Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your affording me this opportunity to make a brief statement to the House. I want to tell you at once that it will not be a policy statement, but that there are certain matters in regard to which I want to inform the House and to take it into my confidence.

I should like to report to you, Mr. Speaker, that I was summoned by the State President, that he requested me to form a government, and that I have done so.

I wish to make an announcement, Sir, but before doing so you will permit me, in the capacity in which I now stand in this House, and since I have not yet had the opportunity of doing so in this House, to pay a brief tribute to him whose place I now occupy in this House. It is the privilege of all of us to witness history in the making. Some of us play a part in history, some a small one, some a large one. Some of us are mentioned in the history that is written, but it is only granted to a few to write history, and that is what my predecessor, the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, did in South Africa. Therefore, because I have to take the place of such a man, I am aware of my short-comings and of my responsibilities. I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my sincere thanks to all those—including members of this House—who have adopted an attitude of such goodwill towards me, to those who are on my side and to those who are not on my side. I also want to say to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that, as far as I am concerned, his words have not gone unnoticed. I wish to express my thanks to all who have shown such goodwill to me in this regard.

As I have informed you, Mr. Speaker, I have asked all the Ministers and Deputy Ministers to continue in office. I am very grateful to be able to inform you that all of them have readily acceded to this request. As far as the Cabinet is concerned, there will therefore be no change in that connection. All that remains is the filling of the posts which I myself held. From the nature of the case it was necessary for me to fill those posts immediately, and I have done so. In this connection I want to express my thanks and appreciation to the Press and the Broadcasting Corporation, whom I took into my confidence, but whom I asked not to publish the information until I had had an opportunity of informing Parliament itself. I am grateful that they have acceded to my request, because I adopt the attitude and I believe that Parliament should receive the first official notification in this connection. It is now my prilivege to announce that I have asked Mr. P. C. Pelser, M.P. for Klerksdorp, to serve as Minister of Justice, which portfolio includes the Sub-department of Emergency Planning, and as Minister of Prisons. I am grateful that he has accepted the appointment. In addition, I have asked Mr. S. L. Muller, M.P. for Ceres, whether he would be willing to join the Ministry in the capacity of Deputy Minister of Justice, of Police and of Prisons. He too has accepted the appointment. Hon. members will deduce from that that I have separated the portfolios of Justice and Police, and it follows from what I have announced that the Police portfolio will remain under my charge. This is not—I repeat—this is not a permanent arrangement; it is a temporary arrangement, and I should like to explain to you why I have decided to adopt this procedure. Hon. members and you, Sir, are aware of our circumstances. We are aware not only of threats, but of positive action that has been taken in the past. I have been responsible for that portfolio for five years, and as such I have woken up and gone to bed with all these problems in connection with the security of South Africa. It will be an impossible task, and it is an impossible task, for any successor, however able he may be, to read himself into all these problems and difficulties within a brief space of t me or even in a matter of weeks. For that reason, in the first place, I felt, and in the second place, I came very strongly under the impression—and I do not apologize to anyone for having done this—that, for the time being and until we are again in calmer waters, I owe it to this House, to the people outside and to South Africa, our fatherland, in view of the experience I have gained and in view of the fact that this matter has been entrusted to me all these years, to take personal responsibility for the safety of the State. [Hear, hear!] I have therefore decided to do so, and I have therefore appointed the hon. member for Ceres, Mr. S. L. Muller, as Deputy Minister for all three of these portfolios. He will consequently be responsible for the majority of the matters in connection with the Police portfolio. From the nature of my function and my duties, I shall not be able to give attention to that. He will therefore accept most of the responsibility for that and will carry out the formal duties in connection therewith; I am doing it in this way, but if it had been possible to separate State security and the Police at the present time, I should gladly have done so. But now it is not possible to do so and I have to take the Police portfolio formally under my charge. However, I repeat that I am doing this as a temporary measure until we are in calmer waters, because I myself want to accept the responsibility for the safety of the State.

Then, Mr. Speaker, you will permit me to say something more. You as Parliamentarians would like to know where I stand in regard to Parliament. In discussing this matter I do not want to waste any words. I want to refer to what is on record, namely, what I said in the hon. Senate in connection with my attitude to Parliament. I said that at the time because I meant it. because it is my belief. I have never said anything in which I have not believed. I believe in Parliament as an institution. I believe in the rights and the privileges of members. I believe in the rights of minorities in this Parliament and, as far as I am concerned, I shall at all times be the first to protect those rights. I believe in Parliament as an institution.

I have said, Sir, that I do not want to take undue advantage of this opportunity in order to make a policy statement. When my Vote is discussed and in my broadcast address there will be sufficient opportunity to do so.

I wish to make only one further announcement to the House of Assembly on this occasion. The shocking event that took place here last week is still deeply etched in the mind of every one of us. We have read many reports about it during the past week and we have heard many rumours about it. You will understand that it has not been possible for me to read everything in connection with what happened. I just want to tell hon. members that I have issued instructions for every possible rumour, however trivial or strong it may be, to be carefully investigated. That will be done. I also want to make an appeal to hon. members and other parties to come forward with any information they may have, however trivial it may be. We shall be very glad to receive it. But having said that, Sir, I feel, and you will agree with me, that it is not enough. Consequently it has been decided to appoint a Judge to investigate all aspects of this matter. All persons who have any information will be afforded an opportunity of submitting it to this Judge. It goes without saying that any information which the Police and other State agencies already have at their disposal will also be submitted to that Judge. An announcement will be made at a later stage to the effect that all persons having any information are invited to appear before this Judge and to submit it to him. Details in that regard will be announced as soon as practicable. I felt that an immediate start should be made in this matter and therefore I have spoken to the Judge concerned. He is willing to undertake the task. He will carry out the investigation. He will issue his report irrespective of who will be affected by it or of whatever consequences it may have. This Judge is the Hon. Mr. Justice J. T. van Wyk, who represented South Africa on the World Court.

I thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity you have afforded me. I thank hon. members for the way in which they have received my statement. Let us now carry on in the normal manner with the business of this House and with the affairs of our fatherland as in the past. I do not think hon. members expect me to repeat this lengthy statement in English. I am glad that hon. members do not expect me to do so, and therefore I shall content myself with expressing my gratitude and saying in conclusion that I wish to be the servant of this House. Thank you very much.

I have to announce the resignation of the Deputy-Speaker and Chairman of Committees of this House.

I wish to move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move as an unopposed motion—

Hon. members will realize that it would be unreasonable to discuss the Prime Minister’s Vote at this stage. We should at least give him an opportunity of going into matters, and for that reason his Vote will probably be taken on Monday. Votes 17, 18 and 19 are those of the Minister of the Interior. My reason for asking that his Votes should stand over too is that a meeting of the Cabinet is to be held and one of the important matters to be discussed is one concerning that particular Minister. I therefore move.

Agreed to.

Revenue Vote 20,—“Community Development, R7,774,000,” and Loan Vote K,—“Community Development, R55,982,000”:

Mr. Chairman, I welcome the hon. the Minister to the portfolio of Community Development. We have discussed votes with him before in different capacities, and I want to wish him every success in this most important portfolio. I hope that under his guidance we will in fact be able to provide the housing and other services which the people of South Africa need so vitally at this particular moment. It is unfortunate, Sir, but the hon. the Minister seems to me to have started off on the wrong foot. He seems to have brought to this Department for some reason or other—which we shall go into—an atmosphere of uncertainty and bungling, which have brought forth comments from papers like the Financial Mail of 12th August under the heading of “Maree’s Mangle”. We have another comment in the Financial Mail of 12th August, 1966, which is headed “Townships strangled by red tape”. Then we have an editorial in the Natal Mercury of 11th July, which I think goes a fair way to showing us what people are thinking. I am not going to read it all, but I should like to quote some of it. It says—

This sums up the thinking of people outside this House. And I think that they are perfectly entitled to come to that conclusion and to make these demands upon us here in this House. The editorial goes on—

This does not only apply to Durban. It applies to the whole country, to the whole of South Africa. In February, 1965, South Africa needed 16,950 houses for Whites alone. On the 12th January, 1966, 380 Coloured families in Durban needed houses. On the 1st February, 1966, the Cape Argus reported that the Cape alone was short of 42,700 houses for people of all races. This is the magnitude of the problem facing this hon. Minister. This is the portfolio which he is taking over. I have fears for the future, the same as those people whose thoughts are reported in these newspapers. I should like to quote from the Sunday Times of 11th September, 1966. The report is headed “Bank fears a big housing demand”. The bank is quite right, Sir. The report starts off—

This is a reliable authority I am quoting. The report goes on—

1. (1) The lack of development finance;
2. (2) The recent lifting of building control measures which were aimed at stimulating flat building;
3. (3) The rent freeze imposed by the Minister of Community Development; and
4. (4) The cautious attitude adopted by developers as a result of these factors.

This is some of the uncertainty which I say the hon. the Minister has created. And here in this House to-day we had a further example. We had the example of this hon. the Minister giving notice of a Bill to amend the Rent Control Act with which he has been threatening people since this Parliament opened and even before. Because, Sir, the Minister froze rents from the end of May. But the other day we had the example in this House of the Leader of the House saying, as a result of an interjection, that, “Oh, the Minister has the powers to control these rents and do what he wants to do by regulation”. But a little while afterwards he was not quite so sure. And now the hon. the Minister has had to come along with a bill to do the job. In other words, the hon. the Minister does not appear to know whether he has the power by means of regulations, or whether he has to introduce a Bill to deal with this subject.

That was not the Minister’s mistake—it was my mistake.

Does it really matter who was mistaken? The Government are not sure what powers they have under the laws that they have passed to control the housing position.

Please confine yourself to my statement of 5th August.

The hon. the Minister can reply to me in a moment. Now, Sir, I have here a copy of a letter sent to the hon. the Minister by the Institute of Estate Agents and Auctioneers of South Africa. I sincerely hope the Minister has read it. Because they set out their fears in this letter and they tell the Minister quite clearly that private enterprise, which up to now has provided the bulk of South Africa’s housing over the course of I the years, is jittery about putting up new I buildings, because it does not know where it I is. I believe that we have reached the stage where we have got to be a little more positive in our approach to housing than we are at the moment.

The hon. the Minister’s predecessor thought that the way to provide housing was to provide money and lots of laws. Lots of money and lots of laws and you must solve the problem. I sincerely hope that this hon. the Minister is going to have a totally different approach to the problem of housing here in South Africa. Because, you see, we are so desperately short of housing. I have quoted a few figures. This Minister’s task must be to provide the housing we need. But not only to provide it. He must provide it either at a purchase price or a rental that the average person can afford. There is no sense in this hon. gentleman giving cake to the people who need bread. They cannot afford to pay for it. With the increased cost of money the ordinary working man who purchases a house is in serious trouble. He is in serious trouble because in many cases he cannot see himself paying off that house in his lifetime. That, Sir, is the sole security he can provide for the future of his family. He cannot afford to save money under normal circumstances at present. I want to refer to just one example to show that the Government is equally to blame for this position. I have in my hand a letter from Crown Gardens in Johannesburg. The letter starts off by saying—

This man has five children and earns R200 per month. He says that he just cannot come out. He just does not know what to do. They are desperate. He cannot educate his children, feed them, and in addition pay a rental of R55 per month. Mr. Chairman, this hon. the Minister has to do something about providing the housing. And he has not only to provide it, but he must provide it within the price structure that people can afford to pay for the housing in which they are expected to live.

I would, therefore, say to him that this is his opportunity, at this particular moment, in this particular debate, to clear up all these anomalies, to make a clear, unequivocal statement to South Africa on his aims and ambitions in regard to housing. Do not promise the moon if you cannot provide it, but at least let the people of South Africa know what they can expect by way of housing. Because up to the moment, Sir, it has been words, words, and more words and the housing shortage is becoming more and more acute. Yet we have more laws, more money, and yet more shortages.

I want to deal for a moment with the question of the taking over of land. I noticed in the Government Gazette of 26 August this year (No. 1517) that the hon. the Minister under the Slums Act is going to buy land from the Parow Municipality at the valuation plus 30 per cent. Sir, I have not come across this before in the taking over of land for slum clearance purposes. It certainly does not apply under the Groups Areas Act, and I would like some clarification from the hon. the Minister. I would like to know if this is going to be a principle now for the taking over of land by Government Departments, by Group Areas boards, and so on. Because the present system, in spite of these new regulations which the hon. the Minister has published in the Government Gazette of 19th August, 1966 (Notice 1247), is inadequate. [Time limit.]

One would think the hon. member for Umlazi had fought an election in his constituency—he is so self-assured here to-day. The hon. member’s entire attack on the hon. the Minister of Community Development was based on two statements. The first was that the Minister had left the public in uncertainty in respect of rent control and how he was going to implement it. If the hon. member had done his homework and had listened to all the statements made here repeatedly this year, he would have known that when the hon. the Minister made his announcement here in August, he stated very clearly that he would introduce the necessary legislation in this House in due course, and now the hon. member is hiding behind the fact that when the hon. the Leader of the House was asked in passing the other day what legislation would still be introduced, he said that he did not know whether legislation was needed in order to implement the rent provisions. Now he is hiding behind that—so little does he have to complain of here.

Another point he made related to the shortage of housing. He said that until now there had been only “words, words, words”. If the hon. member had done his duty this year and had been here in the House when housing was discussed on various occasions, he would not have said what he did in fact say. One of the hon. members on his own side introduced a motion here in the House. Where was the hon. member then? The question of housing was discussed ad nauseam, and the tremendous achievements of this Government in respect of the provision of houses were emphasized here. The hon. the Minister announced here that he would relax the means test in order to meet people. I want to dispose of the hon. member’s whole story in respect of housing—“words, words, nothing but words”—in one sentence, and that is that this National Party Government has done more for housing for all population groups in our country than all the other Governments together, from 1920 to 1948, and that speaks volumes for this Government, and I need not go into that any further. There is absolutely nothing in the hon. member’s arguments.

Then he mentioned the other question of slum clearance. I shall come to that. I think there have been repeated references this year to the achievements of and the great work done by this Department of Community Development in respect of the provision of housing. But up to now very little has been said about another very important aspect of the work of this Department, and that is the work done by the Department in respect of slum clearance and urban renewal. Mr. Chairman, South Africa will be grateful to this Government for many years to come for the way in which it has rehabilitated the image and the honour of many of our large cities and towns after the abhorrent slum conditions which arose in the back streets in the course of many years, and which were a crying shame in many respects before the present Government came into power.

Our Government has done a tremendous deal in that regard. The blot of Windermere, of Cato Manor, of Sophiatown and many other places, that blot on the nation, has already been erased by this Government. But a tremendous task still awaits us in this regard, and many hard nuts have still to be cracked. For that reason I should like to refer in a few sentences to-day to our approach, our country’s approach in respect of slum clearance and urban renewal. Sir, a Slums Act has been on the Statute Book for many years, ever since 1934, but the United Party Government which introduced that Act treated it as they treated many other matters, and left matters at that after the Act had been passed. It was left to this National Party Government to make use of that Act to establish slum courts and to tackle slum clearance actively. This Government has gone even further. It has also brought up the modern concept of urban renewal, and in the Community Development Act introduced the words “urban renewal” for the first time. Sir, slum clearance and urban renewal go hand in hand. They embody two principles; one is to clear away and wipe out what has deteriorated beyond recovery, and the other is to take precautionary measures against dilapidation and deterioration.

But now I have the problem that the Slums Act applies only to the eight large urban areas listed in the Schedule to that Act, and also to a limited number of other areas included in that Schedule by proclamation by the State President. It is my contention that such an important measure should not be restricted to a few areas, but should be made applicable throughout the country. Sir, in my opinion even the smallest residential area in our country should not be excluded from the provisions of the Slums Act. The principle that should apply throughout is that just as one should not allow a family to live under slum conditions in Cape Town, one should also not allow that to happen in small residential areas in South Africa. I want to make the point that slum conditions should be combated not only in our cities, in our larger centres, but throughout the country, wherever necessary.

As regards urban renewal the Minister’s predecessor told us last year that a committee of inquiry for the replanning and redevelopment of depressed areas in parts of Cape Town had expressed the opinion “that enough attention is generally not devoted by local authorities to areas adjacent to slum areas in order to prevent the first mentioned areas from deteriorating into slums as well”. Sir, I said that urban renewal embodies the concept of preventing slum conditions, and that has a significant effect on the provision of housing. It is of no use for us to continue spending large amounts on housing if at the same time we allow ourselves to be overwhelmed by the dilapidation of residential areas to such an extent that it causes an equally large loss in housing. In order to prevent this dilapidation at a reasonable rate, it is my view that the Government should every year, when funds are set aside in the Estimates for community development, earmark a specific amount for expenditure on urban renewal. Furthermore, I think the time has come for local authorities to be drawn into a dynamic process of urban renewal, just as in the case of the provision of housing and slum clearance. But here too the Government will have to take the lead. In the United States the government bears two-thirds of all costs incurred in respect of urban renewal, and in order to promote this process among our local authorities, the Government will have to undertake generous financing of such urban renewal projects. [Time limit.]

