I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

I move—

We have now reached the final stage of the discussion on the Minister’s Budget, and I think it is important that we should place on record the fact that the Minister has given us no reply to the important issues raised by this side of the House. Sir, we put forward practical suggestions to the Minister as to how to meet the transportation crisis that exists; we made practical suggestions to him in the course of this debate as to how to meet the transportation needs of South Africa in the future, and we made certain suggestions to the Minister in respect of the present staff difficulties but, Sir, we have had no reply from the hon. the Minister. But what I think is more important is that the Minister has displayed no vision at all; he has not told us in this debate how he intends in the future to meet the problems of the Railways, to which he himself referred in his Budget speech. I am reminded of what the Minister told the staff of the S.A. Railways in his Christmas message. On that occasion the Minister, quoting from Thomas Carlyle, said, “Our main business is not to see what lies dimly at a distance but to do what lies clearly at hand.” Sir, I think the Minister will not take it amiss if I use that quotation on this occasion in relation to the Minister. We think that he should do what lies clearly at hand and that he should give this side of the House and the country the benefit of his ideas and views as to the future transportation needs of South Africa and how he intends to overcome the transportation problems of the S.A. Railways.

There is another matter which I think I should deal with right at the outset and that is the challenge which the Minister threw out so glibly across the floor of the House on another occasion and to which we on this side of the House responded. I want to remind the House that the Minister issued the challenge; he said that he was prepared to stake his personal reputation in this matter and, if necessary, to resign if he could not get a vote of confidence from the staff associations. On the first occasion the Minister ignored our acceptance of his challenge; it was only when he was prompted on a second occasion that the Minister responded to our acceptance of his challenge, but because the Minister was afraid of our acceptance of his challenge as issued by him originally, he proceeded to add further qualifications to his original challenge. Sir, what is distressing about it is this: The Minister has no scruples whatsoever in throwing out a challenge of this nature across the floor of the House and dragging the Railway staff associations and Railway employees into the political arena; he does so on the evening of what are obviously delicate negotiations between the hon. the Minister and the staff associations in regard to the difficult staff position. Sir, I throw back with contempt the counter challenge issued by the hon. the Minister because it is clear that the Minister was running away from his original challenge.

Sir, there is one other matter which I think you will forgive me for raising in passing because I do not think that this should be left unsaid: I refer to the shocking report broadcast over the S.A.B.C.’s political programme in respect of the debates which have taken place in this House. It was said in that broadcast that it was our policy …

Order! I think the hon. member should raise that matter on another occasion.

It was stated that our policy for solving the staff problem was to break down the colour bar. We have never said that and it has never been the attitude of this side.

You are trying to break down the colour bar; that is quite true.

Sir, we have not seen the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) in this House at all during these discussions; he has displayed no interest whatsoever in the lot of the railwaymen in his constituency and now he enters this debate by way of an interjection.

I still say that you want to break down the colour bar.

Our policy is clear. If anybody has broken down the colour bar in the Railway Administration, then it is the Minister and the Minister has done so in following the policy that he has been following over the past few years; he has admitted it in this House in the course of these debates. Our policy is perfectly clear; it has been stated over and over again and I am not going to repeat it on this occasion. Sir, what are the realities of the situation; what are the burdens which are being placed to-day on the shoulders of the railwaymen? The Minister has told us that there are 7,500 actual vacancies on the establishment of the Railway Administration to-day. He has also told us that the position is likely to worsen if the Railways are required to haul more traffic than they are hauling at the present time.

It is self-evident that if the present boom conditions described by hon. members on the Government benches are to continue, then the Railways are going to be required to haul more traffic than they have done over the past 12 months, and if they have to haul more traffic a greater effort will be required from the railwayman. Sir, I want to be realistic about these figures. The Auditor-General points out that in 1959 it took 1.86 railway-men to operate 1,000 train and engine miles; in 1964, according to the latest report of the Auditor-General, it took 1.60 railwaymen to operate the same number of train and engine miles. In other words, it requires 25 per cent more effort on the part of the existing establishment to cope with the demands made on the Railways as far as traffic is concerned. But if one wants to put these figures on an even more realistic basis, then one must bear in mind that in 1964, compared to 1959, the Railways are operating 50,000,000 more engine and train miles, and yet there has been a reduction of 2,200 employees during that period in the staff establishment concerned with hauling an additional 50,000,000 engine and train miles plus an additional 20,000,000 tons of traffic. Sir, those figures are quoted in the Auditor-General’s reports for 1959 and 1964. Sir, the pertinent question that arises here is this: What have the railwaymen got out of this additional effort? What have they got from the hon. the Minister? It is very interesting to see what the railwaymen have in fact got from the Minister. The Minister refers in his White Paper to pa] increases granted to the railwaymen, to the holiday bonus, to the consolidation of cost-of-living allowances and to the rationalization of pay and grades. Sir, I am going to quote two comparative figures. I think it is necessary to do this because the Minister, when he was told by the hon. member for Yeoville that it was possible to meet to a certain extent the legitimate pay demands of the railwaymen. stated that if he had to give an increase of 10 per cent it would cost the country another R26,000,000. Sir, what is the Minister’s objective in mentioning that figure in this House? His first objective is to frighten the country and his second objective is to frighten the railway men. What are the facts? Taking into consideration the rationalization of nay and grades, the consolidation of cost-of-living allowance and the holiday bonus, the railway-men have not had a 5 per cent increase in the over-all benefits given to them between 1959 and 1964. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister wants to know how I arrived at that figure. The Minister has prepared surpluses during that same period amounting to R 120,000,000, but the railwaymen have not had 5 per cent out of the surpluses declared by the Minister during that same period. Are you surprised at all, Sir, that the railwaymen who are being asked to put in more and more effort in order to keep the wheels of the Railways turning for the Minister, are asking themselves, “What do we get out of all our efforts; what do we get out of working overtime, Sunday-time, and foregoing ordinary home life; what do we get out of this 25 per cent additional effort that is required from us in order to keep the wheels of the Railways turning?” The railwaymen want to know why they have received nothing out of the surpluses of R 120,000,000 which the Minister was able to declare because the railwaymen did their duty and more than did their duty over these years. The plain fact of the matter is that what is called for is a new approach on the part of the Minister to staff problems. The Minister talks about planning, but I ask the House and I ask the country what concrete suggestion the Minister has put forward to overcome the obvious difficulties that he faces at the present time? There has been no suggestions whatsoever from the hon. the Minister, but what there has been is an attempt not only by the Minister but by hon. members on the Government benches to make political capital out of the industrial colour bar. Sir, we on these benches have put forward certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister; we have drawn his attention to the steps taken by the United Party Government when it was faced with a similar set of circumstances in the immediate post-war years. The United Party Government at that time faced a similar problem; it faced a shortage of manpower not in the higher grades but in the lower grades of railwaymen. The United Party Government of those days appointed a commission to investigate the while situation and it was as a result of the recommendations of that commission that the immediate difficulties, as far as unskilled and semi-skilled staff were concerned, were immediately overcome. We throw out the suggestion to the hon. the Minister that he might well follow the example of the then United Party Government and appoint a commission to investigate the position of rail workers and casual workers, of whom there are something like 15,000 in the Railway Service. Should their positions not be improved; can these men not be trained for semi-skilled occupations such as those of shunters and foremen. occupations requiring only a Std. VI level of education? It is in those lower grades that the Minister has to contend with a shortage of staff, not so much in the higher grades. The Minister told us on another occasion. “My problem is that I cannot find the men to fill these lower grades because the educational standard required is so low.” With the rising standard of education in South Africa as far as Whites are concerned, I want to ask the hon. the Minister where he hopes then to get guards, shunters and station foremen if the only educational qualification required is Std. VI? Is that the prospect that is held out to Whites to-day, that under the National Party Government they can leave school at Std. VI and then go and work in the Railway Service, where they have to be content with the low rates of pay applicable to these semiskilled occupations? It is our view on this side that if there was a satisfactory relationship between the Minister and the staff associations it would be possible to negotiate with the staff associations with a view to replacing Whites employed in these posts with non-Whites. We base that statement on the fact that we believe that the trade union leaders in the Railway Service are responsible men, and if they have the interests of the workers at heart, as we do not doubt they have, then we are quite convinced that they want to see the income level and the standard of living of their members raised. Sir, if there are no Whites available to fill these posts and the train still has to be kept running and the demands made on the Railways to convey goods increase year by year, then what is the Minister’s alternative? Is his alternative to say that he must find more men with Std. VI only to meet the shortage of shunters, station foremen, etc., or is his alternative to go to the staff associations and to say, “I want to uplift the standard of living and the income levels of the men employed in these semi-skilled occupations and I see no alternative but to replace them by non-Whites, by Coloureds and Indians?” Sir, the Minister is doing that at the present time. The Minister is employing Coloured clerks. A White clerk is classed as an officer; he is not classed as an employee in the Railway Service. What is a Coloured clerk? Is he an officer or an employee? There are many posts in which the services of non-Whites are being used in the Railway Service to-day, but our complaint against the Minister is that he is not prepared, for politcal reasons, to face the transportation problem of South Africa. I personally believe that it is because of the Minister’s lack of confidence in the leadership of the staff associations, that he cannot face this issue squarely and settle with the railway employees. I have no doubt that there is not a single railwayman in the lower grades to-day who does not want to see his post up-graded and to improve his position.

I want to mention one further example. The hon. the Minister claims that the relations between himself and the staff are perfectly satisfactory; that he looks after the interests of the staff in every direction and that there is no need for complaint. He says that the relationships between him and the staff are cordial. Sir, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether that is quite true. The House will recall the difficulties which the Minister experienced with his Airways’ technicians. But the Airways’ technicians are not the only technicians with whom he experienced difficulties. I want to ask the Minister whether he has had any dealings with Railway technicians employed in the communications, signals and lighthouse sections. There are some 350 of these technicians holding equally responsible positions as the Airways’ technicians. My information is that these technicians, holding responsible positions, put forward representations through the usual channels, through their staff association. Salstaff, for an up-grading of their posts on 10 October of last year. On 25 November these technicians, with the executive of Salstaff, met the General Manager. I understand that the General Manager’s attitude to their representations was sympathetic, and when the General Manager referred the matter to the Chief Signals Engineer, who is directly concerned with their work, and to the Chief Electrical Engineer, these responsible officers, representing the Management, fully substantiated the claims made by the technicians and made some pertinent observations, I am given to understand, in favour of the representations made by these technicians. The General Manager’s reply on this occasion was that he would have to refer this matter to the Minister for a decision. He had to do so because the Minister had advised the Federal Consultative Council that he was not disposed to grant any further wage increases to the staff in view of the fact that they had been granted a holiday bonus. The technicians were advised that the Minister’s decision would be made known to them early in January. By the middle of February, some three and a half months after they had submitted their original representations, the technicians had still received no reply, so they sent off a telegram in the middle of February and the Minister’s reply was made known to the technicians on 28 February only. Sir, I am not going to go into all the claims of these technicians. I am merely indicating the history to indicate that although the technicians made representations through the correct channels on 10 October, it was only on 28 February, after a telegram to the Minister, that they received an adequate and satisfactory answer. In other words, for four months, this group laboured under a grievance and they are still labouring under a grievance because they have received no satisfaction whatsoever from the Minister; the Minister refuses to give any consideration to their claim. The complaint of these Railways technicians is that although they are required to specialize in two particular trades, as compared with Post Office technicians who are required to specialize in one trade only, their salary scale is lower than that of the Post Office technicians who, as we all know, are at present agitating for an increase in pay. After the hon. the Minister’s decision was made known to them, the majority of these technicians voted in favour of taking similar action to that taken by the Airways technicians, and it was only on the wise advice of their leaders that such action was not taken and that they decided to continue to negotiate for improved conditions. Sir, this is but one group; there are many such groups in the Railway Service to-day who are agitating for a redress of their grievances. This case is typical of the dilatory fashion in which the Minister and the Administration proceeded to handle what is obviously a case requiring very special consideration by him as Minister so as to be able to have a satisfied and contented staff. In this particular case the Minister cannot level the charge against this group of technicians, as he did against the Airways’ technicians, that they did not submit their representations through the proper channels. These men acted along the proper lines. It is clear that they are a frustrated group; there have been numbers of resignations. These men are specialists in their particular fields and they cannot easily be replaced. Sir, if this attitude continues to be adopted towards the staff, if this dilatoriness continues, if the Minister fails immediately to attend to the requirements of the staff in a manner which will satisfy the staff, then one can imagine what the over-all result will be. Sir, if we are to keep a happy and contented Railway staff, then it is perfectly clear that what is required is an entirely new approach to the entire staff structure of the Railways. And when we talk about staff, we do not think only of the 1,800 White employees. If the expansion of the Railways is to continue, if the capital expenditure of R 1,000,000 provided for in the Brown Book is to be justified, if the tonnage hauled by the Railways is to continue to increase, then nobody in his right senses will contend that the staff requirements of the S.A. Railways can be met out of the available White manpower, because as the Minister well knows and as the Prime Minister must know, there are simply no Whites available to occupy these lower grades. It is obvious why White manpower is not available to fill these posts; it is because the standard of living of the White South African is continually rising, and in those circumstances the Minister has no hope whatsoever of filling these low-graded positions in the Railway Service. Our complaint is that the Minister will not face the reality of the situation in South Africa; he is not prepared to face the staff associations and admit the reality of the situation. Why? Because there will be an election on the 24th and the Government can still make a little bit of political propaganda with regard to the industrial colour bar. [Interjections.] I have often observed in the past, Sir, that when you strike the right note, when you have hit the target, you get a flood of interjections from hon. members on the other side. The obvious thing to do is to face the realities of the situation, to adopt a practical approach, and to say, “We must negotiate in this matter.” Sir, we have given the Minister the idea, but I do not know whether he will rise to it.

