Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, as a person who has over the years taken an intense interest in the expansion and the development of the mining industry, particularly when it intrudes into the sphere of agriculture, I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister and his department on this new and more realistic approach to the problems of agriculture when it is practised intensively and simultaneously in the same sphere as mining. In this Amendment Bill a glimmering through of a more sympathetic, more practical and more realistic approach on the part of the Department of Mines to the problems with which the agriculturist has to contend when mining operations take place on his property may be observed.

In particular I want to congratulate the landowners of South-West Africa on a few particularly accommodating amendments which are contained in this legislation in regard to their interests and bargaining rights. Initially the principal elements in the mining industry are always on the one hand the company or mine-owner, who can also be the prospector, and on the other hand the landowner who in the rural areas is usually a farmer. However, there is also a third element and that is the owner of the mineral rights. In South-West Africa that owner is exclusively the State. In South Africa it may be the State or any other person or body that acquired those rights lawfully. It is clear that an attempt is being made, through the amendments contained in this legislation, to look after the interests of all the parties in question in a more satisfactory way. Settlement possibilities are being established in that a procedure is being laid down in terms of which conflicting interests may be settled in a more satisfactory way. I think this is the intention of this legislation and the effect which it will have.

Inevitably we have found in the past that legislation was for the most part and almost exclusively established to further the interests of mining and to eliminate all obstacles which could have the effect of retarding the smooth functioning and practice of mining operations. That is why it is a glad day for us as farmers, who, with the expansion of the mining industry, have to cope with—in the rural areas as well— prospectors and mining interests who are acquiring more and more rights on our farms, to note that a change and a new approach is now discernible. What may be noted in regard to this legislation is that the hon. the Minister stated specifically, clearly and encouragingly in his Second Reading speech, that consultations were held in advance with the Agricultural Union of South-West Africa and that the draft Bill was submitted to them for their criticism and recommendations in order to protect agricultural interests. In the second place it seems as if a golden mean between the conflicting interests of farming and mining was earnestly sought in this Amendment Bill. If one reads through the legislation it is clear that an attempt is being made to protect the interests of all the parties concerned. In clause 1 we read how the interests of the mine-owner are being taken into account by the fact that he is being afforded more space on which to erect buildings such as administrative buildings, and so on. There is a whole series of accommodating provisions in this legislation in respect of the mine-owner or prospector in the first instance, but the amendments to which I want to refer and to which I want to draw attention, are those in regard to the surface owner, namely the farmer. This amendment is contained in clause 3, which now provides that no mining operations on ground which has been pegged off as a claim may commence before the directions of section 29 have been complied with. This means that this may not be done before the lawful permit granting such authority has been issued. What is significant in this regard is that that permit may not be issued before a written agreement has been drawn up between the mine-owner or the prospector and the landowner. In this agreement an agreement has to be reached in regard to the way in which that land may be entered upon in so far as it affects the interests of the landowner. This is important, for it is in that very sphere that the conflicts between the two parties occur. They usually clash when the property of the landowner is entered upon and when they both want to exercise their industry intensively on the same property situated between the four corner beacons of the same farm. If there are disputes, provision is being made in this clause, and it is being made clear, that that permit may not be issued before the landowner has been afforded an opportunity of submitting any objections which he may have in writing to the mining commissioner. This accommodation will certainly be an improvement for people in South-West Africa who are concerned with this matter. Then that section also binds the mine-owner so that he may not commence operations before that agreement has been finalized. In the agreement it has to be determined what amount is to be paid, how it is to be paid, how roads are to be laid out, where the Bantu, who will possibly be the employees, are to be settled, and also the many other practical factors which are essential when mining operations are carried out on a property. The last and particularly encouraging indication for me, i.e. the more realistic approach in respect of the conflicts on the contact levels of the agriculture and mining, is contained in clause 10. In terms of this clause the present settlement board—previously it consisted of two officials, usually two mining officials who were appointed by the Minister, and the magistrate of the district—is now being converted into a settlement board which will in future consist of the magistrate of the district, the Chief Inspector of Mines and the chief extension officer of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services of the specific district. This accommodation is definitely one which I do not find in the legislation applicable to South Africa. It indicates a far more balanced constitution of the settlement board. In the past many landowners had good reason to doubt the impartiality of the findings and the decisions given by the settlement board. I think that this conversion will to a large extent now eliminate the doubt which existed among persons who submitted their disputes to the board. This is also proof that a greater understanding is being displayed by the State in respect of the nature of the problem and conflicts. The agriculturalist who is appointed to that settlement board ought now to display greater understanding in regard to the specific problems with which the farmer, who has to exercise his farming practice intensively, has to cope with. I think that with the application of this Bill many points of friction will be eliminated for landowners in South-West Africa, and that this is also a precursor of amendments which will in future be effected in our legislation in South Africa, so that similar legislation will also be more satisfactory to our people in agriculture in South Africa when mining operations, which are developing and expanding to a tremendous extent, are experienced to an increasing extent in the rural areas.

Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the intense interest the hon. member for Marico takes in mining matters. I am also aware of the fact that from time to time he has problems in his own constituency, problems which for the most part we solved satisfactorily. Then, too, I want to say to the hon. member that we have appreciation for the way in which he supports my department and myself in coping with these problems and solving them satisfactorily. The hon. member will also permit me to say that taking into consideration the tremendous scope of mining activities in South Africa, the problems with which we are confronted are relatively minor ones. The second point I should like to mention to the hon. member is that this should not really be accepted, without further ado, as a new approach or a “precursor”, as the hon. member puts it, as far as the Republic is concerned. The hon. member must realize that the Mines and Works Act, as far as the Republic is concerned, was intensely revised only five years ago and that a tremendous amount of work was done in that respect. Then, too, the situation in the Republic is different to that in South-West Africa, As the hon. member knows this Bill relates only to South-West Africa. In South-West Africa. as the hon. member will also know, the right of prospecting and exploiting vests in the State, while in the Republic of South Africa the landowner still has a say in regard to his own land. The mineral rights may be vested in the possession of the landowner. I know where the problems arise. They arise for the most part where a farmer purchases land in regard to which the mineral rights are vested in another party. We must be very careful that we do not create in South Africa the same systems for the settlement of problems as we have introduced in South-West Africa, since we have a different situation in South-West Africa as far as vested rights are concerned.

I do think that having an inspector of Agricultural Technical Services will be regarded as a very satisfactory arrangement in the case of such a settlement as well.

Yes, but let me make it very clear—and I think the hon. member will admit that I am right—that we have a great deal of sympathy for the farmer. We have recently and over the years gone a long way out of our way to take the interests of the farmer into consideration as much as possible. However, we also have a national duty not to handicap mining in South Africa unnecessarily. I have just risen to say to the hon. member that this should not necessarily be seen as a precursor to a similar procedure in the Republic as is being followed in South-West Africa. If we were to consider something in this regard we would have to and would want to follow the same procedure as is applicable in South-West Africa, i.e. to consult all the interested parties properly. This takes time and requires a great deal of energy. I want to ask the hon. member, since the legislation in question is only five years old, to leave it at that for the present. I think it works reasonably well. We will give the hon. member all the possible help we can in his own constituency.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Chairman, before I move the amendment standing in my name on the Order Paper, I wish to ask the hon. the Minister for clarity in connection with the cyclamates. If I remember correctly, the Minister was not specific yesterday in his reply to the Second Reading debate. He indicated that cyclamates could be controlled under the definition of foodstuffs, but there is concern in certain manufacturing quarters in South Africa about the fact that cyclamates may in fact be controlled by this specific subsection. I wonder whether the Minister could indicate to the Committee whether, in the light of the information now available to him as far as cyclamates are concerned, there is any intention to limit or control their use as a sweetening agent in manufacture. I now move the amendment standing in my name, as follows—

I think we will all agree that the definition of “cosmetic” as it stands now, is a comprehensive one. It reads:

There were two aspects which I wished to raise with the hon. the Minister, but I understand that the second one is something which would impinge upon the rights of the medical profession. In terms of that information I do not wish to proceed with that aspect. I believe that the term “implant” could usefully be added to this definition of “cosmetic” to deal with the question which is causing a certain amount of concern in medical circles, namely the use of tattooing. During the hon. the Minister’s Vote last session I was asked by representatives of the medical profession to raise this matter. They had direct experience in which they claimed that the growing incidence of young people resorting to tattooing, could in later years produce psychological problems amongst these people. When they grow older and realize the difficulties encountered in removing the tattoo marks which they had made in their youth, it leads to problems. In his reply to the Vote the hon. the Minister did not comment on this question, and I would therefore like to ask him whether he feels that the clause as it stands, could deal with this matter if it became one of common incidence or whether he feels that by the addition of the word “implant” the particular case of tattooing would be covered and, if that is the position, whether he would accept the amendment moved by me.

Mr. Chairman, as I read this clause, I think that the word “applied” covers all methods of application, whether by implantation, painting on, orally or by whatever method. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister agrees, but to my mind the word “applied” covers the whole aspect, implantation as well. The hon. member also mentioned tattooing, but there are other types of implants covered by this term. The hon. member will be aware of the fact that many Indian women have tiny pearls or jewels implanted in their skin, inter alia, for the purpose of beautifying themselves. I do not know whether this will satisfy the hon. member. The hon. the Minister may reply to that aspect.

I want to refer once more to what I said during the Second Reading debate in regard to the definition of cosmetic. This definition still puzzles me. It was also quoted by the hon. member for Berea. I quote it once more—

But what rather worries me is, how do we see the human body? Do we see the human body in its naked form? If I read this correctly, we should also add clothing here. That is also for the purpose of beautifying; for improving one’s appearance. We will find ourselves in trouble if we include clothing in this definition. What is our attitude as far as wigs are concerned? This is also an agent, a substance or an article used for the purpose of making oneself look younger or beautifying oneself. I do not know whether all of us will benefit from it. I should like to see that we have complete clarity as far as the definition of cosmetics is concerned, whether, for example, it includes articles apart from essential articles one has to have for the sake of decency. I should like to hear the Minister’s reply in this respect.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member referred to cyclamates. As he would know, “cyclamates” has already been withdrawn in pursuance of the advice of the World Health Organization.

Now I come to the second point in regard to the hon. member’s amendment. I should like to point out to him that, if we widen the level so as to include the words he has composed here, I am afraid that he might, first of all, include certain actions which are not intended to be included in this measure. Secondly, we would land in the field of surgery and of plastic surgery. I should also like to remind the hon. member that section 83 (b) of the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act—I have a copy here and the hon. member can have a look at it—does to a certain extent cover that particular matter. We are at the moment revising and rearranging that whole Act in my department, and perhaps we can give specific attention to this matter as it occurs in that particular Act.

The other point I would like to raise with the hon. member is that as far as tattoo ink is concerned, the legal advisers tell me that it is covered by clause 1 (iv). The words “otherwise applied” would cover the use of tattoo ink. I may just briefly quote the definition—

I am afraid I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment on the Order Paper. If I do so, I shall be transgressing on the field of surgery, as I have indicated. Furthermore, I should not like to do anything that would perhaps be in conflict with the Medical, Dental and Pharmacy Act. As far as tattoo ink is concerned, which covers, I think, the point the hon. member raised, it is already covered in this particular definition.

*The hon. member for Brentwood once again raised the question of the definition of “cosmetic” and he raised the very interesting question of clothing. I want to tell the hon. member that as the definition reads at present, there can be no doubt that clothing is not included. I think the hon. member will agree with me that none of these words contained in the definition can be construed as referring to clothing. The definition reads as follows—

I do not think we can rub on clothing—

Neither can it be poured—

This we cannot do either—

Neither do I think that, in view of the meaning of the word “applied” we can include clothing here. As far as that is concerned, I am therefore quite satisfied that the definition as it reads at present is the best we are able to frame. I may just add that, in drafting this Bill, we not only had at our disposal the experience since 1929, but the experience of other countries as well. The World Health Organization has been giving this matter its attention for quite a number of years now. As a matter of fact and as the hon. member knows, a special division of the World Health Organization undertakes the drafting of, for example, lists of substances which may or may not be used. As a matter of fact, my director of Industrial Medicine is at present visiting Geneva in order to study and collect information on matters pertaining to the World Health Organization which is of interest to us. I may also add that the standards laid down by the World Health Organization have been embodied in their Codex alimentarius and their specifications are acceptable to the European Common Market as well as far as they concern foodstuffs, etc. They also cover this field. The division we have here, viz., foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants, has now been brought into line with the method used throughout the world. In other words, we are in a position to supplement our knowledge by making use of their experience, because we have full access to their knowledge. The knowledge we acquire is, of course, made available to them.

Mr. Chairman, is the hon. the Minister quite sure about the position of cyclamates? The hon. the Minister said that as far as he knew the cyclamates had been withdrawn. I do not know when they were withdrawn; I have not seen any notices about their withdrawal. I wonder whether we could not have the position clarified. I think that cyclamates are still freely obtainable.

May I give the hon. member the information I have just received? I was under the impression that cyclamates had been withdrawn completely, but I am told that cyclamates are allowed in food for persons suffering from diabetes or similar diseases. The label must state the fact that cyclamates are used as a sweetening agent and contain no sucrose. That is the position; I was under the impression that they had been withdrawn completely.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister for his explanation in connection with the amendment which I moved, and also for his undertaking that the aspect I have raised will receive the attention of the department when another Bill is subject to review. Under those circumstances I should like to ask the permission of the Committee to withdraw the amendment standing in my name.

Amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 5 :

Mr. Chairman, this clause, particularly paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1), is of the utmost importance to me as a consumer protection measure. According to these two paragraphs any person shall be guilty of an offence if he—

1. (a) publishes a false or misleading advertisement of any foodstuff, cosmetic or disinfectant; or
2. (b) for the purposes of sale …

This I find of importance—

As far as I am concerned this is of very great importance because our consumer public is constantly subject to bombardment from advertisements relating to such cosmetics, foodstuffs, etc. I should like to mention a few examples. Here is a mail order firm catalogue which is distributed far and wide throughout the country and read by everyone. Here is an advertisement for people who are too fat—

In round figures it just costs a good R25. The next one, from the same booklet, reads as follows—

Sir, here they say they know of a formula to increase one’s weight in only a few days, and to increase it in just the right places. They continue—

It costs R4-80. With due respect to the Chair, Sir, here is another one for the loss-of-hair problem, the baldheads. [Interjections.] I also mention this with the utmost respect for the hon. member for Rosettenville here on my right. The advertisement reads—

This is followed by a section referring to the name of the herbs and then the advertisement continues—

Mr. Chairman, this will interest you …

I shall get the advertisement from you later. [Interjections.]

It states—

Do not buy it; I have tried it.

