason for doing it, then I quite frankly do not understand the Minister’s intention. If the Minister wants to achieve what he has stated under paragraph (b) in his White Paper on clause 1, all he has to do is to say that the value of the land and the buildings together immediately prior to the basic date shall not be less than the market value of these two combined. That is all that he has to say. This is what I think the hon. member for Green Point is trying to achieve. There is no other purpose to be served by this, The Minister is quite off-beam, if I may say so, with his explanation of the position. The valuator is not allowed to value at any date other than immediately prior to basic date, whether it be the buildings concerned or whether it be the land. The only circumstances under which he can value at another date is if the board condones alterations or additions which have been done illegally.

The basic values of properties is one of the contentious aspects of any litigation dealing with group areas legislation. It is the basic value which has caused a considerable amount of dissatisfaction and hardship and loss to those people affected by this legislation. The Minister, in his reply to the second reading, told the House that hon. members complained that the basic values are too low. I will quote the hon. the Minister, because I want to show him where he is wrong. I quote from Hansard No. 4, Col. 1445—

This is a completely fallacious argument and the Minister has strengthened our hands by these facts he has given us. It indicates that there is something radically wrong with basic values and that the racket to which I referred has cost this Government R6 million, because the people know that people have to sell their properties, and they have come with offers, ridiculously low purposely, because they are willing buyers but the others are unwilling sellers. It is the racket to which I have referred that has cost the Government R6 million and it means that the people affected have lost nearly R2 million on the basic valuation, because this R6 million only represents 80 per cent, and 20 per cent is lost by the poor people who had to sell their property. It is in order to prevent to a great extent, firstly, the continuation of this racket, and secondly to get the people who have to sell at a price more real in terms of the value of the property than the basic value suggests, that I want to move the following amendment—

This really means the market value, but I would like to ask the Minister that in dealing with properties which have to be sold by people, not because they want to but because they have to, to consider that advantage has been taken, and I want to stress the point that over R2 million, as I worked it out, has been lost. If you fix the basic value higher, it will not mean that the Government will have to oay more. I would suggest to the Minister that he go into this matter very seriously. I do not think the Government intentionally wants to cause hardship to these people. I realize that there must be some sort of basis upon which these properties have to be valued. But what I appeal for is a more realistic valuation of the property. I do not want to give examples. I dealt with many of these cases whilst I was still practising as an attorney and I want to say that it was a most unfortunate position. I have not been practising for some time, but the Minister will know whether I am right or wrong. I used to deal, on behalf of some of these people, with their properties on the basis of the basic valuation, given by sworn valuators, but when I appeared on appeal, who do you think the board of appeal was? They were the very valuators who valued the property. I do not know whether the position is still the same, but how could I possibly manage to persuade the person who valued the property that his valuation was wrong?

When was that?

Some years ago. I therefore ask the Minister to view this question of basic value from a humane point of view. We are trying to help people who have to leave their homes. I also want to tell the Minister that at least it is our duty as legislators to be able to put the man in no worse position than he was at the time he had to leave his home. We should not put the man in a worse position than he was at the time when his property was declared an affected property. After all, if a man occupies a home of R5,000, surely he must be in a position to go to the other area where he has to go to live and be able to buy another home worth R5,000. and he should have sufficient money to be able to do so, But this has never happened, to my knowledge, that a man who has had to sell his property is able to get another one of more or less the same value, because the money he receives for his first house is far below the real value. I hope the Minister will give consideration to my amendment.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Boland. I regret to say that I do not think that that amendment serves any purpose whatsoever, because what he wants to include, namely the price which a willing purchaser would be prepared to pay a willing seller, is the market value, and the Bill does make provision for the determination of the market value. Therefore I do not think that the amendment serves any purpose. The hon. member wanted to intimate that in general the basic value was determined at too low a figure. He mentioned the example of cases in which he appeared after appeals had been lodged against the basic values, on which occasions he appeared before the same people who had made the valuations.

I understand that that has been changed now.

The hon. member is completely wrong. He was referring to an entirely different stage of valuation than the stage of appeal. What happens is that the valuators are appointed to determine a provisional basic value whereupon they notify the owners and inform them: We intend attaching such a value to your property and if you have any objection to that or any arguments to advance as to why you think that such a valuation ought to be different, you have so much time to inform us. In other words, that happens during the first process of determining the value and if the owner is still not satisfied after the valuators have determined the basic value, such an owner may lodge an appeal which is referred to a revision court and the members of that court are not the same persons. In other words, as far as procedure is concerned, there is sufficient opportunity to object firstly to the provisional valuation and then, if such objection is not upheld, to appeal to other persons.

The hon. member said that the mere fact that R6 million was paid out in depreciation contributions was an indication that those people had lost R2 million. But that is not so, That is a result of the fact that the basic values in those very cases were determined to the advantage of the owners and that the valuators and the revision courts went out of their way to attach the highest possible value to those properties. The fact that a depreciation contribution is then paid, means that those properties cannot fetch on the open market that figure on which the basic value has been determined. The hon. member is shaking his head, but every owner has the right to sell his property on the open market and if he was able to obtain more than the basic value on the open market, he has up to now been able to retain one half of that appreciation. Now we want to change that so as to give him the full benefit of that appreciation. The fact that he receives less than the basic value is an indication that those properties cannot fetch their basic values on the open market.

That is a forced sale.

No, its is not, because no person is forced to sell immediately or within a certain period. He may perhaps be forced to move within a certain period but he need not sell his property. He may remain the owner until the day he dies. He may await his opportunity to sell. There is no urgency about selling. The hon. member’s argument that the sale is forced is quite wrong. The Department assists people who find themselves in this position to dispose of their properties as advantageously as possible.

But to come back to the amendment, it cannot achieve anything at all, because the clause as it reads at present provides that the basic value must be the market value. [Interjections.] The municipal valuation is usually lower than the market value. There may be exceptional cases where the municipal valuation of a property may be higher than its market value. I do not think there is any question of the municipal valuation having to be taken into account.

Order! May I just interrupt the hon. the Minister? I have to rule these amendments out of order, because the first part of the amendment which deals with “ ” municipal valuations introduces a new principle, and the second part has already been embodied in the Bill under “market value”.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, I think the hon. member will come to realize if he examines his own amendment very closely, that there is a risk that many persons may be adversely affected if his amendment were to be accepted, because he does not want the basic value to be determined on the day prior to the proclamation of the group area or on the basis of the value at that time; he wants it to be determined as on or after the date of proclamation. If one has a heterogeneous area in which Whites as well as non-Whites are living and the houses of the non-Whites are of an inferior quality, the value of those houses immediately drops to a figure lower than the face value of the houses when the area is declared a white area, because the houses may in actual fact be an encumbrance on the property. In other words, determining the basic value on or after proclamation may affect those people adversely, and it is for that very reason that we are effecting the amendment which we are effecting now, because as the clause read before it could happen that the valuator, in determining the basic value, took the market value of the land and the value of the building as it was on the date of valuation and that date usually was later than the basic date. The value of that building may then be less than it was prior to proclamation.

It is not the market value of the building but the estimated cost of erection.

The cost of erection must be taken into account but together the two may not exceed the market value of the property as a whole.

That is the trouble.

The hon. member for Green Point wants one to determine the market value of the land plus the market value of the building. The market value of the building, particularly in the case of non-Whites living in heterogeneous areas, is going to be less after proclamation, and that is the very thing we want to avoid here. The building can often be a limiting factor in the determination of the market value, and by means of this very amendment we want to give the owners the benefit of the building not being regarded as a limiting factor in the determination of the market value.

