I move—

On behalf of this side of the House I want to say that we intend supporting the third reading of this important Bill, which we believe will materially benefit the apprentices and improve our present apprenticeship system. We know that a very important report was submitted in 1960 by the National Apprenticeship Board which made investigations and certain recommendations in regard to a revision of our present system of apprenticeship. Many of those recommendations have been accepted by the Government and given effect to administratively. Those recommendations which have not been given effect to administratively are embodied in certain clauses of the Bill. Sir. we believe that these important recommendations should have the speedy approval of this House because a considerable time has elapsed since this report was made available in 1960. However, the clause which is designed to bring about an improvement with regard to the placement of apprentices and their selective recruitment is of vital importance, but we still have a certain amount of doubt in regard to its practical application. Clause 12 (5) provides that it shall be necessary for any prospective apprentice to be registered with the Department of Labour. We know that in terms of the recommendation of the National Apprenticeship Board these persons will now be subject to aptitude tests. I should like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister who is handling this Bill whether additional staff will be made available to cope with the enormous amount of work which will be one of the effects of the passing of this Bill. The intake of apprentices to-day is not keeping pace with the economic development and the industrial expansion of the country, and when we refer to figures supplied by the Department of Labour we see that there has been a steady decrease rather than an increase in the intake of apprentices. We would not like to see the intake of apprentices in the various trades hindered by the provisions of this Bill. We do concede that the standard of prospective apprentices will be raised in terms of the provisions of this Bill. This Bill also makes provision for further improvements. For example, provision is made for improved training methods. Certain records will now be kept and inspectors will be appointed to ensure that the apprentice obtains a comprehensive training in his designated trade. We believe that that is an important improvement over our present apprenticeship system, and it therefore has our blessing. Another matter which is involved in this Bill is the question of the apprentice who is required to undergo military training. Although provision is made that he shall receive a remission of four months in respect of his first period of military training, there appears to be no provision at all for the young person who is perhaps required to undergo full-time military service during his period of apprenticeship. Similarly there are other difficulties that we foresee. A young person who wishes to be apprenticed may be required to undergo his nine months’ compulsory training before he commences his apprenticeship. He will be at a disadvantage in comparison with the person who might just have commenced his apprenticeship and who therefore enjoys the privilege of four months’ remission as provided for in this Bill. Sir, we on this side of the House wish to see this measure speedily enacted and placed on our Statute Book in order to improve our system of apprenticeship and so as to bring about a higher degree of proficiency and efficiency amongst our artisans in South Africa.

We on this side of the House are pleased that the Opposition is supporting the third reading of this Bill. The first point in regard to the contents of this Bill is that it is an enabling measure; it enables the Minister—as a matter of fact the Minister has bound himself to do so—to carry out the important recommendations, or at least the majority of those valuable recommendations, contained in the report of the National Apprenticeships Board in connection with the revision of our apprenticeship system. The object of those recommendations is to bring about certain specific reforms in our present apprenticeship system, a system which is already recognized as one of the best apprenticeship systems in the world.

There are, in the first place, provisions in this Bill which will have the effect of streamlining the administration of the Act and of making the supervision over apprentices more effective. In this connection I want to refer to the provisions in this Bill, firstly, for the appointment of an assistant Registrar of Apprentices, secondly, for increasing the number of members of the National Apprenticeship Board from 11 to 13; thirdly, for the establishment of national apprenticeship committees, for the introduction of the log book system; and fifthly, for the appointment of apprentice welfare officer inspectors. Provision is also made in this Bill for disciplinary action. In this connection I wish to refer hon. members to the provision, firstly, to extend an apprentice’s contract by one day for every day of unauthorized absence from work or from a class which he has to attend in terms of his apprenticeship contract, and, secondly, to extend the contract of an apprentice who fails the compulsory practical trade test at the end of his contract period by a year in the case of a five-year trade and by a relatively shorter period in the case of a four-year trade and by an even shorter period in the case of a three-year trade.

That brings me, in conclusion, to the more favourable aspects from the point of view of the apprentice himself and I refer to the incentive measures in this Bill. Firstly, his pre-apprenticeship educational qualifications are recognized, in the first place, directly in the form of a higher initial salary or a bonus for his special educational qualifications, and indirectly in so far as his educational qualifications determine the time when he can do his voluntary trade test whereby he will acquire full artisan status, which, in many cases, is long before his apprenticeship contract will normally lapse. There are cases where an apprentice, because of his educational qualifications, and if he passes his trade test which he undergoes at a time determined by his educational qualifications, can acquire full artisan status after only 2½ years. As far as I am concerned, in any case, the concession in connection with this matter is the most important incentive in the whole Bill. Secondly, provision is made for a considerable increase in the wages of apprentices in that their wages are being brought into line with the wages of qualified artisans. As the wages of the artisans increase their wages will in future automatically increase in line with those of the artisans. Thirdly, we have the important concession in connection with the period allowed for military service. Although it is not the entire period of nine months, the period which an apprentice may perhaps require in some cases, it is much longer than in the past. Fourthly, we have the concession in regard to the attendance of classes in the employer’s time. I think all these measures will serve as incentives, as activating spurs.

I want to conclude by saying this: If these concessions do not have the effect, in the first place, of attracting the right material as apprentices to our industries then I do not know. In this connection I want to add that the time has passed that we must imagine that anything, yes, even the crumbs off the table of the high schools, the left-overs from the provincial high schools, are good enough for this purpose simply because it entails manual labour; I think we should rid ourselves of that snobbishness, because South Africa is on the threshold of great industrial development and it is essential that we attract our best manpower as apprentices to our industries; if these concessions do not have the effect of attracting the right materials as apprentices; if this challenge does not fire the blood of our young people and does not activate them to exert themselves to the best of their ability; if it does not make their hearts pulsate with a desire to come forward with the best they have, then the question which we have to ask young South Africa in all seriousness is this: What is wrong with you? Because if this apprenticeship system which we are now introducing does not have the effect of attracting the best material and of activating that material to exert themselves to their utmost ability and of showing the utmost pride in their trade, then there is certainly something wrong with young South Africa and in that case we must look for the reasons, not in this apprenticeship system, but elsewhere and we shall have to look carefully to determine where that “elsewhere” is. You think, however, of certain things which have happened. We are living in a post-war period. It is a time of fragmentation, disruption and confusion and many of our young people do not really know which way to turn. They have lost faith in their principles and in the case of many it is a question of “let us eat and drink and be merry because to-morrow we die”, because within a period of 25 years we have been involved in the most cruel of world wars, with the shadow of a third world war hanging over our heads, and that that is why one appreciates that there are other reasons why our young people do not have the sense of responsibility to-day to achieve what we should like them to achieve.

Just this in conclusion: Not only is it the administration which this Bill introduces which will ensure that the best results are obtained under this Bill but I also want to refer to the task of the employers. They too have a task to fulfil in this connection and the employer who tells me that the apprentices of to-day have no sense of responsibility simply proves that he does not understand the elementary principles of his duty, namely, that his duty is precisely to assist these teenagers who are entrusted to his care gradually to develop that sense of responsibility. I say, therefore, that they too can play an important role; the parents of the apprentices too can play an important role as well as the apprentices themselves if they are imbued with the right idealism.

I welcome the general support which this measure has received in this House. As a matter of fact, this general support is no more than this measure deserves, not only for the sake of the people who have devoted many years of hard work to it but also for the sake of the many good things which this measure seeks to achieve. I have no doubt that this measure will be instrumental in producing more and better artisans in this country. I base this expectation not only on the greater material benefits which are contained in this measure, but I base it on the change in the system of training and the supervision for which this measure makes provision. When one thinks that between 75 and 80 per cent of the apprentices have failed their theoretical in the past, then it is clear that in the future, when the test will be purely a practical one, we can expect a bigger percentage to pass than in the past. In the future apprentices will also have the benefit of qualified, specialized inspectors who are not going to act as policemen but rather as instructors and perhaps as social workers to guide them along the right lines. I think we are justified in expecting therefore that this measure is going to produce more and better artisans for us.

The hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield) has expressed concern that this registration with the Department of Labour, with the accompanying aptitude tests, may perhaps be unfair or that it may not produce the results that we anticipate. I regard this provision in fact as one of the most important provisions in this Bill to produce more and better artisans, because those aptitude tests are going to enable us to do the necessary sorting out and thereafter to canalize these young men in the direction of their particular aptitude. I am confident therefore that this system is going to prove advantageous to us. The hon. member wants to know whether we have sufficient officials to provide this training. I can assure the hon. member that we have every confidence that we shall be able to cope with the training because these aptitude tests will be taken by groups of apprentices. They will be taken by groups of 20 or 30 or more apprentices. During the last recess I made a point of visiting the testing division in Pretoria one day to see how these tests were conducted, and I found that there were about 25 young men who were being tested that day. I can give the hon. member the assurance therefore that this provision will prove beneficial. I also want to express the hope that the lecturers at our technical colleges will be much happier in the future than they have been in the past, because I think in the future they will be rid in the first place of the type of lad who cannot learn and who refuses to learn. I believe that the effect of this measure will be that the lecturers at the technical colleges will be able to devote much more time to those apprentices who do wish to learn and who can learn.

The last point that I just want to raise again is this: I dealt with this the other day in my reply to the debate but it is a matter of so much importance to me that I just want to repeat the appeal which I then made to the apprenticeship committees. During the Committee Stage hon. members on that side repeatedly asked how quickly it would be possible to bring these benefits into operation. I stated that the initiative should be taken by the apprenticeship committees to incorporate these improved conditions in their contracts of apprenticeship, but the matter does not end there. It is a lengthy, protracted procedure. They have to send the contract of apprenticeship to the Apprenticeship Board; the Apprenticeship Board has to approve of it, and then eventually it comes before the Minister of Labour who approves it for publication. I want to take advantage of this opportunity to make a very serious appeal to the apprenticeship committees to incorporate these improved conditions in their apprenticeship contracts as soon as possible so that the procedure which is prescribed here can be followed and so that the apprentices can get these benefits as soon as possible. It is unnecessary to say that it is also in the interests of the employers, the industrialists, that this should be done quickly because the sooner they apply these conditions, the sooner they will be able to rely on a bigger and a more contented staff of apprentices.

Having said that, I move the third reading with absolute confidence that this measure will produce good dividends. It is one of the most important labour measures that we have placed on the Statute Book in recent years; it is a measure which is almost unequalled in the world to-day as far as apprentices are concerned; it is a measure of which we in this country can be proud and which, I believe, will enable us to meet the high demands of the present period, a period in which every young man is expected to give the best of his talents. I hope and believe that that will be the effect of this measure.

I have no quarrel with the principle contained in this clause, but there is one matter which does disturb us a little and which we would like to put to the hon. the Minister and that is the naming of this body which he is setting up, the “Slums Clearance Court”. Whilst we are not opposing the principle of the body which he is setting up, we do feel that the word “court” is a misnomer and misleading in this particular case. We would suggest that if the hon. the Minister would be prepared to call this a slum clearance board, which I think is a far better name, it would put the position in its true light. The body which has in the past handled these matters and been appointed by the local authority has in most cases I think, been called a committee. I think we can go a bit further than that in this particular case, and I would suggest to the Minister that the word “board” would be a far better word to use here than the word “court”. I think the Minister will agree that the members of this body which he is setting up are going to be appointed by himself and they are going to be dismissed by himself, and whilst I admit that a magistrate or ex-magistrate will in fact be the chairman of this body, in some cases he too will be appointed by the Minister. I think under those circumstances it would be better for all concerned and far more acceptable to us if the Minister were prepared to call this body a “board” rather than a “court”. I do want to be quite clear on this, Sir. This term “Slums Clearance Court” also appears in Clause 2 which we have passed and in many other clauses of this Bill. If the hon. the Minister is prepared to accept my amendment I shall not hold up the Committee by proposing an amendment to all these numerous clauses. I wonder, therefore, if the hon. the Minister will indicate in his reply whether he will accept my amendment on this clause as being consequential upon all the other clauses concerned. I think this will save the Committee a lot of time.

I move as follows, Sir—

The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was kind enough to inform me when we entered the Chamber that such an amendment might possibly be moved. My first reaction was one of great sympathy but after very careful consideration in the short time at my disposal I have certain misgivings which I should like to put to the Committee. This clause follows the pattern that we have in other legislation. In the provinces we talk about valuation courts and we talk about a revision court under the Group Areas Act. I think we should guard against the possibility of depriving this body, by changing its name, of the authority that we want to give it and. secondly, against the possibility of creating the impression that it is not absolutely impartial. I think it would be dangerous to call it a “board” because municipalities would then be more and more inclined to believe that they are entitled to representation on such a board. I would then be defeating the whole object of this legislation. After further consideration I am sorry that I am unable to accept the hon. member’s amendment.

I put it to the hon. the Minister yesterday that there were local authorities who had in fact fulfilled their obligations under the Slums Act and were continuing to do so. On more than one occasion the hon. the Minister confirmed that that was the position. I then asked him to make this particular clause, as far as the slums court was concerned, applicable to only those local authorities who, in his opinion, have not or could not or would not fulfil their obligations under the Slums Act. The Minister did not refuse to consider that point of view, and I accordingly wish to move an amendment to Clause 3 as follows—

Thus amended, Sir, the clause will read as follows—

I do not think I need argue with the Minister. It is self-evident that if he wishes to be fair to those local authorities who have not been neglectful or recalcitrant or unco-operative, he should make this particular clause applicable to only those local authorities to whom it should properly be applied. And I do not base my argument on Section 11 of the Public Health Act, which I still believe gave another Minister all the necessary authority. I am now assuming that for one or other reason the Minister of Housing must take over the implementation of the Slums Act. In that regard. I feel the Minister should be able to consider this, not only as a reasonable, but in fact as a proper amendment, having regard to the history of local government and the clearance of slums in this country.

While I am on my feet, Sir, I want to move an amendment to sub-section (2) (a) which deals with the appointment of the slums court—

1. (iii) two other members to be appointed from a panel of names submitted by the local authority concerned.

Here again, Sir, I do not wish to press the point. I think the Minister followed the argument which I advanced yesterday. Again, I doubt whether he can reasonably say that any harm can come from the appointment to the court of two persons, being members of that local authority, selected by the Minister. If anything, Sir, I really think that this will assist the implementation of this clause. Especially in view of what the hon. the Minister said yesterday, when he suggested a sort of itinerant slums court for certain regions—that was how I understood him—I want to suggest to the Minister that although those people may have a sort of global view of the position throughout the whole country, they could not be expected to have the specialized knowledge of the conditions in a particular local authority area that experienced members of that local authority have. The fact that they will be in the minority at all times means that they cannot influence a decision which will have to be taken, according to the Minister’s discretion, or in the discretion of the chairman of this court. In other words, this is another position which can be improved by way of such an amendment. This will reassure those local authorities who in their own opinion, and perhaps in the Minister’s opinion in some cases, have not brought this legislation down on their heads through their own neglect or default, and who deserve some consideration by the Government when it comes to the administration of local government.

I have another amendment which I wish to move now. This is an amendment to subclause (5) and it reads as follows—

The Minister may or may not have considered this aspect of the matter but he will be aware of the fact that, certainly in the case of the smaller towns, there is not an office of the Department of Housing in every town. I think the smoother operation of this particular clause will be ensured by the acceptance of this amendment, because the Department of Justice has a local magistrate’s court in every town and there is no earthly reason why the hon. the Minister should not appoint an official of the local authority to act in a secretarial capacity. If he does not do that, I submit that he will not be taking the necessary steps to obviate what can easily be unnecessary delays arising out of the fact that his own Department has not got an official on the spot. He will furthermore be absolved from the duty, and for that matter the waste of time and expenditure, of sending somebody from a neighbouring town to act in a town where there is already an official of the local magistrate’s court or of the local authority. Again, in this regard, the Minister must realize that I am certainly not trying to create difficulties for him. I think this amendment will facilitate the operation of this clause.

As far as the first amendment of the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is concerned I want to tell him that it will destroy the whole purpose of the slum clearance court. If the local authority is unwilling to act it will certainly not allow its medical officer to submit a report to the slum clearance court. The hon. member now wishes to weaken this strong clause which is really a weapon in the hands of the State to ensure that new living conditions are brought into being. How must the Minister ascertain that they are unwilling?

I can answer that.

They will not allow him insight into that document whether or not there is a report. I think it will destroy the whole purpose of the slums clearance court if I accept this amendment.

As far as his second amendment is concerned, that proves what I have just said to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). I told the hon. member for Umlazi that the moment you call this slum clearance court a board there will be pressure on the part of local authorities to be represented on it, and now we have had that pressure on the part of the hon. member for Hospital to appoint two members of the local authority to that board. That was why I rejected the amendment of the hon. member for Umlazi. This court should be impartial; it should in no way be attached to the local authority. As I explained in my second-reading speech it is my intention to bring into being courts that will be able to deal not only with one specific case but with various cases in a region. I, therefore, cannot accept the second amendment of the hon. member either.

*As far as the third amendment of the hon. member for Hospital is concerned, he wants me to make use not of the services of the officials of the Department of Housing but of the services of the officials of either the local authority or of the Department of Justice. Why? The Department of Housing has seven regional offices in this country. There is one in Cape Town, one in Port Elizabeth, one in Bloemfontein, in Kimberley, Johannesburg, Pretoria and in Natal. After last year’s reorganization the set-up of the Department is such that a large portion of the Department’s work which was formerly done at head office is now done in the regional offices. Decentralization was introduced and the officials who are attached to the regional offices are fully acquainted with the circumstances in their particular area. The hon. member advances the argument that it will save money and time if I appoint somebody from the magistrate’s office. Assuming I dealt with the magistrate’s office and they told me that they did not have a clerk available for this purpose, what would I do then? It would be unnecessarily cumbersome. The acceptance of this amendment would really show that we have no confidence in our own Department to do this type of work. I can assure the hon. member that in fact we go out of our way to reorganize the Department in such a way that it will be acquainted with the various interests in every region. I am sorry, therefore, that I cannot accept this amendment of his either.

This represents 100 per cent refusal on the part of the Minister. I did not suggest that the hon. the Minister must appoint a member of the Department of Justice or a member of the local authority. I am not trying to force these people on to the Department. I was trying to suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister took this power to appoint an alternate to the official of his Department. I am aware of the seven regional offices to which the Minister has referred. But the office at Port Elizabeth is not exactly next door to Riversdale, and that position obtains throughout the country. If the Minister feels that he does not want to have the choice, which was all I was suggesting, then I am not going to press the point.

Now I come to the second amendment, namely that two other members should be appointed from a panel of names submitted by the local authority concerned. This is the way, the hon. the Minister suggests, in which the pressure which he wants to avoid will immediately be applied to his representatives on this court. That may be, Sir, but I want to give the Minister the analogy of the Local Road Transportation Board, of which another Minister of this House can give him detailed information. That is also a body which is expected to be impartial.

That is something quite different.

With respect, Sir, I say that is a body which has certain powers to grant or withhold certain privileges and which is in every way, in regard to its assumed impartiality, an exact replica of the court or board the Minister will set up, as far as its obligation towards the public and the local authority is concerned. I speak again with some knowledge of both those bodies, the Slums Court and the Local Road Transportation Board. In that case, it is common cause that a local authority is asked to submit the names of certain of its members and to recommend some of them for appointment to the board. It is also common cause that in the case of one local authority, of which I happen to know something, the hon. Minister concerned has for years and years in the past appointed anybody but the people recommended by the local authority. In this case, too, I say to the hon. the Minister of Housing that he can appoint anybody he likes from that local authority. They submit a panel of names and the Minister can choose those people who, in his opinion, will be impartial; not obstructive, but co-operative. They will in any case form a minority of two in a court of five. I suggest with respect, Sir, that far from exercising pressure, desirable or otherwise, on the other members of this court, those gentlemen will be of great material assistance in the deliberations which the court will have to undertake. The hon. the Minister will, of course, please himself whether or not he accepts my amendment, but I say with respect that his argument in rejecting it is not as sound as it might have been.