Sir, in a more serious vein, this advertisement of this mail order firm is directed in particular at the platteland reader who is very far from the city and who frequently experiences problems in obtaining information from doctors, etc. The Consumers Board has now conducted a survey into the extent of this matter, and it is alarming. Whether these so-called slimming preparations are foodstuffs, denutriments, cosmetics or disinfectants, I do not know, but the 1970 national survey amongst members of the reading public brought to light that 702 000 persons, or 29 per cent of those taking part in the survey, indicated that they intended to lose weight as a result of this kind of advertisement and not as a result of consultations with doctors. Thereafter the manufacturers of these slimming preparations swooped on this attractive market. Last year more than R178 000 was spent on advertisements for tablets, ointment, powders and mechanical apparatus, most of which lay claim to wonderful results, and I believe that this clause of the Bill will combat this aspect very efficiently. Sir, many of these preparations that obstensibly work wonders contain appetite suppressors, dehydration agents and laxatives. With respect to the latter it is estimated that about R200 000 is spent per year on advertisements. What makes the matter more problematic, and what makes this clause of the Bill, in my opinion, that much more valuable for consumer protection, is that some of these firms, from whose advertisements I have just quoted, simply ignore the requests that dissatisfied customers address to them. When dissatisfied clients ask for the repayment of their money because the preparation has had no effect, they simply do not get it back. In some cases the products so advertised are five times more expensive from these mail order firms than in shops where similar articles are freely available. Sir, numerous complaints are received about the uselessness of these cosmetics and disinfectants, etc., advertised in magazines. The remarkable cures or benefits of these products frequently exist only in the imaginations of these advertising copywriters. The financial losses suffered by individuals are perhaps insignificant, but one is concerned about the influence on the consumer corps as a whole and on their health. Sir, it would interest you to know that some of this massage cream advertised by these people was found on receipt to be nothing more than a bottle of ordinary petroleum jelly or Vaseline. I therefore think that the consumers of our country owe the Minister a great deal of thanks for having worded this relevant clause in the Bill so strongly, and I wish wholeheartedly that he will impose it with all possible force.

Sir, arising out of what the hon. member for Pretoria District said, I want to state that clause 5 has much greater depth than one actually realizes. In fact, as I read clause 5 it crowns the work of the consumers board which the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs instituted. It is the result of the National Party’s efforts—and in fact the zeal of the hon. member for Pretoria District—to look after the consumer in South Africa. With this action we are right in the forefront in protecting the consumer in the person of the housewife. It is important that we look after them, since our housewives spend a very large percentage of their incomes on these preparations. We must help them to use their discretion when they respond to advertisements. Therefore it is very necessary for the hon. the Minister to take precautions to prevent our women from being exploited. We want to congratulate him on this measure. It is a feather in the National Party’s cap which must not go unnoticed. Sir, advertisements bring a completely new dimension to the fore in a people’s culture. The advertiser thinks he has gauged the public’s taste and he consequently responds to that with the article he then offers for sale. But I now feel that the United Party makes far too little use of our advertising and do not keep pace with our cultural life. They make far too little use of advertisements in well-known South African magazines, while if they did so it would prove of great benefit to them. I paged quickly through this and I think the youthful members on the other side ought to take notice of this. It is not a sin; we were all young once, after all. Therefore I want to refer them to this advertisement that states: “Mother’s milk in a tin S26 comes nearest to that.” Then there is a very striking advertisement for the older ones about wrinkles. They say that wrinkles vanish within five minutes. Hon. members opposite could profitably look at some of these advertisements. As I have said, there are some members in the back benches there opposite who also sometimes feel that they cut a poor figure. Here there is also an advertisement in this connection : “Don’t lag behind.” For every problem in the United Party there is a solution but, alas, I looked for an advertisement that would fit the hon. member for Simonstown. I turned the pages here in vain—I could not find an effective advertisement of a fitting disinfectant.

What has that got to do with the Bill?

Reference has been made to the S.A. Consumers Council and I understand the hon. member for Pretoria District is a member of it, appointed as such by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether any representations or decisions from that council have been directed through the Minister of Economic Affairs to him, in regard to this particular Bill and, if so, what has been the nature of the representations in regard to this clause on advertising?

I welcome the support we are obtaining for this specific clause, which has now been improved and adapted to modern conditions. Both the hon. members for Pretoria District and Bloemfontein West mentioned good examples here. Of course, not all of them are applicable to this Bill. I just want to draw hon. members attention to the fact that only foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectants are involved here. In other words, anything that does not classify under those three aspects, such as laxatives, for example, are not covered by this. Any medicine or remedy as well as advertisements are covered by the Drugs Control Act. Then I want to mention a second point. In the first place this is a matter of advertisements, and in that connection two aspects are involved, i.e. false and misleading advertisements. Numerous advertisements that appear are not false, of course, and are not misleading either. Numerous advertisements are possibly false or misleading, but to prove that is not quite so easy. The hon. member spoke here of slimming. Let me tell the hon. member, as far as slimming is concerned, that if it is a preparation that is administered and not a foodstuff or a cosmetic, we can do nothing about that. If it does fall under those two categories, or if it is an apparatus, as indicated at a later stage in the Act—there are many pieces of slimming apparatus which are introduced in advertisements these days as ostensibly being able to furnish certain results that are never forthcoming. I just want to tell hon. members that if they know of such an apparatus that does furnish results, I should like to make use of it.

You have one in Parliament.

Yes, it does have some effect. The hon. member is now referring to a facility that hon. members in the House of Assembly have, and about which I do not now want to speak across the floor of the House. But this is definitely an adaption to modern circumstances which, I think, will make it easier to restrict the misleading and the false advertisements as far as one can possibly do so.

Mr. Chairman, I have difficulty in interpreting this clause. You get an advertisement, for instance, which says “it is better with butter”. Such an advertisement does not seem to be misleading. We may have another advertisement on the same page which says that “it is better with margarine”. These advertisements are therefore conflicting. How does one judge which is misleading and which is not? Would this be in the category of “misleading” or would we rather think statements which are grossly misleading would be an offence? It is going to be difficult to distinguish what is a genuine advertisement and what is not. I am just thinking about these things aloud. “Beer is best”—that sort of advertisement. Would the hon. the Minister say that that is misleading?

Definitely not. They are clever enough to word it in such a way that you have no problem whatsoever.

We would therefore exclude that type of advertisement?

Yes.

Then I am satisfied.

We are not looking for work.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 11:

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

In view of the fact that this amendment has been accepted by the hon. the Minister in the past, in similar legislation, for instance last week in the Dental Mechanicians Amendment Bill, that it is embodied in the Atmospheric Pollution Act and that the same principle is embodied in the Drugs Control Act, it is not my intention to repeat the arguments which I have used in the past. I merely want to ask if the hon. the Minister would be good enough to accept the amendment to bring this particular Bill into line with the other Acts in regard to the powers of inspectors.

Mr. Chairman, it is a sound improvement and accordingly I am prepared to accept the amendment.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Clause 13:

Mr. Chairman, in so far as this clause is concerned, I want to point out that yesterday in the Second Reading debate, I raised an issue in connection with the deposit of R25 in respect of the possibility of re-analysis of a preparation which has been seized or taken over by an inspector. I indicated to the hon. the Minister that I felt that if this Bill is placed on the Statute Book as an Act and is to remain there as long as its predecessor did, the amount of R25 would be completely unrealistic with the continual change in the value of money. I suggested that consideration be given to the possibility of dealing with this aspect by regulation. I rise to ask the hon. the Minister whether he feels that it is possible to do this either here or in the Other Place if he feels my suggestion has merit.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to say to the hon. member that I think it should remain as it is. I want to tell the hon. member why I say this. In the principal Act it is provided that the amount shall be £4, and now the amount is being changed to R25. This is approximately four times as much, in order to adjust it to the present situation. There is substance in the hon. member’s argument that in the course of years, for example after a period of 40 years, the amount of R25 may be a small amount or perhaps too small an amount. However, there is much more to it than that consideration alone. This amount is paid by a member of the public who may perhaps feel aggrieved. The provision that he may also have an analysis or an examination made, is an additional right which did not exist in terms of the old Act. If he wants to have this done, he must pay this amount. I think the public is entitled to have it laid down in the Act and not to have it done arbitrarily by way of regulation, because a situation may arise that a regulation may stipulate an amount of R250. Since we are specifically protecting the rights of the public here, the right that they may have an analysis made if they feel aggrieved or uncertain, I think it should be laid down specifically in the Act. This, then, is also the reason why it was incorporated in the old Act and could not be laid down by way of regulation. In this case we have once again decided that it should be embodied in the Act and should not be laid down by way of regulation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 14:

Mr. Chairman, in the Second Reading I drew the attention of the Minister to the fact that I was not satisfied with foodstuffs, particularly, being detained either in the care of the Department of Customs and Excise or in the hands of the consignee because they are suspect, unless these foodstuffs were suitably labelled as being suspect. I wonder whether the Minister has given any further thought to this.

I again want to urge him to have suspect foodstuffs suitably labelled. The label can of course be taken off if the foodstuffs are cleared and declared fit for human consumption. If these foodstuffs are left outside control in the warehouse whilst they are suspected of being unsuitable for human consumption they can be extremely dangerous. For that reason I ask that the containers of these foodstuffs should be suitably sealed and labelled as being suspect. Perhaps I should have given the Minister the opportunity of studying an amendment, but I wonder if he would not be so good as to consider my suggestion, and if he considers it necessary he could move an amendment in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, as I indicated yesterday, not only the disposal but also the handling of these articles or substances is dealt with by the Secretary for Health. In the first place, the Secretary for Health will dispose of them in terms of regulations to be promulgated. In the second place, the inspector or the sampler will act under specific regulations. Those regulations as they exist today, will prescribe, inter alia, the labelling, etc., of the specific product or specific substance referred to. The only difference is that the Secretary will act under guarantee —this means certain strict conditions— which will be given by him and which will also be contained in regulations. The regulations may provide that under such circumstances the Secretary may order removal. In other words, we are meeting the Department of Customs and Excise in the sense that they may need the space. In the second place, we are meeting the person who is under suspicion but who has not yet been proved guilty, because he may remove his goods if he does not want to pay for them. In the third place, it may be a completely harmless product which can only be used if it is kept in cold storage. He has the cold storage facilities, because he would not have imported the product if he did not have the facilities for it. However, I want to give the hon. member the assurance that all the points about which he is concerned will be covered by way of guarantee and by way of regulation.

Clause put and agreed to.

Clause 15 :

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

My reason for putting forward this amendment is that, as far as I can see, it brings this particular Bill into line with the Drugs Control Act, No. 101 of 1965. When that Act was debated in this House, this particular section formed a part of the clause which dealt with the regulations under that Act, namely “prescribing the particulars which shall appear in any advertisement relating to any cosmetic, disinfectant or foodstuff”. I am aware that there is an omnibus clause under which it may be possible to deal with this particular aspect, but I think that there should be power laid down specifically in the Bill for the Minister to be able to promulgate regulations in this particular regard. I believe that the hon. members on the other side of the House, who have emphasized the importance of clause 5 of this Bill, the clause which deals with the control of advertisements, should agree with me in this respect. I am aware that it has been necessary to amend the Drug Control Act, partly perhaps in order to circumscribe the definition of “advertisement” in particular relation to medicines, but I think that the hon. the Minister and I are at one in this regard. We know that there are different groups and categories and that that amendment became necessary purely to make it quite clear what the intention was. I feel that a clause such as this, which is simple, and gives the Minister the power to promulgate these regulations, is very necessary. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will accept the resolution in the light of the explanation I have given.

Also in regard to this clause, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if there is any particular reason why in paragraph (0 on page 21 …

“I” for what?

“I” for ink. This paragraph deals with the :

It then goes on with regard to the packing, labelling, storage, conveyance etc. “of any foodstuffs or cosmetics”. The word “disinfectant” is omitted here whereas, if one refers to paragraph (k):

It will be noticed that each of the three items which form the main substance of this Bill, namely foodstuffs, cosmetics and disinfectant, are included. I want to ask, then, if the hon. the Minister can explain why “disinfectant” has been omitted from paragraph (i), although included in paragraph (k).

Mr. Chairman, personally I do not have any great problem in accepting this amendment, but I must be led here by the legal advisers. They tell me that this clause has to be read in conjunction with clause 5 (1). as the hon. member pointed out, namely the question of advertising. They tell me that that subsection has been drafted as wide as possible and they point out that any regulations which may be made will have a limiting effect on the provisions of the clause to which I have just referred. I would not like to have any limiting effect in law on clause 5 (1). That is as far as the legal side is concerned, and I must accept their judgment. There is a practical side to it too. In the experience of the department over the 42 years we have never had any reason at all to deal with this matter by way of regulation. I think this must be the answer to the hon. member why I cannot accept his amendment. I personally have no problem with the amendment of the hon. member, but I do not think it will be advisable to accept it in the light of what I have said in regard to the two points, namely the legal advice I have and the practical experience of the department over 42 years.

In regard to paragraph (i) (i) of clause 15 (1), the hon. member asked me why disinfectant has been left out. Quite frankly I do not know. I have only noticed it now myself; it has not been brought to my notice before. There may be a very good reason for it, but I undertake to look at this matter and if necessary to amend it in the Other Place.

Mr. Chairman, I understand the hon. the Minister’s difficulty and I appreciate that he is sympathetic towards the request. Could the hon. the Minister however explain to me why it was found necessary when dealing with drugs under the Drugs Control Act, to embody a special clause making provision for regulations concerning advertisements, whilst under this measure, which deals with similar preparations to a large extent, it is considered legally undesirable to do so?

Mr. Chairman, I did not deal with that measure. The hon. member was here at the time, if I remember correctly.

You were in London then.

Yes. The point is that I must accept the legal advice I receive. As I have said, even more important from my point of view, is the experience of my department in regard to this matter. We will however have a look at the Drugs Control Act, and if problems arise we may come to this House with an amendment.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

Clause 21 :

Mr. Chairman, I want to refer to clause 21 (5) and say something about the use of English therein. The clause reads—

I just feel that it may be possible to find a more euphonious word than “interrogatories” in the English version of this particular subsection. I want to ask the Minister if it is possible to substitute a more suitable word in the Other Place.

Clause put and agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned last night I had spent some time dealing with certain aspects of this Bill in order to indicate to the hon. the Minister why I felt it was essential that a Bill of this nature should, before its Second Reading, go to a Select Committee, which should consider it, receive evidence and take into account the viewpoints of many persons who are interested in this subject. I think it is important to realize that the principle of this Bill is not essentially urban renewal per se. It is rather to bring to an end what the hon. the Minister regards as the perpetuation of blighted or decayed areas. We have always associated the words “urban renewal” or “blighted areas” with housing. Local authorities have spent a considerable time dealing with the subject. I know, for instance, that the Johannesburg City Council prepared a very important report in 1968. I know, too, that countries like Germany, France and Britain have had tremendous problems in dealing with the restoration of blighted areas. Nevertheless, one realizes that in our country where the demand for housing and general development is so important, there is not really enough money available to cope with the problems which face us in so many sectors. Therefore, the principle of this Bill is to take advantage of the capital which private initiative can provide for development and to give them the opportunity, where they have acquired almost the entire area designated for the purpose of redevelopment, and if it is felt worth while and in the interest of improving what is regarded as a decayed area or a blighted area, to improve it for the benefit of the community. But in doing that, it is necessary to provide safeguards in the sense that the question of urban renewal per se should not entirely be lost. A modern trend is to intersperse dwelling units with commercial buildings. When one thinks of dwelling units, one also thinks of some provision for the aged, so that they, too, can live near cities or take part in a big development scheme which includes a city complex. So, Sir. I feel that from many angles it is worth while to have this matter more fully considered.

