With leave of the House, I would like to make the following statement:

In my statement in the House on 6 June 1962, during the second-reading debate on the Commonwealth Relations Bill, I announced that the arrangements which had been concluded with the United Kingdom in regard to the entry into the Republic of citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, did not cover the High Commission Territories, in respect of which different arrangements were contemplated and I undertook to inform the House, in due course, of the outcome of the negotiations regarding the Republic’s future relations with the High Commission Territories.

Negotiations have recently been concluded on an important aspect of our future relations with the Territories, namely the measures aimed at controlling the movement of persons between the Republic and the High Commission Territories, and the purpose of this statement is to make information available to the House about the arrangements concluded.

In the course of the discussions with United Kingdom representatives, the South African authorities emphasized that, while it was the South African Government’s desire to disturb the existing friendly and mutually beneficial relationships as little as was possible within the limits of the changed constitutional position. certain adjustments would have to be made, particularly in regard to the entry into the Republic of Bantu from the Territories and their employment in South Africa.

In this connection, it will be recalled that I mentioned in my statement to the House on 26 February 1962 that as regards the admission to and employment in the Republic of inhabitants of the High Commission Territories, the South African Government would still be prepared to make available opportunities for employment to the inhabitants of the Territories subject, however, to the employment needs of the Republic’s own citizens. I then foreshadowed the introduction of some form of entry and/or employment control.

In terms of the new rules which will in future govern the movement of persons between the Republic and the Territories, passport control will be introduced as from 1 July 1963 and all persons entering the Republic from the Territories will from that date have to be in possession of valid travel documents.

Similarly, all South Africans wishing to leave the Republic for the High Commission Territories will, as from 1 July 1963, have to be in possession of valid travel documents. Bantu should apply for the necessary travel documents to the nearest Bantu Affairs Commissioner while persons of Indian and Pakistani origin should approach the Department of Indian Affairs. All other persons should apply for travel documents to the Department of the Interior or one of its regional offices.

I move— That the Bill be now read a third time.

We are asked to give approval to-day to the third reading of a Bill which has become known as the Poqo Bill and which has attracted a great deal of attention both in the Republic and overseas, a Bill which even the Government Press has described as being frightening in its severity and which the Minister has told us he sponsors with great reluctance. It is a Bill amending no fewer than five existing statutes and, as is always the case with Bills amending the general law, it is difficult to distil any single principle from the many provisions which affect both statute law and common law. In the case of this Bill, however, if one has regard to the background, if one has regard to the reasons for its introduction, one does, it seems to me, arrive at a common principle underlying the generality of its provisions. And that principle, as I indicated at the second reading, was to give effect to the recommendations of the interim report of the Snyman Commission in respect of the Paarl riots and to clothe the Government with power to cope with a developing crisis. It is aimed, not only at the organizations apparently responsible for the ghastly murders at Paarl and in other places, but also at the organization or organizations responsible for the wave of sabotage to which the country has been subject. The fact, Sir, that those crimes have been dictated by political motives makes the position ugly indeed.

The Bill, in its main provisions, follows faithfully the recommendations of the interim feport by Mr. Justice Snyman, firstly, in equating Poqo and other similar organizations which might arise with the P.A.C. as an unlawful drganization, and secondly, in doing away with preparatory examinations in certain cases connected with the safety of the State and thirdly, in providing for Judges to sit without juries in certain cases. These provisions, although far-reaching, do not invade the rule of law; they merely clothe the administration of justice with greater power. In our opinion these steps are justifiable and they were necessary in the unfortunate circumstances which have arisen. We feel the same about those provisions of the Bill which are designed to create new offences to cope with those who undergo courses of training in sabotage outside the Republic and those who advocate the use of force against the Republic by foreign states. We regard these as the main principles of the Bill, and because they are obviously necessary at the present time to enable those in authority to maintain and protect the security of the State against the developing threat, we shall support this Bill at the third reading, and indeed we cannot do otherwise because it is surely a recognized principle in all democratic states that in times of crises, the authorities should be clothed with the necessary powers to maintain law and order and to protect the safety of the citizens of the state.

This Bill, however, has two further provisions which we have all along found unacceptable, and we can support the Bill in spite of them only because to us the safety of the state is paramount. They are, firstly, the powers given to the Minister of Justice in Clause 4 to detain indefinitely a prisoner after he has served a sentence for a crime connected with the safety of the state; secondly, the power given to commissioned officers to arrest persons for interrogation in connection with offences committed or planned against the safety of the state and to detain them, if necessary, in solitary confinement for periods of up to 90 days at a time. Sir, I think we have made our opposition to these provisions clear from the beginning; we have done our best to have them excluded from the Bill. While we failed in our main purpose, we did succeed in ameliorating the application of both these provisions in important respects: The right of the Minister to detain prisoners due for release will now fall away at the end of the year unless renewed by Parliament, and persons held for interrogtion will now be visited in private by a magistrate each week. Sir, these are important concessions which I believe have only been made because we have shown by our attitude that we appreciate the difficulties with which our country is faced at the present time. There must be no misunderstanding, however. These clauses, even as amended, remain anathema to us because we cannot concede that even in the present emergency such draconian measures are justified. The Minister himself, when asking for Clause 17, expressed misgivings and indicated not only that he appreciated its severity but also that he was deeply conscious of the dangers of abuse. In fact he made it clear that in the administration of this clause his own reputation would be at stake. I think he should know that in that respect we agree with his judgment and that his own responsibility is a very real one and that we as an Opposition will consider it our duty to expose any abuses that come to our notice and lay them at his door. The hon. the Minister, the administration of justice, already has certain powers under the Act of 1955, powers to bring people before a magistrate for interrogation and to sentence them to recurrent periods of imprisonment for eight days at a time if they fail to answer satisfactorily. The Minister has taken up the attitude that that provision is not severe enough; he has asked for greater powers. He has told us of the situation with which he is faced. I think he must appreciate that a very great responsibility rests on him to see that these powers are in no way abused. This Bill, we feel, has been dictated by a serious state of affairs and is designed not only to cope with that situation but also to arrest what we see as a developing threat. That threat arises to some extent from circumstances beyond the control of any South African Government, but at the same time there is no doubt whatever that a dangerous growth of that threat has been possible because Government policies have created fertile seed-beds for the germination and the growth of dangerous movements which otherwise would have found it extremely difficult to flourish under our South African climate. This Bill, I feel sure, will assist to end the present wave of political crime, but it is only patchwork. It can only suppress symptoms of an underlying malady. Wisdom dictates that that malady should be diagnosed and treated at its source. On other occasions we on this side of the House have indicated what some of the root causes of this malady may well be—what we believe them to be. The rules of the House preclude me from repeating that diagnosis to-day. Nevertheless it is my duty to warn the Government that if they continue with this superficial approach to our problems and refuse to understand how they themselves are contributing to our troubles, this Bill will not be the final instalment of the series of vast powers which this Government has taken from time to time. Hon. gentlemen opposite may refuse to accept the truth of what I say but I believe that people outside will understand and I believe that, understanding, they will act to end this sorry chapter in our South African history.

I have very little to add to what I said about this Bill at the second reading, but I want to make a few comments on what the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has said and a few additional comments which I feel must be made at this time and stage of the Bill. Sir, I do not agree with the contention of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition where he says that the reason why he has supported this Bill is because the principle of this Bill is contained in those clauses which give legislative effect to the recommendations of the Snyman Commission. He detailed those particular provisions as being the clauses which made the Poqo movement synonymous with the P.A.C., the clause which allows the removal of preparatory examinations and the clause which allows Judges to sit without a jury. Sir, those were indeed part of the recommendations of the Snyman Commission, but of course, the Bill which we have been considering over the greatest part of last week goes a great deal further than those recommendations, and to my mind those are not the principles of the Bill, the contents of which we are examining to-day. To my mind the principles of the Bill are contained in two important clauses, both of which the Opposition say are repugnant to them. The one is Clause 4 and the other is Clause 17. The one is the clause which allows the hon. the Minister to hold indefinitely as long as he so desires, people who have already served prison sentences for the crimes for which they have been convicted and the other is, of course, Clause 17 which allows police officers to take for interrogation anybody without legal redress, without the benefit of legal advice, to take them for interrogation for 90 days over and over again. The Leader of the Opposition also stated that he was in agreement with the idea of a new offence being created, in respect of persons who have been trained outside this country for sabotage or other action against this country. Sir, I am not against the creation of a new offence per se, but I am certainly against the retrospectivity of such an offence. But to come back to the two clauses which the Leader of the Opposition said were repugnant to him and his party and which he felt had been improved during the Committee Stage of this Bill, to such an extent, presumably, that apart from the fact that he considers the principles of the Bill to be the translation of the Snyman Commission Report into legislation, he considers the amendments which he has persuaded the Minister to accept in the Committee Stage to be of such significance that, despite the repugnance of these clauses, he and his side are able to vote for the third reading of this Bill. I do not attach the importance to those amendments that the Leader of the Opposition attaches to them. Under the amendment in Clause 4 the Government now has to come back to Parliament each year for this particular clause to be reviewed by Parliament. I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition of the words that he used when a similar provision was introduced at his behest, in the Unlawful Organizations Act. The Government having accepted this principle, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition then stated that he intended to vote for the principle of this Bill. On 29 March he said this—

I want to remind the Leader of the Opposition that all that happened was that the following year the Minister came back to this House and without a peep from the Opposition the period was further extended and the year thereafter, and this year that legislation has now been translated into a permanent provision on the Statute Book. Sir, I make bold to say that exactly the same thing is going to happen to Clause 4 of this Bill, and in any case even if the Opposition does not like the extension of this period, the hon. the Minister will come to this House, the Government members will vote with him and these provisions will be extended for a further year. My prediction is that next year or possibly the year thereafter the hon. the Minister will bring Clause 4 back to Parliament for review and, of course, the period will be extended for a further 12 months as long as the Minister wishes so to extend it, and that in due course we will have another piece of amending legislation which will introduce Clause 4 as a permanent part of the statutory law of South Africa. I do not therefore attach very much importance to this right of review. The amendment achieved in Clause 17 has a little more significance but not very much. That amendment now makes it necessary for a magistrate or somebody deputed by the Minister to visit persons held for interrogation once a week. Well, I do not know what happens after that. There is no provision for the magistrate to report his findings to any public body whatever; the Press and the public of South Africa will be as unaware as they were before this amendment was introduced as to what is happening in the police cell, as to what form the interrogation has been taking and, worst of all, the people most affected by this, the relatives of the person so taken for interrogation, will be given no reassurances whatsoever as to the health and the state of mind of the detainee. The amendment may have some little significance but in point of fact it really does not achieve a great deal. To my mind nothing has happened between the second reading of this Bill and the present stage that we have reached which in any way changes my complete and unequivocal opposition to this Bill. As far as I am concerned it remains as repugnant as it was originally; as contrary to all democratic practices, as destructive of the Rule of Law as it ever was, and it is in fact a gigantic blot on our Statute Book. It demonstrates unfortunately, two things very clearly. It demonstrates firstly that under the leadership of the Nationalist Government South Africa is forgetting its old reverence for traditional freedom and is sliding ever further into the morass of a totalitarian state, and it demonstrates even more clearly and perhaps even more tragically that the official Opposition has now given the green light to this Government to follow that course by failing to oppose this measure which I believe to be one of the worst measures ever put on the Statute Book. By failing to oppose this measure it has meekly acquiesced in South Africa’s abdication from the ranks of democratic countries. It seems that the Opposition has learnt absolutely nothing from its earlier experiences of assisting the Government in putting this sort of legislation on the Statute Book. Having achieved one concession the Government will demand the next concession. The Opposition does not realize that this indeed is the very essence that nationalism feeds on, to create crisis situations and then to bring in legislation to deal with such crisis situations, but neither the Government nor the Opposition realize that what feeds White nationalism is also feeding Black nationalism in this country. As extreme White nationalism is fed by crisis situations and tough measures which are then taken to deal with those situations, so too does Black nationalism feed on this type of so-called “kragdadigheid” and demonstrations of “kragdadigheid”, As far as I am concerned this Bill goes a great deal further than any of the recommendations of the Report of the Snyman Commission, and leaving all that aside, I want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he seriously thinks that legislation of this sort is going to do anything to relieve any of the tension existing in South Africa. But the hon. the Minister, I would add, has at no stage of the debate in Parliament attempted to give us the real reasons why he is introducing this measure. He has not produced any proof of any emergency situation. Indeed it seems to me that any so-called emergency that existed has been adequately dealt with by the powers which the Minister had before he introduced this legislation. At no time has he taken the country or this House into his confidence. All he has done has been to come along with dark stories of what he knows but dare not disclose to South Africa. Well, that may be good enought for the Leader of the Opposition; it is not good enought for me and I am certainly not going to support this Bill at the third reading. Contrary to all the rather melodramatic things which have been said, I do not feel at all alone in my opposition to this Bill. I know that I have hundreds of thousands of White voters in South Africa …

In Russia.

… in full agreement with me in my opposition to this Bill. I know that I have millions of voiceless non-Whites in agreement with me in my opposition to this Bill.

Poqo agitators.

Most important of all, I know that I have the whole of the civilized democratic world on my side in my opposition to this Bill.

I should like to express my gratitude to the House of Assembly of South Africa for the fact that we have been able, with one discordant note only, to dispose of a contentious measure such as this in this way. That discordant note, as was to be expected, came from the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). I notice that the leader of the hon. member for Houghton, Dr. Steytler, has said that circumstances will now oblige him to take over the leadership in South Africa. I should like the hon. member for Houghton, since her leader is no longer in our midst, to give him this message that the people of South Africa—and when I refer to the people of South Africa, I refer to the supporters of the National Party as well as the supporters of the United Party outside of this House—are not prepared to allow themselves to be sold out by Dr. Steytler and his followers. I have expressed my gratitude to this House for the fact that we have been able to put through a measure of this kind in this way. I think it redounds to the great credit of all of us. At the same time it also illustrates that a measure can be thoroughly discussed—and I submit that this measure has been very thoroughly discussed—without the necessity of a discussion extending over days and without a great fuss. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for one sentence in particular which he used in the course of his speech this afternoon—and I take it that it was that sentiment which motivated the decision of the Opposition to support the third reading of this measure—and that is his statement that to them the safety of the state is paramount. I am pleased that that attitude which is adopted by this side of the House is also adopted now by that side of the House, because that is the golden thread that runs throughout the legislation that this side has placed before this House since it came into power, that is, that when one has to choose at a time such as this on the one hand between placing restrictions upon certain individuals because the survival and the safety of the state are at stake and, on the other hand, unlimited freedom for the individual, then the Government in power is not only entitled to take this step but it has a positive duty to do so. That has always been the motive of this side of the House and I am pleased that that attitude, that rule, is now accepted and subscribed to by both sides of the House. I am also convinced that we have been able to adopt this attitude, that we have been able to reach unanimity on this occasion, because hon. members on both sides of the House are conscious of the fact that the provisions of this measure meet with the approval of and have been accepted by the people whom we represent in this House; because, after all, the reaction of a nation, the automatic reaction of a nation, particularly when it is threatened, is never wrong, and the reaction of the nation at this moment, judging by messages which I have received from members of the public, is that they stand by the Government and by this measure. Out of all the reactions that I have received, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to quote just the final paragraph of a letter which I have received from Amanzimtoti, because to my mind it reflects the attitude of the electorate of South Africa—

The hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that it will be the duty of the Opposition— and there I fully agree with him—“ to disclose any abuses” and to lay such abuses at the door of the Government and particularly at my own door. I do not mind; on the contrary, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition will recall that I stated that this was my responsibility; that I asked that I should be called to account and that my Government, whose mouthpiece I am, should be called to account. We are quite prepared to accept that responsibility because this Government has shown that it is a responsible Government, a Government which can be trusted with powers of this kind. Although hon. members have had the opportunity to lay abuses at the door of the Government in respect of powers which it has taken in the past, I can say that not a single abuse had been laid at the door of the Government—a fact which has encouraged the Government and which has encouraged me—for the simple reason that there have been no abuses to lay at the Government’s door. I want to give hon. members the assurance—and in giving this assurance I appreciate my responsibility—that just as it has done in the past, the Government will continue in the future to act with the greatest degree of circumspection and that it will never be necessary to lay anything at its door or to reproach it in this connection. I am also grateful to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for another admission which he made and that is that partly, perhaps largely, this situation has come about as a result of circumstances beyond the control of any Government. That is so; that statement is in consonance with the facts which I set out in my second-reading speech, and I am pleased that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has accepted that statement of fact. We must, of course, differ where the Leader of the Opposition talks about “fertile seed-beds” which this Government has allegedly created. I do not want to quarrel with him in that regard at this stage; I just want to say to him in passing that those seed-beds are nothing new; when this Government took over those seed-beds were already there, and some of the weeds in those seed-beds could best have been exterminated at the germination stage when another party was in power in South Africa. However, I do not want to pursue that argument; it is a matter on which one could argue the whole day.

In conclusion the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stated that he did not believe that this measure represented the last instalment. I do not want to make any promises in that connection. I just want to say that since the Government has to bear the responsibility, since the Government is prepared to bear the responsibility, since this Parliament is sovereign and since this Parliament is the place to which we have to come—this Parliament, after all, is the guarantee of our democracy and of our survival—the Government will come to Parliament, as often as it may be necessary, with such measures as may be necessary to meet any situation that represents a threat to South Africa. It was only after having fully satisfied itself as to the necessity of this course that the Government decided to ask Parliament for these powers, and the Government is deeply grateful to this House for having given it these powers in the way that it has done.

I move—

Sir, this Bill fulfils certain functions namely to provide insurance and compensation for injury or illness which may result after the licensing of certain nuclear reactors or other nuclear works. The interesting thing about nuclear knowledge is that there is very little known about nuclear effects. Scientists are only on the fringe of what can happen with nuclear power. They are constantly finding new effects. One of the few things which has resulted from the few years—few years which run into approximately 55—of knowledge gained in connection with ionizing radiation is that the risk to humans is incalculable. By “incalculable” I do not mean that the risk is so enormous but rather that it is very slowly acquired and cannot accurately be measured. We who come in contact with the sufferers from this force realize more and more that the effect of ionizing radiation upon human tissues, even upon plants and indirectly upon animals through the plants (such as cows giving radioactive milk), manifests itself very slowly. When X-rays were first introduced nobody realized that they were dangerous. It was very fortunate for the world that the first users of this force were mostly medical men, medical men who continued with the work and the rest of the medical profession could observe what was happening, over the years, to those men. They were the martyrs to the early days of X-rays.

It is only within the last five or six years that we have discovered that a form of treatmet which was used for certain types of rheumatism produced in children at the age of about 11 years leukemia. In other words, a treatment which was applied in the case of a disease which is not a killing disease, although an uncomfortable one, and for which there are perhaps other treatments available, produced leukemia in children at about the age of 11. It was only discovered recently that if the foetus in pregnant women came within the range of even small doses of X-rays at a certain stage of pregnancy the offspring was deformed. It is only recently that it was discovered that X-rays changed various forms of plant life and it has been impossible to control any of these changes.

It was as far back as 1928 that I studied at the Radium Institution in Paris. Madam Curie was working in the same Institute at the time, although not in the same department as I was. She had two grammes of radium at her disposal at that time and we began to realize more and more how little we had known about X-rays and that that knowledge was being added to by radium. One thing was said to me there which has stuck in my memory and it is this: “There is only one way of avoiding the effects of these rays and that is to keep away from them as far as you can.” It is for that reason that I am speaking to-day. I know that the scientists do not agree with me but I also know that those very scientists have often been wrong about these effects and are learning slowly and painfully. I am doubtful about believing them, therefore, and new effects are constantly cropping up. I think that the placing of these nuclear works as near as 14 miles from Pretoria is a grave error. Time will, show that I am right.

You are wrong.