I think if the hon. member considered the matter carefully he will come to realize that his proposal will effect the very thing we are trying to avoid here. I think if the hon. member studied the proposed addition carefully, he will come to realize that this amendment will meet the position entirely. We say that the basic value may not exceed the market value and hon. members of the Opposition want us to provide that it will not be less than the market value. One could perhaps argue that point, but if one provides that it may not be less than the market value, one may be faced with the problem that people will neglect their properties altogether immediately after proclamation; it may create all sorts of problems and it is for the very reason to prevent that from happening that we prefer to phrase the clause in this way. I may tell hon. members that the Community Development Board and my Department feel after many years of experience that any possibility of doing anyone an injustice can be eliminated entirely by the amendment we are now proposing.

I appreciate the reply which the hon. the Minister has given me but I think we are arguing at cross purposes. The clause before us at the moment first of all says that the basic value of the land shall be the market value of that land immediately prior to the basic date. I should like the hon. the Minister to assume that we have two plots of the same size, one in District Six and one in Athlone. Obviously there will be a difference in the market value of the land. It is conceded that property in District Six is obviously more valuable than property in Athlone. Now we come to the second aspect of the basic valuation and that is that “any building which is an affected property means the estimated cost of erection thereof”. According to the definition as contained in this clause the value of a five-roomed building in District Six will be exactly the same as a five-roomed building in Athlone, if there has been the same depreciation. In other words, the difference in the value of the composite whole, that is to say, of the land and the building, in so far as District Six compared with Athlone is concerned, will merely be the difference in the land values, with no difference in the basic value of the buildings. Although the cost of erection of the two houses may be the same, their market value is affected by the location of those buildings. That is why paragraph (b) provides that the basic value of the building shall not in any case exceed the difference between the market value of the land immediately prior to the basic date and the market value which that land would have had immediately prior to the basic date if such building had not existed. I say that it should not be less than the market value of the whole. Under the clause as now drafted a property in Distrct Six will be valued at the value of the site and the cost of erection of the building only, and that cannot exceed the market value. I say that it should not be less than the market value in order to do justice to the person who is being moved out of an area such as District Six, which is near transport, which is in the middle of the City and which has a tremendous value for persons, particularly the poorer people, who want to live near their place of employment. I say with great respect that those people will not be covered by this clause as drafted at present. That is why I wish to have a minimum ceiling in the nature of the market value.

I want to take up a point raised by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister said that the basic value might be adversely affected if it were taken the day after the basic date. Sir, we are spending a little bit of time on this clause because we have seen this Act in operation and I think the hon. the Minister will accept the fact that generally speaking the basic values have resulted in quite a big profit in the case of many property transactions. There are cases where losses are shown but I think in each of those cases there is a special reason. Sir, let us make our position quite clear to the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister says that a disqualified person is not forced during his lifetime to sell; we accept that, but when once an area has been proclaimed for another group, the disqualified person has to get out some time or another. His object is to try to re-establish himself as soon as he can, The hon. the Minister says that a disqualified person is better off if the basic value is the value on the day before the basic date, but that does not always happen. You have examples of that here in Cape Town. I think Newlands, for example, is a fair example of the point I want to make. The basic value of Newlands’ properties which were previously occupied by Coloureds, was comparatively small on the day before the basic date because the houses were of no value; most of them had no bathrooms and no toilets or any of the facilities required by the White group that was going to move into the area, but when once a lot of these properties had become affected properties, they attained a value far in excess of the value that they had on the day before the basic date, and the proof of that is to-day’s value of some of those properties. Properties which were sold for something like R2,000 are to-day being sold at R8,000 or more. The reason for that is that the value appreciated after the basic date. I believe that there are other areas in Cape Town where the same thing has happened. What we are trying to do is to ensure that the disqualified person has a share of the appreciation in the market value of the property. This appreciation must obviously take place in any area where you have a mixed community and where the area is proclaimed for occupation by the more well-to-do community. I think Newlands is the perfect example. You have other areas like Claremont and many other suburbs of Cape Town where the same thing is bound to happen. If the disqualified person could be given a value not less than the market value after the basic date he would get far more for his property and he would be far better able to re-establish himself in another area. That is why we are trying to ensure that he will get not less than the market value of his property. We realize that the full benefit of the appreciation will not accrue to him; we accept that you cannot give him the full appreciation but we want to try to get as near to it as possible.

I think hon. members still do not fully understand the problems. In point of fact, they envisage problems which will in future no longer exist as a result of this amendment. The hon. member for Umlazi argued here that they were motivated by the desire to give an unqualified person who has to be resettled the full benefit of the appreciation of his property, even after proclamation. In terms of other amendments effected by other clauses he will get that for a period of five years. Therefore his position is entirely met for the period of five years after the basic date or after proclamation. In other words, if the basic value of a property is R2,000 and an appreciation takes place the affected person may get R10,000 for that property if that is the market value of the property when he wants to sell at any stage within five years. In such a case he retains the full benefit of the appreciation. Provision is being made for a period of five years so as to encourage the person to dispose of his property at some time or other and to re-settle himself. Hon. members will agree with me that this is a major concession which did not exist in the past. Hon. members of the Opposition now want us to provide that the valuation may not be less than the market value, but if we do so, hon. members must remember that an area is proclaimed on a certain date and that it is quite impossible in practice to have valuators there the very next day to make valuations. Practical experience has taught us that it takes from six months to one year before valuators can get there—at some places even a bit longer. What happens in the meantime is that the owner neglects his property altogether and virtually lets it go to ruin. If one still has to pay him not less than the basic value prior to that date, it means that we are actually placing a premium on the neglect of properties; that one simply allows owners to neglect their properties and to let those properties deteriorate. The result of that will be that the State will suffer losses. That is why we are inserting the provision that the valuation may not exceed the market value, i.e. to encourage those owners to maintain their buildings. If they do so, they have nothing to fear. If the market value increases over the period of five years they will receive the full benefit of that. After serious consideration I have therefore decided that it is in the interests of affected persons as well as the State to leave the clause unchanged.

For the sake of the record I should like to say that when the Minister says that people can keep their properties for five years, it should be remembered that it is only those people who are strong financially who can do so. Furthermore, has the hon. the Minister or his Department given consideration to deceased estates, particularly of Coloured people, where properties have to be sold in order for the estate to be closed off? If I may, I should like to give the hon. the Minister a little bit of advice. He should see that the racket that is going on is stopped and that the Government does not lose so much money. I want to give the hon. the Minister an example of what can happen in this respect. I had to do with an estate which had to be closed off. The property was sold by public auction. Well, people did turn up at that auction and formed a ring there. They realized that this property—which belonged to a Coloured widow—had to be sold. If I am not mistaken, the value of the property concerned was somewhere in the vicinity of R3,000 and yet the best offer that was made was for about R400—for a property valued at R3,000! So they sold it for a couple of hundred rand and then went to the Government and got 80 per cent of the difference. Who benefited from that? The Government lost, the widow concerned lost but the people who bought the property made a fortune. I think the time has arrived where the Government should ask every purchaser of an affected property when he resells to declare the price of resale and to give good reasons why there was such a big profit and to give some of those profits back to the poor people who had to sell.

Order! The hon. member is out of order now. He is going too far.

I am just replying to the hon. the Minister where he said that people could sell and I thought this should be put right …

Order! The hon. member should do so under the proper clauses.