Then there is the question of high-rise building. There is also the question of density which should be considered by these developers. Normally, one would leave them purely to the provisions of a town planning ordinance. As is quite natural, I suppose, a private investor will take advantage of every opportunity to obtain the biggest return for his money. Here we have a chance to give some privileges which the State only can afford to these people, to ensure that they play a part in benefiting the community. I do not think that I will continue to stress this matter any further.

I would like to conclude by saying that, as I said previously, this Bill in its general, broad principles should not, in my view, be tied to the Department of Community Development whose ramifications include the Group Areas Act as well as other aspects of land development, but more particularly the provision of housing for the community. I feel that if we can, by re-examining the whole matter, assist the private developer and at the same time assist the community in certain circumstances, we should obtain all the expert knowledge that we can and all the evidence that is possible and then see whether, from this examination, a statute can emerge which can provide for these matters and at the same time not be prejudicial to the ultimate purpose which is urban renewal in its truest sense, and the provision of housing for people in the many economic and sub-economic groups that we have in our country today. I therefore sincerely trust that the Minister will see his way clear to accepting this amendment, and that he will give us the opportunity for which we on this side of the House have been pleading.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Jeppes has advocated repeatedly that the Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. Perhaps I may just mention to him that they were not the first among whom this idea originated. When we dealt with the Bill in our group meeting the idea was expressed there and a proposal made to the hon. the Minister that the measure should be referred to a Select Committee after the Second Reading. With the consent of the hon. the Minister I may also mention that he informed us at that stage already that he was in fact going to refer it to a Select Committee.

Quite a number of arguments were advanced by hon. members on the opposite side. I do not want to go into these specifically one after another now; but I shall refer to them during the course of my speech. However, I do want to say that as a person who has for the past 30 years been living on the Witwatersrand, I personally—and I think so do the other inhabitants of the Witwatersrand—welcome this amendment to the Community Development Act, because the greatest physical decay occurs in fact in our cities and our larger towns. If we look into the history of our towns and cities we find that the character of what were once elite residential areas has frequently changed completely. Tn some cases they have decayed to such an extent that they have become slum areas. In terms of the existing Act the Development Board, in conjunction with local authorities, has sufficient measures at its disposal to clear, replan and redevelop any slum conditions which already exist in an area. Provision is therefore made in the Act to undertake the renewal of a series of decayed areas with the existing powers. But that is precisely where the problem lies. The machinery exists to deal effectively with already decayed areas, but there are no measures to deal with an area in a city or a town which is beginning to show signs of physical decay or is in the process of decay. To my mind the most important section of the legislation is contained therein that since local authorities now have to accept primary responsibility for the prevention of decay in urban areas, since they have to guard against such areas falling into decay and since they also have to identify those areas, financial assistance is being given to them to enable them to take effective steps in this regard. We were also grateful to hear from the hon. the Minister that some of these local authorities were fully informed in regard to this proposed legislation, and that their reaction to it was very favourable. With the implementation of this legislation the greatest task is going to rest on the shoulders of our local authorities, for it will be they that will have to ensure that decayed conditions do not get worse, but that this is prevented through their taking timeous steps. Sir, how different would the appearance of some of our major cities and towns not have been today if only this amendment to the Act had come into operation a long time ago. They would have presented a different appearance today if it had been possible to take steps in time to prevent residential areas which were once elite areas from developing into slum areas. I think that we could probably mention many examples of this, but I think that one of the most striking examples is probably Doornfontein in Johannesburg. As an aficionado of our national game, rugby, it happens quite frequently during the rugby season that I have to walk through a residential area, which was once a good area, where we could enjoy our rugby in a pleasant spirit and atmosphere, but which has now decayed into an unpleasant neighbourhood. Sir, just as a medical practitioner believes that prevention of a disease is easier than cure. I believe that the same applies to the decay of residential areas. If we could eliminate the causes of the decay of those areas then the application of this Act would probably not be necessary, because there would then be very few of those areas which would need to be cleared. Therefore the whole solution to this problem of decay and clearance to my mind lies therein to succeed in eliminating the factors causing those areas to decay. Many causes of this decay in our cities and towns could probably be mentioned. We could probably mention numerous causes in areas which we know personally. But in my opinion the principal cause is that many of the old town-planning schemes have already become obsolete and out of date and that they have virtually become useless. As a result of population shifts and changes in the utilization of land the character of those areas have changed completely. The areas in which those population shifts occurred were in fact those areas where, in most cases, light industries intruded into the residential areas, with a resultant rapid decay of those areas. The establishment of light industries brings with it an increase in motorized traffic and an influx of Bantu labourers. These are all things which assist in accelerating the decay of those areas. Attendant upon this there are usually other factors such as the noise caused by industrial activities, atmospheric pollution and other unpleasant factors which contribute to the decay of those once popular residential areas. We have therefore found that some of those town-planning schemes have had to be revised and that residential areas have had to be rezoned as industrial areas. In many cases we are still able to prevent this creeping danger if we allow no change in the utilization of land in existing residential areas, no matter how innocent some of those light industries, which apply to be established there, may seem. Another important cause of decay is that many of the old town-planning schemes made no provision for social facilities such as parks, open spaces, parking spaces and other essential amenities for the community. The result is that those people prefer to move away to areas where there are at least open spaces, parks and other recreational facilities available for their children. Here I think we owe a vote of thanks to the hon. the Minister of Community Development who is envisaging positive steps to cope with these particular causes which lead to decay. We know that he announced the appointment of a select committee last year to investigate, inter alia, open spaces in controlled areas, so that provision may be made in every residential area for sufficient recreational facilities and open spaces. Another cause which in my opinion contributes to a large extent to decay is that although some of the town-planning schemes did in fact make provision for the zoning of sites for residential purposes, provision is also made for the possibility of changing the zoning for industrial or business purposes for example. One finds that sites which were previously zoned for residential purposes are subsequently zoned for industrial purposes. So, too, there are certain town-planning schemes which make provision for general zoning or, as we generally term it in the Transvaal, for indeterminate zoning. It is in fact that indeterminate zoning which is responsible for the fact that one finds residential sites, business sites and industrial sites in the same area. The result of this is that that area eventually decays. I am afraid that this is a process which is still going to continue in the years which he ahead. I want to refer here in particular to an area which makes provision for general or indeterminate zoning and ask the hon. the Minister to take steps to prevent light industries from being established in established residential areas, those very areas where people have the right to apply for a change of zoning. As Langenhoven aptly said: One swallow does not a summer make, but one blowfly can rot an ox. It is a fact that one single industry, no matter how innocent it may seem, may subsequently cause that entire area to decay, with the result that people move elsewhere. Sir, before the commencement of the Group Areas Act, the presence of different racial groups, particularly in poorer residential areas, was a general phenomenon. This intermingling of different racial groups contributed a great deal to the decay of those residential areas. These were usually areas where we found overcrowding and poor housing. The blame for this intermingling, Which led to decay, I want to a large extent to lay at the door of the United Party because they were the people who allowed this intermingling of different race groups on a large scale. But thanks to this National Party Government it was possible to a large extent to clear these slum conditions through the resettlement of the various race groups.

Then, too, it is a phenomenon that less than 20 per cent, I have been told, of the inhabitants of those decayed areas are the actual house-owners. As is typical of those people they are not the people who show a great interest in the appearance of the houses. They do not show as much interest as the owner of that same house would have done. Many of them are not interested in improvements to those houses having to be effected by the owners, because they fear that this would lead to an increase in the rentals.

In regard to the second part of the amendment of the Act, where assistance is given to private developers in acquiring certain properties, I want to say that I am not well versed in law, but upon reading through this legislation I wonder whether the Act does not already make provision for the powers which the hon. the Minister is now requesting. If we read section 15 (1) (a) we note therein that the particular areas which have to be cleared, the slum areas, are in fact defined in that subsection; and if we look at section 15 (1) (c), I read that the objects for which the board is established shall be, subject to the directions of the Minister—and then subsection (c) follows—“to assist persons to acquire or hire immovable property in so far as in the opinion of the board may be necessary or expedient for the achievement of the objects mentioned in paragraphs (a) or (b)”. If I look at paragraphs (a) and (b), it is in fact those affected properties and areas, where assistance in clearance may be provided, which are in a decayed condition. What I think this amounts to is that when reference is made of these “persons”, it surely cannot refer only to the development board. It cannot refer only to persons from the department. Surely it can also refer to private developers as well, as it is stated here, to “assist persons to acquire” that property. So, to my mind, the principle has already been laid down in the Act that the private developer may be assisted to acquire those properties, even through expropriation, as is now being defined in greater detail in this Act. In this section which is now being added here, the procedure which has to be followed in respect of those properties which have to be expropriated is being defined in greater detail, in order to make these available to the private developer for clearance and development.

To my mind the principle contained in the second part of the Bill remains the same as the principle already contained in the original Act. In the existing Act the development board has the right to acquire with a view to replanning and redevelopment, any property which falls within the urban renewal areas. Now we know that in most cases this is done through expropriation, and here we have the same principle now that that property may be acquired for development and replanning. Therefore properties are not obtained simply by expropriating them, but are obtained only with the knowledge and co-operation of the interested parties; and when I speak of interested parties, this includes the persons from whom the land was acquired. Those persons meet around a table and an acceptable agreement is reached. To my mind the same principle which is contained in the existing Act is contained herein as well, i.e. that this also applies in respect of compensation in regard to that property. The existing Act is very clear in that regard, for the provisions of the Act read that when a property is expropriated by the Development Board, the Board may pay the market value of the property, as at the date of expropriation. I am consequently satisfied that the owner is being compensated for his property on a reasonable and equitable basis, for over and above the land value, provision is being made that he may be compensated in respect of inconvenience and loss of goodwill.

The market value of land is a subject which may be discussed interminably. I think that most hon. members will agree from experience that when different assessors are consulted it will be found that their valuations will vary. The valuation of the one assessor may show a variation of thousands of rand in contrast to that of the next. It is also true that the valuation of properties may fluctuate within the space of a few months. Since the hon. the Minister has stated here that this may not exceed the market value, I wonder whether he is not perhaps correct there. One can find the situation where as soon as a person becomes aware that his property is going to be expropriated—I am referring now to the persons who do not want to co-operate, who have no interest whatsoever in preventing the decay of that area and do not care what that area will ultimately look like—he will try out all kinds of ploys and dodges to push up the value of that property. It is only natural that when the idea is expressed, and plans are submitted to the effect that a certain area is going to be developed, the market value will go up. Can that increased market value, however, be compared to the value of a property which was perhaps acquired a month or two or even six months prior to that?

Another principle which in my opinion has already been laid down in the existing Act and is simply being defined further in this legislation is that the right and the opportunity is being granted to the owner in that area in question, who has to be expropriated, to undertake the developments himself, and he shall not be deprived of that right. It is only in the case of persons who do not want to co-operate that this will be done. Consequently this is only done in the case where the community may be prejudiced as a result, or where it is in the interests of the community that an owner be deprived of that right. Nor do I believe that a person who in any way, by whatever means, wants in that way to allow the community to be prejudiced, was in reality an asset to such a community.

On considering the legislation as a whole, I think that in all fairness and reasonableness towards the owners of nearby properties, it is the duty of the State to ensure that those properties which are in a condition of decay shall be cleared and that redevelopment and replanning shall take place.

In conclusion I think it is fitting, since an amendment is being made to the existing Act, to congratulate and thank the Government—here I want to mention specifically the hon. the Minister of Community Development—not only for the positive assistance in combating decay and with the clearance of decayed areas, but also for what has already been achieved in this respect. If I may, I just want to mention that this department has already, since it took upon itself the task of clearance and renewal in 1964, spent approximately R115 million during the past eight years. This is truly an achievement.

Mr. Speaker, listening to the hon. member for Boksburg and his remarks on this Bill, we on this side of the House are more convinced than ever that this Bill should be referred to a Select Committee. He has made some very valuable points and while listening to him one realized that there are various aspects of this Bill which need to be examined. That is why I support the motion introduced by the hon. member for Green Point, namely that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee before its Second Reading. I understood the hon. member who has just sat down to say that it is to be done after the Second Reading. I think it would be more advantageous if it were done before the Second Reading. We would then have a very much better Bill than we have at the moment. We have been talking about the question of urban renewal since 1964 but for some reason or other we have never been able to get urban renewal off the ground prior to this Minister’s taking office. This Minister has had great difficulty in getting urban renewal off the ground. He has had great difficulty in getting things moving. We know what happened to the guinea pig of urban renewal, namely District Six. We know that the property in that area was frozen in 1964. That is some eight years ago. Hon. members know that time marches on. At that stage the Minister appointed a committee to go into the whole question of District Six and the surrounding areas. In 1965 he appointed a committee known as Corda— the Committee of Inquiry into the Rehabilitation of Depressed Areas. They submitted a report to the hon. the Minister. In that report they outlined some eight areas adjacent to District Six which could be used for development. The hon. the Minister then appointed a planning committee to go into the planning of this area. As we know, this is an area which has been declared White and it is going to become a White suburb. We know what happened then. Since then we have hastened slowly. The Minister has been up against great difficulties. In answer to a question asked by a colleague of mine we learnt that since 1964 the hon. the Minister has only been able to demolish some 355 properties, whilst there are some 6 063 properties still waiting to be demolished. Furthermore there are some 33 980 people, Coloured people, who have still to be moved, only 9 936 having been moved so far. Therefore one visualizes the terrific problems which face the Minister. If the progress is going to continue at the same pace, nothing is going to happen to District Six within the next 20 years, 25 years, or maybe longer. He is facing great problems in rehousing the group that he is moving, the Coloureds, in other areas. Notwithstanding that, even if he were moving Whites he would have the same problems, because he would have to rehouse them.

I was particularly pleased that the hon. the Minister commented some time ago on his intention to assist the decaying areas. It is also mentioned in clause 1 of this Bill. The area adjacent to District Six—which is in my constituency and some parts of which have not been zoned and in respect of which it has not been decided whether they are to be White or Black—is an area which is unfortunately decaying. In terms of clause 1, the hon. the Minister plans to assist financially in this direction. However, the people in the meantime are uncertain as to what is going to happen there. We are, for example, planning halls for schools, but we are discouraged from doing anything because we do not know what is going to happen in this area as there has been no planning for the particular area adjacent to District Six. We have had the same difficulty with regard to our hospitals. The net result is that properties have gone into decay. These properties will take quite a lot to repair. To the owners—some are merely tenants—it becomes uneconomical to repair these properties because there is the two-edged sword of rent control. A lot of properties have been let at very low rentals and the owners are finding that they do not get a sufficient return on their money. Accordingly they have not invested money in keeping their properties in the condition in which they should have been kept. So, when the hon. the Minister mentioned as stated in clause I of this Bill that he wants to prevent this decay and try to rehabilitate these areas, I think this is a step in the right direction. On reading this Bill, I think that the Minister and the Government realize that they have bitten off more than they can chew with regard to their idea of urban renewal. I do not think they realized the gigantic task they were facing when they took on urban renewal. We think of District Six and Doornfontein; yet we have such areas all over the country. They probably exist in Natal, in Durban, and I know they exist in Port Elizabeth. There is hardly a large city in this country of ours where the hon. the Minister is not faced with this problem. He is anxious, as we are, to do something about it. He would like to see this problem lifted right off the ground by means of urban renewal and he would like to do something about it.