In order to eliminate any possible misunderstanding, and in this way perhaps to facilitate the discussion, I would like at this very early opportunity to respond in the first place to the plea in regard to urban renewal made by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. It is true that urban renewal and the slum clearance which goes hand in hand with it is actually a new concept in our country, and it was only last year that it was laid down in legislation for the first time. It is something which is still in its infancy here, but nevertheless my Department has already done exceptional work in this regard. I refer to the fact that up to now the position in the North-End area of East London, the South-End area in Port Elizabeth, District Six in Cape Town, Cato Manor, Riverside and Prospect Hall in Durban and the Pageview-Vrededorp complex in Johannesburg has, in collaboration with the city councils, been placed under a magnifying glass, and that local committees have already been set up which have to be of assistance with the replanning and redevelopment of those areas. This field of slum clearance and urban renewal is a new one for us in South Africa. There are numerous problems in that connection. Various Government committees have already rendered assistance in this regard. Here in Cape Town we have Corda, which is rendering assistance in this connection. But I think that we are not yet quite clear about our whole approach. It is still not quite clear where responsibility begins and where it ends, who must take the initiative, how the financing must be done, and so on. I have consequently decided to appoint a committee of inquiry to investigate and report upon the following:

1. (1) The causes of physical deterioration in cities and towns;
2. (2) what statutory powers exist at present to combat urban deterioration, to what extent they are in fact being applied and, if existing legislation is ineffective, how it ought to be supplemented and replaced;
3. (3) the standards with which town planning schemes ought to comply as far as land utilization, density, open and recreation grounds in each particular area are concerned, regard being had to the purpose for which they have been allocated;
4. (4) what can be done to prevent existing areas which do not comply with the standards from falling into a state of physical deterioration;
5. (5) criteria whereby an area or building can be measured and classified as being an area or building which is in a process of physical decline;
6. (6) what bodies ought to be responsible for the application of legislation, the implementation of policy and the spending of funds which may be made available;
7. (7) the way in which financial and other assistance can be rendered to local authorities or owners of premises in order to improve town planning and beautify townships, provide public facilities and restore buildings, respectively;
8. (8) the basis of determining how assistance ought to be rendered by means of loans or otherwise, the income groups which ought to qualify for assistance and the conditions of such assistance;
9. (9) the nature of instruction and professional and technical assistance desired, and how such instruction and assistance may be made available to local authorities and owners of premises;
10. (10) what control measures will be required in respect of assistance which may be rendered by the authorities; and
11. (11) the examining and determining of any other relevant factors connected with the process of physical deterioration in cities and towns.

Another Press Commission?

The hon. member for Von Brandis has indicated that these terms of reference may result in a second Press Commission. I am very mindful of that, and that is why I have not made it a commission, but a committee of inquiry, and in the constitution of the committee of inquiry I have seen to it that the chairman of that committee will be the senior Deputy Secretary of the Department of Community Development, Mr. Nel, that he will be assisted by Professor T. H. Louw, deputy chairman of the Housing Commission, and that Dr. Kellerman (a sociologist and also a member of the National Housing Commission), Mr. Nicol, town planner in the Department of Community Development, Mr. Viljoen, town planner in the physical planning section of the Department of Planning, and Mr. Du Plessis, engineer and head of the building services section of the Department of Community Development, will serve as members. All these individuals whom I have mentioned so far are directly or indirectly connected with the two Government Departments dealing with this matter, and my instruction to them through the chairman will be to submit interim reports from time to time on those matters which are of urgent general interest, because I realize that the purview of this work is tremendously large and comprehensive, but that we cannot allow that to deter us and that it is essential to tackle this problem once and for all now. Even if it takes us decades before we ultimately arrive at all the answers, we must make a start now in obtaining, step by step, positive answers to the questions and problems as they crop up.

In addition I have addressed a request to the four directors of local authorities of the four provinces to serve on the committee. I hope they will accept it. I have also asked the chairman of the United Municipal Executive, Mr. D. C. Dempsey—and he has indicated that he will be pleased to accept the nomination—to serve on that committee; I have also approached a private architect, Mr. Roelf Botha, of Pretoria, but have not yet received a reply from him; I hope he will accept it.

I hope that this committee will help us to make headway in this matter. Since the committee is under the chairmanship of the senior deputy secretary of my Department, the entire machinery of my Department will be at the disposal of the committee so as to enable it to collect the necessary information, and the Department of Planning will also co-operate in the obtaining of the necessary information in regard to this matter. There is already a tremendous amount of written material, authoritative works, on this matter. The important point is just this: How must the various processes which are being applied in other countries of the world be applied in our South African circumstances? I do not think it is necessary for this inquiry to be a very long drawn out one. I think it can happen that this committee will ensure that it will be possible in a very short time at least to make a start in obtaining the necessary answers to certain questions which have to be obtained very quickly. Those will be my instructions to the committee, and I shall see that they are carried out. I do not want to say any more about that matter, except that I want to make an appeal to the town councils of South Africa to co-operate in this connection and, where they are engaged on their own planning, to act in close co-operation with my Department so that they may supply my Department with advice and so that my Department may in turn supply them with advice. If my Department of Community Development and the town councils do not co-operate with one another in this regard we shall never be able to solve this serious problem. I am glad to be able to say that as far as this question is concerned there has up to now, where we have been dealing with the most pressing problems, been very good co-operation. I also want to make an appeal to investing parties and bodies—investment companies and investors on a large scale—to be of assistance in regard to the rehabilitation of depressed areas. It is often possible to rehabilitate an area by means of the investment of money and economic investment in such an area and it ought not always be necessary for the State itself to make funds available in that connection. I think that Chambers of Industries and of Commerce and the various investment companies and other private investors can and will make a considerable contribution (I think they will) towards enabling the depressed areas of some of our cities to be renewed.

I come briefly now to the hon. member for Umlazi. I do not think it is necessary for me to spend much time on him. All I want to say is that if the hon. member had listened to my statement on 5th August in this House, had confined himself to it and had at least taken some notice of it, he would not have made at least half of the speech which he made here to-day, because in that statement of mine on 5th August I announced that the existing legislation in regard to rent control did in fact give me the power to extend rent control, but that the process was so cumbrous that it would take too much time to solve the problem, and that I was therefore going to come forward with amending legislation in order to facilitate the process. I gave notice of that to-day.

Why so late?

Surely the hon. member realizes that I have only been in charge of this Department for a short time, that there are many diverse problems and that I first had to make sure of the need for taking drastic measures in regard to rent control.

Your predecessor was not equal to his task!

You must remember, Mr. Chairman, that the introduction of rent control is not a step which any government will take lightly, because the extension of rent control can have an adverse effect as regards new investment in residential units, and that is what we want least of all. Nevertheless we must take note of the fact that an emergency has arisen where the rental values of residential units are no longer determined by supply and demand. It required examination and lengthy discussions with various Government bodies and with various sections of my Department, as well as careful discussion by the Government, before we could arrive at that decision. Only after that decision was taken could we make a start with the drafting of the necessary legislation. I do not want to anticipate the Bill which is going to be introduced, but hon. members will understand if I tell them that the Rents Act, as a result of its having been amended on various occasions, is an extremely difficult Act, and that it has taken the law advisors a considerable period of time to make the necessary amendments so as to be able to deal with the new situation. I would rather not say anything further about it now. I hope I shall be afforded the opportunity soon of at least being able to deliver the Second Reading speech on the Bill which will amend the Rents Act, so that I can furnish the House with full details of its implications.

Why not a White Paper?

That will not be necessary. I shall make the various amendments so clear that even the hon. member will understand it very easily and very quickly. After that I shall request that the debate be postponed in order to afford the hon. member an opportunity of studying them carefully. However, I just want to point out, and this is something on which we must get clarity now, that the hon. member for Umlazi made an attack on the fact that rent control is going to be introduced, and he quoted from a certain circular which a group of persons who have an interest in the letting and the erection of dwellings sent out, and the hon. member actually made an attack on me because I am going to extend rent control.

That is not true. No.

The hon. member quoted, with approbation, from a newspaper report in which I had been accused, and the hon. member quoted from a circular and accused me of prejudicing the provision of housing, and he mentioned the fact that rent control was going to be extended as one of the reasons why I was prejudicing the provision of housing.

I was dealing with the problem which was being created by the hon. the Minister.

The hon. member wants to blow hot and cold at the same time. Mr. Chairman, we must be very clear on this point. On 5th August, when I announced here that we were going to introduce rent control, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition welcomed it. I still accept that the Opposition will support us in this difficult matter and I sincerely hope that we shall refrain from discussing this matter of rent control any further, particularly in this debate, since we shall shortly be afforded the opportunity of discussing it after all the facts have been laid before us. It can so easily happen that we shall say things on this occasion which can be detrimental to South Africa because they can have an adverse effect on the provision of housing. When I come forward with my proposals, hon. members will see that I shall give certain undertakings, that I am going to take certain steps which will be aimed at eliminating as far as possible any possibly adverse effect that rent control may have on the provision of new housing. That is why I want to make an appeal to hon. members to postpone that debate until we are able to discuss the matter in detail with the full particulars before us.

The hon. member said here that I had started off on the wrong foot. You know, Sir, he first congratulated me in such a nice way with my appointment to this portfolio and then he said that I had started off on the wrong foot. So I really do not know where I stand with him. I have always believed that if that hon. member tells me that I have started off on the wrong foot, then I am going in the right direction.

We shall see.

The hon. member referred to the housing shortage existing at present and blamed this Government for it. I indicated in a previous debate, and I do not want to repeat what I said, how this Government made money available year after year to the various municipalities whose primary objective it is to provide accommodation in their areas, but who did not make full use of those funds during those periods, so that amounts were surrendered to the Treasury year after year, so much so that two or three years ago up to R10,000,000 which had not been used by the municipalities was surrendered in one year. It was my Department in particular which urged on and encouraged municipalities to make a start with such schemes. The hon. member for Umlazi referred to the city he hails from, i.e. Durban. I would be very glad if the hon. member for South Coast would afford me an opportunity of talking to the hon. member for Umlazi. The hon. member referred to the housing shortage in Durban, particularly in regard to Whites. I agree with him that there is a very serious shortage. But the hon. member said that my Department as well as the Government was neglecting its duty in this respect. “Of what avail is it to talk about the matter and to vote money if accommodation is not being provided?”, he asked. But let me inform the hon. member now about what is really happening. The City Council of Durban is building houses for Whites in its area to the amount of R929,000 this year. This money the City Council obtained from the Government. In addition my Department itself is building houses for Whites to the amount of R2,000,000. In other words, my Department is doing more than twice as much as regards the provision of housing for Whites in Durban than is being done by the City Council in Durban. Of course I do not want to blame the Durban Municipality for that. Perhaps it is due to circumstances. The fact remains, however, that municipalities ought to be acquainted with the circumstances of their particular areas to such an extent that they would be the first to know when a particular need exists. They are therefore the people who must plan ahead. Why should it be necessary for the Government to plan ahead on behalf of municipalities? And yet it has been necessary for the Government to do so over the past few years, and on a tremendous scale. We have had to urge them on and even now we are doing more for housing for Whites in a place like Durban than the Municipality there is doing.

But the hon. member also used another argument in respect of which I have to make the position very clear. What he said indicated that he had not listened to what I said in this House on the 5th of August, or if he did hear, he did not understand. He said that it was not only necessary to supply houses, it was also necessary that it should be done on such a basis that the lower and middle income groups would be able to afford those houses or would be able to support the rental. But it was on that very date, i.e. 5th August, that I announced the amended rentals. On that date I said that the rental under a sub-economic scheme for a person with a monthly income of R80 would remain the same for persons with monthly incomes of up to R100. I also announced that the rate of interest for the calculation of their rentals for persons having a monthly income of between R100 and R130 would in future be 3 per cent, and 5 per cent for those between R130 and R160. Prior to that date the position had been that the rental of a person with an income of R81, for example, was determined with due regard being had to the current rate of interest, i.e. 6¼ per cent. In other words, we have already done a great deal in this respect to meet the lower income groups. But the hon. member did not say a single word about that.

What about the middle income groups?

As far as this group is concerned, it is a fact that as a result of circumstances, credit restrictions inter alia, they have been placed in the position that they can no longer acquire and build their own houses as easily as they could in the past. However, it is for that very reason that I have raised the income limit of people who can qualify for State assistance from R180 to R225 for persons with not more than two children, and from R250 to R300 for those with more than two children. In this way a large percentage of the middle income group is being incorporated under the system whereby they can obtain loans from the Housing Commission for the building of houses. In addition my Department is using the Community Development Fund to help people in the case of resettlement and to supply people falling in a slightly higher income group with better quality houses. However, we do not regard that as being our primary task. It only comes into consideration where people have to be resettled, or where a particular problem has to be solved by means of a crash building programme. Our attitude is that people with a monthly income of more than R225 to R300, as the case may be, must avail themselves of the other methods which are available. There are various other methods. There are for example individual loans which can be obtained from building societies.

I want to repeat here what I have already said on a previous occasion, i.e. that it is not the responsibility of the State to provide all the inhabitants of the country with housing. It is the individual himself who must, in the first place, see to that. The State can only be of assistance, and the same applies to building societies and other financial institutions. In addition there are the employers, who must see to it that their workers are properly accommodated. The State does what it can, of course, as is evident from the fact that the amount which has been made available by the State for this purpose has been progressively increased over the past years. In spite of anti-inflationary steps, and in spite of the instruction from the Treasury that Government Departments must not increase their expenditures by more than approximately 5 per cent, the amount which is being made available for housing this year is nevertheless 12 per cent more. It is a considerable amount. It can therefore be seen that the Government is in fact doing its share.

The hon. member asked me a question in regard to expropriation in terms of the Slums Act. The relevant provision in the Act stipulates that the remuneration which may be paid in such a case may not be more than the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent. That is not necessarily what must happen in each case. It depends upon the ratio between the municipal valuation and the market value. The remuneration may therefore vary from anything up to the municipal valuation plus 30 per cent. The amount which will be paid in each case depends upon the circumstances and upon the valuation in each particular case.

The Minister this afternoon made reference to a long string of things which he was going to do in connection with housing. He said, inter alia, that he was going to appoint another Committee of Investigation. I want to say that I am astonished that after nearly 20 years in power the Government is going to have yet another Committee of Investigation. Our criticism of the Government has always been that it is a question of words, words and words and statistics upon statistics. Meanwhile our people have no houses. People are not interested in what happened last year nor the year before. They want houses and they want them now. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor took unto himself all the power in the world. He was going to force municipalities to get going. He was going to tell them where they got off. His attitude was that municipalities were not doing their job and he was going to make sure that they would do their job. He was also going to tell provincial councils what their duties were in this regard. I am also astonished to learn that the members of this committee which the Minister is going to appoint will be members of his staff. Do they not advise the Minister now? Why do they want to have another investigation? Is it in order to advise the Minister what to do? Did not the predecessor of the hon. the Minister leave him a blueprint of what should be done? He was the man who went overseas and walked about afterwards, with photographs in his pocket. He was the chap who was going to tell us what was going to happen about substitutes for bricks …

Order! The hon. member is not entitled to refer to the Minister as a “chap”.

I beg your pardon, Sir. I said that in a spirit of affection. Let me then say that he was the gentleman who was going to do that. I cannot understand the Minister. This afternoon I thought I was listening to the Book of Revelations and there are, in fact, some revelations which have been made today. There is for instance the fact that even at this stage the Minister is still going to investigate, that he is going to appoint another committee to look into the matter.

Which matter?

The question of houses …

It has nothing to do with housing.

The Minister is anticipating what I am going to say. It is in connection with planning.

It has nothing to do with planning either.

Is it then in connection with community development?

Have another guess.

These then are the facts. We have had planners, we have had architects, we have had commissions, and we have had more planners, and more architects and more commissions in addition to all sorts of threats being thrown at people. I can tell you that municipalities have done a pretty good job and, what is more, if they had been left alone to do the job, they would have done much better. There has been too much interference on the part of the Department of Community Development. Municipalities are the people who can take the credit for the enormous changes that are taking place. The hon. member for Parow again quoted figures of what the Nationalist Party has done. What he should have said was what municipalities have done. It is the function and duty of the State to provide a home for everyone needing a home. The machinery for that should be there, and it is there. The Statute Book is chock-a-block with laws. The document read by the Minister is the same as the Housing Ordinance of every Provincial Administration in the country. Why do we need all this now? I am going to talk about the regulations which have been published and about the way in which we are doing the poor Coloured man down. I think it is time I did so. Do you realize, Sir, that in terms of the basis of expropriation, the Coloured man who is required to move has his property valued by the Department—it is called an “affected property”—and a basic value is put upon it. This value seldom bears any relationship either to the market value or to the municipal valuation. We have the spectacle of two or three valuers valuing properties (a) if it is for sale, (h) if it is for rating purposes and (c) if it is for expropriation by the Department of Community Development. Having advised an individual that his is an affected property, and having provided the machinery and told him that his case has been heard and his application rejected, his property is in a state of freeze. Some years later—there are many such instances—he is told that his property is going to be taken over and he is paid a price which was valid four or five years before.

They are revalued.