In the minute or two left to me I want to emphasize again the remarkable situation that we have here, a situation which I do not think has ever been equalled in the annals of this Parliament. Here we have a Budget in which the Minister sets aside R6,000,000 and puts it into his back pocket: he says, “I am putting it into my back pocket because I do not quite know how I am going to spend it.” The Minister sets aside R6,000,000 on the basis of a report about which the Minister has been afraid to say one single word in this House. Sir, this is the most important report that has ever been produced as far as the financial structure of the Railways is concerned. Here we have a report which will not only affect the financial structure of the Railways but which, if its main recommendations were implemented, would greatly influence the economic expansion of our country in the future. The Minister’s only reference to this report in his Budget speech is his announcement that he is locking R6,000,000 away in his back pocket but he refuses to tell us how he is going to spend it and which recommendations contained in the Report he is going to accept and which recommendations he refuses to accept. All the Minister says, is “I am not going to answer your questions now; come back next session and then we will deal with it”. He asks us to come back next session, two years after the publication of the report. Sir, we are placed in a ludicrous position. On the one hand we have to vote R 1,000,000 for capital expenditure on railway expansion; on the other hand we have a committee appointed by the Minister to investigate the co-ordination of transport services in South Africa. The Minister has been unable to draw a distinction between the obvious needs for railway operating in South Africa and the obvious requirements and the future of railway transportation in South Africa in relation to all the other transportation possibilities that the commission of inquiry appointed by the Minister may recommend for the future. But what is even worse is that when the report of a commission appointed by the Minister to go into the rationalization of transport requirements and the proper coordination of the Railways as a public transportation service and the interests of private transportation, is made available and makes it clear that the obvious future of the Railways will be based on the haulage of bulk traffic, we will not know nor will the Minister know (because there may even be a change of Government), because we will not be in possession of the facts, what the position will be as far as railway capital expenditure is concerned. In relation to any recommendations of this commission appointed to investigate the co-ordination of transport needs, an investigation into capital expenditure is clearly required. Because it is obviously clear that the millions of capital being expended to-day is not for the haulage of high-rated traffic. The Minister can haul all the high-rated traffic he wants to haul; he gets 50 per cent of his revenue from high-rated traffic, but the capital expenditure we are incurring to-day is for the haulage of low-rated traffic such as agricultural products, mineral products and so on. Sir, the Schumann Report, which throws overboard the long-cherished idea of basing rates on the principle of what the traffic can bear, recommends drastic new thinking, yet the Minister has not been able to utter one word on these principles. I think it is clear that this debate has revealed that the Minister has shown himself to be incompetent and unable to meet the problems facing the S.A. Railways.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) has once again asked, “What thanks have the railway staff received from the Minister?” Sir, it is very easy to reply to that question, and the hon. member knows as well as I do what the reply is. The railwaymen in South Africa have received more during the past ten years from the present Minister of Transport by way of improvements to their conditions of service, their wages and salaries, than in any other period in the history of the S.A. Railways. The hon. member comes here and says that the reason why the Minister refuses to make up his mind about the request for increased wages is the fact that an election is due to take place on 24 March. Mr. Speaker, what audacity on the part of the hon. member to make that statement here! The truth is that it is because of the fact that there is going to be an election on the 24th that the Opposition are raising this hullabaloo here. The Opposition have apparently taken upon themselves the task and the functions of the staff associations to put forward wage demands to the Minister, and then the hon. member comes along and says that the Opposition believe that the leaders of the railway staff associations are responsible people. Mr. Speaker, they do not believe that; they have no confidence in the leaders of the staff associations. They are trying to take upon themselves the work of the leaders of the staff associations. They believe that the leaders of the staff associations are not man enough to put forward their requests to the hon. Minister. And then the hon. member actually comes along and says that the United Party believe that the leaders of the railway staff associations are responsible people. The United Party are obviously trying to pose here as the friend of the railwaymen, and the reason why they are doing so is that there is an election in the offing. But what sort of railwaymen’s friend are they? Are they not the people who have been pleading year after year in this House for greater relaxations of the Motor Transportation Act; are they not the people who have been pleading here year after year for exemptions to be given to private road hauliers so that they can convey more and more goods by road? What would that have meant? It would have meant a serious reduction in railway revenue. But at the same time they are also the people who ask for increased wages for the staff. They do not pause to ask themselves where the revenue is to come from if the Minister grants the request for increased wages. But they went even further; whenever tariffs have been raised they have always said that the railway user is being overtaxed unnecessarily. But, Sir, but for the fact that those tariffs were increased it would simply have been impossible to pay the railwayman the salary or the wage that he is receiving at the present time, and wage increases either to-day or at some future date would have been entirely out of the question. Sir, it was this same Opposition who strenuously opposed the 10 per cent increase in tariffs in 1962 and who argued that that increase was unnecessary; that it would only push up the cost of living. But if tariffs had not been increased at that time by 10 per cent, it would have been impossible to improve the working conditions of the railway staff and to increase their wages and salaries by nearly R60,000,000 per annum as has been done over the past few years. The Opposition now come along and suddenly plead for the salaries and wages of the railway staff to be increased, but what do they say in the same breath; what did the hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) advocate here the other day? His plea was that the railway system should be so developed that it always has an excessive carrying capacity so that the Railways will at all times be able to cope with peak traffic. What would that mean? It would mean the investment of much more capital than is being invested in the Railways at the present time; it would bring about an increased burden of interest for the Railways, an interest burden which would have to be defrayed from current revenue. An excessive carrying capacity would simply have a detrimental effect upon railway revenue. But these are the people who come here and plead that salaries and wages should be increased. They fail to tell the railwaymen, however, what would happen if the wage increases advocated by them in this House today were granted, or what would have happened if the increases advocated by them in the past had been granted. It would have involved the Railways in such a loss of revenue that it would not even have been possible to maintain the present wage and salary structure of the railwaymen, and wage increases now or in the future would have been out of the question. These are the people who come and pose here as the friends of the railwaymen. Sir, the railwaymen might well say, “Save me from my friends!” Mr. Speaker, the Opposition want to have it both ways; on the one hand they want to reduce tariffs; they want to grant more exemptions to road hauliers to make inroads upon the revenue of the Railways, and on the other hand they want to increase wages and salaries. Goodness only knows where the money is to come from; I suppose they think the money will descend from Heaven like manna.

I want to make use of this opportunity to deny very definitely and emphatically that any hon. member on this side of the House has at any stage expressed any opinion with regard to the requests from the staff for wage increases. As has been correctly said, we regard that as the task and the function of the railway staff associations; we have confidence in them. Not only do we have confidence in them but we also have sufficient confidence in the hon. the Minister to believe that he will see to it that the railway staff are given not only what is fair and just but also what is possible. Where hon. members on this side referred to the rise in the cost of living and compared it with salary and wage increases, they did so in reply to the Opposition’s accusation that the hon. the Minister of Transport had neglected his duty towards the railwaymen and that he had neglected them. We did so to indicate that the hon. the Minister had done his duty towards the railwaymen and that wage increases had kept pace with the rise in the cost of living. But in making this comparison we certainly did not want to suggest that the railwaymen did not have the right to ask for increased wages or salaries. Even though wage and salary increases have kept pace with the rise in the cost of living, we nevertheless realize that there has been a rise in the standard of living and that that higher standard of living makes greater and greater demands upon the pockets of people. We realize that with this higher standard of living people are finding it difficult, on their present salaries or wages, to meet all their obligations. As a matter of fact, that is also what the hon. the Prime Minister specifically stated in the same speech in which the Opposition now allege that he suggested that wages were going to be pegged. The Prime Minister specifically said that one naturally sympathized with those who were struggling, with the wage-earners, and he then went on to say that this yearning for increased wages was due to the fact that people were anxious to maintain their higher standard of living. There has never been any question of pegging of wages.

We on this side of the House and the railwaymen of South Africa have confidence in the hon. the Minister of Transport. The hon. the Minister of Transport has expressed his thanks to the railwaymen of this country in a tangible way in the past. We know that he will also do everything that he possibly can in the future provided it does not clash with the interests of South Africa, which at the same time also happens to be the interests of the railwaymen. The hon. the Minister has never broken his word to the railwaymen. I want to remind the House of what happened a few years ago at the time of the election in 1961. At that time there were also requests from the staff for increased wages. What was the hon. the Minister’s reaction? He said: “I cannot tell you at this stage whether I will be able to afford the increased wages; we will see later in the course of the year whether railway finances will permit the granting of increases.” What happened at that time? The whole of the Opposition went from platform to platform exploiting this statement and telling the railwaymen of South Africa, “The Minister will never increase your salaries; he will simply leave you in the lurch”. What happened? The election was held and after the election the Minister put the Opposition to shame by carrying out his promise towards the staff and by giving them the increases for which they had asked.

There was a reason for it.

There was a reason, but that was after the election. No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister does not act like the Opposition; he is not out to catch votes before an election; he has too high a regard for the railwaymen to do so. He thinks too much of them as to seek to create the impression that he is trying to buy their votes by means of pay increases. I only wish the Opposition would have the same high regard for the railwaymen, but they have such a low opinion of the railwaymen of South Africa that they believe that they can buy his vote by putting forward pleas and requests here for wage increases.

The hon. member for Turffontein seriously objects to our statement that they want to relax the colour bar. He says that they have never advocated a relaxation of the colour bar in the railway service. But if the hon. member for Turffontein looks at the speeches made by the hon. member for Yeoville, if he looks at what was said by the hon. member for Yeoville during the last recess, he will see that one of the solutions put forward by the hon. member for Yeoville to the hon. the Minister to overcome the staff shortage was that he should relax the colour bar in the railway service.

He did not say that.

Oh yes, very definitely. The hon. member for Yeoville even boasted that the United Party’s policy of economic integration was now being applied. Sir, the hon. member for Turffontein is now suddenly very perturbed about the staff shortage in the railway service. But when the question was very pertinently put to them during these debates whether they wanted non-Whites to be employed as firemen to overcome the shortage, they failed to reply. Sir, there is a shortage of station foremen and station-masters. Does the United Party want non-Whites to be employed as station foremen and stationmasters? What is their reply? No, now they are as silent as the grave.

The hon. member for Turffontein complains that the Minister has not told the House what he is going to do in respect of the problem of staff shortages. Sir, as the hon. the Minister told the hon. member for Turffontein the other day, he cannot manufacture people. The hon. the Minister cannot go and erect a factory to manufacture the staff he requires. He cannot take people by the scruff of their necks and force them to come and work in the railway service. There is a shortage of engineers. There are no non-Whites available for appointment as engineers. Must non-Whites be appointed as engineers? Is that what the United Party wants?

What are you going to do to solve this problem?

Sir, it is easy to criticize. It is easy to come along here with superficial generalities, as the hon. member for Turffontein did here to-day. I knew …

You are running away now.

… that they would run away from this so-called relaxation of the colour bar. During the second-reading debate we had the ridiculous situation that on two occasions the hon. member for Yeoville appealed to you, Mr. Speaker, to inquire whether the hon. the Minister of Transport could discuss labour matters in this debate. But it was the hon. member for Yeoville himself who in the first instance raised the question of the relaxation of the colour bar in this House. When he got his reply, when he got a beating, then he started squealing, he could not take it.

Where do you get hold of that?

From the lips of the hon. member for Yeoville—and if the hon. member had listened to the hon. member for Yeoville he would have heard the same thing.

The United Party always tell us that their policy is “the rate for the job”, but are they going to apply this policy of theirs to the Railways? Of course they are not going to apply it. They do not even apply it in the Province in which there is a United Party-controlled Provincial Council, namely Natal. They do not even apply the principle of the rate for the job in Natal. What is the use of having a policy if you cannot apply it or if you refuse to apply it? The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis)—I am sorry that he is not here at the moment—expressed great indignation recently over the fact that Britons had come from Britain to South Africa to come and work here as shunters at a wage of R100 per month. He said that there were many Indians who were prepared to do this work at R50 per month. I do not hold it against the hon. member for Umlazi that he adopts that attitude. There we have a person who is faithful to the policy of his party. Like his party he is inconsistent as far as their policy of “the rate for the job” is concerned, but, again like his party, he is very consistent as far as their policy of cheap labour in the Railway Service is concerned. After all, it was former Minister Jagger who retrenched more than 17,000 Whites and appointed non-Whites in their place.

The United Party are keen to create the impression—the hon. member for Turffontein again did so this afternoon—that there is something seriously wrong with railway planning; they want to create the impression that railway planning cannot keep pace with the economic growth of the country and that consequently the Railways are unable to keep pace with the economic development of this country. But what would have happened if the Minister and the Railways had had to rely on the judgment of the Opposition with regard to the economic prospects of South Africa? In his recent annual report the General Manager of Railways described the terrific, fantastic economic growth in South Africa as an economic upheaval. Sir, did the Opposition foresee this economic upheaval? Did they display any vision as to what was going to happen to our economy in this country? Mr. Speaker, you are as familiar as I am with the jeremiads that we have had here from hon. members on the other side, the jeremiads that we had in this House year after year from the hon. member for Constantia (Mr. Waterson.) The Opposition prophesied the most terrible consequences for South Africa if Government policy was implemented. If all the economic disasters predicted by the Opposition had actually overtaken South Africa, then by this time everybody in the Republic would have succumbed to hunger. Mr. Speaker, can you believe it that these are the same people who now come along with the charge against the hon. the Minister that he did not have sufficient vision to plan for the enormous economic upsurge in South Africa! If I had not witnessed it myself I would never have believed it.

The hon. member talked about planning. It is all very well to talk about vision and longterm planning, but it is time hon. members opposite told us more specifically what they mean and what they understand by long-term planning on the Railways. Let them tell us on what bases long-term planning must take place. The Schumann Committee describes in detail, for the benefit of the hon. member for Turffontein, on what basis planning is undertaken on the Railways at the present time. I want to ask the hon. member what more can be done; what more can be done than the Railways are already doing as far as planning is concerned? In a country of vast distances such as South Africa, with its concentration of people in the cities, one can plan the railway system to the best of one’s ability but as soon as the country experiences an economic boom there will always be bottlenecks for the simple reason that one cannot expect private concerns, long in advance, to divulge their contemplated expansion programmes. It is these unforeseen programmes of expansion and development, which are known to nobody except the people directly concerned, which usually lead to bottle-necks in the railway system. If hon. members opposite had suggested ways and means of enabling the hon. the Minister and his Management to read the thoughts of private entrepreneurs as far as the future is concerned, then at least they would have suggested something practical.

They complain about planning. During the period 1945-50 the average annual expenditure on capital expansion was R48,100,000; during the next five years, from 1950 to 1955, the average was R51,900,000; from 1955 to 1960 it was R116,400,000, and during the past five years, up to 1965, the average was R81,000,000. To-day we are being asked to vote R120,000,000 in this Budget. But the hon. member for Turffontein complains and says that that is inadequate for the capital development of the Railways. I want to point out to him that this sum of R 120,000,000 which is being spent this year is 67 per cent more than the average amount of R72,200,000 spent over the past 20 years. Does he think that this amount is inadequate or that it is being wrongly spent? If he can show that it is being spent wrongly, then it goes without saying that the important expansions proposed by him must be based on facts; he cannot simply come along with superficial generalities. If he is able to show that the Minister is planning his expansion programmes incorrectly, then he will at least be putting forward constructive criticism; he will then at least be getting away from the generalities that we always have from him when he talks about planning.

Now that the Minister is spending R520,000,000 on capital expansion on the Railways and proposes to spend the whole of that amount in the year which lies ahead of us, the hon. member accuses the Minister of insufficient planning, but six years ago when the hon. the Minister spent about R 116,000,000 on capital expansion on the Railways, hon. members on the other side made the accusation against the Minister that he was putting too much capital into railway development. To-day hon. members opposite tell us that the Railways must be developed and planned in such a way that they will be able to cope with all peak traffic in the future. What will happen then in times of depression when the Railways have an excessive carrying capacity and that excessive carrying capacity has a detrimental effect on Railway revenue and on Railway finance? The Opposition, the very people who to-day come along with the charge against the hon. the Minister that there is a so-called transportation crisis, would then be the first people to accuse the Minister of having landed the Railways in a financial crisis. That is the cost of accusation that will then be made against the hon. the Minister if he does to-day what they apparently want him to do.

Sir, I want to say to the hon. member for Turffontein that when he talks about planning he should put forward constructive thoughts and suggestions. He must simply not criticize the present planning and come along with the general statement that there is a lack of planning on the Railways. Any monkey can put forward inconsistent criticism which is based entirely on present-day circumstances. But unfortunately that does not help the Railways. Fortunately it does not help the United Party either.

The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has advanced a number of arguments which I think deserve attention. In the first place, as has become customary in the discussion on the Budget, he accused us of trying to catch votes for the coming election as far as staff matters were concerned. I think it is a question of the Government itself standing behind the door and now they are also looking for us there. I think the difficulty with hon. members opposite is that they cannot distinguish between those matters in respect of which they always catch votes and those matters which are of general importance to a large section of the people of South Africa. I want hon. members to remember that when I, get up and plead for the railwayman I am not doing so with a view to the coming election but with a view to the railwaymen of South Africa really having a cause which is worth pleading.

The second point made by the hon. member was that over the past ten years the staff have received more than ever before. Apart from statistics the fundamental fact remains that in spite of all these increases to which the hon. member has referred there are still thousands of people on the Railways who are deeply dissatisfied with their income. I think that is the decisive factor. Then I wish to add for the edification of the hon. member—I may be wrong but I do not think so—that the hon. the Minister has never yet given a salary increase, over and above the normal increases, for which the railwaymen have not asked and for which they have not fought in some respects. That, I think, is the decisive factor. In spite of the glorious position in which the railwayman is alleged to find himself the fact remains that the people are knocking daily at the door of the Minister, as it were, in an attempt to get their position improved.

The hon. member also stated that we had suggested to the Minister to abolish the colour bar. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has misstated the case completely. We have explained our attitude over and over again to the hon. the Minister. We suggested to him that he should try to push in the non-Whites at the bottom and in that way try to push the Whites higher. The fundamental principle is one of industrial democracy and we stand by that. We stated clearly to the hon. the Minister that he must not tell us he is going to do so but that what we wanted was this: When he appointed non-Whites to any post in the service of the Railways he must only do so after consultation and with the approval of the staff associations of the Railways. The hon. Minister then said: “Supposing the people say they do not want it? Supposing the staff associations say they do not want non-Whites to enter.”? The hon. the Minister then asked what the position would be. But I cannot believe that. I believe that when the railwayman of South Africa realizes the seriousness of the situation, when he realizes that not only the Railways but South Africa will, in the long run, suffer a manpower shortage, he would reveal the necessary sense of responsibility and sound judgment to give the Minister the green light. But to accuse us of wanting to abolish the colour bar is to misrepresent the truth entirely. I want to add that I do not think any Minister has ever employed as many non-Whites in the Railway service as precisely the present Minister. I do not think we can get away from that fact.

Let us return to the debate itself. When you think of the Budget, Sir, and all the discussions which have preceded it I think I am right in saying that two big question marks hang over the Budget itself. Not one of those question marks has so far been cleared up and both have to be explained if the Budget is to to through.

The first matter I wish to touch upon is the question of the Schumann Report. I think this is an extremely important matter and I am surprised that we have heard so little so far about the principles involved in this matter. The Schumann Report suggests radical changes to the tariff structure of the Railways. They suggest a brand new principle, namely, large-scale subsidies by the Central Government to adjust the tariffs. It is a report which, if accepted—nobody knows if it will be— would cost the State, agriculture and other facets of our national economy millions of rand. Various hon. members have already spoken about the agricultural aspect but nobody has so far said anything about the other facets, such as commerce and industry, as far as the tariffs are concerned. We think of it as a report which, as far as the suburban passenger services are concerned, will perhaps take millions of rand out of the pockets of the passengers if it is accepted.