We are busy with penalties …

Yes. When one thinks of urban renewal, one thinks of large blocks of flats, but that is not the case. If one looks at the history of urban renewal of other countries in the world, one finds that houses in a particular area have been rehabilitated. A certain number have had to be demolished because they were too far gone. Parks have also been created. This creation of large blocks of flats and multi-storeyed buildings, etc., I would say does not form the background of urban renewal. We have left this too long. It should probably have been done years ago. So I am pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister is going to do something about it now.

As I have said, the hon. the Minister is very anxious to get this off the ground. I would like the hon. the Minister, when he replies, to tell us how it is going to be done, since the local authorities just do not have the cash required. Whether the local authority is the right vehicle to handle this, I do not know. Equally, I do not know whether his own department or whether the various housing authorities that we have should not be the vehicle to be used. I suppose that the local authority could handle it, but they have a lot of hay on their fork. Perhaps he could use some other vehicle which property owners could approach to have their properties evaluated in order to determine whether they can be saved. When one sees what is happening in Mowbray and certain other areas one can see what can be done with these old houses. In Newlands, for example, old houses are renovated to what is called Chelsea dwellings.

In my constituency in the Observatory area where properties are deteriorating one finds that a number of people have bought properties there, have renovated them and it is remarkable to see what can be done with these old houses. These properties are not all slum and I have seen areas where properties have been purchased by the Department of Community development and demolished as being unsafe and that houses right next to them are still standing where those houses are in the same condition as the ones demolished. These houses can stand much more than examiners think. The older houses in Woodstock, for example, were built after the Boer War or just before and after the First World War. They were all of the semi-detached type of home and were well built. Money is, however, now required to renovate them and the Government cannot afford to have these areas go down.

There is not sufficient time to build up the areas and neither is there sufficient money to do it. Something has to be done and the Government must work out some form of finance and show some interest in these areas. I do not think that the owners of properties want the Government to acquire their properties. The man in the small house would like some financial assistance. The Minister might say that they should go to their building societies, but we know full well that the building societies are reluctant to lend money for certain types of houses. The rates of interest at any event are so high that the whole proposition becomes completely uneconomical as far as owners are concerned. Ordinary working people stay in most of these houses and they cannot afford these large outlays of cash every month.

But provision is made for this in the Bill.

Yes, I know, but the Minister does not tell us how it is going to be done. I know that the Minister mentioned a couple of years ago that provision is being made. But what I want to know is how this scheme is going to be put into motion. Who is going to do the job?

The local authorities.

It just does not happen. A second principle in this Bill is in connection with the developer. Some time ago the hon. the Minister said that he had been approached by certain people in this regard. I think he is on the right track, but he can get into a lot of trouble. There are various aspects of using the developer which the Minister has in mind and I think the hon. the Minister will be surprised if this Bill goes to a Select Committee, with the reaction he will get from property owners and property developers throughout this country. I do not think that anybody who wants to develop proerties is a philanthropist. Let us face it, he is not there just to hand out money, unless he is a philanthropist. He is a businessman who will try to make money. Not far from this building a large development scheme is planned. I have a newspaper report in regard to this plan here. The buildings on this plan look like a lot of inverted washboards to me and I am not very taken with the type of building they are going to put up. I do not think that they are aesthetically very suitable, but this is only by the way. Newspaper reports like this upset a lot of people. For instance, the following is stated in this newspaper report—

He is going to expropriate.

He cannot do it even if this Bill is accepted exactly as it is.

The public does not know that, and what has been the result? Agents have been negotiating with property owners to purchase certain properties at market value prices in this area, namely on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer. The agents broke off their negotiations in view of the introduction of this Bill. As a result of the prospective building of this complex, valuations in this area have gone down. The owners of properties have found it difficult to sell their properties, because buyers say that they are going to expropriate and that they are not interested. These people are suffering financially as a result of this business. Whether rightly or wrongly, people are upset. There are many properties in this area where this complex is going to be built which are valuable, and which are properties that can be rehabilitated. They are not in slums. Unfortunately there are a lot of slum properties as well. One would like to see them go, but at the same time, these people will still have to be rehoused. But there are a lot of properties that could be retained. I refer hon. members to clause 1 in this regard. I have no objection to an area being developed, but one does not like to see people being exploited and taken advantage of. There are no two ways about it; this is the impression created here. I have been approached by quite a number of people. They are disturbed and upset about it. Some people who know nothing about the scheme have been told point blank: “You are going anyway; we are going to expropriate your property.”

Tell me, how can that be if it is laid down in the Bill that a developer must possess at least 85 per cent of the property?

The hon. the Minister does not understand. Very few of the public have read this Bill. I think some of the developers have not read it. But it has the propaganda effect that people, without reading the Bill, think that the Minister will be able to expropriate their property. I can quote another instance. A very substantial property near Muizenberg which consists of quite a number of plots was originally acquired by our local authority here, ostensibly at that time for an economic housing scheme. Nothing happened. Another company wanted to develop a marina and the local authority disposed of the property. The original owners only got a fraction of the value of that property because it was expropriated at its rateable value. That is what can happen even with a local authority. The same can happen here. We must not forget that while all these negotiations are going on, properties are deteriorating in value. When it comes to the final deal, they will find that they will have to be satisfied with a fraction of the value because nobody will be interested in buying other than the Government or the person who wishes to expropriate.

I come to another aspect in this particular Bill. If we accept the fact that the properties are going to be purchased, then certain people will have to be rehoused. In order to make it a financial success, one cannot wait 20 years to develop a property, either here or anywhere else. The Government are faced with the obligation to provide suitable accommodation for the people affected. One cannot just say to people: “Well, I have purchased your property; here is three months’ notice. Out you go.” That is not good enough; that is something the public will not accept. The Government will say it is not their job to find houses for them, but it is. Morally, the Government cannot get away from that particular responsibility. After doing the survey for any redevelopment scheme they wish to undertake, they must face the fact that a certain number of houses have to be found for those displaced people. What is more, is that the wage and income group of those people who have to be taken into consideration. In this particular area the wage and income group is very low. I am sure that the people who are living there at the present moment will not be able to afford these luxury wash-board flats that are going to be built. So the Government are faced with that position. They may say that it is the owner’s job to do it. The owner will just wash his hands of it. It happens from time to time that where people purchase houses, before you can say “Jack Robinson”, the occupier gets three months’ notice, and out he goes. In this particular Bill the new section 45A (3) provides that—

So the present Bill provides that the owner can take possession of the property after three months. The Minister must keep in mind that if this development is going to take place, the present occupiers of the property must be housed. We just cannot wash our hands of that. In the same respect the hon. the Minister is faced with District Six where he has to find alternative housing for the people affected there, the Coloureds, in this case. He must see to it that the same is not going to happen in the case of all these other urban development schemes. As I said at the beginning, he could save a tremendous amount of this property and a lot of these buildings if he would only act now and start this loan scheme, by means of which people can save their decaying buildings.

I think that idea is sound. But we would like to hear from the hon. the Minister how we go about it and start the scheme. It is like the setting off of an atomic bomb. How do we trigger it off? That is the problem. The Minister must tell us today what he intends doing. It is a serious matter. If one goes to District Six and adjacent areas, which are not very far from here, one sees the deterioration of property due to the fact that people do not know what is going to happen. I am referring to the Minister’s own property. If he goes along De Waal Drive he will see it on the lefthand side. The hon. the Minister owns all the property on the lefthand side where quite a lot of people are housed. There is property that is actually owned by the Government, the Department of Community Development, and it is deteriorating. A little bit of money needs to be spent there.

Why do you say they are deteriorating?

I know what is going on there. They want a bit of money spent on them.

They are spending money on it.

Yes, I know, but it is not sufficient. There are quite a number of houses that will have to be retained for a long time before they are demolished. People are living there. Those houses could stand for years, but a lot of money will have to be spent on them. There are a number of other similar properties. I know that the Department assists wherever it possibly can in housing people but the position does exist here where you cannot put people out of their houses until you have other accommodation for them. That is going to take a long time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to say at the outset that I welcome the envisaged legislation. In the first place, extended powers are being given to the Development Board, so that it may spend money in areas where it was not previous1 allowed to do so. In other words, it is a minor extension of the powers of the Development Board in that respect.

The other amendments, I think, are as important, if not more important, for they provide for the greater streamlining of the legislation of the Department of Community Development. Amendments ensure that matters in regard to arbitration are brought into line with provisions already contained in the Development Act. It has already been found in practice that the procedures which are followed work very well. There is a minor amendment in respect of townships to facilitate registration at the Deeds Registry. It also brings the Community Development Act into line with the Expropriation Act, and makes provision for compensation and the subsequent registration at the Deeds Registry. It prescribes what procedure should be followed. Hon. members in this House are sometimes very concerned about the question that procedures are not laid down. Well, here the procedures which can subsequently be followed are being laid down.

The matter in regard to which there was quite a lot of argument yesterday and today is the envisaged new paragraph (hA) of section 15 (2) in clause 1 (b), which deals with the question of slum areas and the acquisition of land by a private developer. Here I must cross swords in one respect with the hon. members for Green Point, Jeppes and Salt River, for they question the competence of the Department of Community Development and in particular the Development Board. If they question the competence of the Development Board, then they also question the ability of the hon. the Minister and the Department to give effect to such a provision as this. We have learnt from past events, particularly when the Group Areas Act was mentioned in this House. When the Group Areas Act came into operation there was no Community Development Act. Local authorities and other local authorities of lesser extent than municipalities were afforded the opportunity of developing group areas, and they scarcely did or were able to do this. The Department also experienced the difficulty that certain local authorities did not see their way clear to implementing legislation and Government policy. Other local authorities were quite openly hostile to the implementation of this policy and of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. Eventually a solution had to be found, and then the Community Development Act came into operation, in section 2 of which provision is made for the establishment of a Community Development Board. This Board, as has just been indicated, was established because local authorities let the State and the public down. They let them down badly, so much so that the displeasure of several population groups was incurred. This happened because the Group Areas Act was not implemented. The Community Development Act makes provision for all the categories in regard to which the Development Board has to take steps. Section 15 in particular embodies all the objects and the general powers of the Board. To be able to give effect to these objects and general powers, a vigilant eye has to be kept on the position at all times to see whether the necessary provision is contained in the Act, and if that provision is not there, it has to be amplified from time to time, for the Department from the outset experienced many growing pains in regard to the implementation of the laws of the country and State policy. There should be no possibility of their being handicapped, therefore, by minor matters which crop up along the way. The principle that legislation in this regard should be introduced from time to time to enable the Development Board and the Department of Community Development in particular to fulfil their functions properly is therefore not a new one. The question now is whether it is so necessary. I indicated, in respect of one section, that it is absolutely necessary. I now want to indicate as well that, in respect of a new paragraph (hA) of section 15 (2) which is inserted by clause 1, legislation of this nature is extremely necessary, and also important, as far as the retention of aesthetic values in our township and urban development is concerned. I know that this proposed paragraph is a little new but so is the National Party. So is the Department which co-operates with it. They are always prepared to suggest something which is not only thought-provoking, but which also ensures that a greater interest is displayed in what the State is envisaging with this legislation. I mentioned the question of the assertion that other organizations will apparently be better able than the Development Board to implement this legislation. I have already sketched the background, and I want to sketch it further, Sir, by telling you that if one considers the picture presented by decayed areas, by slum areas in this country, then it really makes one feel afraid that if things continue in this way, the entire country may subsequently fall into decay. When the vultures have flown away they leave behind a pitiful scene of carnage. No one is there to care for the victims, and for that reason legislation is necessary. I have already mentioned that it is the United Party-orientated city councils which in most cases were responsible for legislation having to be introduced in order to create a Community Development Board. I am now going to indicate why the Department of Community Development is the proper organization to give effect to this legislation, whether it is passed in its present form or whether further powers are granted on the recommendation of a Select Committee. In several of these decayed areas operations have been in progress for a considerable period already to ensure that they do not decay further. What is the position in Durban? Hon. members know who controls Durban.

Block AK and Block G near the racecourse and railway station are most certainly decayed areas which require the most urgent attention. The same applies to Brickfield Hoosen, the Cato Manor Ridge area, the Ridge Area Extension, the Wiggins Estate, the Umkumbaan—and hon. members who represent Natal will know where these places are and will be able to form a mental picture of the decayed conditions prevailing there—Bonella, Bellair, Glenmore West, a portion of Sherwood and the Titron Road area. If such a large area of a city has been allowed to fall into decay, then it is time to call a halt and to ensure that there is machinery to prevent further decay and further “slummification” (verslumming), if there is such a word, in future. If this is not prevented then I foresee Durban’s fate being an even greater mess than it is at the present as far as those areas are concerned.

What is the position in Johannesburg? The hon. member for Jeppes will know what I am talking about when I mention a few of these areas. He will know what the conditions are in Jeppes, Fairview and Troyeville, and how necessary it is and was for the Department and the Community Development Board to take steps there. We think of the dilapidated slum area in Pageview. We think of the poor areas of Vrededorp, we think of Newclare, Fordsburg and Albertville. All these places are situated in the heart of Johannesburg, a United Party-controlled city council. Why are these areas being allowed to decay to such an extent, under their very eyes? Why should it be left to the Department and the Development Board to ensure that steps are taken to make a garden township of a little place like Albertville, which had decayed completely? That is what is happening there. We can go to the outskirts of Johannesburg. I know this is not the responsibility of Johannesburg, in all fairness to them, but there are places like Ennersdale and Finetown. If care is not taken of those areas in time, they will also decay, and the Coloureds who are at present living there and who have every right to want to live there, will have the right to point an accusing finger at this Board and at the Health Board, at the Department and at other organizations, and say that nothing is being done for them to save their areas, as well as the neighbouring White areas for the future.

Let us return to Cape Town. I think you also know who controls Cape Town. Here you have District Six, to which the hon. member for Salt River referred, where the owners of many of the places are also the type of owners to whom the hon. member for Boksburg referred. Here, under our very eyes, these areas fell into decay so that the Department had to intervene to save what could be saved and to create a better future for this city and its people. We also have Goodwood Acres on the other side, and a little bit further away we have Firgrove. Then there is also an area like Elsies River, and one shudders every time one flies over and gets a birds-eye view of that area.

Is there a United Party city council at Elsies River as well?