That is the whole crux of the case, because when the property is revalued, it is valued at a lower figure, because the individual owning the property, knowing that it was going to be expropriated, has let it fall into a state of disrepair. The Minister now takes powers in the regulations to re-instate that property to a fair state of repair, and to deduct the cost of the repairs from the proceeds of the sale. The Government, therefore, cannot lose. In the meantime the cost of providing another home for that individual has been rising. These people have no money and they sit in their homes for three, four, five or more years, unable to get another property, but the Government will not act. The Government simply says, “You property is an affected property.” Sir, I think it is grossly unfair. This does not apply to the White man. What is also happening is, that when a Coloured area is declared White, the property belonging to the Coloured man is acquired by a White person at a low price. The White person then “dolls” it up and having got it into a reasonable state of repair, that White person sells it at an enhanced price. Many of these Whites are speculators.

Who are these speculators?

I am not concerned who they are; a speculator is a speculator. Sir, these people are taking money which rightly belongs to the Coloured man. The price to the Coloured man is frozen and has been frozen for many years. Then when there is a reasonable prospect that that house can now be occupied by a White person, the Department of Community Development acts, disposes of the property to a White man, who makes a profit, and the Coloured man has to carry 20 per cent of any loss on the deal. Furthermore, if the Coloured man makes a profit the Government pinches half of it. I think that is not playing the game, and I say to the Minister who is a new boy in this job …

What a big boy.

Sir, it is just a harmless expression. I mean that he is new in his job. I wish him well. I do not wish to criticize him at all at this stage except to say this …

You do not know what you are talking about.

Sir, I would like to tell the hon. the Minister that I know better what I am talking about, than he does, in this particular instance, because I spent 30 years working on this problem of providing housing. I think the hon. the Minister would do well to go into some of these cases himself, instead of just taking the advice that is handed to him by the very people, who made the decisions in the first place. I think he is broad-minded and fair enough to realize and to appreciate, that there is a tremendous amount of hardship being done to Coloured people who own properties, which have been declared affected properties in what are now White areas.

If I understood him correctly, the hon. member who has just sat down would probably like to have an Eden on earth, but he loses sight of the fact that we are still only here in the Karoo! The hon. member’s attitude towards the Minister’s proposal of a committee of inquiry is typical of the attitude the United Party has adopted for the past number of years. I need only remind you, Sir, of the amending of the Slums Act in 1963. Then the same arguments which the hon. member advanced just now were also brought up; then there were also complaints about the rights of local authorities. Then it was also pointed out on behalf of the local authorities what they had supposedly brought about and what their achievements were compared with what had been brought about by the Government. I should like the hon. member to listen to what I am going to say now, because I want to give him some particulars in this regard to demonstrate to him how excellent the co-operation of some local authorities has in fact been as regards some of those matters of which he boasted. Since the slum clearance courts started functioning in terms of the amended legislation, the following slums have been declared. I begin with Johannesburg: 207; Durban 104; Port Elizabeth 83; Kimberley 80; Paarl 34; the Strand 33. It therefore appears as though the Department has not been as fast asleep as the hon. member tried to make out. Those are slums declared since the amending of the Act in 1963. In other words, we may take it that the Act has been functioning in practice for perhaps 18 months or at the most 2 years. Why did I not include Cape Town in this list? It would have struck you, Sir, that Cape Town, the oldest city in the country, is not mentioned in this list. Why not? Are there no slums here in Cape Town, or is the City Council’s co-operation not of such a nature that the Minister can do what he should do and what he would like to do in terms of the legislation? I trust that the hon. member, who pretends to be so well-informed on this matter, will speak to his colleagues in Cape Town and see whether he cannot bring about a change of heart in them. Furthermore, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not come when he should consider using his powers under the amended legislation in such cases where we meet with obstinate opposition from local authorities, as for example in the case of Cape Town.

I actually wanted to speak about a matter relating to the Community Development Board. You know that this Board buys affected properties from disqualified persons. Until 31st August of this year that Board had bought up properties throughout the country to the value of almost R42,250,000. The Community Development Board sells those properties for occupation by qualified persons. Secondly, it sells those properties to local authorities for development on behalf of qualified persons; thirdly, it rents some of those properties to qualified persons, and fourthly, it undertakes its own schemes. I may tell you, Sir, that the Community Development Board has built up an excellent record in the short while it has been functioning on this basis. In the past five years it has sold houses of disqualified persons to 4,651 families; it has let 9,100 such houses and it has housed 2,637 families in its own schemes. In other words, over a period of five years the Community Development Board has housed 16,388 families—Whites, Coloureds and Indians. I think that is a record of which it can be justly proud. But many of those affected properties which are bought by the Community Development Board from disqualified persons are situated in areas that now actually form part of the centres of the cities. They were previously situated on the outskirts of the centres of cities, but as a result of their deterioration the properties became dilapidated and the expansion of the central parts of cities took place, with the result that many of those properties now actually form part of the centres of cities or of the future centres of cities. Those properties cannot really be used for housing purposes on an economic basis; in other words, they are strictly speaking outside the scope of the Community Development Board. The Community Development Board itself will not undertake schemes there. You will agree with me, Sir, that the longer those properties remain in the possession of the Community Development Board, the higher the interest mounts; the more the maintenance costs increase, where maintenance is still possible, and the higher the eventual price of such a property rises. The price of such a property is determined by the basic value assigned to it at expropriation, the value of improvements to it and, of course, the interest that accrues on it in course of time. But on the other hand it is important to note that the sooner those properties can be disposed of, the smaller will be the loss the Community Development Board will have to make good from its fund, and the larger will be the amount released for development work it has to undertake in the field assigned to it. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not consider, if it is not already his policy, to offer those properties which the Board does not need for its own development, for quick sale—and when I speak of quick sale I mean one to three of perhaps six months—at a considerably lower amount than the purchase price, and then simply to write off that loss against the Development Fund, as will have to happen in any event when the actual price of that property cannot be realized at a later date. I think that if the Minister considered that principle, there would be various methods by which he would be able to do that. In the urban complexes, for example, there are many wide-awake estate agents, and what I want to suggest is the following, if the Minister is agreeable to the principle: I want to suggest that he should offer certain premises or groups of premises to estate agents on a tender basis for sale within, say, three or six months, but that he should fix the price, which he may, if need be, determine, without informing them of it, at a much lower amount than the price at which the Board purchased the premises or group of premises. I am convinced that the initiative of those estate agents and the demand among the developers of large schemes in the private sector will then make it possible to sell those properties quickly and to use them productively, in the sense that new development will then be possible and therefore urban renewal as well, and on top of that the Community Development Board will recover that money so that it will be able to undertake new schemes in the way prescribed by the Act.

Mr. Chairman, may I claim the privilege of the half-hour? I have a number of matters to raise with the hon. the Minister. I must say at once that I realize that since he has only recently taken over this portfolio, it is perhaps a little unfair of me to attack him on this score, but he has the responsibility of his new portfolio and therefore my remarks have to be directed against him although they should properly apply to his predecessor. I wish the hon. the Minister every success in his new portfolio and I hope that he is going to adopt a more reasonable attitude towards the whole question of the implementation of the Group Areas Act than in fact has been our experience in the past. I am particularly concerned about this because there are imminent implementations about to fall upon the heads of the Coloured people, particularly those in the Cape Province, and upon the heads of the Indians in Natal and in the Transvaal. I want to try to emphasize some of the disabilities under which these people are suffering. I want first of all to raise the question of the removal from District Six, which was quite recently proclaimed an area for White occupation and ownership only. Sir, I asked the hon. the Minister’s predecessor in March to give us some information about the number of people who would be affected by the particular proclamation and by the proposals for the Cape Peninsula. I am afraid I received no reply from the hon. the Minister because he said it would take too much time and work for his Department to arrive at an answer. I want to say right away that I think it is reprehensible that decisions are taken to proclaim group areas, apparently without all the information available as to the number of people who are going to be affected, the number of families who are going to be moved and the number of individuals whose lives are going to be vitally changed by removals under the Group Areas Act. It seems to me that we have got to a position now where the Government is more concerned about the geographical pattern of group areas than the actual lives of the individuals who are going to be affected by these proclamations and by the removals which naturally follow upon these proclamations. We have noticed that in the Cape Peninsula there is a sort of half moon which is forming across the Cape Flats wherein non-Whites are to be permitted to live and apparently they are to be permitted to live only in this peculiar pattern. It seems that areas not yet proclaimed, like the areas between Simonstown, Kalk Bay and Fish Hoek, are going to be proclaimed eventually in accordance with this pattern. It seems to me according to the figures that I have been able to obtain that already something like 300,000 Coloured people in the Peninsula alone will have been settled in their own areas within a very short time, and when the District Six removal scheme is implemented, at least another 27,000 to 30,000 Coloured people and 1,200 Indians are going to be moved out of the area. I want to take this first opportunity of registering my protest against the removal of these people from an area which they have traditionally occupied for so many years, for decades. I am fully aware that District Six is by no means the ideal residential area.

That is putting it mildly.

I quite agree with the hon. the Minister of Transport that that is putting it mildly. There are certain areas of District Six which are very bad slum areas, but the point that I am making is that one is able to clear slums, to go in for what is now euphonically called “urban renewal”, without the wholesale removal of the people who live in those districts; it is possible to condemn houses and to rebuild houses in the same area; it is possible to reduce the population density of areas without the wholesale removal of the entire community. Sir, everybody in this House is against slums: everybody is in favour of better housing conditions, just as all of us would like to see a reduction in T.B. or any of the other social evils that beset us. I hope we are not going to have the stupid argument used in this regard that because one is against the removal of Coloured people from District Six, one is therefore in favour of Coloured people living in slums. No such thing. It would be perfectly possible for the Department of Community Development to devise a means whereby the density of population in District Six could be reduced, whereby slum houses could be condemned, as indeed they can be condemned under the Slums Act, and decent living conditions could in fact be provided for the people living in that area. What I am against is the uprooting of an entire community that has lived in that area for literally a hundred years. I think it is most unfair, and for the hon. the Minister or his predecessor to inform us blithely that all the people who have already been removed are perfectly happy with their new conditions, that they are living in fine, fresh air, out in the Cape Flats, is to ignore completely the human aspect of this question.

Did you not say the same thing about Sophiatown?

Yes, and I still say the same thing. The hon. the Minister must not think that I have changed my mind.

You proved wrong.

I still think that it was perfectly possible in the case of Sophiatown to undertake a slum clearance scheme without uprooting all the Africans who lived there from the days of Paul Kruger, when they were given the assurance that that would be an area for their own residential occupation, and, I might say, without depriving them of the freehold rights which they enjoyed in Sophiatown. I have not changed my attitude one scrap. To my mind Meadowlands may in certain respects provide better housing but Meadowlands is in no way a compensation for the deprivation of the freehold rights which the Africans enjoyed in Sophiatown and for removing them from an area close to their places of employment to an area many miles out. Exactly the same thing applies to the Coloured people of District Six. They live close to their work; they have very much reduced transport costs. The hon. the Minister of Transport knows that fares have now gone up and these people will now have to set aside a greater proportion of their meagre earnings for transport costs from the Cape Coloured areas to their places of employment.

Another point I wish to make in connection with the removal of the Coloured people in particular is the question of the compensation which is paid. Here too the Government has given us to understand that the compensation is adequate and that the people who have been dispossessed of their houses and properties are perfectly satisfied with what they have received. Sir. I can only quote someone who, I understand, sides with the Government and is considered to be a spokesman for the Coloured people, and that is Mr. Tom Schwartz. This is what he said, according to the Cape Times, in his presidential address at the National Conference of the Federal Coloured People’s Party in Elsies River on the 9th July of this year—

He said that the suffering and bitterness created was colossal and they asked that the Act be implemented with greater compassion, taking into account the special circumstances of different classes of people. I want to pause at that particular point and say that this is another complaint that I have against the Government. When it goes in for these huge schemes of compulsory removal of whole communities of people, no allowance is made for the different classes of people. There is an assumption, because it is the Coloured community that is being dealt with, that all Coloured have the same standard of living; that all of them require the same sort of housing and there is very little differentiation in the houses made available to people of different classes. What applies to the Coloured people applies very much also to the Indian community.

What about the Whites? Why don’t you plead for the Whites too?

I always plead for the Whites. What the hon. member does not realize that every time I make a plea in this House for the betterment of the social conditions of the non-Whites, I am in effect pleading for the Whites because the two communities are inter-related, and the satisfaction and the peaceful relationship of the Coloured people, the African and the Indian people reflect very materially on the permanent security of the White population of this country. The sooner we realize that the better. All the policemen in the world and the largest defence force in the world cannot provide as good permanent security for South Africa’s White population as a satisfied non-White population in this country. I would point out to the hon. member that White people can live where they like in the huge areas which have in fact been left for White occupation in South Africa—well over 70 per cent of the land areas and all the cities, with the exception of a few areas set aside for Coloured, African and Indian townships. Where the Whites live is a matter of free choice and the type of house they occupy depends entirely on their economic circumstances. They are not, if they are well-to-do, forced to live in the same area as people in a very much lower income group, and since I believe that in this country we accept differentiation between classes, based on their economic capacity to pay rentals, I think the hon. member will realize that his point is not valid at all.

I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister of Community Development about the Indians in two areas. The one is in Page-view, in the Johannesburg area, and the other is in Cato Manor. I have received a very long and a very detailed memorandum from the Pageview Standholders and Traders Association, dealing with the precarious position in which 5,000 Indians now find themselves in Johannesburg. I want to point out first of all that there is no area whatsoever within the municipal area of Johannesburg that has been set aside under the Group Areas Act for Indians. The only area that they have been given for occupation is the area of Lenasia which is more than 20 miles outside Johannesburg. For the rest, there are a few unproclaimed areas such as Fordsburg and Burghersdorp, and it is, of course, the intention in the future to have a trading area, a vast Asiatic bazaar, somewhere in that area in which Indians may trade. Sir, the 5,000 Indians in Pageview have been there for many years. In fact, they have been there for 75 years, and that area was expressly set aside for Asiatic occupation by the Transvaal Volksraad in terms of Law 3 of 1885, so that for at least three generations Indian traders have lived and traded in the area of Pageview. They are, as I say, some 5,000 persons who are affected; something like 2,400 Indians are dependent for their livelihood on trading in this area. This area was declared an area for White occupation only in May, 1963, under one of the Group Area Proclamations. Indians continued to live in the area because the relevant sections, which meant their imminent removal, had not yet been applied. The sword which has been hanging over their heads all the time is now about to descend because Section 23 of the Act was applied in November, 1965, and many Indian families in Pageview have now been given orders to start moving. I can assure the Minister that a great deal of hardship is being suffered as a result of this and that the Indians in that area view their future with much concern. I want to point out again that the only area set aside for Indian occupation is Lenasia. I think it is important therefore that we know something about the conditions in Lenasia.

Excellent.

Well, the township itself, which I have visited does have some good features; there are some very nice houses and there is an area, as far as Lenasia is concerned, which has been set aside for better housing and where freehold is allowed to these people. But what I want to point out is that no more land is available. All the land has been sold and there is no more land available for these new families who have to move. Where they are to build their houses if they are in a more well-to-do group—and there are many Indian traders in Pageview who do belong to this group—I simply do not know. I understand that there is a possibility of proclaiming an extension to Lenasia. At the time the memorandum was compiled, that extension had not yet been proclaimed. Possibly by now it has been proclaimed. If not, I hope that the hon. the Minister will look into this matter immediately.

Sir, the question of schools is one, of course, which very much concerns these people. The primary schools are full and the position as far as the high school is concerned is also hopeless. I think there is accommodation for 800 children and there are already 1,000 children in that school. The question of schooling therefore is something which worries these people very much. Transport, of course, is another thing. The train service between Lenasia and Johannesburg is inadequate, and it is certainly inadequate as far as the people who have to get to work very early are concerned and also those who return from work at a late hour. I refer particularly to Indians employed as waiters in hotels who often work very late hours. Then there are people in the nursing profession who have to work irregular hours. All these people are gravely affected by the fact that the transport between Lenasia and Johannesburg is inadequate. And I might say that the rail fares are very high indeed. I know that there has been no increase in the fares on the subsidized lines, but this applies only to third-class fares. The fares for first and second-class tickets have gone up considerably as the result of the recent Railway Budget, and this is of course an enormous additional burden on people. I know that I should talk to the Minister of Transport, but nevertheless the Minister of Community Development must realize that it is impossible to compartmentalize all these responsibilities. I am asking him to take into consideration the over-all picture when he considers the implementation of the Group Areas Act. The additional rail fares, for which he is not responsible, nevertheless is a factor which he has to take into consideration when he realizes the effect this will have on the lives of the people concerned.

Apart from the question of the inadequate schooling at Lenasia and the difficulty of transport, I want to point out to the Minister that the people who are trading there—and the vast majority of the people living in Page-view are traders, apart from those who are in /employment either as the employees of the graders themselves, or are working as professional men or as waiters in hotels owned by White people—but the majority of these people are small traders, and the pattern among small traders is actually for the family to give a hand. If everybody has to move from Pageview and has to go and live at Lenasia, quite obviously the small traders of Pageview will be deprived of the services of their wives and of their children who come into help them after school. All these are important considerations which this association is particularly worried about and wants to bring to the attention of the Minister.

Have you ever felt that way on behalf of the Whites?