I also hope I will be wrong. Although there is no fear of an explosion or anything like that in connection with the work which is going on there there is nevertheless great danger from the rays. This danger may go on silently, undiscovered, for years. I do hope, therefore, that if any further licences are granted by the Department which has control of these affairs, it will see that any reactors are placed as far away as possible from large cities and centres of population.

I do not think the hon. member expects me to reply to the speech which he has just made. I have already stated in my second-reading speech that the possible effect of nuclear energy rays is scarcely known to us as yet and that we are still only on the threshold of science in that regard. I agree with the hon. member that the possibilities for the future are limitless. We are already doing the necessary research through our Atomic Energy Board and we are already training the requisite scientists. I am sure that our scientists will succeed in achieving great results for South Africa. As far as the siting of this reactor is concerned I have already said that security measures have been taken and will be taken in the future after consultation with the very best experts in this sphere. The hon. member’s suggestion that even greater regard should be had in the future to the safety factor in granting licences for such installations is one which will be taken into account.

When this clause was discussed last week, I failed to take your advice to “move”, Sir, and I overlooked the necessity to move my particular amendment. I misunderstood you at the time, Sir, and I now propose to move it as follows—

I was pointing out that the use of the word “spread” here was clearly wrong. I do not want to press the point that “distribution”, in regard to the population factor, is the correct word, because I believe that the hon. the Minister will be prepared to accept this textual amendment.

As regards the substitution of “five years” for “prescribed”, this is obviously something more than just a textual amendment. In terms of sub-clause (3) of this clause, it appears that the Minister, in appointing the Education Council for Coloured persons, will have the right, at any given time decided upon by the Minister in terms of the regulations, to make such changes as he wishes to make in the composition of that council. That principle is, of course, not unusual. But on the other hand, it is also not unusual that an advisory council appointed in terms of a measure like this should have some tenure of office. It is difficult to conceive that the Minister will see it in any different light because I, for one, assume that in appointing this council the Minister will choose those persons who, in his opinion, are qualified to serve and who could therefore normally be expected to perform their duties properly. In other words, the council will, ab initio, be of the Minister’s own choosing. That being the case, the only possible result of not appointing them for a period of time would be to create a certain degree of insecurity in the minds of the members of the council in regard to the work and functions of this council. You do not place a very great duty on a man if you appoint him to a responsible position, albeit in an advisory position, and you say to him: “I am appointing you to-day because I think you are the right man for the job, but I may change my mind to-morrow and then you will have to go.” You are not going to get the very best co-operation and advice from such a person.

My final point in this connection is that the Minister himself has referred to what he called “verdagmakery” in regard to this Bill. I am not prepared to discuss that here; it is not relevant. But what I do want to say is this: that if such suspicion exists in regard to the Bill itself and the take-over of Coloured education by his Department, the Minister can to some extent allay those suspicions, in fact he can go a long way towards eliminating them completely, if he were to appoint this Education Council for Coloured persons on a permanent basis, rather than on this very tentative basis. It is obvious that these people will be chosen because they are Coloured people, because they are interested in Coloured education and because they are qualified, in the view of the Minister, to advise him. He will be able to select the best from among the Coloured people. In appointing them for a period of five years, he will be following a very well-established precedent in the first instance; and in the second instance, the Minister will make quite sure that the Coloured people feel that he, in fact, intends to have a full-fledged council in regard to the education of Coloured persons, as is the National Advisory Council in regard to the education of White persons. He will also be confirming the belief that some of them have that the Minister’s intention is to make use of the advice of the Coloured people and the Coloured educationists themselves. As I have said, he will be dispelling a great part of what he believes is suspicion about this Bill. Again, in this case I do not wish to press the matter, because I think the Minister may well have considered this amendment and come to the conclusion that it is one which merits his approval.

I think the hon. the Minister can at least accept that part of the amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) which deals with the wording of the clause. I think “distribution” is a better word than “spread”. I was also impressed by the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Hospital in connection with a definite period. I have in mind, for example, the National Advisory Council in whose case a definite period is also laid down. I think the hon. the Minister will come to the conclusion, if he has not already decided to accept this amendment, that it will be much better to appoint this body for a definite period. That brings about greater security and continuity and it will also provide greater security to the members nominated.

This clause provides further, inter alia, that an Education Council for Coloured persons shall be established consisting of an officer of the Department having expert knowledge of education matters, to be designated by the Minister from time to time. It is quite interesting to see how the Minister has departed from previous Bills and I want to compliment him on that because the clause goes on to say that the other eight members have to be Coloureds and that they must be appointed by the State President. I think that is a sound departure; instead of the Minister doing it, he enhances their status by having them appointed by the State President. We know, of course, how it works, but it makes a better impression. Personally I would have preferred a different procedure but I realize what the practical difficulties are at this stage. I think the Minister will eventually have his members appointed by educational bodies or by teachers’ associations. His difficulty is probably at the moment that that will not be practical policy. My amendment goes on to say—

As you will notice, Sir, my amendment asks that the chairman should not be just any one of those nine members, but a specific one, namely a Coloured. In other words, I am asking that the chairman should be a Coloured person. It will not be difficult for the hon. the Minister to do so because there are already competent people amongst the Coloureds. The people with whom we are dealing are not backward as far as education is concerned or as far as their standard of civilization is concerned. They are people who have become civilized with us over 300 years and who already have those educated and competent people. They also have people with the necessary experience and a Coloured chairman will undoubtedly give satisfaction and ensure greater confidence in the Minister’s legislation because that will prove still further our good faith towards those people. I am not saying that the Minister will not nominate a Coloured person as chairman; he will in all probability do so, but I maintain that it will create greater confidence amongst the Coloureds if he accepts this amendment of mine.

I have no objection to the amendment of the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp).

As far as the other proposal of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is concerned, I want to inform him that I consulted the law advisers and their advice to me has been in the opposite direction as far as the words “spread” and “distribution” are concerned. I shall go into the matter again because I am not convinced that the law advisers are wrong. I should like to have more time to consider this matter. The law advisers tell me there is a difference and I shall have to go into it thoroughly.

As far as the second part of his amendment is concerned, he asks that the members must be appointed for five years. There may be practical reasons why we cannot do that. It may be necessary to appoint a man who is nearing 70 years of age in which case we cannot appoint him for five years because the policy is not to appoint a man of over 70 years of age. That is only one instance where we may be faced with difficulties. If the hon. member is prepared to change his amendment to read “for not less than three years” I shall consider it.

With leave of the Committee, the second amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel was withdrawn.

I now move—

I want to ask whether the Minister will not consider omitting the qualification “for Coloureds” in line 57. As it stands here, it creates the impression that education for Coloureds is per se something different from ordinary education. The hon. the Minister knows that the Coloureds are very sensitive about this and that they are afraid that they will be given education which is different from what we understand by education for Whites.

I have no objection to it.

Thank you. I consequently move—

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs and Mr. J. D. du P. Basson put and agreed to, amendment in line 59, proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and negatived, and remaining amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel and amendment proposed by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

I move as an amendment—

1. (b) Any advice tendered to the Minister by the aforesaid Education Council for Coloured Persons in the exercise of its functions under paragraph (a) shall be forwarded to the National Advisory Educational Council for its information.

I had intended to evoke a pleasant discussion in connection with this matter, but the Minister was so good as to give me an indication that he would accept this amendment. I am grateful to him, because I think it will be an improvement.

Amendment put and agreed to.

There is an amendment on the Order Paper by Mrs. Weiss, who unfortunately cannot be here and which I want to move—

1. (4) The Minister shall lay copies of the annual report referred to in sub-section (3), including any minority report, upon the Table of the Senate and the House of Assembly within 14 days after receipt thereof if Parliament is in ordinary session or, if Parliament is not in ordinary session, within 14 days after the commencement of its next ensuing ordinary session.

I do not want to discuss it because I think it is obvious that the Minister will accept it, and with that certainty in my own mind I will resume my seat now in order to hear what the hon. member says in regard to it.

I accept the hon. member’s amendment as well as that of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), and I just want to say that in accepting her amendment I am also making it possible for the report which is tabled here to be made available to the Union Council for Coloured Affairs.

Amendments put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 32,

I move—

That was the intention, but with the final drafting of the Bill these words were erroneously omitted.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. Clause 34 standing over.

On Clause 38,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

1. (3) If a date is so fixed in respect of a particular kind of college or school only—
   1. (a) any reference in this Act and in paragraph (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 84 of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961 (Act No. 32 of 1961), to education for Coloured persons shall, in respect of any province in question, be construed as a reference to such education provided in such colleges or schools; and
   2. (b) any reference in this Act to schools in general shall, in respect of any province in question, be construed as a reference to such colleges or schools.

The reason is that we want to make sure that there will be absolute certainty when the take-over takes place, so that it will not be impossible for the Department to take over in the most effective way. Consultation will have to take place with the provinces, and we should like to make sure that the Department will not be bound by the law to act in a way that may in fact frustrate the aims that we have in mind.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clauses 1, 4 and 34, standing over. Clause 1 stands over further.

On Clause 4,

I move—

The whole object here is just to make provision for a situation in which it may be necessary to grant loans also to State-aided schools to enable them to carry on with their work.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

On Clause 34,

I move as an amendment—

I do not propose to speak at great length either because the hon. the Minister has been kind enough to inform me that he accepts my amendments as printed on the Order Paper, and I therefore move—

1. (5) Regulations under paragraph (f) of subsection (1) shall not deprive any parent of the right of final decision regarding the medium of instruction of a child of such parent where any doubt exists as to the home language of such child.

I just want to say with reference to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Hillbrow that although I accept it, it must be fully understood that there will, of course, have to be certainty with regard to the powers of the Department and of the school concerned. Usually it is in the inspector and the principal and a competent officer who carry out certain tests. I just want to have it on record that my acceptance of the amendment is not unqualified.

Then I should like to move a further amendment, and I do so to comply with a request made to me—

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Coloured Affairs and by Dr. Steenkamp put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

The Committee reverted to Clause 1, standing over.

On Clause 1,

I move the following amendment—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and the Committee divided:

AYES—78: Bekker, G. F. H.; Bekker, H. T. van G.; Bekker, M. J. H.; Bezuidenhout, G. P. C.; Bootha, L. J. C.; Botha, H. J.; Botha, M. C.; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Cloete, J. H.; Coetzee, B.; Coetzee, i-:;. P. J.; Cruywagen, W. A.; de Villiers, J. D.; de Wet, C.; Diederichs, N.; Dönges, T. E.; du Plessis, H. R. H.; Fourie, W. H.; Fouché, J. J. (Sr.); Frank, S.; Greyling, J. C.; Grobler, M. S. F.; Hertzog, A.; Heystek. J.; Hiemstra, E. C. A.; Jonker, A. H.; Jurgens, J. C.; Keyter, H. C. A.; Kotzé, S. F.; Labuschagne, J. S.; Loots, J. J.; Louw, E. H.; Luttig, H. G.; Malan, A. L; Malan, W. C.; Marais, J. A.; Marais, P. S.; Maree, G. de K.; Maree, W. A.; Martins, H. E.; Meyer, T.; Mostert, D. J. J.; Mulder, C. P.; Niemand, F. J.; Otto, J. C.; Potgieter, J. E.; Rall, J. J.; Rall, J. W.; Sadie, N. C. van R.; Schlebusch, J. A.; Schoeman, B. J.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Serfontein, J. J.; Stander, A. H.; Steyn, J. H.; Treurnicht, N. F.; van den Berg, G. P.; van den Berg, M. J.; van der Ahee, H. H.; van der Spuy, J. P.; van der Walt, B. J.; van der Wath, J. G. H.; van Eeden, F. L; van Niekerk, G. L. H.; van Niekerk, M. C.; van Nierop, P. J.; van Rensburg, M. C. G. J.; van Staden, J. W.; van Wyk, H. J.; Venter, M. J. de la R.; Verwoerd, H. F.; Visse, J. H.; Waring. F. W.; Webster, A.; Wentzel. J. J.

Tellers: D. J. Potgieter and P. S. van der Merwe.

NOES—40: Barnett, C.; Basson, J. A. L.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Bloomberg, A.; Bowker, T. B.; Cadman, R. M.; Connan, J. M.; Cronje, F. J. C.; Durrant, R. B.; Emdin, S.; Field, A. N.; Fisher, E. L.; Gay, L. C.; Gorshel, A.; Graaff, de V.; Henwood, B. H.; Hickman, T.; Lewis, H.; Malan, E. G.; Miller, H.; Mitchell, D. E.; Moolman, J. H.; Odell. H. G. O.; Oldfield, G. N.; Radford, A.; Raw, W. V.; Ross, D. G.; Steenkamp, L. S.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Streicher, D. M.; Taurog, L. B.; Thompson, J. O. N.; Timoney, H. M.; Tucker, H.; van Niekerk, S. M.; Warren, C. M.; Waterson, S. F.; Wood. L. F.

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and T. G. Hughes.

When the debate was last adjourned, I had referred to the fact that the local authorities which had been handling this matter of slum clearance in the past, were not in the happy position that the Minister is in at the present time, from this particular point of view that whereas the Minister if he feels that the existing legislation is inadequate to deal with the situation which has developed throughout South Africa, he can come before us and, provided he gets the approval of the Government of which he is a member, he is certain of getting the law amended in such form as to suit his purpose. Minicipalities are not in that happy position. I made that point, but I want to reiterate it because it is a long time ago since the debate was adjourned, and I want to lead off from there in regard to what I have to say next.

This Bill when it was first published, was viewed with a great deal of concern by our municipalities who considered that it was likely to impinge very severely upon their existing rights and powers, and they were very concerned that so far as they have in the past had to grapple with this extremely thorny problem, in the future the matter would be taken out of their hands and the Government would step into the picture, their powers would be taken away from them, and developments in connection with the clearing up of slums, the creation of housing schemes, would be something completely beyond their control. I want to say that however one may look on this kind of development, we have to realize that housing schemes associated with our municipalities are really part of the organic growth of a municipality. A municipality and the people that live within their borders have their being there, such a municipality is created by people. You have a number of people living under urban conditions who create a municipality. When pursuant to their getting together as an organized body under the respective local government ordinance of the province concerned, the power to create what is virtually another small township, because it creates a further urban community, a community living under urban conditions is taken away from them, then the control of the area as a whole which the city fathers have viewed from a certain angle, may have to be viewed from a totally different angle, and one cannot blame the municipalities if they felt that development of that kind might go in wrong channels and that they sooner or later might find themselves in difficulties over the developments taking place, pursuant to the determination by an outside body as to what slums should be abolished, how the land would have to be used and replanned and where the people from the slums were to be housed. On going further into the matter, and particularly may I say in the light of the second-reading speech of the hon. Minister, there probably has been a reappraisal of the situation. In passing I would like to say that I think that the fact that the hon. Minister was able to make that speech and then was able to adjourn the debate, has served a very useful purpose indeed. It is an example that perhaps might be followed in respect of some of our important legislation. We were able to read our Bill in the light of that speech, as well as explanations that had come from his Department. In the light of that speech I think the municipalities have now more or less, perhaps not altogether accepted the position that it is not the intention of the Minister to come and take away powers from the municipalities. In his speech he said so categorically. But it is his intention to do away with slums, and machinery is created here with a view in doing away with slums. Here I want to say to the hon. Minister that on this side of the House we are entirely with him in that object. I had just reached that statement when the debate was adjourned, but I want to come back to it now. We on this side of the House feel that slums have an adverse effect not only on our economy, not only on the living conditions and the social life of the people that are concerned, but very often in regard to other considerations of a political and socio-political nature. Slums can be a hot-bed for breeding not only people who have asocial instincts in one regard, but perhaps from many different directions. So from every point of view we think that it is a good thing in principle that the slums should be abolished.

But now one cannot say that in practice, without qualification, one should pursue that principle to the exclusion of everything else. For one thing it is quite clear that in the clearing up of slums if you have a heterogeneous population living in the slum, not only under the policy of this Government, but also under the policy of this side of the House, if the people concerned are to be rehoused, those members of a heterogeneous population, then the various racial groups should go to housing schemes designed for their particular racial groups. The Government will do that and we would do that under similar circumstances. In other words, the rehousing of a mixed population, consisting of various racial groups, offers the opportunity to separate the people out so that you have the residential separation which we all are seeking to achieve. I now speak for the official Opposition. In that regard, I would like to say that there is another consideration and that is the circumstances under which the folk from the slums are to be rehoused, and here perhaps we come to perhaps one of the most difficult and most involved aspects of the whole question of slum-clearance. In principle, as I have said, we all agree that slums must be cleared up. In principle, if there is a mixed population living there, then the people can be given the opportunity of living in housing schemes, associated with their own racial group. But in practice what have the municipalities been up against? I leave it there for the moment: I believe that a commission found in Britain some years ago that a slum paid higher dividends to a landlord than an orthodox housing scheme under the laws then existing in Britain. Leaving out that aspect entirely in so far as it is applicable to South African conditions, the difficulty has been that where municipalities are concerned in some cases—and I want to make it clear that I am not laying down a general rule—when a slum had to be cleared up and people accommodated in other houses, firstly the municipalities were not their own masters in deciding where those people were to be housed and under what conditions. They could not take a firm decision; they had to get approval in some cases, a few years ago, from as many as three or four Government Departments before they could move. When the picture was sufficiently clear to show that the inhabitants of the slum could be housed at Point A or at Point B, very often these people had to be housed so far away from the place where they lived previously that it became virtually impossible for them to continue in their previous employment and even to carry on their small businesses, which constituted their livelihood. The municipalities visualized them as being placed so far away from the slums where they had previously lived that the burden upon them was one they could not bear. So where we are dealing with a Bill such as this one, and rehousing becomes part of the machinery for the clearing up of slums, we all view this question as one of great importance. Let us have a little mercy for these people who are living in slum conditions, in which they were perhaps bom. It is not their fault. They have perhaps done the best they could under the circumstances. Some of them have employment and their own small businesses and they want to continue with that, but if they are moved so far away that they cannot afford the cost of going back and forth from their homes to their work there is a complete period put to the lives of these men and women and they have to start life completely anew. Whereas it may have been in many cases that their inability to get on in the world stemmed not only from the wretched conditions under which they lived and in which many were born, but also from an inadequate education, that has dogged them all through life, and now when they are being moved we should get an assurance from the Minister that they will not be placed in such an utterly hopeless position in their new surroundings that they will fall into arrear with their rent or instalments or be unable to cope with the cost of living, so that eventually they fall back into the gutter again. You see, Sir, slums really are made by people. There is a clause in this Bill which has been deliberately inserted so that if you have a dwelling, presumably a block of flats or a rooming-house, and if a part of that building has become of such a character that it may be proclaimed a slum, the whole of the building is condemned, and I do not think that has been done by chance. That was the position beforehand; it is not something new in this Bill. It merely made the thing more difficult for the local authorities. It is there, but how far-reaching it is will be apparent immediately to people who may be occupying some flats or rooms in a dwelling a single room or flat of which has been condemned, and the authorities then condemn the whole building. The Government may have to do it.

I am not blind to the responsibility which will now rest on the shoulders of the Minister not only to clear up slums, which is heavy enough already, but the responsibility also of dealing with the human problems which will come about when he starts moving thousands of people. That will be the big difficulty. Here sits the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare, just in front of the Minister of Community Development. The Minister of Social Welfare is grappling with all sorts of problems associated with his particular aspect of the social life of our people, with the heartbreak and trouble that spring from some of these developments which in the public interest must be tackled, and slum clearance is something which we on this side believe must be tackled. May I say that we are going to vote for the second reading. In the Committee Stage there are various clauses we would like to deal with at greater length, but one does not want to see the Minister of Community Development tackling the matter in such a way that he is simply creating a mountain of troubles for his colleague the Minister of Social Welfare to deal with, and it can so easily happen.