This clause deals, amongst other things, with urban renewals schemes. It provides that in certain events or eventualities subdivision and other such things may take place in these areas if the written consent of the board is first had and obtained. I should like the hon. the Minister to give us an indication of what he is actually getting at here and how he is going to apply it. I want to refer to a classic example, namely Riverside in my own constituency. The hon. the Minister has cause to know a lot about this as I also raised it in this House last year. This scheme has been set out, but how long it is going to take before it can be put into operation is anybody’s guess. How long it is going to be before the hon. the Minister can get sewerage, inter alia, there is anyone’s guess. What I should like to ask the Minister is this:

What he obviously has in mind is certain property owners being allowed to buy back the property which they now own if that property can be fitted into the new urban renewal scheme. This is precisely what has happened in Riverside, as the hon. the Minister well knows. There are many people within my constituency who have been promised—or as near to being promised as one can come—that if their properties can be fitted into the scheme they will be allowed to buy it back. Of course, this is pure generosity and kindheartedness on the part of the persons concerned. It is appreciated, of course, that the Minister has to give his consent. However, there seems to be no plan yet of the Riverside area. In areas like this, areas which have been declared urban renewal scheme areas, such as Riverside for example, are the powers which the board is in future going to exercise (in other words, whether or not to allow subdivisions or alterations) to be exercised in conjunction with or in consultation with the other persons concerned? In the case of Riverside the adjoining area is the township Durban North. Consequently Durban North Estates are vitally affected because this is an area going up right next to it. So, if this board is going to exercise these powers of subdivision and alteration the owners of properties in Durban North are vitally affected by it. But let me say that they have never been consulted. I should like the hon. the Minister, therefore, to indicate (a) what he is getting at (b) whether he does not concede that this does affect any adjoining townships or landowners and (c) whether when these powers are exercised adjoining landowners will be consulted? I admit that Durban North is a special case—it is a township with a special constitution, a model constitution and everything else. But regardless of this I should like to know whether the board does consult with organizations of ratepayers, the municipalities or with whatever body there might be—for instance, a health committee or what have you—before the board exercises these powers. Would the hon. the Minister give us some indication of what the position will be with regard to these aspects?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must look closely at the amendment we are effecting here. It only makes one addition to the existing provisions. The existing provisions are that no new buildings may be erected and that no alterations may be effected to buildings within a slum clearance scheme or an urban renewal scheme without the approval of the Board. The only thing which is now being added is that no subdivisions may be made without the approval of the Board either. The only object we want to achieve with this, is that the Board, which is engaged in the re-planning scheme, should at least know what is happening in that area, and that people will not unnecessarily start with a subdivision in that area which may not at all fit in with the Board’s plans or scheme. It is merely to enable them to keep an eye on that and to bring it into line. It is merely an attempt to place matters on an equal footing.

Mr. Chairman, I appreciate what the hon. the Minister has said. It is only in relation to subdivision and I agree that, if one is in charge of the planning of one big urban renewal area, one has to know what is going on. But the second part of my question the hon. the Minister has not answered. That is that he must concede that, in doing so. the Bill obviously provides here for the situation where the board will approve of alterations or subdivisions within that area, which will affect the adjoining property. Will the hon. the Minister give this Committee some assurance that the board, in exercising its powers, in allowing a subdivision or whatever else it can do under this particular section, will consult with either the town council, the ratepayers’ association or whatever board it is that represents the adjoining land owners, before permission is given for or withheld from an application under the powers which the board has applied.

Mr. Chairman, before the hon. the Minister replies …

I just want to point out to the hon. members that they must not discuss administrative matters here. Those matters should be discussed under the Minister’s vote.

Yes, Sir. I shall not do that, but I would like a little clarification, because there is a little more to this than the hon. the Minister has put forward. In the previous clause we have just passed we have accepted a re-definition of the term “owner” which brings the board itself into the category of an owner. The board itself, I take it, can own property in the area defined.

That is not the meaning of the previous clause.

Oh! Well, that is all right. Then I accept that. But the board, of course, can own property in any case in an area that is going to be re-established or replanned. So the board obviously can give itself permission to subdivide. This was a danger we discussed in respect of the original Act. The hon. the Minister will remember that it was during the time of his predecessor. I want to raise this now, because it is important. I want the reassurance of this hon. Minister that in certain areas, such as those mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), it is not his intention to increase the density, because this is what he can do to a considerable degree in an area where people have bought and paid high prices for property on the understanding that the size of a stand shall not be reduced. There is a minimum size stand. Now, if the board itself under circumstances, perhaps having nothing whatsoever to do with clause 1, because of the exercising of its pre-emptive right in certain cases, for example the taking over or certain land for slum, clearance, which is dealt with in this paragraph, is going to give itself permission to subdivide, of course, the same effect will come about. We want to ensure that in good class suburbs that does not, in fact, happen.

Mr. Chairman, the fears of hon. members in this regard are entirely unfounded. It is obviously so that if a subdivision is allowed by the Community Development Board such a subdivision may affect persons on adjoining properties. But now hon. members must remember that the urban renewal scheme, or the slum clearance scheme, the resultant re-planning and along with that the subdivisions which fit into that scheme of replanning, are not drawn up by the Community Development Board. The Board is merely an instrument which negotiates with the local authority, the city council. The scheme is drawn up in consultation with the city council and subsequently goes to the townships board in Natal. It goes to the Township and Town Planning Commission. This is the body falling under the province. The scheme goes to them and they have to approve of the eventual planning and subdivision. Anybody who wishes to object to that may object to that body. If there are persons who object, and the Commission or the townships board nevertheless wants to proceed with their plans, an appeal may be made to the Administrator.

Is notice of every renewal scheme given to the public?

Yes, of course. It is advertised. Therefore I think hon. members have no reason whatsoever to be at all concerned about this matter.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 3:

Mr. Chairman, clause 3 provides three procedures to be followed in connection with defaults in respect of loans granted by the Community Development Board. The first procedure which is provided for under the section, is a short-circuiting or an avoiding of court proceedings by regaining possession of a property, without necessarily having obtained the judgment or an order of court. As the position stands, that is in conformity with a provision which already exists in the Housing Act. Although it may be criticized I do not wish to go any further than merely to mention the aspect of it. If one then proceeds to subsection (2), that provides that the board, having taken possession, can then, as the owner, arrange for the sale of the property by public auction or public tender without any further reference to the registered owner of that property. Under subsection (7), we see that when a property is sold under this procedure, the purchaser can be substituted as the mortgagor under the existing bond. The two procedures contained in subsections (2) and (7) run contrary to normal procedures of registration in the Deeds office. For that reason I have suggested in my amendment that the words should be inserted in both subsections in the appropriate place indicated, “notwithstanding the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937”. In other words, it is notwithstanding the provisions of the Deeds Registries Act, that this procedure is provided for in the Bill. Now we come to the final subsection, namely subsection (8). I want to make an urgent appeal to the Minister to accept the amendment which stands in my name, that is to say that this subsection (8) should be omitted from the Bill. It is clear that this subsection (8) will lead to another inroad into the Deeds Registries procedure as it exists in the Republic at the present time. If this happens that can well lead to a collapsing of a system which is, I think, without parallel in any part of the world. The hon. the Minister perhaps frivolously referred to avarice of the legal fraternity who would like to do the conveyancing but I think the matter is a little more serious than that. I think the hon. the Minister will appreciate that the position is a little more serious. If you have a system, the system should be adhered to, because when once there are exceptions, then there is the danger of that system collapsing completely.

As the hon. the Minister is well aware, the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has appointed a committee to go into the whole question of deeds registry procedure to see whether or not it can be shortened, and I am sure that that report will not be so delayed that this subsection could not in the interim be deleted from the Bill under discussion. I also wish to inform the Minister that the amendment which I move has the support of the Law Society of the Cape of Good Hope, and I am sure it will also have the support of other societies if they are consulted in regard to this particular matter. I do move the amendment in all seriousness, Sir. I do believe that there is a possible danger to our system of deed registries, and for that reason I would appeal to him to delete this clause 8 until the committee appointed by the Minister of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure has reported on the procedure. I accordingly move the amendment as printed in my name—

Mr. Chairman, before dealing with the amendments moved by the hon. member, I myself should like to move the following amendment—

This is a mere formality because there is no definition of “registrar” in this measure and therefore the full designation must be used.