If the hon. member had listened a little earlier he would know that I had already answered a similar cry from the opposite side. I said that better conditions for one racial group has a good effect on other racial groups. But the White people of South Africa do have the opportunity of improving their position without any statutory prohibitions. That is the point. I have never said that everyone must be equal, but what I do say is that everyone must be given equal opportunity to realize his own individual merits. That is the principle I have, irrespective of colour.

That is exactly what they are getting under this Government.

Perhaps the hon. member will tell me whether he would like to be an Indian or a Coloured or an African living in South Africa, and whether he would then feel that he was getting equal opportunity. If he were an African, he would wish he were a Coloured man.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I was just answering this interjection. My point is that people are not given equal opportunity if they are Coloureds or Indians or Africans, and particularly under the Group Areas Act. I would like the Minister to consider very carefully, before further notices are issued to the Indian people of Pageview, the conditions of these people and the despair they are now feeling when their removal is imminent, and to realize that he is not dealing with 5,000 ciphers but with 5,000 individuals who have on the whole been a law-abiding section of the community and who have lived in that area for over 75 years and who have to a certain extent contributed to the general prosperity of the country. I see no reason why they should have to be moved like this and I think the Minister should stay his hand in the issuing of removal notices to all these people. I suggest, therefore, that they should be allowed to continue their occupation until such time anyway as another group area for Indian ownership and occupation is obtained, and this time inside the municipal boundary of Johannesburg. This is the only community for which no allowance has been made within the municipal boundary of Johannesburg.

Where? In Houghton?

I really do not mind where it is as long as it is an area which can be occupied and developed for that group. I do not mind whether it is an area like Houghton or anywhere else in Johannesburg. I think that certainly allowance should be made for the different types of people and that not everyone should be lumped together on one economic scale. There are differences in the stages of development and of prosperity between people of a particular community.

Now, what I said about the Indian people of Pageview applies also, mutatis mutandis, to the Indian people of Cato Manor. There, too, they are experiencing difficulties. They are being removed and what is worrying them most of all is this question of compensation. They feel that they are not receiving adequate compensation for the properties they owned in Cato Manor, and what is of particular concern to them is that in the area to which they have to remove, an area like for example Isipingo, apparently large sums of money are being charged to the Indians who wish to buy land. I have had such reports. I have not been able to verify them, but the Minister will probably know it is true, that fantastic prices are being charged for ¼-acre sites at Isipingo. In other words, the Board is expropriating Indians at Cato Manor at very low cost but they are apparently not seeing to it that Indians at Isipingo are not charged enormous prices. I hope the Minister will go into the matter and see whether some more equitable arrangements can be made.

I can only conclude by saying that when this Act was introduced in 1950—and of course it has been amended drastically every year, certainly ever since I came into Parliament; I cannot think of a year in which there was not a Bill amending the Act … [Interjections.] It may have been necessary because all these loopholes have cropped up. When you are trying to unscramble an egg which has been scrambled for a couple of centuries, it is quite possible that you are going to find the odd loophole in the Act. But it was said by the then Minister, the present Minister of Finance, when he introduced this Bill, the original Act, that he hoped it would not involve undue hardship on any specific population group. But I do not think the experience we have had over all these years can lead us to believe that the Act has in fact been administered in that way. There is no doubt that certain sections of the community have been hard hit by the ill-effects of this Act, and of course those sections are the Indian and Coloured communities; and in those cases where the Africans have fallen under the Act, as at Lady Selbourne in Pretoria, they have also felt the effects of the Act in a far more heavy way than have the White community. Relatively few Whites have had to be removed, but for them, too, I am sure it is a hardship to be uprooted from their homes and properties and to be moved elsewhere. But there is no doubt that the original intention of this Act has not been carried out and over the years it has been found that the Group Areas Act has invariably had a hard and heavy effect on the Coloured and Indian sections of our community. Therefore I take this first opportunity of asking the new Minister of Community Development to bear this fact in mind, and also to bear in mind the words of the Minister of Finance who introduced this Act, and to see to it that in some measure a far more equitable method of administering what I consider to be a very unfair Act is evolved in future.

The hon. member for Houghton had half an hour in which to state her case. I am amazed that the official Opposition did not ask for longer than ten minutes each, but the hon. member of the Progressive Party spoke for half an hour. But to me that is understandable, in the sense that that attitude adopted by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon is adequate proof of the fact that the Department of Community Development is carrying out its duties to the full; and that is what the hon. member does not like, because the entire planning of Community Development is carried out within the framework of the legislation established by the Government, namely separate development. That is altogether in conflict with what the hon. member for Houghton believes in, and the hon. member admitted that just now. But what the hon. member cannot understand is the mind of this South African people. The South African people are not prepared to integrate; they are not prepared to allow Indians to ’he in their midst, and it is a democratic country. The majority of the Whites are not prepared to have racial interference. It is fortunate that we have a strong Government which is implementing this policy.

The hon. member for Houghton revealed something else this afternoon. She no longer discussed the problems of the Whites in South Africa; she now discusses only the problems of other population groups. We now have so to speak an Indian representative in the person of the hon. member for Houghton. But I can understand that. The reason is that this hon. member realizes that she can make no breakthrough among the Whites in South Africa.

But I represent a White constituency.

Yes, but that is also in no way in the interests of the Whites. To me her attitude this afternoon was so obvious. She has been disillusioned and realizes that she no longer has any influence among the Whites, and now she takes recourse to other population groups. [Interjections.] I find it tragic that she and her few long-haired journalists who are plodding about in a swamp will not realize that the other population groups of South Africa do not accept her policy, and I can produce all the evidence from my own constituency. I challenge the hon. member to come and see where separate development has been implemented, and she will see that the Bantu are very happy. She said to-day that the Bantu would like to be Coloured, and that the Coloured would like to be an Indian, but to me it is obvious that she knows nothing about the minds of other population groups. They are also proud of their own traditions and they also have the right to retain their own colour and identity for the future, and the Government will help them to safeguard that.

In the past five years this Department of Community Development has spent an enormous amount on housing. No less than R130,000,000 was voted for that, of which R17,000,000 was not utilized. In other words, almost 12 per cent more houses would have been built if certain local authorities who are not favourably disposed towards this Government’s policy, had implemented that policy. That is the type of local authority from which the hon. member for Houghton derives. They would rather accept a slum area; they would rather see people suffer than see separate development become a reality. To them the individual, social ties and family ties are of no consequence, as long as they can do something to prevent Government policy from being implemented. That is where the problem lies. That is why Community Development made R23,000,000 available in the year 1963-4 of which only R13,000,000 was used, but now we find it very strange that they are applying for massive amounts this year. But I know the reason. There are at present municipal elections in the Cape Province, and shortly in the Transvaal, and we find the old vote-catching attempts all over again, and now they are applying to the Government for housing funds to pretend that they want to do so much but that the Government will not provide the funds. They are always trying to embarrass the Government.

The positive suggestion I should like to make to-day is that local authorities should play a much larger role in future as regards housing. In my own constituency no fewer than 369 houses for Whites have been built over the past number of years, at a cost of R1,500,000 which was advanced by the Government. It was planned and carried out scientifically, because one of the greatest ideals of my constituency is to provide decent accommodation for the less privileged. I believe that if local authorities established special departments for housing, they would be able to save a great deal if they carried out the work by means of their own construction teams. One of the greatest problems is that most of these housing schemes are carried out on a tender basis. In the private sector there is at present enough work for the private contractors. I believe that if local governments set up their own construction teams, a great deal of money would be saved—and I have proof of that—and because of that we will find that the less privileged man will be able to obtain his house at a lower rental. I therefore feel that local authorities can do a great deal towards combating inflation, because housing plays such an important part in that.

The hon. member for Soutpansberg will forgive me if I do not answer him. and the hon. member for Rustenburg will forgive me if I do not anticipate the report which the Minister’s Committee will be producing to solve the difficulties he has mentioned, but I want to commend his area for being able to build houses of the luxury quality to which he has referred. I trust that the rental return is satisfactory to the Government. But I want to leave these matters and raise an issue with the Minister on this first occasion that he is handling this Vote in the House. I want to refer the hon. the Minister to and remind him of the occasion when a few years ago the British Prime Minister, Mr. Macmillan, visited South Africa. He was taken to a meeting of the Union Council of Coloured Affairs and he was introduced by the then Minister of the Interior, now President of the Senate, and I would like to refer to the remarks made by the then Minister of the Interior. He said this—

I regard that as a laudable and entirely acceptable statement, and the Minister’s predecessor went further, and in urging that there should be a closer understanding between the Coloureds and the Whites in this country he in fact said that his Department was there to serve the Coloured people by building goodwill between the Coloureds and the White community and to help uplift the Coloured people socially, economically and educationally. Now, if the Minister subscribes to those sentiments, and I am sure he does, I want to appeal to him this afternoon to ensure that those objectives are not sabotaged from within his own Department, and I will tell him why I make that request to him.

Sir, we know the Coloured people. We know that, as in all races, there is the ne’er-do-well, but at the same time we know that among the Coloured people there are many men of religion, men of letters, authors, poets, musicians, opera stars, masters of ballet of world renown, but there is one group with whom I have had a close association over the last 21 years, and that is the Coloured ex-servicemen, the people who have served this country as members of the Cape Corps. I should like to remind this Committee of this body, the Cape Corps, and to remind them that, for instance, in the introduction to a book published in 1920, The Story of the First Cape Corps, an introduction written by the Rt. Hon. J. X. Merriman, he said this—

Those are sentiments which were expressed then, and I think express the sentiments of all White South Africans towards the Coloured people. I want to say to the Minister that those ex-servicemen have had to put up with a number of indignities, but they have accepted them for the sake of good relations. I remember an occasion when the S.A. Legion, i.e. the legion of White ex-servicemen, had a meeting in Pretoria, the official opening was in the Pretoria City Hall, and we had invited two delegates from the Coloured legion to attend the opening ceremony and to take part in our conference to see how we were dealing with our problems, but they were refused admission to the City Hall of Pretoria. When some White delegates wished to raise this matter, the Coloureds said: “Please leave it; we understand it is not you who have done this”. So, when one goes through this history and sees that people of that sort, who were referred to by Gen. Allenby at the end of the Palestine campaign in words which have seldom been earned by our White forces, for Allenby said—

Gen. Van Deventer used the same words commenting on their contribution to the South African war efforts in East Africa. When one reads that history, and when one has had the opportunity of seeing those same men now, recently, in the last war serving their country, suffering the privations of war, and when one sees them as I saw them, being shot down while rescuing White people, then one wonders how it became possible that the Department for which the Minister is responsible should have denied them the right of holding a memorial service in the City Hall of Cape Town. They have held meetings there for 43 years. In that City Hall are enshrined the battle honours of the Cape Corps. In that City Hall their regimental colours are in safekeeping.

But it was never refused.

It was. The Minister knows it was refused departmentally.

It was not refused departmentally. There were negotiations. [Interjections.]

I hope the Minister will make clear what he means by “negotiations”, because the Cape Corps which had used that City Hall for 43 years found it necessary to approach the Cathedral to hold the service there. That is not what they wanted, but their president has stated that permission was refused by the Department. But I want to say this to the Minister, and I am sure he agrees with those sentiments I read out a moment ago and which were stated by his predecessor. I want to say to the Minister that I was deeply impressed when I read in the Press that the Minister had reversed the decision of his Department and had given the authority. But it was too late, and that is why I come back to what I said in the beginning. Do not let the good relations which we all strive to create, the goodwill and understanding, be sabotaged by some act of the Department. [Time limit.]

I feel that I should respond at once, since the hon. member for Green Point has been making accusations which show that either he or someone else is totally misinformed. The application received from the Coloured society in question for holding their memorial services at various centres in the Western Province, was investigated by my Department and on my recommendation it was discussed with the society in question before a decision was taken. I made it quite clear to them that they had to ask the society whether the services held in the relative halls of the various towns were necessary, and whether other halls meeting their requirements were not available in their own areas. Their reply to that was that owing to the size and the religious nature of the services, there were no other halls which were suitable for those services. On obtaining that information, I myself immediately granted the permits for those services to be held in the town halls.

And now?

In other words, they were never refused. It was only at my instance that my officials negotiated with these persons in order to ascertain whether there were not other suitable halls in their own areas.

How long did these negotiations take?

Only a few days. Now the hon. member also referred to an offence which had supposedly been given to the Coloured community, because the Cape Coloured people had been prevented from sending two delegates to attend a congress of a similar White organization in Pretoria. That is correct, but it is not an insult to them, because the Whites will likewise be prevented from sending representatives to a congress of the Coloureds.

But they can fight with us.

What applies to one, will apply to the other. No offence has therefore been given to the Coloureds. It is equal and fair treatment. I do not object to there being contact between bodies of the same nature of the various race groups—and this is Government policy—but then such contact has to be on the administrative level and not on the broad basis of congresses and general public meetings. The management boards may consult with one another. There can be consultation among them, but it is not necessary to attend one another’s congresses or public meetings in order to keep in touch with one another. That does not only apply to societies of this nature; it also applies to scientific societies and other organizations of all sorts. It is Government policy and it is not a policy affecting the Coloureds only. It is Government policy which affects Whites as much as it does the Coloureds. There is no question of one offending the other. Hon. members must realize that we as a responsible Government of this country accept the principle of separate co-existence and good neighbourship. Good neighbourship does not mean living together. Good neighbourship means that people live apart from one another and respect one another in all respects.

And know one another.

And know one another. People can get to know one another in the correct manner. It is not necessary to get to know one another in a manner which destroys the whole basis of separate existence. But that is what hon. members on the opposite side want. By means of all sorts of methods they want to destroy the basis of the separate existence of the various population groups in public societies and in all manner of scientific or academic societies. We shall never permit that. We shall never permit the separate existence of the various races in South Africa to be undermined under the cloak of all sorts of societies. I said that they may get to know one another. They may consult with one another. They may meet one another, but then it has to be on an administrative level and not on the basis of mixing in general, no matter how small the extent of such mixing nay be. The number does not matter. I can mention the example where they say that only two will attend the congress. If I want to be a thief, what is the difference between my stealing five cents or 200,000 cents? It is not the number, the size or the extent which is important, it is the principle which is important.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Must I accent that, according to the statement made by the hon. the Minister, no White ex-serviceman may in future attend any Coloured memorial service held to commemorate those Coloureds who had fallen during the war? Is that what he said?

The hon. member referred to a congress. At the moment I am concerned with congresses and not with a memorial service with a religious character. I am concerned with congresses where matters are discussed and where deliberations take place, and not where a memorial service is being held. As far as memorial services and occasions with a religious character are concerned, we have always allowed people of different races to attend those occasions, provided that suitable arrangements are made. But this is not a question of joint or mutual deliberation on matters; it is purely a matter of memorial services, and that is quite different.

While I am speaking, I should like to reply to a few of the other matters mentioned here. I should like to refer to what the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) requested, namely that the Community Development Board should be allowed to sell some of the many properties it owns, even if it has to do so at a great loss. The hon. member must bear in mind that the funds used for purchasing properties for the purpose of effecting resettlement and planning proper development for the various areas, are obtained through loans. It is not money which can be written off. It has to be paid back, and interest has to be paid on it. Consequently the State cannot bear large-scale losses in that regard. It is true that under certain circumstances losses may be incurred which may perhaps be made up elsewhere, by means of profits on other places. However, one cannot merely accept the principle that large-scale losses should be made good in order to have these places developed. It is a fact that some of these places are being sold, and it is also the policy of the Department to sell some of those properties wherever the opportunity presents itself. It will continue in that manner, and particularly at present special attention is being given to that. In every area the Department and members of the Community Development Board will give special attention to the sale of properties registered in the name of the Community Development Board.

The approach of the hon. member for Houghton is, of course, totally different from our approach. She realizes that and we realize that, and we can argue about that. She was opposed to Sophiatown and other non-White spots being removed from White areas, because she proposes a mixed South Africa. She is one of the few who are privileged to live in the Houghton area where the problem of mixed habitation does not exist. At any rate, we realize that, and she should realize that she advocates that policy and we the policy of separate communities. Let us therefore agree to differ on that. Let her think whatever she wants to, but let her also realize that this Government will carry through its policy of developing and settling separate communities in South Africa with all the power at its disposal and to the most extreme consequences.

I said that you should show a little leniency while you were doing so.

The hon. member pleaded for the lenient and sympathetic application of the policy. I want to give her the assurance that my Department acts with the greatest measure of circumspection when people have to be moved and when the rights and properties of people are affected. She, as well as the hon. member for Karoo, referred to the problem of the compensation received by these people. She referred in particular to the compensation offered in Cato Manor. In cases where compensation has to be paid, there are, of course, two methods. One of these is that the property is given a basic valuation. However, it is not as the hon. member for Karoo said, namely that the owner of such a property has to wait for years before he receives his money. He may, at any time when it suits him, offer the property to the Community Development Board, and then that Board purchases it.

My objection is that it is too low; it is not the time factor.