Finally, Mr. Chairman, I must say something in regard to the amendment which requires the Minister to discriminate between local authorities which have done their work properly and those which have not. Why is there any difficulty in the mind of the Minister in regard to the selective application of this clause of the Bill? There is ample precedent in the laws of South Africa for such selective application of the law. The salient point, which the Minister has perhaps missed, is this. The hon. the Minister asked how he could get the information from the records of such a local authority, to show that it was not willing or capable of doing this work. A very fair question, Sir. The obvious answer is the phrase “which, in the opinion of the Minister, has proved itself unwilling or incapable”. The Minister told us yesterday that he was well aware of the position in all the local authorities in the Republic; that he knew which boys had done their homework and which had not. In fact, I cited a case by way of reference to a Press report, and the Minister said to me: “Do not believe that represents the facts; I have seen those people, and they will now talk differently.” I accept that the Minister is in a position to know. I suggest to him that he would have a purely subjective opinion about this. As the clause stands at the moment, even if there is a local authority which has been a striking example in regard to the clearance of slums, the Minister cannot make an exception. I hope the Minister will realize that my amendment does not seek to deprive him of any of his powers. If anything, it reinforces his power by giving him the right to select one, two, or 30 local authorities—I do not know how many—who will then be able to say that the Minister has dealt fairly with them, “he will not apply this legislation to us because he has recognized that we have done what we should have done in regard to slum clearance; we are an example to others to do likewise”. Surely the Minister accepts the value of precept. I cannot take it any further, and I want to ask him once again to consider my amendment.

The first amendment moved by the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) to Clause 3 is to the effect that slum clearance courts should be established only in those local areas where the local authority is not prepared to co-operate or is not competent to tackle this task and to carry it out. Then the hon. member says that the Minister should ask those local authorities which are not prepared or able to co-operate to provide a panel of people from whom two can be appointed to his court. If the hon. the Minister does this, I believe that the impartiality of this court will immediately be questioned.

The hon. member for Hospital wants the Minister to appoint two interested parties to this court to decide on conditions obtaining in their own area. Those persons will not be able to give impartial evidence, because they are people who have an interest in the area; they may even be slum owners. Of what value can these two members of the local authority be on such a court? These two persons who, according to the hon. member for Hospital, have to serve on the court in those cases where local authorities are unwilling or unable to co-operate, will serve one purpose only and that is to cripple the proceedings of the court, to frustrate and undermine it. The reason why the hon. member wants to have these two people on the court is so that they can advise the court in connection with local affairs. The Minister will not be able then to get two other people with a wide general knowledge of housing to act without the advice of these two representatives of the local authority. But, Mr. Speaker, this court will be able to obtain all the details relating to a local area in another way, without having these people as members. The court will be able to acquaint itself with all the circumstances by hearing evidence. It is not necessary to appoint these two people to the court.

I think it would be an unwise step for the Minister to accede to the request of the hon. member for Hospital.

Amendments put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

Clause 12 amends Section 14 of the principal Act by substituting the words “local authority” by the words “slum clearance court”. I wonder whether the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) has read Section 14 of the principal Act? It reads—

The “town clerk” shall.

Sir, as this particular principal Act is amended here, the Bill does not place any duty on the slums court, or its secretary, to inform the town clerk of the issue of orders by the court, and yet it is the town clerk’s duty to have certain notices served after an order has been made by this court. Surely it should be a statutory duty of the secretary of the slums court to advise the town clerk of any order of the court which requires some action by the local authority or its officials. If the town clerk must do something under the principal Act, how will he be aware of that fact if there is no duty placed on the secretary of the slums court to give him the information on which he must act? I rest my case there. No answer!

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 21,

I move the amendment standing in my name—

I have already explained the matter in my second-reading speech and I do not think it is necessary to enlarge on it now.

I want to say how much I value the answer which the hon. Minister and his colleagues gave to my representations in regard to Clause 12! Now I want to deal with Clause 21 (1), where I wish to move as an amendment—

Obviously this is the last clause under which I can raise the position of the local authorities, and for that matter, the administrator of a province. This clause, as the others which deal with a similar position, completely side-tracks the administrator of a province who up to now has, under the Slums Act and the Public Health Act. had a great deal of authority in regard to towns within the province, the municipalities and the local authorities in that province, and completely eliminates from the picture the local authority itself. The hon. Minister must have some reason why he is not prepared—and I must say that I am anticipating an answer here—to publish his notice in the Gazette in terms of which he virtually takes over the powers of the local authority “after consultation with the local authority and the Administrator of the province concerned”. Surely the word “consultation” does not mean that he must have the consent of the Administrator, nor does it mean that he must have the consent of the local authority; but surely, as an act of courtesy. this should be done. Courtesy can be written into the law. As an act of courtesy before the Minister takes action, the local authority concerned should be in a position that it knows what is going to happen. The Minister should be in a position to inform the Administrator and the local authority, without in any way diminishing his rights. Possibly it will mean delaying the procedure by a week, at the outside, for the communication to be passed between the one and the other authority. I therefore ask. virtually as a last resort, that in order to give this Bill, from the point of view of the local authorities and the administrators of the various provinces (for whom I cannot plead obviously), a much better complexion than it has in relation to the so-called corner-stone of democratic government, namely your local government, and to the constitutional structure of the Republic of South Africa which is based on the provincial structure, the hon. Minister should agree to the incorporation of this simple, and may I say worth-while proviso. No harm can come from it. The Department cannot be prejudiced, the Minister cannot be obstructed, and he will earn a little goodwill with this, which I am afraid he is not earning with many of the other clauses.

I am sorry that I cannot accept the hon. member’s amendment. In the first place it goes without saying that when the drastic steps provided for in this clause are taken, they will have been preceded by a considerable amount of consultation. That goes without saying. But I do not want to allow myself to be bound by this type of wording, of which I have had a great deal of experience in recent times. That also applies to the proposed insertion of “administrator”. I want to tell hon. members that under another Act which I administer I have been struggling for 15 months, as the result of a similar provision in that Act, to get a reply in a matter in which there is the utmost clarity. I simply cannot succeed in getting a reply. The whole public is up in arms because no action is being taken. I find myself trapped in this sort of red tape. I am sorry therefore but I am not prepared to allow myself to be bound by cumbersome provisions of this nature when steps have to be taken in connection with evils in urban areas. We have chosen this short-cut and I prefer to stick to this short-cut.

I only want to say one thing. The hon. Minister says that he chooses to take a short-cut. He has done so deliberately, he says. I can only wish him luck with the implementation of this Bill. But I want to tell him something, that what appears to be the short-cut is sometimes the long way home, as he may discover.

Amendment proposed by Mr. Gorshel put and negatived.

Amendments proposed by the Minister of Housing put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 22,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to. On Clause 24,

I move—

Agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

More than two members having objected, amendments to be considered on 1 May.

When the House adjourned last night, I had moved the amendment now standing in my name on the Order Paper, and I had dealt with the position which would arise in the case of Alexandra when and if the freehold title of the Bantu there had been taken away from them, they had been dispossessed, the area was replanned and in terms of the Government’s stated intention eight blocks of each 2,500 single rooms in a hostel had been established, providing for the accommodation of 20,000 so-called single Bantu. May I, before I go any further, thank the hon. Deputy Minister for the correction of the figures which I now take as being 45,018 Bantu living at the present time in Alexandra, of which 1,972 are owners of freehold.

In this connection, that is the doing away of freehold rights enjoyed by the Bantu for more than 50 years and the so-called cleaning-up of an area, I want to say at once that the Government has powers to do all the cleaning-up necessary at the present time, particularly in view of legislation that has been before us during this Session, even the Bill that has just passed the Committee State. The legislation is there and the Government could deal with that area, they could clean it up and they could get rid of the Natives living there without proper authority, and they could get rid of the unsatisfactory conditions under which the Bantu are living, they could provide for proper health services, and all that is necessary for those people to be a credit to themselves and no menace to any of the surrounding White areas. But, Sir, that is not the point in the Government’s mind. The point in this whole Bill is the Government’s policy to remove the Bantu who have freehold rights. The White Paper says categorically that this Bill serves no purpose unless it is to be applied to an area where the Bantu have frehold rights. And, Sir, when it comes to the building of these huge hostels—2,500 single Bantu living in one hostel, and eight of these hostels to be established on the present site of Alexandra—may I then quote from an interview recently given in Durban by Mr. A. W. D. Champion, a Native, chairman of the Combined Locations Advisory Board? He is one of the Bantu who supports the Government and its policy. He is a very well educated man. a very highly respected man. both by the Bantu and the Whites in Natal, and this is what he has to say in regard to this idea of putting up hostels where single Bantu are to reside—

That is what a supporter of the Government’s policy has to say of the establishment of such hostels. Mr. Speaker, my hon. Leader recently warned the Government about creating fertile soil for trouble-makers. Really, Sir, I almost despair sometimes when I see the steps that the Government is taking to create just the conditions for the fertile soil to receive the seed. Sir, if the 1,900 owners of freehold title are to be expropriated and sent out… To where? The hon. Minister said in a Press statement recently that they can go back to their homelands and acquire freehold title there. We know that that is nonsense!

At the moment you are talking non-sense. You did not understand the statement.

What is more it is also in the White Paper. Where is the home-land? It is no good the Deputy Minister getting cross.

You always get excited.

I do not want any advice from that hon. member. I can answer the hon. member in the same language if he wants that. Let him behave himself and act courteously in this House.

With regard to these Bantu, the distance from the homeland of the Sotho people is 50 miles and the Nguni people 250, and other racial groups 175 miles. That is the position of the people living at Alexandra and working from there. I repeat there are 1,900 owners of free-hold title there and they will feel just as bitter and sore as anybody else would feel if his rights were expropriated, merely because of Government policy. And now the Government wants to establish 20,000 single Bantu in those hostels! What more fertile ground do you want for the agitator than 20,000 single people? What does the Government think? Surely there is no better material available to the Bantu agitator than 20,000 people living under those conditions! Champion refers to a “semi-military existence”, almost like the old impis they had in Zululand in the old days. Single people living there a prey to the agitator, with all the wickedness that the human mind can devise to exploit these people. If the Government would come along and say that they want to abolish all the Blacks from Alexandra and that they want to turn it into a White area, at any rate there would be a certain amount of reason attached to that. But because the Government now is up against the pressure of economic facts and it realizes that the Bantu from Alexandra have got to be maintained in that position as their domicile because they are the servants of the people in the neighbourhood, they do not face the fact that goes with that, viz. that the Bantu should have their own home life in the area in which they are employed. If the Government wanted them to have their home life there and to live a normal life in their own homes and on their own property (they have had freehold title there for 50 years), the Government has all the powers in the world to clear up that area and make it anything but a menace to public health. The Government can give the Bantu the opportunity there to have a certain amount of self-government in terms of their own Act passed in 1961. But no, the Government is not prepared to do that. They are going to create this bitterness by dispossessing the people who have got these rights, and they are going to create fertile ground for the agitator by establishing these vast hostels for single people.

I second the amendment. Alexandra Township which is the area most concerned with this legislation is more or less in the centre of the constituency I represent in this House, but, Mr. Speaker, what nappens around and in and to Alexandra Township is not only the concern of those people living in that area, but it is the concern of all the people living in the whole of Johannesburg, and it is the concern of Whites as well as Blacks.

When this township was established in 1905, it was well outside Johannesburg, and at the present moment it is completely surrounded by European residential sites and industrial sites. Alexandra Township has been a festering sore for many, many years, but it has been a sore not only as the result of the neglect shown by various Governments and local authorities, it also developed in that way as a result of the tremendous overcrowding that took place there, uncontrolled overcrowding. During the history of Alexandra it has been a hotbed of crime and law-lessness. At one time or another it was the headquarters of some of the most notorious crime and murder gangs in South Africa. Many more murders were committed in Alexandra than the police will ever know about. It was at times completely unsafe, even for the police, to come in there at night, and even sometimes during the day. It has been completely unsafe for many years for the law-abiding citizens living in Alexandra Township. They are the people who have suffered most under these notorious gangs in Alexandra. Criminals pursued by the police merely had to get into Alexandra Township to disappear under the teeming thousands of people living there.

I want to make it perfectly clear that if there is one thing on which everybody is in agreement, it is that Alexandra Township should be cleaned up. All are in agreement on that, Whites as well as Blacks. Let me at this stage pay tribute to what has been done over the last five years by the Peri-Urban Areas Board and the Government Departments concerned. On the Minister’s own figures the overcrowding has been reduced considerably, crime has been reduced by 50 per cent, and law and order and a certain amount of control has been established, actions for which most people are very grateful indeed.

But to clean up a place like Alexandra is easier said than done. There are very many Whites who quite honestly would like to see Alexandra not cleaned up but cleared out completely, but for reasons mentioned by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) that is at this stage not a practical proposition. There are many thousands of Bantu living in Alexandra who are employed in the immediate vicinity; they are employed in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg as domestic servants, gardeners, part-time labourers, but more important, they are employed in the industries which have been built up in those areas. I think of places like Wynberg, Kew and Kramerville. They are employed in those industries and without a complete dislocation in that area it will not be possible to clear Alexandra Township of the Bantu, at least not at this stage. Transport to the Western Townships of Johannesburg, will present very great problems indeed. I think it is fair to say that all reasonable people realize that Alexandra in some form or another will have to remain the home of the Bantu.

The hon. Minister has told us that this legislation will enable the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board to overcome the difficulties experienced so far in clearing up and will help them in the general improvement of Alexandra Township. Mr. Speaker, we have no qualms about agreeing to the legislation before us as far as that goes. We wish the good work that is being done at Alexandra at the present moment to continue and armed with the new legislation which we are about to pass, the task of the people concerned will be made very much easier.

But we are dead against the plan as published by the Government. Hostels are not wanted. Hostels for so-called single Bantu are not wanted at any price by anybody, Black or White. In this case the cure of the troubles at Alexandra will be much worse than the disease itself. Nobody wants the same conditions created at Alexandra and in that area as were created at Langa or at Paarl. Alexandra should remain the home of those Bantu who are employed in the northern suburbs only, and in the northern industries.

And if they are not married?

They are living in Alexandra now, but they are not living in hostels such as the Government wishes to establish. The general consensus of opinion of the people in the area is that the best plan would be to continue on the course followed up to now and the course recommended by the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board. The idea is that the Natives should retain freehold title. People in the vicinity wish to see the establisment of a properly controlled and a properly run township for the decent law-abiding Natives, the sort of person who will have a stake in that area, the sort of people who will form a bulwark against lawlessness and crime. The people in that area want people to live there a normal natural family life.

The question we would like to put to the Minister is this: What will happen to the married families who are living there now, families who have been living there all their lives? The first people who were born at Alexandra Township are now nearly 60 years old and they are still living there. What is going to happen to them? Must they now be moved to the Western Townships and be penalized to travel all that way to their work from the Western Townships, through the centre of Johannesburg? Surely what we want is that sort of Native to remain there with his family living a family life, living the kind of life we would like to see them lead. We cannot support this measure beyond supporting the clearing up of Alexandra. We cannot support a measure where it is clear to us that this measure will be used to deprive the Native of his freehold title and to change that area into an area for so-called single Bantu men and women. At this late stage I would like to ask the Minister to drop this idea of the hostels and to do all in his power to assist the Peri-Urban Board to carry on with the good work they have been doing up to now.

The hon. member who has just sat down, the seconder of the Opposition’s amendment, reminds me very much of the song “Byna Bewogen”. He came as close to expressing his full agreement with this Bill as it is possible for anyone to do, but then the hon. member went off at a tangent. He made the important admission that the Peri-Urban Areas Board has done wonderful work. He went even further—beyond my expectations—and said that if this measure was passed things would go even better. But in spite of that statement, he seconded the amendment declining to pass the second reading of this measure. I want to deal first of all with the hon. member and then I shall deal with the amendment of the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell).

The hon. member must remember that although he praised the work of the Peri-Urban Areas Board and admitted that its work would be further improved if this Bill was passed, that area and similar areas have not yet come into their own. We are not able fully to develop those areas because the five Acts mentioned in the White Paper cannot be put into practice there. The result is that the position has remained static and cannot be further improved because if one wants to improve it one has to apply the provisions of the Housing Act there.

Is it not possible for those five Acts to be applied without the clause making provision for the expropriation of land there?

That is a very clever question. The hon. member asks whether this cannot be done without the provisions of that clause. Is that the only objection that he has? Let me deal immediately with that aspect—and that will answer the question of the hon. member. The Opposition and ourselves differ here in regard to a princible that has been a bone of contention since the turn of this century; there is a difference of opinion between the United Party and the National Party in this connection. I want to show where the difference lies. Even General Smuts admitted later that we should not allow the Bantu to obtain freehold title in White areas. The hon. member will realize that we are in full agreement with that statement because to our way of thinking it is a matter of principle and we are not going to forfeit that important principle for the sake of this one measure. [Interjection.] It was quite unnecessary for the hon. member to raise this principle here, but as he has done so, I want to deal with it. In February 1923 the same principle was discussed in this House. At that time General Smuts brought a motion before this House which sought to grant freehold title to the Bantu in conflict with the 1913 Act, and I want to quote what General Hertzog had to say about it—

So successful was General Hertzog in his argument against the motion of General Smuts that the motion was withdrawn.

I come now to the amendment of the hon. member. He attacked this Bill because it makes provision for the application of the Housing Act and the Group Areas Act. But this is vitally important. Does the hon. member think that we can permit those laws to be violated for the sake of a number of Bantu who own land there and who, up to the present, as is admitted, have not been able, in spite of the fact that they own land, to obtain the necessary help from the authorities? In other words, the authorities have not had the power to develop those areas as they ought to have been developed and as they will developed when this Bill has been passed. one various authorities are now being hampered. The Peri-Urban Areas Board is being hampered in trying to give full implemention to the development of housing there. It is therefore a matter of principle as far as we are concerned and we are consistent in our attitude in this regard. Those hon. gentlemen have been consistent in wanting to allow the Bantu to own land in the White areas. We say no, and that is the irreconcilable difference between the two parties.

But you are going to settle Bantu there.

Yes, we are going to settle them there, but the sore point and the reason for this amendment is the question of land ownership.

What is the good of taking away freehold title and then allowing the Bantu to continue to live there?

Where must they live then? Surely areas have to be developed for them on such a scale that one will be justified in saying that one expects them to live there. We are their guardians and they are governed by the labour regulations. That law must be applied there and it cannot be applied at the moment. We will not be able to develop those areas properly unless the provisions of those five Acts can be applied there. I simply cannot understand the objection of hon. members to our making proper provision for single Bantu. The amendment states that we are breaking up families. Where are we breaking up families? The effect of this Bill will be to create a home for the single Bantu and all the families who are already there will be accommodated in the other established areas. The hon. member almost made our blood boil with his amendment which says that we contend that the Bantu must leave those areas and return to the Bantu homelands. Where does he get that from?

The Minister said so in his statement.

I was not here when the hon. the Minister spoke. I know what the hon. the Minister can say and cannot say about this measure. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister says that he did not say that. Is the hon. member satisfied that the hon. Deputy Minister denies having said that? [Interjection.] That is not the purpose of this measure. The purpose is to remove the married people from those areas to other established residential areas.

Do the same thing with the single Bantu then.

No, that is not our purpose. [Laughter.] What is so funny about that? At the time when we had the locations in the sky those hon. members were not concerned about the fact that the Bantu were living under those conditions but now that we want to care for them and to control them in terms of these five Acts, they are opposed to it. [Interjections.] We want to control this area where at the moment there is no control. There is control in Langa and those other places. The provisions of all those Acts are of application there but at the moment those provisions cannot be applied to Alexandra.