As regards the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point, I want to point out to him that he is entirely wrong in saying that this is a new principle which is now being introduced into our procedure of registering deeds in this country. This procedure has been in existence since 1920. It was written into the Housing Act in 1920. Section 9 (4) of that Act reads as follows—

This regulation has been on our Statute Book since 1920, and since that time there has been general satisfaction in that regard. Apart from the fact that this does not introduce any new principle and apart from the fact that this does not encroach on existing practice, I want to point out to the hon. member the effect of his amendment in practice. In the first place there are not many cases of this type. Over the past three years under the Housing Act, under which many more cases are dealt with than will be dealt with under this legislation, there were only five cases in 1964, five cases in 1965, and only two cases in 1966. Therefore it is evident that very few cases fall under these categories—merely a small handful. Now the hon. member wants this work to be done in the usual way by attorneys, etc., by people who normally do conveyancing. If that were to be allowed, it would mean that the very people who fall under the sub-economic groups under the lower income groups of our population, will have to pay more for that service. That will be the position if the hon. member’s amendment is accepted and if it has the effect which the hon. member has in mind. However, the hon. member’s amendment will not even have that effect, because normally the State Attorney does the work of the State, in other words, the work will normally be done by a Government official in any event. Therefore the legal profession will really not gain anything by it. I really do not think that we, for the sake of prestige, should introduce these problems and the cumbersome procedure, because that is all this amendment means. Because this type of case has been dealt with satisfactorily since 1920, it is my opinion that we may continue to follow the same policy.

Mr. Chairman, the Minister has the wrong approach altogether. The objection from this side of the House is not to the fact that attorneys will not be doing the conveyancing and thus be losing money. The objection is based on the fact that the hon. the Minister is departing from our recognized system of registration of deeds. That is what our objection is. We know that the principle was adopted as long ago as 1920. That aspect has been dealt with before. What we are concerned about is that it is spreading more and more. During the last two years this Government has extended that principle and it is adopting this system of registration by means of endorsement more and more. When we on this side of the House, and also hon. members on that side, especially the Deputy Minister of Finance, objected last year, we were then told by the Deputy Minister who handled that Bill that it would only be done in cases where the Government bought up huge tracts of land which could never be transferred again because they would become useless for private occupation. He referred to the Orange River scheme. He told us that that was why that system was being adopted at that time, and he assured us that that principle would not be extended any further.

Order! I think that the hon. member is out of order. The hon. member is discussing the whole principle of who is going to register deeds and who is not going to register deeds.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has said that this principle has been accepted over the years.

This Bill has been read a second time. Thereby the principle has been accepted by this House.

That is not the main principle in the Bill.

No, but it is one of the principles. The hon. member may proceed, but I do not want …

Mr. Chairman, if you reason in that way, it means that we cannot propose any amendments or address you on anything because it means that any fact stated in the Bill is a principle which has been accepted.

Order! The hon. member may continue, but he himself said that it was a principle which was accepted and which was being applied more and more, something to which he objects.

No, Sir, the hon. the Minister …

Order! The hon. member used the word “principle”.

Yes, I did, Sir, because the Minister had talked about the principle of registration by endorsement which had been accepted since 1920. It is a different system of registration. I want also to point out to the Minister that we were given the assurance last year that this system of registration would not spread any further. When the matter was raised again, the Minister of Lands asked us not to discuss the matter any further because he was appointing a committee, to which the hon. member for Green Point has now referred. All we ask the Minister is that in view of the fact that the whole question of the system of registration is being investigated by the committee, we ask him to accept the proposal that this subsection be deleted in the meantime until that committee has reported. Again I wish to stress that it is not merely because attorneys will be losing revenue, because, as the Minister himself has pointed out, the Government Attorney does the registration. It is the system of registration against which we wish to protect.

Mr. Chairman, I must say that I am disappointed at the reaction of the Minister and his attempt to suggest that the Law Society of the Cape was looking at this as a revenue-producing source for the members of the society. The Minister himself indicated that there was a total of 11 cases under the Housing Act over a period of some three years—and I do not think any conveyancer will get very fat on that work, even were it to come to him. But the work is being done by the State Attorney. Our complaint is that we have a system which is well-nigh foolproof. Our system of deeds registry in this country is, I suggest, equal to any similar system in any other country in the world. As the hon. member for South Coast said, it has stood the test of time. The fact that in the Housing Act it was thought desirable to short-circuit, for a few cases, the system, does not make it good law to do so now. The hon. the Minister has not offered one single reason as to why subclause (8) should be here, other than that some draughtsman thought fit to put it in. There is no principle involved in subclause (8). It is a procedural matter on which we are legislating. I appeal to the Minister not to treat in the way he has the suggestion that it should be deleted, and that he should take cognizance of the fact that the legal profession and the country generally is jealous of its deeds registry and does not want to see something done which can break it down.

Hon. members opposite should not get so excited about this matter. Let us consider this in a matter-of-fact way. They speak of a departure from an existing principle as regards the registration of deeds, but as far back as 1920 we already accepted the principle that when registrations of this nature have to be made, namely where the State provides housing, such registrations may be effected by way of an entry by the Registrar of Deeds. The only thing which is happening now, seeing that it has been decided that housing may be financed not only from the National Housing Fund but also from the Development Fund, is that the existing principle is being made applicable to another fund which is controlled by the same Department. Otherwise the same Department, seeing that it finances housing from two different funds, must use one method in one case and another method in the other case, and this can only lead to confusion. This really does not involve a new principle. It is merely as a result of the new provision in terms of which we now also provide housing for the lower income groups from the Development Fund, that we want to apply the same principle which has been laid down in respect of the Housing Fund. I repeat that this it not a new principle. In respect of housing, it is merely the application of one and the same principle by one and the same Department where it utilizes two funds for one and the same purpose.

Amendments proposed by Mr. L. G. Murray put and negatived, and amendment proposed by the Minister of Community Development put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 4:

I would like the Minister to explain what he hopes to achieve through this clause. It obviously refers to Asiatic land. He is removing the Transvaal Ordinance from the provisions of this clause and adding in certain other provisions under the Transvaal Asiatic Land Tenure Amendment Act. What is the object of it?

The original provisions which are now being deleted here do make provision for a complete list of all the Indian properties in all the various Transvaal cities and towns, while the new provision which we are now inserting here will make provision for a complete list of all the properties. Consequently this will only serve to eliminate confusion and a large quantity of additional work as well. It only makes provision for a more complete and better list to work with.

Can the Minister tell me whether the word “repair” has been deliberately left out, so that a man can repair his property but cannot alter or extend it? I ask this because of a case I had recently, where a man’s affected property was destroyed by vandals. He then put it into what he thought was good repair, as any landlord would do, and when it came to the question of valuing the property he was told that he had to get the Department’s consent before he could repair the property. Does it now mean that this man will not be prejudiced because the word “repair” is left out? Is it the Minister’s intention that in those cases the man shall have the right to do it without reference to the board?