I shall deal with that yet. That is another argument. It is not true that he has to wait for years after the valuation has been made. If he waits longer it is because he chooses to do so. If he waits longer and there should be a decrease in value, the State bears the major part of that decrease. The State bears 80 per cent of the loss such a person sustains through the decrease in value. But values may also increase. You must bear in mind that in the case of non-Whites in particular, increased valuations can be attributed to the fact that the area in which they are living has been proclaimed a White area. In other words, it is the very Group Areas Act which causes their valuations to increase. In such cases, if they are to obtain a higher valuation owing to their areas being proclaimed White areas, they receive one half of the profit made in that manner.

)

They are being sold at slum prices and you know it.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about. In all cases the market value of the day before the proclamation, is taken to be the value of those premises. The market value is assessed by sworn appraisers and assessors. If the owner is not satisfied with that, he may appeal against the valuation. Then a court of review is …

Do not tell me. I know it, and it does not work.

Then a court of review is appointed. Then the valuations are re assessed. In many cases the valuations are subsequently increased. There have been many cases where the court of review has decreased basic valuations. People’s estimates are not always the same. However, if they are dissatisfied with the court of review, there is yet a further step they may take. The matter can then be referred to a court of arbitration. In the court of arbitration the chairman has to be a retired Judge or a magistrate or a person in legal practice with more than ten years’ service. In other words, up to and including a court of arbitration there are three steps for assessing the market value. It is not the Department that does valuations. These valuations are done by the sworn assessors and those persons who are appointed to the court of review or the court of arbitration.

The hon. member for Houghton also complained about the fact that the Indians in Cato Manor received so little for their properties. As I have just indicated, it is not assessed by my Department, but by sworn appraisers, and in addition there is still a double appeal. She said that they received very little there and that they had to pay much higher prices for premises in Isipingo. The hon. member should at least bear in mind that prices in various areas differ from one another. It is true that Isipingo is an expensive neighbourhood. It is true that Indians who can afford to live there, do so, just as Houghton is a more expensive neighbourhood than Doornfontein, for instance. In the same manner Isipingo is a more expensive neighbourhood than places such as Silverglen or Chatsworth, which are very near to Isipingo, and where premises are available at between R700 and R1,200 each. Furthermore, these are large premises. Some of them are up to one acre in extent while the smallest ones are 10,000 square feet.

Is there sufficient land available for everybody who wants to settle there?

Yes, sufficient land is available, but if sufficient land is not available, more will be made available at a later stage. However, at the moment there are sufficient premises for Indians who want to resettle there, and these premises are reasonably priced.

The hon. member also referred to the position of Lenasia. I just want to point out here that it is not the duty of my Department to determine group areas. My Department’s function is only concerned with the application and implementation of group areas. I am therefore not talking about the situation. At any rate, the hon. member said that the facilities available there were inadequate. The hon. member must realize that where one has to deal with a rapidly growing community, one will experience problems. But these problems will be surmounted. School facilities are being provided. Initially the school they had there was too large, but owing to the influx since, it has now become too small. But these things will be put right.

Why then do you not allow the community to stay where it is at present?

The schools are being built for the Department as and when they are deemed necessary, and it is after all to no avail to build schools which will be empty at a later stage. The planning is not in the hands of my Department, although my Department is helping to make these facilities available there. However, the necessary measure of co-operation between the Departments concerned does exist. It was as a very result of the action taken by my Department that several facilities there have been improved and are still to be improved further. The hon. member alleged that there were no longer any premises available in that area. My information is that the hon. member’s allegation is incorrect. A large number of premises are still available. In fact, hundreds of premises are available there, premises of various sizes.

The hon. member also referred to District Six. Apart from the difference between the Government and the hon. member as regards the question of policy, I must point out that, owing to its situation, District Six is in reality an expensive neighbourhood where the prices of premises are at present assessed at a minimum of R2,000. Almost half of the approximately 40,000 inhabitants of District Six are people who fall in the sub-economic group. In a renewal scheme, these people who fall in the sub-economic group will in any case have to be removed from this expensive residential area so that they may be settled on cheaper land, otherwise they cannot be settled sub-economically. In any case, more than half of the Coloureds from District Six will therefore have to be resettled if urban renewal has to be undertaken there and if it is at all one’s intention to assist the sub-economic group in that area. Besides, only 24 per cent of the inhabitants of District Six own property in that area; the rest of them are tenants. I want to emphasize that it is not the intention to create disruption there by moving everybody at once, but that they will be moved gradually and systematically. This will take place over a period of years and it may perhaps take ten years before the replanning of the whole area is complete.

Why then was the area proclaimed?

To set the process in motion. The proper planning of the area cannot be started until it has been proclaimed properly. Only after the area has been proclaimed, it is possible to appoint the necessary committees and to consult the urban planners with a view to a proper replanning of the entire area. There must be proper planning before renewal and removal can take place. Where it is within my power, I will not permit unplanned development in the cities of South Africa. In the past we have had too much of local authorities which simply continued to build without proper preliminary planning with a view to the large cities which will develop in the future. There must therefore be proper planning.

What was the object of appointing the Niemand Committee, which spent a great deal of time investigating District Six?

Surely, it stands to reason that, when one wants to undertake the renewal of an area or the clearance of slums in that area, one’s first step is to appoint a committee of one’s own Department to co-operate with the local authorities in question and with the other interested bodies and persons for the purpose of working out at least the initial stages of the replanning. One has to determine which bodies and which urban planners have to be consulted with a view to the developments which are envisaged.

But the Niemand Committee had nothing to do with group areas.

No, it had nothing to do with races. That Committee was only concerned with the planning of that area.

The hon. member for Houghton raised the question of basic valuations to which, I think, I have already replied. I think I have now more or less covered the debate up to this stage.

I think the hon. the Minister suggested a little bit hastily that I was not sure of the facts of the matter which I raised. I want, with great respect to him, to tell the Minister that on his own showing these occurrences took place. First of all, an application for a permit was submitted to his department some two months ago. That permit was not granted automatically as one would have expected after all these years. It is obvious that the person concerned does not know that the City Hall is virtually a shrine of the Cape Corps. Will the hon. the Minister deny that his department suggested that this service might be held at the Luxurama Theatre in Wynberg and that it was unaware of the fact that in the City Hall there is a memorial to the Cape Corps? Will the hon. the Minister deny that for 42 years they have marched honourably to the war memorial at the foot of Adderley Street to lay wreaths?

That is what I raised with the hon. the Minister. I did not raise it because I thought that he had done anything wrong. I thought he acted very promptly when the matter came to his notice, but I ask that these things should not happen again in his Department. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister, and I speak from experience, that the ex-servicemen in this country were able to organize themselves as the South Africa Legion and the S.A. Coloured Ex-servicemen’s Legion. They did not need a law to make them do that. That happened long before the Nationalist Party came into power. And we were able to co-operate at all levels, and when we had our public congresses, we would have one or two representatives to listen and to hear what the problems were that were voiced by the ordinary persons in the Coloured Legion, and to see how we could assist, and similarly from their side we invited people from the Coloured Legion to hear what was said at the White congresses. I want to assure the hon. the Minister that no thought was further from our minds than that this would lead to some sort of social integration. It did not necessitate having social gatherings where Coloureds and Whites were all mixed up together. They were there as organizations to help the less fortunate amongst their own people and to exchange ideas. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister to be consistent. After what he has said this afternoon, I want to ask him whether we are to accept in South Africa, for instance, that when the College of Surgeons hold a conference and eminent overseas surgeons come to this country and lecture to a meeting of the College of Surgeons that our Coloured doctors shall not be allowed to attend when these world famous surgeons address such a meeting. That we must ask them to please be good enough to go to Athlone and to repeat their lectures to a few Coloured doctors who might be interested? Does the Minister suggest that in future when a scientific organization holds a conference and has a world famous lecturer, we will be denied the right to ask those amongst the non-Whites who are interested in that particular science, to attend that lecture? Because the Minister in his reply made one exception only, and that was a memorial service. He said that as far as a memorial service is concerned he would not prevent Whites attending a non-White service. I am going to address one of these memorial services, and I will not ask his permission in advance. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that these are matters that follow from him trying to blanket the position in the way he has attempted to do this afternoon, and my appeal to him is to stand by what was said four years ago through the Coloured Representative Council to the Coloured people by the then Minister of the Interior, and I ask the hon. the Minister to stand by what his predecessor said when he said that we must draw these people closer, “die tyd word min”. I say that if he stands by that, he will have the support of this side of the House. I appeal again to him to ensure that within his Department these things will not again occur, which mean hurt, deep hurt, to our Coloured people, Coloured people who in the past and will in future continue to share our languages, our cultures, our religions; they have displayed and will display again the highest degree of loyalty to this country of ours.

Mr. Chairman, I think that if there is something which will cloud our race relations and which will harm the attitude of the Coloureds, then it is the type of speech which the hon. member for Green Point just made. I want to say here this afternoon that if there is any department which has done a tremendous deal towards implementing the policy of the Government and towards improving race relations in our country and towards improving the attitude of the various races towards each other, it is in fact the Department of Community Development. Here I also want to refer to what the hon. member for Houghton said here this afternoon and I want to put it to her that it is this very policy which has improved the attitude amongst our people for the very reason that clearance work was undertaken and that people were resettled. I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton that there no longer are people who are dissatisfied with their own resettlement, except for a few individuals who are incited by irresponsible people. Those people whom the hon. member for Houghton finds in Pageview at present as people opposed to being resettled, are those few whom some person has succeeded in inciting. Mr. Chairman, Lenasia is situated in my constituency; the largest portion of the Coloured areas in Johannesburg is situated in my constituency. I have reasonable contact with these people and for as far as I know all of them are very grateful that something such as resettlement is being undertaken at present so that they may escape from the slum conditions under which they have always lived. Here I cannot refrain from blaming the city council of Johannesburg for the manner in which it neglected this matter in the past and allowed the development of these undesirable conditions and for the deterioration in the sound relations between the various races. I am very grateful to-day for what the Department of Community Development is doing in providing the necessary housing and in resettling these people. I want to contend that the Indians of Pageview have long been looking forward to the day when they will be told that there is a sufficient number of houses for them in Lenasia and that they may move there. I have spoken with quite a number of them in Lenasia and they have all told me: “Now we are also living like decent people”. This is in conflict with what the hon. member for Houghton alleged here. I want to say this afternoon that all the residents of Johannesburg, except those who voted for the hon. member for Houghton in Houghton, will welcome the removal of Pageview. Amongst them I include the Indians themselves.

I should like to extend a word of gratitude to the officials of the regional office of the Department of Community Development in Johannesburg. These people are working under extremely difficult circumstances as a result of the shortage of housing in Johannesburg. They are continually being importuned both over the telephone and by people who come to see them in person about obtaining houses and we always find that these officials are polite and friendly and very helpful and are always prepared to state the case of the Department very clearly. I want to express my thanks to them and I should like this House to take cognizance of the very important task these officials are performing. Now I want to ask whether it is possible to expedite this housing programme to a very large degree. I am asking this for Whites, Coloureds and for Indians. For Whites in the first instance because our Whites are experiencing a great deal of difficulty in obtaining housing. And we do believe that a sound family life and the betterment of people go hand in hand with proper housing. We have many Whites in the lower income groups who find it very difficult to obtain housing. In this connection we also have to express our gratitude towards the Government for raising the maximum income which qualifies a person for assistance from the Department of Community Development as the Minister once more announced here this afternoon. But now I feel that the work which is being done by the Department and the various types of assistance which is rendered to people should be publicized more. I think much more publicity should be given to the activities of the Department of Community Development. We often find when people approach us to assist them in obtaining houses or to use our influence in this connection that they are completely uninformed about the various methods in which they can obtain assistance from the Department. What we also find is that estate agents often withhold this information from the people, perhaps on purpose because they themselves would like to sell houses to these people, something which these people cannot afford in most cases.

As regards the Indians, I want to repeat that all of us in Johannesburg desire that the non-White spots remaining in that urban area should be removed as soon as possible. Not only the Whites but even the Indians desire that. They would like to be settled where they can lead a better family life, where they can be settled in better houses and, as I have already said, in such a beautiful rural vicinity as Lenasia offers them. The same holds good as far as the Coloureds are concerned. In my constituency, within a White area, there still are quite a few Coloured schools which the children of these people attend under difficult circumstances. We as Whites would like to see the removal of these schools and the Coloureds have the same desire. They also desire to be moved now so that their children may be accommodated in better equipped schools. For understandable reasons the Department of Coloured Affairs will not spend money on existing schools for Coloureds within White areas. For this reason too the Coloureds will welcome it to be resettled soon in those areas which have been demarcated for them.

In conclusion I want to say that if there are people who welcome the policy of the Government because they find that under that policy they are not only properly housed but also protected against the tremendous numerical preponderance of Bantu with whom they lived in the past and with whom they had to compete in the past, then those people are precisely the Coloureds and the Indians. For this reason too they plead with us to expedite the housing programme in respect of them so that they may escape from the influence of the Bantu.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat pleaded for the speeding up of housing. We on this side of the House also plead with the Minister to speed up this matter. Mr. Chairman, if we look at the report of the Committee of Enquiry into Family Allowances of 1961, we see that housing is a prerequisite for building family life and fostering family life, and it is specifically mentioned that the lack of proper housing is a restriction as far as greater families are concerned, and here I particularly have in mind White families. Sir, we on this side of the House believe that the hon. the Minister has a great task before him in the elimination of the backlog which has been allowed to develop over the years, and, Sir, it appears that other methods will have to be employed so that that backlog can be overcome and to provide more housing for all the racial groups. You know, Sir, that the hon. member for Durban Point moved a motion in this House some weeks ago, pointing out that the question of the shortage of housing was of the utmost importance, and the hon. the Minister in his reply gave certain information in regard to the provision of additional housing.

However, Sir, it appears that more exceptional steps will have to be taken to ensure a greater number of houses and housing units being provided. The hon. the Minister also made mention this afternoon of a committee he is to appoint, and it is interesting to note that research in regard to this whole problem has been going on for some considerable time. A pamphlet was issued, I think about a year ago, titled “So Fair a Home”. The preface was written by the then Minister of Community Development, Mr. P. W. Botha. He made a point and stated, “Let us build houses and, by doing so, help to build up family life; by building up family life we can make community development a reality.” I think that this is a useful document for persons who are looking for accommodation and who wish to find out what exactly is available to them. It is hoped that the hon. the Minister will at a later date bring out a similar document which will be of assistance to local authorities and to those persons seeking accommodation.

However, to refer to the question of research into the greater provision of homes, this document “So Fair a Home” states on page 22—

It goes on to deal with the National Building Research Institute, and at a later stage it states—

Now, Sir, it would appear that the Government has placed itself in a position whereby research is taking place in regard to the more modern methods of construction in order to provide more housing. It is on this particular point that I wish to address some remarks to the hon. the Minister. The Report of the Louw Commission of June, 1964, made some very important recommendations. I believe, Mr. Chairman, that the greater use of the more modern methods of construction and preconstruction is perhaps the only means whereby the hon. the Minister will be able to overcome the backlog which has developed over the past few years. We know that there are various contributing factors. We have the industrialisation of our cities, the movement of population to our cities, and in addition there has been an increase in immigration over the past few years. Therefore the investigation of the different types of pre-constructed methods of construction that we investigated by this committee of inquiry brought forward interesting factors, and certain important recommendations were made whereby certain types of houses could be constructed by these means.

Now, Sir, the only difficulty here is that there does appear to be a certain reaction against the construction of this type of building and this type of house. We know that the United Municipal Executive of South Africa had before it during August of this year a memorandum which was submitted by the Johannesburg City Engineer’s department, dealing with the various defects in the houses provided by the State and the Department of Community Development. It deals with the poor external designs and finishes, the fact that there is no landscaping of the scheme as a whole, and with inadequate internal accommodation, storage and finish. Here I believe that this committee must give greater attention to this whole question of housing by these methods, so as to obviate the possibility of the creation of slums of the future. I believe that, in order to overcome the backlog, there is a tendency not to take into account various other factors which are most important in regard to the development and the planning of these various schemes. That is why is is alarming to find that in many instances restrictions are placed regarding the amount of land available for the construction of these houses and these schemes. In the past the schemes have usually been restricted to seven houses per acre, but we now find that it is the tendency for future schemes to have eight houses per acre and in some instances it has even been suggested that there should be nine houses per acre in these various schemes. This development will mean tremendous over-crowding. It will also mean that there will be inadequate space in terms of such planning in regard to recreation facilities, parks, and open spaces. We believe that in view of the South African way of life, which is an open-air life, every effort should be made to incorporate in these schemes a certain amount of land, of space for recreational purposes and for play-grounds for children. This will encourage general family life and family growth in South Africa. That is why my appeal to the hon. the Minister is to ensure that we do not lower our standards and thus prevent these housing schemes becoming slums of the future. I feel, Sir, that it is of great importance that slum clearance should be carried out as expeditiously as possible. However, it would be a great tragedy if in the long-term planning and in the long run we find that some of the houses provided by way of the crash programme, the rush programme to overcome this backlog, become the slums of the future. The doubt that has been expressed by some local authorities may, on the one hand, be well-founded, and on the other hand they may not be well-founded. However, it is felt that the position in regard to the development of these housing schemes requires the urgent attention of the hon. the Minister and of his department concerning research that is being carried out. The whole question of research into other types of accommodation that can be provided is also a very important factor. Here I want to refer to a committee from which, so I understand, the hon. the Minister has received a report which aims at bringing about a certain standard in connection with homes for the aged and the provision and subsidization of such homes for the aged. It is important for welfare organizations to know what standards are required. Although certain standards are set out in the housing code, it has been the cause of great delays in the provision of institutions of this type. Therefore these delaying factors should to a great extent be reduced. Red tape is often involved when plans are shuffled backwards and forwards, from the local authority to the welfare organization, from the welfare organization back to the local authority, then to Pretoria for further recommendations, further amendments and further recommendations. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, this Department is doing a great deal in the field of housing. We need only look at the figures. If we see that R55,000,000 is being spent by this Department, we cannot but believe that they are doing their best. This figure represents an increase of R6,000,000 over the amount for last year. The Opposition’s complaints that the Government is not doing its duty therefore seem a little strange. In actual fact the hon. member for Umbilo only congratulated the hon. the Minister on his decision to appoint a commission to plan for the future. It is very necessary for us to plan. As far as planning is concerned, a great deal is already being done in this country. We call to mind the work which is being done by the C.S.I.R. and the S.A.B.S. to lay down standards for houses. We call to mind what they have already done. I want to agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that we should see to it that we build properly. On the other hand I want to say that we adopt a careful approach and carry out the necessary research. We intend to continue with that research.