And now it is a breeding ground for Poqo. The Judge said so.

That is not so. People who want to join Poqo can do so anywhere, even in Langa. But I am very disappointed. This is a measure that could be adopted by both sides of the House but for the fact that hon. members profess to feel so strongly about the principle of land tenure for the Bantu. This question of land ownership in any particular area sometimes creates one of our greatest problems. One can deal far more strictly with one’s own people than with the people whose guardian one is and hon. members ought to realize that. I cannot see why there should be any objection to a measure which aims at the best control of that area. If the provisions of those five Acts can be applied there, there will be better control and then we will be able to achieve our ultimate purpose, but at the moment we are faced with the position that no further improvement can be effected. Do hon. members not want to be consistent? The hon. member or North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) started off by praising the geat improvements that have been effected. Does he now want to frustrate the efforts to effect those improvements while that body itself states that it cannot go any further without this measure? We must not think that this is being done without recognizing the experience of the Peri-Urban Areas Board. Of course, the experience of that body is clearly acknowledged in this measure. The powers which exist in respect of the other areas are now also being given to them to enable them to effect further improvements. Why are hon. members opposed to this? It is simply because we have a Group Areas Act which can be applied in any White area. Why then can it not be applied in this small area which has as yet not been sufficiently developed, so that similar development can take place there? What do hon. members have against this? I think that if they reconsider the matter they will admit that in opposing a measure of this kind they have been guilty of one of the greatest political mistakes that they have made for a long time. No, I think the Opposition will come to their senses. Let them differ from us on the question of the ownership of land, but how will that help the Bantu? The question that we have to decide here is this: Are we going to give effect to the principle of Bantu land ownership in that area or to all these measures for improvement which will be of great assistance to those Bantu, which they are looking forward to and which will create a great future for them and place them on an equal footing with all the other Bantu on the Witwatersrand? We as a responsible Government say that in order to carry out our functions as guardians of those people in the proper way, we do not want to treat them as step-children any longer but we want to treat them in the same way as we treat the other Bantu. Unlike the United Party we are not going to allow ourselves to be influenced only by the fact that a few Bantu there have freehold title. What is the result of this fact that some Bantu there have free-hold title? The hon. member for North-East Rand himself has told us about the terrible things that happen there, notwithstanding the fact that the Bantu have freehold title there.

Without control, yes.

And now we want to exercise control there, but hon. members are opposing us. [Interjections.] I say that as this area falls within the constituency of that hon. member, I hope that before we come to the end of the final stage of this Bill, he will realize that he has been completely wrong and that the people in his constituency will not thank him for having opposed a measure of this nature, a measure which is simply aimed at treating them in the same way as we are treating the Bantu in other parts of the Witwatersrand. [Interjections.] I want to make an appeal to these hon. members. The hon. the Minister is trying to do nothing but good for these people and hon: members must not oppose this measure. By means of these improvements we are going to do away with these areas which have been treated in such a stepmotherly fashion in the past.

Mr. Speaker, after the light relief afforded by the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg), it is difficult to bring oneself back again to serious matters. The hon. member for Krugersdorp nevertheless made a few statements with which I would like to deal. The first was that he said that it was not the intention to remove married families from Alexandra and to send them away from that area. He stated that the shacks would be pulled down and that they would be rehoused in decent houses. Is that what the hon. member said?

I did not say that, but I meant to imply it. I said the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) had alleged that they would be sent back to the Bantu homelands and that that was not correct.

The hon. member now says that what he meant to convey was that the slums would be pulled down and proper houses built and they would be resettled in proper houses. Then I wonder why, instead of doing research into what someone said in 1923, he did not consult with his own Minister, who on 25 March 1963 said the following—

Surely that is clear. Housing on a family basis is to be gradually abolished, but this hon. member says that the idea is that they will be resettled in decent houses.

But not in Alexandra.

Now the hon. member comes with a different story. But the Minister went even further. He said—

In other words, the person who wants to retain those rights must leave and go back to the Bantustans.

That is a misrepresentation of the facts.

The Deputy Minister says this is misrepresentation. His own Minister’s statement says that those who want to have free-hold rights must go to the Bantu homelands.

They can get it there. Show me where the Minister said they must go there. [Interjections.]

I challenge the Minister to get my Hansard and he will find that he is trying to mislead this House. I stated clearly and specifically that those Bantu who have free-hold title and who wish to retain freehold title would have to go to the Bantustans for it. How else can they get it? The Deputy Minister’s own Minister says they will have to go to the Bantustans to get freehold title.

I made that statement. What you read out was issued in the name of the Minister, but you misunderstand it.

I admit that when this Government uses words, they do not mean what words generally mean. A word used by this Government has the meaning they wish to give to it. The Minister said that property owners will have the choice of getting property rights in the Bantu homelands, and in simple Afrikaans it means that the man who wants to have freehold title will have to go to the Bantu homelands to enjoy it.

But that has always been the position.

Now we have established two facts which are fundamental to our opposition to this Bill. The first is that family life is to be disrupted and destroyed.

Nonsense!

The Minister says—

What does that mean in this Minister’s Afrikaans? If that does not mean that family life is to be disrupted and destroyed, then I want to know what it means. [Interjections.] Our two points of objection are now clear. Coming to the question of the meaning of words, I say again that the Minister in his statement of 25 March used the clear words that “huisvesting op ’n gesinsbasis sal gaandeweg uitgeskakel word”.

To my understanding that meas that “huisvesting” on a “gesinsbasis” (family basis) …

How will that happen in Alexandra?

The hon. the Minister issued a statement saying that it was their policy to develop housing for single people and that family life, family housing, would gradually be abolished. That is one of our two objections to this Bill. The Minister stated clearly and specifically, although he is trying to evade the statement now in this House, that it is the intention at Alexandra to abolish family life.

No.

Take up your Afrikaans classes again.

Well, then, I fail to understand the Minister. I fail to understand a policy aimed at eliminating housing on a family basis, which is not going to destroy family life. If the elimination of housing on a family basis does not mean the destruction of family life in that area, then I do not know what it means.

It does not mean that.

The hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling) would not understand anyway, even if he knew what we were talking about.

May I put a question to you? If you take away a family in Block A and say that families will no longer live there in the future but you then make provision for families in Block B. is that a destruction of family life?

I stated clearly that I was dealing with a statement in regard to Alexandra Township. I quoted from a statement and said that I was referring to Alexandra Township and I stated that I was referring to the abolition of family life in Alexandra Township.

Not family life—family housing.

Family housing means family life. I know of no normal family which has a family life without a house to live in. If that Minister wants people to live in caves or in tents, that is a different matter. Sir, if you have no family housing, then how do you have a family life? The only alternative is to say that you must live in a cave or in a tent. This sort of argument from the Minister that you can have family life without family housing is an indication of his attitude to this whole question, an attitude similar to that of the hon. member for Krugersdorp who spoke sneeringly of our putting up a tight because of the minor issue of freehold title rights. Am I correctly interpreting what the hon. member said? He asked why we were putting up this fight over the minor issue of title deeds.

It is a vital issue.

I am asking him if that is correct or not.

No, he is afraid to answer.

The implication certainly was that we were wasting a lot of breath and effort over the minor issue of freehold title, an issue which we could settle in other debates but one which was not important here. Sir. I want to warn that hon. member and the Government: They are engaged at the moment in giving rights to Bantu self-governing areas. A title deed which a man acquires by purchase or inheritance should be a sacred right with which no Government tampers, and if we as a White Parliament of the Republic of South Africa set the example of treating a title deed with contempt then we are saying to the Bantu self-governing areas that they in their turn can adopt the same attitude towards the freehold title of the White man who will be in their area. If freehold title means nothing, it cannot mean nothing in Alexandra and nothing outside Grehamstown but mean something in the Transkei. What this Government is saying by implication is that the Bantu in the Transkei can treat the title deed of the White man with equal contempt. If a title deed means nothing to us then we have no right to demand that it should mean anything to anyone else. I warn this Government that this attitude of contempt for the right of ownership is one which will cost the White man of South Africa very dearly if this Government persists along that road. It is setting an example which this Government and every White man in South Africa will yet rue because of the implication which it holds for other people who will have these powers. It may be a minor issue in the eyes of the hon. member for Krugersdorp but to us it is a major issue. The two issues on which we have lodged our objection to this Bill are those two major issues of freehold title and the right of a family to live together in a home in decent surroundings. It is a pity that this Government, on a matter which needs attention—as Alexandra Township admittedly needs attention—and as the Fingo Township outside Grahamstown admittedly needs attention, and as the township outside Maritzburg needs it …

You do not accept that it needs attention. Your deeds prove it.

Of course we accept it. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) stated that we recognize the need for better administration. We recognize the need for cleaning up. The hon. member for South Coast admitted that he blamed all Governments, but it so happens that this one has been in power for the last 15 years and therefore they must accept the immediate blame. We accepted, however, that all Governments are to blame and that there is a need for better administration. Sir, if this Government would be prepared to do two things it would have the support of this side of the House; one is to eliminate from this Bill the provision for arbitrary expropriation of land other than for housing or health purposes, i.e. for the resettlement of families in family homes or for health reasons. We have no objection to expropriation on those two grounds. We have no objection to expropriation under the Housing Act or the Slums Act. What we object to is this arbitrary right to expropriation under Clause 16 (2) of the Native Urban Areas Act. If the Minister would eliminate the power of arbitrary ex-propriation for no other reason than to remove freehold title and if he would give the assurance that controlled and normal family life will continue in the areas falling under this Bill, then he would have the full and un-equivocal support of this side of the House. Those are our only two objections, but because they are fundamental objections, objections which go to the very roots of the political differences in South Africa, they are objections on which we have based our amendment. I say that they are fundamental because we in the United Party believe and have always believed that unless you allow a man to put his roots into the soil of the country in which he lives, you can expect no loyalty to that country from him, and with it goes much more than loyalty. A man who has a plot of ground, which is his own, which he knows will be his own as long as he has paid for it and which he knows he can pass on to his children and they in turn to his grandchildren, a man who has a plot on which he has built a home in which he leads a normal, decent life with his wife, his children and with his furniture and his possessions around him. has something to fight for; he has something to believe in and something to hold onto; he has something to preserve. That man who owns a plot of ground and who in that home which he has built upon it leads a normal, decent life, has reason to look upon the policeman, for instance, as the man who protects what is his. He has reason to look on the law as the protector of his property, and not as an oppressor, not as a person who demands a pass, and not as a person who applies laws that he does not like. Immediately he has something which is his own the law becomes to him something which matters to him, which is to his benefit and to his advantage. The ownership of that plot, with that home and what is in it, makes of that man a friend of law and order. It means that when he sees the policeman on patrol, he looks to that policeman with respect and with gratitude for the protection that he gets from him. He does not wonder in his mind whether the policeman is coming to look for skokkiaan or whether he is coming to ask him for a pass or whether he is coming to apply one or other law, because, more important than anything else, he has in his mind the knowledge that that policeman is protecting what is his. From that knowledge from the feeling that the law is something which is worth preserving, he becomes the strongest ally on the side of law and order that this Government or any Government in South Africa could ever have. By building up a group of those people you are building up a responsible class of people, a people who should have exemption from many of the restrictive provisions which are necessary for a migrant undeveloped people but which can be lifted for people who have established themselves with roots in something which is their own. With those exemptions, for which we have always stood, plus freehold title, you will build up the nucleus of a responsible class, which is the one thing above all others for which we should strive. We will then build up a class who will fight with the forces of law and order against the forces of anarchy and revolution, because to that man revolution and anarchy mean the destruction of his own property even before it means the destruction of yours or mine. He is nearer to the anarchist; he is the first to suffer and therefore he is the first to fight with us to preserve law and order. Instead of that fundamental approach, instead of recognizing the need to build up friends for the rule of democracy and of order, this Government is building hostels, is going to replace these homes with hostels into which it stuffs human beings like ciphers. Admittedly there will be single people, single people whom there always will be and who are housed in single quarters. We have always had single quarters in every major urban housing scheme, but it is quite clear from the Minister’s own statement that the intention is that they are not to be complementary housing schemes for the surplus single people; they are to be the exclusive objective of Alexandra. The elimination of housing on the family basis is the object of this Bill in Alexandra. They are therefore aiming not at adding additional housing for single people; they are not aiming at cleaning up Alexandra; they are aiming at creating mass barracks, barracks in which they are to stuff people divorced from all the normal amenities of family life. When I say “stuff them into” those buildings I mean that they will be put into those buildings instead of living in homes in a normal atmosphere. We believe that in creating that atmosphere of military barracks you are creating the atmosphere from which trouble will flow. Not only is this measure designed to destroy the value of family life and freehold title, it does not only destroy what could be an asset to law and order, but it puts in place thereof the very opposite, the breeding ground of trouble, incitement and disorder. Where did the worst trouble take place in Durban? In the slums and in the single barracks. In Cape Town the single barracks are acknowledged as the home and the seat of the trouble-maker. We will give our wholehearted support to this Bill if the Minister will make those two exceptions—firstly if he will not destroy normal home life and secondly if he will not destroy what to us is a sacred trust, i.e. the duty of a Government to respect ownership and title. If the Minister will give those two undertakings we will support every other clause in this Bill. We will help him to clean up Alexandra because we believe that that is necessary: we will help him to clean up the other areas where it is necessary; we will give him every other power, but we are not prepared, behind the smoke screen of cleaning up what is an admitted evil, to abandon what to us are fundamental principles, principles which we believe are fundamental to the future of this country if we are ever to have harmonious co-existence between White and non-White in the years which lie ahead of us. Therefore I support the amendment.

I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you will agree with me that if the speech of the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) was his head and his neck, was his brain, he would have no head or brain at all. In all my experience in this House I have never seen a more pathetic attitude adopted by the Opposition. But there was something else that struck me. Over the past few days we have been dealing here with what I want to describe as the attitude of a “but” party. We have had a strange enthusiasm for Government measures, like this measure which we are discussing at the moment, consistently and without exception, but always with a “but I foresee that it is this “but”, this tail of the dog, that will in the distant or the near future quite possibly wag the body of that dog. That is an encouraging sign but it is also pathetic because confusion is always the mark of an adolescent. We are dealing here with political adolescence which is an indication of very great political confusion as a result of the difficult position in which the Opposition find themselves because of a lack of political points of principle.

I rise as one of the representatives of the Rand and as one representing a constituency which is very greatly affected by this measure both in general and in particular. I want to start by replying to the remark of the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) when he challenged the hon. member for Krugersdorp (Mr. M. J. van den Berg) to stand against him at the next election. I just want to remind him that our constituencies border upon one another. I have here a cutting of a statement made by the town clerk of Randburg, one of the north-western suburbs of Johannesburg. This was the statement he made in pursuance of the official attitude adopted by his council and apparently by all the taxpayers or most of the taxpayers in that urban area. He said. [Translation.]—

Those areas to the north of Johannesburg also include my colleague’s constituency as well as areas bordering on the municipal area of Johannesburg, areas like Sandown and so forth, which at present fall under a Peri Urban Board. This is in direct contrast with the attitude that we have seen revealed here by all the speakers on the Opposition side—that hostels for single Natives will be the breeding ground of agitators.

How far away from Alexandra is that?

Eight miles. I want to reply to the statement that compounds and hostels will be the breeding ground of agitation. I want to remind hon. members that they have criticized the wrong people this afternoon. It was interesting for me to see how the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) and the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) stepped into the breach for the Johannesburg members. We were very interested to see what their attitude was going to be. Do you know why they did not stand up to speak? Because the voters and the tax-payers of Johannesburg agreed with this statement of the Randburg Town Council, and I want to prove it. The hon. member for North-East Rand has a hostel for single Bantu males in his constituency—the hostel at Norwood housing 700 Bantu males. He did not object to that; he did not attack the Johannesburg Municipality. There are other examples as well. There is the Waterval compound (1,800), Norwood (700), Wemmer (2,809), Mai-Mai (399), Wolhuter (3,123), Denver (3,332), and George Goch (3,000), a total within the municipal boundaries of Johannesburg of more than 15,000. and this does not include the locations in the sky; I am not including the complex to the north of Smith Street. Hospital Hill (4,400 women and 9,000 men).

Here we have a total of nearly 30,000. You see, therefore, Mr. Speaker, that we have to deal here with political adolescence, with day-dreaming. These attacks of the Opposition must be directed at the Johannesburg Municipality if the Oposition want to be logical and consistent. I am afraid that we cannot accept the argument that hostels must be regarded as being the breeding grounds for agitation and incitement.

It was also said here that by removing families from Alexandra we are breaking up homes. That is an absolutely outrageous statement. If we remove families to other pro-claimed location areas because Alexandra is being set aside for single Natives, are we then guilty of breaking up homes? Is that not a far-fetched and ridiculous statement and does it also not prove a lack of arguments on the part of the Opposition? We have experienced the pathetic example here of the lack of a policy on the part of that party. It is a “but” party. We hope and trust that they will become a positive party which will support this Government and its policy.

The next argument of the Opposition was against expropriation. They suggested that the principle of expropriation was a completely new principle which was being introduced in this measure. Why do they mislead their own voters and the public in this way instead of saying that the protection of the freehold rights of the non-Whites is a basic requirement for their integration policy? By means of this measure we are eliminating the difference that exists between the Bantu in a proclaimed location area and the Bantu in these designated areas. We want to be fair and just but do you know, Mr. Speaker, who the people are who are secretly behind this whole matter? They are the “shopkeeper” politicians and supporters of the United Party in the northern suburbs. They can continue with their hostels at Norwood and elsewhere where 30,000 Bantu are accommodated under the protection of the Johannesburg Municipality because it is in their own interests to do so. In this case there is no principle at stake it suits the “shopkeeper” politician. The Opposition are playing with fire because they receive their instructions from those people and there is a complete lack of logic on the party of these people. In my humble opinion this is unfair and unjust. I go further. This measure is also of local interest to myself and my constituency. A survey taken in Randburg has proved that we have to deal there with a certain measure of over-population as far as the Bantu are concerned. Randburg itself does not have a proclaimed area that can be classified as a location with the result that it cannot take action against the Bantu sleeping illegally on premises and the families and relations of Bantu sleeping in the back yards. This measure gives Randburg the opportunity of accommodating its Bantu labour at Alexandra which will mean that it will be able to put an end to many of these irregularities. It has been found that at the moment there are about 500 Bantu families totalling 2,500 souls living at Randburg. The single Natives in Randburg number 1,540, three-fifths of the total Bantu population, and no objection has ever been taken to that fact. No objection has ever been lodged that agitation was taking place, that families were being broken up there. This ratio not only exists in Randburg but I make so bold as to say that it exists in most of the suburbs in Johannesburg. According to this pattern three-fifths of the total Bantu population must consist of single Natives, but that is no injustice. I am not even talking about the mine compounds now. How many hundreds of thousands of single Natives are not accommodated in the mine compounds? No, there is nothing wrong with that. Here we again have the “shopkeeper” mentality. It suits the convenience and is to the material advantage of a certain group of our people.