I am not in favour of this clause because it removes subsection (4) and I think for your information, Sir, I should read it so that it will be clear exactly what this clause does. Section 32 (4) of the Act says that if the building referred to in subsections (1) or (2) has been erected, altered or extended, or improvements referred to in subsection (3) have been made without the approval of the board, the board may in its discretion direct that the basic value of the building or of the land in question, as the case may be, may be determined or redetermined, as the case may be, and recorded on the list as the basic value of that building or that land. In other words, as the Act is at the moment, if a man puts up any additions or alters the property or does anything that he really should not do, then the board has a discretion, if they are satisfied with his explanation, to have the property revalued, and the increased value added to the basic value. By the removal of subsection (4), this discretion is taken away from the board and the board can no longer use its discretion in having the basic valuation altered in deserving cases. This clause goes even further. It now makes it an offence to make these alterations without the written approval of the board. I do not know what explanation the Minister is going to give us for making this clause as harsh as it is now. He has now taken away the discretion of the board, so that the board cannot even meet hard—luck cases where they have not in fact applied for permission beforehand. It also imposes a penalty of R 1,000 or two years or both. This, of course, is retrospective as from the 1st February. I think this is something for which the hon. the Minister will have to give us quite a good explanation before we are prepared to accept it.

I just want to say that the hon. member is not correct in saying that this clause will come into operation with retrospective effect from 1st February; this clause is not retrospective, but what is correct, however, is that if the owner of an affected property effects an improvement on the property or erects some other construction on it without the permission of the board, then the discretion of the board is taken away as far as the adjustment of the basic value of the property is concerned. But the hon. member must remember that a prohibition is being placed here on any alteration or extension of or addition to any building as it was at the time of the proclamation. This prohibition is necessary in order to combat the abuses which have begun to occur under the system. Cases occur—and quite a number of cases have occurred since I have taken over this portfolio—where the owners of affected properties deliberately and knowingly effected fairly large alterations and then came to the board pleading for an adjustment of the basic values. We are now prohibiting that; it cannot be done without the permission of the board, and in addition to that we are making provision for a penalty clause. If one does that, one cannot in addition leave a discretion to the board of adjusting the basic value where a person has committed an offence. The hon. member must realize that our problem is not the small man who effects a minor alteration; the problem arises where persons effect major alterations and erect large new constructions. That is what we want to prevent, but hardship cases may occur, as mentioned by the hon. member. Should such cases occur, the Act makes provision elsewhere for an ex gratia payment to be made to such a person. Ex gratia payments may be made. In such difficult cases where a person has effected a small alteration and has satisfied the board that he did it unknowingly, we make use of the right which we have under the Act to make an ex gratia payment to him in order to compensate him for the alterations effected by him. But one cannot close a loophole and keep it open at the same time. As far as the hon. member for Boland is concerned, I just want to tell him that ordinary maintenance or repairs will not fall under this provision, but if a person effects a constructional alteration while making repairs, it will fall under this.

There is one aspect of the hon. the Minister’s explanation about which I am not very happy. The Board used to have the discretionary power to allow this to be added to the basic value or not. That discretionary power vested in the Board in terms of subsection (4). The hon. the Minister says that it is the big people who are giving him trouble in this regard. Let us assume that a big company added buildings to the value of R 10.000. If the Board refuse to allow this to be added to the basic value, the basic value would remain the same. If they sold this land and the building and recovered the whole of the additional R 10,000, they would have to pay the Board half of the appreciation, that is to say R5,000.

But they now have five years.

Yes, I accept all that. As the law stands at the moment, however, they would have to pay the Board half of the appreciated value of R 10.000, i.e. R5.000. so the penalty would be R5.000. I accept that the introduction of the five year period of grace might have some affect, but I am not so sure whether that justifies this change, and I would like the hon. the Minister to tell me what difference he believes it is going to make to the income of the Board in the case of companies. What are people going to gain by doing it? I do not think that they are going to gain much at all.

Surely it does not really matter. Take a big company such as the hon. the Minister has in mind, a big company that is in fact trying to make money out of it.

It also applies to big individuals.

Yes, or individuals who own a number of properties. Surely it does not affect the Board. Under the present provision the Board can come to an agreement with the person concerned, whether he is big or small, as to the basic value.

They can also do it under (1), (2), (3) and (5) of the existing Act but they must come to an agreement beforehand. That is the only difference.

That is quite right, but then subsection (4) of section 22, which is here being deleted, provides for the situation where in fact the alterations have been made without the Board’s consent, and having regard to the hard—luck circumstances under which this happens, they can have the property re—valued. Why exlude that? Why not give the Board full power to negotiate an agreement with a big man or a small man, whether the improvements were made before or after? Sir, is this not really the only way in which you really satisfy anybody in terms of a provision such as this where property is virtually expropriated, where the ownership is taken away? If you can reach agreement then surely the affected person would be so much happier than he would be if the value of the property is determined according to some formula and the man does not get the price that he thinks he should get. Surely he would be much happier if you could go and talk to him and agree on the price. I hope that the hon. the Minister will reconsider whether this is really necessary and whether the same end cannot be achieved, whether agreement is reached or not, as would be achieved under subsection (4) of section 22.

What hon. members apparently fail to understand, is that in terms of the Act as it reads at present, any affected person has to obtain the approval of the board to effect alterations. The Board can grant such approval and, if it does so, it has to adjust the basic value so as to make provision for those alterations. That is the position in the existing Act. All that subsection (4) really signified, was that if an affected person effected alterations without the approval of the board, such board could subsequently adjust the basic value or could refuse to do so. It may even refuse to adjust it. Unfortunately cases have occurred where affected persons knew that they would have to be resettled sooner or later and that removals would have to take place, and in spite of that they still effected alterations to their properties without the approval of the board. Then they plead hardship when a removal notice is served upon them. They plead hardship because hardship is the circumstance under which they may obtain a permit to remain where they are. They plead hardship because they supposedly did not know and consequently effected alterations which entailed greater losses to them. It is for that reason that we would rather incorporate this provision here in order that it may fit in with the whole trend so that it places these people under the obligation to obtain prior approval if they wish to effect alterations. Then they know that they may eventaully be compensated for them, and then they cannot subsequently cry over hardships and over expenses and submit other snags to the board. This provision is very necessary for the implementation of the Act. As I have been saying, if cases occur where there really is a case of hardship, where there really is a case where a person did not know about that, such people can be helped. But there is no reason for them not to know in future, because in all places where properties are affected, the owners are notified at the time of the valuation of such properties, and on that occasion they are told: “Look, you may not effect alterations here.” They know all these things. However, should there be a case where bona fide hardship was suffered, it can be rectified by way of an ex gratia payment. Hon. members must take my word for it that real abuses did occur under this clause as it read before. We must try to rectify that. I do not want to menttion examples in the House—hon. members will understand that.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to make one point. The hon. the Minister indicated to me when I was speaking that the fact that there is now a five—year free period, is going to make a difference. I do not believe that it is going to make any difference at all because if there is no difference payable to the board during that five—year period does it in fact matter to the board at all? If a man builds alterations and additions, he will have to have the approval of the local authority or the persons who control building in the area. Does it matter if he builds alterations and additions and sells the property for another R10,000 or not in the five—year free period? Of course it does not make any difference at all to the board or the Minister.

He might make an alteration to the building which would be entirely unsuitable for the race which must occupy that building.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has control of that in terms of other measures. If it is a slums clearance, he has control in terms of the Slums Clearance Act. The hon. the Minister is trying to make out that you can just erect a building anywhere without the permission of anybody. Of course that is not in fact true because if you erect a building in the area of a local authority, you must have the approval of the local authority. If a building is erected in the areas such as the hon. the Minister envisages here, you must have the approval of the hon. the Minister through his housing section, his slum section or his community development section so that the building cannot go up without the approval of somebody. That is obvious. I cannot erect a workshop on my property without the prior approval of the local authority. The chances of erecting a building therefore without approval are so slender that it is almost unbelievable. But let me return to this figure of R 10,000. If you put up a building for R 10,000 and it is sold during the first five years, the free years, it does not matter one iota to the hon. the Minister or the Department of Community Development whether that man gets his R 10,000 back or not because he is not going to pay anything anyway. It does not even matter if there is no basic value on the property for the first five years. It does not alter the position at all but when it does come into the picture is after the free period of five years when he has to pay an appreciation contribution. Here, in terms of the Act as it stands, the Minister has the final say because the board can allow a revaluation or refuse it in its discretion under subsection (4) which the hon. the Minister is omitting. This is my point. He has the discretion to allow that additional valuation to be included in the basic value or not. What happens if he allows it? If he allows it, it means that he adds a fair amount of the cost of erecting the building less depreciation to the basic value. That is final.