Perhaps there is no United Party City Council there, but the negative attitude of the United Party City Council sometimes penetrates to the other areas, if they are near enough to that influence. Then we can consider Port Elizabeth, South End, the best-situated area in Port Elizabeth, but this decayed so completely that the Department and the Development Board had to step in. And we can say thank you to the city council for eventually having begun to co-operate with the State Committee to save that area, where the unsatisfactory conditions had to continue until recently, until the department could take over control. Now we take a place in the part of the world the hon. member for East London City hails from, North End. Where can one hope to find a more critical condition than the one at North End? But what I will always hold against that city council is this, since the hon. member there is talking about a United Party-controlled city council : When the Department of Community Development wanted to step in to help with the clearance of North End and to help with the proper planning of group areas, they were shown the door and the city council actually behaved antagonistically towards them, as was also done by several other city councils which I can mention. There you now have the decayed conditions which this department has to clear up. There are others as well, and now the hon. member will again ask whether one has a United Party-controlled city council there. Let us take Stellenbosch, the Merriman Avenue area. This is not a United Party-controlled city council, but there one has a body which is co-operating, and very soon you will be able to go and see what a garden township is, and what can be achieved when there is cooperation and proper planning and the implementation of policy. So I can take you back to the Transvaal, to Pretoria, the Good Hope area and the Asiatic bazaar area, about which hon. members may perhaps have something to say. But I want to say: All credit to the City Council of Pretoria which is the only city council which was prepared to accept delegated powers under the Group Areas Act and co-operate in implementing the laws of the country and in implementing group areas; and where they have struck snags, they have felt free to come to the Minister and the department and ask for the necessary amendments to help them, and that hon. Minister and that department was prepared to accommodate them and to ensure that things went off in such a way that they would not be implicated when things became too difficult.

I am just returning for a moment to the Witwatersrand, to Germiston West and Georgetown. There were terrible areas, but go there now and see what those areas look like after replanning. You may say that this is an ugly picture and then you ask who the correct bodies are to do this. Then I say, “The proof of the pudding lies in the eating thereof”. What the Department of Community Development and the Development Board have already done is sufficient proof that they have the experience and the ability and the vision, and you and I see to it in this House that they get the funds so that they can continue with this great work of saving those areas which are doomed to destruction if steps are not taken quickly enough. Sir, if hon. members think that the Development Board and the Department are not competent, I can prove the opposite to you, quoting chapter and verse. I do not know of any department which is better equipped to do this work. There you have the Department of Community Development with two strong arms, stronger than yours and mine: On the one hand the National Housing Commission and on the other the Community Development Board, each with a wealth of experience, with a monopoly of wisdom which they can use to your benefit and mine and the benefit of the country, and each with so much vision that they can see what the future holds, and will see to it that they do not let this country down when it comes to the implementation of legislation and of national policy. In that department we have its officials, and we know their ability. Certain hon. members question the Development Board which is involved in this matter, but I say to you that you need not do so. The chairman is a man of the greatest ability and integrity, a man who can give and take guidance and a man who ensures that everything is carried out promptly and correctly; and he is supported by men of absolute competence to do this work entrusted to them. If you think that there may perhaps be weak members on the Board, I can tell you that there are none. A former deputy chairman is at present Deputy Controller and Auditor General. That is the type of people who serve and have served on that board, and I think that they are equal to this task. That is why, because I support and welcome this legislation in general, I want to give my support to the hon. the Minister and his department. He is a good Minister, he is the right man in the right place. That is why I support the legislation and I also support the idea that this proposed section (hA) should be subjected to a closer scrutiny, a section which, although other people may perhaps say something else, perhaps does not go far enough; perhaps even further provision ought to be made so that the energies and financial capacity of all who want to do so can be harnessed to assist in this great task of remedying urban decay and clearing slums, and this the department and the Development Board can do—the National Party Government will see to that.

The hon. member for Innesdal chose this debate, the debate on this Bill—which has nothing to do with the broad issues of town planning—to criticize in a very serious way a number of the cities and towns of South Africa in respect of certain aspects of their planning. I would place on record that several of the members on his side supported the derogatory comments that he made. There were “hear-hears” in respect of most of his comments. Now, I say this, that I believe that the towns and cities which have been criticized this afternoon by the hon. member for Innesdal are entitled to know from the hon. the Minister of Community Development whether or not he supports those derogatory comments. I ask the hon. the Minister to state clearly and unequivocally, when he replies to this debate, whether he supports these derogatory comments made by the hon. member for Innesdal in respect of each and every one of the cities and towns he mentioned.

I told them so myself.

Sir, I do not want the hon. the Minister of Community Development to deal with this by way of interjection. I call upon the Minister of Community Development to deal specifically with the criticisms of the hon. member for Innesdal. I believe the towns and cities that have been criticized deserve to know whether the views expressed by the hon. member for Innesdal are the views of the Nationalist Government and of the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I am well acquainted with the position in Durban, and I have heard the hon. the Minister on a previous occasion complimenting the city council of Durban for the way it has handled its town planning, and I challenge the hon. the Minister of Community Development to deny that he has complimented the City of Durban.

They do some good things.

You see, Sir, this Government is not prepared to be magnanimous in regard to things which are done properly by councils and by communities which do not support this Government. I am surprised that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is prepared to dismiss in this rather ungentlemanly way the good work which he himself knows the Durban City Council is doing, good work which the hon. member for Innesdal has sought to criticize quite unjustifiably.

Having said this, I want to return to the Bill. As the last speaker on this side of the House, I want to sum up the attitude of the United Party’s opposition to this Bill. We have serious objections and reservations to several important aspects of this Bill. We cannot, therefore, support this Bill in its Second Reading. It has been suggested by speakers on that side of the House that the Nationalist Caucus, or certainly some members of the Nationalist Caucus, also had reservations when this Bill was dealt with by the Nationalist community development group and recommended to the hon. the Minister that he should refer this Bill to a Select Committee after Second Reading. I want to make it clear that we, on this side of the House, cannot support that proposal either. We believe that to refer this Bill after Second Reading, would be to adopt as principles important matters arising from these amendments …

You are wrong there; it was not suggested at all. [Interjections.]

Order!

The hon. member for Boksburg said that the Nationalist group asked the hon. the Minister to refer this Bill to a Select Committee after Second Reading. We, as I say, are not prepared to support this because it would have the effect of accepting as principles features of this Bill with which we do not agree and which we would wish to debate in detail in the Committee Stage.

We are not the only persons who have objections to and reservations about this Bill. Since notice of its introduction has been given, property owners who feel that they may be prejudiced by the Bill have indicated their objections in the Press and to members of Parliament and, I am sure, also to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. The South African Property Owners’ association has indicated its objection to it and, I would point out that their objection is couched in very strong language. Having regard to the fact that they are not only a very responsible body but also a body which represents a large number of the property owners and developers in South Africa, the language they use is of significance. They say that their Association is totally against this new legislation and, furthermore, that they are against it in its entirety. I may add though that they have qualified this tone of theirs, this attitude, by suggesting a possible alternative which could be acceptable. If this Bill were to be referred to a Select Committee then this is one of the alternatives which could be considered. There is no doubt whatsoever that this Bill is a further erosion into the rights of individuals, particularly the rights of property owners. Property owners in the older parts of the big cities of South Africa have reason to fear the consequences if this Bill is passed in its present form. I would like to refer briefly to certain aspects of this Bill in order to demonstrate to this House that the provisions of the Bill constitute far-reaching erosion into the rights of individual property owners. In fact, I would go so far as to say that I wonder whether the extent of the erosion appears in any other similar legislation in Western countries. I would point out …

Yes, it is similar.

I would be interested to hear from the hon. the Minister what the position is. I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in terms of clause 1 (b) he is being empowered to designate an area to be developed in furtherance of a slum clearance scheme or the clearance of decayed conditions by a private person. No opportunity is given to the owners of property within the proposed designated area to state their objections to anyone or to put forward reasons why the area should not be designated for the purposes of the legislation. This, I submit, is a serious erosion into the rights of owners of properties. A second serious erosion appears in clause 5, which inserts the proposed new section 45A. The effect of this new section is that immediately upon the publication in the Gazette of the designation of a particular area for the purposes of development by a private developer in terms of this Bill, the remaining properties over and above the 85 per cent automatically fall to the ownership of the private developer. They automatically become owned by the private developer. That, I submit, is a very far-reaching proposal. The proposed new section 45A reads—

1. (1) Upon the date on which the notice under paragraph (hA) of section 15 (2) is published in the Gazette—

No right either to object or to suggest any alternative development proposal is given to the property owners who fall in this category. The only provision made in the section is that they shall be entitled to compensation and that, if they cannot reach agreement as to the amount of compensation, this shall go to arbitration. They have a right, therefore, in regard to compensation but they have no right to retain or protect their property. In fact, not only do they have no right, but they have no say whatsoever.

These are undoubtedly far-reaching erosions on the rights of individuals. Perhaps at this stage I should make it clear what the attitude of this side of the House is in regard to certain of the principles involved in this Bill. We believe that the power and the right to expropriate properties for urban renewal and slum clearance should be allowed under certain conditions, which we would like to debate in a Select Committee. We do not believe that the way in which it is proposed to achieve this object in this Bill, is the ideal solution and we would like to make certain suggestions in this regard. In particular we believe that it should not be related at all to the private developer. When I say “we do not believe”, I mean we think there may be better ways. I do not want to put the matter more strongly than that in case the hon. the Minister agrees to the proposal to refer the matter to a Select Committee. We therefore do not wish to commit ourselves in advance, but we believe that the powers presently existing under town planning ordinances go very far in the sphere of redevelopment. It may be that they do not go far enough in some provinces. It is suggested that in the Transvaal, for example, they do not go far enough. If that is the case, this is a matter which can be examined by a Select Committee, namely whether the existing legislative powers both under Acts of Parliament and under town planning ordinances are insufficient for the purpose which everyone wants to achieve, i.e. urban renewal of slum areas. If the Select Committee were to find that in some case the powers are inadequate, we would suggest that the proper body which should be entrusted with the additional powers required, should not be the Community Development Board, but the local authorities and the provincial administrations.

The hon. member for Green Point has already referred to the speech of Mr. Conradie. I do not wish to quote the passage again, but I merely want to say that we support the point of view expressed in the passage read out by the hon. member for Green Point. I wish to make it quite clear that we are not prepared to give any power of expropriation under any circumstances to a private developer. I know that the Bill does not ask for that, but I merely want to emphasize that we would not be prepared to see that happen. So far as the concept of private developers assisting in urban renewal is concerned, we support such a proposition. We believe that private developers should be encouraged to play a bigger role in urban renewal projects. These urban renewal projects very often involve a great deal of money and a great deal of know-how and skill. Certain private developers possess just that. They also have facilities for obtaining the required amount of money for purposes of this nature. I do not wish in saying this to derogate from the Community development Board. In many respects the board carries out its work well. I am now referring specifically to urban renewal and the provision of housing for certain purposes. I do not, as I say, wish to derogate from the work done by the Community Development Board but I believe that their function ought to be related more to the provision of individual housing rather than to projects of this type which not only involves housing, but may involve the renewal of business areas.

I believe I have only five minutes left, but before I sit down want to make one point which I regard as being important. Certain of the speakers on the Government side have aired the reservations and criticisms which they have towards the Bill in its present form. The hon. member for Germiston stated that his side of the House accepts, two principles. The first is the need to bring in the private developer and I have said that we also accept that principle. The second principle is that the private individual must not be sacrificed to the large developer and that we must protect his rights. That is a fine sentiment, but the Bill certainly does not make any provision for this. Once the particular area has been designated and once the private developer has acquired the 85 per cent required under the Bill, the balance automatically falls under his ownership and there is no protection whatsoever for the individual. The hon. member for Boksburg suggested that it may be desirable in certain circumstances for a right to be given to the owner to develop himself in a renewal area if he is able to and has the capital to do so. Here again, this is a fine sentiment, but it does not appear in the Bill. In fact, the provisions of the Bill are entirely contrary to it. There is no right whatsoever given to that minority group to say that they do not want to part with their properties and that they are prepared to redevelop. We accept that in a developed community occasions may arise where the interests of the community must take precedence so far as property rights over the rights of the individual property owner are concerned. The more communities that are developed the more it may be necessary to transgress these rights. We therefore do not oppose this legislation simply because it is an encroachment upon the individual rights of property owners, but we do believe that one must be very careful with legislation of this sort to achieve a reasonable balance which will, on the one hand, not jeopardize the interests of the community and on the other hand not transgress the rights of individual owners beyond what is essential to achieve in the community interest. For all these reasons we think that the only satisfactory way to deal with this Bill is to refer it to a Select Committee before Second Reading, before the acceptance of any specific principle so that the whole matter can be properly investigated and witnesses be heard, who may be in a position to suggest a satisfactory and a reasonable compromise between the conflicting interests that I have stated. We would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to accept the proposal of the hon. member for Green Point and refer this Bill to a Select Committee before Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am a little surprised at the hon. member for Musgrave, because initially in his speech I could come to no other conclusion but that he was against the very principle of this Bill.

What did you …

Wait a minute. The principle of this Bill is that private developers must be allowed to develop city renewal schemes.

I said that.

He then said that by doing that, and by giving those people the right to get hold of certain properties, we inflict, as he expressed it, a terrific erosion of the rights of property owners. What erosion of their rights are there? There is no erosion of the rights of property owners. When a city renewal scheme is planned it can be done either by a local authority, by a provincial administration, or by the Community Development Board. Whichever party is going to undertake that city renewal scheme, that party must eventually get hold of all the land in that particular area. The local authority has the right of expropriation and so has the provincial administrations and the Community Development Board. All we are saying in this Bill is that where we are now going to introduce the private developer to do city renewal schemes as well, we are going to give him that right to eventually get hold of all the land, because one cannot talk about a city renewal scheme and leave out some of the land in the area where a particular city renewal scheme is necessary. How is the private property owner then protected?

I apologize for interrupting, but my question is related to that which the Minister has just said. Does the Minister not envisage the possibility that in some renewal schemes it may be possible to allow the owner of a small block within the larger block to do his own developing?

Order ! The hon. member may not make a speech by way of a question.

That point has been made by the hon. member for Green Point. There is no reason why it should not be done. What the hon. member for Musgrave does not take into consideration is that before a private developer can start on his scheme, he must have a fully worked out scheme which has been agreed to by the local authority. The scheme must be approved of also by the Administrator, by the Community Development Board and by the Minister. Such a scheme will be a properly worked out scheme the same as if it was done by any of the other authorities which can do that at the moment. Where is the erosion of rights then? I am going to agree to the amendment of the hon. member for Green Point and I will tell hon. members why. I am going to agree because this is to a certain extent a new principle which is being brought into our legislation, the principle where property is taken away from one private owner and given to another private owner. But that private owner is protected. We all agree on the principle that the private developer must be involved for reasons advanced by the hon. members for Musgrave and Green Point, but also for the very important reason that we just do not have the money to undertake all the renewal schemes in the country. City renewal is a very expensive process. If one can introduce private developers to assist in city renewal schemes, one is doing this country a very big favour. But I agree that there are many ways in which it can be done. I do not say the ways laid down in this Bill are complete and the final answer. I have very little doubt but that this Bill will come back from the Select Committee not much different from what it is today. But SAPOA and other property owners are very interested in this matter. I have discussed it with them and explained it to them. After we had had a full discussion, there were not very many objections from their side. But I am willing to accept the amendment.

The hon. member for Green Point said that this provision was in the past looked upon as a punitive measure.

Before 1800.

Yes, before the present time. Then he made a statement with which I entirely agree. He said that dispossession could only take place if it was in the public interest. But the public interest is completely protected in this Bill. At the risk of repeating myself, I want to say that the parties concerned objected to the Bill because that scheme cannot be undertaken by private developers unless it has been completely agreed to by the local authority, the provincial administration and the Development Board. Therefore I cannot see any objection to the principle of this Bill; but, as I say, I am quite willing to refer it to a Select Committee to hear the views of the different developers.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Salt River that District Six is certainly not the first city renewal scheme which we have started. District Six was frozen in 1966.