In the older towns and cities where, through generations, an area has become characterized in the public mind as a slum area, dilapidated and inhabited by shiftless people, those are the conditions which create the biggest difficulties for the municipalities, very often because they have not known, when they started clearing up a slum, where to find alternative accommodation for those people. May I just deal with that aspect for one moment. We on this side want to plead with the Minister that in clearing slums he must see to it that homes for those people are already established before they are moved from the slums. I am sure that is the intention of the Minister, to provide houses for them. We do not think the Minister is equivocating or avoiding the point; we think he honestly means what he said, that these people will be provided with new homes. Let us see to it that homes are provided before they are moved from these slums. I think it will be conceded by the Minister that whatever may be the figures reflected in the official returns which come in as the result of the population census taken from time to time, he would be a very bold man who would be prepared to risk his money on the accuracy of the figures finally presented by the Bureau of Statistics. Whatever the reason may be, when you have the kind of population living under slum conditions, the census returns are entirely hopeless and inaccurate. Anyone who has tried to ascertain the precise number of people living in a slum will know what I am talking about. There is generally the greatest suspicion whenever a Government agent comes around making any inquiries, and when he starts making inquiries about the number of people living in a particular building then they are doubly suspicious, and there is no means of arriving at the correct figures. You have to take what you are given. The point I want to make is that so often when a slum has been condemned, after the most careful investigation in advance by qualified officials who know what the pitfalls are, when it comes to the rehousing of those people, where you thought you had to rehouse four you find you have to rehouse seven or eight people, and you wonder where they all came from. I made inquiries from a Coloured person in Durban in connection with the rehousing of Coloureds and I said I would like to know precisely what the position is because we get conflicting reports as to the total number of people living there and it is very necessary when dealing with this matter in Parliament to know precisely how many Coloured people there are. And they are not living in anything like the slum conditions the Coloured people live in in many of the towns in the Cape Province. We discussed the matter and he said to me: It is an interesting question because we were dealing with the matter the other day in connection with a Coloured school and we were given the official figures of a dwelling in which there lived a father, a mother and three children, but when an exact investigation was made it was found that no fewer than thirteen people lived in that house, five adults and eight children. Sir, that is the kind of thing that happens when you start clearing up slums. You find that the apparent housing units in the slum are not the number of housing units which will be required in the new township; you find that the new housing units are entirely inadequate to rehouse the people who lived in the slums. So I make this appeal to the Minister, that he should bear this matter in mind.

To come to the Bill itself, we know that the Minister in charge of this matter is now not the Minister of Health but the Minister of Housing. I know that there are certain hon. members who feel it is a pity that the emphasis is not laid on public health but on housing. I would sooner look upon it another way and say that we should lay the emphasis on the responsibility of the Government. It is the Government’s responsibility and if the Government decides that the Minister of Housing should take this responsibility, for the reasons set out in the Bill, then that is the way to do it, and I am not going to quarrel because the Minister of Housing is entrusted with it now and not the Minister of Health.

Then there is set up a Slum Clearance Court. Here again there probably will be mixed feelings. The municipalities have had their own slum clearance committees and I must be quite honest that when I investigated the records of some of the municipalities to see how many years it is since those committees last sat, I found it was not for many years—not that the town was free from slums, but that under the conditions with which they had to grapple with the problem the city fathers found that they would be inflicting a bigger injustice on hundreds of unfortunate people by moving them than by leaving them where they were. They had many practical difficulties to contend with. As I pointed out before, they were not allowed to make decisions, and they have lacked the funds. So a new Slum Clearance Court is being established which will probably facilitate the work. Then there is provision made for the failure of a municipality, and even for the failure of a medical officer of health to carry out his duty in regard to a recommendation in respect of any property which should be declared a slum. When it comes to the Minister’s notice, he can step into the breach. He uses the Slum Clearance Court and he has other instruments at his disposal, and at the worst, he can bring in the district surgeon. But in his second reading speech the Minister has indicated that he does not intend using the district surgeon, but the Deputy Director of Health for the area concerned. That was one of the objections from this side of the House, but the Minister has cleared it up and it is no longer an objection. We are very pleased indeed that the Minister has taken that decision.

There is one other point I wish to deal with. That concerns the town planning schemes which have been drawn up by municipalities. I started off by saying that the housing schemes associated with slum clearance, or for other purposes, are little towns in miniature. They are part of the organic growth of a town. Some of our urban authorities have spent a great deal of time and money in preparing proper town planning schemes, visualizing the extension of their own borders, and I want to pay a tribute to the municipalities which did so. In the past many of our troubles, including many of the black belts, stemmed apparently from a lack of faith in the future of our country. People visualized their town as a complete one and apparently never visualized the growth that was inevitable, that villages would grow into towns and towns into cities, with the result that they allowed these black belts to grow up around them, except that there was special legislation both in Natal and in the Transvaal to cope with it. But even where the municipalities had town planning schemes, many of them failed to realize that even now we are only in the beginning of our development. We must realize that these towns will go on expanding and the time will come when what to-day are small towns will become big cities. Some of them have planned for it. I would ask the Minister to see to it that in these provisions for rehousing, as far as possible his rehousing schemes should fit in with the town planning schemes of those municipalities, so that there is co-operation throughout the whole of the activities and the organization which the Minister may bring into being as the result of this Bill, and that that co-operation will take place continuously with the appropriate committee of the municipality concerned. One of the things I hope will not happen is on the one hand that the Minister will get the feeling that because a town has slums to-day the municipality of that town has been neglecting its duty and that it is blameworthy, and on the other hand I hope that the municipalities will realize that in co-operating with the Minister they can use the machinery provided by him, more particularly now by reason of the fact that the basic trouble of the past has been overcome, namely the question of finance. The old system, under which there was inevitably losses to the municipality on the housing provided for the very poor sections of the people, is now a thing of the past. That was the big stumbling-block. The municipalities found it very hard to justify to their ratepayers the fact that they were incurring liability for the rehousing of the people living on a very low economic level. That is now behind us; the financial side has been cleared up, and it seems to me that the door is now open for the municipalities and the Minister to get together, and even where the Minister initiates a scheme he may, subject to certain guarantees, hand over that scheme to the municipality to complete and to administer, so that his Department is not involved in it any longer than is necessary. On the other hand, where the municipality cannot get on with the job, I suggest that it should co-operate with the Minister’s Department, so that there will be as little friction as possible. The question of money, as I said, was the big stumbling-block in the past. Nobody liked to see an account building up against the municipal revenue fund as the result of the low economic stature of the people being rehoused. In that regard we have all had bitter experience. It is not one of the principles of this Bill that the people who are rehoused will be able to pay their rent or instalments. Now there need be no losses, but there is a concomitant responsibility inposed either on the Minister or the local authority to enforce compliance with the regulations by these new inhabitants, and that may be a very difficult proposition indeed, to enforce compliance with the financial regulations which will have to be imposed. If for no other reason than the necessity of working together in that regard I would urgently plead with the Minister to work in conjunction with the municipalities so that from that angle also there will be the greatest co-operation between his Department and the municipality. I do not think there is anything more I want to say. There are other speakers also on this side of the House. We give the Bill our blessing and we are prepared to vote for the second reading. We believe that the principle is a good one, and that the Minister is going to make an honest attempt to get rid of the slums. I hope he will go slowly at the start until he gets the feeling as to precisely how the thing is going with the municipalities which have been grappling with the problem for many years, and which can probably give him a good deal of advice and from their own experience show him where many of the pitfalls lie.

In his introductory speech the hon. the Minister described this Bill as a declaration of war on slum conditions. I think that is the sort of declaration which every right-minded person will support with pleasure and I am also pleased that the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has supported this Bill on behalf of his party, although I am sorry that he did so with so much verbosity, and apparently with his tongue in his cheek.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that the hon. member spoke with his tongue in his cheek. What does the hon. member mean by saying that?

I mean that he obviously disliked doing so and that he had reservations in connection with the matter.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Then I say that he did it half-heartedly. In the first instance, the hon. member put up a defence for local authorities and their powers, and he then asked the Minister not to lose sight of certain procedures in the clearance of slums. Finally he deplored the fact that the administration was being transferred from Health to Housing. I find it regrettable that somebody who has been in public life for such a long time has not yet learned that one should not only sacrifice the bad in life for the sake of the good but that one should also sometimes sacrifice lesser values for the sake of greater values. During the course of my speech I hope to refer to certain of the aspects raised by the hon. member. I just want to deal with the final one to which he referred, namely the transfer to Housing.

In the first instance, I want to ask the hon. member whether he knows that it was merely by coincidence that the Housing Commission was under Health when the Slums Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1934, because it was not yet a separate department at that time. In other words it was the convergence of circumstances which brought that about. But in case that does not satisfy him I want to read to him what Dr. E. H. Cluver, who is generally recognized as an authority on health legislation, said in connection with this matter—

In other words, poor housing in slum areas is really the reason for ill-health. As I have said, to refer to this Bill as a declaration of war, is to use very strong language indeed. I do not regard these measures which are now being embodied in legislation simply as measures to remedy the one or other defect; I simply regard this as another step in the process of development, a process which has a very long history and which time does not permit me to go into at the moment, but I do want to ask that this step which is being taken here to-day should be viewed against the background of the task which had to be performed in connection with housing and the clearance of slum conditions and particularly against the background of the achievements of the National Government as far as housing is concerned. The National Government really has a proud record as far as housing generally and the clearance of slum conditions are concerned. I do not want to make claims which I cannot prove. I want to give certain figures and I also want to quote what Mr. Patrick Lewis, the chairman of the Johannesburg non-European Affairs Committee, said. He alleged on one occasion that in 1939 there were 8,700 houses in the Johannesburg municipal area for 244,000 Bantu. That means an average of 28 per house. Thereafter there was a great influx to the city and he says that in 1946 there were no fewer than 395,000 Bantu in the municipal area of Johannesburg and more or less the same number of houses; in other words, on the average about 45 per house. I do not think I can do better than to quote what he said about the post-war conditions which this Government inherited. He said—

Those were the conditions which this Government inherited when it had to tackle the task of clearing slums and providing housing. Mr. Speaker, it is not merely a question of money. Experience has taught us that money is not the answer to everything, and that was why the National Government, just as it is introducing this measure to-day, came forward with three very outstanding measures. I am merely referring to this in passing. In 1951 the Government introduced the Native Building Workers’ Act; the following year it introduced the Native Services’ Levies Act and in 1953 it accepted the site and service scheme as policy. I may tell you, Sir, that it was no mean task to get all these three measures accepted; there was strenuous opposition from the Opposition. What was the result of the application of this approach of the Government? The result was that those very bad conditions which I described a moment ago by quoting Mr. Lewis, have to-day been cleared up completely as far as the housing of non-Whites are concerned. After this problem had been solved by the practical approach and tact of this Government and partly with money provided by this Government, the City Council of Johannesburg published a beautifully illustrated brochure under the title “Thousands for Houses”. It is the same brochure from which the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) quoted previously. They say in this brochure that the entire backlog has been wiped out. They say that because they want to boast about this to their overseas friends and to the visitors to this great Bantu city. I can go further and quote from newspapers and show that the Star, for example, rapped a former city councillor of Johannesburg, Mr. Patmore, over the knuckles because he was supposed to have said that the present Prime Minister was a negrophilist because he had improved the housing conditions of the non-Whites to such an extent. I do not, however, want to wander as far as that away from the point. In view of the data I have submitted to this House, I wish to state, that South Africa, under the leadership of the National Party, has indeed become the leader in the world in the field of housing, particularly housing at a low cost. It is perhaps not very generally known but in this respect it is very important to know that the standard plans of the Department of Housing are to-day hanging in the offices of UNO in New-York, and what is more those plans are recommended for use throughout the world. I do not think therefore, that UNO is completely at sea in every respect. What is more UNO misses South Africa to such an extent as a member of the Committee of Technical Co-operation south of the Sahara, that through its African representative it even seeks information about housing at a low cost from Abyssinia to-day. But this Government has not only achieved a great deal in connection with the housing for non-Whites. It has also, as far as housing for Whites is concerned, achieved a great deal in co-operation with its research officials and experts, and in spite of the increase in the cost of material and wages since 1948 this Government has succeeded, with the assistance of its experts, in reducing building costs of houses for Whites by between 20 per cent to 25 per cent. I think that is an achievement of which any Government can be proud. Against this background the figures given by the hon. the Minister in his introductory speech assume far greater significance; they appear even more impressive: Over R301,000,000 for over 291,000 houses for Whites, Coloureds, Indians and Bantu! I should like the Opposition to note the boastful language of the Johannesburg members in connection with the attainment of this achievement in co-operation with and wish the assistance of the National Government. It is essential that this point be emphasized because when these people entertain their friends in Johannesburg they refer to those achievements as the results of their policy, and when they address meetings on the platteland they suggest that we are negrophilists. The fact that, in spite of the Slum Act which has been on the Statute Book since 1934, there are still slums and that new slums have even come into existence, emphasizes the necessity that the existing machinery should be overhauled and amended. The first and most essential amendment in this regard is that the Department of Housing itself must, if necessary, take action. The first step taken in Clause 21 is to clothe the Secretary of Housing with the same powers, in certain circumstances, as those local authorities have. It is obvious that since the establishment of the Department of Housing in November 1961 a more positive housing policy has been followed. Because of that it has become essential for this Department also to have a say in the administration of the Slums Act, because the machinery is interwoven: Community Development proclaims group areas; Housing provides the loans and then you come up against the wall that local authorities are not always willing to undertake the clearance, not even in areas which have been declared as slums. I do not want to assume too much, but I think the reason why the United Party is really opposed to this measure is because they associate it with group areas, a system which they condemn basically. I want to give you examples, Sir, to substantiate what I have just said. I refer to District Six in the first place. Do you know, Sir, that there are areas in District Six which have been declared slum areas as long ago as 25 years, and what is more, in spite of the fact that Government loans are available, no development whatsoever has so far taken place in those areas. I want to give a second example, namely Sophiatown in Johannesburg. The clearance of Sophiatown as a slum area was approved as long ago as 1937 by the United Party controlled City Council of the day. Thereafter that decision was re-taken every second year, but what do we find? After the war when the problem had to be tackled and solved, that same City Council, of whom we have the honour of having two former mayors in our midst in the persons of the hon. members for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and Florida (Mr. Miller), advanced all sorts of excuses. I am not saying that they were afraid of any trouble that might result on account of the clearance but I am convinced that the most important reason, which nobody mentioned, was the fact that the National Party was then in power in this country; that was why they were not prepared to co-operate as far as that important matter was concerned. As a matter of fact the Government had to establish the Bantu Resettlement Board to carry this out. Who will have the courage to allege that that gigantic task which was tackled with so much vigour and completed without striking a blow, has not been a benefit and a blessing to everybody? To prevent a similar situation from arising, it is necessary for the Secretary of Housing to have the same powers, in certain circumstances, as local authorities. It is also necessary for the Secretary not only to have the power to declare slums; he must also, where necessary, be able to provide housing in areas which have been declared slums—and in this regard I refer to Clause 23 which I support. I wish to add that any local authority—I am addressing this in particular to the hon. member for South Coast—who may still be doubtful about this measure, can be reassured by what the hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech, namely that it was not his intention or that of his Department to take the work out of the hands of those local authorities who were indeed prepared to carry on with the work. Furthermore Clause 22 (2) provides that the Secretary of Housing can step back in those cases where the local authorities continue with the work. I really think that any local authority who is still afraid after the Minister’s assurance, that, once this provision is passed, their powers may be encroached upon, is really not being realistic.

I want to refer to Clause 3 which provides for the establishment of a slum clearance court in place of the old municipal slum court. The old system of a municipal slum court had very far-reaching effects, although it was accepted as such with the passage of time. In actual fact it amounted to this that that slum court which was at the same time the complainant, the Judge and the sheriff affected the rights of the owner. That is probably the only sphere of our life where that is tolerated and where it will be tolerated. As opposed to that, the clause to which I have just referred provides for an independent body, a slum clearance court, a proper legal body, as against the old quasi-judicial slum court of the municipalities. This body will be under the chairmanship of a magistrate or a former magistrate assisted by two members with a knowledge of housing conditions in that city. I think a court constituted as this one and which is independent will enjoy the higher esteem of the broad masses of the public than the former quasi-judicial body. A very important point I wish to raise in connection with this slum clearance court is the fact that this slum clearance court will lift the thorny question of declaring an area a slum area out of the political arena. This matter is really more serious than it appears at the first glance. I have already referred to the unwillingness on the part of the Johannesburg Municipality after the change of Government in the country as far as Sophiatown was concerned. There are, however, circumstances connected with group areas, for example, in other legislation where the local authority may be opposed to that legislation and that it refuses, for that reason alone, to continue with the declaration of slum areas and that that body, which consists of a committee of the local authority, will, of course, not continue with that task. I may mention that the possibility is not wholly excluded under the old system that some of those councillors may be slum owners and that may give rise to all sorts of abuses. I also want hon. members to consider the position of a municipal health official who, for example, says that slum conditions exist at certain premises and recommends that those premises be declared a slum when those premises belong to one of the councillors who is opposed to that recommendation and who is in a position to use his influence to oppose the declaration of a slum, and, what is more, to use his influence against the official concerned. I think the new system eliminates a serious abuse. We heartily welcome it, therefore. I also want to say this that the fact that the court will consider a specific case on a full-time basis ought to shorten the proceedings considerably. I think it will be conducive to far greater efficiency than in the case of the old slum court.

I want to conclude by saying that I heartily support this Bill, also that I hope it will be the forerunner of a slum-clearance policy and slum-clearance plan of which, I think, we are in dire need at this stage.

The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) who has just sat down should bear in mind the fact that although this Act was originally placed on the Statute Book in 1934 and amended only in 1937, no effort has been made since that date by the previous Government or the present Government particularly to amend it in any way. In spite of what the hon. member has said about the United Party and the question of slum clearance, the fact remains that this is the first occasion on which the Government has come forward to deal with this particular Act. It may well be that the reason is that now that a Ministry for Community Development has been established, more emphasis is being placed on the housing side rather than on the health side to enable the Minister of Community Development to initiate some active work in the housing field. Sir, nobody has deprecated that fact, and one is therefore surprised at this extraordinary attack which the hon. member who has just sat down has made upon the United Party. He has singled out the city of Johannesburg in particular in order to show his approval of the terms of this Bill. His attitude differs very markedly from that of the Minister who did try to place the provisions of this Bill and his reasons for its introduction before the House as objectively as possible. It sometimes helps when one has an objective approach to matters of this kind because it enables both sides of the House to view the matter dispassionately, to weigh up the pros and the cons and to decide what support it could give to any measure that is introduced by the Government. The hon. member who has just sat down has made some very peculiar assumptions and has tried to give the House certain information which is entirely incorrect.