But he can get all that provided he approached the board beforehand. That is the present position.

No, does it matter in legislation of this kind? It is the board which is given a discretion; it is not giving the discretion to the affected or disqualified person. He does not get the discretion; the hon. the Minister’s own board is getting the discretion. If this person does it in a manner of which the Minister of his department does not approve, obviously they do not condone the action. I am trying to work out why the hon. the Minister wants this alteration. I can see no reason for it. Let us assume that the board does not allow the extra amount to be included in the basic value. What happens then? It means that when it is resold, when the disqualified person disposes of the property, whether the board uses its pre-emptive right, or whether it is sold to a private individual, whatever extra amount he obtains because of that illegal building which has been erected on that property, the bulk of the extra price returns to the board, namely at least 50 per cent of it. The Minister therefore has complete control as the Act stands now. Why does he all of a sudden want to disturb that position, a position which favours him and over which he has complete control? Now he wants to disturb that and bring a penalty of R 1,000 or two years’ imprisonment into this Bill. I cannot see his reason for wanting to do this when he has, as I think I have proved quite conclusively to this House, complete control over the valuation of that property.

Mr. Chairman, whilst we are discussing this particular matter I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister the position, of which he is probably aware, in Cape Town particularly where the affected Coloured persons in certain areas of the city, for instance Newlands, are not getting the real benefit of the resale value of their properties. What is happening is that these affected persons are selling out at the amount they can get, and selling the properties as they are. Then the next owner effects repairs and alterations and sells the property at a very high profit. I wonder whether that procedure which adversely affects the Coloured people, either through ignorance or lack of finance, cannot be looked into in terms of the proposals of this particular provision. I should like to know whether this clause will cover for instance the Coloured Development Corporation in assisting to undertake what is necessary in the way of improvements and renovations and whether the board will give permission for these Coloured people to do that.

If it is possible it can be done in terms of subsections (1), (2) and (3) of the clause as it stands simply by getting permission from the board. The only thing is that I do not want them to do anything without the permission of the board.

I think that the hon. the Minister will agree with me that it seems that some of these affected persons are really losing out on their properties which are doubling in value with a very small amount being spent by the next owner. I hope that the Minister will deal with the matter by allowing these repairs and renovations to be done beforehand.

We will be only too glad but they must first approach the board.

Mr. Chairman, I want to plead for the retention of the clause as it reads at present. In the first place, I want to agree with the Opposition where they are holding a brief for the occupiers and the owners of these properties. It is a fact, and it was mentioned in passing by one of the hon. members, that at times there is confusion among owners as to what they may do exactly. For reasons of health the local authority may order them to effect improvements. They effect those improvements, and once they have done so, they find that it is in conflict with another Act. Such things are being done in terms of health laws. It was evident that clarity had to be obtained in this respect. I am glad that we are now obtaining such clarity. The owner will not only know this, but will also have protection in that he will know that he cannot be forced by a local authority to effect improvements which will have to be effected illegally. This clause affords an owner protection against illegal action being taken by himself.

In the second place, I want to bring this to the notice of the Opposition, and I also want to ask them to consider this, namely, that there are people in other population groups as well who know how to find loopholes in an Act. Unfortunately it is the bigger owners in particular who find those loopholes very easily. We have a process according to which we determine the value of properties. I can say that, because if I do not know about the circumstances in the Cape, I do at any rate know what is happening in the Transvaal. People are told that they will be moved from a particular area. On hearing this, those owners, or the big owners, as they were called a moment ago, usually take themselves off and, according to receipts, they cause building extensions to be effected at very great expense. When the time arrives for the payment of compensation, there is a long list of receipts showing what improvements have already been effected and what such a building costs at present. There is also a second method according to which one may plead that one should get a high valuation for one’s property. I mentioned it during the Second Reading debate the other day. It happened in the Transvaal. I believe that it has also happened in other provinces. Some of the bigger owners wanted to have their valuations based on the net proceeds they derived from rentals. It is easy to add a room to a building without the permission of the board and to accommodate as many people as possible in that building on a temporary basis or for that five-year period, at any rate. When arbitration takes place, they can put forward a sound argument by saying: “I have been receiving so much from this building in the form of rentals.” If we take all human considerations into account, I want to ask that it should at least be admitted that these things do happen. It happened in the Transvaal that cases of this kind occurred in connection with the determination of valuations. I want to make a serious plea for retaining this clause as it reads at present for the purpose of affording protection to honest individuals and also to the interests of the State.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper as follows—

The reason for this amendment is to try to restore to this Minister the discretion which he is taking away from himself. I do not know whether he does not trust himself any longer. Let me read the existing provision which he intends to amend. At the moment it says—

That has to do with valuations—

In other words, this Minister in his wisdom, or in his predecessor’s wisdom, had a discretion, where he could give an extension in cases which he thought were good, sincere and honest cases, to have a further period in which to appeal. Now he is taking away his own discretion, saying that he cannot extend it for more than another 21 days. In other words, the Minister does not allow himself to give more than 21 days. Obviously, and I think the hon. the Minister must agree, there have been cases that have arisen in the past under the existing provisions where he has felt justified, or his predecessor has felt justified to give more than 21 days’ extension under certain circumstances. I accept that they might be rare; they do not crop up every day. I am prepared to admit that, but is it not better that when such a deserving case does crop up, the hon. the Minister has the right to give an extension after the further 21 days’ extension or whatever period he decides to grant, than that the hon. the Minister should not have the legal right to give that further extension? To me it is foolish. It just indicates a hardening of approach for the sake of hardening, and not because there are any special demands. Surely the hon. the Minister has the ability to say “no”, if he believes that they should not have a further extension, or is he so weak that his Department must say “No, we are not going to allow you to extend this for more than 21 days”. Can the Minister not make up his mind? I should like to remove this restriction altogether. I should like to restore it to its present position, but, under the circumstances, seeing that the Minister wants to place a limit on it for some reason that I do not understand, I am moving that, instead of having a limit of 21 days for which the Minister can give an extension, that period should be extended to 90 days. As I have said, I would rather that the hon. the Minister moved an amendment restoring the status quo.

We have just had 90 days suspended.

Well, make it 180 days.

Mr. Chairman, I am not married to this period of 21 days. All I want to secure is the principle that there should be a time limit in order that finality may be reached some time or other. If people are able to lodge objections and appeals for an unrestricted period, until such time as I have considered whether or not to condone the late objection, all the transactions in respect of which revision courts have been appointed will be static because they will first have to wait for them. The sole reason why I am doing this is not to protect myself, but to protect the other owners in that area in order that they may achieve finality as soon as possible. Those are the people I am thinking of. I am not married to 21 days. Personally I think it is long enough if a man has to lodge his objection within 21 days, but then receives a further 21 days’ grace. I do not know why the hon. member wants to allow him 90 days. In order to meet the hon. member for Houghton, let us make it 60 days, so that we may get away from 90 or 180 days. If the hon. member is satisfied with that, I am prepared to make it 60 days. That is fair and that is more or less how long it takes us to have the revision courts appointed, etc. I therefore want to move—

Under the circumstances I wish, with the permission of the Committee, to withdraw my amendment.