In 1964.

No; in 1966.

I have information that it is 1964.

Well, my information is that it was in 1966. But since that time we have appointed a State committee which has been co-operating with the local authority. A great part of District Six has been demolished. The main reason why we are slow in the reconstruction of District Six is that we have to provide alternative housing for the Coloured people living there. Where are we going to get that alternative housing for the Coloured people in District Six? We cannot obtain that housing until such time as Mitchell’s Plain is developed. The City Council is only now starting on the development of Mitchell’s Plain. I certainly hope they will be able to do it in the next two or three years. Once Mitchell’s Plain is developed, the progress in District Six will be faster. The hon. member said the position would be the same and that we would not reach anything for another 20 to 25 years. But that is ridiculous. We have demolished every single part of District Six in respect of which we could provide alternative housing to the Coloured people of that area. The only reason why it is going slowly is because we do not have alternative housing at the moment, and because we have to wait for the development of Mitchell’s Plain. But we have made a great deal of progress in other city renewal schemes. I refer to Newclare and Jeppes in Johannesburg and in South End in Port Elizabeth, which is now being completely demolished. We are now in the process of rebuilding it. At Riverside in Durban and several other areas, the Development Board is busy with city renewal schemes. Where we have appointed State committees they are in the process of carrying out the city renewal schemes. So, District Six was quite definitely not an experiment. As a matter of fact, District Six is one of the last.

They are building in Germiston already.

They are already building in Georgetown. We are already rebuilding in Germiston.

In Georgetown?

We are already rebuilding in Georgetown. Sir, seeing that I accept the amendment, I do not want to go into detail into everything that was said here. I merely want to refer to what the hon. member for Germiston said about the way in which buildings could be renovated. I fully agree with him. There is the danger in South Africa—and that idea exists in local authorities, and I almost want to say that it exists in the Department of Community Development to a certain extent, although we are trying to get away from it now— that buildings which can still be renovated, are simply being demolished. We should not continually think of demolishing buildings. If a building can be renovated in any way, we should do so; we should not demolish that building and erect a new building in its place. I fully agree with the hon. member; the more buildings one demolishes, the more expensive it becomes to replace those buildings, the longer it takes to rebuild them and the more it costs. Therefore I fully agree with the hon. member, but I want to say to him that we are doing a great deal in the direction of the renovation of old buildings. Here in Cape Town, for example, old Malay buildings which are more than 100 years old, are being renovated. The new buildings are free of rent control, and consequently we are encouraging the renovation of old buildings to a very large extent.

The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about the danger of the intrusion of small industries into areas which are partially residential. I agree with him that in the past that was a very unfortunate development. It happened in Boksburg; it happened on the whole of the Witwatersrand, in Pretoria and in Johannesburg. This is one of the reasons why the Development Board is so insistent now on the question of urban renewal so that we may eliminate that type of development in future.

Can I take it from what the hon. the Minister says that in an urban renewal scheme like Block AK or District Six the department would sell its property to a private developer for him to develop it?

We would do both; we would develop part of the area ourselves and sell part to private enterprise. The plan for District Six has already been completed and we are now calling for tenders. Private enterprise can tender to develop a particular block or to develop, say, two blocks. Where tenders are not accepted, the Community Development Board will develop the area itself. But I think that in the end private enterprise will develop the whole area. They will, of course, have to develop it in accordance with the scheme.

Tenders have been invited?

Yes, I think tenders have been called for in this respect already. If it has not been done already, it will be done very soon.

*The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about the separation of the race groups. Sir, there is not the slightest doubt that one of the main reasons for urban decay in the past was in fact mixed residential areas. There is not the slightest doubt about that. I am not at all so terribly reticent about what the hon. member for Innesdale said here; he was perfectly correct. I spoke very frankly to the various city councils that did not want to give assistance. I spoke very frankly to the City Council of Johannesburg about certain separations they would not allow. We simply told them that if they did not allow it, we would do it ourselves. We did so here in Cape Town. There was a time when the City Council of Cape Town did not want to co-operate in regard to the clearing up of District Six, and we simply told them that if they did not want to do so, we would do it ourselves, which we in fact did. Today I am grateful for being able to say that we have the cooperation of all the large municipalities in the country.

It is surprising that the United Party does not say again that we have taken over their policy.

Sir, I think that to a large extent we are in agreement as far as this Bill is concerned. I can understand perfectly well why we have to refer the Bill to a Select Committee before its Second Reading, because I understand that once we have passed the Second Reading, we may make very few changes, according to the rules of this House. This is in fact the reason why I agree with the hon. member for Green Point that we should refer the Bill to a Select Committee before its Second Reading. At the same time, I want to say that I am very confident that the Bill will not be greatly amended when it comes back from a Select Committee, but if we refer the Bill to a Select Committee, we shall at least have the satisfaction that the interested parties such as SAPOA and the development companies, the local authorities, Mr. Conradie and the provincial administrations will have had the opportunity of expressing their misgivings. Then they can either be satisfied or we shall be able to effect the necessary changes which would then render the Bill a better measure than it is at present.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Motion, as amended, put and agreed to, viz: That the Order for the Second Reading of the Community Development Amendment Bill [A.B. 39—’72] be discharged and the subject of the Bill be referred to a Select Committee for inquiry and report, the Committee to have power to take evidence and call for papers and to have leave to bring up an amended Bill.

During question time earlier this afternoon, the hon. member for Simonstad put the following supplementary question on question No. 3 to the Prime Minister :

*Before giving him the opportunity to make a personal statement, I wish to make the following statement : It would appear to me that the hon. member deliberately and premeditatedly put the supplementary question in order thereby to throw suspicion on Ministers, Deputy Ministers and members of this House. By abusing his privileges as a member of this House in this way, not only did he make these persons suspect but he brought discredit upon the dignity of this House.

I must express my strongest displeasure at and disapproval of this extremely reprehensible conduct on the part of the hon. member.

As Speaker of this House I therefore wish to reprimand him most seriously on his behaviour and warn him that any repetition of such conduct will have the most serious consequences for him.

†I now call upon the hon. member.

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I asked a supplementary question. With respect to you, I made no reflection on any member of this House.

I am not prepared to accept those words. The Secretary will read the next Order of the Day.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, you have given your ruling. The hon. member has committed a flagrant act towards you, and on a point of order and with respect I wish to submit that the matter cannot be left at that.

I shall not leave it at that. I shall take the matter further subsequently.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

As hon. members know I recently appointed a representative committee to thoroughly investigate certain aspects of the Rents Act, 1950, and if necessary propose amending legislation. The Committee is already hard at work, and although it is a very difficult and extensive field the Committee must cover, it is expected that it will issue its report this year still.

I therefore did not intend to propose any amendments to the Rents Act, 1950, during this session with the object that any amendments that may appear to be necessary can be handled with the Committee’s inquiry has been concluded and their proposals accepted.

However, a matter of urgency has now cropped up that compels me to submit this Bill to you. I shall explain. Section 9 (3) of the Rents Act, 1950, provides that a rent board can issue an authorization to increase rent retrospective to the date on which the lessor’s application for permission to increase the rent was transmitted to the lessee.

A case cropped up recently that clearly indicates that this provision embodies the possibility of tremendous hardships being created for the lessees.

The Rent Board, at the request of the lessor, fixed the rent of a block of flats in August 1968 and increased that rent, again at the request of the lessor, in February 1969. The lessor was not satisfied with this, however, and applied to Rent Control Board for a revision. The lessor was not satisfied with the Rent Control Board’s decision either and consequently had recourse to the courts. The courts referred the matter back to the Rent Control Board. Again the lessor was not satisfied with the Rent Control Board’s decision and again applied to the courts to have the Rent Control Board’s decision set aside. The court’s finding was that it was compelled to refer the matter back to the Rent Control Board, which it subsequently did on 27th September, 1971. The Rent Control Board thereupon fixed the rent on 26th November, 1971 and decided that the increase, as fixed by it, was operative as of 1st January, 1969. The lessees must therefore pay the arrears covering the period from 1st January, 1969 to 26th November, 1971. I have briefly indicated the course of an application for higher rent to indicate how it can happen that a lessee finds himself in a position where he is liable for a considerable amount of rent in arrears. The rent involved was increased by about R20 per month, and in the case of a flat, for example, where the previous rent was R47-78 per month and from 1st January, 1969, was R68-51 per month, the rent in arrears amounts to no less than R725-55. This will undoubtedly entail great hardship for those involved.

It could be argued, it is true, that as prescribed in the Act the lessees obtained notice of the application for an increase of the rent and that they should therefore have been prepared for that and have made provision for the increase. In practice, however, a lessee simply does not, under such circumstances, set aside money for the requested increase. It is therefore my considered opinion that the provision contained in section 9 (3) of the Act can result in too much hardship since the retrospective period is unlimited. A limit must therefore be set.

An authorization to increase rent ought not to exceed six months in its retrospective effect. A lessee ought to be able to afford a rent increase that has accumulated over six months, but when the increase is owing over a longer period than six months, it can create too much hardship. That is why clause 1 (1) of the Bill is being submitted to you.

As you will notice clause 1 (2) provides that the abovementioned amendment is applicable from 1st January. 1969 to cover the case I have just mentioned. The intention here is simply that most recent instances, where too much hardship occurred in that respect, can also benefit from the amendment.

I am going to move in the Committee Stage that clause 2 be omitted.

When listening to the hon. the Minister relating the tale of this particular case before the Rent Board in Johannesburg I was reminded of the advice given to me very early in life as an articled clerk by an experienced lawyer, who said to me that the resources of the law are infinite. It seems that the position is such that it is possible for a landlord to go backwards and forwards to the court and similarly it would be possible for a tenant who desires so to do, to delay an increase for an interminable period by going backwards and forwards to the court. Sir, we welcome this measure and will support it, particularly in view of the fact that there is a commission sitting at the present moment to investigate the workings of the Rents Act, but I want to make two points to the hon. the Minister.

The first is that if delays up to six months do occur, it does seems that even as a temporary measure the hon. the Minister should consider appointing more boards to deal with rent applications. I do not think that we have that delay in the Cape Peninsula, but I understand that it does occur in other parts of the country. I think if the hon. the Minister, pending the outcome of this commission of inquiry into the Rents Act, could at least appoint some additional rent boards where they are necessary to speed up this work in regard to the determination of rents, it will be a good thing. It will cut both ways. It is a hardship on the tenant to have to pay even six months’ arrears. One can imagine a R20 increase in rental from R80 to R100 and the tenant finding that he is obliged to pay R120 plus a month’s rental, R200, in one payment. At the same time it would be wrong to deprive landlords of their just rental to which they are entitled because of action taken by the tenants to delay and defer the determination of rentals. But these are problems of administration which we hope will be cleared up when we have a new look at the Rents Act. But as an interim measure I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this.

I am also very pleased with the notice which has been given by the hon. the Minister to negative clause 2 of the Bill in the Committee Stage. Might I say, when I look at the Bill now, that having regard to the requests which came from this side for clause 1 and the requests which came for the determination of clause 2, the Minister will forgive me if I say that the paternity of this Bill rests on this side of the House, but we concede the maternity to the hon. the Minister.

I am glad the hon. member for Green Point supports the legislation. It is a fact that rent control in this country has come to stay; like the proverbial poor, it will always be with us. As long as the demand for houses exceeds the supply, we shall have to be content with this. New shortcomings are also continually coming to light in the legislation. New points of friction develop and amendments are continually necessary. This is therefore one of the Acts on the Statute Book that must regularly be amended. This year we thought, as the hon. the Minister said, that we would not have an amendment owing to the fact that he appointed a committee to review the entire legislation, but now the necessity has nevertheless arisen for the Act to be amended to a lesser extent. I want to point out that even as we are now amending the Act, with the period being restricted to six months, it can still impose a considerable burden on the lessees. The more luxurious the flats the greater the amounts involved, and it could in fact happen that a person must pay rent in arrears for a period of six months, which will make things very difficult for him. Here we saw the case of an amount accumulating to the tune of R755. In the less luxurious flats provision is being made for people with smaller incomes, but relatively they feel the pinch just as much because it is as difficult for them to advance a smaller amount that has to be repayed. Usually these requests for rent increases take quite a long time to be dealt with and we must accept that in very few cases will the time taken be less than six months. As far as I am concerned, I am almost inclined to ask the Minister whether in the Other Place he will not give further consideration to the matter and make further concessions. I see no reason why the date on which the rent is fixed, the date on which a final decision on appeal is given, should not be the date on which the rent comes into force. If I institute a claim for money, I must wait until the court gives its decision; it makes no difference how long I have to wait. Only from that day onwards can I obtain my money. I think it ought to apply here as well so that the rent comes into force on the date on which the decision is given on the appeal that was instituted. If that is the case I think everyone will be satisfied I specifically want to ask the Minister that applications for the decrease of rent ought not to be made retrospective over a period exceeding six months either; in other words, in cases where lessors must repay money to the lessees, this must not be retrospectively operative beyond a six months’ period either.

Then I also want to refer to clause 2. The Minister intimated that he is going to withdraw the clause in the Committee Stage. I think the clause does nevertheless have some merit that we must not overlook. I just wonder whether we cannot suggest that he has another look at it. The proposed amendment now provides that—

I think there is objection to the fact that the Rent Board must approve the institution. If the amendment were to be passed in its present form, the Rent Board would be placed under an intolerable burden. They would simply not be able to keep abreast of all the decisions to be given. I think there is merit in the proposal and therefore I want to ask whether we should not replace the words “in trust for the lessee” with “a financial institution approved by the Registrar of Banks and Financial Institutions”. I think that a clause with such an amendment can be passed. In such a case the amendment can serve a good purpose. I just wanted to bring these few remarks to the Minister’s attention. I want to add that it is a good thing the Act is now being amended, because in its present form it can place a tremendous burden on certain lessees if the rent can be recovered in the respect of a period longer than six months. I mention this with the specific idea that when the Committee comes along with its proposals and when the Rents Act comes under review for amendment at a later stage, we must give thought to making the date of the final decision the date on which the rent comes into force.

Mr. Speaker, before repaying to the hon. member for Parow, as the bench-mate of the hon. member for Orange Grove who unfortunately cannot be here, I feel it incumbent on me to claim his proud paternity of this measure, a measure which perhaps is not as famous in his family as T.V., but nevertheless due to the representations which he has made. I am sure the hon. member for Orange Grove would want me on his behalf to thank the hon. the Minister for giving maternity to this measure.