With regard to the question of slum clearance in Johannesburg, I would like the hon. member to note that low-cost housing was certainly the outcome of the research and investigation of the City Council of Johannesburg, who were able for the first time to show the world that the principle of bringing down building costs to the level of the income of the people occupying them was a feasible proposition. The City Council—in fact the whole country—was faced in the post-war years with the problem of a shortage of labour and a shortage of material and a shortage of finance. The problem that faced large municipalities in regard to the question of slum clearance and squatters’ camps was how to bring about an improvement in the conditions. The hon. member must know that the Town Council of Springs was the first local authority which was able to make some contribution towards the provision of low-cost housing in its Kwatema Native Township. He must also know that the town engineer of Springs who then joined the staff of the City Council of Johannesburg as its housing director was able to bring about low-cost housing on a scale previously unheard of in this country, where a four-roomed brick house, with fencing and water, was built at as low a figure as R308. He must also know that the work of the Native Resettlement Board in building Meadowlands was based on the experimentation of the City Council of Johannesburg and its original township of Mofolo, which was the first Bantu township in which an experiment was made in regard to lowcost housing. But. Sir, this side of the House in supporting the Bill does not necessarily seek any kudos in this respect. Our only concern is to examine the Bill as the Minister has brought it before the House. I think the first Housing Act was passed by the United Party Government and its predecessors; the Slums Act was passed by the United Party Government and its predecessors, because all Governments must necessarily take an interest in the health of the community and ensure that the health of the community is maintained in the best possible manner. The very authority whom the hon. member quoted was the Secretary for Health under the previous Government. We had men like Sir Edward Thornton, the then Secretary for Health, under whose aegis tremendous strides were made in the field of housing and in the field of slum clearance. Sir. I must say that we deprecate the fact that a member on that side comes here and in an attempt to criticize this side, not only talks with his tongue in his cheek, but in a half-hearted way and then asks the Minister not to lose sight of certain procedural matters and not to loose sight of certain other problems which this amending Bill may bring about. Sir, that is our purpose; our purpose is to support the Bill if in principle it has merit but at the same time to draw the Minister’s attention to certain aspects of the Bill and certain of its clauses. Sir, one of the objects of the Slums Act is obviously to bring about slum clearance and to protect the health of the community. Naturally one watches very jealously the traditional rights of the local authorities of this country. On the other hand, if the Minister feels that a slum-clearance court as a separately constituted body may be more effective, then one cannot deny that that may well be the case. Perhaps the hon. the Minister might consider the question of either increasing the membership of the board or substituting one member of the board by a representative of the local authority, whether it be a City Council, Town Council, Health Board or a Village Management Board. One will then have the necessary liaison between the local authority which is concerned with the immediate needs of the community and this independent body.

The other question that arises is that in terms of the Act it is the local authority’s medical officer of health who has to report whether in his opinion slum conditions exist. The hon. the Minister has already brought about an improvement by substituting for the district surgeon a regional health officer, and I wonder whether he cannot go a little further and allow the medical officer of health of the local authority to continue even where in terms of Clause 21 the Minister has reason to doubt that the local authority is effectively performing the duties imposed upon it under the principal Act, because the clause does not suggest that the Minister has reason to doubt that the official is effectively carrying out his duties but that the local authority is effectively carrying out his duties. The medical officer of health of the local authority is enjoined by law to do certain things. The Act as it now stands says—

The medical officer of health has a duty imposed upon him by law, which is not being interfered with by this amending Bill. I do not really see why the medical officer of health should not continue to perform those services. Where the Minister is dissatisfied with what the local authority is doing, the slums court can quite easily deal with the report of the medical officer of health, because the medical officer of health who is simply an official would not act any differently from the regional officer. For instance, he would not fail to report if he finds that certain undesirable conditions exist. He would report in the same way as it would be reported by a regional health officer who is asked to look into a certain set of circumstances. If the Minister will concede that matter, because it is a matter of principle, he will be going a long way to satisfy the local authority in maintaining that important link between itself and the citizens. I feel that the Minister could go a little further than the concession he has already made. In that sense we might to a great extent preserve, not only the prerogative, but a field of activity which I feel is important in the interests of the community.

The other question that arises is this. I think the hon. the Minister will concede that for years, particularly the post-war period, it was very difficult to get sufficient money from the National Housing Commission. The demand was so great from all local authorities throughout the country in order to catch up with the back-log in housing that it was very difficult for them to get adequate funds. Local authorities had to be satisfied with less than their real requirements. One might even be critical of the priorities that were granted. Some local authorities felt that they should have priority above others but that is not the field which I want to enter at this stage. I merely wish to confine myself to the point that local authorities were unable to carry on with their work because of the inability to obtain the necessary funds. I notice from the Minister’s statement that the National Housing Commission will provide money for electricity, water and other services. At one time however you could not get that money. The Natives Service Levy Act was specially passed to enable local authorities to have some source from which money for services could be drawn because the State and the National Housing Commission were unable to give sufficient money to provide not only for housing but also for services. The Minister will remember the National Housing Commission’s outlook at the time, namely that they would provide the money to buy the land and to build the house but nothing more.

I think the Act at that time provided only for the building of a house. Because the local authorities had difficulty in finding the money to finance the services, they found it very difficult to make any progress with their housing schemes. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) who is not here at the moment, also knows that as soon as moneys became readily available for services the City Council of Johannesburg was able to provide housing for the Bantu at the rate of 10,000 per annum. That drew world attention to the progress that was being made in the erection of low-cost housing. Those are the plans, I think he said, that are presently hanging on the walls of the United Nations administrative offices. Those are the plans that they would like to put in operation right throughout Africa. In fact the housing engineer who is responsible for that in Johannesburg is now in Mauritius where he is in charge of a building programme amounting to £6,000,000; a programme which is based on the same low-cost basis. We are all very proud of what South Africa has achieved in that direction. I think the hon. the Minister said in the peroration to his address that he was sure that every South African would support any attempt that is made to promote the work that had been done in this field. I do not ithink any party or section of the community should claim any particular credit for this tremendous service that was rendered to the country. Despite the fact that there were differences of opinion between the Government and the local authority with regard to the site and service scheme, those differences were far beyond the political pale. Those differences of opinion were with regard to the method of providing good housing at a low cost with all the necessary services. The hon. Minister is well aware that you cannot embark on a housing scheme to-day unless you are able to provide all the amenities. Even in towns and cities where it is difficult to install sewerage, it is most desirable in order to complete the necessary amenities. Some of the local authorities were held up because of their inability to find the necessary funds to provide a satisfactory sewerage system. The fact that the Minister has conceded that in providing funds for housing schemes the Housing Commission will find all the necessary funds for the necessary services, is an important statement which has been placed on record.

There are certain other aspects to which attention must be drawn. The question of alternative accommodation had already been raised by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell). That is a very important feature. The Minister knows, for example, that in regard to Coloured housing in large local authorities—I shall deal with Johannesburg which I know better—it was necessary to obtain the land, it was necessary to obtain the funds from the commission and it was necessary to come to an agreement with the commission with regard to the planning of those houses. He knows the areas to which I am referring. It took a long time before those schemes were eventually concluded. Once all those negotiations were successfully concluded the building of the houses progressed very rapidly. You are in a position to tackle the question of slum clearance once you are able to offer alternative accommodation. I think the Minister has given an assurance on a previous occasion that he would not make use of the Group Areas Act, with its stringent provisions, unless he was able to provide alternative accommodation.

Order! Is the hon. member for Zululand (Mr. Cadman) reading a newspaper?

Mr. Speaker, I am not reading a newspaper; I am preparing an extract from it.

It is important that alternative accommodation should be provided. Slum clearance can be tackled very effectively in some large cities to-day in order to comply with what was said by one of the previous speakers in supporting this Bill, but it would throw a considerable number of people out of their homes and all the evils which we try to eliminate by way of slum clearance, will immediately come into play because without homes you must of necessity get squatter conditions and all sorts of contraventions of the health laws. As long as the Minister gives us the assurance that the Housing Commission will act rapidly in this matter and that the stringent provisions of this amending Bill will only become operative when there is alternative housing, he will earn the approval of the community. I do not think some local authorities in this country should be criticized. They have already voiced the fear that this amending Bill might possibly be used to make the Group Areas Act a little more effective. If one has to narrow the whole essence of this Bill to slum clearance, if we have an assurance in regard to alternative accommodation, the fact that this may have some incidental purposes cannot be used to detract from the fact that slum clearance is very important in our country.

The other question which I think is important is the question of maintaining much closer liaison with local authorities. I think the hon. the Minister might possibly introduce a further amendment and that is for the Slums Court to indicate its decision to the Town Clerk. In other words, it should maintain close liaison between itself and the Town Clerk or the administrative officer of any particular local authority in respect of which the Slums Court has been established. I think that is very important. I think that when there is a fear on the part of a local authority that certain traditional rights will be removed or that certain prerogatives which they have enjoyed over a number of years will be curtailed, or that any action might be initiated which might inconvenience the sociological life of the community itself, and for which the local authority has an intimate responsibility, the Minister should ensure that there is sufficient liaison between the body that he is constituting and the local authority so that they will work together with confidence. The local authority should have the necessary confidence in the Slums Court and the Slums Court should have sufficient confidence in the local authority to enable them to work together. I do not think that in a matter such as this where senior officials are concerned there can be any question of politics. The question of the health of the community is certainly outside the pale of purely narrow political considerations. The fear which municipalities originally expressed was that there might be friction, for example, between the district surgeon and the medical officer of health. I think the hon. the Minister has met the position by substituting “regional health officer” for “district surgeon”. I still feel however that the suggestion that the medical officer of health of the local authority should continue in all his capacities is a much better suggestion and that it will allay the fears of there being any friction between the local authority and the Slums Court itself.

There has been certain criticism of local authorities holding back when an area has been declared to be a slum area, and where that local authority has given certain extensions of time. The Minister must know that the only reason why those extensions are granted is the fact that they are unable to provide alternative accommodation. I should also like to have an assurance from the Minister on another aspect. The idea that the Housing Commission should take over an area which has been declared a slum area and develop that area together with adjoining areas is very commendable if the hon. Minister will give the assurance that his objective is to take action in that respect. I know of areas in Johannesburg where the buildings have been razed to the ground. In one instance there has been a dispute between the local authority and the National Housing Commission which has lasted for some seven years as to the purpose for which that area is to be used. It is situated in a highly industrialized area. Some people are of the opinion that in order to provide low-cost housing for Whites in this particular city an ordinary housing scheme should be developed in that area. Others are of the opinion that an industrial scheme should be developed there. The owners particularly are of the opinion that it should be developed industrially because to develop a housing scheme there would involve them in considerable losses. That situation has existed for nearly seven years. I do not know why the Housing Commission has not taken some sort of action; perhaps they are unable to do so unless they are empowered in terms of this Bill. That is something which the Minister should take into account namely where it would be too expensive to erect fresh houses in an area which has been demolished as a slum area. It may be too expensive firstly, because of its close proximity to the city, and secondly because of the progressive increase in the value of land. How the Minister will meet that situation I do not know, but it is an important matter which will have to be taken into account. The member who spoke before me referred, for instance, to District Six. Assuming there were to be a clearing of houses in District Six that is hardly an area where you will provide ordinary housing. If you provide very cheap housing there it will not take very long for fresh slum conditions to develop there. That is an area where you will either have to provide commercial or industrial types of structures. That is the case in all big cities where slum conditions have developed in close proximity to the city itself. We have that position in Johannesburg and they probably have it in Durban as well. I wonder whether the Minister has given thought to that particular difficulty which may well arise. It is an aspect which I think deserves his consideration.

By and large, say for some of the matters which were raised and which we will deal with in the Committee Stage, we are supporting this Bill. There are no partisan interests in doing so. It is to be regretted that a partisan interest has entered this discussion. Judging from the Minister’s statement I was surprised at what followed. I trust, in view of the attitude of the hon. member for South Coast, that the note will rather be on the positive aspect of this amending Bill and not on the negative aspects of refighting the wars of years gone by. I think, as far as a measure of this nature is concerned, a measure which deals with the health of a community, the level of our discussions should be on a very much higher level than to refight the wars of earlier years.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) said at the beginning of his speech that he wanted to reply to the alleged attack made by the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) on the City Council of which he was formerly a member and of which he also had the honour of being the mayor at one time. It is not my intention to become involved in that quarrel. What struck me was that the hon. member quite extolled the work of the City Council concerned. You expect that, Sir. I am a former mayor of Pretoria and as such think in turn that Pretoria has set a good example as far as housing is concerned.

As a neighbour, at the time, of the city which the hon. member for Florida represents, I just want to refer to a difficulty which was experienced in connection with the clearance of various places in Johannesburg. If I remember correctly, I associate Sophiatown with certain happenings; I also have in mind Page View, Martindale and Newclare. I do not, however, want to go further into that; those are sins of the past.

The hon. member also referred to traditional rights or powers which may possibly be taken away from local authorities. I want to emphasize the fact that the main idea of this Bill is not to encroach on any existing rights or powers of local authorities but simply to clear up slum conditions and to encourage housing. It is not necessary to advocate the necessity of clearing slum conditions in any community, whether it be a city community or a town community. We are all agreed upon that. Slum conditions generally disfigure a city or a town as a result of the unsightly appearance of those slum conditions. A further result of slum conditions is that the morals and the health of the people in that area are undermined. They also lead to evils in various spheres. They create a very fertile seedbed for social as well as economic evils. We have heard such a great deal about seedbeds lately! Even from the broad political point of view it is very desirable and necessary that those areas be cleared up.

The Slums Act of 1934, Act No. 53, embodies two aspects, namely the health and housing aspect. The health aspect is over-emphasized and we are very pleased that emphasis is placed on it, because it covers the health of the entire community, non-White as well as White. The housing aspect is expressed as follows in the relevant Act. Section 3 reads—

1. (a) for preventing or remedying or causing to be prevented or remedied all nuisances in its district, and
2. (b) for ensuring the provision of suitable housing generally and as far as circumstances permit for the inhabitants of its district

Since the Slums Act was placed on the Statute Book 30 years ago circumstances generally have changed greatly—economic circumstances have improved. It is essential that the law be changed in such a way that it conforms to those changed circumstances and that it meets the new demands. It is also necessary to streamline the machinery so that it will conform to the fast improving circumstances so that the original object of the Act can be achieved as far as housing is concerned. The key clauses, to which hon. members have already referred, are Nos. 3, 21, 22 and 23. These clauses are self-explanatory and in his second-reading speech the hon. the Minister gave us a very full and crystal clear exposition as a matter of fact he outlined the objects and the principles very clearly.

This is the first time that the Government has really given the green light, by way of legislation, for the clearance of slums. The clearance of slums in city and town areas, with the accompanying provision of housing and city restoration projects, will either be initiated or, if necessary, tackled by the State. The clearance programme, as such, should nevertheless be initiated by local authority, provided the local authorities remain active. The State will, if it gives the necessary incentive to local authorities in connection with the clearance of slums, only activate and will not dominate the local authorities or take the work over from them. Any doubts about this legislation which may exist in this connection are quite unfounded.

Many local authorities have tried to clear unsightly slums to the best of their ability and have provided better housing facilities on those premises. The inhabitants of that city or town as well as the country are grateful to those local authorities. The remarks of the hon. member for South Coast in connection with the semblance of criticism expressed by the hon. the Minister, are misplaced. The Minister has on various occasions emphasized the fact that he had the highest regard and gratitude for the work which city councils were doing in this connection, but that there were nevertheless certain local authorities who were not doing their duty. The position is not what it should be in the case of many local authorities. The difficulty is that some of them, where group areas have already been proclaimed, lack the will and perhaps the desire to clear up the slum conditions and to put the State assistance plans in operation in the interests of their inhabitants. In other words, it seems as if the initiative or the desire is lacking in the case of some local authorities, on the one hand, to clear slum conditions and, on the other hand, to establish the accompanying necessary housing for those people who had to vacate those slums. Some authorities have grasped at every offer and have availed themselves of every opportunity to get the funds to erect housing in order to meet the housing shortage. In this connection I wish to refer to the City Council which I represent and of which I had the honour of being the mayor at one time. That City Council applied for more funds that could be made available to it. There are other local authorities who were in the same position. Although those local authorities made use of every opportunity in that way there are nevertheless those who did not likewise avail themselves of their opportunities. It is essential, therefore, that the existing Act be amended in this way so that it will be possible to clear up slum conditions in those urban areas where the municipalities are perhaps not sufficiently energetic to do their direct duty in this-regard and where the inhabitants suffer in consequence. Many of the difficulties and objections which local authorities may have had, must necessarily fall away in view of this more positive and more effective effort on the part of the Department to streamline the whole question of housing. The Department of Housing has already made the offer to local authorities to provide them with technical and professional advice. Furthermore, housing plans, with a view to maximum accommodation at minimum costs, are made available free of charge and in this connection one should refer to the work which is being done by the building research institute of the C.S.I.R. Local authorities are no longer expected to carry any losses in connection with the provision of houses in view of the fact that the State has even undertaken to bear any interest losses. That is a very great concession and a great relief to local authorities; a great burden is being taken off their shoulders. Apart from that, in order to lighten the burden which rests on local authorities, the National Housing Commission decided in 1962 to make funds available to local authorities, if they wish it, for such service as water and electricity where a necessary scheme had to be carried out. The costs of professional and technical services required in order to carry out a specific scheme can also be a charge against the cost of the scheme and thus paid by the lessee or the buyer.

In conclusion I wish to congratulate the Department of Housing and in particular the Minister on this forward step in connection with housing; it is unnecessary for any friction to exist between the department on the one hand and a local authority on the other hand, a local authority which may perhaps not be able to tackle the task of slum clearance. There can still always be very wonderful and harmonious co-operation. We on this side of the House are pleased to be able to say that great progress has been made in respect of housing over the past few years and I am convinced that, as a result of the few aspects which are being put right in this legislation, we are facing a wonderful and rosy future as far as housing is concerned.

Any legislation which will accelerate the clearance of slums must be welcomed by all concerned. Therefore we intend to support this Bill, even if there are one or two aspects of the Bill with which we do not agree. But in principle we want to assist in the clearance of slums. I hope, however, that the same mistake will not be made under this Bill as I believe was made under the first Act of 1934. I remember that when I was a member of the Cape Town City Council, the point of view which I held then was that you must not declare property slums and have the people leave those slums until proper alternative accommodation for the slum-dwellers has been provided. If that had been done in 1934, there would have been less slums to-day. The authorities were so anxious in 1934 to declare property slums that they declared thousands of property slums, and people had to leave. But where did they have to go to? They left and went to relatives and friends in other places and over-crowded those houses which had provided decent homes, and so they created fresh slums. It became a vicious circle. I know in the area where I practised there were beautiful little homes all to-day probably on the verge of being declared slums because of that situation. I hope the hon. Minister and his Department have benefited from the mistakes which were made in 1934.

Sir, I believe too that sub-economic houses all tend to become slums. They must become slums, and I think the hon. Minister and I are in agreement when I say that the ideal for any country would be the doing away of sub-economic houses. Those houses of necessity are built to meet the economic standard of the people who occupy them and are built in such a manner and so cheaply as to become slums in a very short time. There again we perpetuate this vicious circle. We try to get people out of slums, we put them into little homes, and then those little homes become slums again, and so you get this vicious circle. I am in good company when I put forward that view, because, Mr. Speaker, only on 17 April, there was an article in the Argus (the Minister undoubtedly has read it) which was headed “Higher Sub-Economic Standards urged at Housing Talks”, and in that article Mr. Owen, chairman of the Cape Divisional Housing Committee points out that under the one Act certain types of houses were being built and under another Act those houses could not conform with the standards laid down.

Did you not see the Department’s reply?

The hon. Minister may be right in saying that that is not correct, but in effect, the hon. Minister knows that I have consistently—and I think he agrees with me to a great extent—opposed the type of house that has been built for the Coloured people. I may for the benefit of the House repeat that such houses are built with no inside walls, no ceiling and they have cement floors. The point is that that house from my point of view is completely unhealthy and it causes a lot of illness. From my own investigations a lot of little children are suffering from tuberculosis as a result of those conditions.

What is better, a wooden floor or a cement floor?

The floor is not so important as the type of house. Now the answer usually is: It is better than nothing. I say I would rather see sub-economic houses being done away with. The hon. Minister is not in disagreement with me. I would rather see half the number of houses being built with double the standard than the type of house that is being built for the poorer people.

Are you dissatisfied with the standard laid down by the regulations of the Department of Housing?

The Minister must know the type of house I am alluding to.

I am not arguing, but I simply would like some information. Does the hon. member object to the standard laid down by the Department of Housing?

Quite frankly I do not know what the hon. Minister means. Has he introduced a new standard?

You are talking nonsense!

We are not fighting this Bill. If the hon. Minister gives me the assurance that there has been a change in the plans as far as the houses are concerned that I am objecting to, I shall be very happy.

The Minister knows the type of house I am referring to.

Sit down!