The expropriation of land in Alexandra took place on a voluntary basis and almost one-quarter of that land was given up by the Whites there. Land belonging to Whites were recently expropriated in Nancefield; land belonging to Whites was expropriated for the benefit of the Bantu. But the Opposition did not say that this was unjust. There is a non-White hostel in Nancefield accommodating more than 5,000 single Bantu. No, we hear nothing about that. Mr. Speaker, the attempts being made here by the Opposition to attack the measure are certainly very feeble ones. I want to reply to the remarks of my neighbour, the hon. member for North-East Rand and I want to challenge him to convene a meeting in my constituency in the vicinity of Honeydew-Northriding. He can invite all his own supporters; I shall see to it that there are none of my supporters there, only myself. I predict that at a meeting of this nature I will give him the biggest hiding of his life. He will lose because of his own supporters. Why will he lose? Because it was these people who through the good offices of the Minister and the town council of Randburg decided not to support the proclamation of an area for the purpose of building a location in those parts. I have merely mentioned this to illustrate the ridiculous and illogical attitude of hon. members opposite. I expected a stronger reaction on the part of the Johannesburg representatives, I did not expect them to leave it to their friends representing the Natal constituencies to step into the breach for them in this connection. We are prepared to accept the challenge and if they have a glove to throw down, we are prepared to pick it up. We have worked for the upliftment of the Bantu in Alexandra, also as a member of the Alexandra Health Board. We knew it when its streets could not be distinguished from streams of water and trash heaps. We have worked without reward and because of a desire to improve that area. I challenge any of those hon. members to prove that the thinning out of the number of people there—the population has already been reduced by half—cannot eliminate all the evils of lack of control, for example, the sheltering of criminals and unhygienic conditions. This will be in the interests of the White community in the vicinity as well as in the interests of the non-Whites themselves. The United Party boasts about the fact that their party gives the lead in the Johannesburg City Council and hides the fact that they have been applying this policy in practice for some time—the erection of hostels for single Natives. I hope in any case that they will henceforward in this debate not again raise the ridiculous and illogical arguments that they have raised here this afternoon.

The challenge which the hon. member for North West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) issued to the hon. member for North East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst) is really amusing. It means nothing. I have no doubt that the man from North East Rand will win. We believe that our policy of properly settled Natives is the correct one. We believe that properly settled Native families are the strongest bulwark against crime and anti-White propaganda. We have no doubt about that. We deplore the proposition which is provided for in this Bill to build huge single flats, flats that will displace settled Native families. We believe that a man who has title to land will always be in the frontline ready to fight for his country. That is why the United Party favours Natives having title to erven because when they do have title they become good South African citizens and they will stand behind us in all our troubles. Here in the Cape, where the majority of Natives live away from their wives we have seen Poqo develop. I particularly deplore the provision in Clause 2 (a) of this Bill that an area situated in the jurisdiction of an urban local authority can, with the concurrence of the local authority concerned, be proclaimed a designated area. I have no doubt that under the provisions of this Bill the Fingos in the Fingo location at Grahamstown will be deprived of their title to erven, title which they have held for well over a hundred years. In fact they hold title to properties for a longer period than most White people in Grahams-town themselves. They are proud of their title deeds and I can assure the hon. Minister that if he were to meet those Fingos he would be surprised to see what a fine type of individual they are. I want to plead that the Fingo location at Grahamstown will not be brought under the operation of this Bill. This location is situated in the Municipality of Grahamstown; it is subject to exactly the same control as other areas in Grahamstown and if there is anything wrong, such as the development of slum conditions, those conditions have developed purely on account of slackness on the part of the Municipality of Grahamstown. They can easily be excised without expropriation. If there is anything wrong with that location it is the responsibility of the Municipaity of Grahamstown. I have no doubt whatever about that. I also deplore the future plans that this location should become an area where there should be industrial development. These things happen when it is the intention to deprive people of their title. It may also be that there is some jealousy of these Fingos. Those Fingos were granted title to that land on account of the services they rendered during the Native wars. They fought in all our Native wars. They have always been on the side of the White man. They religiously have annual celebrations to commemorate their liberation from the Xhosa people. They are people who will always be with us. I think in present day circumstances we should foster the friendship and the loyalty of people of that type. We may have to depend on these people in future. I plead with this House that the Fingos of the Fingo location at Grahamstown should not be subjected to any injustices in terms of this Bill. Perhaps the Minister may give us an undertaking to that effect in his reply. I doubt whether he will be able to do so because of the wide provisions of this Bill and because of the two Acts under which this property can be expropriated. The Municipality of Grahamstown is purchasing all those erven which come up for sale. I have no objection to that, but that will take a very long time and the patience of the Municipality may become exhausted. The Municipality have ambitions for that favourable site which is to-day occupied by the Fingos.

Do they buy it in a free market?

Yes. It will take a long time to purchase the 390 erven which are to-day held by the Fingos in Grahamstown. I am afraid that the Municipality may favour this area being declared a designated area. I want to come to a higher authority. I want to come to this House, and plead the cause of the Fingos at Grahamstown. I think that the taking away of this land from the Fingos will be equivalent to the taking away of a Victoria Cross from a man who has won it for an act of bravery. Those Fingos saved the lives of many White people. My father fought with the Fingos in the last Kafir War. Those Fingos went into the bush after the Xhosas. They have served us in a way which we should never forget. I think we should regard the giving of title to those people as something sacred. These people, from their point of view, own that land because they have merited it because of loyal service. I think that service of a people to a nation is something which we, as the House of Parliament, should never ignore.

We are dealing here with a Bill which provides for the better administration of certain designated areas. Because Fingotown is only one of those areas and because I know nothing of that part of the world, I think that the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) who has just sat down, will not take it amiss if I do not reply to what he had to say.

So far the whole debate has actually centred around one of the other areas covered by this Bill, namely Alexandra, and I want to return to this point therefore. At the outset I want to say that I was struck particularly by the fact that the question of Alexandra was discussed chiefly by the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell), the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) and the hon. member for North-East Rand (Brig. Bronkhorst). I say that it is striking because these members live in a completely different part of the country. I want to say further that what struck me more, and even amused me, was the fact that the other Witwatersrand members, particularly those hon. members who were formerly members of the Johannesburg City Council, have made no effort so far to discuss this matter. I thought that the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) would certainly participate in this debate because there are no less than 8,000 Bantu from Alexandra employed in his constituency. I thought that the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) would also discuss this matter so that we could hear his views in this regard. What struck me most was that the two ex-Mayors of Johannesburg whom we have here with us have not yet participated in this debate. That to my mind is very significant. I gained the impression— and I would like the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) if he speaks after me to tell me if I am correct—that their silence thus far has been due to the fact that they know how the Johannesburg City Council feels about this matter and that they do not want to embarrass their party in this regard. It is a remarkable thing to my mind that they are trying to hide the contact that they have with those people. They try to advance other arguments and they prefer to overlook the fact that in its search for a solution to, amongst other things, the problems connected with the locations in the sky and the backyard Bantu within the White areas, the Johannesburg Municipality which has to deal with the real problem is of the opinion that hostel accommodation must be made available for those people. I would like the hon. member for Hospital and the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) to reply to me if they do participate in this debate.

It seems to me that the main argument against this Bill so far has dealt primarily with this question of freehold title. The hon. member for Durban (Point) went so far as to say that one of his most important objections was a fundamental objection. I maintain that the opposite is the case. I contend that the objections which have been raised here by the United Party are not fundamental objections but opportunistic objections. I want to prove what I have just said. In the first place I want to say that the United Party have not always objected to this matter about which they have now had so much to say. To prove this I want in the first place to quote what Minister P. G. W. Grobler, a former Minister of Native Affairs, said in this House on 5 April 1937 during the second reading debate on the Native Laws Amendment Bill. Before I quote this I want to emphasize the fact that he made this statement at the time as a Minister of the United Party. He dealt with various aspects of the matter and then went on to say—

May I ask a question?

If the hon. member wants to ask a question, he can participate in the debate. I contend that the United Party could have had no fundamental objection to segregation in the matter of freehold title if this was the attitude that they adopted over the years together with this side of the House of which I am a member. They supported that Bill at the time and at that stage there was no question of any fundamental objection to segregation in the matter of land ownership.

I want to mention a second example and I make no apology at all for doing so. I want to mention the example of Sophiatown.

This is becoming boring.

I know very well why the hon. member for Hospital does not want me to mention the example of Sophiatown again. They have a very guilty conscience as far as Sophiatown is concerned. I said in another debate yesterday—and I want to repeat it now—that in September 1937 on the motion of Mr. Sarel Tighy who was a member of the United Party, the United Party controlled City Council of Johannesburg accepted that Sophiatown had to be cleared and that the Bantu living there had to be removed. That decision was taken in spite of the fact that there were Bantu living in Sophiatown who had freehold title there, just as in the case of Alexandra to-day. I say again that the objections raised by the United Party cannot be fundamental objections; they are opportunistic objections. This decision that the removal should take place was renewed after two years. They therefore had sufficient time to consider the matter if they did have fundamental objections to segregation in the matter of freehold title.

The other objection is the objection to hostels, chiefly hostels for single persons. I admit that this may not perhaps be the ideal solution, but I want to repeat that in searching for a solution it was not only the Minister who has introduced this legislation who saw the solution in the fact that such hostels should come into being but also the City Council of Johannesburg as well, the body which has to deal with the practical problem. I regard this as being quite natural because I want to say that in the Bantu residential areas, the locations of Johannesburg, there is hostel accommodation for 24,264 Bantu men and women. My hon. friend the member for North-West Rand also mentioned a figure but the figure that I have is higher than his. The source of my information is Mr. Patrick Lewis, the Chairman of the Johannesburg Committee for non-White Affairs.

What did he say?

The hon. member can read what he said in Hansard. But that is not all. I want to ask you Mr. Speaker, how a person can have a fundamental objection to a hostel for single Bantu if in the location in that person’s own area provision is made for 24,264 Bantu men and women.

I want to go further. The Johannesburg Municipality made hostel accommodation available to 11,661 Bantu within the White residential area, not in the locations but in the White residential areas. The names of a few of those hostels were mentioned by the hon. member for North-West Rand. I have a long list here.

Read it.

I do not suffer from the same ailment as that hon. member does, and that is to everything that I can lay my hands on. Municipal compounds for single Bantu still exist to-day in the White residential areas of Johannesburg in which 9,143 Bantu are housed. This gives us a total of 20,809. I want to ask, Mr. Speaker, how can one have a fundamental objection to hostels for single Bantu if this is the position for which one’s own Government has been responsible?

According to the information given to me by Mr. Lewis there are about the same number of Bantu men as there are Bantu women in the Johannesburg Municipal area to-day. The objection that has been raised to-day therefore is not as serious as hon. members have tried to suggest, apart from the fact that I doubt whether it is a fundamental objection on their part. I come back to the point that this Bill is necessary and that I support it because it paves the way for a solution to the problem which we have to deal with in Johannesburg. I want to repeat that it is also the solution to the problem of the Johannesburg City Council, the problem of the location in the sky. Last week I referred to this matter in another debate. I drew the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that the formula agreed upon between the Johannesburg City Council and his Department did not make provision for the control of Bantu women and that during the course of the five year period between 1955 and 1961, the number of licensed Bantu women in the Johannesburg municipality increased from 5,866 to 10,632. I also want to mention a few more figures which I have taken at random. In Killarney, one of the residential areas for the rich in Johannesburg, there are 27 blocks of flats. On the roofs of those 27 blocks of flats there are 1,408 Bantu who are legally licensed to be there. With your knowledge of the custom of the Bantu of living together and taking in free boarders, how many Bantu, Mr. Speaker, would you say slept on the roofs of those 27 blocks of flats every night? I also think that this explains the busloads of Bantu travelling to the northern suburbs of Johannesburg each evening, because there is no location in that vicinity. These are the people living on the roofs of those blocks of flats. It is in an effort to find a solution to that problem, amongst others, that this legislation is necessary. I also want to emphasize the figures mentioned by the hon. member for North-East Rand. In the northern urban area of Johannesburg there are 9,000 Bantu males living on the roofs of blocks of flats. I do not think that I need elaborate any further on this point. To sum up I say that this Bill is an honest attempt to find a solution to a very important and difficult problem. The Government is being supported in this by the opinion of the experts of the Johannesburg Municipality. I do not think that it is fitting for the United Party to say that they have fundamental objections to these conditions which they themselves allowed to develop.

I just want to mention the advantages which that area will enjoy if this legislation is passed and it is possible to make the provisions of the various Acts which have been mentioned here of application to that area. One of the important problems that the Johannesburg City Council has to deal with, a problem which has caused a great deal of trouble in the northern areas of Johannesburg—I do not live there—is the large number of Bantu who flock to the Zoo Lake every Sunday and public holiday. The numbers cannot be determined but it has already been contended in the Press that up to 20,000 of them flock there on a Sunday or public holiday. This plan includes the provision of facilities for these people at Alexandra so that they will go there and so that the Zoo Lake problem will be solved. How a member like the hon. member for Florida who served for many years on the Johannesburg Committee dealing with the Native Services Levy can say that the application of the provisions of that Act will not be to the advantage of that area, is something that passes my comprehension. I give him credit for more sense than that, and I do not think that he will make that point. But this Bill and the Urban Bantu Councils Act which makes consultation with those people possible, is of so much importance to them that I cannot see how a party can adopt an attitude which seeks to deprive those people of all these benefits. That is why I say that the attitude adopted by the United Party in connection with this Bill has really been disappointing and I think to some extent, disturbing as well. I want to conclude by saying that the two important objections that they have raised are not fundamental but purely opportunistic.

This House yesterday passed the General Law Amendment Act in order to endeavour to counter the subversive organizations which there are in the country and threatening from outside. When this side supported that measure, it made it clear that it hoped that immediately a start would be made with tackling some of the underlying causes which provide a seedbed for the flourishing of such organizations. Now I submit that the measure before us fails in at least four respects to do that. I think in four respects it will indeed perhaps make that seedbed more fertile, and in the course of elaborating these four respects I hope to reply to many of the points made by the hon. member for Westdene.

Let it be said immediately that this side of the House wants to see all the designated areas cleaned up, and that we wish to ensure that the people are living in healthy, appropriate surroundings, with proper sporting facilities and other things. It is very gratifying to hear that under the existing position, the hon. Minister’s Department has been able to reduce the number of people in Alexandra to a more appropriate figure, indeed to reduce it by 50,000. I think therefore that one can see that the further steps which are contemplated are particularly linked with what one might call the Government’s Bantustan policy, as I shall indicate in what I say.

The Deputy Minister went out of his way to link this measure with the Press statement of the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In that statement appears the following passage—

So far therefore as Alexandra is concerned, this statement makes it crystal clear that it is to remain a Native area, that housing on a family basis (I repeat so far as Alexandra is concerned), is to be eliminated and that in place thereof hostels and compounds are to be built. On that basis apparently approximately 30,000 people will be housed. This immediately provides a part answer to what was said by the hon. member for Westdene, and others. There is no comparable situation in Johannesburg or anywhere else where 30,000 Bantu, male and female, are housed in one small section of a town. There are, admittedly, scattered around in the townships of Johannesburg, a very big area, certain hostels which do contain single people but nothing comparable with this has ever existed before. And another thing that has never existed before to my knowledge is that you are going to create hostels for single Native women. I think that is entirely unheard of.

No, they are in existence to-day.

Certainly not on the scale that is contemplated here. I think therefore that one thing emerges immediately from this, and that is that the policy behind this Bill, so far as Alexandra is concerned, is the housing in hostels in contra-distinction to housing on the basis of family units and some single units. The second principle which emerges is that migrant labour, as opposed to settled labour, again is being forced forward here.

Mr. Speaker, commission after commission, set up by both the party opposite and this party, has condemned such a state of affairs. I want to remind hon. members of various passages in reports of commissions of the past which say this, because, perhaps in the heat and struggle of the party battle to-day, it can be overlooked what was the wisdom of the past. Firstly let me refer to the commission appointed to inquire into assaults on women in 1913 [U.G. 39—1913] which stated—

That was in 1913.

That is exactly what they will get here.

How can you have family life in single quarters?

In 1932, in paragraph 500 of the Report of the Native Economic Commission, the following statement is set out—

And above all I want to quote this—

That was in 1932 under the government of the now-ruling party. Let me refer to the report of the Departmental Committee which was appointed in July 1935 to inquire into the question of residence of Natives in urban areas. I read paragraph (26)—

That is precisely what is the main object of the Bill read with the Press statement, and it is the precise objection which this side has formulated in its amendment. That was a report brought out by an inter-departmental committee consisting of Government servants as long ago as 1935, since which time the position has become more urgent and the facts point much more to the wisdom of the statement there made.

Turning now to the year 1948, we come to the Report of the Fagan Commission. It sets out in paragraph 59 (a) of that report that the migratory system can exist without detrimental social and moral consequences in three circumstances: (a) If it is limited to a very small proportion of any community; or (b) if the migration is for a very limited period; or (c) if the place of work is very near to the place where the workers are living. In other words, it is accepted that there is a place for it, and that is the approach which this party makes. That is the reason why there are some of these hostels in Johannesburg and else-where, but they comply with these conditions.

Does that apply to foreign Natives as well?

The Fagan Report in paragraph 59 (10) says—

That is the whole criticism of Alexandra. It is going to be a vast new experiment of single people, males and females, 30,000 of them, something quite unheard of, and in the words of this report it there “assumes large proportions”.

Let me remind this honourable House that a commission also appointed by the present Government, the van den Heever Commission on the Durban Riots in 1949, had this to say at page 20—

It goes on lower down—

No wonder the hon. member for North-East Rand has pleaded against that arrangement, while pleading strongly, as do we all, for the cleaning up of those areas and the establishment of those areas on a proper basis.

Pursuing still these two points of family life as against hostels, one must call to mind the attitude of the churches which are doubtless represented on both sides of the House. We all know how strongly all churches feel about the value of family life, which is so absolutely rejected in the creation of hostels for 30,000 single people in Alexandra.

They are there to-day.

Lest anybody thinks that the family unit is of less importance to our Native people, let me read to them a short passage from that authority on the social system of the Zulus, Mr. E. J. Krige. At page 23 he says—

He goes on further down at page 23—

The whole approach of the party opposite is that one should have, wherever possible, these single people although they may be married.

You are talking through you hat.

I am not saying here that they should be eliminated entirely, but where this side of the House stands for those units as a big factor in law and order and good relations, that hon. member leans over backwards to get rid of it and to have the wife and family in a homeland.

There is a further point which I feel works against the long-term good relations in this country, which is implicit in this measure and the way in which it has been explained to this House, and that is the whole question of the removal of the Natives to the Bantustans, because it will be seen in this statement by the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration on 25 March of this year that he says—

And there is a further passage which I want to mention where it speaks of rehousing certain of the Natives in Native townships on a family basis—

That is the passage I want to cite. There is the picture conjured up that these people will be able to be returned to these regional villages in the Bantustans. Mr. Speaker, we know that during the last ten years of Nationalist Government we have seen the number of Natives in our town areas grow from 2,300,000 to 3,400,000. We have seen that in the case of Whites the depopulation of the platteland was something that you could not reverse. We have seen no sign whatsoever in the measures that have been passed or the money that is being spent that that process is going to be reversed. On the contrary it is absolutely clear, when one knows the number of jobs that must be created for Natives presently in the reserves, that they will never be given employment there, let alone the question of enticing, of drawing back to the Native reserves others who are presently here.

What is happening in Umlazi to-day?

In other words, if the Government are at all serious in their intentions, they certainly are achieving nothing, and I say to have this statement from the hon. Minister, namely that they will be rehoused in regional villages in the Bantu areas, is a gross delusion of the worst kind and it is entirely unrealistic.

The fourth factor which, as I say, still further bedevils our relations here is that of eliminating the ownership that is there. This is a right which has existed since 1905 in the case of Alexandra. No adequate reason has been advanced why it should be changed. We know that without eliminating it a very big job of improvement has been done in Alexandra. The Government are simply doing this in order to carry out a theory; we are simply being blinded by the tidiness of the theory and quite avoiding the effect of the dissatisfaction which it can well cause and the further bedevilment of the situation.

So it is clear, I think, that on those four bases so far from improving the difficult situation which has had to be met by emergency legislation, we can expect a deterioration, and for those reasons it becomes necessary to oppose this Bill most strongly.

The objections of the Opposition to this legislation are mainly threefold. Firstly they object to the suspension of ownership this legislation will bring about in these designated areas. The second objection is in connection with the clause dealing with expropriation. The third objection they have raised deals with the establishment of hostels in Alexandra Township.