Returning to the hon. member for Parow, I must say that it is not often that I find myself in agreement with him. We on this side of the House accept the Bill because, as stated by the hon. member for Green Point, there is a commission sitting and the whole Act will have to be taken in review. We are not arguing about it now and we accept clause 1 as it stands. But like the hon. member for Parow, I too recognize and have come across cases over and over again where a delay due to appeals has meant hardship for people. This is the case because no matter how much you warn them, no matter how much the estate agent suggests to them that they put aside the increase every month, some people still suffer hardship. For a person earning, say, R38 per month in old-age pension, another R1 or another R1-50 is a major factor in his or her housekeeping or bookkeeping. It can mean the difference between existing or not being able to make ends meet. So the temptation is to hope and wait. When eventually the date suddenly comes along that person in terms of this legislation, could have to pay back for six months whatever increase there might be. On the sort of building a pensioner would occupy, this would normally not be more than perhaps R10 to R15. However, that is half of the monthly income of a pensioner. So, even with this limitation, it can still be a hardship. We can accept the view of the hon. member for Parow that increases take effect from the date on which they are finalized, but this could mean a hardship for the landlord. That would in fact militate against his right to appeal, which is his right and which he should be entitled to enjoy. If, by appealing, he would lose the increase for the interim, he may find it better not to appeal. That would be interfering with a genuine right of a landlord. Therefore, when the final amendments come along, we may perhaps think along the lines that, once the local Rent Board has decided, that rent shall be effective. Normally the local Rent Board—I cannot speak for the Cape, but I know the position in Durban—meets and settles a case within six to eight weeks. This means that there is seldom a delay of more than one or two months for which arrear rental must be paid. The time between the notice to the tenant and the decision of the local Rent Board usually means at the most two months’ arrears. If the person had to pay from that date, it would be much easier on subsequent appeals to meet the difference between the Board’s decision and the appeal than it would be to meet the whole increase. If there is to be a repayment, it is far easier for a company, a firm of standing, to repay an amount to the tenant. I think perhaps the hon. the Minister may think along these lines when it comes to the final amendments to this Act which will be necessary. In the meantime I think six months gives some protection; it is certainly better than it is now.

The case that I mentioned took three years.

Yes, it can take three years and, once one gets into the clutches of the legal fraternity, it is amazing how long a case can take and how much it is going to cost one before one gets out of it. Sir, this is an improvement, but I do not think that it is the final answer, and I hope that perhaps we can think along the lines of some other solution.

In regard to clause 2, the withdrawal of which we welcome, I am afraid I cannot agree with the hon. member for Parow. The principle should be that money, which comes from housing, should go to a building society where it can be used for providing funds for further building and the provision of accommodation. That is the basic principle. This money is a deposit tenants are paying, and it is only reasonable that that money should be used to provide housing. Now we have the technical problem that a limited liability company or other company cannot invest in a building society. I see no reason why one should therefore say that because of this, money should now go into any other financial institution. The money might have been put into Sidarel! Then just think what would have happened to the tenants’ money.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, I realize that the hon. member wants a limitation, but I think that the building society principle should be retained. It may be possible in some other way—for example by saying: “Notwithstanding any other law …—of ensuring that these deposits can in fact be devoted to the purpose of housing. Under the circumstances it is probably best that this clause should be withdrawn at this stage and we welcome the fact that the hon. the Minister will move the deletion of it. In the meantime the one-clause Bill will go forward until such time as the commission, who have my deepest sympathy, are able to submit their report. It is going to take more than the wisdom of a Solomon to find a solution to this problem. I have said before, and I repeat, that every one who knows something about the Rents Act must have sympathy for the commission. Something must be done, improvements must be made, but in the present circumstances the approach in this Bill, which is to give protection to the tenant, must remain the approach of Parliament. Parliament is the guardian of the underprivileged, the people who require and need our protection. It is not our task to protect those who can look after themselves, but there is a need to protect those who cannot look after themselves. I hope that it will not be too long before we have the report, that it will not be another Press Commission for whose report we had to wait 14 years, but a report which we shall have before us as soon as the commission is able to complete its work. I hope that then, once again, we shall be able to cooperate with the hon. the Minister in passing further amendments which may become necessary. We support the measure.

Mr. Speaker, as far as the last point made by the hon. member for Durban Point is concerned, it is expected that the commission inquiring into the Rents Act, will publish its report in the latter half of this year. We hope it will not take much longer than that. As regards the point he made concerning clause 2, I am also in agreement with him. We should like to ensure that all these deposits will be invested with building societies.

And if one cannot get them there?

The trouble is, as it was brought to our notice—I think it was the hon. member for Parktown who brought this matter to our notice—that if clause 2 were accepted, the building societies could lose a great deal of money. Some of these private companies invest money with the building societies in the names of their directors, and if this clause were accepted, the building societies could lose a great deal of money. I want to tell the hon. member that we are considering whether it will not be possible for us to achieve what we want to achieve by these means, by amending to the Building Societies Act instead. It is therefore not a case of our seeking to do away with that principle, i.e. that these deposits must be made; we just want to prevent the danger of building societies losing money in favour of other companies.

I also want to thank the hon. member for Durban Point for having mentioned the name of the hon. member for Orange Grove. I forgot to mention it in my introductory speech. However, it is true that the case which gave rise to this legislation, was brought to my notice by the hon. member for Orange Grove. When he had brought it to my notice, it was very obvious to me that we would have to straighten out that state of affairs as soon as possible.

I have some sympathy with the hon. member for Parow in regard to his suggestion that the increase in the rent should be effective as from the day on which it is determined. However, the hon. member for Durban Point also took up a very legitimate standpoint in that regard, namely his standpoint in regard to a person applying for an increase in the rent on a certain date. After the lapse of two, three or four months, or whatever the case may be, the Rent Board determines that he may get an increase. Surely, there can be no doubt that he is entitled to getting that increase as from the date on which he applied for it, provided that he does not prolong the period too much by lodging appeal after appeal. However, one does not want to deprive him of his right to appeal. The hon. member is perfectly correct in saying that if one were to provide that the rent should be increased as from the day on which the decision is given, such a person would find it quite difficult to appeal, for then he would defer the date on which he could get the additional rent.

As regards the question put by the hon. member for Parow, namely whether the same thing would apply in the case of a reduction in the rent, the answer is in the affirmative—it applies in that case as well. I must honestly say that we merely decided on six months in an attempt to retain the balance. However, all these things will be dealt with in detail by this commission of inquiry into the Rents Act, and I hope that once they have completed their task, we shall be able to come to this House with a more scientific measure. In the meantime I must thank the hon. member for Green Point and his side of the House for their support of this legislation.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Professional Engineers Act, 1968 (Act 81 of 1968), authorizes the establishment of the South African Council for Professional Engineers, an autonomous statutory body authorized to carry out certain functions in connection with the ordering of the engineering profession. In the implementation of this function certain shortcomings have been discovered that can only be supplemented by suitably amending the Act. There are also amendments of a purely administrative nature.

The amendments are taking place on the recommendation of the South African Council for Professional Engineers and aim at substituting the word “elektriese” for the word “elektrotegniese” in the Afrikaans text; changing the name of the Professional Engineers’ Joint Council; appointing certain alternate members of the Council; appointing professional engineers who are not members of the said Council as members of committees of the said Council; extending the functions of advisory committees; altering the prerequisites for registration as an engineer or an engineer in training; the reporting by courts of law and other legal forums of prima facie improper and disgraceful behaviour on the part of a professional engineer or an engineer in training to the South African Council for Professional Engineers; extending thepower to make regulations; and providing for incidental matters.

The amendments are of a simple nature and do not affect any of the fundamental principles laid down by the Principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House support this measure. It is a measure which amends an Act which deals with a particular professional body, the professional engineers. We understand from certain members of that council that the amendments which are being introduced have the support of the council and were in fact requested by the council. That being the case, and as the amendments do not in any way prejudice the rights of the general public, we consider that the requests of the professional engineers should be acceded to and the Bill supported. Just in passing I would like to mention that I believe that the provision, which is being introduced in clause 8—the amendment to section 22 of the Principal Act—which makes it compulsory for courts of law to report to the council improper or disgraceful conduct which may appear prima facie in the course of court proceedings, is a sound provision. There are occasions when improper conduct on the part of a professional person is dealt with in a court of law and may not necessarily be brought to the attention of the council concerned. A provision making it compulsory for a court of law to draw to the attention of the council such conduct is, I believe, a sound proposal. I do not wish to refer to the other amendments in detail, because, as I have said, they have been requested by the Professional Engineers’ Council as necessary amendments to make the Principle Act work more satisfactorily. That being the case, we support the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to thank the hon. member for the support of the Bill and say that I appreciate it.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

In 1971 the Cabinet appointed a committee and instructed it to investigate and report urgently on the role and function which Church Square should fulfil in the lives of inhabitants of Pretoria as an historical and geographical centre of the administrative capital, and to determine in what way this set-up would affect the proposed development of State-owned and other sites bordering thereon and in the immediate vicinity thereof. On 7th September, 1971, the Committee’s recommendations were considered and accepted in principle by the Cabinet.

In order to afford the responsible bodies and persons the opportunity of carrying into effect the instructions of the Government in this regard, it is necessary that the future development of the entire area bounded by Andries Street to the East, Pretorius Street to the South, Bosman Street to the West and Vermeulen Street to the North, be subjected to control. The existing legislation, inter alia, the Community Development Act, 1966, as amended, does not make provision for such an arrangement, and consequently it is necessary to pass special legislation for this purpose.

In terms of the present town-planning regulations, as defined in Pretoria Town Planning Scheme No. 1 of 1944, usable floor area of buildings bordering on Church Square is restricted to six times the surface area of the site. In addition to that, a general height restriction of 30 metres (100 feet) applies, but if the owner is prepared to reduce the circumference of his building so as to release a proportionally larger area of the site, he may obtain special permission to build higher on condition that he does not exceed the floor area restriction. Separately the surface areas of the individual sites in the area belonging to private owners, are not large enough for buildings of unusual heights to be erected on them.

Consequently, the proposed measures of control do not curtail any existing rights which the private owners of the sites concerned have at present.

The buildings surrounding Church Square have a delicate architectural balance which emphasizes the history of the capital city and this balance could be disturbed if high buildings were to be erected near or around Church Square. For this reason, too, it was decided to erect the tower blocks which the Transvaal Provincial Administration and the Department of Public Works intended erecting close to the square, further to the west, away from Church Square. These tower blocks will be identical on the outside, which a height of at least 150 metres (500 feet) and will be erected, suitably set back, behind the buildings of the National Bank and the old Netherlands Bank on both sides of Church Street so that they will not detract from the character of Church Square. Since these bank buildings, the old Raadsaal and the Palace of Justice emphasize the historical nature and significance of Church Square, they are being retained. The rest of the old buildings on the western side will be demolished, i.e. the original Old Mutual building, the old Mint building, the present Post Office buildings, the Café Riche, the old Law Chambers and the Capital Theatre—on the one hand because they have no particular historical value and on the other hand because architecturally, their aesthetic and intrinsic value is so slight that it does not justify their retention.

The above-mentioned tower blocks will accentuate Church Square’s importance. Apart from the fact that modern buildings have already gone up on and around Church Square, this type of development on the State-owned sites concerned, if implemented with taste, will bring out the historical buildings in clearer relief.

The foregoing serves to give a general picture of the future development of Church Square, Pretoria. Then, too, it is necessary to emphasize that the role of the City Council of Pretoria is not being reduced. In its task relating to Church Square it will be assisted by the Capital Planning Committee and its Committee on Aesthetic Matters, and will advise the Minister on the development of the square and adjoining sites. Although the final authority is vested in the Minister, he will be guided by the City Council.

The Bill therefore envisages control of the development of Church Square, Pretoria, and the sites bordering thereon and in the immediate vicinity thereof. It is intended that no construction work or demolition of any nature may take place in the area without the Minister of Public Works having given his written permission in that regard. This particular aspect will be elucidated further when I subsequently deal with the clauses of the Bill.

In my opinion the best way of dealing with this Bill would be to deal separately with the various clauses.

Clause 1 :

Definition of Minister (Minister of Public Works), Secretary (Secretary for Public Works) and City Council (City Council of Pretoria).

Clause 2 (1):

From the date on which this Act comes into operation a prohibition is imposed on the development of Church Square and adjoining sites. In addition, no change is allowed to any building, structure or site without the approval of the Minister.

Clause 2 (2):

The Minister may in his discretion withhold or grant his approval, and if he grants it, he may impose such conditions as he may deem fit.

Clause 2 (4) :

The Minister grants or withholds his approval only after he has obtained and considered the advice of the City Council. In terms of clause 6 applications are submitted to the Secretary for Public Works who obtains the advice of the City Council and then submits the matter to the Minister.

Clause 3 (1):

The penalties are also aimed at curbing the continued disregarding of the Act.

Clause 3 (2):

A magistrate’s court has jurisdiction to impose any punishment prescribed in subsection (1).

Clause 4:

No compensation is payable to any person as a result of the withholding of any approval referred to in clause 2 (1). As has been mentioned, there is no real curtailment of the existing rights of the owners of the sites concerned.

Clause 5 (1) and (2):

Regulate the cancellation of all servitudes registered under Crown Grant No. 1103 and 1905 against the unrestricted use or development of Church Square. The servitudes provide—

1. (a) that no buildings, statues or memorials of any nature are to be erected and that no improvements to the property are to be effected without the State President having given his approval to this; and
2. (b) that a drive-way 79 feet wide around the Square should be maintained for use by the public.

Clause 6:

This clause is intended to regulate the procedures arising from the legislation.

Clause 7 :

The Act is applicable to the State as well.

Clause 8:

The short title of the Act is the Church Square, Pretoria, Development Act, 1972.

Mr. Speaker, when this Bill was debated in the Other Place, the hon. the Minister made certain statements which he has repeated this afternoon and which I want to examine right at the outset of my remarks in regard to this particular Bill. The hon. the Minister said—

One would believe, in listening to that statement, that the council is to retain its rights; that its rights are not being reduced, but when we look at the first provision of this Bill, in clause 2, after the definition clause, we read this—

1. (a) No alteration may be effected to the planning …
2. (b) No building or other structure on any site, or portion thereof, situated within the area described in Schedule B to this Act, may be erected, extended, architecturally adapted or demolished without the prior written approval of the Minister having been obtained.

That written approval has to be given, it is true, after he has obtained and considered the advice of the council, but, Sir, it is specious for the hon. the Minister to suggest that the council’s powers are not being lessened when he himself has the right to decide what should be done. The hon. the Minister made these statements in the Other Place and the matter was debated on 28th February of this year, but since then there have been some interesting expressions of opinion by the people of Pretoria regarding this particular legislation. I want to refer, first of all, to a leading article which appeared in Die Transvaler on 4th March, 1972, that is to say, after the Second Reading debate in the Other Place had been concluded and had been reported in the Press. Die Transvaler, in dealing with the happenings in Brakpan and in the Johannesburg municipal elections, went on to say this—

The leading article then goes on to say—

And they blame these city councillors—

That is the warning from Pretoria itself about this type of legislation which has come before us this afternoon. Sir, let me go further. In Hoofstad of 9th March, 1972, there appeared an article which was headed, “Mevrou Verwoerd Gesels”, and this is what this honourable lady has to say—

These are buildings which have been approved by the hon. the Minister’s Planning Committee. This is the view of Mrs. Verwoerd. She goes on to say—

Sir, that is just what is happening in this. Bill by taking out of the hands of the local authority, by taking out of the hands of the provincial authority, the power to control a portion of the administrative capital of our country.