I am not standing any impertinence from a man who knows nothing about housing. Many Coloured families have to occupy that type of house I am referring to. I say that that type of house is unhealthy, it is scandalous, it should never be built! There are thousands of that type of house and they will become slums within a few years’ time, and whether he likes it or not, the Minister will then have to declare them slums under the 1934 Act. What is the use of spending public money when you give the people a type of house which is unfit for human occupation? I do not want to discuss with the hon. member for Parow the type of house the Parow Municipality is building of corrugated iron.

Where?

Corrugated iron for the Coloured people; 64 of them, no bricks in them, no ceilings, purely corrugated iron. In fairness to the hon. Minister I want to say that the Minister has given me his assurance that that matter is being gone into, and therefore I do not want to deal with it.

The Minister has gone further and said that they are not in accordance with the standard of the Department of Housing.

I pay tribute to the hon. Minister when he says that, but I want to try and tell those loud-mouthed fellows here who know nothing about it …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that. The hon. member should not refer to other hon. members in those terms.

I am sorry, I withdraw those words. Let me tell these noisy gentlemen that I went to inspect that type of house.

Where are they?

In Parow, in Tiger Valley, I saw them myself.

You went to a garage.

The hon. member knows nothing about that area, and that shows the interest he takes in the Coloured people. I shall take him there and if he says that that is a type of house which is fit for human occupation, then I will say that he believes anything. I say with all the force at my command that there are 64 sets of houses built at Tiger Valley completely of corrugated iron, not one brick being used.

No.

The hon. member will not believe it, but it is true. I have inspected them myself, and I am prepared to take him out and show him that type of house, with one tap outside for eight families, with nowhere they can cook inside. I am telling you that that type of house is disgraceful, but the hon. Minister is taking the matter up and I am very happy about that.

Why do you not say that my Department had nothing to do with it?

No, it has nothing to do with the Department of Coloured Affairs or with the Department of Housing. I accept that, but I think it is the Parow Municipality building those houses.

There is one aspect in regard to slums that I want to deal with and that is the position of a person who just cannot pay the rent, who cannot pay anything at all. I have not got the latest figures but to put my point I will deal with figures supplied in 1957. There were 2,100 families, comprising about 15,000 people, who were earning under £10 a month. I believe that roughly that number is still the same to-day. People who earn under £10 per month, cannot even pay a sub-economic rent. These are the people that create slums. They have to find some sort of place to sleep in, and unless something is done for that income group, the very, very low income-group earning under £10 a month, we will always have this situation of the creation of slums, because wherever they go to, they will create slum conditions. Our duty therefore is, from the economic point of view to see to it that people earn sufficient to pay some sort of rental and not be the creators of slum conditions wherever they go.

Take the better-paid people. There too the Government has demanded far too low a standard of income to pay economic rentals. That question should also be gone into. A man with a family who earns his £25 or £35 a month, cannot afford to pay an economic rental. It is beyond the amount which he can afford. A man earning £25 a month, cannot pay £5 a month in rent. There too they bring in lodgers and relations and they join together for economic reasons and then again raising slum conditions. I am not attacking the Government in this connection. It is something which has been with us for many a day, and it will probably remain with us for many years, but with all the good intentions of the Minister to do away with slums, he will not succeed as long as that position obtains where people will continuously create slums. Therefore I say that hand-in-hand with slum clearance must go the uplifting of the people economically, and unless you do that, all that the hon. Minister is trying to achieve under this Bill will be to a great extent nullified. I think legislation is required which will lay down a minimum wage to enable people to live decently, in decent homes. Not only this Government, but also previous governments, have had to face the question of housing. Each one has done its best to build houses for the poor people, but if you do not force people to pay a minimum economic wage to the poorer people, you will never do away with slums. Unless that is done, I am afraid we are wasting a lot of money. In fairness I think I should deal with an area which is frequently thrown at the City Council of Cape Town as an example of the inability of the Council to grapple with this problem, that is the Windermere section. The hon. Minister will be pleased to hear that I have information to indicate that that area has been tackled very bravely. I see the hon. Minister smiles. If the acceleration of the slum-clearance there was not as fast as the hon. Minister would have like it …

I know all about Windermere. You cannot tell me anything about it.

I believe that Windermere has always been a disgrace, but in fairness to the City Council of Cape Town I must point out that in 1958, they replied to an article in the Burger about Windermere, and they dealt in that reply with the Windermere-Factreton area—

The remaining section of the Windermere-Factreton Scheme, i.e. the Windermere slum area is to be redeveloped on a home-ownership basis for Coloureds, providing for the building of some 600 houses, but before development can take place at Windermere, it will be necessary to acquire additional properties at an estimated cost of £100,000. For some years past, the funds made available by the Government for housing throughout the country have been severely limited and all housing-loan funds have been ear-marked for the building of houses in fully approved housing schemes. Consequently, housing-loan moneys for the large-scale acquisition of slum properties, such as is the case at Windermere, have not been readily available.

That was in 1958, therefore five years ago. I do not know whether that position has changed and whether the Minister has made more funds available. If he has, we ought to be grateful to him and I hope that if the City Council of Cape Town or any other municipality has failed in its duty to clear slums, the Minister should be assisted in his attempt to clear those slums. But once more, I want to warn the Minister that if he intends to accelerate slum-clearance under this Bill without making provision for alternative accommodation for the people who will have to leave their houses in the slums, the Minister will fail as they have failed since 1944 to grapple with this problem successfully. I therefore hope that the Minister will heed my warning. Otherwise I am afraid with all the goodwill in the world, he will not succeed.

Where the Minister comes along with a Bill in which he states his policy very positively, and seriously intends to clear up slums, we have the position that hitherto all the hon. members who participated in this debate kept it on a very high level, but then the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) entered the debate, and the first thing he did was to warn the Minister. He hurls threats at the Minister, and he is busy sowing suspicion. He said: “I want to warn the Minister”. The hon. member did not make a positive contribution to the debate. He is not trying to help the Minister to clear up slums. This is the Minister who wants to take positive action in regard to slum clearance, but the hon. member for Boland wants to sow the suspicion that it is particularly this Minister and his Department who were responsible for certain slum areas. He referred to certain areas in Parow.

On a point of order, I clearly said …

Order! That is not a point of order.

May I correct the hon. member on a point of explanation?

Order!

If such conditions exist as the hon. member alleges, surely the Minister is trying by means of this Bill to clear up such areas. But instead of assisting the Minister and explaining to these people that this Bill will help to clear up those areas (if conditions there are as bad as he described) and to resettle these people in a different place, he just sows suspicion. The hon. member alleges that the type of house built to-day is too cheap and does not come up to the standard he would like. But in the same breath he says that the rental is too high and that these people cannot afford it. Now I ask who has to pay for it? Is it not better to have subeconomic rentals and to house more of these people? Or does he want these people again to go and live in hessian shacks as they did before?

There has been much discussion in this House this afternoon as to whom the father of housing for the non-Whites is. We do not blame the members of the Johannesburg City Council, or the hon. members who now represent Johannesburg in Parliament, for trying to claim that they were partially responsible for it, but I think they are going too far when they claim that the Johannesburg City Council is the one par excellence which made cheap housing possible. Is it not a fact that the first man who thought of cheap housing for Natives was a Mr. Schreuder of Port Elizabeth? Is it not a fact that the father of housing is the Prime Minister of this country? Not only did he attend the birth of that child, but he cared for it and reared it. It is the Prime Minister of South Africa who made available cheap and efficient housing for the non-Whites. He is the man who, together with the National Housing Commission, did research in regard to cheap housing, and it is the Prime Minister and the National Housing Commission who should be given all the credit for what they have done to provide cheap housing in the Republic. We are grateful for the co-operation which was obtained from local authorities, but the City Council of Johannesburg—I do not want to fight with them this afternoon—should just remember that they are on record as being one of the city councils which were very obstinate in regard to co-operating in order to solve the housing problem. Let us give credit where it is due, and I say that credit is due firstly to the present Prime Minister of South Africa and the National Housing Commission, who worked together in this respect. The Minister is now introducing a Bill which will facilitate slum clearance. We want to thank the Minister for this positive action he is now taking. We want to thank all the city councils who have helped us to have beautiful cities in South Africa to-day. Our cities have developed in a very orderly fashion. But with the discovery of gold and diamonds and the expansion of our ports and the great industrial development in the Witwatersrand complex, in Cape Town, Port Elizabeth and Durban, this development proceeded at such a tempo that eventually slums developed. But with the means at the disposal of the local authorities and with the assistance of the Slums Act of 1934, the City Councils to the best of their ability tried to prevent slums developing, and to clear up those which had developed. But as time went on, and as the result of the shortage of funds, the city councils fell into arrears in this connection. We find that as the result of the positive attitude adopted by this Government in regard to the clearing up of non-White slum areas, the non-Whites to-day are being housed very decently. But the Minister realizes that, with this new dispensation we now have, and where to-day he is in charge of community development, and with the emphasis being laid on housing to a greater extent than it was previously laid on health, we are falling into arrears in regard to slum clearance; and the Minister wants to assist the city councils and he is introducing a Bill which does not seek to deprive the city councils of powers, but which grants the city councils greater powers to clear up slums if they are prepared to co-operate. It is non-sense for any city council to say to-day that it is being deprived of powers. But one of the obstacles which was always in the way of a city council’s deciding whether an area should be declared to be a slum was conflicting interests. It was not so easy for the city council to decide to declare an area a slum because there were always conflicting interests. The medical officer of health did his duty and submitted his report to the council, but when the report was submitted the council hesitated to take steps. The medical officer did his duty, but it usually took months before a decision could be reached on the matter. Now the Minister tells the city councils: I am removing what has always been an obstacle in your way and I am giving you a Slum Clearance Court. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) explained very clearly the problems with which we were faced formerly. I think this Slum Clearance Court will contribute towards slums being cleared up more expeditiously. But I want to tell the Minister this. Where the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) asked that there should be a certain measure of liaison between the Slum Clearance Court and the city councils, I have no objection to that, but I want to ask the Minister to see to it that when they have submitted that report to the council it should be a final report, and no more negotiations should be allowed to take place between the council and the court, because that will just lead to delay.

The Minister knows how to do his work and does not need your advice.

I have no objection to their being given notice so that there may be co-operation, but from experience we know what delaying tactics there can be if the city council is able again to make representations to that body. Where the Minister places this Bill on the Statute Book, we are convinced that he, as he said, had declared war on slums, and we are convinced that he and his Department will tackle the problem forcefully, and to those who are sceptical in regard to the matter we just want to say that they should go and look at what has already been done by the Minister and the Department.

There is one other matter I should like to refer to and which in my humble opinion may be a contributory factor to the existence of slum areas. It is the practice in the Cape Province to levy a tax on improvements to properties. I think the time has arrived for a thorough investigation to be made as to whether this tax on improvements does not lead to people refusing to improve their buildings, with the result that slums develop, because the worse the condition of the building the less tax one pays. I wonder whether the system should not be applied right throughout the country whereby one pays only a tax on the site, instead of the system of double taxation where one pays taxation on the site as well as on any improvements. I think that is a matter which should be investigated to see whether perhaps it is not one of the reasons why there are so many slums.

We hope and trust that the city councils will all welcome this Bill and co-operate with the Minister, because the Opposition has also said that they want to co-operate to clear up these ugly conditions, so that our cities may really be a credit to this beautiful and sunny land.

Mr. Speaker, up to now the ex-Mayors of Brakpan, Pretoria and Johannesburg (two of them!) have intervened in this debate and I think this is becoming a “Mayors’ nest”, but let us not lose sight of the fact that when the Minister introduced the second reading, he said that not only does this Bill relieve the city councils of an unpleasant duty, but it also completely removes the question of slum clearance from the local political arena, which might well result in action being taken more freely. Yet the very first speaker on the Government side this afternoon, the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy), immediately dragged this matter into the political arena. There was the Minister telling the House that this was a matter which should be taken out of the political arena, and yet the hon. member, the first one to support it this afternoon on his side, said: Let us have a political fight over this. Well, I do not want to play politics in regard to slum clearance, but certain allegations which have been made must be either true or false, and I propose to examine them.

The hon. member for Westdene took the liberty of accusing the Johannesburg City Council, and he said there were two exmayors of Johannesburg sitting here virtually cheek by jowl—neither of us is to blame for this proximity! He accused the Johannesburg City Council of having created slums by virtue of its neglect.

That is nonsense.

That is what the hon. member said. Then he said: Look at the position which arose in Sophiatown, and see what the United Party City Council did and how it obstructed the Government when it wanted to clear up that slum. Now, I do not want to go into the history of Sophiatown because it is a very long story which should not be told in this context, but I will give you the bottom figure in this account, Sir, namely, the reason why the United Party and the City Council of Johannesburg objected to the removal scheme and the resettlement of the Natives in those areas. As hon. members know, the reason was the fact that there was a deprivation of free-hold title. Is that true or false?

Order! I am not prepared to allow a discussion of that matter now.

Three people have made this accusation against us and I think I should, at least, be allowed to answer briefly. [Interjection.] Even if one were to assume that the United Party in the City Council of Johannesburg was wrong in adopting the stand it did in regard to freehold title, at least hon. members who criticized the United Party are well aware of the fact that that stand was taken honestly and in good faith, and that it was not the intention of the City Council to frustrate the Government in regard to any slum clearance scheme. Sir, I could develop this theme with your co-operation, but I am afraid I will not get it. It is all very well to use this Bill as a political argument against one city which happens to be a city where there is this so-called political control, but surely the intention of this Bill was not to deal with one particular city, or with two or three, but with South Africa as a whole. Therefore I can only say that whereas I deprecate the fact that these issues have been dragged into the debate, the rights and wrongs of the attitude of the Johannesburg City Council, I merely want to dispel from the mind of the Minister that I intend to make this a political matter. I want to deal with it as objectively as the Minister himself did.

The intention of the Bill, as explained by the Minister, is to accelerate the elimination of slum conditions where they exist. He says in effect that the existing procedure is not adequate or satisfactory. Now, I know that the Minister has had regard to the Slums Act of 1934. In his second-reading speech he quoted the definition of a slum as contained in that Act. But I am constrained to wonder whether in considering this Bill, the Minister has had any regard to the Public Health Act. In due course, no doubt, the Minister will tell me whether my conjecture is correct. The point at issue is this. If it is said that there has been in the past, and there are to-day, local authorities which have been remiss in their duties, which have either been neglectful or obstructive in regard to slum clearance, then all along the machinery has existed, and it exists to this day, to compel the local authority to do its duty towards the population of that town or city and towards the Government. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has said that we support the principle, and I also say that if the principle of this Bill is the quicker removal of slums, I naturally support it, as we all do. But that does not mean that we should not have objective regard to the circumstances in which the Bill is introduced, and to ask the Minister certain relevant questions.

I want to draw the attention of the Minister to the provisions of Section 11 of the Public Health Act, in which I believe he has not really taken any interest, and if he has, he has failed to indicate in his second-reading speech what the situation is in regard to the operation of this section of the Act. Section 11 of Act 36 of 1919 reads as follows: It says that whenever upon the report of the Chief Health Officer it appears to the Administrator that the public health in any locality is seriously endangered by the failure or refusal of the local authority to exercise its powers or to perform the duties devolving upon it in terms of any law, the Administrator may, after causing an inquiry to be held, call upon the local authority by written notice forthwith to exercise such powers or to perform such duties … and if the local authority fails to comply with such written notice, the Administrator may exercise such powers or perform such duties and may authorize any person to take all the necessary steps for that purpose in the same manner as if he were the local authority. Now, anyone who reads the Bill against the background of Section 11 of the Public Health Act will ask himself immediately, why this particular legislation is necessary. Why is it that when the Administrator already has an overiding authority over the local authority, and if he is satisfied that the local authority cannot or will not bestir itself in order to remove a slum, he can appoint any person to do everything that the local authority can or should do, why is it that a similar situation has to be created whereby the Secretary for Housing can do all those things, also, as if he were the local authority? I hope that in the course of this discussion the Minister will tell us why Section 11 of the Public Health Act, which clearly gives that power to the Minister of Health, and through him to the Administrator, to do certain things which the local authority has failed or refused to do, cannot be left as it is, and why that power cannot be invoked by the Minister of Health whenever he considers it necessary. With great respect to the Minister of Health, there is a certain reflection cast upon him by this Bill, because the inference is that the Minister of Health cannot or will not use Section 11 of the Public Health Act, but the Minister of Community Development can and will use exactly the same power. It is a question I ask with deference.

But this clause goes even further than that. Where the members of the local authority or some of them have resigned without leaving a quorum, or where the persons entitled to elect a local authority fail to do so, the Administrator may exercise the powers and perform the duties of the local authority and may authorize any person to take the necessary steps for that purpose.

You see, Sir, how powerful the Minister of Health is in terms of this section of the Public Health Act. Even where the local authority has been stubborn, the Administrator can proceed to appoint this body which can do everything that the local authority should have done and further, it says in (c) that the Administrator shall possess all the rights and powers of a local authority, and any expenditure incurred by the Administrator under this section may be recovered by him firstly by action in a competent court of law against the local authority, or secondly, by levying a special rate upon all rateable property within the district of the local authority, or thirdly, by a deduction from any subsidy, grant or other moneys payable out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund or payable by the Administrator to the local authority, or by all three or any two of such methods of recovery, subject to an appeal to the Minister, whose decision shall be final. Let me say immediately that if anyone at least is genuinely interested in slum clearance, he should at least have regard to the provisions of Section 11 of the Public Health Act. Sub-section (2) says that a copy of every report by the Chief Health Officer shall be furnished to the Minister, and if such action thereon is not taken by the Administrator as the Minister may under the circumstances consider adequate and necessary, and within such time as the Minister may consider reasonable, the Minister may decide to take action and may notify the Administrator accordingly, and thereupon all powers and functions conferred on the Administrator by this section shall cease to be exercisable by the Minister. In other words, in terms of this section the local authority has always had not one master, but two. It has had the Administrator, who of his own volition could take any action he desired in order to ensure that the local authority did what was required of it under the Slums Act; and failing that, it always had the Minister of Health, over and above the Administrator, to tell the Administrator that he should do certain things. Failing that, the Minister himself could always exercise the powers of the local authority, and mulct the ratepayers accordingly for the expenses. They had no recourse if a special rate was levied for that purpose. Therefore, one of the things I think the Minister should explain is this, because all local authorities, whether they are run by one political party or several, or whether there are no political parties, are asking the same question, and I certainly know of several who are (I know of two at least who have asked me this question): Why is it necessary, when this power exists in Section 11 of the Public Health Act, for the Minister to come with this Bill?