This entire debate has now assumed the colour of being an Alexandra debate. Permit me to emphasize once again that this is not an Alexandra debate. Its scope is much broader and greater. The hon. member for Pinelands (Mr. Thompson) really spoke on a subject of which he has no knowledge at all. What he has done is that he has raised a big Aunt Sally and he has now knocked this Aunt Sally down to his own satisfaction, and now he thinks he has made a splendid and wonderful speech. I should like to start with him. The hon. member began in this vein, that they yesterday supported the General Law Amendment Act because they made it a condition that conditions should not be created that will lead to the conduct that led to that legislation. That was his initial point. Now I should like to say at once that this Bill has in fact been introduced to clear up those conditions that lead to measures such as the General Law Amendment Act, so that those agitators should not have hiding places, so that we can eliminate these slum conditions. Secondly the hon. member said that all of them are in favour of the clearing up of the designated areas. If they are sincere with that proposition that the designated areas should be eliminated, I would say at once that they should then support this Bill wholeheartedly. Because not a single slum in our country, wherever it may be situated, and whether there are White people or Black people or Brown people living there, can be eliminated unless you have the right to expropriate.

You can do so under the existing legislation.

You have had your turn, and show us now that your brain is bigger than you neck. The second objection of the Opposition to the Bill is the expropriation clause. But the hon. the Deputy Minister has put it very clearly to them that we shall as far as possible remove this right of ownership by voluntary purchases. But we know, do we not, that whenever there is slum clearance of any area, whether it be White people or Black people or Brown people, there are always a few who thwart the process, and the right of expropriation is required with a view to those few. But why do hon. members who are anxious to have slum clearance all over now also make a racial issue of this particular slum clearance? Why do they want to give this debate a racial slant also? It has nothing to do with it at all. It is a slum that is being cleared. It so happens now that Black people are living there. But the areas have to be cleared and that is why these powers are necessary.

Now I come to the further objection, the elimination of freehold rights. The members of the Opposition in 1936 subscribed to a principle, and as recently as last year still (I do not know whether they are still doing so this year) they said that they stood by the arrangements made in 1936 in respect of land for Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. Let me remind them what the arrangement was. The arrangement made in 1936 was that Whites would have ownership in White areas and that Bantu will be able to obtain freehold title in Bantu areas, but that Bantu would not be able to obtain freehold title in White areas, nor would Whites be permitted to obtain free-hold rights in Bantu areas. For those purposes certain areas were scheduled and certain areas were released. In 1905 freehold rights were acquired in Alexandra by non-Whites but in consequence of that legislation of 1936 that area was not declared a released area, and nor was it scheduled. In other words, according to the arrangement of 1936 it became or remained a White area. If hon. members opposite stand by the arrangement of 1936, surely then they should also be in favour of it being observed here.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you cannot hear it, but the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is incessantly speaking softly and he is disturbing the hon. member.

It does not appear that the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) is having much success with it.

The hon. member for Point cannot disturb me. I know when I am dealing with decent people and when I am dealing with uncouth people, and when I deal with uncouth people I just ignore them.

Order! Did the hon. member refer to another hon. member as an uncouth person?

I did not refer to hon. members. I say that I know when I am dealing with decent people and that when I am dealing with uncouth people, I ignore them. I did not make further reference to the hon. member.

I revert to the arrangement of 1936. At that time this area was not included in that arrangement, and so if we wish to adhere to the principles of 1936, it is no more than logical that we should now remove this anomaly, Alexandra. There are two very good reasons why we should clean up this place. The first is that it does not fall under that arrangement, but the second and most important is that it is a slum area which has to be cleared up. More than 100,000 people have been living in a small area of less than 400 morgen. They were teeming there like ants, and if those are not slum conditions that have to be cleared up I do not know what a slum is.

Now I come to the hon. member for Pinelands who speaks with so much wisdom. He says that hostels for 30,000 Bantu is something quite unheard of. But we did not say that all the hostels should constitute one single hostel. We are referring to “hostels” and whether these hostels now are 100 paces apart or half a mile apart, as you have it in Johannesburg at the present time, makes very little difference. The hon. member for Westdene has indicated very conclusively what a large number of hostels there are on the Rand at the present time within a very limited area, where at present more than 34,000 single Natives are accommodated. Whether they are within half a mile or 200 yards of one another makes no difference in principle, save that it will be possible to exercise better control and that the accommodation will be better, and that they will also have better sport and other amenities to occupy their leisure. Those are the advantages of having them together. The hon. member also says that having hostels for women is something new. That is why I say the hon. member does not know what he is talking about. He says it is something that is unheard of in South Africa.

He said “almost”.

No, he said it was something unheard of in South Africa, and when I made an interjection, that there were in fact some of these hostels on the Rand, he qualified it. If the hon. member wants to know what is going on, he should go to the Rand and see what the position is there at present, and not only on the Rand, in Natal also there are hostels for women.

But not on this scale.

The hon. member developed this argument further, and said that we are now creating a situation where we bring single persons there and accommodate them there, but he completely loses sight of the fact that the bachelor Bantu already are there. They are merely being settled in Alexandra instead of in locations in the sky, as in the past, or in backyards. We are not going to break up families in order to get single persons, but that is what hon. members are broadcasting to the world. They want to make a racial issue of everything. They pretend that we are breaking up families in order to get the people to accommodate in the hostels, which is a complete untruth. We are not going to break up a single family in order to get the single Bantu to put in the hostels. What is going to become of the families now living in Alexandra? The Minister has told us on more than once occasion what is going to be done. In the statement of 25 March it is stated also that those families will be resettled elsewhere in the urban residential areas, and as regards Alexandra, it will mean e.g. at Tembisa and at Diepkloof, where extensive schemes are now in progress for the settlement of families. We are not concerned with Alexandra alone, but with many other areas. Now the hon. member says that these regional townships of ours are pure bluff. That shows how little the hon. member knows. Numerous regional townships have been established and more of them are being established from day to day, but they are not situated in the bundu; they are contiguous to border industries. I have mentioned the example of Umlazi. There is a regional township being laid out near Eshowe. There is a whole series of townships being established where the people will be settled. Take the one we are engaged upon at the present time, for example, near Howick. At Howick there are a large number of squatters and slum conditions but there is a Bantu area within ten miles of Howick. Now we are laying out a regional township there on the borders of the Bantu area, so that all those families, and the bachelors too, may be settled there. That is not a bluff; these things are happening every day. [Interjections.] The figures the hon. member has quoted are out of date; they were compiled in 1960 when Umlazi was as yet only a small scheme. But does he not know that the Bantu at Umlazi—

The hon. member has referred to one commission after another which has condemned the system of migratory labour. The system of migratory labour, regarded by itself without the whole background of the broad policy of separate development, can be a monstrosity. Let me say at once that I do not regard Mr. Justice Fagan as an authority because, he has never yet had an inkling of what we mean by separate development. In my view his commission’s findings are so much nonsense. I take no notice of it, because it is out of date. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point (Mr. Raw) must now keep silent.

Migratory labour, seen against our policy, must take two factors into account. The first is the development of the border industries and the other is the homelands development which is now taking place. If we examine it against that background, it is not such a monstrosity as the hon. members say, because the development of border industries will mean that the Bantu will reside in the Bantu area with his family, while he will go and work in the White area without any disturbance of his family connections. That is one factor that should be taken into account, and it affects the main parts of South Africa. Take the areas where there are large numbers of Bantu, such as the Pretoria complex. Border industries are being developed there. Take the development in the Natal complex. There is hardly a single town with an industry in Natal which is not situated near a Bantu area where this system could be applied. In the Eastern Cape the position is the same. Seen against that background, the system of migratory labour is not such a monstrosity.

As regards the developments of homelands, I have never yet heard hon. members objecting to the migratory labour system on the mines. Of that they are proud, and the labour of the mines is nearly 100 per cent migratory labour, and not only migratory labour from South Africa, but from other parts, because nearly 80 per cent of the labour on the mines consists of foreign Bantu. Now the hon. member has quoted from a commission’s report that for the efficient-utilization of migratory labour, they should live near the area where they are employed. But not a single foreign Bantu is employed near the area where he lives. The hon. member has said that in certain cases migratory labour is good, and he was thinking of the mines, but when I asked him what about all the foreign Bantu working there he did not reply. The requirements he sets simply do not apply to the best example of migratory labour, namely on the mines.

Let me emphasize once again that the whole position as regards the bachelor Bantu is as follows: Let us take it as a fact that the majority of the Bantu working in the cities are there on a single basis, and not on a family basis. The family basis has only developed during the past five or ten years, when increasingly more families came to the cities. Every Bantu female working in the kitchen is there on a single basis. The majority of the Bantu working in the cities are there on a single basis. That indicates only one thing to me, that here we are not concerned with the problem of families which are broken up, but with migratory labour. Now hon. members come along and accuse the Government of breaking up families. It is the Bantu himself who is doing that, because he seeks employment on a single basis.

I wish to conclude with a final point regarding the landowners. In that statment of 25 March it is stated that those who have freehold title in the designated areas, will be able to obtain freehold title in the homelands. This hon. member with the short neck …

Order! The hon. member must not be so personal.

The hon. member for Point has said that because the Minister has said that those who have freehold title in Alexandra will now obtain freehold title in the homelands, it means that we are breaking up the families. In other words, the man stays behind and his family goes to the homeland to obtain freehold title there. But that is not what is intended. It is only that he can enjoy freehold title to his land in the homeland. It does not say that he should move together with his right. [Interjections.] It is logical that they should have freehold title there and not in the White area. I do not think hon. members have made out a case for their opposition to this Bill. On all three the grounds which have been raised, freehold title, expropriation, and the establishment of hostels—on not one of those points were they dealing with the actual facts. I take it amiss of the Opposition that when we are dealing with legislation of this nature, they always deal with it on a racial basis.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) gave as one of his main points of criticism the fact that the Opposition has diverted the attention of the House from the true implications of the Bill to a consideration of the situation in Alexandra, yet I have heard very little from him other than what concerns the large city of Johannesburg which is near by, and also criticism of the viewpoint of this side of the House with regard to the effects of this Bill on Alexandra, one of the specific townships mentioned as the target which this Bill will deal with. I would like to refer the hon. member to para. (3) of the White Paper, which says that there can only be justification for this Bill’s administration in respect of those areas where Bantu have acquired ownership of land; and the areas referred to are Alexandra, Evaton and the location near Grahamstown occupied by the Fingo. The hon. member further stated that the attitude of this side of the House was purely that of opportunism and that in fact the criticism was purely for overseas consumption, and that we endeavoured to make it appear that the purpose of the Bill was to destroy existent family life and replace it by a system whereby single people would live in townships such as Alexandra and the others mentioned.

The opposition to this Bill is based on the very clear policy of the United Party, and that is to promote settled family life for the Bantu in the urban areas where their labour is required, and also not to take from them the freehold rights they hold, and in fact in these satellite towns to give some measure of free-hold title under certain circumstances and under control. Just to indicate the sincerity of this side of the House, I would like to refer the hon. member, as well as the hon. member for Westdene, to a scheme which the Johannesburg City Council put into operation some 15 years ago, when it established the township of Dube, where the Government was prepared to agree to the lay-out of this township for occupation by Bantu on a long-lease basis of 99 years. In fact, a number of sites were acquired by Bantu on this basis, which is virtually permanent freehold ownership, and where some very fine homes costing from R3,000 to R6,000 have been built. Thereafter, as this Government got into its stride, it could not stomach the matter of a 99-year lease and reduced the period to a 30-year lease. Practically all the homes that have been built over the last ten years in the western complex of Johannesburg for the Bantu have been leased to them, or as it colloquially stated, sold to them, on a 30-year lease basis. The land remained the property of the local authority, but by a myth the buildings are the property of the leaseholder, and that myth goes further.

Why a myth?

It is a myth of ownership which you are trying to build up. It is lease-hold in so far as the land is concerned, and ownership in so far as the buildings are concerned. 70,000 families have been settled in those areas, most of whom have acquired these homes on a 30-year lease basis. The City Council of Johannesburg has proceeded with that scheme in order to build up settled family life. That has been the objective: to give labour a proper sense of stability and an opportunity of belonging, and to have family life and all the necessary amenities that go with a well-developed community, in order that there should be stable labour for Johannesburg. The proof of that pudding has been in the eating, because we have not seen any evidence yet in all these commissions and trials in regard to Poqo and other subversive movements, which shows that it flourishes in the Western Areas of Johannesburg. The indications seems to be that these subversive movements flourish best in the large hostels where single males live. Langa is one of the townships named and even at Paarl there was considerable criticism about the single quarters, and the problems which arose from it, which gave rise to the unfortunate incidents with which that commission dealt. So the United Party is perfectly clear in its attitude. It wants to maintain family life and the vested rights in these townships that the Bantu enjoy.

Alexandra was established in, I think, 1902, as a freehold township for Natives, who were able to acquire freehold land. Later it was established under the Native Land Act of 1913. It has never fallen directly under the control of any local authority, except under a health committee which was then established by the owners of that township and which for a number of years functioned extremely well, until the enormous influx of labour that came about in the post-war years when the development of industry drew labour in an uncontrolled fashion towards the towns where the work was, a natural economic development. That is one of the things this Government is trying to reverse, the flow of labour to the source of employment. When the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board took over the administration of Alexandra, they set it as their task to decrease the overcrowding there, and there was a great deal of co-operation from all sources to assist them in decreasing the overcrowding and to clean up the slum conditions. That has been going on steadily for some years and I can see no reason why suddenly there should be a change of policy in regard to Alexandra. The Minister of Native Affairs told Parliament in March 1957 that it was not intended to remove Alexandra, but it was necessary to reduce the number of inhabitants to reasonable limits. The whole issue differs entirely from Martindale and Sophiatown, There the idea was to remove all Bantu and establish a buffer between Whites and non-Whites, or alternatively, to settle a White community there, and that in fact is taking place. But here the objective was to reduce the overcrowding, but nevertheless to maintain Alexandra as a township for Bantu. What the Bill seems to indicate is that it is intended to clear Alexandra of the homes and to develop hostels on a large scale, to be used to house up to 20,000 single males and females. If the system of hostels for single Bantu has been so severely criticized by hon. members such as the hon. member for North-West Rand and the hon. member for Westdene, as an evil from which the City of Johannesburg is suffering, why do they not realize the importance of joining this side of the House in protesting against the use of Alexandra for the housing of single Bantu, as against the continued and proper establishment of homes in order to maintain family life for the workers who serve that particular area? The Minister has not explained to us clearly what the purpose is of Clause 2 (4) (d), where the Native Resettlement Board is introduced into the picture. We would like to know what the purpose is of the introduction of that Board. Why does he say that it will be used only for limited purposes? What are those limits? We gather from this Bill, and from the White Paper, that the object is to deal with three particular areas where Bantu own land in freehold and where, in order to conform with the policy of the Government, it is necessary to take that freehold from them, whether by negotiation and purchase or by expropriation, and to introduce the complete effects of the Native Urban Areas Act and all the other Acts dealing with Natives, so that these will have the same control over them as over any other location. But to use it for a purpose which we believe is detrimental to the interests of the community, both Black and White, because it will lead to the establishment of large hostels for single Bantu, with all the attendant evils of having large numbers of males and females together—is a system which has already been deprecated by all sociologists.

It was quite natural that under these circumstances we should protest very strongly against this measure.

In order further to assist the viewpoint we hold, one must draw the attention of the House to the fact that in Alexandra there have over the years been developed a number of social agencies such a a health centre, a clinic and a family welfare centre. A school is being conducted there for about 1,500 students. There are already 15 additional schools established and a large number of churches; in addition, there is established a S.A.N.T.A. treatment centre—all the necessary amenities that go with a well-established community. If the Peri-Urban Areas Board is already satisfactorily tackling the problem of overcrowding and reducing the slum conditions, we cannot see why there should be any interference with what is obviously a properly established community where people enjoy family life under normal conditons.

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

Mr. Speaker, when the House adjourned I was busy dealing with the effects of this Bill which I indicated we on this side of the House did not think would bring much advantage to the townships with which this Bill is intended to deal, nor any advantage to the general state of affairs in the country.

We must look at this Bill in the light of the pattern of legislation which has already been laid before the House this Session as well as legislation which is being contemplated. In the last few months we have been treated to a series of statements of policy by the hon. the Minister, the Deputy Minister and his Department. In addition to that a number of directives has been issued to municipalities. All of these are forebodings of laws which the Government intends still to place before this House this Session. The whole pattern of this legislation is to bring about what has already been termed a “circulatory form” of labour whereby no Bantu can establish himself with his family permanently anywhere outside released or reserve areas—commonly known as the “homelands” and colloquially as “Bantustans”. It is quite clear even from the White Paper which has been issued that that is the intention of this Bill as well. It fits into the pattern of the removal of freehold rights, of any form of ownership, and of the possibility of permanent establishment of a Bantu and his family in the White areas.

It is rather an interesting fact that the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board, which has been the local authority administering the Alexandra township, has, over the last four years, without legislation such as this being necessary, reduced the overcrowding from 80,000 to below 50,000 persons. Furthermore, it was confident that it would be able to reduce this number to the target which it had set for it-self originally, namely 30,000 persons: from 6,000 to 7,000 families. Here we have a Bill which, I think, is rather a complicated piece of legislation. It deals not only with Alexandra but also with Evaton which too is a peaceful residential area occupied by Bantu for very many years on the basis of freehold. It comprises land and residences developed by the Bantu himself at considerable cost over a number of years. I think it can be said that we have already seen the third and fourth generation dwellers in these townships, namely Alexandra and Evaton.

This Bill does not directly deal with that, but its intentions are to introduce all sorts of administrative measures. In this connection I have already referred the hon. the Minister to Clause 2 (4) (d). We will also find that many other laws, as has already been pointed out, are brought into the picture as well—in addition to the powers to make regulations in terms of the Native Urban Areas Act and other powers under this legislation. I do not think the hon. the Deputy Minister has gone far enough to explain to us how these various statutes fit into the picture in order to enable him to carry out the objects he has in mind. Is it his object to denude the dwellers there of their ownership of land and is it his object to build up a different system of occupation, i.e. hostels, in Alexandra and Evaton? If so, we should have been told this. The title of the Bill reads—

This title can only be effective provided we appreciate the importance of designated areas and how these various statutes will be made use of to bring about what is said to be intended, namely “better administration I think it is also important to clear up another fallacy, namely that this Bill will apply only to these specific areas. Actually, according to its contents, it will apply to any area—both urban and rural outside the reserves or scheduled areas. It can, therefore, be brought into operation within any area within the Republic where the hon. the Minister deems it necessary to do so. I think, Sir, we should know what it is all about. If it is part of the pattern, then we should be told that. This piecemeal type of legislation is very often dealt with by means of statements in the Press almost in preference to full disclosure of the Government’s policy in this House. That is to be deprecated. In fact, a great deal of unrest is aroused by this type of statement in the Press. The reason why we have concentrated on hostels, for instance, is because, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) rightly pointed out, the hon. Deputy Minister has made certain specific statements.

Much reference has been made to the chairman of the non-European Affairs Committee of the Johannesburg City Council, with regard to justification of the Government’s policy. I have here a statement relative to the statement issued by the hon. the Deputy Minister, which appeared in a newspaper and which ought to be well known to him because it dealt with the building of eight hostels housing 2,500 Africans each. In that article the following is stated—

There is no question that there is a measure of support for every effort that is being made to clear Alexandra Township of overcrowding and the clearing of slums. But here again there is no support for the Government’s plan which in terms of this Bill fits in with the suggested Bill which the Minister has already indicated will be introduced this Session dealing with all Bantu laws. It is understood to effect improvements in those laws. This pattern fits in with the picture created by the Transkei Constitution Bill which is being strongly opposed by this side of the House as well as by a considerable number of people outside. The whole picture then presents one complete pattern: the homelands, the deprivation of any established rights outside these homelands, the eventual virtual dismemberment under Section 10 of the Native Urban Areas Act, thereby creating a complete migratory system of labour circulating right throughout the country. These large hostels which are going to be erected will form part and parcel of that pattern.