This, unfortunately, seems to me to be a matter which the Minister and the Government do not appreciate. It is the resentment of the ordinary people. They want to be able to talk to those whom they have elected, who are closest to them, their own kith and kin, in the city of Pretoria, who have been elected to the city council to represent them on that council. Sir, the council is emasculated. They can give advice, but their advice need not necessarily be followed. One understands this when one reads what has happened since the debate in the Other Place and what has been published since that debate. Then one can understand what happened in Brakpan, and one can understand the anxiety neurosis which has developed already in regard to Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.] Of course the history of the planning of our administrative capital city has not been a very happy history. It has led to harsh words and estrangement in high places. In fact, I might even say that the planning of Pretoria has now attained for itself a judicial record in the courts of this country. There is no reason why we must go on this basis just because there has been this estrangement between the hon. the Minister and certain officials of that particular city. I am sure that a rapprochement is not impossible between the hon. the Minister and the persons concerned in Pretoria.

But let us look at the Bill itself, this Bill which is regarded as being so innocuous by the hon. the Minister. I have indicated that in clause 2 the Minister shall have it in his power to control what shall be built, what may be expended, and even his artistic powers will be called upon to determine the architectural development of Church Square and its environs, and he will be able to say what can he adapted and what can be demolished. If one goes further, the Minister may in his discretion withhold or grant his approval, and if he grants it he may impose conditions as to height, architectural finish, styles of architecture or any other matter which in his opinion is relevant. Any provision of the town planning scheme applicable in Pretoria is of nought in so far as the Minister is concerned. He can ignore every provision of it. One goes further and finds that the Minister is even able to put the Pretoria City Council to terms. If they are asked to comment on any matter they are given that mythical period of time, 90 days, in which they may reply, and if they do not reply in 90 days, the Minister may ignore them.

They asked for it.

The Bill goes further. One finds in clause 4 that when the Minister in his omnipotence decides what should be done architecturally, and what can be done to adapt any building, no matter what the consequences are, there is no compensation whatsoever payable to any person who is affected by reason of anything the Minister has done. Then one can go on further to say that even the servitudes enshrined in the title deeds can be ignored. I am glad to see the hon. the Minister of Justice is here. He must realize how sacred are servitudes enshrined in title deeds. But even those servitudes which are against the unrestricted use and development of Church Square are cancelled. Then one sees finally that any application to obtain the approval referred to in clause 2, shall be referred to the Secretary in the form prescribed by the Minister from time to time and shall be accompanied by such documents as are required by the Minister. The city council is not even recognized as the authority a quo. These applications for alterations to buildings or the approval of building plans, are now to go direct to the Minister; he is in charge of the whole of Church Square and its environs.

Tell me why are you so worried about the city council of Pretoria?

The hon. Minister was very fortunate in that respect, although he consulted the city council before he introduced this Bill in the Other Place, which was two or three days before the election of the new councillors in Pretoria took place. Perhaps they were more concerned therefore with other matters, matters of personal interest, when this was introduced in the Other Place. The reacton in the Press of the Transvaal, such as the reaction in Hoofstad and Die Transvaler, shows that there is a deep-seated anxiety amongst the people in Prtoria as to what is being done and why these powers should be taken. We believe that this is wrong and that these matters are essentially matters for the local inhabitants to decide upon. This is one occasion when we from the Cape would be able to say : “Let Pretoria decide what should be done; this is in Pretoria and we in the Cape will decide on what should be done in Cape Town.” We want to say we support this view. Let the citizens and the voters of Pretoria decide upon these matters and not the Minister. We have made our position clear and I need not elaborate upon it. We are against any diminution of the rights of local authorities and of the provincial administration in regard to matters of town planning, town planning schemes, town development and the general interest which directly affects the inhabitants of a local area. For that reason we cannot support this Bill and therefore I move:

Mr. Speaker, one is amazed at the conduct of the United Party. When one expects them to oppose legislation, as I expected them to do this week with respect to the South African Indian Council Bill, they have a string of speakers in support of the matter. When one expects them to support a matter, a matter that does not have political implications and is not a contentious one, then they oppose it.

The hon. member for Green Point claimed here that the Pretoria City Council’s powers are being curtailed in this Bill and being taken completely out of its hands in respect of the development of Church Square. The hon. member quoted here an article from one of the Transvaal newspapers that only referred to this matter in passing. He quoted one letter here which actually, in the broad sense, defends the standpoint I want to advance today. I thought that today the hon. member would come along with piles of letters and with additional examples attesting to opposition to this legislation. Now, as a member representing one of the Pretoria constituencies and as a member who has, for a long time, had a seat on the Pretoria City Council, I want to tell the hon. member that I …

Tell us what Van Wyk says.

This hon. member usually does not know what he is talking about or what he has to do. In my constituency … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue.

Mr. Speaker, I refuse to continue if that hon. member continues to make such a noise.

Order ! The hon. member must not cast a reflection on the Chair. I said the hon. member may continue, or otherwise he may resume his seat.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I want to say that there are five member of the Pretoria City Council living in my constituency. Two of those members are also members of the executive committee of the Pretoria City Council. One of those members is the deputy mayor of the city. This legislation was already introduced in the Other Place at the end of last month. The hon. member said that the members of the City Council were very busy with a municipal election and that perhaps they could not give the necessary attention to this matter. From the time that legislation came up for consideration initially to the present moment, not one of those five very prominent members of the Pretoria City Council has lodged any objections with me, as their representative in this House. I want to go further and state that in fact I did not have a single objection from anyone in Pretoria in connection with this legislation. This measure, in my opinion, actually has no political implications. Why the hon. members of the Opposition now want to oppose it to such an extent. I do not know. All I can think of is that they want to make political capital out of the matter.

Church Square with the Kruger statue is the pride of every inhabitant of Pretoria. Church Square is closely linked up with the history of the city. It is very closely linked up with the history of the old South African Republic, of the Transvaal after the Anglo-Boer War up to 1910, of the Union of South Africa and of the Republic of South Africa. Church Square bore witness to great events, milestones in South African history. Throughout the years it has been a very important meeting place. Let me put it this way : Church Square bore witness to the joy and the sorrow of a people, its victories and its defeats, its heights in glory, but also its depths of humiliation. I can mention many examples from history to illustrate what I mean by this. But I shall mention only two. I shall just mention here an event during the Anglo-Boer War when the Transvaal Vierkleur was struck there for the last time and disappeared in the political context. But on the other hand I mention the event on 31st May, 1961—the investiture of the State President—when tens of thousands of enthusiastic supporters of the Republic, and others who voted against becoming a Republic, gathered on that occasion on Church Square. Church Square is woven into the existence of our people; it is woven into the continued existence of our people. It is closely linked to the development, the advancement and the progress of our people. It accommodates the statue of a Paul Kruger, a statue that previously occupied various positions until it found its permanent place of rest on Church Square. I believe it is also intended that that statue will retain its rightful place there.

Around this square there are historic buildings. There is the old Raadsaal, the Palace of Justice, buildings dating from the days of the South African Republic. Architectonically and otherwise they may in modern eyes not have the same appearance as the up-to-date steel and concrete structures with their neutral character. Some of these modern buildings tower into the sky near Church Square, but these old structures I am speaking about have a character of their own; an architectonic beauty that grips one after all. In addition, they are sturdily built with foundation stones of slate in some cases.

But in addition to the aforementioned buildings there are also other historic buildings which, together with those mentioned, contribute towards giving the Square a particular character. It is with these buildings, which have a special character and where a particular atmosphere is created that the Kruger statue also fits in. Every Pretorian, every Transvaler, and I believe every inhabitant of the Republic, wants to retain the best of the past, and this applies to the buildings as well. They would like to see that as many as possible of the buildings round the square are preserved and that Church Square chiefly retains its existing cultural-historic character. If changes must take place, these must be carried out with great deliberation and discretion. That is definitely the wish and desire generally. Apart from the fact that Church Square falls under the care and jurisdiction of the Pretoria City Council, it is in a broader sense the property of the entire people. It is a national asset as such. It is in the light of this fact, in the light of this truth, that the Cabinet realized how important it is to preserve Church Square. That is why the Cabinet instituted a Committee in 1971 with instructions to institute an urgent inquiry into and report on the function that Church Square must fulfil as a geographic and historic centre-point. It also had to be determined how the development of building sites and buildings, even those that are State property and that adjoin Church Square or are situated in its immediate vicinity, will affect the square. That is indeed how I interpret the terms of reference of the Church Square committee.

This Church Square committee worked out a new scheme for the replanning of Church Square. They also recommended legislation with this broad aim : control over the development of Church Square and the stands adjoining and in the immediate vicinity of Church Square. As a result it is the intention that no razing of buildings may take place, and that no new buildings may be erected without the Minister of Public Works having granted his written approval. Sir, that is what the hon. members of the Opposition are objecting to as such.

The plans initially submitted for the development of Church Square did not meet with much approval. There were various organizations and bodies, who for many years have been interested in the development of Pretorial in general, who objected. I am thinking, for example, of the Old Pretoria Association and the Simon van der Stel Foundation. Objections were also forthcoming from the Academy of Arts and Science and a number of Rapportryer corps. The Cabinet saw these objections in a serious light. That is why they also asked this committee to submit a new scheme. This Church Square Committee consists of persons of very great eminence. Some of them can definitely be regarded as authorities on the matter they are handling. I am thinking here, for example, of the Director of Architectural Services of the Department of Public Works, i.e. Mr. Badnitz, a person I know personally and for whom I have very great esteem. Then there is also Mr. Hans Botha and Mr. A. C. Doherty, well-known architects in Pretoria; and Mr. J. D. P. Burger, Director of Works of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. They are all outstanding people, with special knowledge in their field. At the request of the Cabinet this Committee worked out and submitted a new detailed scheme, i.e. a model for the entire Church Square. Each of these organizations I mentioned, which initially objected, very throughly examined the model, the proposal, the plan and conveyed their satisfaction with the new scheme.

Now we come to the Pretoria City Council. The Pretoria City Council made no objections to this legislation either, and I challenge hon. members on the other side to refute my statement. Mr. H. Rode, town clerk of Pretoria, also has a seat on the Church Square Committee. I believe this committee will continue to exist to advise the Minister about the redesign and redevelopment of Church Square. The Cabinet decided that the Pretoria City Council should administer the redevelopment of Church Square, since the City Council has the right of possession as far as Church Square is concerned, and the right of possession remains vested in the City Council. The Government will also carry the costs involved in the redevelopment. The Minister will have the final say and this is, in fact, true in connection with all development that will take place on and around Church Square, and the City Council has agreed that this should be left to the Minister. The various bodies and organizations that can possibly be affected by the further development of Church Square, the razing of or improvement to existing buildings, the erection of new buildings, etc., will have the opportunity to submit their objections to the Minister when a difference of opinion crops up. There must, after all, be a body or an organization that ultimately has to decide. Now it is the Minister that will decide on this matter. He will finally decide after consultation with the Pretoria City Council. We are aware that the City Council expressed its approval of the legislation and what it entails. The city council only proposed one amendment, i.e. in respect of clause 2 (4), i.e. that the period be extended to 90 days instead of 60 days. I state this for the information of the hon. member for Green Point. The hon. member referred offensively to the 90 days, but this amendment was actually introduced after the City Council asked for it. The period was then extended from 60 days to 90 days.

I emphasize that I received no protest in this connection and therefore, as a member of this House and a Pretorian, I am also very glad about this legislation before us today.

Mr. Speaker, since I have been in this House we have often had to listen to the hon. member for Koedoespoort, and I have often wondered how wrong one could be, but I have never heard him as wrong as he was this afternoon at the start of his speech. There is a current saying, namely “How wrong can a man be?”. The hon. member for Koedoespoort referred to certain legislation that he had expected us to oppose, and much to his surprise he found that we supported it. This afternoon he expected us to support this legislation and he is very surprised to find that we have very strong feelings against it and that we in fact are opposing it. This just goes to show how wrong a man can be, especially when he can, out of his own mouth, be convicted of having been so wrong in the last couple of weeks in this House. [Interjections.] I hear an interjection about “politiek” from behind me. The hon. member for Koedoespoort also said that there is no political implication in this measure and that that was why he did not believe that we would oppose it. He believed that we would support it because there was no politics to be made out of this at all. I accept that. Of course there is no politics to be made out of it. But must we only oppose measures when there is politics to be made out of it? Is that the policy of the other side of the House, namely that they will only debate measures when they can make politics out of it? That is the whole point. There is no politics to be made out of this, but we, the Opposition, feel that it is our duty to register our strongest protest at the powers which the hon. the Minister is now asking to be passed over to him in terms of this Bill. We are doing this not because it is Church Square in Pretoria. It could be a square in Cape Town. Bloemfontein or Pietermaritzburg. It is a question of principle and not politics.

What is the principle?

The principle is that this Minister will have sole control.

I have sole control over District Six.

The Minister has sole control over District Six in terms of other legislation, where there is another body concerned, namely a board which has control.

I have the final control.

The hon. the Minister has the final control, but he operates through a board. In that case it is a question of slum removal and city renewal, but not in this case.

What about the Foreshore?

Are we to accept that it is the hon. the Minister’s intention in this Bill to remove the slums on Church Square?

What about the Foreshore?

What about the Foreshore? The Foreshore has a properly constituted body which administers the development there.

Does he think that is a slum area?

The hon. member for South Coast asks whether the hon. the Minister thinks the Foreshore is a slum area? The difference is that the Foreshore is not an existing developed area which the Minister now wishes to control. This was a completely new area which fell under the management of the Foreshore Board, not under the Minister.

Of course the Minister of Lands exercises control.

It was a properly constituted and appointed board which had control of the development. This is development of a virgin area, Sir.

May I ask you a question? If I move in the Committee Stage that such a board be appointed for Church Square, will you support it?

This is a very serious question.

Answer me now.

The Minister must not ask me to answer “yes” or “no”. I have been in politics long enough not to be caught by a “yes” or “no” answer. But I will reply to the hon. the Minister in this way: We will certainly give it our most serious consideration; depending on the constitution of that board, perhaps it can meet some of our objections.

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will allow me …

Is it a question?

Well, it is not really a question.

I do not have so much time.

There is the present Church Square Committee. I am willing to change it to a statutory board.

I thank the hon. the Minister for his undertaking that he is prepared to constitute the present committee into a statutory body to control the development of Church Square.

To advise the Minister in the same way as the Minister is advised on the Foreshore development and on the development of District Six.

That is a very interesting proposition by the hon. the Minister. I am sure that we will give it due consideration and that tomorrow, when we come to continue the debate on this Bill, we will be in a position to give the hon. the Minister an answer to his proposal.

But let us come back to the hon. member for Koedoespoort. He also referred to the Cabinet committee which has drawn up the plan. Sir, this is like the hon. the Minister of Planning who goes to Oudtshoorn and says to Nationalist supporters : “Don’t worry; leave it to me; I will make a plan”. The hon. the Minister of Public Works appointed a committee and they have drawn up a plan. We have heard a lot about this plan, but where is the plan? Who has seen the plan? Has it been approved by all the persons and bodies who are concerned with the development of Church Square?

The City Council of Pretoria approved of it.

Has it met with general approval?

Which bodies?

The hon. member for Rissik asks, “which plan”? There is a member who represents a portion of Pretoria, and he asks “which plan”? This is the very point. Which plan are we dealing with and has it been approved?

He asked “which bodies”, not “which plan”.

Business interrrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.