Now, to deal with another aspect of the matter, if you had listened, Sir, to all the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Brakpan and Westdene, and also to the rather gentle rebuke which came from the hon. member for Pretoria (East), you could have come to only one conclusion, and that is that slums can only be equated with political control. In other words, wherever you have political control, you have slums. They ask us to read between the lines of that argument or thesis, that wherever you have political control in the form of the United Party, you certainly have slums. That is a very interesting argument, but I would like to know on what basis it is advanced. If you travel through the world, I can think of half a dozen countries where in the principal cities there are enormous slums, and there, that argument does not apply. Take Washington, D.C., which is not even controlled by a local authority, but by a Board of Commissioners appointed directly by the President of the United States of America. In other words, it is a satellite of the United States Government. No election of members of the local authority takes place. In fact, the people of Washington have no vote in anything but there I have seen some horrible slums which have grown up in spite of the fact that there is no political control. On the other hand, there are cities which also have no political control, like London—at least not to the extent that we have political control in, e.g., Johannesburg—but where there are very serious slums, and therefore one must completely discard this argument that there is some tie-up between slum conditions and political control. The fact of the matter is, of course, that cities have a habit of either growing or declining, according to all kinds of factors which have nothing to do with political control. I do not want to burden you, Sir, with the details of it because it is a long story, but as an example, I would say that in South Africa we have the position where there has been a constant shifting of population from the country to the towns, especially in the last 20 years, and there has been a tremendous influx of population to the towns. Whatever may be the position in regard to the Bantu, who are subject to influx control. that does not apply to the Whites. No White man has ever had to consult anyone as to whether he should leave his farm and go to an urban area. He can come freely, and there has been this constant “drift” from the platteland, as it is called. It is more properly a movement, because drift implies something which is helpless, or even wrong. This constant arid deliberate movement from the platteland to the towns, due to the increasing industrialization of the country, and due to a natural inclination of people to go where the bright lights are, has resulted in a tremendous influx of population of Whites, from the platteland to the cities. So I am surprised that the hon. member for Pretoria (East), who should know the facts, does not know what I was told as recently as ten days ago, namely, that the urban population of Pretoria is growing at the rate of 1,000 Whites a month. [Interjections.] One letting agent who has 4,000 units, houses and flats, to let in Pretoria, started the month of April with only three available units. In other words, this movement from the country to the towns is a very important factor in the urban growth of South Africa. That being the case, we must look for the root causes of slums not entirely in the lack of interest of a politically controlled local authority, or in the human failure of the members of such a local authority to grasp the nettle and to tackle the problem, but in the constant change of the “spread” of population over South Africa. [Interjection.] What I wanted to illustrate was this. It is necessary for a planned approach to the position of housing, in its broadest terms, to be undertaken by every authority concerned with that question, from the Government downwards, and exactly the same applies obviously to the improvement of the housing conditions of those people who already live in slums in the cities. The only question that may create a difference between the Minister and me is this: How is this question to be approached and dealt with in regard to governmental control of the housing situation in the urban areas, the improvement of those conditions, and the removal of slums?

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned for the dinner break, I had touched upon the question of governmental control of housing conditions. I now want to put this point to the Minister; namely, that whereas it is necessary that there shall be such governmental control of housing, it is the question of the nature and extent of that control which should be considered. This I should like to do in the time still at my disposal.

In the first place, as I have already said, this control could well have been undertaken by the Minister under this Bill merely by transferring the functions of the Minister of Health, as laid down in Section 11 of the Public Health Act, to his own Department. As far as the extent of that control is concerned, a far more difficult position I think arises by virtue of the fact that, as the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) has already pointed out, it is a traditional function of local government to administer its own area to the greatest possible extent under the law by virtue of its election as a local authority, with all that implies—in other words, that that body elected by the citizens should have the maximum amount of authority in determining the development of the area which is under its jurisdiction.

The case of Johannesburg has been cited here by other hon. members in connection with the question whether local authorities have carried out their functions as far as the clearance of slums is concerned. I do not want to reminisce about Johannesburg as other hon. members have done, but I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I want in all sincerity to assist him—not because I am an ex-mayor of Johannesburg, but because for some years I was chairman of the Health Committee of the City Council of Johannesburg. This committee exercised the functions of seeing to the needs of housing for Europeans. For some years I also was chairman of the Slums Court of Johannesburg. I think I can say, therefore, that I can speak as someone who actually had to carry out the procedure hitherto applied to the elimination of slums in the area of a local authority. In saying that, I must make it clear to the House that to the extent that a city like Johannesburg was able to eliminate slums, it did the best possible job it could whenever action was called for. Other hon. members have pointed to the fact that there was not always the necessary money available, as is offered by the Minister to-day in terms of his circular on housing, and in terms of the promise contained in this Bill. I recall very clearly times when I, as chairman of the Health Committee of Johannesburg City Council, led a deputation to interview the National Housing Commission in Pretoria in order to try to persuade them to give us either a slice of the available funds where we felt that we should get it, or a bigger allocation. At times we were told that it was not possible having regard to the needs of all the other local authorities, to meet the requirements of the City of Johannesburg. That was one difficulty which one, I think, need not stress because it was an obvious difficulty.

Another difficulty was—and here I do not want to raise a laugh on the other side of the House—the backlog which had developed through the war years. Whether it should have been allowed to develop, it is not my intention to discuss. Undoubtedly a backlog of low-cost housing for Whites as well as non-Whites had developed during the war years. Those years after the war were difficult years for a city like Johannesburg. As a matter of fact, I need not defend the City of Johannesburg under any circumstances, as far as its actions to clear slums are concerned. It had to face the difficulty of, firstly, a shortage of materials; secondly, a shortage of funds and sometimes a shortage of both these indispensable elements. Despite that, however, I cannot recall an instance where the Minister of Health, under Section 11 of the Public Health Act, directly intervened in Johannesburg because the City Council did not do any particular job it was required to do. I cannot recall anything like that ever having happened. The Minister may, however, correct me, as he may have the facts before him.

So, Sir, there are some local authorities which can, with some degree of truth, claim that under present legislation they had to the best of their ability complied with the ordinary dictates of town planning, good housing conditions, etc., within their own areas. That being the case, such local authorities will have some objection to being superseded, as it were, by the hon. the Minister in the appointment of slums courts. As a matter of fact, he has admitted that this is one of the contentious clauses of his Bill. At the present time local authorities, as the Minister is aware, appoint their own slums courts. It has been said that it may be the factor of local politics, or even a case of pressure from an owner who was either a member of the Council or had the necessary influence to prevent the Council from doing its duty in regard to the clearance of slums, that has influenced the Minister to say that he is going to set his own slums courts.

My difficulty with Clause 3 is that the clause does not say, as it might well have said, that the Minister will set up a slums court in a particular area where, in his opinion, that is required, but—

Therefore, he will establish such a slum clearance court in every local authority, irrespective of whether a particular local authority has carried out its functions in regard to slum clearance.

I want to suggest to the Minister that a more reasonable approach will be to take unto him-self the power to appoint such a slum clearance court in every local authority which, in his opinion—I am prepared to make it subjective—has failed to carry out its functions in this regard. I suggest that in such local authorities only does he set up his slum clearance courts. But unfortunately this Bill says “in every local authority area”, i.e. including those which have carried out their duties properly. That, the Minister will understand, is the subject of a natural complaint from a local authority which bona fide believes that it has done the job. I think he should give an answer to such local authorities—and Johannesburg is not the only one that has raised complaints of this nature. I have here a clipping from a Cape Town newspaper of a statement made on behalf of the City Council of Cape Town. In the Cape Times of Tuesday, 2 April, under the heading “Slums—City fears loss of authority” appears the following statement—

I quote this merely to indicate that it is not only Johannesburg which is concerned because this Bill will make further inroads in the powers of local authorities. I quote this to illustrate that not only I, who have connections with the City Council of Johannesburg, say these things. I have no contacts whatsoever with the City Council of Cape Town, and yet I read in a newspaper that it has appointed a deputation to interview the Minister to express concern that the measure will make further inroads into the powers of local authorities.

At any rate, the relevant newspaper clipping is followed by the names of the deputation and then by a statement by the City’s medical officer of health who said—

Like the flats in Sea Point?

That, Sir, refers to certain over-bulk matters. I am talking about health and slums, and not about bulk. The hon. member should know, being a doctor, what the difference is between good health and good bulk! At any rate, the medical officer of health went on to say—

Talk is cheap.

If that is the position, Sir, then I draw two inferences from that interjection of the hon. the Minister—firstly, that this is an idle boast of the City Council of Cape Town …

I saw them after that statement was made.

… and, secondly, that he has seen them and has deflated their idea of their own ability to cope with slums. But the Minister says that he has seen them and I will, therefore, not pursue this unduly. The Minister knows best what has transpired at that interview.

In general terms, Sir, it seems reasonable that in a matter of this nature and having regard to the fact that we support the principle of the elimination of slums as speedily and efficiently as possible, the Minister will agree that the local authority should feel that it is in the picture, as far as any changes in its own area is concerned, to the greatest possible extent. The Minister might well ask me how he can incorporate the function of local authorities in this Bill, if he, as Minister of Housing, has already said that he must have full control of the position? This is a fair question which I should like to answer. For example: The Minister says to us in Clause 3 of this Bill—

It goes on to say that such a slum clearance court shall consist of—

Now, these officials will be paid for the work they are going to do—that must be so. The Minister has also indicated that to a certain extent he has introduced this measure in order to relieve city councils of an unpleasant duty. That, Sir, is a very generous attitude on his part, but I am sure that many serving town councillors do not welcome this relief at all. Many local authorities, far from being under a debt of gratitude to the Minister for relieving them of this responsibility, will be heard to say, I am sure, that since they have performed this function up to now without any payment whatsoever to their city councillors—I can say from my own experience that one sits on a slum clearance court day after day and goes on tours of inspection without getting a fee for it—they will gladly carry on, and many town councillors worthy of their salt will be glad to continue serving in this respect.

I should like the Minister, therefore, to consider whether it is not advisable to enlarge this proposed court, consisting of three officials, by incorporating an additional two members to represent the local authority concerned. I can see no difficulty, on the fact of it. to this suggestion, because if that is done, the relationship of governmentally appointed and representatives of a local authority will be three to two. with the officials in the majority. In addition, the local authority would not have been excluded from representation on a slum clearance court set up by the Minister with jurisdiction in the area of that local authority. This is a point which can be developed to some extent, but I want to put it to the Minister that in the course of the discussion in this Bill, he should apply his mind to this particular suggestion because he might come to the conclusion that the Bill should be amended to provide for the inclusion of. say, two representatives of a local authority to serve with the three officials on the slum clearance court for the area of that local authority. The hon. the Minister has said that he expects local authorities to co-operate with him in this regard—I think he said he would welcome such co-operation—and if he does what I have suggested, he will be able to say that he has provided for their point of view that they be represented, instead of his having taken some hieh-handed action, that he is genuinely seeking that degree of collaboration which he says is essential for the elimination of slums.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) said at the beginning of his speech that he might as well get into the nest in which ex-mayors of other cities find themselves and also take part in the discussion. Although I am not an ex-mayor I also want to climb into this little nest and fulfil the role of the ugly duckling in the nest. I can give the House the assurance, however, that I shall not tarry long in the nest, because I do not see my way clear to remain long in the same nest together with the hon. member for Hospital. I am pleased that the hon. member reacted to an interjection by the hon. member tor Rustenburg and that he apparently intends to consider the advice given to him.

In connection with the resettlement of the Bantu, of the Witwatersrand in particular, to which reference has been made here, I want to say, without going into it at any length, that it seems to me that there are many people who are now advancing excuses for what they did in the past, as well as for what was done by the city councils whom they represent. They are anxious to advance reasons to explain their conduct at the time. It is nevertheless interesting to note that in spite of all those reasons they are perfectly satisfied to-day, and not only satisfied, but that they even boast about the results which have been achieved in this connection. It is correct perhaps to say that the Minister already has powers to compel local author.ties to clear slums. In this connection hon. members referred, inter alia, to the Health Act. But I cannot imagine that the hon. the Minister would come along with this Bill if the powers which he already has are adequate and if the machinery which is already at his disposal is functioning smoothly. There must be hitches somewhere in carrying out this important task, and it is those hitches which the Minister wants to do away with by means of this Bill. The main object of this Bill, as the Minister has already stated in his second-reading speech, is to make the machinery of the Slums Act function properly, to create a positive approach to the clearance of slums, and to provide decent housing in places where there are slums to-day. I wonder whether the hon. member for Hospital, with all his verbosity, was of any assistance to the Minister in this respect.

The factors to which slums owe their origin are well known. As a matter of fact, reference was made to those factors over and over again in the course of the second-reading debate. I should like to point out that in my opinion this problem will always be with us; we shall always have to contend with it. although perhaps not to the same extent because the conditions which exist to-day may be cleared up perhaps. We are faced with the fact, however, that some of our older urban areas have stood for many years. As time goes on we shall have to keep our eye on these older urban areas to prevent the development of slum conditions there in due course. It is necessary to clear up certain slum conditions as quickly as possible so as to obviate any undesirable conditions that may be caused by social evils. This Bill creates the machinery by which we propose to do so. I believe that with the assistance of this legislation we shall be able to act expeditiously and effectively in this connection. We therefore welcome this Bill and we support it whole-heartedly.

There is one problem, however, to which Î want to refer. Although this instrument will enable us to tackle slum clearance expeditiously and effectively, the question is whether we are providing alternative housing just as quickly without causing a dislocation to the people concerned. In this connection the local authorities are faced with certain problems. Firstly there is the question of the availability of land. The hinterland as well as other land available to many of our local authorities has already been built up. They have no land left therefore on which they can build. It may even prove impossible to use land which is released by the clearance of a slum for this purpose because it may be zoned for industrial or other purposes. One problem therefore is the scarcity of land.

But there is also a second problem. Even if land were available, one finds that it is available next door to an existing residential area. We find unfortunately that the inhabitants of existing residential areas do not like the idea of other housing schemes springing up right next to their borders or just across the street. But housing has to be provided in some way or other in the urban areas concerned to people in the lower income group. I feel therefore that an appeal should be made to the inhabitants of existing residential areas not to complain so quickly when city councils are obliged to establish such a housing scheme practically on their doorstep. This idea of a “White location” which is sometimes spoken about should be rooted out. We should ask the inhabitants of built-up residential areas first to obtain all the relevant information before they try to thwart the plan of any city council in this connection.

We can only ask the Minister and his Department to continue to undertake research into the planning of housing for the low-income group, and to plan in such a way that the appearance of the houses will conform to the appearance of the houses in the existing residential area so that the inhabitants of the existing residential area will have no reason to complain. Then I want to ask that where city councils have to clear slums and provide alternative housing, the Department should make it as easy as possible for such city councils to provide that alternative housing as expeditiously as possible.

The fear has been expressed that this legislation will curtail the powers of local authorities. Fortunately I live in the area of a city council which co-operates very well in this connection. But if there are other city councils— I do not know whether such city councils still exist—which are out to put stumbling-blocks in the way of the Minister and of his Department and to make slum clearance difficult, then I am in favour of the proposition that the powers of such city councils might as well be curtailed if they refuse to meet their obligations in this connection. We trust that with the assistance of this legislation the Minister and his Department will be able to clear up certain unsightly slum areas and at the same time provide decent housing in their place.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us deals with the clearance of slums, but before you can clear slums you must be sure that you can provide alternative housing. This is, as the hon. member for Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) has pointed out, a never ending job: as you complete the clearance of one slum, you find there is another.

We will always have the sub-economic group with us as part of our population. For various reasons these people are not able to better themselves, and, therefore, we will always have them with us. We hope, however, that with better education and training this sub-economic group of our population will in time be able to help themselves more than they do to-day. It is a social problem. Where there is a slum, you have to get down and find out what the underlying problems are. You will probably find that underpayment of wages and conditions as a result thereof are the causes. But we have this sub-economic group for whom we have to provide better housing. Generally, when we talk about slums, we seem to think of the Coloured and Bantu groups only. But there are also White slums besides the Coloured and Bantu slums.

The hon. the Minister under Clause 3 of this Bill makes provision for the establishment of slum clearance courts in every local authority. Under Clauses 21 and 22 he obtains the power to inflict his might on local authorities in order to make them to move. I am pleased, however, with what he said in this connection in his introductory speech, i.e.. that he was reluctant to take such action, although he would have to take it if local authorities refused to get a move on. In our democratic system of government we have always recognized the right of citizens to elect their own local authorities, which are then subject to our provincial authorities. I was consequently disappointed that the Minister, in his introductory speech or in the Bill, did not make any reference to the provincial authorities. The provincial administrations are. after all, entirely responsible for local authorities. We know, however, that Parliament has the overriding authority, i.e., over both provincial and local authorities, and that when we talk about provincial administrations and local authorities being autonomous we use a misnomer, because there is really no such thing as an autonomous body. Parliament is. in reality, the power above everybody. I should, however, have liked to see the Minister making closer contact with the administrators in this connection. We have these provincial administrations and local authorities, but we are inclined to take away their powers. The hon. the Minister responsible for this Bill is busy with another Bill which takes away Coloured education from the provincial authorities—this I say in passing. Now he comes with this Bill whereby he is taking certain powers unto himself to get local authorities to get on with clearance of slums.

The clearance of slums is not an easy matter; it is full of snags. It is not just a question of saying that we will remove all the dwellings in a slum area and that we will put up houses elsewhere. It is not as easy as all that. Let me demonstrate this by reference to what is happening in my constituency. Recently a road programme through my constituency was started which will also go through a portion of District Six. It has taken quite a number of years to remove the affected people and rehouse them. As a matter of fact, it has not yet been completed. There is this difficulty of uprooting people and providing for them at other places. I hope the Minister is going to see to it that people uprooted as a result of the clearance of a slum will be properly housed elsewhere.

The Minister has said that this Bill is in the way of a new deal as far as slum clearance is concerned, but we hope that by clearing one slum he is not going to create another elsewhere. The hon. member for Boland has pointed out what can happen. To-day with the shortage of money as far as housing is concerned the engineers, architects, officials of the Department have been prevailed upon to stretch the available funds as far as possible. This has been done to such an extent that to-day you merely get four walls, a roof, a concrete floor with an ablution block in the backyard, and, as the hon. member for Boland said, probably one tap for eight people. I would say that is stretching it too far. We close the one slum down only to create another one in its place elsewhere. I call it a new slum because the type of house which is being provided is not such as to assist the inhabitants to build up their own outlook on life. They are miles away from their work in a sub-economic house and consequently they feel that they have little or no future.

I should like the Minister to consider the provision of a better type of house, even if that means building fewer houses. Let us give them something better than what we are giving them at the present moment. I know that various types of houses are provided for those who can afford to purchase a house. The design of these houses are in some cases quite pleasant. There is, however, this other group, the sub-economic group, who cannot afford a house of this type, and consequently have to put up with four walls and a concrete floor.

Slums are caused when the industrial areas of a city or town encroach upon the housing areas. There is another cause too. Over the years we have, in order to protect the sub-economic wage earner, controlled rent by means of the Rents Act. The various rent boards have controlled rents very stringently, although I would say not unfairly, because if a property owner can show that he is spending money oh his property these boards do sometimes agree to a rise in rent. However, they are reluctant to do so, with the result that owners allow their properties to deteriorate. Eventually it becomes a slum. This is a matter which justifies consideration. Property owners should be encouraged to keep their properties in first-class condition and not to allow them to develop into slums.

Now that the Minister is going to take over slum clearance from local authorities he should have a look at their town planning schemes. Where industrial areas are included in a township consideration should be given to what is going to happen to the people living nearby—what is going to happen to their properties. The hon. member for Germiston has pointed out that certain local authorities do not have the ground for the development of new townships to replace slums. Here we often make a big mistake. We always seem to think that when clearing up a slum we must go far out into the veld to find a piece of open ground, put up some houses there, make a few roads, lay on light and water, and think that by that we have done a good job of work. Meanwhile the people who have to go out there cannot afford to—they have not the money for train fares. So what do we find? Those people eventually move back into town and make already overcrowded areas more overcrowded. Housing should therefore be provided for these as near as possible to their place of work, even if the Minister has to expropriate existing properties. I think it is all wrong to move these people miles out of town The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has referred to the Schauder scheme and other housing schemes at Port Elizabeth. I think the Schauder scheme is really an outstanding scheme. A wonderful job of work has been done there. But there again, because of this stretching of money too far, you find that a portion of the Schauder scheme is developing into a slum. They have achieved outstanding results at Kimberley in moving a complete location. As I have said, we must get away from the standard type of building. We must build something better than that. We must uplift the population and not push them down. I hope that the Minister is going to take action as far as slums are concerned, and he will also take planning into consideration.

When certain hon. members rise here and criticize housing schemes that are being put up for certain sections of the population by the Government, they should at least be fair enough to ascertain under what circumstances these people were accommodated before being accommodated in these new schemes. Many of these people who are being housed in these schemes, to which the hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) and other hon. members object, come from very poor circumstances. They come from the slum areas. Many of these people have never yet had a proper roof over their heads; they have never had a home. They are only too thankful to be housed in these schemes. But now certain hon. members are condemning summarily certain schemes, and I do not think that is fair. It is only fair to have regard to the housing these people had before.