Are you altogether opposed to these hostels?

I am against the provision of large hostels with single male and female occupants …

Then why did you yourself build them?

They were built years ago. We were not as enlightened in those days. We did not have the influx we have now. The whole difficulty in the approach to the non-White problem in South Africa is that the Government always harks back, even as far back as half a century, in order to compare what was done then in comparison with the action they take to-day. The fact that this Government is taking action which is already far out of date with modern trend of thinking in the world and with modern sociological trends, is of no consequence to them. Their objective is always to equate what was done 50 years ago with their retrogressive form of action in the present day. We know that in 1939 more houses were available than African tenants. We know that in the western Native township homes were on the queue list. We did not have persons waiting for houses.

With the industrial development of the Witwatersrand, however, the resultant attraction of labour obviously caused a tremendous influx and the whole picture changed. The result of that was, as I said—and it was done in every part of the Republic: In Bloemfontein, Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Pretoria— that vast townships were built. In fact, according to a statement made in the publication The S.A. Builder dealing with the number of houses built over the past number of years and in particular with a report of the Johannesburg City Council, the position is this—

Even the gold-mining industry was prepared to provide R6,000,000 to enable us to clean up the squatter areas of Moroka and Shanty-town and to provide a further 15,000 homes. The whole pattern of development throughout the country in the last 15 years has changed in the face of this tremendous industrial influx of Bantu to serve the economic development of our country. The result has been the erection of homes on enormous tracts of township land. None of these homes were built for single persons. The hostel system was used in these new townships only some years after these townships had been developed. In Johannesburg, for instance, there were only two or three and the Minister himself knows of the trouble we had with some of these hostels; he knows of the riots and outbreaks of violence which took place there because of the difficulty of settling single persons in a family entity. He knows of certain elements which came to the fore to indicate the detrimental effect of building large buildings for occupation by single persons in a heavily built-up family area. The building of hostels in Alexandra Township—and here I should like to warn the hon. the Minister—will be in close proximity to an already well-developed residential area. You have the Lombardy Estate on the rise above Alexandra Township. This estate has now been completely developed with homes at an average cost of from R7,000 to R8,000. Then there is the further complex of development to the north in the direction of Pretoria.

It has been proved that the worst thing in the world is to have these hostels. The hon. the Minister knows with regard to the Johannesburg hostels, that they are mainly situated in the heart of industrial areas where some form of control is possible. He knows that well enough. He knows of negotiations which have taken place for the provision of additional hostels to meet some of the problems arising from the amendment of the Native Urban Areas Act when it was suggested that hostels be provided in the mining grounds surrounded by mine dumps and industrial structures, in order to remove them from a developed residential area.

One can well understand the fears of the hon. member of North-East Rand and of the people he represents. He told this House that they were deeply concerned about the close proximity of so many single persons in the well-developed residential area. The question of family life is a vital one in all labour concentrations. This Bill completes one of the parts of the pattern which will establish this circulatory labour. Can the hon. the Minister tell us, for instance, why he has not built any further hostels in the ever-expanding south-western areas of Johannesburg? Why has he not built large hostels to house 20,000, 30,000 or 40,000 single males and females under the Pretoria housing schemes? Why has he not done it under the Port Elizabeth housing schemes? Why has he not done it in the Bloemfontein housing scheme? These proposed schemes are dealing with tens of thousands of single people.

We think that is bad if there is any system at all on which the Government now wishes to embark, it should come and tell this House frankly what its policies are and what its ultimate objects are. We believe that it is inimical to the interests of the country—to the interest of the Whites as well as to the interests of the Bantu. Certainly it is against the policy of the United Party and therefore it will oppose any measure which goes against the policy for which it stands.

Finally let me say this: Even in regard to the question of expropriation, and even on this question of saying to persons that if they want to substitute the rights they have now, they should go to the homelands, to none of these matters did we have any statement from the Government which clarified those matters to any extent. If that is the policy of the Government, let them tell us about it; let them tell us where provision has been made for these freehold rights in the homelands; let them tell us where sufficient compensation will be provided; and let them tell us how they are going to re-establish what virtually is going to be broken up in these townships? [Interjections.] What interests me in the interjections from the other side, especially those being made by the hon. member for Cradock is not what they contain, but the worried look on the face of that hon. member especially. This shows that he too is worried about the Government’s intentions in this regard.

Sir, we are opposing this Bill because it is a Bill which does not contribute to any better administration. It may contribute to the better administration of something which the Minister hopes to establish, but this Bill does not contain any provisions which can lead to better administration because better administration must bring better conditions in South Africa and we cannot see that this type of Bill will bring such better conditions which will answer, not the grievances, but the criticisms which have been unfolded before the courts as to where subversion lurks and where the seed beds of subversion are nurtured.

The hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), a former mayor of Johannesburg, is really true to form to-night. This evening we again find him in the role where he opposes all positive steps that the Government wishes to take to clear up undesirable conditions. That is his typical role; he also played it in the Johannesburg City Council when this Government introduced measures to clear up undesirable conditions on the Witwatersrand. He also opposed those measures on every occasion. This evening we again find him in the same role.

He wants to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister why hostels are not being built in the southern suburbs of Johannesburg and why hostels are not being built at other places. But I want to point out to him that hostels for single Bantu are being built in the locations in Brakpan, in Germiston and in the southern complex of Johannesburg.

How many?

The hon. member for Florida must not come here and put up a smokescreen. Everybody admits that the legislation which the Deputy Minister has submitted to the House is model legislation. [Interjections). If one did not know that the hon. member for North-East Rand, who is now making interjections, represents North-East Rand, one would have thought he was the most ardent Nationalist. If that hon. member peruses his speech on the Peri-Urban Areas Board, he will find that he thanked the Minister for the good work which this Peri-Urban Areas Board was doing—and it must be remembered that the board is an agent of the Government.

What does the Opposition object to in this Bill? I shall tell you: They want property rights to be given to the Bantu and they ask that his family life should be maintained. Unfortunately the hon. member for Pinelands is not here this evening, because he is the man who persisted in saying that we were engaged in tearing the family life of the Bantu to ribbons. Since he is not here, I should like to ask the hon. member for North-East Rand what the policy is of the United Party. Let me put this question directly to the hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Hospital: “What is your party’s policy with regard to single Bantu? Where do you want to house them? Do you want to replace the single Bantu with married Bantu?” I ask the hon. member for Florida and the hon. member for Hospital whether they want have Bantu families living in Florida or in the blocks of flats in Hospital to which the hon. member for Westdene has referred? Is that the policy of those hon. members? Do they want single Bantu replaced by Bantu with families?

Then I also want to ask them whether it is their policy to give property rights to all Bantu in the cities? They should tell us very clearly whether they are prepared to grant these Bantu property rights or not. The fact that that is not being done in this Bill, is their reason for objecting to it. They base their objection on the fact that we allegedly want to break up the family life of the Bantu and that we want to take away their established property rights. But now that we ask them what their policy is in this respect they are dead silent; they refuse to say anything. They are afraid to tell the voters of Johannesburg what their policy is.

But let us go further. Hon. members on the other side say that we are erecting hostels for single Natives and that we are destroying the family life of the Native. But who is the father of these hostels? Who are the people who first started building these hostels? Was it the National Party or the United Party? Who was it who first established the first mine compounds on the Witwatersrand? Not we, Mr. Speaker, but the big mining magnates. Let us honestly admit that this is the best way to provide accommodation for your workers. We have no problems as far as they are concerned. Hon. members will say that these workers only stay there for eight months and then return again. We do not want the single Native to live in a compound the whole of his life. As soon as he takes a wife, he can go and live in one of the locations, where provision has been made for him.

What are the conditions prevailing in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg? They are worse than the conditions in the hostels. The hon. member for Durban (Point) says that when a Bantu has property rights, his roots go deep into the earth and that he learns to become self-reliant; that he becomes a good citizen of the land. Can we say that about Evaton or Alexandra? Have the Bantu there set an example to the other Bantu of the Republic in so far as self-reliance or orderliness is concerned? Alexandra and Evaton are a blot on the name of South Africa. They are areas of which we cannot be proud. I lay the blame for this at the door of the previous Government and not at the door of previous City Councils, as the hon. member for North-East Rand has done. If City Councils are to be implicated, then there is only one which can be blamed and that is the City Council of Johannesburg. There is only one Government which can be blamed for this and that is the previous Government.

Nonsense.

If anybody spoke nonsense, then it is that hon. member when he spoke just now. At one stage he supported the policy of the National Party Government but now he changes his tune.

I want to say that we can pay a tribute this evening to the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board for the services that it has rendered to Alexandra. If there ever was an organization which did very excellent work, then it is the Peri-Urban Areas Health Board. We must all agree that that it so. If we think back to the difficulties of the past, we find that whenever difficulties occurred, they occurred at Alexandra. The Peri-Urban Areas Health Board then came along as the agent of the Government and removed these undesirable conditions and created an orderly community. For that we owe that body a debt of thanks. We want to know from the United Party, which is so opposed to this legislation, what their alternative is for the accommodation of the single Bantu in the northern suburbs? Where does the United Party propose to put them and how long does it want to keep them in the areas in which they are at present? Are the evils not greater where you keep them in backyards than what they would be under the policy of the Government, where they are housed under decent conditions as an orderly community? We want to erect hostels for them which will be strictly controlled by means of regulations. These hostels will be a credit to us; there will be order there. But now the United Party want to thwart us again. They put up smokescreens and try to make the outside world believe we are doing inhuman things. On the contrary, it is our intention to give them all the necessary amenities; we want to give them sports facilities and bring them together. That is much more human than the conditions under which they now live—in single rooms with the street corners as their front yard. There they come into contact with all the thugs of the underworld. I am convinced that the system which the Government is now going to follow is the right one. Indeed, I contend that it will be the right policy to accommodate all our labour in hostels, with the possibility that they can return to their homelands from time to time. In this respect let us take a page out of the book of the mines and follow that method that they practise. The mines accommodate their Natives in an orderly fashion and that is why we find that they have never had trouble with their workers. We find that all big employers house their labour in compounds where proper control can be exercised.

I want to say this to the United Party: This smokescreen which they are putting up will disappear just like mist before the morning sun. As against that the Government will carry out this policy and the inhabitants of Johannesburg, particularly those of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg, will be grateful because they too are tired of the number of Natives who live in their backyards and on top of their flats, an undesirable state of affairs which creates racial friction and unpleasantness. The sooner we house the different races in their own areas, the better it will be and the more quickly we will have racial peace.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) started his speech by calling this Bill a model piece of legislation.

I suppose in terms of Nationalist thinking it would be a model piece of legislation because it has two essentials that we find in every piece of legislation of this Government, firstly, that it naturally supports Nationalist policy and, secondly, that there is always good and bad in the same Bill. I have no doubt that there is good in this Bill. There is a lot of good in it, and we would have been happy to support the Bill had certain things not become apparent from it.

He also asked what our attitude was in regard to the single Native? I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to answer that question. I should like him to tell us what he means by a single Bantu? Is a single Bantu an unmarried Bantu or is a single Bantu the wife of a Bantu man who does not live in the city; or the husband of a Bantu woman who does does not live in the city. In other words, is the interpretation of a single Bantu, a single person as we know him, or a married person who happens to be living in a city whose husband or wife is not there?

The hon. member for Brakpan tells us that the United Party was the first to develop the hostel system because it was done by the mines. I have yet to learn that the Chamber of Mines and the United Party are synonymous—sometimes I wish they were.

I, like many other hon. members from the Transvaal, should like to deal with this Bill from the Alexandra Township angle. I think it is only fair and right, as has already been done, that praise should be given where praise is due. I have a factory which is less than two miles from the Township of Alexandra and I know quite a lot of what goes on there. There is no doubt that up to five or six years ago it was a terrible place. There was hardly a Monday that I went back to work that I did not find either that one of our employees had been stabbed in the spine—a favourite occupation—or alternatively that someone had been murdered. Protection money was being paid; that was common practice if a Bantu wanted to live peacefully and quietly. They lived in fear of their lives. But since the Peri-Urban Areas Board took over in 1958 there has been a considerable improvement. It has already been said that the population has been reduced, that law and order have been restored. The Peri-Urban Areas Board has played a big part in this.

I think it was the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller), who told this House that there were established institutions for family life in Alexandra Township, institutions such as schools and churches. There is also one of the best health clinics in the country, the Alexandra Health Clinic. This is one of the best clinics for the Bantu in this country. The position generally is improving in Alexandra Township. In 1961 the board made a profit of R290,000 from the sale of Bantu beer while the losses incurred in the administration amounted to R190,000, so that at the end of 1961 the board had available, and I think the position will probably be better for 1962, R 100,000 to develop the township from a social and recreational point of view. Mr. Speaker, it is quite obvious that the measure before the House is not required for the improvement of Alexandra Township per se. The measure before the House is to carry out Government policy of no residential ownership by Bantu in urban areas. Sir, I am not going to argue this point. That is the policy of the Government. We know it and we understand it. But the Government must know that just as that is their policy, the policy of the United Party is that where the Bantu has ownership in an urban area it shall not be taken away from them. For the Government to expect us to vote for this Bill with that proviso in it is, of course, completely absurd.

I believe that this Bill has another purpose and it is tied up with this question of hostels. I hope we will be told, before the evening is out, what these hostels are going to be used for. The other purpose of this Bill is to implement the Government’s policy of no locations in the sky. The position in Johannesburg at the moment, as most members will know, is that you are allowed to have five male Bantu in a flat building. I think that is the figure; the hon. the Deputy Minister can correct me if I am wrong. You are allowed, however, to have as many female Bantu as you like. Permits are not required for them. We know that for a long time the Government has wanted to do two things: It has wanted to reduce still further the number of male Bantu employed by house owners and flat dwellers and it has wanted to bring the permit system into force in regard to female Bantu. One of the purposes inherent in this Bill is that the hon. the Minister will be able to enforce that part of Government ideology, namely that the servants in the northern suburbs, whether male or female, must get out of those areas at night and live in the township. One of the main purposes of this Bill, as I see it, Sir, is to hasten that process, because the hon. the Deputy Minister has not been able to say to the dwellers of Johannesburg, for example, that their servants must be out of the White areas at night because there has been nowhere to house them. But with the expropriation which is permitted in this Bill, with the removal of family life which is going to follow as a corollary to this Bill, and with the building of hostels in terms of this Bill, that is going to be the position. The hon. the Deputy Minister will then be able to say that Bantu servants must no longer live in the White areas. From my knowledge of the area, I doubt if there are 20,000 Bantu employed in industry in and about Alexandra Township. I doubt it very much indeed.

A question was asked whether we objected to the building of hostels for single Natives. The answer is a very simple one. If you were allowed to provide accommodation on a family basis in the urban areas we would say “yes”. But we are not allowed to provide that accommodation so obviously our answer must be “no”. We must agree that they be built. But to take a settled area like Alexandra, an area which is improving every day, an area which is getting more peaceful every day, and to remove from there what could be quiet, peaceful family life and substitute it by 20,000 single Bantu, does not make sense to me and I do not think it makes sense to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

Would the hon. member prefer the Bantu working in White areas to be there on a family basis rather than on a single basis?

Sir, it is not what I would prefer. It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister being amused. What my preferences are and what I am able to achieve are two different things. We know how many Bantu there are going to be in the Republic of South Africa in the year 2000 and we know how many there are now. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows as well as I do that we cannot get them out of the cities. In fact, we do not want to get them out of the cities because we need them for our economy and for the building up of this country. As long as they are permanently in the urban areas they have to be housed as family units. My choice would be very different if we could have this an all-white country by the sweep of the hand. That would be wonderful. The difference between the Government and this side of the House is that whereas the Government dream, whereas they follow the vision of the Prime Minister which he started in 1955, we try to be realists. Mr. Speaker, we shall vote against this Bill for three reasons: Firstly, because of the taking away of free-hold rights, rights which have existed from the turn of the century; secondly, because we do not believe in the policy of hostelization …

Order! That point has been made.

I am just summarizing, Sir. I am going to sit down. Secondly, because we do not believe in the policy of hostelization where there should be family life and thirdly, because we believe that one of the purposes of this Bill is to further the no locations in the sky ideology of the Government.

I want to warn hon. members against repetition.

There are three hon. members on that side of the House who are former members of the Johannesburg City Council. Two of them are former mayors. The hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has just spoken. He sketched the impossibility of the policy of this Government for us. This merely proves, Mr. Speaker, how the United Party members contradict one another. I hope that you will allow me to discuss the removal of the Natives from Sophiatown. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) and the hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) were members of the City Council of Johannesburg at the time. They had the opportunity if they wanted to do it, to do it then. On the contrary, however, they opposed that move. They did not want those Natives to be removed.

Order! That point has been raised repeatedly.

I will not proceed with it, Mr. Speaker. I just want to show that hon. members have nothing to make us believe that they are heroes. I do not think that there is a body in this country that has done South Africa more harm than the City Council of Johannesburg.

The hon. member must now come back to the Bill.

Hon. members have attacked the hon. Deputy Minister because of this Bill. We have again experienced a contradiction in terms. The United Party City Council of Johannesburg have for the past three years been pleading with the Department of Bantu Administration to erect hostels for single Bantu women in Alexandra Township. Up to the present the Department has not seen its way clear to do so. We have heard hon. members opposing the erection of these hostels again this evening. I am surprised that hon. members of the United Party contradict one another to this extent. One section advocates that hostels should be erected for single Bantu women while hon. members in this House oppose it. What must the hon. Minister and the hon. Deputy Minister do?

As you know, Sir, any legislation passed by this House …

Order! That has nothing to do with the Bill. The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will permit me to discuss the matter that other hon. members had the opportunity of discussing. They all had the opportunity to discuss this matter and I do not see why I should be deprived of that right.

Order! The hon. member must obey the Chair and not repeat those arguments. The hon. member is raising matters that have nothing to do with the Bill.

The United Party were warned at the time when they erected those locations in the sky and granted licenses. We have heard this evening from the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) how many Bantu there are in that particular area alone. The United Party members are now attacking this legislation. They should rather support this Government in regard to this legislation because it is being put through specifically to assist the Johannesburg City Council out of the predicament in which they find themselves because they allowed these hostels to be built anywhere, even in the White areas. There are areas like Jeppes where large hostels have been built. The Government is passing this legislation with the specific idea of helping the Johannesburg City Council out of their predicament.

I want to deal with this Bill because I have been living in close proximity to Alexandra Township for a good many years. I can therefore claim to know something about Alexandra Township. In addition this Bill deals with another township of which I have a little knowledge, that is the Fingo township outside Grahamstown. Mr. Speaker, I hope you will bear with my saying something about Alexandra Township because of my personal knowledge and experience. In reply to the previous speaker, I should like to point out to him something which he should know and that is that Alexandra Township is not under the administrative power of the Johannesburg Municipality and never has been. The Johannesburg Municipality has never had any power over Alexandra Township which was originally the greatest eyesore you could find. I have lived close to it for over 20 years.

Order! That point has been made.

On a point of order, the hon. member is putting words into my mouth which I never used. I never said that the Municipality of Johannesburg was responsible for Alexandra Township.

Mr. Speaker, I should like you to bear with me. I shall be very short. I have lived there for 20 years. At one time I had a so-called farm in the middle of the town and I had a number of Bantu servants who lived in very close proximity to Alexandra Township. I had a certain amount of trouble with them, Sir, but no more trouble than one has with ordinary human beings. Sir, there is no shadow of doubt that over the last 10/12 years conditions in Alexandra Township have changed completely. They had to change; it was a festering sore and they have changed. I know this point has been made before but I as a man who live there am in no circumstances prepared to agree that 10,000 single Native men …

20,000.