The Minister cannot tell us that he has not yet considered the matter. It is true that the hon. the Minister told us he wanted to give commerce and industry an opportunity up to the end of the year of considering the matter but the fundamental fact is this that, when we read the Minister’s Budget speech, we realize that he has very definitely given attention to the commission and the possible implications of the report. He told us clearly that as a result of preliminary calculations he had already made provision to reduce his surplus by a globular sum of R6,000,000. That is a big amount, Mr. Speaker. The hon. the Minister did not tell us in respect of which items that reduction was going to be made. The hon. the Minister did not utter one word as to which facets of the report he was going to accept. This is a serious and important matter. It is of the greatest importance that the Minister should have raised this matter in his Budget speech and that this House should have had the right of discussing that report. The hon. the Minister has not given us that opportunity. I want to put it this way that I think before the hon. the Minister accepts or rejects this report, or accepts or rejects it in part, it is of the utmost importance that this House be given the opportunity of discussing the matter. Mr. Speaker, it is a matter of the utmost importance. I do not think this House can shift its responsibility in regard to this matter on to the shoulders of the Minister without any further ado. This is the place where the money has to be voted. I think we have a responsibility to fulfill towards the people outside. When the Minister goes ahead and deals with this matter on his own he is by-passing this House. I think we have a well-founded case. This question as far as the Schumann Report is concerned has not been disposed of during the Budget debate. I think in this respect the hon. the Minister owes the House a more detailed and concise reply.

There is a second question mark above this Budget. You can do nothing about it. The fact remains that this question of a manpower shortage is important. The Railways suffer from an extremely hampering influence; the Minister’s own Budget speech was interspersed with references to the manpower shortage. The Minister would surely not have been so serious about the matter had it not been so serious. Only the other day we read in the Press that as a result of the manpower shortage as many as seven trains could not be sent out in the Free State on one day. Surely this position cannot continue. If the present tempo of economic development were to continue it is obvious that the time will arrive when the manpower shortage on the Railways will be of such a nature that it will simply be impossible for the Railways to perform its functions efficiently. Surely it is not only the Railways who suffer; it is the Railways themselves and also South Africa as such because of the dominant role the Railways play in our transport system. The Minister agrees but what do we find? The Minister told us the other day he could not manufacture people. We agree with the hon. Minister. We appreciate his problems. We have already told him that but we did add that he as one of the responsible Ministers of State could not escape the blame which attached to him in this connection.

Blame which attached to him?

The manpower shortage on the Railways. The Minister cannot get away from that responsibility. Together with the Government he is responsible for having stopped one of the most important steps ever taken, namely immigration, to augment the manpower in South Africa. We tell the hon. the Minister again that we are aware of his problems. It is true that we blame the Minister for certain defects but we are aware of the problems. We suggested specific steps. I personally suggested steps that could be taken but hon. members said it was not worth while considering them. The fact of the matter is this that I do not think the hon. the Minister —I say this with due respect—is doing his duty when he comes to this House and says: “I realize there is a shortage; I am aware of all its implications but you cannot expect me to do anything about it; I cannot manufacture people in factories.”

Can you?

That is the state of mind we have to contend with, Sir. We suggested to the Minister that he should consider employing non-Whites. If the hon. the Minister gives favourable consideration to the suggestion of the Opposition in this connection it will not only assist the Railways; it will assist the White workers; it will assist the non-Whites and it will, in the long run, assist South Africa. Our suggestion is self-evident. We again want to state unequivocally that no non-White should be taken on in any position unless the Minister and the staff associations see eye to eye on the matter. I repeat that I cannot accept that the staff associations will refuse. If they realize the seriousness of the situation they will not refuse. If they realize that the fate of South Africa and their personal fate are at issue I do believe they will have the necessary sense of responsibility and good judgment to say to the hon. the Minister that they are prepared to assist him.

You want to force it down their throats.

Surely it is not a question of forcing it down their throats. It is simply a question of common sense. I cannot see how we can accept these Estimates while these two question marks remain. The question of staff shortages must be cleared up. Surely the hon. the Minister does not suggest that he hopes there will be a decline in the tempo of economic development? If it goes on at the present rate the day will dawn as surely as the sun will rise to-morrow when the hon. the Minister will find himself in serious difficulties. Those difficulties will lead to trains coming to a standstill …

The banks will close!

The hon. member says the banks will close. He knows there are already trains to-day that cannot run due to the staff shortage. That is already happening. We want to know from the Minister what he is going to do and not a single member opposite has so far come forward with any positive suggestion. All the suggestions we have had so far have come from this side of the House. However, the suggestions we have made were met with political prejudice, were analysed as such and not one has been accepted. We therefore retain the status quo, Mr. Speaker. No improvement. No improvement whatsoever and the serious position to which the hon. the Minister has referred remains exactly as it was. Can you believe it, Sir, that when we are dealing with such a serious matter as the manpower shortage hon. members opposite get up one after the other and try to make politics out of it. Once again they have done nothing else than to make party politics out of the whole non-White question. The crux of the matter is simply this that hon. members opposite can think of nothing except party politics and the interests of the Nationalist Party. They continually place the interests of South Africa second.

Look in the mirror when you speak.

I again put it to the Minister: As far as I am concerned two question marks hang over the Budget and not one of those question marks has been explained by either the Minister or a member on his side. We have had no further clarity. I do not think therefore that these Estimates have been properly handled or that the Minister, I say this in all humility, will be doing his duty unless the two question marks which have arisen in this debate are removed.

I am surprised at the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) for having once again made the same type of speech as the speeches we have had from previous speakers on that side of the House. They doubt everything the Minister and members on this side have said, although members on this side have substantiated what they have said by statistics. The hon. member who has just sat down said that railway staff and railway officials had never yet received a normal increase unless they had forced it from the Minister. That is not so. During the course of this debate I specifically mentioned the figures to show that the Minister has from time to time of his own accord given increases and not as a result of insistence on the part of members opposite.

We know that.

But the hon. member who has just sat down denied it.

Less than 5 per cent over the years.

No, it is not as little as that. From 1951 to 1964, a matter of 13 years, the Minister has given them nearly R 100,000,000. Do you see, Sir, hon. members opposite do not want to hear that and they doubt the truth of everything that has been said here. The railwaymen will again receive increases when the time is opportune. But with a view to the provincial elections members now say that wages are being frozen. Nothing of the sort. Various speakers on this side of the House have stated clearly that there was no question of freezing wages. But an abnormal wage increase at a time of a slight inflationary tendency is undesirable. But on the other hand if it is desirable to increase wages the Government will not hesitate to do so. Hon. members simply refuse to realize that we are faced with a manpower shortage problem. It is understandable that there should be a shortage of staff in the present economic position obtaining in our country.

What are you going to do in this connection?

The reply is that you must try to help yourself. It is hopeless to import people to solve the manpower shortage in South Africa as far as the Railways are concerned. We imported shunters but they left as quickly as they could. They do not want to live in the houses the South African Railways offer them; they do not want to work for the wages the S.A. Railways offer them. They do not want to work under the conditions prevailing here. They are accustomed to the conditions prevailing in their countries of origin. They maintain conditions are better there. Has the Minister not done enough as far as housing on the Railways is concerned? And he will still do more. We know what the housing position on the Railways was in 1948 when this Government took over. It was scandalous.

Ah!

Yes “Ah”. Did the hon. member ever go to the trouble of inspecting them in those days. I inspected them and I came across houses where there were only one little table and a single chair in one room. I am not ashamed to-day to enter a railwayman’s house.

Many are still in that condition.

I accept that the old ones are not all in such a good condition as those which are being built today but good houses are being built and the people receive a wage which enables them to furnish their homes well. That is why I cannot understand why hon. members make the speeches they do make. They only want to sow dissatisfaction amongst the South African railway workers because of the election. I want to repeat specifically for the edification of the hon. member for Maitland: If they really advocate the cause of the railway workers in our country as they would have us believe, why do the railwaymen not vote for the United Party? I think that is the test as far as the whole matter is concerned. If the United Party gives everything to these people why do they not vote for the United Party. I shall support the man who sees to my welfare; I shall stand by him. The United Party allege that they want to see to the welfare of the railwaymen but the latter do not vote for them.

As far as the Schumann Report is concerned surely that report has not yet been considered. Surely the Minister must have an opportunity of studying it and the United Party surely want a chance of discussing it. Surely the opportunity will arise.

When?

Time does not permit us to discuss the Schumann Report at this stage. Have hon. member already studied it?

Yes, I know what it says.

I would be the last person to maintain to-day that the position of the railway workers is such that they need not ask for anything more. But on the other hand I realize that since 1948 a tremendous amount has been done for them; practically as much as the country can afford. We must not think of this wonderful surplus of the Minister’s. What do hon. members want to do with it? The surplus is utilized wisely in order to strengthen the Rates Equalization Fund. We are not in favour of increasing tariffs. That is why the fund is being strengthened so that it will not be necessary to increase tariffs. As far as the staff shortage is concerned everything possible is being done to overcome that. Greater use is also made to-day of non-White labour than in the past where that labour can be properly utilized.

As far as non-White labour is concerned the hon. member would be the first person to complain if he went to the information counter in the Paul Sauer building and is attended to by somebody who does not belong to his race in such a way that he has to complain to the Minister about the service. What is the position to-day at the information offices, in the ticket offices at all those places of the S.A. Railways where you obtain information and assistance? What is the service like? I cannot but pay the highest tribute to those people. Why do you now want to create a source of friction? Give the Bantu or the Coloured an opportunity of serving his own people then you will obviate the friction which we do not want.

I can honestly say that I represent a large railway constituency. I get complaints from the railwaymen in my constituency but they are not of such a serious nature as those I received when I came there for the first time. Why are the complaints less serious? Because those in control are sympathetic; the Minister, the General Manager and the management give all their attention to the railway workers. I do not think it is fair on the part of the United Party to try to create unrest and practically to act like agitators amongst the railway workers by trying to belittle a service they are performing in an excellent way.

I was very sorry, when I pleaded with the Minister for a minimum wage of R2 per day for Coloured railway workers, to hear from the Minister that this was not possible. In all humility I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot change his whole approach to the matter somewhat. The hon. the Minister said that if he raised the salaries of Coloured railway labourers, he would have to raise the salaries of railway workers generally. If the Minister sets out from the standpoint, which is the real position, that the Coloured worker has hitherto received too little remuneration compared to the Whites, then the Minister will be able to consider increasing the wages of the Coloured worker in the Railway Service without it being necessary for him to increase all wages throughout. The hon. the Minister is faced with the problem that particularly in the Western Cape, and more particularly in Cape Town, he wants to replace the Bantu railway workers by Coloureds if possible, in line with Government policy. Now I am absolutely convinced that as far as the Bantu dock workers are concerned the Coloureds cannot do that work at the same wages. It is hard work and they cannot keep it up because they are unable to buy the necessary food, and in comparison with the Bantu they are underfed. Their food costs so much more than that of the Bantu. I do not want to describe here what the Bantu eats, but the Coloured eats the same food as the White man, and he cannot afford to buy the food which will enable him to do that work. I know that this is one of the Minister’s problems, that if he employs Coloureds to work in the docks, they cannot continue doing the work as the result of physical weakness and ailments due to under-nourishment.

I want to come back to the few remarks I made a couple of days ago in regard to the labour shortages on the Railways. I am glad that the hon. the Minister said that he would even consider appointing Coloured shunters on the Railways, provided the staff associations agreed to it. I have thought about the matter and the question has arisen in my mind: If this shortage exists and the Railways are not able to transport the traffic offered, with the result that the economy of the country suffers, whose responsibility is that? Is it then the task of the staff associations to get the necessary workers to do that work which will enable the Railways to transport the traffic and the passengers offered? If it is the duty of the staff associations to find the workers, then I can understand that the staff associations must agree in regard to whom the Minister is or is not to employ. But that is surely not the case. The staff associations cannot find the workers for the Minister. I do not know whether the staff associations assisted when the Minister sent a mission overseas to try to recruit workers. I do not see in what respect they could have assisted, because it was not their duty or their function. They perform a necessary task in the sense that they are there as the watchdogs to guard over the interests of the railway workers whom they represent. But in fact it is the Minister’s duty to try to solve the problem, and if it is his duty to ensure that the Railways can transport the traffic offered, so that the Railways may keep pace with the expanding economy, then surely the Minister cannot allow the staff associations to prescribe whom he may appoint in the Railway Service. I personally do not believe that the staff associations would be so foolish as to hamper the economy of the country. But I do not think that it should be made a public condition that before the Minister can employ certain people it is first necessary to obtain the consent of the staff associations. I repeat that this is the Minister’s task. It is in no way the task of the staff associations to prescribe to what extent our national economy may expand. The Minister has during this Session in fact set an example when he discussed the position of the air technicians. Much was said here as to how the Minister had assumed powers to restrict that trade union. But to tell the truth, my sympathies were with the hon. the Minister, because last year I personally experienced how many thousands upon thousands of passengers suffered inconvenience, and we all know what tremendous losses there were, not only to the Airways but also in the private sector as the result of the fact that passengers could not be transported. Although those organizations perform a wonderful and an essential task, viz. to act as the representatives of the members of that organization, I feel that they may go too far and that the Minister should take action in such a case. I do not think that he need ignore these associations in other respects, but it is not necessary for them to be elevated to the status of the Minister of Railways if such a decision has to be taken.

Nor do I hope that the hon. the Minister will take any notice of the political game we have seen being played in this House in regard to this matter during this debate. Unfortunately there is no speaker on either side of the House who is in the position to be objective in regard to the matter. I think it is quite obviously true that speakers on the Government side are in the position that if they approve the Minister’s appointment of Coloureds in posts now held by Whites but which cannot be filled, they may be subjected to criticism in their own constituencies. We have just heard the hon. member for Maitland (Mr. Hickman) on the opposite side of the House criticizing the Minister, and he used the word “blame” because there is a shortage of labour in the Railway Service, but nobody had the courage to say: “Draw from the available manpower resources, without having to go overseas to seek labour”. The Minister was criticized for not having recruited immigrants. The Minister sent a mission, but he cannot find the immigrants to do that work, and quite a number of those who were recruited are on their way back and were begging lifts in Cape Town to return to England, and there a lot of things are being said against South Africa (whether all of it is true I do not know) and all kinds of stories are told abroad. Let us rather make use of the sources of manpower we have in South African and train the necessary people to do that work. They have the capacity to be trained and hon. members know it, although they do not have the courage to say so, and I want to associate myself in all honesty with what the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) said a few days ago.

Is she your friend now?

It is not a question of friendship. If a person tells the truth about a matter, then I agree with him. She said, “Let the Minister take the bull by the horns and do so because there is no reason why he should accede to unreasonable demands of labour”. Because of that the hon. member for Houghton was accused by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton) that “the hon. member for Houghton is talking as if there should be no consultation at all between the trade unions and the employer, who happens to be in this case the Minister.” He further alleged “that she is destroying that consultation.” I do not believe that anything like that was ever said, and I consulted the Hansard report, but I quite agree with it and I do not believe that the trade unions will be so unreasonable. In any case, I am not going to perform an egg-dance in this regard. I think it has been proved clearly that these people have the capacity to be trained. More than 90 per cent of the artisans in our building industry, the masons and carpenters, for as long as I can remember, have been Coloured, and they can also do that work on the Railways. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to assist in the clear attempt being made by the Government to raise the educational and socio-economic standards of the Coloureds, and the Minister can make a tremendous contribution if he creates the opportunity for these people to be trained to fill the posts in the Railway Service for which he can find no White people in South Africa or overseas. Let him, if necessary, in consultation with the trade unions, do so, but there should be no demand from their side that they should first approve of it.

The hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant) said that I had not accepted the Opposition’s suggestions to meet the transport crisis existing at present. I deny most emphatically that there is a transport crisis. I think it is the most arrant nonsense to make such a statement. There is only one new point that has been raised. The hon. member said: “Why does the Minister not use the unskilled Whites, the casual Whites in grades where there is a shortage of manpower?” I can say that all these unskilled Whites have been approached directly, those who are capable and who have the necessary qualifications and they have also been approached by their staff organizations with the offer to be promoted to graded positions, but they have refused, they do not want to be promoted.

For the rest no new points have been raised. We have had yet another repetition of what has been said during former stages of this debate. I regard repetition as tedious. I have no intention of repeating my arguments.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a third time.