I really rose to reply briefly to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett). The hon. member for Boland made certain remarks here which I cannot allow to pass without comment. The hon. member apologized for not being able to be present this evening, but that does not matter; I am obliged to reply to his remarks. Mr. Speaker, if there is one national group that has benefited considerably by the clearance of slum conditions by this Government during recent years, it is the Coloured people of the Cape Peninsula. The great mass of the Coloureds of greater Cape Town were until comparatively recently housed in unenviable and parlous slum conditions. Now one can ask oneself; What did hon. members do, such as the hon. member for Boland who is a prominent and responsible member of the Cape Town City Council? What did the hon. member for Boland do when he was in a position to do something about combating the slum conditions successfully in places such as Kensington, Windermere etc.? If the hen. member takes the liberty to point a finger at another local authority, he should at least sweep before his own door first. At the present time the Peninsula has been planned to a large extent. Coloured slum areas are being cleared so rapidly that the face of some parts of the Peninsula has changed almost overnight, thanks to the National Government and the Departments of the present Minister. The Minister and his Department should be congratulated on the fantastic progress that has been made in recent years in the clearance of slums. These slum areas of the Peninsula received a tremendous blow from this Minister and his Department during the past few years. The hon. the Minister pointed out in his second reading speech that in recent years no less than R31,000,000 had been granted in the form of loans for the construction of more than 31,000 dwellings for Coloureds in the Peninsula. The majority of these Coloured families came from the worst slums, slum areas about which many of the hon. members who were in a position to do something, did not lift a finger to have them removed. They simply boasted; they had Harry the home builder, but the dwellings were never built. Mr. Speaker, there were parlous slum conditions on the borders of our White residential areas, slum conditions that have been eliminated one by one in recent times. With this legislation the hon. the Minister is now getting more power to act more effectively against that hard core of slum conditions still existing in the Cape Peninsula. As I have said, certain hon. members, such as the hon. member for Boland, will of course not see the wood for the trees in this whole mighty process. That is why the hon. member comes along and indignantly gives the Municipality of Parow a slap in the face because they have a number of galvanized iron and wooden homes whereby they have in fact cleared some of the most awful slum conditions in that municipality. These people who are now being temporarily housed in these galvanized iron and wooden houses are squatters who have never had a roof over their heads; these are the people who have been sleeping underneath sheets of galvanized iron and opened-up oil drums and in pieces of motor bodies; they are people who have been sleeping on grain-bags under the bushes. These people are grateful to the Municipality of Parow for having created these temporary facilities for them until they can find better housing. However, the hon. member is not concerned about that. The hon. member cast an aspersion on the Municipality of Parow, that did much for Coloured people who had been living in the slum areas. The municipality made a survey of its slum areas in order to determine how many Coloureds there were for whom alternative housing had to be provided. They ascertained that there were about 350 such dwellings and shanties that had to be removed from White slum areas. The municipality put up 330 neat brick dwellings for these Coloureds with the aid of the National Housing Commission. The hon. member for Boland does not refer to that however, for it does not suit him to do so. He does not notice those 330 neat houses, the nice streets with lights; he notices the few galvanized iron and wooden dwellings that have been put up to meet temporary conditions. The Municipality of Parow had no obligation to those people; they had an obligation to their own established Coloured population. They did not only meet that obligation by putting up neat homes for those people, but they even went further. They spent R80,000 to build a splendid civic centre for those people in that area; they spent a further R 10,000 to establish a fine and well equipped library for them; they spent a further R8,000 to lay out a playing field for them. They spent R 100,000 on accommodation so as to accommodate these people who came from the slum areas in decent residential areas. But the hon. member for Boland had not noticed that. He traversed that whole area looking for one or two iron and wood dwellings the Municipality of Parow was obliged to put up because of its humane feelings in order to temporarily accommodate certain people. And who were these people? When the municipality was engaged in removing Coloureds to the new residential areas, they found that families were squatting in some backyards; they rigged bags there and crawled under that. The Municipality of Parow could then simply, as so many other local authorities did, have flattened the place with a bulldozer, and left those people to their own fate. What would they have done then? They would simply have gone to other Coloured areas, and again crawled under bags and drums and sheets of galvanized iron there. But what did the Municipality of Parow, which had no responsibility towards these people, do? Those people had been squatting there illegally. The Municipality of Parow then put up, on its own land, about 60 proper two-room iron and wood dwellings, that are better than those that are being occupied by many White people in certain back streets. The dwellings have a concrete floor and water is available. The municipality said those people could move in there temporarily until such time as they could afford to find other accommodation. However, these people usually have no income; they are casual workers; they cannot afford even the absolute minimum sub-economic rental per week. The Municipality of Parow has no obligation towards them, but for the sake of humanity they housed these people and the hon. member for Boland to-day slapped the Municipality of Parow in the face in a most unworthy manner. We in the Cape Peninsula wish to thank the hon. the Minister of Housing and his Department very much for the exceptional manner in which they have tackled this comprehensive task of the Cape Peninsula, and for the phenomenal success they have achieved with it up to now.

Mr. Speaker, an eminent South American professor recently visited South Africa in order to make a study of some of our university institutions. After he had been with us for a while, he was so impressed by what this country is doing to improve the living conditions of people that he occupied himself here for a long time with further investigations. After his return to his own country, he wrote a letter that has come to my attention, a letter in which he made the following statement, namely that the housing provided in South Africa for the lowest income groups is better than that provided in his own country for the middle classes. That is why it is a pity that in a debate such as this which has been carried on on a very high level this afternoon, there should have been a discordant note here and there. I am referring particularly to the hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) who did not have the right this afternoon to launch that attack against the Municipality of Parow. In this connection I should like to associate myself with the hon. member who represents them, and to say that if there is one municipality that has gone out of its way to co-operate with the Government in creating improved conditions, then it is the Municipality of Parow. I sincerely regret that the hon. member for Boland deemed it expedient, knowing that we are at the present time investigating the position there and that we could have given him a reply in any event, to avail himself of the opportunity not to broadcast to the world anything about the good work of the Municipality of Parow, but only to cast a slur on that municipality. I take the strongest exception to that.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) sounded the second discordant note. The hon. member had obviously read the statement by Mr. Owen of the Cape Divisional Council for his speech consisted of what Mr. Owen is supposed to have said. All I wish to say is that to say that the Department of Housing and the Government, through the Department, are creating slum conditions with its low-cost housing, can only be said by people who have not the foggiest notion of what a slum is, and who have not the vaguest idea of the conditions under which those people have been living. It is beyond my comprehension how the hon. member can compare this well-ordered community and this cheapest form of housing with slum conditions. The hon. member knows that every scheme put into operation by this Government is in the form of sub-economic housing schemes, so constituted and so planned that it will not lead to over-crowding; that it will not lead to unhygienic conditions, and that it can easily be converted into better conditions when those people are able to fulfil the requirements in regard to the interest and redemption payments. The hon. member knows that. Why then does he compare this effort of the Government with the continuation and the creation of slums?

Are you satisfied with that scheme?

Mr. Chairman, just listen to that question. Does the hon. member know that numerous municipalities have written to my Department and to me personally, and have said that there are so many unhousable elements in the country that the cost involved in our present sub-economic housing is still too great for them? As a result of that, the National Housing Commission has devised a further low-cost housing scheme which will serve as a temporary measure at least to get these unhousable elements into an environment where we can teach them a sense of responsibility, and can help them to accept certain elementary health principles, and where we can try to uplift them so that they can do something to enable themselves to move into the higher class of housing. But the hon. member does not know about that; the hon. member just talks for the sake of talking. He is echoing Mr. Owen, and Mr. Owen is obviously echoing someone else. Mr. Owen was given a reply, and to my regret not one of the newspapers took the trouble, when the Secretary of Housing furnished Mr. Owen with a reply, to publish the full statement by the Secretary of Housing. They published Mr. Owen’s statement fully, but they did not publish the reply in full.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) referred to the proposed slum clearance courts, and then he referred to Johannesburg. It is not my intention to attack Johannesburg this evening. We are now dealing with a measure whereby we shall try to do the best for the whole Republic of South Africa, irrespective of the municipalities that will be affected by it. The hon. member stated, inter alia, that he had led a deputation to interview the National Housing Commission and that they had then told him that they did not have funds available for slum clearance. I think I should refresh the hon. member’s memory a little. He led a deputation to the National Housing Commission in connection with Bantu housing. At that time the City Council of Johannesburg did not have in mind at all the clearance of the slum areas at Page View, Vrededorp, Jeppes and Ferreira-town town. Those slum conditions are still there at the present time in spite of the tremendous zeal of the hon. member. So the hon. member is completely mistaken when he says that the National Housing Commission told him that they did not have funds available for slum clearance. I leave it at that.

I should like to thank the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) for the positive manner in which he dealt with this matter. The hon. member did however differ from me as regards my statement that some local authorities are not doing their duty. I can assure the hon. member that while the vast majority of local authorities are only too willing to do their duty, there are local authorities (whose names I shall not mention this evening) who look for every technical excuse to retard and make impossible the carrying out of such a policy. I should just like to refer to one without mentioning its name. A fortnight after my assumption of this portfolio in 1961. a certain big city council had discussions with me at Pretoria, at which representatives of the National Housing Commission and of my Department were present, on proposed schemes in that particular city. That was towards the end of 1961 and we are now almost in the middle of 1963, and we are still trying to persuade them to do the things we discussed with them in 1961. The funds are available and they are being offered every possible assistance, but they are looking for every technical difficulty to continue with these delaying tactics. That is what this measure is required for. In that case there are White people living under the most appalling slum conditions: I went to look at it. In that instance, the city council at one stage told my Department that they were unaware of a housing need among the Whites; they wanted me to put into operation certain provisions of the Housing Act to discharge them from restriction in connection with the breaking down of buildings, because they said that in their area of jurisdiction there no longer was such a thing as an actual housing emergency.

Was it Pretoria?

No. It is an outstanding characteristic of the City Council of Pretoria that they do everything in their power to clear up slums. When my Department made a survey there, they found a shortage of between 1,200 and 2,000 dwellings for Whites, but they are unaware of it. I think the hon. member for South Coast will accept my word for it, because I think he has had similar experience that there are some people you cannot get moving before you have a measure of this nature. Whilst saying this. I should like to express my thanks and appreciation to the large number of local authorities that avail themselves of every opportunity to improve their position.

Such as Johannesburg.

Do not let us joke about a matter of this matter where thousands of our people are living under poor conditions.

Then the hon. member said that the point of view of both parties was that in planning such residential areas, groups of the population will necessarily have to be moved. That is quite correct, but I deny that the housing of groups of the people has been delayed in consequence of this Government’s policy in respect of group areas. I shall tell the hon. members why. At the present time it is possible for a local authority, if there are no proclaimed group areas, to come to the Department of Community Development and to say: Give me an open permit to put up a housing scheme for this or that group. In numerous instances we have granted that open permit, even before proclamation. Thus, if city councils will cooperate with us, we can overcome those ostensible difficulties and it is not necessary that it should cause delay.

Then the hon. member referred to the cost of transport. He said we really should not move people for whom there is no alternative accommodation. Other hon. members also referred to that. Then in the same breath the hon. member referred to the question of spurious census statistics in many instances where you are dealing with clearance. It seemed to me that the hon. member had virtually come to the conclusion that we do not do so, for he said we should always have proper regard to town planning in the planning schemes of local authorities when we force housing on them. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) and other hon. members who referred to urban renovation, also referred to that. The hon. member for South Coast also referred to it, and said that in cities you find parts that deteriorate over the years. I just want to deal with these few points briefly. It has always been the attitude of the Government, and I have said so repeatedly, that people will not be forced out of dwellings if they cannot look after themselves. That is the qualification. If they cannot look after themselves, they will not be forced out of their dwellings unless there is alternative housing for them. That is our accepted policy. I think the manner in which we have acted in Johannesburg, Kimberley and other large centres show that we try to make available that alternative housing. I do not think it is more than proper that we should do so.

As regards the question of transport, I should like to say to the hon. member that the Department of Community Development is represented on the inter-departmental Transport Committee through which we are trying to arrange for the transport of those people when we are obliged, for the sake of good planning to move out with your housing. But it is not only a question of transport, it is not only a question of low-cost housing being made available; but it is also a question that numerous municipalities can do much more to make the services they provide, available at less cost, so that not more has to be paid in the form of services levy than is to be paid in the form of redemption on the housing itself. The other day the Secretary of Housing, in reply to the Divisional Council of the Cape, quoted this example that there is one instance of which the Department is aware, where capital and interest amount to approximately R48,000 whereas municipal services to the occupants amount to more than R50,000 for the same period. That shows that many authorities should proceed to provide these services more cheaply.

Then the hon. member also referred to the question of planning. Let me say at once that the National Housing Commission does not approve a loan unless it has been approved as a town planning scheme. In other words, a condition of the grant of a housing loan is that the scheme should have regard to a particular town-planning scheme. We do not simply grant loans without having regard to town planning. We co-operate as closely as possible under present circumstances, with the Townships Board, e.g. The hon. member for Westdene, and the hon. members for Pretoria (East) (Dr. Otto) and Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) and Germiston (Mr. Cruywagen) referred to urban restoration. I should like to take this opportunity to say that during the recess, as soon as possible after the Session, the Departments of Community Development and Housing will institute a thorough investigation, on a very high level, in various other countries of the world, on urban restoration, on reconstruction and on housing and all the various housing schemes that have been accomplished in other countries.

Including the use of different materials.

Yes, every aspect. I hope to engage the two heads of the Departments at least in that inquiry. I do not wish to say more about that this evening, because negotiations are still proceeding. We shall probably be able to benefit considerably by that searching investigation.

The hon. members for Westdene, Brakpan and Germiston and to a certain extent the hon. member for South Coast also, referred to this, inter alia, that greater cognizance should be taken of the various bodies dealing with planning and whose planning results in proper housing for our people. I would say this merely, that although I have no intention to destroy the rights of local authorities, although I do not propose to interfere unduly with the rights of provincial administrations, with the little experience I have thus far gained as the Minister concerned, that there is far too much overlapping as regards our planning: that in the second place there is far too much delay with planning; and thirdly, that there should be greater co-ordination between the Central Government’s planning departments and the provincial authorities and the local authorities. I have said this on various occasions. I should like to mention the example of building regulations. Our building regulations in South Africa are completely out of date; they require a thorough overhaul. You have to go from pillar to post before you can come to light with a proper scheme in regard to housing. It is my intention to take further steps, after this inquiry overseas has been completed in consultation with the provinces, in order to bring about greater co-ordination and streamlining in this connection. So what we are doing here to-day is only one of the steps taken to see to it that slum clearance is effected.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) has referred to the matter of representation on the Slum Clearance Court and to the position of the medical officer; he wants the medical officer to be able to do the work for the Department of Housing too. I do not think that is correct, for that medical officer is then an official of the unwilling city council, for the Department of Housing only comes into the picture when it is convinced that that city council is unwilling, and I should then not want to use that medical officer for the purposes of the Department of Housing. As regards representation on the Slum Clearance Court. I am reluctant to accept that. But I should like to tell the House that I am first considering, although I have not yet taken a final decision on the matter, the possibility of having a slum clearance court consisting of a few people for whom it should be made worth their while to devote their time to this matter, and that we should not appoint an ad hoc slum clearance court for every single local authority, but that we should be able to use the same slum clearance court for various cases, although we appoint an ad hoc slum clearance court for that particular area. But we are seriously considering arranging things in such a way that they can gain experience at various places and that they should develop a degree of expertness in the matter. At the present time we have some of our retired magistrates whom we could probably use people who although they have retired, still have a capacity for work and who could be used for this purpose. That is why I am hoping it will be possible to constitute a slum clearance court in such a manner that it can deal with the areas of jurisdiction of various local authorities.

Can it be done under this Bill?

Yes. You will just have to appoint it for that area every time, but I want to try to give the personnel as much continuity as possible. For instance, I shall not now appoint a slum clearance court for the whole Cape Province or for the whole Western Province, but I shall appoint it in such a way that it will always merely be the same slum clearance court which is used for the various towns, say, in the Western Province. That is my first reason.

My second reason is that I think that the moment one gives the local authority representation on the slum clearance court, one again has dawdling in the proceedings of the slum clearance court, for it can only conduce to introducing the local politics which I want to take out of it, into the slum clearance court. I am sorry, but I do not agree with the hon. member at this stage. It is a matter we can discuss further in Committee, but at this stage I am not favourably disposed to that.

Then the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) raised the matter of the Health Act of 1919, Section 11. I have looked at the Act, but I really cannot understand what the hon. member’s difficulty is. The provisions of this old Act are very clear, but throughout the years nothing has happened under it. That is my first reply, and I think the obvious reason why nothing has happened is because the administrators have had no instruments at their disposal to be able to take action.

And the Minister?

The Minister has a Department of Housing; he has a machine. If a local authority will not meet its obligations at the present time, the Minister can go into action with the machinery at his disposal. I need not wait for a municipality to carry out a housing scheme at the present time. Take Cape Town. There the local City Council has been asleep all these years with regard to White housing. I have already announced that the Department of Housing is going to develop Bosmansdam, which will result in a housing scheme of 4,000 to 5,000 dwellings for White people. We have the machine; we have the instruments at our disposal and I think that is my reply to the hon. member. But what instrument does the Administrator have now? What can he do now? He may call upon a local authority to do something.

He can enforce it—

Yes, he can enforce it, but they in turn surely have also to come to the Department of Housing. And that brings me to the last point I should like to mention. There is one thing that worries me in our country at the present time, and that is that one sometimes has a long fight with local authorities behind the scenes to persuade them to take action as regards housing, and when finally the first sods are turned and the first bricks are laid, one could swear that the local authority has taken the funds somewhere out of a satchel of its own, and one is nowhere in the picture. I think the time has arrived that local authorities who want to help, or do not wish to help and who have to be compelled, should at least acknowledge that if there is one department which deserves recognition for what it does in respect of Whites and Coloureds and Indians and Bantu in respect of housing, then it is the Department of Housing, and they could at least have the decency, when tackling these big schemes, to come forward and say: “We are doing this with the aid of the Central Government authority that is doing so much to make it possible for us.”

Therefore, when we boast now so much about what this or that city council has done, do not let us forget that it is the State which at the present time has to bear the loss, if there are losses to be borne, on housing. It is the State that makes it possible for means to be available for your middle-income group down to your lowest-income group to provide for their housing. It is the State, that in many instances has to stand with a red-hot iron behind people to compel them to take action, and then they still want to claim the kudos when they have already been burnt and compelled to act.

You are glaring at me. I am not the one.

Yes, the City Council of Johannesburg is one of them.

I wish to conclude by saying that I thank hon. members for the very understanding manner in which this measure has been received and I hope that what we are doing here to-day will conduce to the clearance of bad conditions to such an extent that our cities and towns will be adornments for our national life.

I move—

In view of the fact that from the nature of the matter it is difficult to understand this Bill because the various legal provisions referred to are made applicable, I have considered it desirable to have a memorandum drafted in which the Bill is explained and certain other information is given to facilitate such research.

I trust that you, Sir, and hon. members have found this to be of value. Thanks to this ex planatory memorandum, I need, therefore, deal only with the principle of this Bill.

The crux of the Bill is contained in Clause 2 (4), which makes it possible to regard a designated area or a specific portion of it as an ordinary municipal location, despite the fact that Bantu may have rights of ownership to the land there. It also grants power to the controlling authority to issue regulations in the same way that a local authority can normally issue location regulations. It should be remembered that for such an area and the Bantu living there who own the land no location regulations can be issued without this legislation which is now under consideration.

The powers provided for in this Bill are, therefore, necessary to supplement the existing powers in order to take effective action in those places within the White area (i.e. outside the Bantu homelands) where Bantu have acquired property rights to land and where this land has now become over populated, or is unhygienically occupied, or undesirable persons are allowed to live there, or where the land is utilized in a manner which is not in the public interest. In the case of the urban Bantu residential areas, we have at our disposal what are generally known as the “location regulations” (promulgated in terms of Section 38 (3) of Act No. 25 of 1945) and which operate effectively. But as is indicated in the memorandum, we do not have power to issue regulations in the case of those areas where the Bantu own the land. Such an area cannot be declared to be a location. This defect, therefore, has to be remedied.