No, half of those are going to be women. The plan is that 20,000 Blacks are to live there one half male, one half female. I have been told unofficially that my female servants will have to go and live in Alexandra Township in single quarters. And my female servants are respectable married women. [Interjections.]

Order!

How can they sneer at that, Sir. My servants are respectable elderly women and they will be asked to go and live in a barracks for single women with another barracks next door for single men. Sir, if we want to destroy the people in the northern suburbs of Johannesburg why do we not say so? I live within two miles of Alexandra Township. I know mine is a very posh block of flats but there is open country between us and Alexandra Township, and there is nothing to stop any crowd, as at Paarl and at Langa, from attacking my home. I as a citizen of the northern suburbs of Johannesburg would prefer that family life and freehold title should remain as they are at the moment with reasonable improvements as the years go by.

According to the title of this Bill, it is a Bill to provide for the better administration, control and good government of designated areas and for matters incidental thereto. This afternoon we have heard many arguments against it. We have heard a lot about the Alexandra township and about locations in the sky. We have even heard about the Fingo Township near Grahamstown. All these areas are not being controlled properly. We know e.g. that the City Council of Johannesburg has no control over Alexandra Township; nor has the Peri-Urban Areas Board any control over it; the Government also has no proper control over it. This legislation is being introduced so as to have better control over it. The object of the Government is not, as the hon. member for Parktown (Mr. Emdin) has said, to do just anything, but the intention of the Government is to bring about better administration of and control over that area. The object of better administration is not, as has just been stated by the hon. member for Benoni (Mr. Ross), to make provision for Native female servants to go and live there in hostels alongside male Natives and that, as he has insinuated, all kinds of things will happen. Control will be exercised by the Government in such a way that you will have a decent residential area there.

Mr. Speaker, I know Alexandra Township. There are hon. members opposite and on this side too who also know that area. When the sun sets in the evening, a great dark and dirty cloud of smoke emanating from that area pollutes areas such as Sandringham. Orange Grove and other parts in the northern areas, as well as Germiston That is not all, Sir, but that smoke also contains certain germs. If that area is cleared and a decent residential area is established there for the Natives, I am convinced that we shall no longer have this foul smoke that moves across the White areas. We shall have a cleaner atmosphere in those areas. If in the evening one stands on the reef between Kensington and the northern suburbs or on the northern reef of Germiston, it is appalling to see what goes up there. Sometimes the smoke is so dense and so dirty that you cannot see through it.

It is essential that there should be proper control. We know that at the present time the one body passes the responsibility on to the other. We know what happened there in the past. When it comes to the question of clearance, we find that the Department of Native Affairs of the City Council of Johannesburg sits still; they will not stir a finger. Hon. members who have been members of the City Council of Johannesburg experienced that in connection with Sophia Township. We know why they are urging to-night that that township should not be vacated or properly administered by the Government. Why are they opposed to it? In the first place they want to see to it that the policy of the United Party is carried out, namely their race federation plan. If they do not oppose this legislation, they cannot support their race federation plan. Of course the National Party Government is fully able to carry out its Native policy. We are not ashamed to say that when once this area has been cleared, the policy of the National Party will be seen in its proper perspective. We know that this legislation aims at proper control and administration of areas such as Alexandra and the Fingo Township at Grahamstown and elsewhere. If the Government does not intervene in controlling areas such as Alexandra and the Fingo Township, chaos will develop there. The majority of the locations are at the present time being administered properly by legislation that has been introduced; proper control is being exercised by local authorities, but in this case there is no adequate legislation for the proper administration of these areas. Now the Government comes forward with a Bill that aims at the proper administration of these areas. It is the honest and sincere intention of the Government to do their best to administer these areas properly, not only for the benefit of the Whites but also for the benefit of the Natives. When the Act is applied, to Alexandra Township we shall find fewer crimes being committed there; there will be better control, and the Natives will be safer. I cannot understand why the United Party is opposing this legislation. I think they are opposing it only because it conflicts with their policy of race federation. The Government is not ashamed to say what they are going to do. I think the United Party should open their eyes and appreciate the circumstances prevailing in those areas at the present time. If they could see what is happening there, they would realize that such a state of affairs cannot be allowed to continue. You cannot put up with a township where irregularities are taking place, and where the Natives are doing as they please without the control of any local body. There has to be control. If they take those facts into consideration then I really do not know how they can substantiate their arguments.

The following matter I should like to raise is in connection with the compounds in Johannesburg. We know that initially there were 20 compounds in Johannesburg; that is, apart from the compounds of the mines, that were situated in the vicinity of Johannesburg. Thousands of Natives are being accommodated there. All the Natives are single men. Talking about single Natives, I should just like to tell the hon. member for Parktown that many of them are married men who have come to the Rand to work there. The Native women are not accommodated in these compounds. We know that during the course of time six of those compounds have been removed. Some of them are in the process of being removed. In the very heart of Johannesburg, that is to say within a stone’s throw from the Post Office of Johannesburg, there is still one of the biggest compounds where Natives are housed, and that is the Van Beek Street Compound. Then there is the Waterval Compound; there are two in Fair View, one in Newtown and two in City Deep where Natives are accommodated by the Municipality of Johannesburg. These Natives are working for the Municipality. It is now argued that these Natives cannot be accommodated in the locations. Why not? They say these Natives have to live near the urban area so that they may be near their places of employment. But what is the difference between the Native and the White man? The White man resides all over the Rand in the various suburbs and he has to see to it that he gets to his place of employment. Why should there be such special regard for the Native? Why should the Natives not be taken out of these compounds and settled outside the city of Johannesburg? If you travel along End Street in the evening, and you reach the new crossing near Jeppes, you see hundreds of Natives congregating there. They go to and fro from the compounds to their respective places of employment. If the compounds are moved to the outskirts of Johannesburg, better transport facilities will be provided. It is frequently said that there are not adequate transport facilities, but they will be provided. The points of contact of the various areas with the Native Townships are there. The transport can be provided to convey the Natives to their places of employment. One of the objections of the City Council of Johannesburg is that those Natives who are employed in certain very dirty jobs cannot be accommodated with the other Natives. Very well, then house them in a compound just outside Johannesburg. Why should they have to be accommodated within the City of Johannesburg? All these are matters in regard to which the City Council of Johannesburg has not stirred a finger. They do not want to move the Natives out.

Then I come to the matter of the locations in the sky. Thousands of Natives are living in these locations in the sky upon the roofs of blocks of flats.

That argument has been used over and over again.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to refer to one point, and that is that the safety of the White women who live in these flats is sometimes jeopardized by the tribal fights that take place on the top of blocks of flats. It frequently happens in the heart of Johannesburg that there is a congregation of Natives busy fighting. The majority of these Natives in the locations in the sky are Zulus, and when they meet other Natives such as the Basutos e.g. and they become intoxicated, they start a fight; they enter the flats and hit women and other White people indiscriminately. I do not wish to go into this matter any further, but nevertheless should like to say that we want to put apartheid into operation properly, and if we want to do that then we have to separate the Natives from our White residential areas. We can accommodate the Natives in their Native locations outside Johannesburg. Why should we keep Natives in the White areas instead of moving them to the areas that have been reserved for them? That can be effected under this Bill and it will not interfere in any way with the work the Native has to do, and it will not be detrimental to the Native, because if the White man can travel to his place of employment, the Native can do the same, and the vast majority of the Whites travel further and under more difficult conditions than the non-Whites do. I feel the United Party has no right to come and tell us that they intend opposing this Bill, which is aimed at promoting the control and good government of these areas. If they do so, there is only one reason for it, and that is because they feel that they cannot support it owing to the fact that they have to support their race federation plan.

In the nature of things, Mr. Speaker, I think I owe the hon. member for Edenvale the courtesy of a reply in regard to what he said, and so I want to say at the outset that he spent a great part of his time in trying to prove that “where there is smoke, there is fire”, He referred to the fact that when you stood on the Reef, say at Kempton Park, you could see the pall of smoke hanging over Alexandra. That is undoubtedly true; I have seen it myself. But surely that is not a reason why a Government legislates as it does in this particular Bill—in order to dispel the pall, or the gloom hanging over Alexandra. Because the people of Hillbrow for example, all Europeans, would similarly like the Government to legislate in order to remove the pall of smoke that hangs over that European suburb on every cold winter’s morning. Naturally, Mr. Speaker, where there is smoke there is fire, and it does not require the hon. member for Edenvale to tell us so. As I say, his first reason for the removal of the people—to whose removal we object—from Alexandra, cannot be regarded even by members on his own side of the House as a valid one. He then said that the reason why we on this side of the House oppose this legislation is because it will make it difficult for us when we are returned to power—and I am very happy to note that he makes the assumption that we will be returned to power—to integrate into a race federation the suburb of Alexandra. Now I know that he wishes the United Party well.

I wish the hon. member would return to the Bill.

I am trying, Sir, but will you allow me to reply to the hon. member for Edenvale, merely to dispel the pall that hangs over the House in regard to some of the allusions that he made? Sir, I merely want to tell him that when that change happens, we will have no difficulty in integrating Alexandra under the race federation scheme of the United Party. Furthermore, the whole question of this particular legislation is Alexandra, at least the immediate question, and I think the hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration will be the first to concede that the core of that question is this question of the accommodation of the people who are to remain there. How are they to be accommodated?—and that is the question I want to discuss with the hon. Minister. On the one hand we have been told that the removal undertaken in order to reduce the numbers living at Alexandra has proceeded very well, and both sides of the House know the facts more or less. Whereas some will say that the number residing now in Alexandra is 40,000, others may say it is 37,000 or 50,000, but the fact is that from the original estimated 80,000 to 100,000 persons it has come down with a tremendous bump, as it were, to something under 50,000, possibly 40,000 or even less. The question as to what to do with the remainder is the problem of the Deputy Minister, and he apparently has decided, he and the Minister, to set up a type of hostel accommodation. [Interjection.] Ah, I have an admission from the hon. Deputy Minister. I think he meant to indicate that he had decided, not the hon. Minister.

You are talking the greatest nonsense! Wash your ears.

Order!

I do not require the hon. member’s advice in regard to washing my ears. I want to say that whoever has conceived this plan, and I was about to give the Deputy Minister the credit for it, in regard to the accommodation of the residue of the population of Alexandra in hostels, must have come to the conclusion on good and sufficient evidence that that was either the cheapest form of accommodation, the most economic, or that it was the most desirable form of accommodation. One of two reasons; otherwise, why hostels? That is the question that I think the House should examine very carefully, and I, at this stage, express no opinion; I merely want to examine some of the facts as I know them.

Mr. Speaker, if you had to take a satellite town anywhere in the world, regardless of the racial composition of the country in which that town happens to be, and you were to say that in the nature of things you would set up that satellite town, you would plan it in such a way that it will contain exclusively single people (in the first place), in other words, people who are not involved in a family, „enkellopendes,” then, Sir, you would immediately be going against the basic plan of accommodation for human beings as the present-day world understands it. That is my first point. It is so, and I would like the hon. Deputy Minister, when he replies to this debate, to point to a single instance anywhere in the world where there is a satellite town or a suburb of a city where there is a place where 20,000 single people live, whether in hostels, whether in apartments, in flats, or in houses, or in rooms. Secondly, this particular question has been approached in such a way that in Alexandra there will be hostels, Sir, not just for single-living persons, but for single-living persons of both sexes. We assume that males will live in one and females in another hostel. We assume obviously that it is not the intention of the Government to place male and female persons in the same hostel. Having regard to the area of Alexandra Township, there is, however, no doubt that if you were to place 20,000 people there, single-living persons in separate buildings or hostels or one-room apartments (as the Americans would call them), then the position would be that each individual building would be very close to its neighbours, to the right or left, front or rear, it does not matter, but you cannot space them in such a way that you can say that there is any sort of remoteness between the one or the other block. I think the hon. Deputy Minister will concede that. If not, then perhaps he will show the House the layout of the scheme for the hostels in Alexandra Township. I next ask the hon. Deputy Minister whether he can point to any place in the entire world where a government deliberately planned not only to put single-living people in buildings, secluded, as it were, from each other as to the sexes, but near each other just the same, and then was heard to say that that is a satellite town, and that that is good planning! I am not concerned at this stage with the question of the colour, that these are Bantu, or Natives, or Blacks, and that we, the other people of this country, are of another complexion; I am merely concerned with what is good living accommodation, good in the ethnical, in the moral sense. I used the word “moral” not on its highest plane, but “moral” as the law understands it when it prosecutes people for not observing moral laws. What is good planning in that sense? In due course, I sincerely hope, the hon. Deputy Minister will proffer an answer to these questions—if he can! It will allay the fears of many of us on this side of the House, and of the public of Johannesburg, about the possible end result of this type of accommodation.

Much play has been made of the fact that Johannesburg has other hostels in which single people live. I would be the first to concede that. Of course, there are such hostels. There have been for many years. But no one should be heard to say, as one hon. member was heard to say, that the Johannesburg City Council, of its own volition and for its own good reasons, virtually invented hostel accommodation. Sir, that goes to the root of this particular legislation. I do not want to go into the long history of the matter, but this I must say: that when a local authority has within its boundaries people of various race groups (in South Africa, at any rate), and when one of those race groups consists of people who, for whatever reason it may be, do not earn enough to support themselves in regard to all the necessities of life, including shelter, and when the economy of that local authority area as part of the entire economy of the country requires the presence of those persons just the same, regardless of their difficulties, then clearly accommodation must be provided. Hon. members on that side of the House may say that Johannesburg is to blame for these hostels, if they are evil (which I have not said), yet they completely ignore the fact that Johannesburg as a local authority had to cope with a certain situation, and according to the practice of the country at the time it coped with it in the best, and I say, the most economical way. Nobody on that side of the House, from the Deputy Minister downwards, will suggest that the City Council of Johannesburg, when it was faced with the position of having to accommodate Natives who apparently did not have their families with them at that time, should have said to these Natives, against the laws of the land: We are not going to accommodate you, although we want your labour here for our citizens; we are not going to accommodate you here unless you bring you families here! I therefore say that the hostel accommodation in Johannesburg, or elsewhere, has been, whether for better or for worse, the norm in regard to the accommodaton of Bantu persons required in a local authority area for their labour, and in return having to be given certain amenities, including accommodation. Let Johannesburg not be held up as the bad example, as having created this.

Talk less and think more.

Words, words …

I don’t know how to make a speech without using words. Do you want me to use deaf and dumb language, or must I sing? But, Sir, I now want to give the House a practical analysis of hostels and what they mean in regard to the character of people and their activities, in relation to the effects of this particular Bill. I have one authority, there must be others. But one which I happen to have is …

Gorshel.

No, much higher than that; the report of a certain commission of inquiry into this matter. Now it should be borne in mind that in the very recent past another Minister in this House had reason to lean very heavily on the report of a judicial commission, and therefore I sincerely hope that in this context, too, the House will pay some regard to the findings of a judicial commission on a matter which is relevant to this particular discussion.

In 1957 a commission was appointed in order to inquire into certain riots which had taken place in Johannesburg, in the South-West Complex as it is called, in which the hostel accommodation and the nature of the accommodatoin, and the effect on people living in that accommodation, was canvassed by that commission of inquiry. It is a very bulky document, and naturally I cannot read it all, but I want to read certain brief and relevant extracts. The Township of Dube was referred to in the context of the removal of Native families being transferred by the then Native Resettlement Board under the relevant Act to this township from certain non-European town-ships and areas, such as Sophiatown, Martindale, Newclare and Pageville. I am not going to say a word in reply to some of the criticism that has been levelled at the Johannesburg City Council about that removal scheme. They got away with it, if I may say so. I do not wish to attempt to deal with it. The relevant factor is that this township, according to the commissioners, is repeatedly referred to in the evidence relating to the disturbances, and it is mentioned early in the report for that reason. There was then also a question which has been canvassed here in this House to-night, the question of freehold and leasehold title which came into the picture, and here the commissioners said—

I am relating this obviously to this question of freehold which now exists in Alexandra—

He acquired no freehold rights, the ownership of the property being vested in the municipality—

That was in 1957, but according to Mr. Carr, the manager of the City’s Non-European Affairs Department, it is possible that the resident, “that he or his successors in law may be given some right of renewal”. That was the expectation of the City Council of Johannesburg in regard to this question of leasehold of 30 years, that they might be given a renewal. I now quote again—

I hope the hon. Deputy Minister will note this—

That is the position in regard to the leasehold and freehold dispute. The report of the commissioners, however, dealt also with the hostel on the north side of Dube which was set aside under the ethnic grouping system. Obviously we must assume that ethnic grouping will be applied to the hostels in Alexandra when they are started. But the hostel in question was a hostel set aside for men of the Nguni group and practically all of its inmates were Zulus. Now this was near to Meadowlands. That is the point at issue. Meadowlands was then taking shape, and certainly it is to-day a settled township where family accommodation is the order of the day. So although I do not wish to labour the point and burden you with an exact description of what lies between the Dube hostel for men and Meadowlands. where family accommodation under the Natives’ ReSettlement Act as administered by the Government is the rule, I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that the distance to this day is greater than the distance will be between one of the hostel blocks in Alexandra and another, in the scheme which the hon. Deputy Minister has in mind.

We get in the report a fairly detailed description of the position in the Dube Hostel and of the living conditions there, which I do not need to stress. But in view of the fact that the Government has indicated that one of the reasons for the reduction, first, of the ponulation of Alexandra and the settling of certain people, is the need to implement the “locations in the sky” legislation, it is a very remarkable thing that here in 1957 this commission of inquiry canvassed the very same point, this question of people who have to be accommodated as a result of the implementation, under the direction of the Government, of the “locations in the sky” legislation. It says here—

And this is important—

and I don’t say this because I was in the council at the time and have personal knowledge of the matter …

You are talking on the wrong Bill. We are not now dealing with the locations in the sky legislation.

No, I am not talking on the wrong Bill. I have read this Bill. Subject to the approval of the Minister, the council had resolved to postpone the reduction in the number of Natives lawfully accommodated in these buildings.

I am trying to figure out how this links up with the subject matter of the Bill.

The connnection is that in Alexandra it is proposed to set up hostels for single-living Natives.

That point has been made repeatedly. What is the hon. member trying to prove?

I am trying to prove, as I have said earlier, that the hostel accommodation which is the objective of the Government in this Bill …

Where? Where does it say so in the Bill?

Is it not the intention to set up eight blocks of hostels?

Where do you find that in the Bill?

Under legislation which the hon. Minister has put before the House, the local authority which he has set up here for Alexandra for example can do all sorts of things that any local authority can do. That is the point. There are no hostels at Alexandra to-day. The point I want to make is that that postponement was not granted, and in the result there was an influx of the so-called single-living Native into this Dube Hostel, and to cut a long story short, Mr. Speaker, …

To cut a short story long.

After that, because of the fact that these single-living Natives constantly, and especially at the week-ends, would visit the other townships, and more particularly Meadowlands, in order, as the commissioners say here, to seek the society of women, and because of the resentment that that built up on the part not only of some of the women, but also in the case of some of their menfolk, serious disturbances started in September 1957, which resulted in 33 persons being killed in those riots within 36 hours, and according to the commission the total, having regard to the number of unidentified corpses that were found in that and other satellite townships within a matter of a fortnight, arising out of the same dispute, was over 100 people.

From time to time an hon. Minister comes to this House and seeks certain powers and when we on this side of the House say to him: “We have warned you in the past, we have drawn your attention to certain matters which should have served as some sort of pointer to the probable result of your policy at this stage”, the Minister has usually insisted on having those powers, and then a year, or six months, or six years after the event, we have to say to the Minister “You could have examined this matter in the light of what we asked you to consider, and then the position might well have been different”. That is the position when we are discussing this particular Bill to-day. If the Government persists with this idea of Alexandra becoming a sort of dormitory for single Natives of both sexes, accommodated in hostels, it will inevitably lead to that kind of disturbance within the township itself, within the area of Alexandra itself, that can very easily lead to a recurrence of this riot at Dube in September 1957.