I would like to sum up our approach to this clause and our objections to it. This clause, Sir, deals with the appointment of inspectors, and it is now amended and the conditions under which it applies are so changed, that I think we might well set out the picture as we see it: Previously the appointment of inspectors was related entirely to the administration of the Group Areas Development Act and dealt entirely with the development of group areas. Now with this Bill that has changed and the area with which the inspector deals and where he has these powers, is considerably broadened. In other words, he can now exercise these powers in any area which is a designated area, in other words, any area which the hon. the Minister for the purposes of this Act may designate as an area for the operation of the Act. Let me sum up that it means any area in which the Minister decides community development should take place. Now “community development” is a very wide term. We have already got in this Act a new term “urban renewal scheme” which we do not quite understand, and we have already asked the Minister to define that. This clause would make it appear that we need a further definition, that we need to define precisely what “community development” is, because in terms of this Act, I think the term is so wide, that it means here, with this clause, that an inspector can go virtually to any area, and we do not want to extend the powers of inspection to such an extent. Another thing which we want to bring to the notice of the hon. Minister is that previously inspectors could be appointed after consultation with the chief inspector referred to in sub-section (1), but this Act now has changed that and the Secretary of the department is in a position “to authorize in writing any member of the Board or officer in the Department of Community Development to appoint in writing any member or officer in this department”. In other words, there is an ease in respect of the appointment of inspectors which did not exist before. Formerly an inspector was appointed in consultation with the chief inspector, and the chief inspector was a man who, under the terms of the Act, was appointed directly by the Minister. The Minister in terms of this clause was the person who appointed the chief inspector, and therefore the position was obviously better. The other inspectors were appointed after consultation with that chief inspector, who was in fact directly responsible to the Minister. Now the secretary can delegate his powers for the appointment of inspectors to any member of the Board or officer in the said department. We do not like that a bit, because the area in which this Bill will operate is now extended to such an extent that it becomes applicable in any designated area which community development is going to be applied. We do not like the looseness of the application of “community development”. This brings back to us the need for a definition of an “urban renewal scheme”, and I believe that these particular objections must be resolved here, because these inspectors can enter people’s premises, not only in group areas or slum areas. These provisions should be tightened so that the ordinary residents in areas into which the Minister has decided to go, probably to improve those areas, should be safe as far as their rights are concerned.

I have indicated previously that one of the safeguards in the principal Act, so far as an inspector or an inspection was concerned, was the consultation with somebody in a position of authority, such as the chief inspector, before the inspection was undertaken. I may be wrong, but I got the impression that to some extent the hon. Minister agreed that the widening of the area of inspection, and on top of that the complete disregard, in terms of the amended clause, of the consultation with the chief inspector, was undesirable. That was the impression I gained from the Minister some days ago when we discussed this matter at the first stage.

The virtue, if any, of the Group Areas Act was that there was a definition of a “group area”; that there was therefore a limitation of the physical area or areas in which an inspection in terms of the Act could take place; there was furthermore the proviso for consultation with a senior inspector—and all that, when set against the situation that is created in terms of this clause, as amended now, indicates that the whole of the country, the whole of South Africa, as to any area which the Minister decides through his Department, through the Secretary, requires an inspection of any portion—a site, any erf, any house, any business premises—will become the Minister’s oyster. In other words, the whole of South Africa, comes under the jurisdiction of this particular clause, as amended. I put it to the hon. the Minister that however wide he wants his powers to be, I doubt whether he wants the power as wide as is now provided in this clause. I hope that in due course the hon. Minister will say whether I am right or wrong in assuming that he does not really require the world, the entire Republic of South Africa as his oyster, for the purpose of an inspection. Furthermore, there is in sub-section (b) provision for an inspector to question any person found in or upon such premises. Any person who may be fortuitously there as a visitor, very casually and very briefly, who has absolutely no knowledge of the requirements of the Act, who has no knowledge of the reasons for the inspection, can also be questioned by the officer who will be appointed in terms of the clause. I emphasize that it can be an officer in the said Department, not necessarily an inspector trained for the job. I think we have pointed out before in connection with legislation brought forward by the hon. the Minister that the nomination of any officer of his Department could very well affect the most junior of junior clerks in that Department, and the Minister, at that time, did not deny that that was possible, because in terms of the Public Service Act, and in terms of normal procedure, any person employed by the State in the Department of Community Development is by definition an officer of the Department—which in practical terms means that if, for whatever reason, the Secretary or somebody acting on his authority should nominate a young fellow of 19 who happens to have worked in the Department for six months, and is performing the most menial of duties, he can then be appointed as an inspector and he can enter premises and carry out what appears to be a very delicate function, regardless of the fact that he has no experience or qualification for the work. Any person who owns property or occupies it can find himself in the invidious position of being questioned by such an officer, although that person happens to be there just fortuitously, has nothing to do with the matter, and knows nothing about the title deeds, books, records, etc. Yet the inspector is entitled to interrogate him. I think this is entirely unnecessary. I think it is carrying the powers of the Minister and of the Department to a degree where it can only cause embarrassment not only to a person fortuitously found on the premises, but also to the person nominated to make the inspection. There is, e.g., in (d) a provision that the same possibly unqualified inspector, can call upon any person to furnish any information at his disposal. The fortuitous visitor may well say that he has no information about this property, because he just came there to ask the way. The inspector does not necessarily have to believe this person if he says he has not the information, but just happens to be there as a visitor. This can also create a position which is both embarrassing and time-wasting. In fact, the whole of this clause dealing with the inspection and the way in which an inspector can be appointed is reminiscent of a play by J. B. Priestley called “An Inspector Calls”, and we will have this repeated throughout South Africa in the years to come, if this particular clause becomes law. We can have a situation where there are hundreds of thousands of inspections by unqualified people who are just wasting the time of the Department and the time of the persons upon whom they call. For all these reasons, and since I believe that the Minister himself has reservations about the powers conferred upon his Department under this clause, I think he should tell the Committee whether he agrees with the representations that have been made, and were again made to-day by the hon. member for Umlazi, and which I have now tried to amplify.

Hon. members opposite had to make a very wide detour in order to drag in this question of inspectors. The fact of the matter is that we already have these inspectors; we have about 25 inspectors in our employ, because an arrangement has been made with the police that the police will no longer do this work but that they will only come into the picture when contraventions of the Act take place. The object in appointing these inspectors is to collect essential information, of whatever kind it may be. In the first place, once an area has been proclaimed, a socio-economic survey has to be made; we have to determine how many persons there are who are the owners of affected properties; we have to determine what the income is so that we can provide them with the necessary housing, because we cannot provide people with housing which is not suitable for the income group into which they fall. We must enable these inspectors to make a survey to ascertain how many people are affected. This is essential information which is needed by the Board and the Department when it operates in an area of this kind. That is the purpose in appointing these inspectors. But these inspectors are not really just inspectors; they are also there to guide the public; they help members of the public to complete the necessary documents and to get to the regional offices so that they can be helped there. What they are doing therefore is not police work; it is essential preparatory and follow-up work to bring into operation the process for which this Act makes provision. As the Act reads at the moment it refers to a chief inspector, a post which no longer exists. These people are public servants who fall under the control of the Secretary of the Department. That is all that is intended here. In other words, these people will not be doing police work; they are not doing so at the moment. It is only when there is a contravention of the law that the matter is raised with the police and then the police come into the picture. We feel that this work is very essential in order to help these people and to obtain the necessary information and to ensure that the necessary process is put into operation. That is the whole purpose. Sir, the hon. member for Hospital made one point to which I have to reply again. He says that I am placing the entire country under my control, but surely the object is to demarcate the whole country into group areas. Did the hon. member think that that was not so? The greatest portion of the country has already been demarcated into group areas; there is only a very small portion of the country which has not yet been demarcated. In other words, the ideal is that we will eventually be able to apply this Act to all declared areas. His whole argument therefore falls away. He based his argument on a hypothetical case. I thought, however, that this change was an improvement because what it does is to confirm the existing position, the existing arrangement between the Public Service and the police that the police will not be used for this sort of work, and the information which will be gathered is absolutely essential information that the Board must have before it can take any action. In the absence of such information the Board would simply be acting haphazardly; surely that is not what hon. members would like to see. Before the Board acts it must know that the properties of so many people will be affected and that they fall within certain income groups. The whole object of this change is to make it possible for these people, who, as public servants, will fall under the control of the departmental head, to perform this essential work.

I can accept the Minister’s argument in so far as it applies to the implementation of group areas, but what I am not clear about and do not like is the fact that these inspectors can now go into areas other than slum areas or group areas. Let me say what I have in mind. If the Minister were to supply more houses in a particular city or town and decides on an urban renewal scheme for purposes of community development, and decides that he will go into an area which is already established and which is still showing a good standard of development and has not deteriorated into a slum area, why are these powers then necessary? I concede that in the case of group areas where these people have to be resettled, he must obviously have certain information.

Will you argue on the basis of District Six, which has not been proclaimed yet? What should we do there? Do you want us to use the police?

No, the Minister is making my point. I have conceded that in the case of a place like District Six, where you will have to re-house those people, he will obviously need information which he will have to get, and that is the only way he will get it. But then there are other areas.

But District Six is not a group area.

No, but it will be when you start to deal with it. The Minister will have to determine for what group it will have to be used.

How will you get that information?

Obviously District Six will be proclaimed a group area for one group or another. But what about an area, which is a good class area, where the Minister decides to go in for community development or an urban renewal scheme?

I will not develop communities which are already developed.

But this Bill provides for an urban renewal scheme and it also provides for community development. Now community development is an all-embracing term. It means anything that the Minister wants it to mean, because he designates the area. The type of area I have in mind is when he decides further to develop an existing area, which he can do in terms of this Bill. He can get all the information on that area without sending inspectors there, because the information is available.

Where is it available?

Well, surely those people pay rates and taxes so the area of their land is available to him and also the valuation of the properties.

Is that all we need?

No, I agree that is not all you need, but what else do you want to know? You want to know what the population is. You can get those figures from the local census—from the Department of Census and Statistics.

You are talking nonsense now. Do you want to tell me that if I go to Census and Statistics I can find that information about a part of District Six immediately?

I have already said that I am not discussing an area such as District Six. Take an area like Durban (North). I am sure the Minister could get 90 per cent of the information he needs without any difficulty at all, because it is available from the local authorities.

It is not available.

It is just a matter of opinion now. These statistics are available. I am not prepared to agree that if the Minister wants to develop such an area, he should send inspectors in there to find out whatever information he wants. Those powers are too wide. He can question any person found in or upon such premises, and he is not limited in his questioning. He can question them along any lines he likes, and I believe that this is an invasion of the rights of people.

Then the question comes up again which I raised before, the question of community development. What does community development mean in terms of this clause? It can mean anything, and that is the basis of my argument. If the Minister says he wants to go in there to determine how many people there are for purpose X or Y or Z, then we know what the object of this clause is, but at the moment he says it is for community development or it is for an urban renewal scheme, just because it is a designated area. What does he designate it for? We do not know what he is going to designate the area for, or why. So we cannot accept that in any area the Minister likes to designate, this type of inspection should be carried out, and I think the Minister should try and meet us in this respect.

I will now try to perform a duet with the Minister. I want to put this to him: assuming he does require these powers, would it not be feasible for some qualification or limitation to be placed on the officer of the Department who can be appointed as an inspector? We have first of all the right of the Secretary to appoint in writing any member of the Board. We have not said anything about that at all, because we assume that a member of the Community Development Board is a person of standing and experience, and with qualifications of some kind. Therefore I ask the Minister to separate “a member of the Board” from “an officer of the Department”. I must point out that it is possible to appoint any employee of the Department as an inspector even the most junior official.

Order! The hon. member is now discussing the existing law.

With respect, in the existing law there was the proviso for consultation with the Chief Inspector. This being eliminated, it now leaves the field open for the appointment of an officer on whom no chief inspector can sit in judgment.

What about the departmental head?

I was going to ask the Minister to qualify this officer by saying, for example, that he should not be a person below a certain grade. We are not arguing against the appointment of an inspector who is a man of experience and has qualifications; we are trying to persuade the Minister not to leave the clause in its present form where any officer, any person employed by the Department, becomes an inspector. Therefore when the Minister replies, as I hope he will, to what was put to him by the hon. member for Umlazi, can he not improve the clause by saying that such an officer shall not be below a certain grade? In other words, let us take a clerk with at least six years’ experience who is a person of the age of 25 years, thus eliminating the possibility of a completely inexperienced junior official being appointed to make an inspection to the embarrassment of the Department, as well as of any person who may be on the premises.

Clause put and the Committee divided:

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

On Clause 23,

This clause contains what is called a long title. It virtually wraps up the most extraordinary powers that have hitherto been sought in regard to land development in this country. To sum it up as precisely as possible, it is a map of the Government’s interest in future land development. Here, in miniature form, is a map of the future of land development in South Africa, because it changes what is set out in the long title of the principal Act. If one looks at the principal Act one finds that it deals only with immovable property in group areas, i.e. areas defined under the Group Areas Act of 1957, the proper development of such areas, and the establishment of a board therefor. But this long title now wipes away that restrictive aspect of the content and purpose of the Act and it now endeavours to present a fresh picture of what the Minister wants to present to the House and the country as his new concept of urban development and urban renewal schemes and his new concept of encompassing the whole of the land of South Africa into a globular scheme of which he will be the sole director, and in respect of which he will make virtually the sole decisions. Now a great deal of time has been spent both in the second reading and in the Committee Stage to obtain some form of restriction of those powers, some form of reasonable perspective to these vast powers the Minister seeks. One often wonders why, if one reads of the achievements of local authorities hitherto, the Minister has thought fit to ask for this extraordinary vote of no confidence in the local authorities by seeking now to encompass in his own domain virtually a new conception, thereby taking the power of overriding all conditions of title and to incorporate all land and to do virtually as he pleases. The question we would like the Minister to answer, and perhaps to give us an assurance, is this. Does this not contain in fact the picture of a new pattern of land development in South Africa, dominated and controlled by the Government …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the clause.

I am dealing with the long title.

Order! The hon. member is dealing with the whole Bill.

The long title sets out in concise form virtually the whole contents of the Bill.

Order! I want to point out that practically the whole Bill has been agreed to by this Committee. The hon. member must confine himself to the long title.

The long titles states “to provide for the development of certain areas …

Order! The hon. member must deal with the contents of Clause 23.

Sir, we are dealing here with Clause 23; I cannot deal with the preamble. This clause says: “The following is hereby substituted for the long title of the principal Act.” I must deal with the contents of this clause, surely.

The hon. member may continue.

I was pointing out the difference between this long title and the long title for which this long title is being substituted. I am pointing out that a very drastic change is being brought about in this long title. It is perfectly clear what this change is intended to cover. With all respect to your ruling, Sir, how else can one deal with this particular clause? Sir, we oppose this clause.

That is in order; the hon. member may oppose the clause.

I am giving my reasons for opposing this clause. Perhaps you might give me some guidance as to what line one can take …

Order! The hon. member may continue as long as he does not attack the principle which has already been accepted …

No, I am indicating what this long title encompasses in this concise form. We say that despite the fact that the principle has been agreed to, the Bill itself contains a principle which involves a revision of certain aspects of land development. The land title now deals with the whole thing in concise form.

Order! The long title merely sets out in general terms the purpose of the Bill as agreed to in the Committee Stage.

Is your view then, Sir, that the long title can only be debated per se.

Yes, and the principle which has already been agreed to cannot be debated at this stage.

I would like the hon. the Minister to know that we are completely opposed to the substitution of this long title for the long title contained in the principal Act, which we think conveyed the true picture with regard to the principal Act.

I want to say at the outset that nothing is further from my thoughts than an attack on the principle of this Bill, but I think one is entitled to relate the accuracy, or lack of accuracy, of the title of the Bill to the Bill itself which is not an attack on the principle. The question is whether this long title, although relatively short, is in fact a correct long title for this Bill. My first point is that if one looks at an Act, an Act called the Group Areas Act, in brief, one finds on examining the definition in this principal Act that it is very definite as compared with the definition of the object or the title of this particular Bill. I point to the Group Areas Act, No. 41 of 1950, where, for example, “group” is defined. Remember, Sir, that this is an amendment which changes the name of the principal Act.

Order! The hon. member cannot continue along those lines.

Am I not entitled to compare this clause with the clause which it amends?

If the hon. member is dissatisfied with this clause he can move an amendment.

Without explaining why I wish to move the amendment?

This clause sets out the purposes of the Bill as outlined in the various clauses which have already been adopted.

Then I ask your ruling, Sir, on whether I can discuss whether this title is correctly worded to cover the principles dealt with in the Act?

Yes.

Sir, I do not know whether you have handed over your authority to the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) who is usually very good at mumbling! Sir, this is a very puzzling point, and, believe me, I do not wish to be in conflict with you over this—but I should like to have your ruling as to whether or not any member is entitled to raise any point which arises out of the words contained in this clause, which becomes the long title of the principal Act, which is being amended here. The existing long title of the principal Act is very different from this.