This measure will become applicable to three types of “designated areas”, i.e. areas which, with the approval of the local authority concerned, may be established by the State President by proclamation, namely—

In other words, they are areas falling outside the jurisdiction of a city and also outside a peri-urban area where a sort of local authority exercises jurisdiction. They are, therefore, areas which, for example, lie in the rural areas outside Bantu homelands, and where in such cases, in terms of this Bill, the Bantu Affairs Commissioner will exercise the powers of a local government.

By proclamation the State President will also be able to apply certain other Acts to a designated area, namely the Urban Areas Act, the Native Services Levy Act, the Urban Bantu Councils Act, the labour bureau regulations and the Bantu Beer Act. In terms of this Bill, in a designated area the provisions of the Group Areas Act may also be applied to exercise control over property, and the provisions of the Native Building Workers Act, in order to use Native building workers for building work in those areas, and also the provisions of the Housing Act, in order to enable the local authority to acquire property. It will further be noted that provision is made for a Bantu revenue account for the particular circumstances of a designated area, on the same lines as the Bantu Revenue Account in terms of the Urban Areas Act.

Clause 4 contains provisions regarding the regulations, and it amounts to this, that, in addition to the regulations issued in terms of the Urban Areas Act, regulations may be issued, in terms of this new measure, dealing with a number of matters not covered by the Urban Areas Act. The provisions in regard to misdemeanours and penalties contained in this Bill are in the main in line with those contained in existing measures. Clause 9 contains the useful provision that a designated area may be the urban Bantu residential area (or location) for Bantu in an urban area which falls completely outside the designated area concerned.

In paragraph 7 of the memorandum it is stated that it is intended immediately to apply the provisions of this Bill to Alexandra, which lies just north of Johannesburg, but beyond the area of jurisdiction of that city. I considered it better not to draft an ad hoc mea sure dealing with Alexandra alone, because we know that there are other areas also where these additional powers are equally necessary.

I foresee that various local authorities and control bodies may approach us from time to time with a view to the application of the powers contained in this measure in their respective areas. However, I do not regard it as desirable to deal with those other areas here.

I feel, however, that I should give more detail in regard to the local circumstances in Alexandra, the origin of that township, the gradual deterioration of conditions there, the various measures which have been adopted from time to time to improve those conditions, and the conditions prevailing there which justify the introduction of this measure. I, therefore, mention Alexandra here simply because it is the most striking example and requires the most urgent attention.

This township, which at present falls within the area of jurisdiction of the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, was established in 1905, before the promulgation of the various control measures which to-day regulate the establishment of townships. Therefore because no obligations were laid on the founders of that township with a view to the provision of services, and because there was no local authority, that township was neglected. In view of the fact that Whites were not interested in this new township, it was converted into a township, for Bantu and Coloureds in about 1912. This township is situated on 415 morgen of land and there are 2,537 erven, each about, 140 by 50 feet in extent, which became owned predominantly by Bantu. In 1958 the population was approximately 98,000, almost three times what it should have been according to recognized yardsticks. Hon. members will be shocked to know that in 1958 there were approximately 236 people per morgen in Alexandra, as compared with 61 in Orlando. 43 in Atteridgeville, 77 in Vrededorp (Whites of course), and close on the heels of Alexandra we have District Six in Cape Town, with 221. At present in Alexandra we still have approximately 120 Der morgen. After the re-planning there should be only about 70 Der morgen, and then the position there would be comparable to that of for instance Orlando.

In 1916 a Health Committee was established for Alexandra which, after having undereone several changes, was abolished in 1958 because it could not provide local administrative services and had allowed the population to increase disturbingly as the result of insufficient funds and its unwillingness to spend more money, its inability to manage the area, and statutory shortcomings. Various investigations by commissions throughout the years did not help either.

In 1958 the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board took over control, with an undertaking by the State to assist in regard to funds by way of loans, and the State also undertook to grant funds to cover the losses resulting from administration. A special territorial committee was established for Alexandra, on which our Department was represented. I should like to pay a tribute to-day to this body, the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, which in the past five years brought about great improvements in Alexandra. Up to 1962 R146,770 was borrowed from the State for the establishment of services, and R960,000 for the purchase of property on a voluntary basis, whilst administrative losses were subsidized by the State to an amount of R390,000, but presumably this has now come to an end, thanks to the beer-hall profits.

All kinds of improvements were introduced and the population figure has already been reduced to about 52,000. Crime has decreased appreciably, streets were improved, sanitation, recreational and health services were improved and schools were established. To prove how crime has decreased, let me mention that since 1956 murders decreased by 50 per cent, armed robbery by 90 per cent and assaults by 30 per cent. The Resettlement Board resettled 44,700 Bantu of Alexandra in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. According to the latest figures already 472 properties were purchased for R 1,275,350.

Although to a much lesser extent than before, there is still exploitation in regard to the letting of rooms by Bantu landlords, in view of the fact that hitherto such leases have not been controlled at all. In that way just as much is being paid for a single room as is paid for a whole house in a controlled location. And lack of control, particularly due to the non-existence of location regulations, also results in a continual change of address of the Bantu who are not qualified to reside in Alexandra, the result being that the over-population of sites cannot be combated effectively. This change of address, however paradoxical it may sound, is in a certain sense increased by the clearing up which has been done, because it has resulted in more space being available to the inhabitants of the township who have remained there. When this Bill is passed it will be possible to issue regulations by which the over-population of sites can be effectively reduced to acceptable proportions, and continued influx will be prevented.

Other anomalies are the lack of control over the erection of buildings and the regulation of trade in this township, as is the position in a location. In 1958 businesses were being carried on on 737 sites, or 29.5 per cent of the total number of sites. In terms of this Bill, a statutory liaison committee between the local authority and the Bantu population can now be established also, the lack of which has always been felt.

In so far as the future of Alexandra is concerned, not much need be said because detailed information in that regard was released recently. It amounts to the fact that Alexandra, for sound practical reasons, cannot be demolished, but that now for the first time since its establishment it can be properly planned. This replanning will make provisions for the gradual establishment of single quarters for single male and female Bantu workers of the northern suburbs and peri-urban areas of Johannesburg. The built-up areas and the recreational grounds will occupy a smaller area than at present, because provision will also be made for the proper unoccupied buffer strips around the developed area, as the result of which Alexandra will be better separated from its immediate environment than ever before.

Attention has also been devoted to the question as to who should control and develop Alexandra, because this is an onerous task. For the foreseeable future this work will continue to be carried out by the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, which now of course gets these additional legal powers. We shall therefore have to be guided by the experience we gain. If practical problems or other serious reasons arise which require a revision of the position, we shall not hesitate to take suitable steps for the promotion of effective control and for the development of this area, and if that should require legislation, we shall not hesitate to introduce it.

Mr. Speaker, I think I have now given you a general exposition of the basis of this Bill and also of the urgent necessity for the Bill, namely, the prevailing conditions and the developments envizaged for Alexandra. I hope that, having done so, it will be possible for us to obtain support for this measure, because it establishes something good, in the sense that it provides supplementary legal provisions where those are likely for certain types of occupied areas where Bantu have settled and which are neither Bantu homelands nor proper urban areas or locations, so that in this way we can ensure that there will be proper Bantu residential areas which can be managed as if they are locations, as they have in fact become. I hope the Bill will receive the general support of the House.

Sir, I have listened with great interest to what the hon. the Deputy Minister had to say. In the main it is entirely in line with our understanding of this Bill and of the White Paper which he kindly issued. Let me say at once that so far as what one might call the cleaning up of many of these areas is concerned we agree entirely that that should be done. The hon. the Minister has dealt particularly with Alexandra, and in so far as it is necessary to clean up Alexandra we believe that should be done. The White Paper also dealt at length with Alexandra. But having said that I think we must look at the White Paper and the Bill and the speech of the Minister and the statement recently issued by the Minister of Bantu Administration, where he dealt with the future of Alexandra, because these all have a bearing on our consideraton of the Bill before us.

Clause 2 of the Bill deals with different types of areas in which Bantu persons have land ownership. Clause 2 (a), (b) and (c) respectively deal with the situation of the Grahamstown Fingo Location, (b) deals with the position of Alexandra, and (c) deals with the portion of Evaton which comes under the Native Commissioner, because it lies outside a released area. The Bill provides that a designated area, from a date to be specified, can be proclaimed in respect of any such area. It is noteworthy that there are two kinds of area in respect of which a designated area cannot be proclaimed. A designated area cannot be proclaimed in a scheduled Native area or in a released area. The reason for that will appear presently, but I want to get that point very clear. When the Deputy Minister was speaking just now he said in respect of certain aspects of the present law which he referred to that there was a gap or hiatus in respect of a certain position. The hiatus arose in respect of those areas where the Bantu actually owned the land. The Deputy Minister has tended to deal to a great extent in his arguments this evening with Alexandra, and I would also like to say a few words about Alexandra.

The Deputy Minister said it was established in 1905. It provided freehold for the Bantu and it has had a very checquered career. I do not think it has been a credit to anybody. When I say that I go right back to its beginings. It is at present under the control of the Peri-Urban Areas Board of the Transvaal, a body set up, like the local Health Commission in Natal, to deal with the black belts and the black areas outside the towns, some larger and some smaller. But the truth of the matter was that in respect of these areas, the White urban area where black belts developed outside them, in the main they provided homes for the Bantu people who were employed in the adjacent urban area. I am not going to voice any particular criticism of this Government, which came into power in 1948, but I will say that the growth of those areas reflected no credit on any previous Government. In fact, many of them were just a plain disgrace to the adjacent local authority and the Provincial Adminisiraion. in so far as the Provincial Administration had any authority or jurisdiction, and to the Government of the day, and that covered all Governments since Union. Industrial expansion in our big White urban areas led to the Bantu coming along to seek a place where they could get an economic wage, according to their standard of living. They came in to be close to their place of employment, exactly as anyone else would have done, and there was no consideration given to that aspect of their lives. I know, because I have been through it. I held a Commission of Inquiry into it. As long as the Bantu turned up to work and were law-abiding and respectable people and went home after work without worrying anybody, nobody worried about them. I say again that it brings no credit on anyone that conditions developed such as exist, amongst other places, at Alexandra. The latest figures given in this House recently in reply to a question show that at Alexandra to-day there are some 35,000 Banu.

I think the latest figures were 46,000.

I do not think the figure is very material, except for the breakdown, but there is one figure which I would like to know is the correct figure. I would hate to be wrong in respect of this one figure. Let me come back to my point, that whether it is 35,000 or 50,00 Bantu—and there are Coloureds also—whatever the density of population may be in regard to Alexandra, it was nobody’s concern until the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal set up the Peri-Urban Areas Board, and from what the Minister has said I take it that funds were made available from Government sources by Parliamentary vote for the purpose, at any rate, of providing some of the facilities that have been provided at Alexandra.

The one figure in respect of which I do not want to be wrong is the figure dealing with the freehold owners, and that is given as 1,972 Bantu. There are Coloured people there also, but I am not dealing with them now.

About 140.

I accept that. Now, may I refer again to what the Deputy Minister calls the link-up, the gap in the law. What was this gap in the law? It was simply the fact that the law advisers found that they could not treat Alexandra as though it was a Native location for the purposes of many laws that was the difficulty. For the purpose of a number of laws—the Biff here specifies some of them—they could not find legal grounds for Alexandra, to be treated as a Native location. So this Bill, amongst other things provides that Alexandra, together with other areas like the Fingo Location at Grahamstown and part of Evaton, can be proclaimed Native locations for the purpose of a number of Acts which are referred to here. They are the Native Services Levy Act, the Urban Bantu Councils Act, the Native Labour Regulation Act, and the principal Act of this Bill, which is the Native Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945. May I also add that the Natives Resettlement Act of 1954 also comes into the picture, even though it is for limited purposes, as the Deputy Minister says. What we then have to consider is that this area, owned by Bantu in freehold, established in 1905, with 1,972 Bantu land owners, has remained there, and apropos of what I have already said, these areas were not cared for by anyone because nobody wanted to spend any money on them. As the result of overcrowding and slum conditions, various commissions of inquiry were appointed up to the time the Peri-Urban Areas Board was established in the Transvaal, and finally this area was pro-claimed as falling under the jurisdiction of that body, and until that time nobody took any notice of the conditions which developed. But subsequently the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board itself carried out an investigation and in a letter published in “The Star” of 20 December 1960, it stated: “To create at Alexandra a township which can house its residents in reasonable comfort and under acceptable conditions, it has been decided that the population should be reduced to about 30,000”. At the same time the Board made it clear that people working in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg and who were housed at Alexandra would have to leave. Alexandra was to be the centre from which people who wished to find employment in Johannesburg proper could live, but it was not to be a centre from which people could radiate out to employment all over the northern suburbs, like Randburg. Even at that stage, at the beginning of the control by the Peri-Urban areas Board, certain improvements started to take place, and in certain spheres the improvements were remarked upon by the Deputy Minister this afternoon. There was a reduction in crimes of violence, murders, etc. But the Peri-Urban Areas Board apparently in 1960 believed that if it could bring the Bantu population down to about 30,000 in Alexandra, they would be able to live under hygienic conditions. Of course, in terms of the regulations of that Board, there is complete control over the public health of that area. The people there must pay a rate. The regulations cover public health and the normal amenities which apply to people living under urban conditions. Had the Government come along to-day and had it stated that position and told us that they proposed to clear up Alexandra and the other areas, and had the Government said: We will clear up Alexandra; there are many people living there who have no right to be there, and who are working in other areas where they have no right to work if they live in Alexandra, and other accommodation will have to be found for them, but we are going to clear up Alexandra and they will have to pay rates to assist us, and if they want to live under urban conditions those are matters for which they will have to share the responsibility. and we are going to apply the provisions of the Urban Bantu Councils Act to them, then we on this side of the House would have had no complaint. But that is not the attitude of the Government. The Government has now come with a Bill which is clearly designed not to clear up Alexandra in the sense of getting the condition for public health on a proper basis and providing proper amenities like streets, water, sewage, etc., but they have set out from the point of view that they want to get rid of all the Bantu at present living in Alexandra, and then to re-establish Alexandra on a different basis. The 1,972 Bantu who have freehold rights there have been approached recently to sell willingly to the authority which is competent to buy. That process, the Government is presumably satisfied, cannot be brought to finality on the basis of a willing seller and a willing buyer, and so in this Bill provision is made for expropriation. The White Paper refers to expropriation under the Housing Act, but there is another authority for expropriation which is not referred to in the White Paper, and that is the principal Act, the Native Urban Areas Consolidation Act of 1945. From what the White Paper says, and from what the Minister has said, there is no doubt whatever that it is the intention of the Government to expropriate if the people concerned will not sell. Sir, we on this side of the House cannot possibly agree to this. This is to use condition there which can be cleared up and which can be made suitable for the living of the urban Bantu, and it can be a place where they can establish an urban council to run their own affairs, through which they will get experience not only in the privilege of running their own affairs but also in the responsibilities that go with it—all that can be done in Alexandra, but the Government says that notwithstanding what the Peri-Urban Areas Board said in 1960—and there have been other assurances also that their freehold title will not be taken away from the Bantu—they are going to clear up Alexandra. The White Paper frankly says that there will of course only be justification for the application of the Bill in the case of those areas where Bantu have acquired ownership of land. This Bill, when it becomes law, will have justification for its application only where the Bantu have acquired ownership.

I want to say quite frankly that I have looked at this Bill very carefully indeed to see if there was not some saving clause, or some statement by Government spokesmen, which would make it clear that the land ownership enjoyed by the Bantu in Alexandra to-day would remain vested in them. On the contrary, the Bill, the White Paper, the speech of the Deputy Minister tonight and the statement made by the Minister all point to the fact that they intend to get rid of the freehold title of these Bantu, and then, on the present site of Alexandra, having replanned it, and having set aside green belts and the other various requirements, they will then establish huge hostels, up to eight in number, each housing 2,500 people who are called single Bantu. Just imagine. 20,000 single Bantu will be in hostels! The White Paper, in par. 6. referred to Clause 6 of the Bill and it says that under Clause 6 it will be possible to regard Alexandra as a Bantu residential area for Bantu of other residential areas such as Randburg and Johannesburg. In other words, what is foreseen here now is that it shall be a dormitory area, so that the people domiciled there shall have a wider area in which to forage forth and go to work. The Minister said that a large number of people would be disappointed because we are not getting rid of Alexandra as a Black area entirely, but he said that for very practical reasons they have to keep the Bantu there. What are these practical reasons? They are that they are required there for service, not only in that area or in the area of the Peri-Urban Areas Board, but also in the area of Johannesburg and Randburg. It is to be a central depot for 20,000 single Bantu.

Now, what is a single person when they are living under these conditions? One of the things I personally have set my face against is this grouping together in great communities, living under hostel conditions like a beehive, where each one lives in his own little cell, of thousands of people, 2,500 in each hostel, 20,000 in all. I know there are many people in the neighbourhood of Alexandra who would very much like to see it wiped out as a place for Bantu to live. They want to have their cake and eat it. May I say in passing that that is not unique as far the the people of Johannesburg and Randburg are concerned; it is the same anywhere. If a Native township is to be established, people agree in principle that it is an excellent thing that the Bantu should be properly housed, and it should always be established just in front of their neighbours’ door but nowhere near them. That happens in every case. So I am not surprised that many people want Alexandra to be cleared up and become a White area. But they also want their servants close to them and not far away, because according to where the servants live, so will the cost of those servants rise proportionate to the distance they live away from their place of employment. If the servant lives ten miles away instead of two, somebody has to pay the cost of the extra transport. It may be done by way of subsidy, which means that the general body of taxpayers have to pay for it. or it can be done by paying higher wages to the servants, but somebody has to pay for it. The practical reasons that are worrying the Deputy Minister are the number of people who will complain if they lose their labour from along-side of them, because it is very convenient to have their labour at that price in the immediate vicinity. If they are moved miles away, they will have to pay considerably higher prices for their labour, if they can get it. Let us face the fact that we will get nowhere by running away from the realities of the position.

At this stage perhaps I should say that we will oppose the second reading of this Bill, and I want to move as an amendment—

I can conceive of few things worse than for the Government deliberately to create these eight great hostels holding 20,000 single Natives, men and women. I have put the rhetorical question: What is a single person? I should like the Deputy Minister not to treat this as a rhetorical question but as an actual question. Will he tell us who are the single Bantu who will be housed in this great complex of hostels? A servant coming in from outside, duly furnished with the proper papers and who takes up residence in one of these hostels, must be single. It is a prerequisite for accommodation that he or she shall be a single person, and if they say they are single persons there is no way of disproving it. Provided they are armed with the requisite documents they can take up their abode there as single persons, and they are classed as single persons. Can the Minister comprehend what the position is in regard to the White people around Alexandra, when he has 20,000 so-called single Bantu living in that area? What conditions is the Minister creating there? I think it is a shocking thing. [Interjection.] We are well aware of the conditions under which the Bantu are living at present in single quarters in other areas, and every sociologist condemns the idea of single quarters of this magnitude for Bantu. [Interjection.]

Because of the amendment I moved. I want to come back to this question of freehold rights. I say again that this is wrong. It is utterly wrong for us in Parliament to be asked to pass legislation where, if the Bantu will not sell willingly, the Government will take expropriation measures. I said in this House a few years ago that there are some things which in the past were held sacred in South Africa. Many of those things have been jettisoned to-day. but there is still one thing which we ought to keep sacred, and that is our title deeds. These chickens will come home to roost one day if we in Parliament start ignoring title deeds, when we are prepared simply to wipe out these freehold titles.