Mr. Chairman, I want to pay special attention to another little matter to-day, namely the question of the housing of our farm labourers. You may perhaps say, Mr. Chairman, that this subject does not fall under this Department, but it is for the very reason that I have confidence in this Department that I am raising this matter here. I feel that it is perhaps essential or desirable that this matter should fall under this Department in future. It is not necessary for me to point out the cardinal importance of housing for our farm labourers. It is true that any expenditure incurred in this respect by a farmer may be deducted for income tax purposes. It is right that that should be the position. I agree with that. Divisional council rates do not fall in the same category as yet. Divisional council rates still have to be paid. We hope that there will be an improvement in that respect as well. As a result of the scarcity of farm labourers, and particularly with the development of our policy, it is becoming increasingly necessary for proper housing for farm labourers to be provided on farms in the Western Cape in particular. We find, however, that farmers do not have the necessary capital. If they do have some capital it is spent on essential improvements. Capital for the erection of houses for labourers, for people in the towns and in the local authority areas, is provided to local authorities at a very low rate. I want to suggest that the provision of this capital in fact amounts to subsidization of industry, very often at the expense of the farmer, because, Sir, as a result of that subsidization the labourer is lured away from the farm. It is therefore my plea that farm labourers should be included in these housing schemes and that they should fall under the Department of Community Development. That would eliminate this unfair competition and it would also be fair and right that all employers should be treated on the same basis. In drawing attention to this problem, I want to point out that it has always been the custom on farms for the owner, the farmer, to provide that housing himself. I am proud to say that the farmers have always done their best to provide proper housing for their farm labourers.

But, Sir, times change. Housing standards are becoming higher and higher. Capital is scarce. I feel that it is essential for us to give very urgent attention to this matter. I am aware that a commission has been appointed which is to give a decision on this matter in the near future, a commission which has heard representations from the agricultural unions as well. I do not want to anticipate the report of this commission. I just want to draw attention to this problem once again, because. Sir, I feel that we cannot do enough in this regard. The upliftment of the Coloured people and the entire implementation of our policy are involved in this matter. That is why I feel myself at liberty to raise this matter in this House to-day.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Humansdorp who has just sat down has congratulated the hon. the Minister and wished him well in the appointment of the committee which he announced earlier. Now, Sir, the hon. the Minister has indicated that the committee is being appointed to sort out the many problems that have arisen where he is breaking new ground so far as urban renewal schemes are concerned, and he specifically mentioned Riverside and Prospect Hall in Durban, amongst other areas. My people are not concerned with whether there are problems or whether the one department should handle one part and another part should handle another part.

My people are not concerned with how it works out or what maintenance they have to pay, but whether he makes them the tenants of his Department, in their own homes, because, Sir, that is what he has done.

I want to say this to the Minister that when this urban renewal scheme was debated in this House, the hon. member for South Coast made it very clear that we were utterly opposed to this because there was no justification for it at all. So long as this was a matter dealing with the development of a group area that was one thing; so long as it was a matter dealing with the clearance of slums and the provision of housing that was another thing. Sir, I cannot discuss the powers that were then taken; I just want to say that at the time these powers were taken it was indicated very clearly and very strongly from this side of the House that difficulties of this kind were going to arise. Well, what is happening? White people living in proclaimed White areas, with perfectly good new houses in some cases, in other cases in houses in perfectly good repair—in other cases they have bought land—after having been given the O.K. by the Minister’s Department’s Regional Representative in Durban, suddenly find that they are the subject of another renewal scheme. One might have thought—indeed I think we are entitled to think (perhaps the Minister will tell us whether we are wrong in thinking this)—that when an urban renewal scheme is put into operation the subject has been given some thought and that there has been some planning. What happened to my people was that they were served with an expropriation order telling them that within 30 days the property would pass into the hands of the Department. There was nothing wrong with the houses. In these days it seems crazy that people who have perfectly good houses, which are very hard to get, should suddenly be told that their property now belongs to the Department.

I may say that there were a number of people who, when part of the Redhill area was declared an Indian and a Coloured area, had to move elsewhere and they moved to the area we are discussing, thinking that they had now escaped the provisions of the Group Areas Act because the area had now been proclaimed once and for all as a White area, and to-day they find themselves faced with an expropriation order which will become effective very soon. All that remains for them is to try to get a decent price for their properties. Sir, this is a scandalous state of affairs. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is this: On what basis does he have urban renewal schemes? We asked his predecessor and he could not tell us. His predecessor could not even tell us what an urban renewal scheme was; he said he was investigating it, and I wonder whether, with the passage of time, this new Minister perhaps has some new ideas as to what in fact an urban renewal scheme is and where it is going to be applied, and why it is being applied in these times to perfectly good houses. White people’s houses are being expropriated for the purpose of an urban renewal scheme. When the hon. the Minister has answered that will he also answer another question: If there is such a hurry to do this, if these people must be given 30 days’ notice—and this is the first time they have heard that their houses have suddenly become the property of the Government—if there is such a hurry to do this (because it is being done in the Riverside area as well) can he tell us when this urban renewal scheme is going to be put into operation; when this township is going to be planned; when the houses are going to be built and when that area is going to be occupied. If the Minister cannot tell us that then I would appeal to him, in the case of the area that I have mentioned, to withdraw the proclamation. If he cannot say that this is going to be done within the space of six months or within a short period, then he has no right to give the property owners there 30 days’ expropriation notice; to tell them that within 30 days their houses will become his property and that they may stay there, pending the implementation of the urban renewal scheme, as the tenants of the Department. My information is that apparently that is what the Minister’s Department has told them. I hope the Minister will give us some indication as to what he is going to do. If he is not going to do anything and if it is going to take too long for the scheme to be developed, if it is going to take a number of years, I ask him to withdraw that proclamation. The value of these properties should be determined when the scheme has been planned and is put into effect. That is the time to determine their value; not now, but when they have to move and buy another. I hope the Minister will give us some indication as to what he is going to do. If it is going to take a considerable time—and it seems that with the setting up of the committee it is going to take a considerable time—then I think it is fair to ask him whether he is prepared at this stage to withdraw that proclamation in respect of this urban renewal scheme in Durban, at least pending the report of the committee of inquiry.

The hon. member who has just sat down will forgive me if I

do not follow up his arguments. I shall rather rise, firstly, to express my appreciation towards the Government for the generous way in which it has in recent years continued and is still continuing not only to provide suitable housing as protection against the elements of nature, but also to provide for housing which will meet the spiritual and social needs of people. On behalf of a large number of my voters I want to express appreciation this afternoon towards the Government, towards the Minister concerned and towards the local city councils for having enabled them to become the proud possessors of their own house at a price which is within their reach and at monthly instalments which enable them to maintain a good, decent social and economic standard of living. On this occasion I must also pay tribute to the present Minister and his predecessor for the way in which they and their officials have always been of assistance and still are, when representations were or are made to them.

I have two requests I want to make to the hon. the Minister this afternoon. Firstly I want to ask whether consideration cannot be given to increasing the maximum for building costs in terms of the economic schemes, which at the moment amounts to R5,600 per dwelling, so that it may be more in accordance with the high building costs. Mr. Chairman, if one bears in mind that the increase in building costs in recent times has amounted to as much as 25 per cent, and in some areas more than 25 per cent, one realizes how much care has to be taken in planning houses if good standards are to be maintained. Furthermore, one then appreciates the necessity for concentrating more and more on schemes where a large number of houses have to be built in close proximity, which is certainly not always advantageous from the point of view of the inhabitants. Of course such schemes entail a saving of costs, however, to the advantage of the inhabitants.

The second point I want to bring up is of a more local nature. It relates to the dwellings that are now being vacated as a result of the closing of the mines, particularly in the Springs area, where a considerable number of mines have already closed down, and where at least another six will be closed down within the next 18 months. If ever there was a fertile breeding-ground for slums, it is those areas, which are usually taken over by private persons who naturally let those dwellings at the highest possible rentals to the very people who can least afford them. The result is overcrowding and all its concomitant evils. The request I therefore want to make is whether the Department will not inquire into the possibility of taking over these housing complexes, now that the mines have vacated them, and of then dealing with them on the basis of an economic scheme.

On behalf of the City Council of Springs, among others, I want to give the Minister the assurance that he will find them only too anxious to co-operate in this regard, for the benefit of those people who have to be accommodated under better circumstances than at present, when those houses are occupied again.

I cannot help starting by referring to the speech made by the hon. member for Johannesburg (West) earlier this afternoon, in which he made a deliberate point of mentioning what he described as Cape Town’s failure to deal with slum clearance. May I say that the Government is very largely responsible for this situation in Cape Town.

I want to make a special plea to the Minister this afternoon to use all the influence that he possibly can with his colleague, the Minister of Planning, not to declare for White occupation any more areas under the jurisdiction of the main municipalities in South Africa unless and until the disqualified people living in areas already declared, can be absolutely certain of alternative housing accommodation. The Government is running away with this whole thing; it is running ahead with its policy when it cannot produce houses for these people. The Minister will, of course, disagree with me but I think that the Government is putting the cart before the horse. You do not proclaim an area and then try to find the houses; you assess the position and decide where you are going to house them and under what conditions; you start with that programme and then you proclaim the area.

The hon. the Minister knows very well that an appeal was recently made by the Cape Town City Council for a slowing down of the resettlement of disqualified families in areas already declared for White occupation. The Minister knows perfectly well that this is absolutely essential, as the municipalities in this area—and I have no doubt that this applies to the major municipalities throughout South Africa—are faced with considerable difficulties already over the implementation of both their economic and sub-economic housing schemes, for a variety of reasons. Sir, may I also plead with the Minister to-day to remember that there should be a fair allocation of houses in new housing schemes and that not every house in a new housing scheme should be commandeered by his Department for resettlement in terms of the Group Areas Act. The hon. the Minister, or at least his officials, will know what I am referring to here. I suggest that, depending upon local circumstances, of course, in any new housing extension scheme, approximately 40 per cent of the houses should be allocated to the State for resettling displaced families under the Group Areas Act, 40 per cent to applicants on the waiting list—representing the normal population increase in the area—and 20 per cent to people who have to be rehoused in terms of slum clearance. This would be a fair basis on which to work. Previously here in the Cape town municipal area the Government only demanded that about one-fifth or one-quarter of the new houses in the City Council’s housing schemes should be made available for people likely to be displaced under the Group Areas Act. Recently, however, we have had a demand—at Heideveld Extension No. 1 for instance—by the Minister’s Department that all the houses must be allotted to people displaced as the result of Group Areas proclamations. This puts all the other housing plans of the City Council completely out of gear.

I think the hon. the Minister will agree that this matter should be reconsidered by his Department. You see, Sir, the municipalities—and I speak with some knowledge of the Cape Town municipality if not of other municipalities—is finding it very difficult to keep pace with the provision of houses for the natural increase in the local population, let alone anybody who is displaced under the Group Areas Act. What happens when there is what I call a premature proclamation of a Coloured area into a White area, is that the people there live in a permanent state of tension and anxiety. They feel that they are neither coming nor going; they have no alternative housing immediately available to them. They are given a time limit in which to move and they know that when the time limit expires they have to move out. I know of cases, not far from where I live myself, where families have been obliged to move because their time limit has expired. This area has been declared a White area. These people are frightened of the forms which they receive from the Group Areas Board, and what happens? They have no alternative housing; the City Council cannot allocate houses to them, so they double-up with their neighbours next-door whose time has not quite expired. The result is that the slum conditions in these particular areas become even worse. I can produce evidence of two or three families living under the most appalling conditions not far from where I live, because they cannot move when their time expires, with the result that they double-up with their neighbours.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has said that he must proclaim first and then plan afterwards. Surely it would be more responsible and quite apart from being more responsible it would be kinder in human terms to complete a socioeconomic survey of District Six or any area about to be proclaimed, so as to assess the number of people involved, the number of families, the number of houses needed; to start building first or at least to have such a scheme on the drawing board and then, when you have your plans well under way, to consult with the local civic associations and the Ratepayers’ association—the Coloureds have these associations—and then to proclaim that group area. However, nothing like that is ever done. That is why I appeal to the hon. the Minister to discuss this matter with the Minister of Planning who is responsible for proclaiming these areas. Sir, this state of uncertainty and tension is very real amongst the Coloured population particularly in a number of areas in Cape Town. I think this state of uncertainty and tension is quite uncalled for in terms of town planning or community development. This is a wretched and unhappy way for people to have to live.

Now, Sir, I want to say a word about District Six. This is a perfect example. The hon. the Minister said that there were 40,000 inhabitants involved. The Minister knows that there is a backlog of 11,000 houses for Coloured people in the municipal area of Cape Town. He also knows that the Cape Town City Council invited an engineer from the United States who investigated the whole situation in District Six with the idea of doing away with the slums, re-building many of the properties there and leaving the people settled there, but at least clearing out the whole area in terms of a slum clearance scheme. Under the proclamation these people have been given the customary year’s notice to move. The hon. the Minister says that it will take ten years to move them but they have been given one year’s notice. Half of them do not understand what all these regulations are about. The Minister’s predecessor in this office has made a statement in February of this year about this matter in which he said—

A commission was appointed, as the hon. the Minister knows very well, in 1964, to discuss the whole question of District Six and its replanning, not in terms of the Group Areas Act at all. I have a verbatim report here of a Current Affairs broadcast, given out by the S.A.B.C. earlier this year, in which it was stated quite clearly that the object of the committee appointed by the Government was to study the possibilities of recreating District Six and renewing the hope of its people. The announcers then went on to talk about group areas. The City Engineer of Cape Town contradicted this report in a public statement and said “that the suggestion made in the broadcast that the Niemand Committee had dealt with the question of group areas was incorrect”. Mr. Niemand himself issued a public statement on the 2nd October, 1964—

[Time limit.]

I would like to reply to some of the points raised by the hon. member for Houghton. She protested at the removal of non-White groups from areas which she claimed had been settled by them over a long period of years. She mentioned 75 years. She said that this was unjust and claimed that renewal schemes could be undertaken in such a way that it would be possible for them to remain in those areas. Sir, there are a few points which have to be considered in this connection. Firstly, South Africa has irrevocably embarked on a programme of separate development, of separate residential areas, and it is essential, in fulfilling that programme, to replan areas in such a way that the different communities can live on terms of good neighbourliness, without having a few isolated mixed spots in different communities. For that reason it is essential that this planning should take place. The hon. member mentioned certain areas in Johannesburg and in Durban, Cato Manor, amongst others. Sir, it is a fact that Cato Manor falls right in the centre of the White urban area of Durban, and if Cato Manor were to remain an area for Indian occupation, you would have an Indian spot in the centre of a White area. That is why it was essential to plan it on a long-term basis for the sake of improved race relations. I maintain that where slum conditions exist it is not sufficient merely to clear the slum conditions; it is essential that we try to kill two birds with one stone; that we clear the slum conditions and that at the same time we resettle the people concerned in an area where they can lead a proper community life amongst their own people, thus forming a more settled community. The mere fact that people have lived within a certain area such as District Six for a period of 75 years under slum conditions does not give them a prior right to that area. In fact, they cannot be regarded as a settled community because they are no community; they are people living under slum conditions; they are living there because no alternative accommodation has ever been provided for them, but this is not an ideal solution. We are now trying to solve two problems in one step and that is why they have to be resettled in areas where they can live amongst members of their own community and develop a proper communal life, something which is not possible if the whole area is cluttered up with Indian spots, Black spots, Coloured spots and White spots.