Order! This clause gives in concise form the purposes of the Bill as outlined in the other clauses, and the hon. member cannot discuss anything which has already been accepted in the other clauses.

Very well, Sir. As far as this clause itself is concerned, the first line reads, “to provide for the development of certain areas”, certain areas, which presumably, up to the time of the passing of this particular Bill into an Act, referred to group areas. Then it refers to the promotion of community development in line 45 of this particular clause. I think it is reasonable to ask the hon. the Minister why, in terms of the amendment here and in terms of the long title, there is no definition of “community development”?

I have explained that already.

In other words, Sir, there is no need for a definition of “community development” in this clause as there was of “group areas” in the Group Areas Act?

Not under this clause.

Very well, Sir. I can only put it to the hon. Minister, then, that he alone knows what community development means.

Order! That has already been decided upon.

Yes—I am not questioning that any more.

The hon. member need not repeat it then.

The departure from what is contained in the original long title is significant, because it refers to the granting of assistance to persons to acquire or hire immovable property, which, in terms of the Act which this entire Bill seeks to amend, is a new departure. I want to ask therefore whether I am entitled to discuss whether this in fact reflects the contents of the Bill.

Order! Those matters have already been dealt with and decided upon in the other clauses of the Bill.

Sir, I am being urged to try, I do not know whether my best or my worst, to try to obtain clarity on this particular title.

You are not so stupid!

I was about to ask you, Sir whether this particular title, having certain words in it, should be made clear to the Committee or not. If it is clear to all the members of the Committee, then I would not like to raise any matter contained here; but on a question of procedure, I want to ask whether the words contained in the clause should not be clear to the people discussing it, that is to say, the members of this Committee.

That is not the point at issue at all.

Then I say, with great regret, that the point is so “unclear” to me that I cannot decently pursue the matter any further.

I want to sum up by saying that this long title contains a summary of the matters we have discussed under this Bill. During the course of the discussions we have indicated our dislike of many of the clauses, and to indicate in no uncertain terms our objection to those clauses, we will vote against this clause.

Clause 23 put and the Committee divided:

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

Tellers: H. J. Bronkhorst and A. Hopewell.

Clause accordingly agreed to.

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

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, since the Housing Act was passed in 1957, it has on several occasions been found necessary in the light of conditions obtaining at the time or in the light of changing circumstances, to amend or extend its provisions materially until to-day it is probably one of the most effective instruments of its kind in the world. However, in this process, owing to the numerous amendments, the Act has become rather difficult to follow. I therefore intend at a later stage during this Session to propose its consolidation. With consolidation in view, and to bring the Act up to date as far as possible before consolidation, a few amendments of a minor or administrative nature are necessary and are contained in the Bill now before the House. In this connection I may mention that at the request of one of my colleagues, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, I shall propose a further minor amendment during the Committee Stage. This amendment is similar to that contained in paragraph (a) of the definition of “local authority” in Clause 1 of the Bill and relates to the inclusion also of a management board established in terms of Section 40bis of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act, 1945, as a “local authority” for the purposes of the Housing Act. The effect of this amendment will be that in the few instances where such management boards are constituted, they will, for the purposes of providing housing in the areas under their jurisdiction, have access to the facilities and funds provided in terms of the Housing Act, 1957.

As I have already said there are no major new principles contained in the six clauses of this Bill. I shall therefore not elaborate any further but deal shortly with the provisions of the various clauses.

Clause 1 extends the definition of the term “local authority” to include also a “management board” established in terms of the Rural Coloured Areas Act. 1963. The effect of it will be that State resources and funds available to other local authorities will also be made available for the improvement of housing conditions in such dwelling areas for Coloureds, subject, however, to the condition that the Department of Coloured Affairs is satisfied that the community concerned and its management board are in a financially viable position. At present assistance cannot, in terms of the Housing Act, 1957, be extended to such communities. A number of townships in these rural areas are being planned, and improved housing will be necessitated there.

The amendment proposed in Clause 2 is of a purely technical nature. When the Housing Act was passed in 1957 provision was made for all State housing moneys outstanding on the date of promulgation of the Act to be transferred to or to accrue to the newly established National Housing Fund. Sinking funds established by local authorities with the Public Debt Commissioners for the redemption of loans granted to local authorities for assisted housing schemes, i.e. sub-economic schemes fell into the category accruing to the fund. This provision was at that time and up to the present interpreted in such a manner that the then existing sinking funds as well as such funds established subsequent to the coming into operation of the Act remained with the Public Debt Commissioners until the capital of such sinking funds had increased to the amount of the capital debt in respect of the scheme concerned. In this way the National Housing Fund was deprived of capital which should rightly have been transferred to it on the date of the establishment of the Fund and which could have been utilized for the purposes of the Fund. This procedure has now been reviewed and it has been decided by the Cabinet that the installments of any sinking funds established after 1 April 1965 should be paid over to the fund and be available for the purposes of the fund, that is, reissue.

The clause further provides, firstly, that any excess interest which is derived from the reinvestment of such moneys can be utilized to augment redemption installments in respect of the loan in question in such a manner that the tenants of the dwellings will not be adversely affected, and secondly, that the balance, if any, of any excess interest that may be earned can be set off against interest losses in respect of assisted housing schemes which Parliament is required to appropriate annually on the Revenue Vote.

This provision will therefore obviously ensure that a more accurate position in regard to the finances of the fund is presented annually to Parliament. Clause 4 of the Bill is complementary to Clause 2 and merely provides for the above arrangement to come into operation on 1 April 1965. This means that sinking funds established prior to that date will remain with and be administered by the Public Debt Commissioners until such funds mature when the capital will be transferred to the National Housing Fund.

Clause 3 is of a purely administrative nature and I shall deal with any questions arising there from during the Committee Stage.

The amendments proposed in Clause 5 are merely an extension of the provisions contained in the original section and aim at making those provisions effective. In this connection I may mention that when an occasion arose which necessitated the application of the provisions contained in the principal Act the Department was confronted by a legal opinion to the effect that contrary to the view always held by the Department, a town-planning scheme was not compiled or made operative in terms of a by-law or regulation of a local authority but was a separate instrument which could be invoked or amended by a local authority at will and that the Department was not in terms of the existing provisions in the principal Act exempt there from. Furthermore there is no requirement making it incumbent on a local authority to make known the provisions of such a scheme or to have it promulgated as an approved town-planning scheme. As a matter of fact most local authorities appear to be working on the basis of “town-planning schemes in the course of preparation”, which obviously makes it impossible for the Department to know in advance what their requirements are. It is therefore necessary that the provision in the Act should be amended to make it as effective as the Department had always considered it to be by including a town-planning scheme among the instruments from which the Department is exempt. The fact that the Department has only once in the eight years that this section has been on the Statute Book found it necessary to invoke it is ample evidence of the reasonableness of the Department’s approach to local requirements. I have since introducing the measure had discussions on this clause and have undertaken to amend it to provide for the Commission to be exempted from the provisions of a town-planning scheme by the Minister only after he has consulted with the Administrator. The clause as amended meets with the approval of the United Municipal Executive.

The other additions to the clause are merely an extending of the existing provisions which are necessary if the Department has to deal adequately with the housing situation which can develop or has developed in certain centres of the country, especially where the local authorities themselves allow or have allowed such conditions to develop on account of laxity in fulfilling the duties resting on them, as the governing body of the area concerned, and placed on them by various Acts of Parliament such as the Housing Act, the Slums Act and the Public Health Act. Where local authorities in spite of the facilities which have now been available since 1920 have allowed conditions to develop which make it incumbent on the Government to step in, in the interest of the local community, it is only right that the Government through a fully equipped State Department should not be frustrated or put to unnecessary expense by local requirements when it in fact has to undertake the work which the local authority itself should have done.

Mr. Speaker, with the leave of the House I shall also move a minor amendment to Section 63 of the Act which has been asked for by the United Municipal Executive because it is of practical value to them. The matter is purely technical and I shall furnish more details during the Committee State.

As I said in my opening remarks, this is a small measure but the provisions contained therein are necessary to augment the powers of the State in terms of the Housing Act to deal with the housing situation generally.

This side of the House will support this Bill because we believe that one of the main objectives of this Bill is to make it easier to deal with the housing crisis that we have in South Africa at the moment. We realize that in view of the seriousness of that situation, emergency powers such as those contained in Clause 5 are necessary to enable the Department to get on with the job. As the hon. the Minister has said, the Bill in itself is a short Bill, and in the case of most of the clauses, we have no objection whatsoever to their provisions. The Bill, amongst other things, as the Minister has said, re-defines the term “local authority”, and that, of course, gives the Commission certain extra ability to provide housing for Coloureds, with which we are in agreement. It also, of course, removes the necessity for the hon. the Minister to consult with those local authorities in whose area these schemes may fall, and it probably removes too the necessity for the Housing Commission to consult with the Administrator in cases of this kind. The financial provisions of the Bill are quite acceptable to us. We do not object to any of those provisions. Clause 5, however, exempts the Housing Commission from certain provisions which are very similar in fact, to provisions that we discussed in the Bill that we have just completed in the Committee Stage. Clause 5 (2), for example, says that the Commission shall be exempt from any provisions in an Ordinance in terms of which approval of a local authority is to be obtained for the subdivision of any land. We come back to the same question which we have already argued quite fully, where we are not satisfied and happy that under certain circumstances the rights of existing owners in existing townships, or in areas which are not townships, are properly protected. Let me give you what we have in mind. We have suggested to the hon. the Minister that in regard to the other Bill he takes into consideration property owners, for example, in the older established areas which are not part of an established township, as that term is understood in terms of the Town-Planning Ordinances, as well as those people who fall in established and/or proclaimed townships. We sincerely believe that they should not be subjected to the possibility of having their area, which is a good area, invaded and that they should not in fact suffer because the Government has now embarked upon a crash housing scheme to solve the terrific backlog which has built up. These people should not be called upon to pay the price for the Government’s failure to cope timeously and adequately with the housing requirements of South Africa.

As far as the Biff itself is concerned we regard these provisions as provisions to give the Minister extra power, in spite of the fact that he says these are just small things to enable him later on to consolidate all the housing legislation. We believe this measure together with other legislation which has and is coming before this House, constitutes an invasion of the rights of people in so far as the ownership of their land is concerned. We believe this is a very big step forward. It is an entirely new principle in regard to the dealing in land and even if it is to provide emergency housing we believe the existing rights of landowners should be safeguarded. We treat this particular aspect of this Bill as an emergency measure. We do not believe that under any circumstances should it become a permanent part of the legislation of South Africa. This is a trend in dealing with land, housing and allied subjects, which we have seen creeping into our legislation for some time. Frankly we do not like it. We believe it invades rights and we have made our views perfectly clear on that. So I will not take that any further. But during the Committee Stage of this Bill we will move an amendment which we believe will treat this particular portion of this legislation, as it should in fact be treated, as an emergency measure which has no permanent part in our legislation. We will move to limit the life of this particular portion of the Bill.

We are not inexperienced in the question of providing housing quickly. This side of the House, when in government, was also faced with exactly the same problems as this hon. Minister is; perhaps not to the same extent but nevertheless we were faced with the problem of providing housing. I think in our case the cause for the necessity for that housing was probably very different from the cause to-day. In 1945, when we introduced the Housing Emergency Powers Bill we had to do so to deal with a housing shortage which had come about as a result of a certain set of conditions. These conditions resulted from a war and all the changes that flow from a war. For example, it was the beginning of the industrial era here in South Africa, the stepping up of the tempo of industrialization to cope with our war requirements, and the huge population movements that go with such industrialization and with war conditions. We dealt with it in a totally different way from the way in which this hon. Minister is dealing with it. We were quite frank about it, Sir. We treated it purely as an emergency measure. We limited its life and we let Parliament be the judge. Let me quote you, Sir, something from the speech of the then Minister of Health when introducing his Bill. In Column 8436 of Vol. 54 of Hansard he said this—

Then he goes on to deal with the provisions of the Bill and to say why he wants these powers and to give Parliament an account of the situation which existed at that time. Compare that with the manner in which the hon. the Minister and the Government have chosen to deal with the present crisis. They are acting totally differently. The hon. Minister seeks emergency powers, but he does not come to this House and explain that there is in fact an emergency and that his task is to build houses to try to catch up with the fantastic backlog which has built up. He does not say he wants these powers to cope with that situation. He does not treat it as a temporary measure and letting these powers fall away when Parliament thinks there is no longer any reason for them to be on the Statute Book. How has the present housing crisis come about and why is there a need for these powers? I believe the present crisis has come about, first of all, because of the incompetence of this Government. [Laughter.] I hear a chuckle from the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). If he exercised his brain a little I think he would agree with me. First of all we have had hurled at us across the floor of this House on not one, but on many occasions, the statement that the Government has planned the prosperity we are enjoying at the moment. Here we have in this Bill concrete evidence that even if they planned the prosperity they have not been able to cope with it because we have a backlog of houses which one can reduce to figures. These figures represent a complete and utter failure on the part of this Government to cope with this so-called planned prosperity. You see, Sir, I sometimes feel a little sorry for this hon. Minister because the hon. the Minister of Finance, for example, tells us on the same subject of planned prosperity that he puts the brake on occasionally and that he puts the accelerator on occasionally while this hon. Minister has to keep his foot on the accelerator all the time. Even now he is finding that the engine is not performing so well. He has a lot of trouble and he will have to put in a great effort to catch up with the backlog which has built up.

Another reason why we have this type of legislation before us is the over-hasty implementation of apartheid. I want to remind you, Sir, that not this Bill alone but other allied matters which are before this House at the moment also contribute to the meanings and the interpretation of this measure. Not so long ago the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) told this hon. Minister that he was a young Minister in a hurry. I think that is very true.

A third reason is this that the Government adopted a policy of immigration—our policy —but that it adopted it too late and without planning for the effects the adoption of that policy would have. If they had in fact planned properly they would have had the workers here to help build these houses; they would not have had such a huge backlog accumulate a backlog which has acted to the detriment of the new people who are arriving. The Government cannot cope with them. In response to the news that 3,100 low-cost housing units were to be built in the next 18 months for Whites in Durban, Mr. Mervyn Smitherine, secretary of the Natal branch of the 1820 Memorial Settlers’ Association, said—

This is a local man expressing an opinion on the effect locally—

This is the effect it is having on people coming to our country. There are no houses for them when they come here. The accommodation position is so difficult that they cannot in fact go necessarily to the place they want to go to, because there is no accommodation for them.

I would like to know from this hon. Minister what the actual shortage of housing is; what is the shortage that warrants measures such as the one before us? Some days ago in this House he gave us the figure of 16,950 new homes that were required for Whites. I have made inquiries amongst people who should know something about this position and from what they have told me I am prepared to say to this Minister that a figure of 40,000 is probably a far more realistic figure of his needs for housing for White people. The figure he gave us included mostly the big centres. It does not include housing in the smaller centres. There is no question about it that the figure he gave us is low. In the case of Durban alone the Minister told us that 3,000 houses were needed. The Durban City Council have now embarked upon a crash programme to build 3,100. If the shortage were only 3,000 they would not have embarked. upon a crash programme to build 3,100. So I would believe that his figures are low. The figures in the case of Whites are therefore, I believe, somewhere in the region of 40,000. What about housing for the Indian, Coloured and Bantu communities? These are the groups for which I have no figures but I tried to get some together. A rather good article appeared in the Natal Mercury of 5 March 1965 which I think gives us some sort of picture of what the needs really are. In dealing particularly with the increase in the Bantu labour force to 136,000 in Durban this year it has created an awkward situation, a situation which is going to need a lot of attention. There are comments from the members of the Native Affairs Department. I do not want to weary the House by reading this article but I would like to give the House the figures I have extracted. In Durban alone, from the Bantu housing point of view, 25,500 projects have been approved. There is a shortfall at the moment, even providing for those, of 10,000. The target in Umlazi, the bigger Native township, is 21,000. Up to now 8,993 permanent and temporary residences have been provided. That leaves a shortage of 12,007 still to be built. A new crash programme has been put on the stocks to extend the Umlazi scheme by 12,936 units and Qua Mashu by 3,500 plus a further 9,000 at Dalmeni and Richmond, giving a total of 25,435. If you add to that the 12,007 still to be built you need for Bantu accommodation alone 37,442 houses.

Order! That is a matter the hon. member can discuss under the hon. Minister’s Vote.

Mr. Speaker, I believe this is a Housing Bill and the need is urgent. The Bill itself lends itself to this kind of discussion because it provides for the acquisition of land on which to build the very houses I am talking about.

The hon. member is going very far.