Where do you want to accommodate them?

The hon. Minister and other speakers on that side of the House have asked this question over and over again: Where do you want to accommodate them?

Tell us.

I am not going to repeat my answer, but the Natives being removed from Alexandra have been removed up to now in some cases to Meadowlands, in other cases to Diepkloof. Now, Sir. having regard to the fact that if he wanted to remove complete families, that same policy of removal in regard to the families now living in Alexandra could be followed, then the only question arises: Can you give them, those families you wish to remove from Alexandra, what they now have in Alexandra? Surely that is the question in respect of a limited number of the families living in Alexandra, and when I am asked where they can be settled, I can only say that in the so-called South Western Townships of Johannesburg, there are now some 437,000 Bantu living, according to one estimate anyway, and there is still ample land to accommodate the remaining few thousand people from Alexandra. You could move them there. The fact of the matter is that if those people who are now living in Alexandra and who will be told in terms of this Bill that they have to be removed because a reduction of the population is necessary, will they get that same right where the Minister wishes to place them, say alongside of Diepkloof, say on that land opposite the Baragwanath Hospital—if he were to say that, then immediately a different situation would arise in regard to that removal, or a further reduction of the number of Bantu at Alexandra. That is my first point. My second point is, that if it is necessary to accommodate the single-living Natives—no family involvement—then the least that the Minister should decide here and now, and tell us so in his reply, is that if he is going to accommodate male Natives in Alexandra Township in hostels, he will not accommodate female Natives there. That is the least he should tell us, and conversely he should tell us …

And what are you going to do with the females?

Conversely if you are going to accommodate Bantu females in Alexandra, in hostel accommodation, then you should not accommodate male Natives in Alexandra. That is the least he can tell us, because then he will obviate the serious problems that he asking for. And nobody wants to come back to this House next year or in five years’ time and say “We told you so, that is why the trouble started”. We would rather see no trouble there. Accommodate the one sex or the other there, if you want to have hostel accommodation for single Natives.

Finally, may I say that if the Government had not been what the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs calls “domastrant” every time the Johannesburg City Council came along and said “we can erect a hostel for say 3,000 or 4,000 males in a certain portion of Johannesburg (it is all in this report), we can erect a hostel for single-living Native males in a certain portion of Johannesburg where they are required for their work which is within a reasonable distance”—I am startled to hear from the hon. member for Edenvale that from the centre of Johannesburg to the Van Beek Street Compound is a stone’s throw—within reasonable distance of their work, then this position we are talking about to-night could not have arisen. But. of course, although not a single European had lived in such an area for possibly 20 to 30 years, according to the Government’s definition it was a White area and so they said “No” to every request. It is all in the report. In effect they said “No, you must send them out as far as possible, you must isolate them from their work, you must isolate them from their friends, you must make them feel as resentful as possible, and then you must make of them the worst trouble-makers in the world”.

The hon. member who has just sat down knows the art of talking about two facts which he could have disposed of in five minutes, for half an hour without saying anything more than the two facts to which he referred originally. I do not intend keeping the House very long but I just want to lay one or two ideas in its midst.

The Opposition’s opposition to this Bill is based mainly on two grounds, in the first place, “because of the inhuman act on the part of the Government to provide single quarters and thus breaking up Bantu family life”, and, in the light of that, to create further problems. Experience has taught us, however, that in many cases, we find the most peace-loving Bantu in single quarters. We know the tradition of the Black man. Whenever there is agitation or whenever problems arise, it is usually the female Bantu who, with her shouting and hysterical outbursts, ultimately encourages the Black man to carry on doing what he is doing. That is why I say straight-out that those Bantu in single quarters—this has been my experience at Randfontein where I am also a member of the City Council—are the most peace-loving. You no longer have the type who agitates there, but more in the married quarters. The principle which they are opposing in this case, therefore, is not as wrong as they maintain. The other question is this: Why are they opposing this Bill? Why do they say that the principle of single quarters is a dangerous one? For the simple reason that it makes it possible for the Government to decrease the number of locations in the sky and to eliminate them. They do not want that. The Johannesburg City Council specifically asked for these single quarters for female Bantu in Alexandra. I want to put it very strongly that the Johannesburg City Council is faced with this problem that pressure is being exerted upon it to reduce the number of certain locations in the sky. We have adopted a very definite attitude in this connection. To-day they adopt the attitude that the north-western Bantu areas are too far from the residential areas and that that is the reason why they cannot go and live there. They have no control over Alexandra township, because it falls under the Peri-Urban Areas Beard. But the Johannesburg City Council has for a number of years been pressing the Government to allow them to build single quarters in Alexandra for non-White females so that single female Bantu can be housed there. Now that the Minister is eventually providing for that the two-ex-mayors of Johannesburg are the main agitators against it, whereas this will solve and minimize the problem of their own city council.

The second attitude which they adopt here is in connection with “freehold” of “leasehold They have raised the point of permanent residence of Bantu in White areas. In that regard I think the two parties must agree to disagree permanently. I do not think we shall ever see eye to eye as far as that is concerned. The National Party adopt the attitude that the Bantu should never acquire any permanent property rights in the White areas of South Africa. The United Party regards that as a solution in that the Black man will ultimately be happier if he is given permanent property rights in White areas. There we have the two standpoints alongside one another and in respect of which we cannot see eye to eye. We can argue till next year but we shall never see eye to eye on that point. I want to add, however, that in the light of those facts, the minute you give the Black man permanency in this sense that he has property rights, the minute he is given title to stands in a Bantu location, or wherever it may be, he becomes not only a permanent resident in spirit and in reality, but he must also be allowed to give expression to all his desires in that White area, and then we automatically have to adopt the attitude that he must be allowed to live his own way of life which must eventually lead to it that he wants a full say politically and otherwise. I shall not, however, say anything further in that direction. We are dealing here with economic laws and practical politics. Economic laws point to the attitude that the Bantu worker should be housed as near as possible to his work. History has taught us that economic laws must not always be the deciding factor in a country. I want to give two examples. I return to the year 1860 when, because of economic representations by the Durban Corporation and the sugar farmers of Natal, the Governor was requested to allow “a limited number of Coolies or other labourers from the East in aid of the new enterprises on the coastal lands, for the success of which sufficient and reliable labour is absolutely essential, for the fact cannot be too strongly borne in mind that on the success or failure of these rising enterprises depends the advancement of the Colony or its certain and rapid decline”. That request by a group of people who wanted Indian labour was based on economic grounds. Because that economic request was acceded to we are still faced with the Indian problem to-day and India has been laying charges against us for years at UNO because that economic request was acceded to. Practical politics indicate the opposite, but that was the result of acceding to economic demands.

Just by way of illustration I want to state another standpoint. In 1903 an economic attitude was once again adopted. For economic reasons the Milner Government imported Chinese to work in the mines. Fortunately, when the Transvaal was given self-government, Generals Botha and Smuts re-deported all those Chinese to China; because of that, because the economic reasons were ignored and because practical politics were followed, we do not have any Chinese problem in South Africa to-day. I say very pertinently that economic laws must sometimes guide practical politics in certain directions, but economic laws cannot always be the deciding factor. With a view to that I say that as far as this Bill is concerned, we cannot accede to the purely economic demand, namely, that the Bantu wife must live as near as possible to her work in the backyard of a house or on the roof of a block of flats, because for economic reasons that would be easier and cheaper. We cannot, however, accede to those economic laws and as a result violate political laws and create further problems. Because of that I want to put it very strongly and say that we cannot accede to this request.

I want to raise one final point. The time has arrived for us to understand one another very clearly in this country; we must realize that the United Party and we hold two totally different points of view as far as the problem of Bantu in the White areas is concerned. The United Party’s approach is clearly that the Bantu are and will be permanently in the White areas and for that reason they want to make his family life an ideal one and that is why they want to confer property rights on him. They want to make him a full-fledged citizen of White South Africa in every respect, which must eventually lead to one man one vote. As against that the approach of the National Party is clearly that the Bantu have come here voluntarily to work and that the Whites are prepared to give them work but that they should not be here permanently or enjoy property rights. He is and remains a migrant labourer who has come here to earn his daily bread and who will never become a permanent inhabitant here. The differences which we have in regard to this Bill flow from those differences in principle. In view of that I do not think we can ever see eye to eye; I think we should leave this subject and vote.

This debate has been remarkable in a sense, in that we have for some hours experienced the Minister himself and many of his supporters doing their utmost to deny their own policy; denying the policy which he himself quite recently enunciated on public platforms. We had that denial right in the beginning of the debate when the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) suggested that this Bill had two objects, firstly to do away with freehold rights enjoyed by Bantu in areas such as Alexandra, and secondly to do away with Bantu people living on a family basis in such areas as Alexandra. That was hotly denied, but at last we have had a correct statement as to the intention of this Bill from the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder). But these denials are empty words. After all, what did this Minister himself say the other day—I think it was on Saturday night, when he opened the show at Vereeniging—he said that the country must get used to a transitional stage, which he referred to as being the stage when the border industries are set up and there will be a gradual drift of Bantu out of the White areas to the border industries. That is the transitional stage, but he took it a step further and said that thereafter we must adapt our economy to a situation where there will not be available in the White areas Bantu labour. Exactly the same thing was said last year by the Minister of Labour when he came back from Europe and said it was true that we had launched the Bantu on the road to self-determination in their homelands, and that the place he will eventually evacuate in the ranks of our workers will have to be filled by others. In the light of that, what is the object of these hot denials we have had all through this debate of the intention of this Bill? After all, if you get rid of the Bantu gradually, and eventually of all of them, from the White areas, how on earth can you have family life for the Bantu in the White areas? To have family life there must be Bantu there, and if there are no Bantu there cannot be any family life.

But the interesting thing about all this is that that is the theory accepted by certain hon. members opposite, and not others, and the practice, as is so often the case with this Government, is quite different from the theory. The reality of the matter is quite different from the theory. Although the theory is to get rid of the Bantu in the White areas progressively over a period and then altogether, the reality of the position is the direct opposition. Year after year, the longer this Government stays in power, the more emphasis is put on this thing, and year after year we have more Bantu seeking and obtaining work in the so-called White area. I believe that in order to attempt to make the theory accord with the reality of the situation, it has been decided now—and this Bill is the first instalment of it— to stop the establishment of houses for Bantu families in the White areas, i.e. in the Bantu townships surrounding the White towns, and to build in the place of that these hostels which are foreshadowed for Alexandra. So that it can be said that the Bantu are not becoming a permanent part of the population in the White areas, but that they are merely migrant workers. That is the reason, and that is why it is so difficult to understand these hot denials we have had from the Minister and many of the other speakers opposite.

Denials of what?

Coming from that hon. member, this is even more astonishing. He, even more than the Minister, spent his entire speech telling us what this Bill did not do. what it was not intended to do, but not a word did he say as to what this Bill was intended to do; and while I am dealing with that hon. member I should like to refer to a question he put to this side of the House. He asked what our policy was in regard to the single Bantu in the northern parts of Johannesburg. I will answer that question. But before I come to that, the pertinent question is what is the Government’s policy with regard to the married Bantu, the Bantu with his family?

That is quite clear.

I will give the answer. There is no policy for those Bantu, because they will not be allowed to live in Alexandra, the only place which at present is provided for married Bantu in the northern parts of Johannesburg. There is to be no family life there, and consequently that party has no policy for those people. [Interjections.] The hon. member said “in that specific area”, but this is the only place where married Bantu who work in the northern parts of Johannesburg can live.

Nonsense! You do not even know where it is.

What is the use of saying to a Bantu who works in the northern parts of Johannesburg and whose wife works there, and whose two sons and two daughters all work in the northern part of Johannesburg, that if they want to live together as a family they must live in the western areas? It is quite clear from the White Paper that Alexandra must be kept as a Bantu location because the Bantu living in the western townships cannot easily and conveniently come to their work in the northern areas of Johannesburg. That is the only reason why this is kept as a Bantu area, on the Minister’s own admission, and here we have the absurdity from hon. members opposite that some concession is being made to the married Bantu presently living in Alexandra, that they can go and live in the western townships. It is like saying to a man who lives in Rondebosch in his own house, and who works in Cape Town, that you are expropriating his freehold rights but you are compensating him by giving him a plot at Caledon. [Interjections.] There are a great many dormitory towns on the Reef, but on your own admission there is only one dormitory town, Alexandra, where the Bantus working in the northern areas can live with any convenience at all. and that is the only reason for its existence. [Interjections.] Just to allay the wishful thinking of hon. members who suggest that I do not know where Alexandra is, I want to say that I know Alexandra very well. I lived quite near it for a number of years and went past it every day. [Interjections.]

I was going to tell the hon. member for Brakpan what the policy of the United Party was in so far as the single people who work in the northern parts of Johannesburg are concerned, and at the same time, just to forestall other questions of this ilk, I will also tell him something about our approach to the question of hostels. I will deal with hostels first. I cannot understand the mystery that surrounds the question of hostels from the point of view of hon. members opposite. Take our community; take the towns in which we live. There have always been hostels, even from the Victorian era. What happens to young, unmarried people in our community? In nine cases out of ten they live in their homes with their families. Those who live at a distance from where they work either lodge in a boarding-house or hotel or in the Y.M.C.A. hostels. Hostels, in our community, provide a most important amenity. That is why we created them, and exactly the same applies to the Bantu community. If they are allowed to have family life, as in the western townships, the young people will live with their families. Unattached females and young unmarried males normally live with their families, provided they are allowed to have a family life. But where you have young people living away from their families, obviously you must provide hostels for them, and that is what has been done by the various municipalities without any compulsion. Hostels, in their place, are necessary things. They provide an amenity for unmarried people in any community in the world, and exactly the same applies to the urban Bantu. But there is all the difference in the world between providing hostels for those who cannot live with their families and forcing every-body who wishes to live in a location into a hostel whether he likes it or not, and that is the difference between the attitude of this party and that of the Government. I hope that provides some answer to the questions put by the hon. member for Brakpan, and that is my answer to his questions as to what our policy is in regard to the single Bantu in the northern parts of Johannesburg. If you have a location such as we desire at Alexandra, where you have, as the norm, provision for family life, but in addition, for those who do not have their families there, you provide hostels, there is no problem.

So you support hostels in principle?

Of course, but not to the exclusion of all else, which is what is intended in this Bill.

You have not replied to my question about the denials.

What I said was that until the hon. member for Randfontein spoke, the assertions made by the hon. member for South Coast and the hon. member for Durban (Point) were hotly denied by the Minister and every other Government spokesman. All they said was that this measure was two-fold in its purpose, firstly to deprive the Bantu with freehold rights in Alexandra of that freehold, and secondly to do away with family life in Alexandra.

This measure is apparently innocuous on the face of it. It gives powers to the Minister to apply certain measures in the designated areas. We talk mainly about Alexandra, because that is the area to which it is mainly directed, according to the White Paper. In the hands of a Government other than one with a policy such as this Government has, it would not be very dangerous and could be used to advantage, but in addition to the advantages which might be contained in it it also gives powers to the Government which can be abused. I say this with consideration, because in terms of the statement the powers of expropriation—it is the intention of the Minister to abuse those powers. Nobody in the light of that can be expected to support this Bill. One of the powers is that of compulsory purchase or expropriation. Many of the homes in Alexandra have been bought out by free sale and there can be no objection to that. [Interjections.] Such plots as have been taken over by the Government have been sold voluntarily. There are many still which are held privately. It is clear that the powers under the Housing Act, which are to be applied in terms of this measure, will be used to do away with that privately-owned land and those freehold rights. That is an abuse of the power of expropriation. It is one thing to expropriate privately-owned land for the purpose of clearing slums and better town planning and to provide amenities for the community. That is a legitimate use of the power of expropriation, but to expropriate merely in order to extinguish a man’s rights is an abuse of that power. [Interjections.] Here we go again. I said earlier on that this debate was remarkable because of the denials by the Government of its stated policy, and here the hon. member for Heilbron does exactly the same thing. As I say, to use powers of expropriation merely to defeat a man’s rights and for no other reason at all constitutes an abuse of that power, and that is the principal reason why we on this side are not prepared to support this Bill.

There was some discussion earlier on in regard to the compensation to be given to people who lost their freehold rights. It is quite clear from the Press statement and the White Paper that they are to be given compensatory freehold rights in the Bantu areas. The hon. member for Heilbron referred to Umlazi as an example of how close to a city a Bantu was able to get freehold rights. It is fortuitous that there happens to be close to Durban an arm of a Native reserve. [Interjection.] The crucial question is that there are no such areas within 50 miles of Johannesburg. If you cannot give these people whose rights you take away equivalent rights, within the reach of daily transport to Johannesburg, you are not giving them equivalent rights. That is an abuse of the power of compulsory expropriation, which it is intended to exercise in that manner in terms of this Bill. [Interjections.] There is considerable legal doubt as to whether those powers can be exercised without this Bill. I think the Minister will agree that there is that doubt, and that is why this Bill was introduced. [Interjections.] This is another example of where theory and practice are poles apart, where reality and the theory simply do not touch sides. The trouble is that when you attempt to govern a country and the theoretical approach to the problem is so divorced from the reality, outside observers are inclined to say that this is not a sincere effort to solve the problem and it smacks of cynicism. I should like to give the House an example of that.

There have recently been reports in the Press in regard to the establishment or disestablishment of Bantu businesses in the so-called White areas. There was a report in the Press, said to have come from the Secretary for Bantu Administration. Of course, that official is not to be criticized because he is merely explaining the policy of the Minister, but it is to this effect that when Bantu companies and partnerships have already been permitted to control businesses in urban Bantu residential areas, they must under no circumstances be allowed to acquire or take over further businesses in the White areas, but they ought to go to the Bantu homelands for that. That is the principle. They must not establish their businesses in the townships where the mass of the Bantu population live, but must go to the Bantu area. There is a second report which highlights it more strongly, and that is in regard to Bantu hotels in Durban. The Minister probably knows of the circular I am referring to. It is to this effect—

What is any observer to think of a Government which seriously says to the Bantu businessman: You must develop your hotels in the large Bantu cities in the Bantu areas, where large Bantu cities are rapidly coming into being? [Interjections.] But for the fact that it comes from a responsible Department of State, one would say this is devoid of all truth. What is the African businessman to think when he is told that he must devote his business energies in the rapidly developing Bantu cities when there is no suggestion of even the beginning of such development? All the development of any kind where the Bantu can take part in an urban society is in the White areas.

I said, when I began this line of approach, that we have all along with this Minister and his Department a theory which is up here and a reality which is down there, and never the twain shall meet, and that is the type of situation in which the crises and emergencies we have at present breed. It has been said over and over again, and then hon. members opposite wonder why the United Party does not support this Bill. Let us for goodness sake once again face the realities of the situation. We have and shall have for the foreseeable future large concentrations of Bantu permanently living adjacent to the White urban areas. That being so, let us accept that at least those of them who have freehold rights in those areas should be allowed to keep them. With a policy like this they cannot be given adequate compensation anywhere else, let alone in the Bantu areas, and to go ahead with a policy such as this is to ask for trouble. I hope in these circumstances that at least some concessions will be made by the Minister during the progress of this Bill through the House, because I have dealt only with Alexandra but there are many other areas, as the Minister knows, where there are rights of this kind which have been enjoyed by the Bantu for many years and which this Bill will do away with.

I wish to say one thing before I sit down. Speakers on this side have said that these measures are unnecessary to clear up slum conditions. Without going into detail, may I just say this. Uuder this Government’s legislation of 1961. an Urban Bantu Council can be set up in such areas, consistent with freehold title, and it can be given all the power necessary under Section 4 to clear up the slums, to control the population, to develop building along proper lines, to do town planning, without doing away with freehold title, and that is what I should like to see done in Alexandra.