In dealing with that particular problem, I would like to refer to the problem of my constituency, Umhlatuzana. We have perhaps 4,000 Indians residing in that area although the whole constituency has been declared a White area. We find that every now and then groups of Indians ask for a replanning so that portions of areas which have already been declared White can again be declared areas for Indian occupation. Sir, it is high time we realized that the Government has embarked on a certain programme and that that programme will be carried out. There is no sense whatsoever in trying to prolong the agony. We realize that there are bound to be difficulties in the process of resettlement; difficulties will always arise but we must also realize that unless we are prepared to tackle those problems and to accept that there will be difficulties, in the transition stage, we are creating a situation which will become impossible in the future. We are creating a situation where we, in this country, will then be faced with the same sort of race riots which they have in the United States and have had in Britain, because there they do not deal positively with the problem. We in South Africa, realizing the human values of each race group, and wanting to promote the lot of all our people, within their own communities, tackle the problem in a positive way. We realize that at some stage we shall have to be prepared to make certain sacrifices to improve our position for the future. That is why it is essential to carry out this programme.

As far as Cato Manor is concerned, the hon. member for Houghton said that inadequate compensation was being paid to displaced persons. The Minister has already dealt with that. The hon. member also mentioned that exorbitant prices had to be paid when those Indians acquired other properties. I would like to mention a few points as far as that aspect is concerned. Only last week there was a sale by public auction of numerous properties to Indians. I feel that that system, because there is a shortage of properties available on the free market, results in exploitation. We had the position in Durban that properties, which were less than one-eighth of an acre in extent, were sold by public auction at an average price exceeding R3,000. Sir, that is the situation that lends itself to difficulties as far as the Indian community is concerned; I fully realize that and I want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible to make some arrangement with the local authority concerned, in order to find a more equitable basis of allocating land to the affected people. We must, however, realize that many of these people who are now having to pay exorbitant prices, are the very people who in the past were the biggest culprits in exploiting the members of their own community who fall into the lower income group. Those Indians who had properties in Cato Manor exploited the Indians and Natives living there; they charged exorbitant rentals and lived off people who could not afford to pay these high rentals. If, therefore, the prices which they are getting for their properties to-day are inadequate they are in a sense only being repaid for what they did to other people. However, there are also other people who are affected and who are pleading for an improvement in the situation in that respect.

To come to the question of Riverside, which has been mentioned by the hon. member for Durban (North), I would like to mention that a request to deal with this matter has been sent to me. I do not know whether the hon. member has also received such a request but it so happens that I know some of the people who are directly affected there. These people have asked me to put forward a plea here on their behalf.

Do you endorse what I said about it.

I shall deal with that in a moment. Sir, I realize that this area was proclaimed a White area some time ago; that Whites acquired properties and actually built houses there and that the whole area is now being expropriated with a view to replanning the whole area. That, in itself, is essential because when the township was originally planned, as far as roads etc. were concerned, it was planned according to the needs of an Indian community. The lay-out was not in terms of the needs of a White community. The whole area had to be replanned therefore and not only certain portions of it. I would like to suggest a method to the Minister which may meet with the requirements of the people who are affected. There are about nine property owners who are directly affected because they have already built or intended building in the near future. I would like to ask the Minister whether it would not be possible to try to have a sort of suspensive expropriation, and after the replanning has taken place it might not be necessary to cut up completely those properties affected. It might not be necessary to demolish the houses, and then perhaps there could be a re-allocation of the land to the people affected. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana praised the positive policy of his side of the House. I hope he will be able to follow me in what I am going to say and possibly be a source of enlightenment on a matter which is indeed very confusing to a poor ordinary person like myself. To-day we heard from the hon. the Minister who, by the way, is in charge of giving permits for meetings where Whites and non-Whites get together, certain definitions of what is permissible and what is not. I have been trying to find some logical, consecutive thread in what he has been telling us. Here are six examples of what is permissible, of who can obtain a permit, and of what is apartheid and on the other hand what is, I presume, the end of Western civilization.

First of all, the Minister told us that if you have an academic or scientific congress of largely White people and two or three non-Whites are there to attend as delegates, it is a horror and a disaster and the end of White civilization. But now we find that when your Western Coloured College in the Cape holds its yearly graduation ceremony, which is also an academic occasion, Whites and Coloureds are permitted to attend. Is that not also an academic occasion? Why is that apartheid while an economic congress is not apartheid?

Sir, the thing gets more and more complicated the further one goes. We were told today that it is almost a sin for a White and a non-White body to meet together or for White and non-White delegates to meet in a scientific congress, but what is permissible is that if you close the doors and behind those doors you take executive members of these organizations and bring them together, socially integrated, that is apartheid. I cannot follow these tortuous thoughts of the Minister, and I ask him for an explanation.

On the one hand, Coloured delegates, if they attend a White academic congress, are sinning against the principles of apartheid. But if Coloured delegates attend a commemoration service, they are quite within the bounds of apartheid. I am afraid I do not see the difference, and I shall be glad if the Minister can explain it to us.

I think of the next instance. This is a matter where the Minister and his own Department disagree. There was an application made a few months ago by the S.A.B.C. to the Minister, asking whether a Coloured singer, Victor Schwarz, could perform in Coronationville, together with the S.A.B.C. Orchestra, and the Department turned it down. Then the S.A.B.C., which does not always do the wrong thing, appealed against the decision of the Department. It appealed to the Minister, who granted the appeal, and the concert was permitted to take place. Now my problem is this. If the Minister and his own Department cannot decide on the formula for apartheid in those cases, how can we ordinary people in South Africa decide it?

I think next of the instance a couple of months ago when there was an application for a non-White choir to perform “The Messiah” in Johannesburg. What happened was this. An application was made for a White symphony orchestra, plus a White conductor, plus a Black choir to perform. That was turned down firmly by the Minister and his Department, so they changed it to a Black conductor, plus a Black choir, plus a White organist, and that was apartheid. What is the formula? I do not follow it. This is a Never-Never Land and an upside-down system and I hope the Minister will give an explanation.

I should now like to touch upon the problem of housing, which also falls under this Minister. The Minister told us that he has been encouraging municipalities to proceed with schemes of community development and housing which have been submitted to him. I wonder whether the Minister knows what has actually been told to the municipalities earlier this year? Does he not know that his own Department has told the municipalities: Go slow with these schemes; we realize that some of these schemes are vital, but do not go on with them because we have not got the money. This is what his Department wrote to the United Municipal Executive as reported on 1st August, 1966—

This letter was written to the U.M.E. The Department cannot make the funds available for these projects, yet the Minister says the municipalities do not make use of these funds. [Interjection.] I am quoting from a report in the Star of 1st August. I shall make the cutting available to the Minister.

The truth, of course, is that there is a critical housing shortage in the country to-day. The plans of the building societies were cut by almost R40,000,000 during the first four months of the year. There are more than 5,000 families in Johannesburg who need accommodation to-day and cannot get it. There are people living in garages in Germiston. There is a shortage throughout the country and in all the major centres, and then we get a beautiful brochure such as this, “So Fair a Home”, issued by the Department of Information and printed by the well-known fiction firm of Hayne and Gibson. Where are these homes for all these people who are clamouring for them? I should like to know.

Not only did the Minister’s Department tell the Municipal Executive that there were not sufficient funds available, but I have a stronger accusation against him. and that is that when the Department had the funds all those funds were not used. I put a question to the Minister earlier this year and he said that of the R16,000,000 made available to the Community Development Fund in the financial year, R4,000,000 was not used. That is, more than 25 per cent was not used for community development at all. He had the funds at that stage, but did not use them. He told me that the development did not progress at the expected rate due to various reasons. Perhaps he can tell us what those reasons were. He said that in this respect the following or more important projects were cut down. Amongst the housing projects were Lenasia, Silver Glen, Goodwood, Parow and Bellville, which were cut down, and also Yellowwoods Park, Chatsworth, Florida Park, Westville, the old city area of Durban, and among the development projects cut down there were Lenasia, Lands-field, Mountain Rise. [Time limit.]

I shall try to be somewhat more positive than the hon. member for Orange Grove. I have not been in this House very long, but honestly, everything I have heard from him was negative. May the Lord protect me the day I adopt that attitude in this House, and do not try to make a positive contribution: then I shall resign immediately. Because I think it is a mere waste of other people’s time here. He is always exaggerating. I began to think he was speaking to the gallery. But I believe the hon. the Minister will deal with him thoroughly, and I should like to see him just now, when he will look like a deflated balloon.

The Group Areas Act provided for the establishment of a Coloured area in Boksburg on the East Rand, and an area at Benoni for the Indians. The majority of the Coloureds have already been re-settled at Boksburg. There are approximately 10,000 of them, and as I represent the Boksburg constituency and am most interested in that Coloured area and in the weal and woe of those Coloureds, I may mention that a great deal has already been done for that group. I may say that it is most enlightening to see in what type of house a large number of those Coloureds are already living, and we may congratulate the present Minister and the previous Minister on what they have already achieved there to bring together in one community those people who used to be scattered all over the Rand. Those Coloureds—and I have been in contact with them—are very grateful for what has been done for them, and they are contented and are looking forward to having that area developed fully, so that they will be able to live there as a group with their own pride.

But I should like to refer to a large group of Indians who are still living in Boksburg and who, I believe, will in due course be shifted to Benoni. It is surely in the interests of those Indians that they should be placed in their own group; in their own interests, firstly, because they will then be able to live together as an Indian group. We know the Indians mostly as traders. In most cases their business premises are in fact also their dwellings. In other words, they live in the same building in which they conduct their businesses, and that is of course a most unhygienic position, not only for themselves but also for the consumer who has to buy that food on premises where those people sleep, eat and do business. In Boksburg we have the position that a large number of the Indian dealers live among the Whites, which is of course most undesirable. Bantu congregate in large numbers at those Indian shops, which results in a smuggling trade in liquor and other goods. But it also results in miscegenation, which is surely the last thing the Indians themselves would want; that they should not remain a pure race. The Bantu also become interbred there, so that they eventually become neither fish, flesh nor fowl. But what causes me concern is that the presence of the Indian community there has caused the devaluation of the property of Whites to a point where it is no longer worth very much to them. The Whites who live there are decent people. That situation cannot go on any longer. We know that the standard of living of the Indians is very low. As the hon. member for Houghton said, large and small and everybody in the family help in the shop. It is also a fact that with that standard of living and that cheap labour, no White dealer can compete with them. That was also notable in the Coloured areas, where some of the Coloureds wanted to build up fine businesses but simply had to close down because of the presence of the Indians. Now it will probably be argued that the poor Indian dealer has been dependent on trade all his life and that we now want to put them together in an area where all of them will not be able to make a living. But we may as well appreciate that the Indians were created like all other human beings, with two hands, and that they have those two hands not only to count out money and weigh pounds and measure yards. If they are forced by circumstances to go and make a living by other means than trading, they will surely also be able to do that. We think of the depression in 1933, when many of our farmers were forced to take other work, and also during the present drought. I should therefore like to plead, on behalf of those decent Whites of Boksburg, that if those Indians are to be shifted, they should not only go and live somewhere else, but that those businesses should go with them, lock, stock and barrel.

I wish to bring to the notice of the Minister a problem which exists in portion of my constituency, namely in the suburb of Mayfair (South). That is a White area and has always been one, and to my knowledge no portion of it has ever been declared otherwise. At the moment there is an infiltration of Chinese who are taking occupation of houses in that area. As far as is known, the Department has not issued any permits, so the Chinese residents are there illegally. When this was brought to the notice of the Department it was admitted by them that the occupation by Chinese was illegal. I want it very clearly understood, when I say anything about this subject, that there is nothing against the Chinese people as such. It is admitted on all hands that they are law-abiding and perfectly worthy citizens. They cause no trouble, but the point is that the residents in that area are more than apprehensive simply for one reason, namely the effect it has on the value of their properties in the area. What is happening, obviously by means of an arrangement of rental—I am assuming that they do not actually own those houses because they cannot actually buy them—they occupy these houses as lessees and it is affecting the value of the properties sometimes in the whole of the street. From my own observation I have seen the arrival of one or two, and in no time the whole block has been occupied by Chinese. There were some 22 cases reported to me a short time back; I think it now amounts to 50. One is entitled to ask the question: What is the purpose of the Department of Community Development in allowing this position to develop? Where did these people come from? Where were they resident previously, and is there a deliberate purpose in allowing this to develop so that at a later stage this area can be declared an area in which they can reside? Is that the purpose? Because one can get no explanation whatever from the Department. They only say these people are there and they know they are there illegally. If you ask them when an area is going to be declared, they refer one to the Department of Planning, an outstanding example of passing the buck. I may say that since the functions of these two ministries were divided in regard to this particular matter, that has been going on ad lib. If you ask the Minister of Planning about it he refers you to Community Development. I know to my certain knowledge that in regard to setting aside an area which Chinese can occupy, that was decided by Community Development just prior to the functions of the Departments being divided. A suitable area had been set aside, but because the functions were divided nothing was done about it. The Department of Community Development were about to declare the area and the matter has been left like that ever since. Now that is a long time, Sir. It has gone on now for longer than 18 months, and no decision has been taken. What is the Department doing? Is it exercising any pressure on the Ministry of Planning to get the matter settled? It is completely unsatisfactory from the point of view of the residents of Mayfair (South), and also from the point of view of the law-abiding Chinese residents. What is being done about it? The matter was of such consequence that during my campaign in the recent election great pressure was used that I should use this in the course of the election. I refused to do so because it would whip up and inflame people’s emotions on the wrong basis. [Interjections.] You are not even carrying out your own policy. I am not dealing with the policy of the Government, but the law is there to-day, and presumably it will be carried out. I am asking what this particular Department is doing about seeing that the law is carried out. It is most unsatisfactory that there should be people there in illegal occupation, from their own point of view, let alone any other point of view, because they may be shifted at any time. I ask most pertinently what is being done about it. When is this ineptitude going to be overcome and some action taken in the matter to the satisfaction of the people concerned?

I am pleased that I have had the opportunity as a backbencher to listen once more to the hon. member for Von Brandis. One does not always have the opportunity but I am pleased that such a respected senior member of the Opposition raised a matter in connection with which I also want to say something. I just want to say that I gained the impression that the hon. member revealed himself as being a true supporter of the Government’s policy of separate development. I am sorry that I did not know before that he was such a staunch supporter of that because then I would have asked him to assist me in Turffontein so that I might have won the seat with an even larger majority. I immediately want to come to the specific matter raised by the hon. member. The matter is of great importance to my constituency and indeed to all constituencies in the country which are affected by it. However, I can only speak with authority about my own constituency and also about Johannesburg as such.

The matter we are dealing with is the removal of Indian residents on the Rand, especially in Turffontein and in other suburbs of Johannesburg. This is a matter in connection with which my constituents are looking in great expectation to the Government and to the Minister of Community Development, under whom it falls. I immediately want to say that a great deal has been done, also in my own constituency, in the way of spade work for the removal of the Indians, but at present we are still contending with a legacy from the United Party days and I make bold to say that my hon. predecessor made absolutely no attempt to plead in this House for the removal of Indians from my constituency. I am also aware that everything possible is being done by the Minister’s Department for the removal of Indians and Chinese, but I want to raise the matter once more and I want to ask the Minister politely whether he will not once more give the matter urgent attention in the nearest future. The Whites of Turffontein—and that applies to both White sections of the population—state that the township of Turffontein was declared a White residential area by Proclamation 83 of 1962 issued in terms of Act 77 of 1957. But many of the Whites feel that no conspicuous progress has been made with the removal and resettlement of Indians from the constituency. The matter played an important role in my election and it is now strongly felt that positive action should be taken within the next five years. As a National member of the House of Assembly I am fully aware that this entire matter has a human aspect and that we cannot simply remove Indians and Chinese and dump them in the bush. We have to provide alternative housing for them. But I nevertheless want to ask the Minister that when the opportunity presents itself again and the restricting factor of financial means resulting from the combating of inflation has been eliminated, he should tackle the matter with urgency, not only in my constituency but also in all the other constituencies on the Rand and in the Republic which are affected by it. I want to say that the vast majority supports the Government wholeheartedly in its policy of separate community development as the hon. member for Von Brandis also indicated. It is in view of that that I feel myself at liberty to make this urgent plea.

I also want to ask, as regards Johannesburg, whether the available trade potential in Lenasia cannot be extended even further and whether the proposed Asiatic trade centre in Fordsburg cannot be developed more rapidly when money becomes available once more.

As regards the resettlement of the Chinese, of whom I have quite a number in my constituency, I understand that before the resettlement of Chinese can be undertaken in Johannesburg the Department of Planning has to set aside a particular area for rightful occupation by them. I wonder whether the Minister cannot inform us how much progress has been made in this regard.

Before I resume my seat I want to bring another matter to the attention of the Minister. It appears to me that Indian businessmen have now discovered some loophole in the law. A new trick has suddenly cropped up in my constituency. It seems to me that Whites succeed in obtaining trade licences from the Johannesburg City Council for Indians in proclaimed White group areas and then open a business in the name of the Whites, but in actual fact the Indians are the owners while they work behind the counters as the so-called employees for the sake of appearances. In my constituency I came across three such cases recently. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he will not have the matter investigated and if it appears that there is a loophole somewhere whether he will not consider eliminating that loophole by means of legislation. We know for instance that the Johannesburg City Council, in spite of the fact that it is aware of the policy laid down by the Government, still continues to issue trade licences to Indians from time to time in areas which have been proclaimed White areas. The general feeling in Johannesburg is that this tendency can no longer be allowed to continue. We cannot allow a city council which is hostile towards the Government to hamper the concept of separate community development in such a manner. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, when business was suspended this evening I had attempted to deal with the question of the group areas proclamation in District Six. The hon. the Minister had himself said earlier in the debate that there were 40,000 inhabitants involved. He knows as well as anybody else that the backlog of Coloured housing in the Peninsula is already 11,000. Before business was suspended I asked the hon. the Minister why he found it necessary to proclaim this area when he was aware of the difficulties with which the Cape Town City Council was struggling at the time. He knew also, Sir, that the Cape Town City Council had already completed draft schemes for the rehousing of the majority of these people in that area and that they had in fact brought a special engineer out from the United States of America to investigate the position and that they had planned the whole scheme. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor had said that this was a long-term project. The hon. the Minister himself said this afternoon that it might take anything up to ten years and yet the people in this area have been given one year’s notice in which to quit.