Sir, I want to illustrate the point, if I may. I will not go very much further. I have about three more figures to mention, if I may, Sir, with your permission. If we add the requirements of the Indians and the Coloureds—I just have to estimate them because I do not know what they are; I have estimated it at 20,000 which I think is an underestimate—it means that for the Bantu, Indians and Coloureds in Durban alone we require 57,442 houses. If you add the 3,000 which the hon. the Minister gave us as the figure required for Whites, it means that Durban alone needs 60,442 houses.

You are just talking politics.

I am not paying any attention to that. These figures are taken from an article the information for which was given by the Department’s officials. In the case of Coloureds and Indians I have based my own estimate, which is an underestimate, on the requirements for Whites given by the hon. the Minister himself.

Order! I think the hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Yes, Sir. I have ended with that. I have shown the figure required in Durban alone. What about the other centres? This is a position where, if you add the requirements of the other bigger centres …

Order! The hon. member must leave that aspect.

I shall do that. Sir. Just to sum the position up, if I may: It is so obvious we need many thousands of houses in South Africa and they have to be provided.

How is the hon. Minister going to catch up with the position? How is he going to provide the Houses that have to be provided; the houses for which he is taking measures in this Bill to help him to provide, measures which we are prepared to give him. We are concerned about how these measures are going to be applied to provide these houses.

You can raise that under my Vote.

No, Sir. That is not the place. The Minister is asking in this Bill for powers to do this job. The Minister says: “You can raise that under my Vote.” We want to raise it under this Bill where he is taking the power to subdivide land as he wishes to provide houses. This is what we want to know: How is he going to use this power? You see, Sir, if he is going to catch up with this serious position he will really have to do something. Some of the things I suggest he should do are, first of all, to make sure that adequate money is available. I say that particularly …

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

With respect, Mr. Speaker, I am trying to see if we cannot do anything to assist in providing these houses. This is a Housing Bill.

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

Very well, Sir. I want to discuss the question of Clause 5 (2) which says—

The number of houses that can be built is unrestricted; the commission is exempt from endowment; it is exempt from the permission of the local authority or owner of an approved township to commence building operations. In other words, the whole of this Clause provides for the commission to get on with the job of providing houses. It is along those lines Sir, that I want to go for a moment. The hon. the Minister, if he is going to use the provisions of Clause 5, in other words, if he is going to use the land he is going to sub-divide —he already has the right to expropriate it— has to intensify his activity in certain directions. First of all, I think he should give every assistance to private enterprise. I think he should make sure that building materials are available for them. Because I would remind the hon. the Minister that private enterprise is going to provide some 50 per cent or more of the houses the Minister is going to provide under the powers he has in this Bill. Then I think that while he is exempt from consulting or obtaining the permission of the local authority he must still try to co-operate with them because he is going to need the help of everybody, not just his own Housing Commission; he is going to need the help of the local authority from whose by-laws he is taking exemption now to deal with his problems. He must ask them to assist too in solving this problem.

The other thing is this, that the Minister has got to the stage where he must concentrate on using these powers and putting houses on the land he takes and sub-divides. I believe he has to concentrate on that and not necessarily so much on the angle of clearing up slums and re-building this urban renewal scheme about which he has ideas. I think there are many other things he can do to speed up the provision of these houses and to deal properly and adequately with this problem; he should use the powers he is taking under this Bill properly.

In conclusion I should like to read to this hon. Minister a little advice. It is contained in Hansard. It is not mine but I would like to add my own recommendation to it. It is contained in column 8435 of vol. 54 of 1945. It says this—

The man I am quoting was Dr. Bremer speaking on the Housing Act of 1945; on the debate on the second reading.

I am glad that we are all agreed that certain factors have contributed to the fact that to-day we must effect drastic measures in many respects in order to keep pace with the country’s housing requirements. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) says he ascribes the crisis which has arisen in regard to housing to the inefficiency of the Minister. No, Mr. Speaker, that is not the position. Certain circumstances have contributed towards the position that we have a shortage of housing to-day. I may just mention a few of those in passing. There is the provision of separate residential areas for the various races. The Opposition agrees with us that there should be separate residential areas for the various racial groups. This Government had to put it into practice, with the result that we had to build many houses. The Government also energetically tackled the clearance of slums which had been developing over the years along the outskirts of our cities, and as a result many houses had to be built. The influence of industrialization, the fact that our country is bursting at the seams in the economic sphere, as well as the large-scale immigration we have had in recent years, have resulted in a housing need. When the hon. member for Umlazi says that if at that time we had allowed immigrants to enter we would now have had the people to build the necessary houses, I want to tell him that if at that time we had allowed more immigrants to enter there would not have been houses for them. One of the reasons why immigration was stopped at the time was because the housing position was chaotic under the United Party régime. There simply were not enough houses to accommodate our own people. How could we still bring in immigrants?

It is obvious that we cannot build enough houses to keep pace with the demand by making use of the old methods. We cannot continue to build houses according to the old conventional methods. Nor can we plan large housing schemes with obsolete legal machinery. It would be foolish of this Government to allow our housing programme to become enmeshed in a web of cumbersome, time-consuming administrative machinery which was not designed to keep pace with modern circumstances. For that reason the Minister from time to time in recent years has drastically amended and modernized our legislation dealing with community planning and the provision of houses. This legislation also goes in that direction. We are glad that the hon. the Minister at this stage already is thinking of the comprehensive legislation which was introduced in regard to housing particularly in recent years with a view to consolidating it. and we realize that these amendments are just an addition and a tightening up of the legislation before that consolidation takes place. There was really n urgent need to put our planning machinery and the administration of housing programmes on the most modern basis. I think we have now progressed so far in regard to our legislation that we have reached that stage. The Department of Housing is a dynamic department which is faced with new situations from time to time.

Therefore we have also found in recent years that from time to time it became necessary to amend the law in order to improve the administration of housing. This amending Bill is a step in the same direction. It is calculated to make the departmental machinery work efficiently, to speed up the provision of housing and to prevent the delays in the provision of housing which may be caused by complicated city and town planning. The powers the Minister takes here are absolutely essential.

I just want to refer specifically to one or two of the provisions. There is the one which empowers boards of management in Coloured rural areas and urban Bantu councils to take up housing loans. There is another provision which provides that the redemption in respect of sub-economic houses will no longer be paid to the Public Debt Commissioners, but that as from 1 April it will be paid into the Housing Fund. This is a very good arrangement, Sir, because instead of allowing the money to he with the Public Debt Commissioners for as long as 40 years, it can now immediately be used for housing again. The idea is to use the profit on the interest to regulate the payments so that they will not increase. The balance will go towards making good the loss of interest which the fund has to pay to the Treasury every year in respect of money borrowed by the fund from the Treasury. This arrangement will result in strengthening the Housing Fund further so that it will be able to do even greater things than it does at the moment. Last year the hon. the Minister told us that the National Housing Fund is a revolving fund which is becoming increasingly stronger until we will gradually reach the position where the fund will be self-sufficient and we will probably in future have to ask this House for less money because the fund will be able to finance housing on its own. That is the reply to what the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has just said, viz. that the Minister should ensure that the money is available. I am grateful that the Housing Fund is so strong to-day that it can practically meet our large-scale housing needs. This amendment will strengthen the fund even further.

Coming to the provisions of Clause 5, which amend Section 44, we find that the wording in Section 44(g) is the same as in Clause 12 sex of the Community Development Amendment Bill, the Committee Stage of which has just been passed.

Is it the same?

Yes, it is precisely the same. Now I am glad that hon. members opposite did not revert to the question of powers being taken away from local authorities. I mention this because I feel that if the local authorities co-operate there will be no need for interfering with their powers. It is also clear from what the hon. the Minister has just said that in the past eight years it was necessary to make use of these powers only once. If, however, local authorities withhold their co-operation or want to put obstacles in the way of the Department, I am in favour of interference with their powers if that is in the public interest.

What I do welcome are the amendments the hon. the Minister is now proposing by way of the amendments contained in Clause 5, i.e. amendments to Sections 1 and 2. That shows the Minister’s desire to maintain close cooperation with the provinces and the local authorities. In spite of everything that has been said from the opposite side of the House from time to time, this is obvious proof that it is the Minister’s intention closely to cooperate in providing for this great need in our country, and I also welcome the fact that we know that the Minister is prepared, as is also the case now again, to bring together the Administrators and the Executive Committees of the provinces for consultations from time to time, as well as the positive and joint action which will flow from those consultations. I just want to refer here to one very good arrangement which was born of such consultations, namely the fact that there is to-day mutual representations of officials of the Department of Housing on the boards of the provinces which deal with the planning of townships, and that on the other hand again the provincial authorities are represented in the regional committees of the National Housing Commission.

It is a principle of our housing legislation that when it comes to the provision of housing for the sub-economic and middle income groups the State has a responsibility but that the local authorities also have a responsibility, and in order to facilitate the work of the local authorities I should like to draw their attention to the very valuable documents which have been made available recently by the hon. the Minister and his Department to the local authorities and to everybody who is interested in the provision of housing. It will facilitate their task. I just want to mention the housing code drawn up by the Secretary for Housing …

Order! The hon. member is going too far now.

Sir, I just want to mention it to you …

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

Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the Bill now. I just want to say that these two documents which are now available …

Order! Those documents are not relevant now.

Sir, will you just allow me to explain that with the Bill as now amended the possibility has been created for non-White local management boards and Bantu urban councils to take up loans. These bodies are still inexperienced in so far as the work of local authorities is concerned, and I just want to say that in these two documents they are being given guidance which will to a large extent facilitate their work in future.

My remarks will be brief. I want to confine myself almost exclusively to Clause 5 of the Bill. The powers which the Minister seeks in connection with Bantu Settlement Boards and Coloured Settlement Boards, I think are, in the main, acceptable, and it is understandable that the Minister requires these powers. I think also, that the requirements in regard to finance are possibly necessary in the case of some local authorities. But, I would like the hon. Minister to explain to me, if he will, whether or not it has been the custom of local authorities to remit their funds promptly as and when necessary, and what precisely is the reason for these dates. I have discussed this with various heads of municipal departments and they inquire as to the necessity of this particular clause in the legislation.

I want to refer in some detail to Clause 5, because the other day the hon. Minister went to great pains to take me to task in the House on a matter which did not concern planning at all.

Would you please tell me what you were referring to?

I was referring to Clause 2 in regard to the words “and interest, including any interest derived from the utilization of repayments”. What precisely is the intention of that particular clause? There seems to be some doubt amongst the local authorities as to the precise meaning of this clause.

It has nothing to do with local authorities.

I take it then that it is actually a clause to give the Minister powers to act in relation to the Treasury.

Yes, it is an arrangement between me and the Treasury.

Thank you. Now the other day, as I have said, the hon. the Minister went to great pains to refer to certain remarks I had made in connection with types of buildings; and why councils, and my council in particular, at that time, had not acted. I would like the hon. Minister just to admit here, if he will, that that arose after a visit which he paid to the City of Kimberley when I had the great pleasure of taking him around the housing schemes and showing him what we were trying to do. In this particular Bill we refer to various conditions and types of houses that may or may not be built. I do not quite know what the objective of the Minister was the other evening, but the fact remains that I was actually talking in the speech, he referred to, to the council of which I was the mayor, and which I was trying to persuade to take some action …

Order!

I am coming to the point Mr. Speaker …

The hon. member is taking a wide circle to get to the point.

Well, Sir, a circle is a long way round, and I do not wish to trifle with the Chair, but the hon. the Minister made a personal attack on me and I must reply to him.

Yes, but this is not the occasion.

Thank you, Sir, I shall seek many occasions to come back to that.

May I now proceed to say this: I would like to ask the hon. Minister, in dealing with Clause 5, what the meaning is of “the type of dwelling to be constructed, the value thereof, or the materials to be used in the construction thereof” …

Industrialized methods.

Well, I would like to say this: After many years of experience in housing and the building of houses of all sorts and kinds, as the hon. Minister knows, it has been my experience that one must be very careful. At the time when I asked the hon. Minister what he had in mind in regard to these industrial methods and the types and kinds of houses which he proposed, he had a picture in his pocket of substitute materials which I understood were for the first time being used in Pretoria. Now naturally, as an individual, deeply interested in this type of thing, of providing cheap and low-priced housing, I was naturally anxious to know what was going to be done. I cannot understand why the hon. Minister should want to dictate the type of dwelling or the value thereof or the materials. When we deal with this particular aspect I would like to ask him, Mr. Speaker, whether or not it can happen, and whether it is his intention to reduce the value of townships (a) by increasing the number of houses possible on one plot, and (b) by reducing the standard of those houses. I am not thinking now of the high-class type of house which can easily be built. I am thinking of the low-priced stuff, and particularly housing for the Coloured community who are just as desperately in need of housing as any other group. These two portions have been introduced into this clause “the number of dwellings which may be constructed on any one piece of land” and then the other one in regard to subdivision.

Now I would like to know how big is a “piece of land”? Is this an approved plot in a township, or is it a departure from the town-planning scheme in terms of sub-section (1) of this particular section—is it going to be that the township itself will be cut into smaller plots, or are the plots themselves to be cut, and to what extent will the local authority have any say, or any opportunity to submit and or render advice? Because I get the uneasy feeling that when we persistently try to reduce standards, either by the number of houses on a plot, or the standard of the house by the thickness of walls and the lowness of ceilings, one does bring about a set of conditions which can in due course, in the future, present us with a number of difficulties. I hope the hon. Minister will give me some details on that particular point, because it is one which exercises the mind of local authorities, very, very considerably. You see, Mr. Speaker, the standard of housing, particularly in the sub-economic groups is so low at the present moment, that the local authorities often wonder whether the buildings will last the length of the loan. So, you will understand my anxiety to know exactly what is intended here, in dealing with the particular properties that we want to build.

The other observation I wish to make is in connection with any further subdivision of land. The hon. Minister can exempt himself from submitting any plans or anything of that sort whatsoever. Now precisely what is the meaning of this new provision? In the case of sub-economic properties, it does not really matter, but there are a number of economic properties which are affected and on which plans should be filed with the local authorities, and it should be obligatory on the Minister so to do. These are a few of the difficulties I see. I think the legislation in the main is necessary. I am familiar with the position in this country, I am familiar with the position amongst the Coloured community and amongst the Bantu, and also among the Whites, and I am one of those who have done something constructive in an endeavour to do something about it. I am familiar with the difficulties that arise, and when we come to the Minister’s Vote I will quote him chapter and verse on the snags and difficulties with which local authorities are faced, and which he may be able to eliminate administratively. But what I am concerned about, and most people are concerned about, is this anxiety on the part of the Minister, probably very laudable, to gather unto himself all the power, whereas in my humble opinion he would get far better results by delegating his powers down. That is the direction I would like to see: I would like to see delegation down the line. We talk about plans and things of that kind—there are services in regard to townships—and all get into the bottle-neck of the National Housing Commission. Whereas there are highly trained officials employed by local authorities to draw up plans for various services and structures, I believe that the time has come, in view of the necessity to do something with this very thorny problem, that delegation of authority should be the new idea, to industrialize it, as the hon. Minister said. If I may translate “industrialization”, I would say “industrialization is to get more people at the job”. If the hon. Minister would adopt that line of action, I am sure he would get far better results. There is no question about it, Sir, that all the legislation in the world (and we are getting plenty these days) can never take the place of the persons on the job, who have to lay the bricks and put on the plaster, lay the water-pipes, install the power and so forth. You cannot have all this business centralized in one office in Pretoria, although some things have been delegated to branches throughout the country.

As I say the intentions of the Minister merit some praise, but I believe his method of attacking the problems are incorrect. Local authorities are experienced people; local government is a system which obtains in this country and I do appeal to him to realize that they, the local authorities, are willing to help (although he sometimes does not think so). They have done a tremendous amount of work. They have already tackled the problems themselves, and they have gone a long way towards resolving them. When he quotes the number of houses which we need, as he does from time to time, it is interesting to see how the need is becoming less and less and how we are beginning to make inroads into this enormous backlog, which is due not so much to immigrants, but to the drift to the towns. So I ask the hon. Minister to give us some information on the points I have raised.

We appreciate the fact that the Opposition are supporting this Bill, but when one looks at the way in which they are doing so, one wishes that they would rather oppose it, because there are so many qualifications attached to their support that one feels more inclined to attack them. The hon. member who has just sat down spoke about the delegation of powers to local authorities, powers which, supposedly, will produce much better results than the method the Minister wants to employ. I agree with the hon. member that such a delegation of powers will work reasonably well in 90 out of 100 cases, but unfortunately it will not work in the remaining 10 cases, because there are local authorities who for reasons of their own refuse to cooperate with the Minister and his Department. This measure proposes to grant the Minister the power to take action himself in such cases, I repeat what I have said, and that is that while the method suggested by the hon. member will work reasonably well and produce very good results in 90 out of 100 cases, the Minister must still have the necessary powers to act in the remaining 10 cases. I can mention quite a number of municipalities where it is necessary for the Minister to take the power into his own hands and to provide the necessary housing facilities.