Amendment proposed by Mr. H. Lewis, withdrawn.

I am sorry to interfere with this love affair that is going on here, but I am not happy about the 60 days. The Minister must realize that we are trying to be constructive, that we are trying to help the people affected by this legislation, and that our experience is much longer than that of the Minister. Therefore, Sir, he should take some notice of what we have learned during our years of experience. The Minister is being very helpful, but he must understand that there are times when even these periods are, through force of circumstances, not sufficient. I know of people who have been ill, people who have been in hospital, people who are away, and they do not get their notices in time to comply with the period laid down by the Minister. I d-ew up an amendment but unfortunately I tore it up. Nevertheless, I wish to move …

Order! The hon. member seems to be pleading for something more than 90 days, but when the period of 90 days was put to the Committee and the Committee agreed to its withdrawal, the hon. member did not object. It has already been withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, that does not detract from the hon. member’s argument. If one can get 60 instead of 21 days, or if the hon. member does not want any period at all, surely he is entitled to say so?

Then the hon. member should have objected to the withdrawal of the hon. member’s amendment. The hon. member may continue, but he must not make a debate out of nothing.

Mr. Chairman, with due respect, I am not making a debate out of nothing. I am pleading for those people who cannot comply with this period of 60 days because of circumstances. I want the hon. the Minister to have power to extend that time on good cause shown, with no limit. If a person says to him that he was in hospital, he was ill, he was overseas or somewhere else, that he did not receive his notice and has not been able to comply, surely he should not be prejudiced because the law says that he should act within a certain period. I want the Minister to have power to extend the period. I therefore move the following amendment to the amendment proposed by the Minister of Community Development—

That will give the Minister his sixty days, but if a deserving case comes forward the Minister should still have a discretion. If we do not have something of that nature, people will be completely estopped. It does not matter if there is no appeal. The Minister will say that that is the law. The Minister—I am not trying to flatter him—has indicated that he has some sympathy for people who find themselves in this position. I therefore make a strong appeal to the Minister to accept my amendment. I hope that the Minister will in good spirit accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell hon. members that they need not be concerned about this matter in the least. The important aspect in this regard is that we should not only look after one isolated case, but that we should also look after the interests of the other people. That hon. member wants to protect the one man who may by chance fail to submit his application in time, but the other people whose properties are prejudiced as a result of that the hon. member throws to the wolves. They may be left in uncertainty for months and months.

No, you are quite wrong.

Let me put it this way, Sir. As the hon. member’s amendment reads at present, it may mean that a person applies within the first 60 days, that I reject his application and that he may then come along with a new application. That is what the amendment means.

No.

Under the existing Act that was the case. I even had a few cases. One person applied three times for condonement of a late application, three times successively, after each application had been rejected. Eventually he came to me with the excuse that he had by chance left on holiday two days after he received the notice, and had therefore not had time to give attention to the matter. Nothing prevents people from offering excuses of that kind, trivial excuses. Virtually all the late cases are of that kind. But as a result the matter is delayed ever so long. I cannot do anything else—there must be a specific period in order that finality may be reached. I am really not prepared to extend the period of 60 days.

Mr. Chairman, I feel that the hon. the Minister completely misunderstood me.

That is the meaning of your amendment.

No, my meaning is that the man will have to act within 60 days. The man who has not acted within the 60 days and who comes after the expiry of the 60 days must prove to the Minister that his failure to lodge his objection was due to certain circumstances.

You are wrong. He must come within 21 days, and if he fails he must within 60 days prove to me that he had good reason for not having lodged his complaint within 21 days. If it is extended further, the whole purpose of the Bill is defeated.

If the Minister thinks that the period of 60 days will cover the point that I have made then I will not press my amendment. Nevertheless, I still think that cases might arise where the period of 60 days will not be sufficient. But, Sir, I leave it at that because I think the Minister may come to their assistance anyway. With permission. Sir, I withdraw my amendment.

Amendment to amendment withdrawn.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder if the Minister would dilate on the reason he gave to the hon. member for Umlazi and the hon. member for Boland, namely that he needed to restrict the period within which objections to the provisional valuation could be lodged because he wanted to protect—“beskerm”—the other owners in the affected area. I do not understand how the hon. the Minister is going to protect other people. If someone receives a notice he knows

39—A.H. Vol. 1.

he should object within a certain period. He also knows that the Minister has a discretion to allow him to object thereafter if he can give good reasons why. Each individual property in the affected area fails to have a basic value allotted to it. Some people object in good time, whilst other people, for various reasons, cannot. One assumes that each property is assessed on its merit. The officials do not say that in a whole block each property is worth a certain sum. Each separate property is a different proposition. So each single property has to be determined separately. How does the Minister protect the other owners in that area if he restricts the right of some people who, because of circumstances beyond their control, or for whatever reasons they may have, object later than the other people? The test is the same. The value has to be determined at a certain date, individually, in respect of each property. Perhaps the Minister will indicate to this Committee just how it is that he is actually protecting the other property-owners. I am afraid that I do not quite understand that.

Mr. Chairman, surely the matter is quite clear, if only the hon. member were acquainted with the procedure followed. If objections to the basic valuations are lodged within the period of 21 days, the revision court is appointed and then has to arrange sessions. At its sessions this court must take into consideration how many of the owners were satisfied with the basic valuations and how many were dissatisfied. The court must know that. It goes without saying that the judgment of the court is influenced by the percentage people in an area who indicate that they are dissatisfied.

Why do they have to know how many people are dissatisfied?

Why must the court determine how many people are dissatisfied if it applies its mind only to the one valuation?

The reason is obvious. It may be that the valuation of a single property was incorrect and has to be carried out again. It may also be that purely because the majority of the owners in an area lodge objections, the court may come to the conclusion that the valuators had initially placed a totally wrong value on the entire area. It is therefore important to know how many people object. It is therefore important that before the court commences its sessions it should know how many object, in order to have the full picture before it. Surely it is clear that it is in the interests of those people to know to what extent the standards applied by the valuators caused general satisfaction or otherwise. Surely that is also important. Of course valuation is always a subjective matter. It is a person who has to judge, and no two persons always correspond fully in their judgments. There are always differences of opinion in that respect. Therefore, Sir, the more comprehensive the picture obtained of people’s ideas on values, the better.

Mr. Chairman, I really cannot follow the Minister’s reasoning. The position according to the Act, which the Minister took great pains to explain to us earlier this afternoon, is that valuators are appointed and they determine provisional basic values to which an objection can be lodged. This must be lodged by a dissatisfied owner who feels that that provisional basic value does not conform to the Act. Then the 21 days aspect comes up again. If that preliminary objection is over-ruled then he must note an appeal within 21 days. It certainly startles me to hear this afternoon that an independent reviewing court, which is established in terms of the Act, is influenced in any way at all by the number of objections that come in. Where in this Act is there any mention that the court should take into consideration, or that the valuators appointed by the department should take into consideration, the number of objections? Does it mean that there is so much of a hit-and-miss element present when the provisional basic values are determined that they wait for the reaction? Do they wait to see whether it is a “raakskoot” or whether they have gone wide? Do they wait to see whether people are satisfied or not? I think it is a most extraordinary thing if the hon. the Minister really feels that this 21-day limitation or a 60-day limitation is there so that a general feeling of the public reaction can be obtained. That, Sir, that is not the basis of valuation in terms of this Act, as we are amending it, nor does the provision of 21 days refer to any such reaction.