We all agree that there is an acute shortage of housing, for the simple reason that this country is experiencing an economic boom that is unparalleled in its history and as a result of which people who formerly lived in slums now have to get decent houses. It is not so much because of the immigrants that more houses are required, but because of the boom in the economy of our country, a boom which is the direct result of the steps taken by this Government over the past 17 years. It is a fact, however, that certain local authorities have not done what was required to meet the urgent need for housing.

I take it you are referring to Jansenville?

No, to the Johannesburg City Council!

I am speaking from personal experience. The Town Council of Paarl has also failed to make the necessary provision. I just mention this as an example to illustrate what I mean. Over the past 30 years no provision was made for housing for Whites in Paarl. Land for this purpose was bought 9 years ago, but no building operations were commenced, on the excuse that group areas had not yet been proclaimed. That was why building operations could not be commenced. But in the meantime, in August 1963, group areas were proclaimed; up to the present day, however, not a single house has been completed, in spite of the fact that building work has been in progress for the past 10 months. Apparently this state of affairs is not due to the Town Council not realizing that there is an urgent need for housing, but to their not sufficiently appreciating the existing need, because why is it necessary to take 10 months over building a few houses?

Yes, if there is a Nationalist-controlled town council!

I mention these things to point out how necessary it is for the Minister to get the powers he is seeking in Clause 5 of the Bill. The Minister should have the power to take action himself in such cases and to meet the housing need with the assistance of the Housing Commission.

Because we all agree with the principles of this Bill and because we all agree that there is a tremendous need for housing, we may just as well end this debate by telling the Minister to carry on and to implement this Bill so that we may meet the urgent housing needs of our people. Because nothing has been done during the past 30 years to provide, housing for Whites in Paarl the need is so great that I am afraid the Minister will have to take action there as well by using his powers to provide the necessary accommodation. I sincerely hope that he will do so.

The hon. member for Paarl, who has just sat down, said that over the last 30 years very little was done in respect of housing for Whites …

I referred to Paarl.

Oh, did the hon. member refer to Paarl only? Well, in that case he ought to know best because he comes from there. Mr. Speaker, last year the hon. the Minister concluded his introduction of a Bill amending the Housing Act by saying (Hansard Vol 10, col. 5226)—

When commencing his address on that occasion he said there were certain important principles which had to be incorporated in the Act. To-day, however, he reversed that procedure in that he said that the amendments proposed in this Bill were simple, minor and administrative matters, matters which he thought should be incorporated in the Act in order to enable him to prepare the ground for a consolidation of the principal Act.

Do you agree with the amendments?

I shall deal with them in due course, if the Minister will permit me to. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) then entered the debate in support of the Minister with an extremely well-prepared and carefully thought out address in which he pointed out what an important lot of amendments these were. These, he said, were absolutely necessary to speed up the provision of housing in this country because the position was serious. He, in fact, came to the conclusion that we were experiencing a crisis as regards housing. In the circumstances I hope that the Minister and his followers may come to some agreement as to what exactly the objective of these amendments is.

As far as we on this side of the House are concerned, the leading speaker from this side has already indicated that we support these amendments principally because we agree with the hon. member for Parow. We know, for instance, that the Minister is faced with certain difficulties and that he must get on with the provision of housing. Well, when a man comes to this House and says that he must get on with the provision of houses for the community, then that does our hearts a great deal of good because to do that has been a fundamental part of the policy of this side of the House over very many years, a policy which has been carried out with tremendous success in this country, and a policy on which I am happy to see the Minister is trying to build a very sound structure.

But let me return to the Bill, and let me deal with Clause 5 first. Certain amendments are going to be moved to this clause because the powers of the commission are being extended considerably. By proposing that the commission shall be exempt from any town-planning scheme and by adding paragraphs (d) and (e) and a new sub-section (2), we believe that the Minister is virtually extending his powers. However, there are times when we on this side of the House should give the Government powers to do certain things. Such powers, however, must then be limited to the foreseeable future and, indeed, I think the Minister, if he carries out what he undertakes to do, ought to be able to do that in a very short time especially in view of these extensive powers now being asked. Therefore, as has already been indicated, we shall move an amendment in the committee stage limiting the period during which these powers shall be operative. A further amendment will also be moved to ensure that local authorities and the Administrator concerned shall be aware of the various changes brought about by the commission by virtue of it being exempt from certain restrictions in title deeds, from certain conditions of establishment of township schemes and from other ordinances and bylaws of local authorities and the provinces.

The Minister talked about arrangements between himself and the Treasury which will enable him to spread funds over a wider surface and thus do much more in this field. The hope has even been expressed that the Housing Fund might have sufficient funds and that it will thus not be necessary to come to Parliament for further appropriations. But then the Minister should tell us what he has failed to tell us up to now, i.e. whether he can spend the funds and whether he can spend it soon? I ask this because if the Minister is seeking a change in the administrative side of his funding, he must at least be able to give us the assurance that he will be able to spend the money. I admit that the spending of these funds depends also on the available labour forces, material, etc. A while ago the Minister issued a certain statement to the Press but when a question was put to him in this House about what he intends doing, a question which enabled him to tell this House and learn its reaction thereto, his reply was a very terse one to the effect that we should refer to his Press statement. That I did not think to be a courteous reply from the Minister.

Order! That really has nothing to do with this Bill.

I have made my point. Sir …

The hon. member should then come back to the Bill.

I am dealing, Sir, with the fact that the Minister wants more funds for housing. That is what he said in his opening remarks in regard to Clause 2 and Clause 4. These clauses deal with the way in which excess interest can be appropriated for extensions to present and other schemes. Surely the hon. the Minister does not want me to forget that issue?

That has nothing to do with building control.

I should like the Minister to tell us what steps he is taking to spend the money, how he is going to avoid certain buildings being proceeded with, buildings for which plans have been submitted, and how he has seen fit to refuse R8,000,000 worth of building projects being proceeded with at the present time. I ask this because he himself in previous statements, statements which I can quote from Hansard if necessary, said, that it was essential that not only the Government and local authorities but also the private sector should play an important part in respect of the provision of housing. The private sector also must, therefore, provide funds. Now, if there is a limitation in respect of this sector, then the Minister must tell us why he is limiting it. He must also tell us how he intends overcoming the problem, particularly in view of the fact that he is asking for additional powers for the purpose of, firstly, making funds more readily available and, secondly, overcoming any obstacles that might be in his way. He owes it to this House to inform us about these points. This is the platform he should make use of to do that.

The hon. member for Parow talked about a dynamic department. He said this Bill would enable the building programme to be speeded up. He also said that the powers the Minister was seeking, were necessary. Well, we hope that that will be the position because we say that the present backlog is due to the inability of the Government to plan properly and correctly, and to plan as any government should plan when it is faced with tremendous economic development. The Government’s immigration plans came on the scene very late and its plans for housing even later. Something which the Minister—being one of the chief propagandists who at one time spoke against immigration on the grounds that it would take away homes from the people, let alone other things —should know …

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

Therefore I say that the reason why the Minister comes with this type of measure again is because he has failed to meet the obligation he has to the nation to provide adequate housing of a satisfactory type. I want to say further that these powers he is taking to exempt the commission from certain ordinances and township schemes and conditions of establishment, he could well have given to the local authorities, and not overburdened his Department, as he now wants to do, with work which was traditionally done by the local authority. Let me draw the attention of the Minister to this. I only quote the City of Johannesburg because it is a big local authority which has played a very important part in housing. In their own Budget delivered in June last year, when they set aside capital to the extent of R33,000,000 and ordinary expenditure to the extent of R67,000,000, they said that this coming year for the first time something is to be set aside specifically as the nucleus for the provision for urban renewal. I would like the Minister to know that there are parts of a big city like that, such as Jeppes …

Order! Order! That has nothing to do with this Bill.

But the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) was told by the Minister that he was going to do this in District Six.

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

All I want to tell the Minister is that the money and the power he is seeking could well have been delegated. He is asking approval for these additional powers, but I say those powers could well have been delegated because there are blighted areas which local authorities have not been able to improve because they did not have the power to do so.

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

I have read the Bill very thoroughly. I only know that when the supporters of the hon. the Minister in this House deal exactly with the matters I am dealing with …

Order!

I apologize if you, Sir, thought I was casting any reflection. I really intended attacking the Minister. The position is that in the problem of housing we always have to realize one important factor, and that is that one has to be cautious with regard to established practice. One of the problems that faces us when we seek sweeping powers such as are contained in Clause 5 is that there should be no interference with established schemes and that when one thinks of providing more houses than are allowed on a site one must take into account the surrounding and contiguous areas. I think the Minister should give us an assurance in this respect. He cannot regard this amendment as an administrative one. Here is an amendment which could well cut into an established complex of township development, and I think we should get an assurance from the Minister that he will take all those factors into account in deciding at any stage, for the purpose of the better working of the Housing Act, that the number of dwellings which are to be greater than that provided for on the site do not allow the area to deteriorate. I think we need an assurance and the country needs an assurance that in granting the Minister these extraordinary powers he will be very careful to avoid infringing the rights of presently established areas; because unfortunately in the Minister’s opening speech we did not get the details I think we were entitled to get.

I want to say further that one does agree that when one is facing a difficulty such as the Minister is facing in the development of new housing schemes, you do find large tracts of land which have been incorporated into a township, where the land actually is large if one considers that it could be developed speedily but will be developed slowly because it needs a particular type of owner and a particularly large sum of money for development. But there are a number of those townships existing to-day away from the well built-up areas in the residential suburbs of many of our towns, and I think we would like to feel that the Minister will ensure that that type of township will be the type of township he will try to acquire and deal with; because that is where one has the opportunity of increasing the number of houses on a site, but at the same time making satisfactory provision for the necessary open spaces and the necessary amenities which will avoid any slum development. I think on that score we also need some assurance.

Then we come to the new sub-clause (e) which talks about the further sub-division of land. That virtually in many senses is complementary to (d), which talks about an additional number of dwellings. I think is is only fair to the House that we should have a full explanation of all these things. Generally, as we have said, we support every effort the Minister wishes to make and every power he seeks to enable him to get on with housing. I hope he will not find it necessary this year to follow the example both of this year and last year by interchanging the question of administrative requirements or necessitous requirements, to come for further amendments to the House, but rather to make use of the powers he already has in profusion to get on with the job. This side of the House wants to see housing. It wants the Minister to follow the example not only of previous Governments but also of long-established and far-seeing municipalities which have made a very fine job of housing. If he takes that example to heart we will make much more progress and will not have to come back to the House continuously for further powers.

The. hon. member for Florida (Mr. Miller) is so fond of referring to the “baa-baa” of Cradock, but I want to tell the hon. member that the hon. member for Cradock undoubtedly knows much more about the problems of the Rand …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

If one looks at the legislation before the House to-day, legislation which the Minister of Housing has placed before us because he is experiencing certain problems, and because it is a good law for solving these problems, one finds that the members of the Opposition are tripping over their own feet, just as I perhaps will, because they can say nothing against this law; and when we begin to trip over our own feet it is because there are such good clauses in the Bill. I want to tell the Minister that we welcome this legislation, Clause 5(1) (d), in particular, and I hope and trust that I interpret this clause correctly as meaning that the type of dwelling to be built or the value thereof or the materials that may be used in building it are all exempted from the various township ordinances. If we want to solve the housing problem in the Republic I am glad to see a clause being introduced here that helps the Minister to get rid of the old conventional methods of building we have had in the Republic. We have always believed that a house must be built of bricks and cements and of the best materials one can find. It was something fine and beautiful, and it was very hard for the local authorities ever to change their bye-laws to make it possible to use other types of building material; one could never persuade them to do so. That is why I am so glad to see this clause which grants the Minister the power to employ new methods of building, and I can reassure the hon. member for Florida that the Minister will be in a position to spend all the money at his disposal and that he will spend it well and quickly. Furthermore we are satisfied—even as regards (e), which he is worried about—that this is a responsible Minister with responsible head officials in his Department, and we are all satisfied that they will not build White locations. We are satisfied that, with these new suburbs or townships they are going to start, they will only give the best to the people, because they are inhabitants of the Republic after all. Regardless of whether they are Whites or non-Whites, we are satisfied that where the Minister is seeking these powers he will nevertheless see to it that all the requirements of modern township planning are met and that his planning is as modern and that all the facilities are provided as are provided in the suburb in which the hon. member for Florida lives: and even where I myself live. I say that the Minister will do these things here too, because we see that all our Bantu townships are being planned in the most modern way. Therefore the hon. member need have no fear that the planning will be inferior. The Minister wants to cut out all the red tape we know of in the town councils. The Minister is asking this Board to help him do this, and we all trip over this, because this is good legislation. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is going to speak next and I want to say this to him. If he wants to have his name honoured in this House he should get up and say only three words and tell the Minister that he welcomes this legislation. Then he will be doing some good.

Mr. Speaker, how can I be expected to take the advice of the hon. member for Brakpan when he says I should get up here and, following this example, say three words, and then he proceeds to use six words? In the light of the experience of my colleagues on this side of the House this afternoon, I was thinking of using two words instead of three—not six! I was very surprised to find that the hon. the Minister who introduced the Bill made an unusually brief speech to-day. As we know, the introductory speech is usually a survey of the Bill and its major implications, but I must say that the Minister has left much to the imagination in regard to the implications of the Bill. That being the case, one must necessarily discuss with him the Bill as it appears before the House, in order to try to find out just what there is in it, so that we will have a better idea of what the impact of this Bill will be on the provision of housing which the Minister says is the object of this Bill. For example, he was heard to say that the Housing Act was one of the most effective instruments of its kind in the world, and he said that this Bill was a case of providing a few minor amendments with an eye to the subsequent consolidation of all the legislation. I want to put this to the House: if this country can rightly boast of having the kind of legislation in regard to housing which makes it one of the most effective instruments in the world, then it is difficult to understand why the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) was able to point to certain facts which indicate that, even to this day, and even after this Bill is passed, there will still be a great deal to be done in regard to the effective provision of housing.

Order! The hon. member’s introductory remarks have been long enough. He must come back to the Bill.

I bow to your ruling, Sir. I want to deal first of all with the situation that will arise in the light of the most important clause in this Bill, Clause 5. I hope I may be permitted to say something about that. The hon. member for Brakpan pointed out that he could not understand why the hon. member for Florida, or the Opposition, could possibly object to Clause 5. Well, we perhaps see this in a different light. I am not prepared to say that we are necessarily right, but it is not a point of view which is completely beyond consideration—the fact that we have this objection to this clause. There was a time—and •we have heard this again this afternoon—when only the local authorities were to blame for the shortage of housing in South Africa. You, Sir, heard two speeches of that nature this afternoon. It was due to the dilatoriness or the neglect of the local authorities and nothing else, and in fact the hon. member for Paarl went so far as to say that he could give many examples of local authorities which had compelled the Minister to come with this sort of legislation, which deprived the local authorities of their traditional powers. Then, by way of interjection, I asked him to name an example, but he refused. Well, I want to name an example which is almost historical to-day; this was said in this honourable House in Column 8455 of Hansard about a certain local authority.

The Hansard of which year is that?

It is the authorized version of Hansard Col. 8455, in English, not the abridged or my own version. Here is the following statement by an hon. member—

The point I am trying to bring out, and having regard to what you, Sir, said to me a little earlier—I am not going to read five columns in the same strain even if you would be good enough to permit me—but the salient point I am trying to make is that the local authorities have not always been guilty of the kind of neglect, indifference or dilatoriness which now is sought as the justification for the taking of very sweeping powers. There were such difficulties as the financial arrangements between the local authorities and the Central Government. There was the question of the housing formula. This is the same Housing Commission. by whatever name you call it which was then replying, in regard to losses and the refund of losses to the local authority …

Where does the local authority bear the loss?

Order! I do not want hon. members to develop another line of argument and another subject matter which are not incorporated in the Bill. The hon. member must deal with the Bill.

As far as Clause 5 (1) (d) is concerned, and the justification we have heard from two hon. members and to some extent from the Minister, being the so-called neglect of the local authorities, I was trying to prove—as I can, ad infinitum and ad nauseum—that this is not true. Therefore I say that in the very brief speech the Minister made, he should have told us more about the need for the Bill, which we support in principle, but also the need for the sweeping powers he asks for, such as are particularly contained in Clause 5.

Order! That can be more effectively dealt with in Committee.