Mr. Chairman, this clause, as we have already indicated to the hon. the Minister, is an improvement in that it gives certain opportunities to an owner of an affected property to sell within a limited period of time, that is within five years, without having to be penalized as regards a contribution for any excess which he might obtain compared to the basic value. During the Second Reading Debate I did suggest to the Minister that there were two prerequisites for this clause to be effective. The one was that there would be no change in the zoning of the erven of an affected township by the board or under the Act, and the second was that the Community Development Board would not use its pre-emptive right to the detriment of purchases and sales under this Act. The Minister took it upon himself to read me a little homily on what I had raised. He made two statements. He said that I had said that the board rezoned an area. What I said, had the Minister listened to my speech when I spoke, was …

Order! The hon. member is now referring to the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. Chairman, I am dealing with the period for sale, and submit that if there is or may be a rezoning, this clause, as it now reads, may need amendment. I indicated to the Minister that I would deal with these matters during the Committee Stage. I told him that I, and the whole country, should like to have an assurance from him. I did not say that rezoning had been done—I am aware of the provisions of the Act. If the Minister will give that assurance, the proposed amendment here will fall away because then it is not necessary.

Then I come to the second point, and that is in regard to the exercise of a pre-emptive right which the Community Development Board has, and which, if exercised, will adversely affect what should be a benefit according to the White Paper for the owner of the affected property. The Minister there suggested that this normal sale on the market over the five-year period would only be interfered with where the property is going to be sold for less than the basic value. The property will then be bought for that amount and the depreciation contribution paid to the seller. In other words, the board protects the State against having to pay a depreciation figure to the seller of the property. The Minister said that I had made incorrect statements. I want to say to the Minister that if this pre-emptive right is going to be exercised in the way in which I said it was exercised and which the Minister said was an incorrect statement, then it negatives the whole value of this particular clause. This clause will have to be amended so as to exclude sales, within the five-year period, from the provisions of section 30 of the Act, i.e. that the pre-emptive right should be abandoned or should not apply.

The incorrect statement which, according to the Minister, I made, was based on a case which I quoted to him. I now have the title deeds and documents here. In this case the price by the owner to a coloured person had been fixed between them by agreement at R7,000. No basic value had been fixed.

I never said that that was an incorrect statement. I was referring to the other argument you used.

Mr. Chairman, I accept that the Minister meant that something else I said was incorrect. If he tells me what it is, I will give him the correct facts. But this case does not accord to the policy statement which the Minister gave to the House. The board then exercised the pre-emptive right and it purchased for R7,000. Afterwards the valuators fixed the basic value at R6,900. The result was that the seller to the board made himself an appreciation of R100 and he had to split it 50-50 with the board. The board took R50 and the seller kept R50. And then what did the board do? Having purchased at R7,000 it then offered the property for sale by advertisement in the papers by tender, the property which it had valued at R6,900 and which it had purchased for R7,000 under a pre-emptive right, at an upset price of R7,500. Eventually, according to the transfer documents which I have here, the property was sold by the board to a coloured owner for R8,000. The result was not what the Minister indicated the effect of this clause would be and which was the policy of his department. The result was that the coloured man paid R 1,000 more for the property, the owner received what he was prepared originally to sell for, less R50, whilst the State made a nett profit of something like R800 after payment of transfer costs of the intervening transfers.

I want to ask the Minister, in order to give effect to this clause as it is now in this Bill, whether he will give an assurance that the board will not excercise its pre-emptive right under section 30 to the detriment of owners and purchasers of the other group who wish to settle their matters and conclude a sale on the basis as it is now. I do not want to give the names across the floor of the House, but I will give the Minister the details of this case. I want to say to the Minister that when I refer to cases I do attempt to have the facts and documents to substantiate what I say—I do not take a “flyer” if I may put it that way. This has in fact happened. If this is but an isolated case and the Minister can tell me that, I think it can put our minds at rest. It is a case that has happened and which has caused some concern over this amendment to the Bill.

Mr. Chairman, I shall go into the particular case raised by the hon. member and we can discuss it again on a subsequent occasion. I do not think it is necessary for us to discuss the matter in connection with this clause, because the pre-emptive right of the Department is normally exercised in cases where properties are sold at less than their basic values. In the case referred to by the hon. member a pre-emptive right had been exercised before a basic value had been determined. The basic value which was subsequently determined could be determined only by way of agreement between the person concerned and the Development Board. It could not be determined in any other way. But in cases where the basic values have already been determined and where a person may benefit by selling his property for more than the basic value the board will not exercise its pre-emptive right unless it needs that area for re-planning purposes. In that case the board exercises its pre-emptive right at the price the seller can get on the open market, if that price exceeds the basic value.

Mr. Chairman, these cases do happen, and I thank the hon. the Minister for the statement he has made. I thank him for clearing the air. I thank the Minister for his statement as to policy, but under that policy this clause does have the effect which I have detailed.

Mr. Chairman, I am not against this clause, but I do want it recorded that I feel that the delegation of power in a matter such as this is a very serious matter. We on this side of the House watch these delegations very carefully indeed. We do not like them, because we believe that a Minister is appointed to apply himself as a reponsible person to the tasks allotted to him. We find that this clause reads—

Mr. Chairman, when the Minister does something with which we do not agree, we can criticize him in this House. But in the case of a Secretary, it is not quite so easy for us to do that.

Then you must go for me.

We will go for the Minister. Let there be no doubt about that. But nevertheless we believe it not to be the right thing to delegate these powers. Very often there are circumstances which preclude us possibly from discussing the full facts of the case. I do not know why the hon. the Minister cannot exercise these powers himself, in the same way as the Secretary has functions to perform. I want it placed on record that we on this side do not like these delegated powers and we will always let the Minister know that we do not like them. That is why I stand up now to tell him that we do not like this delegation.

Mr. Chairman, are we not going to hear from the hon. the Minister why it is that he …

Order! The hon. member is really out of order.

May I ask the Minister, Sir, why it is that he now wants the power to delegate to the Secretary, to the extent he deems fit, the power conferred on him by section 38? This concerns the acquisition of immovable property by the board by agreement or expropriation. The only thing that remains in relation to this Act, the most important thing, surely is the expropriation of land or the acquisition by the board or by his department of land under this Act. What we want to know is why does the Minister want to delegate his powers? These are important powers. The hon. member for Umlazi has told the Minister that we on this side do not like him delegating such important powers, and he told him why. Therefore, Sir, I hope that we are going to have an answer from the Minister to that, an answer which he was not going to give, had I not stood up.

Mr. Chairman, I may just point out that I gave a very clear exposition of this particular matter during the Second Reading Debate. I said then that I would delegate powers only in respect of specific kinds of cases or in respect of a specific place. The clause reads as follows—

The important words are: “to the extent he deems fit”. In other words, Sir, I have to define the delegation of powers. Let me quote hon. members an example. Almost every day cases are submitted to me where the owners, the municipality and also the Community Development Board all agree that a certain property has to be expropriated. Sometimes owners are heirs, and then protracted court procedures have to be followed in order to obtain leave from the court to the effect that it will be in everybody’s interest that some property or other should be expropriated. Although everybody agrees, the cases still have to be submitted to me for my personal signature. I think that is quite unnecessary. It is purely an administrative matter, and I intend delegating this function to the Secretary in such cases in which all the parties agree. We may also have the case where the Community Development Board submits a recommendation to me to the effect that a particular area should be acquired with a view to slum clearance or for re-planning purposes or something of that nature. Then they negotiate with the owners. Agreement is reached with 90 per cent of the owners, or even with 99 per cent of them. There are only a few with whom agreement cannot be reached. Later I have to approve the individual expropriations again, whereas I have already given my permission for those properties to be acquired, whether through negotiation or expropriation. I shall prefer to delegate such cases to the Secretary.