Then may I deal with the clause in general, and its effect on those very authorities which are expected to co-operate with the Government and with the Commission—because they are still expected to cooperate, regardless of the accusation which have been hurled against them to-day. [Interjections.] When the Minister dealt with Clause 5, he said it was merely an extension of the provisions contained in the Act—presumably the principal Act—but that it would make that Act more effective, and he coupled that with the statement that since 1920 local authorities have allowed conditions to develop which compels the State to step in. Now, if you take a look at Clause 5 you may well wonder why it is necessary to go to the lengths of the clause as printed; e.g., if, in general terms, it is necessary to change by-laws in order to deal, as the clause does, with methods of building and types of building material and new methods of construction, one wonders why we have to come to the stage where even the right to decide how and where that dwelling shall be sited on an erf, is no longer the function of the local authority. I am not discussing the sub-clause in detail, but I am discussing the effect of this clause in all its provisions— whereas hon. members opposite have leaned very heavily on only one, which is the change in regard to the nature of building construction and the materials to be employed. But there is a great deal more—it incorporates a number of other provisions which have nothing whatever to do with the methods of construction. So I want to ask hon. members opposite whether they will be good enough, since the Minister has not dealt with this aspect of the matter, to explain why the further sub-division of land in a township must be dealt with as it is dealt with in this clause. Hon. members should surely want to question, e.g., why endowment and the payment of endowment is done away with completely by this clause: and as for the restrictions on the transfer of land, this has nothing to do with building construction methods or with the nature of the materials used, whether they are prefabricated or fabricated on the site, or the conventional brick and mortar or concrete and steel. Hon. members opposite will surely want to ask why these provisions are also incorporated in the same clause, and why these powers should have to be given to the Minister. When one considers that the Minister has indicated that all is well in all the fields of housing in South Africa because of the powers with which he has already been armed, and that there will be a great improvement if he is armed with these additional powers asked for in this clause, one is entitled to point out to the Minister that there is still a great deal of dissatisfaction not merely about the dearth of housing, with which I do not propose to deal, but with the nature and quality of the housing provided by the latest and most modern methods which do meet with the approval of the Minister. [Interjection.] One is entitled to ask the Minister whether he is aware of these comments which have appeared in the local Press very recently, in the Cape Times of 27 February this year, where there is a reference to mass produced houses at Guguletu. We have been told that because of our housing legislation, even without this Bill, we have the finest instrument for housing in the world.

Order: The hon. member must come back to this Bill.

May I point to the fact that the nature of the construction methods …

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

I want to deal with 5 (1) (b).

The hon. member can do that in Committee. He must come back to the Bill now or resume his seat.

Then I want to say about the Bill—in general terms, since I can only speak about it in general terms—that it seems that the Bill itself is not a complete solution to the housing problems which confront the Minister, the Government and the people of South Africa. It is not sufficient to legislate on the basis that because you control every detail of the procedure, every detail of the nature of the materials, the construction methods, the sitting of the house, the question of sub-division—everything that has any bearing at all on the matter—that you are then automatically assured of good housing. My reason for saying that is that inevitably any government and any minister, including this Minister, as determined as he may be, will come up against the fact that he does need the co-operation at least of the local authorities which wish to co-operate. I am amazed that this very simple point seems to have been overlooked completely by hon. members on the other side in discussing this Bill, because the hon. the Minister himself has told the Committee that by and large the local authorities of South Africa have co-operated and do cooperate in the provision of housing. Now, Sir, I want to ask this: If the hon. Minister considers the simple fact that since he has already got to the stage where most, if not all, of these local authorities are co-operating without any such legislation being forced on them, is there not something to be said for trying to ensure, not that those who are already co-operating are maneouvred into a position where they have no function and no authority in housing in their own area (which will be the effect of part of Clause 5), but that measures should rather be taken against recalcitrant local authorities, those recalcitrant local authorities who appear to be known to hon. members on the other side of the House, who appear to be known to the hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan)—he refuses to mention them, but they must certainly be known to the hon. the Minister. Would it not be better, fairer and simpler to proceed to legislate against those recalcitrant local authorities, to ensure that the unwilling ones are compelled to co-operate with the Department over which the hon. the Minister presides? That, I think, is germane to the whole discussion, and I sincerely hope that the hon. the Minister will give us an answer to this question—because without that answer, while we have already said that we support the principle of the Bill because of the urgent need for housing, we believe and we will continue to believe that the provisions of the Bill are of such a nature as to take the measure generally, going as far as it does go, way out of the line of the normal procedure that the Government should adopt vis-à-vis the local authorities. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with that matter when he rises to reply.

We on this side of the House wholeheartedly support this Bill. That is really the difference between ourselves and hon. members on the other side; the way in which they support this Bill is to criticize it …

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

We on this side give our wholehearted support to this Bill because it makes special provision to meet a need in our national life.

Order! That point has been made repeatedly, already; it is not necessary to emphasize it again.

I will try then to raise a few new points in respect of this Bill, because we on this side feel that this is an important piece of legislation that we have before the House. The provision that is being made here to promote family life is extremely important.

Order! That relates to the principal Act; it has nothing to do with this Bill.

Sir, I do not want to go into the specific clauses but I just want to point out in general that hon. members on the other side object to certain principles contained in this Bill. It is precisely on the ground of the particular principles to which reference has been made here that we feel that it is so essential to place this measure on the Statute Book. Reference has been made here to Clause 5 (b), amongst other things, which gives certain powers to the Minister. Hon. members on that side object to the granting of those powers to the Minister. We on this side feel that it is essential to grant these powers to the Minister to enable him to meet the need that exists to build houses for our population. The need to provide housing is a very serious one, and we who come into contact with the voters in our constituencies realize how extremely essential and important it is to build houses. However, we must not only say that we are going to build houses; we must remove all the stumbling-blocks which sometimes make it impossible for the Minister to provide the necessary housing. Steps are being taken under this measure to remove those stumbling-blocks.

Order! The hon. member can raise those matters in the Committee Stage.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat, mentioned the fact that we should get on with the job of building houses. When I listened to the Minister introducing this Bill I was filled with the hope that this was a step towards the provision of more housing for our people. The hon. the Minister, in support of this Bill, stressed the necessity of providing more housing. The hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) has dealt in some detail with the shortage of housing amongst the various racial groups. I think he has adequately stated the attitude of the Opposition and that is that we will give all the support we can to the Government in an attempt to make more housing available. Clause 5 substitutes a new section for Section 44 of the principal Act. It exempts the commission from certain by-laws and from the provisions of a town planning scheme of a local authority. I think the mechanics of finding ways and means of providing more housing constitutes the most important principle in the Bill. The hon. the Minister has indicated that there is a necessity to increase those powers so as to bring into their ambit exemption from town planning schemes of local authorities. This particular aspect is one which we naturally view with a certain degree of trepidation as far as these extended powers are concerned. The hon. the Minister, in introducing the Bill, indicated that he intended moving an amendment in the Committee Stage under which consultation with the Administrators would be necessary. I believe that would be an improvement to the Bill in the form it now stands. Looking at this Bill from the aspect of whether it will provide the necessary machinery to build more houses is. I think, a very important factor. I think we have to find ways and means of reducing the red tape. In other words, if we can reduce the red tape, do less talking and provide more houses, we shall then be meeting this very long-felt need as far as housing is concerned.

In regard to this question of providing additional housing and the exemption from the town planning scheme of local authorities, I looked to see what provision already existed in the machinery that is provided for more houses. I should like to say that the Minister and his Department are to be complimented on the compilation of a housing code which sets out in a great deal of detail the machinery that does exist under the present Housing Act to provide more housing. The more I studied this housing code the more did I realize that the Minister and the commission already has vast powers. That is why we have to view the additional step which is being taken here whereby further exemption is sought, exemption from town planning schemes, from the angle of whether or not it is justified. When looking at this housing code I find that this is a guide which I am sure will be of great assistance to local authorities throughout the country. It will to some extent obviate certain difficulties and delays which exist in the provision of additional housing.

Order! That is something apart from this Bill. It has no direct bearing on this Bill.

With respect, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to indicate what the existing powers are and why it is deemed necessary to extend those powers in terms of this Bill. I am trying to make the point that the powers which exist already enables the commission to deal with cases of dilatoriness on the part of local authorities. It is provided here that unless the local authorities have proceeded with their schemes after a period of six months the commission has certain powers which are outlined. These existing powers are now being amended and substituted by the new Clause 5 and the principle involved in the extension of those powers in terms of the substitution of Section 44 of the principal Act, is that it now aims to include a town planning scheme. In that respect this housing code sets out the Department’s requirements in regard to town planning. This is a guide to local authorities. It means that in terms of the Bill which is now before us the Housing Commission will be exempt from the various regulations and also from the town planning schemes of those local authorities.

The point I want to make is this, that in terms of this housing code, on page 28 where, it deals with town planning schemes, it says, this—

That is the machinery which is already provided for and outlined in this particular housing code. The question arises whether it is really necessary for the hon. the Minister to take this additional power in terms of this Bill. I think the hon. the Minister should explain more fully to the House what he has in mind and what the reasons are for asking for these additional powers. The Minister, when introducing the Bill, mentioned the fact that there were certain difficulties such as local authorities having town planning schemes in the course of preparation. That is perhaps the main stumbling block as far as the Government is concerned. But before these powers were sought the hon. the Minister had already embarked upon and made an announcement in regard to his crash housing programme. My point is this: Was the Minister aware of this stumbling block and did he anticipate that it would be necessary to introduce a Bill of this type extending the powers of the Commission prior to making the announcement that this housing crash programme could be completed or was hoped to be completed within a period of 18 months. I think the hon. the Minister has made great strides in providing housing of adequate standards and in using more modern methods of construction. I don’t intend going into the details of this clause, but it also deals with the types of houses involved. I know the hon. the Minister will be strongly guided by the Louw Report which was a report on prefabricated building elements and certain other building material and building methods. This is a very important document which makes certain recommendations as far as building regulations are concerned. They recommend that those regulations should be uniform throughout the four provinces. It also makes important recommendations as a result of a survey and an inquiry they had with the building research section of the C.S.I.R. and the examination of other new modern methods of construction. The important point as far as the method of construction is concerned, is this additional power to be exempt from the town-planning scheme, and it is one that requires a statement from the hon. the Minister to ensure that those persons who already own property and who are somewhat concerned that the commission might use these vast powers that are going to be provided for in this Bill to bring forward their own town-planning scheme in close proximity to their existing properties. Many of these people view with a certain degree of worry and anxiety the possibility that the Housing Commission may embark upon their own scheme close proximity to their existing properties. They fear that the properties that are to be erected by the Housing Commission will not be of a sufficiently high enough standard to fit into the general area and that it might result in the depreciation of their own property. That is why I hope that the hon. Minister will give an assurance that such a scheme as he envisages, the exemption of which he will receive from local authorities, will not mean that properties of an inferior type will be erected in an area in close proximity of perhaps a residential area of a high standard.

The other steps that the hon. Minister has taken without the provisions of this Bill, was the establishment in the Durban area of a committee, which he announced the other day, a committee consisting of members of his Department and representatives of the Durban City Council, and according to a statement made by the Mayor of Durban, this was in order to sweep away red-tape that had been holding up the council’s crash housing programmes. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether it is his intention to establish similar committee’s in the other main local authority areas where an acute shortage of housing also exists. We are pleased that the hon. Minister has indicated that he intends moving an amendment during the Committee Stage so as to bring about consultation with the Administrators. At the same time we can only see a success of a speed-programme if it is carried out in full consultation with the local authorities, and in addition to that of course we realize that the hon. Minister is faced with the difficulty of materials and the extreme manpower shortage in the building industry. However, we are dealing here with the question of providing the mechanics to provide more housing for the people, and let us hope that from these provisions and these additional powers which are being given to the Minister, we will see a vast improvement in the situation. We had hoped that last year’s amendment to the Housing Act was going to provide the necessary machinery for the more expeditious establishment of more housing units throughout the Republic. Unfortunately, the advance has not been as great as one might have hoped, the backlog has increased and there is still an acute shortage. It is hoped that the powers that are going to be taken in this Bill will achieve the end of providing more houses that are urgently needed for that section of the people who require housing.

This is one of the shorter Bills with which we have to deal this Session. It is a Bill of very great importance, both in respect of its contents and its object. I would like to say that I hope that when this Bill is passed into law, it is going to give the Minister, as he said in his second-reading speech, powers which are essential to enable him to play the part which he would like to play in dealing with the housing problems of this country.

As I say, the Bill vests very great powers in the hon. Minister, and I believe that it will be necessary when it comes to the Committee Stage, to go into considerable detail with the hon. Minister so that he can tell us exactly the powers he proposed to exercise and the field which he desires to cover. I would like to raise some of the matters at this point very briefly with the hon. the Minister because they are of very great importance. The powers contained in the proposed Section 44, as it will be after amendment, are powers which not only put the Minister in a very strong position, but which, if properly exercised, can be of very great importance as far as this country is concerned. Sir, one of the things which have unquestionably delayed housing in this country is the out-of-date regulations which many of our cities have in respect of housing, and the fact that the attempts to get away from the standardized methods which have been adopted over a long period of years, have been frustrated, and this has unquestionably been a limiting factor. The powers in this Bill (I cannot go beyond the Bill) give the Minister the right to sweep those powers aside, but they do not really deal fully with the problem because the existing regulations restrict the efforts of others who are working in the housing field as well. I am referring in particular to out-of-date building regulations by which the Minister will no longer be bound. He has full power here to streamline the position and to use materials at present not allowed by building regulations. The Bill is quite specific in giving those powers to the hon. Minister. He will not be subject to restrictions which have, I believe, restricted building in South Africa and thereby have increased the housing shortage from which this country is suffering at the present time. I can only express the hope that in the exercise of these powers great responsibility will be exercised. Of this I have no doubt that there will be consultation with local authorities. But I do express the hope that as a result of the exercise of these powers, new and improved methods of construction which we know have been evolved in various parts of the world will become possible as a result of the exercise of these powers. This applies particularly in the use of materials and of methods of construction which will depart from the completely out-o-date methods which have limited housing construction in this country over a long period. I hope that if the hon. the Minister is successful in bringing about a change in this respect; that he will, through the proper channels, bring pressure to bear on the municipalities to do away with these regulations which apply not only to one city in South Africa, but in most of our major cities and most of the smaller towns. In respect of this matter, I can only wish the Minister good luck in his effort to bring about a change. I hope it will not be left there because I do not believe that in this country we cannot afford to continue on the basis that something which is a dire necessity as far as the public is concerned should be delayed by provisions which should have been taken off our Statute Book a long time ago. While I welcome this provision in the Bill, I want to tell the Minister that a great responsibility rests upon him in the exercise of these powers, and I think the Minister realizes this. I know, e.g. of certain plans the Minister has in my constituency, and I am very glad to say that persons who have seen the plans in the course of tendering tell me that the standard of dwelling to be erected is fully in line with existing houses in that neighbourhood. Obviously these powers allow the Minister to sweep across provisions such as the number of houses which can be built on a particular plot of land. This could be misused. I most sincerely hope that apart from getting down to the job of dealing with this tremendous problem the Minister will show the utmost reasonableness in maintaining the standards which have been set while using new methods, and maintaining the general attractiveness of most of the new residential areas which have grown up around our major cities. The Minister, I believe, can set a very good example if he continues on the lines on which he has started, by providing attractive dwellings. Where he does find it necessary to sweep across something which has been accepted in the form of town planning regulations, I hope the Minister will give us the assurance that there will be no departure from the standards we have seen in the new towns and villages going up. I believe that this Bill can result in an improvement in housing and lead to the adoption of new methods of construction which I believe are long overdue in this country. But above all I hot>e that in the exercise of these powers there will be a degree of care which will lead to the maintenance of the splendid standards which in my opinion private enterprise has set in recent years in providing really attractive neighbourhood units which are a credit to this country.

The hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) has made a very interesting contribution to the debate, and I want to thank him for it because I think we are not sufficiently aware of the absolute necessity to make a break-through in South Africa with regard to the utilization of new materials and new building methods. The hon. member is perfectly correct in saying that the powers for which we are asking here in Clause 5 are largely powers which relate to the problem of the use of new methods. Last year when we amended the Housing Act, we gave certain powers to the local authorities with a view to enabling them to act more expeditiously and more efficiently and to make use of new building methods. I just want to read out to hon. members what amendments we effected to show how important this step is. In Section 55 of the Act we brought about amendments which are tantamount to the following—

We then found, after we had given these powers to the local authorities and to the utility companies, that as a result of the interpretation placed upon the Act, these powers were not in fact available to the National Housing Commission; and the main reason why we are coming forward with this amendment now is to make it clear beyond a shadow of doubt that the National Housing Commission will have the same powers as those granted to the local authorities last year in this connection.

Is it the intention that in every case where the Minister makes use of these powers, it will be done in consultation with the municipality concerned?

Yes, that is always done.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned until to-morrow.