But that is not true.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister can go and ask the tenants of some of these houses himself. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has unlimited time; I only have ten minutes. What interested me so much was the appointment of the Niemand Committee to investigate conditions in District Six. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Niemand, as you know, is connected with the C.S.I.R. and with the National Housing Commission and the hon. the Minister knows who served on the committee. The committee consisted of the Secretary for Community Development, the City Engineer of Cape Town, a quantity surveyor and a town planner. The committee’s terms of reference were to study the possibility of recreating District Six and renewing the hope of its people. The chairman of that committee, Mr. Niemand himself, in a Press interview on 2nd October, 1964, stated that their investigation had nothing to do with the Group Areas Act as such. I should like to hear from the hon. the Minister whether he is prepared to deny Mr. Niemand’s statement in this regard. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor stated in a Press interview on 14th February this year—

The Minister went on to say that—

Mr. Chairman, the fact of the matter is, whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not, that the inhabitants of District Six, when they gave evidence before the Niemand Committee and the Group Areas Board, were not aware of the fact that any proclamation was forthcoming with regard to their future and that they might have to move in terms of the Group Areas Act. One of the most interesting things in the Minister’s statement which was published in the Burger on 15th February is this statement—

This was a statement by the hon. the Minister’s predecessor. The hon. the Minister did not say so but we know that it is true that most of the owners of property in District Six are Europeans who are renting their properties to these people. I think that it is quite significant that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor saw fit to mention the Afrikaanse Sakekamer in the course of his statement. The real point at issue is that the local Coloured and Malay people who live there—and we have known them for years—were not consulted when it came to the proclamation of this area. They were consulted by the Niemand Committee regarding how the area was going to be rebuilt and how they themselves were to be rehabilitated as far as housing was concerned. Evidence was taken by the Niemand Committee and the local Coloured and Malay Associations gave evidence before it. The fact is also that the Cape Town City Council had already drawn up comprehensive schemes for the redevelopment of this area.

I would like to make a suggestion to the hon. the Minister, quite apart from what there is to be said in favour of slum clearance as such. And do not let us have any misunderstanding in this regard, because slum clearance is an absolute necessity in any country anywhere in the world. Slum clearance is something which we have to tackle like any other administration but when slum clearance is confused with this question of the Group Areas Act then I do think that we come upon very definite injustices in the political and administrative field. Slum clearance is surely something which is applicable to White, to Black, to Coloured and every other race. Whenever there are slums in any country of the world they must be tidied up in the interests of public health and in the interests of the communities generally. Unfortunately here in South Africa the predominating interest always is that the non-European should be moved out, irrespective of what the circumstances happen to be. [Interjections.] This is a fact and I would like to say, Sir, that legislation should be introduced in this House by the hon. the Minister to prevent landlords, from forcing tenants to vacate premises and from allowing vacant houses to deteriorate and become uninhabitable which is what has been happening all over the country. I am referring to people who are under1 notice to move in terms of the Group Areas Act. Great hardship and loss, and the Minister knows it, are being caused to disqualified people who are obliged to sell their properties in areas where values have become inflated. That is a fact. Something should be done to ensure that displaced people, and displaced people are nearly always Coloureds or Asiatics or Malays, will not suffer financial loss when they are forced to move. P think that this is a fundamental issue as far as we are concerned.

What about Isipingo Beach?

Mr. Chairman, as far as I know no account is taken in the Act of the inflated prices that Coloured people have had to pay to obtain property in Coloured group areas comparable to the areas in which they have been living. Why should their standards decline? Can the hon. the Minister tell me that? Neither is any account taken of any rise in the value of the property after the basic value has been arrived at in terms of the formula adopted by the Department of Community Development. Because of the unreasonably high prices—and I know of quite a number of cases which I am going to quote to the hon. the Minister—that Coloured people have had to pay when they move, it is quite unfair that an owner should have to share with the Group Areas Board any profit made if his property is sold above the basic value. I think that this is one of the most unfair things that we have had from this Government. The gravamen of our whole case is that the basis for the valuation of properties needs very serious official investigation. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, I have been able to listen attentively to the speeches by hon. members opposite throughout. I have been seeking for something in two directions. The first was to get a suggestion from that side of the House which would have been of some significance either to me or the hon. the Minister and on which one could elaborate. I have heard nothing of that nature. I have listened to hear something contentious and in this respect too I have heard nothing. The United Party has spoken a great deal indeed but they have said precious little. What struck me in particular about their speeches this afternoon—and the hon. member for Wynberg concluded on that note—was something which the hon. member for Houghton started and in which she was followed. That is that there is one group in particular which is now in the forefront of the groups in South Africa, namely the Coloured group. They have been harping on the Coloured people and they were the only people about whom the hon. member for Wynberg had anything to say. It is now conspicuous to me that hon. members are now also engaged in this House on vote catching which does not fall in the same category. It is in any event a pointer that that group was in the forefront all afternoon.

Mr. Chairman, we have heard here about a shortage of housing. We all know that there is a shortage of housing. That has not been news to us. I think that it was the hon. member for Umbilo who spoke about the Government being to blame for a backlog in this connection. We all know that that is not true. In 1963 there were thousands of flats in Johannesburg and Pretoria and other large cities which were vacant. Therefore there cannot be a backlog. Does the United Party still not know that the building trade in South Africa and the scarcity of dwellings constitute a barometer of prosperity? There is only one reason for the shortage of housing at present and that is that things have been going so well for us since about 1963 that 99.9 per cent of all Whites in this country can at present afford a house or a flat. There is nobody who cannot afford it. The hon. Minister said this afternoon that it was possible for the Government to raise the means test in respect of our housing schemes twice within one year for the very reason of affording the people with a higher income an opportunity of obtaining a house. Is it the Government’s duty to build houses? Should it tell hon. members opposite to take a trowel and to start building? Surely it is not the Government’s duty to build a house for every inhabitant of South Africa. The Government does make the facilities available and local bodies and others have to carry on from there. Yet—and the hon. the Minister mentioned it this evening—the Government will go as far as doing more than twice as much where local bodies for some reason or other are unable to do that. Surely it is not the Government’s duty to do so? The Government has to provide the facilities and funds to enable the public of South Africa to obtain houses. The Government is doing so.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) also spoke about housing in his private motion a few days ago. I can only recall one suggestion which hon. members opposite made in respect of the shortage of housing. But see what kind of suggestion the hon. member made. His suggestion was that in Durban for instance the buildings which were to be demolished and which were not profitable for owners should be purchased by the Government. Buildings which are not profitable for other people should now be purchased by the Government and the Government should then let them at lower rentals. When houses are plentiful again what should the Government do with such buildings? As far as I am aware that was the only suggestion made by the United Party in respect of overcoming the shortage of housing. I am sure that the hon. member has many friends in Durban and other cities who will be grateful to palm off their non-paying properties on the Government. The United Party gives ridiculous advice such as this. I once more challenge the United Party to contribute something on which one can build. Up to now they have contributed nothing. They have contributed absolutely nothing of value. Even the information at their disposal is not correct. The hon. the Minister has to give them the right information. Mr. Chairman, that much as regards the United Party. Of course, the hon. the Minister will reply to their foolish questions.

I just want to make one request to the hon. the Minister and I hope that it will be a suggestion which will be worth more than the suggestions made by the United Party. It concerns housing for a certain group of our population which in my opinion does not receive enough attention. I am talking about a certain section of the aged. I am thinking in particular about those people who receive old age pensions. I know that it is our policy to keep these people in society as far as possible. The group of people about whom I am now talking does not have decent accommodation in the cities, and I am mentioning Johannesburg as an example, and they cannot obtain it under any circumstances. In the first place they cannot afford it and the only place where they can go is to the poorest residential area, to a little backroom in a backyard. Even then these people are exploited and they are paying much more than they can afford simply to have a roof over their heads. Those people are not existing decently. As regards accommodation they are not leading a decent existence. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to-night whether it is not possible for him to prescribe to local bodies that a certain percentage of the houses in every housing scheme should be specially built for these people. I am not talking about welfare organizations and the building of homes for these people. We know that the Government is doing a great deal in this connection and we are grateful for that. What I am aiming at is a system which will enable these people to remain in society and to live together with other people in a decent vicinity in which they can afford to live. I see it as a major solution if the Government will arrange matters in such a way that a certain percentage of every housing scheme, according to the requirements of towns, will be for the accommodation of our old people. I am now speaking of the large cities in particular because I am not informed about the position in rural areas. In the large cities it should be a condition in respect of every housing scheme that the housing should cover a certain range and that these people will also have the opportunity to live there at a reasonable rental so as to retain their honour and self-respect and so that they may be taken up in a society in keeping with what they have been accustomed to.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. member for Mayfair that in so far as he pleads for better housing for the aged and the infirm he can always rest assured that this side of the House will support him. I want to refer to a matter which I raised this afternoon with the hon. the Minister. When I mentioned this afternoon that there had been a refusal by the Department of Community Development of a permit to the South African Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion to hold, as they have done consecutively over the past 43 years, their annual memorial service for the war dead of the Cape Corps in the City Hall, there were two reactions. The first was the reaction from the hon. the Minister himself who informed the House that there had never really been a refusal but that there had been negotiations regarding alternative venues for the holding of this memorial service.

, Secondly, Mr. Chairman, there were reactions from hon. members who, by way of interjection, said that my charge against the Government and the Department was inaccurate. There were suggestions that it was “on-waar”. There were suggestions that “ek moet verskoning vra van sy Edele die Minister”. When I spoke this afternoon, I must confess, I based my remarks on newspaper reports which I had accepted as accurate. When, however, the Minister made a categorical statement that I was misinformed, I took the opportunity during the dinner adjournment to make some inquiries as to what the true facts are. With your permission, Sir, I should now like to give the true facts to the House in the light of the statement made by the hon. the Minister The true facts are that on the 28th of April of this year a letter was address to the Department of Community Development, requesting permission for a permit to the South African Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion to hold a memorial service on the 18th September in the City Hall, Cape Town. It has been suggested that requests should be timeously made. I think a request made on the 28th April for September was well in advance of that date. This organization of ex-servicemen was left in the dark until eventually a letter dated the 12th August, 1966, 3½ months later, was addressed to the Hon. Secretary of the South African Coloured Ex-Servicemen’s Legion, Cape Town. I should like to read the letter to the Minister. I should like to read the letter to the House in the light of the “onwaar” allegation that was made against me this afternoon. The letter, from the Regional Representative of the Department of Community Development, Cape Town, reads as follows:

The letter has an indecipherable signature, but the Minister can be given the reference number if he so wishes. Mr. Chairman, I want to say this deliberately to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, and the Minister will understand me if I say quite categorically to him to-night that we on this side of the House will in future be compelled to investigate most critically any statements which he makes regarding the activities of his Department. I want to go further, Sir. The hon. the Minister’s reckless or misinformed statement this afternoon is the sole cause of the attitude which we must now adopt from this side of the House towards him.

I want to conclude by hoping that the hon. the Minster and the members opposite who chose to suggest that I was being untruthful will make suitable amends on a suitable occasion. In conclusion, I should like to quote further from the foreword to the History of the Cape Corps—

Mr. Chairman, I shall not follow up any further what was said by the hon. member who has just sat down. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister himself will deal with that. I can give him the assurance that the facts will be put to him. In passing I should just like to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Karoo, who said this afternoon: We do not want statistics; we want houses. It is so typical of the United Party to make such a statement. Why do they make that statement? They know that if we quote statistics, we can demonstrate that in the few years of National Party Government we have built more houses than in all the previous years. We have a record to which we may refer, and which the United Party does not have. That is why they do not want to hear any statistics. Nor do they want to hear any amounts. We all know that if one wants to adopt a scientific approach towards the matter, one has to quote statistics in order to make out a case.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the hon. the Minister sincerely for what he has done in respect of the group of people who in the past could not obtain houses, and who are now enabled by the increased salary qualifications to share in the benefits of the housing schemes. We are sincerely grateful for that. Nevertheless, I want to make a plea now. We know that in the past the income qualification for a family with two children was R180. In the case of families with three or more children, the qualification was R250. As from August these qualifications were increased to R225 and R300, respectively. My plea relates to those who live in such houses already, and who have received salary increases in the meanwhile. They should also be allowed a share in this benefit. In my view it is actually not quite logical that a person who receives a salary increase should move out of his house. If he re-applies, however, he may in fact be allowed to live in such a house despite his new salary. I therefore want to make representations to the hon. the Minister to allow the group which is occupying those houses already, to share in the benefits of that increased salary qualification so that they will be able to stay in those houses. I think it is a matter which deserves the Minister’s consideration. I shall appreciate it very much if he can give his attention to this matter.

Mr. Chairman, there are two other matters I want to mention. The first is the question of our building societies that provide housing. In various towns those societies erect enormous; buildings that do not offer housing to people but provide office facilities, etc. We know that the building societies enjoy great privileges because they perform certain tasks. They enjoy tax exemptions because they have a certain task to perform, namely to provide housing.

The hon. member cannot discuss building societies now. They fall under another Minister, namely the Minister of Finance.

?*Mr. J, A. SCHLEBUSCH: Sir, I thought I could make this point, but I shall abide by your ruling. I want to plead that the building societies should spend their money only in respect of housing.

The hon. member should have done that under the Treasury Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I am in any event grateful that you allowed me to bring up that matter.

Another matter I should like to mention relates to the cost of housing, in respect of architect’s fees. We know it is customary that when a person employs an architect, the architect’s fees amount to 6 per cent of the cost. Then there is a quantity surveyor who takes a further 2y per cent. Then there is also an engineer who has to handle certain aspects of the work, and who takes 10 per cent. As a rule these extra costs represent 10 per cent of the total building cost of a house. I really think this is an unnecessary expense to incur time and again. That is particularly true in eases where we have a considerable number of standard plans. If an architect can draw up a new, improved design, his design can also be used. If I then want to build a house and I select plan No. 137, then that architect receives a small fee for the plan he designed at that time. This will give us much greater efficiency and will bring about a tremendous saving. The building contractor is still the main factor. A building contractor has to estimate the costs for every new house in order to tender for its building. Of course that also applies to larger buildings. To draw up that tender, he assumes a tremendous risk. If he has a standard plan he knows immediately that the house selected by the man—for example house No. 137—will cost so much to build. The risk factor for that building contractor is therefore much smaller. Of course this has numerous other advantages. It will bring about a great improvement in the efficiency of our houses. If we can apply this system in the case of large complexes like housing schemes and blocks of flats, it will bring about a tremendous saving. I think that in such cases in particular it will effect a tremendous decrease in building costs.

Then there is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. That is the question of sheltered employment. Special provision is made in the field of sheltered employment. Those people experience great difficulties in reaching their work. They are people whom we must certainly help. I shall appreciate it very greatly if we can provide additional facilities to them by giving them a residential area close to their work, to enable them to be more efficient and to reach their work more easily.

I would like to raise a minor matter in connection with the housing scheme for Coloured people in the little town of Carnarvon. The municipality decided on a housing scheme for Carnarvon and after the usual procedure had been followed the scheme was agreed to and they were actually told to call for tenders which they did. In due course they received tenders and they then submitted their recommendations to the Department as to the tender that they wanted to accept. Upon receipt of this recommendation the Department informed the municipality of Carnarvon not to proceed with the scheme. Would that be due to lack of funds on the part of the Department and, if so, can the Minister please tell us when funds will be available? I must say that it seems to be rather an extraordinary procedure to allow the municipality to go through the whole procedure up to the stage where tenders are called for and then to inform them that they are not to proceed with the scheme. Something seems to be wrong here.

I just want to make it quite clear to the hon. member for Green Point that a few weeks ago—I am not sure of the date—the official in question who had been authorized by me to act in the sort of case the hon. member referred to, made a special trip down from Pretoria and discussed the whole matter with me. He furnished me with the particulars and told me that an application had been received for various venues (I cannot remember which venues), and that they had gone back to the Coloured Legion and asked them whether other venues were not available.

There is only one in Cape Town.

There were similar cases in towns around Cape Town at the same time. There was a similar case in Paarl, where a large enough hall was available in the Coloured area.

We are talking about Cape Town.

The official discussed all the matters with me and informed me that the consideration was, on the part of the Coloured Legion as well, that there was a possibility that they could have used the Drill Hall. Subsequent to that he was informed that because of special reasons—the reasons mentioned by the hon. member—they only wanted to make use of the City Hall. On that occasion I instructed him to issue the necessary permits in all those cases.. If officials of my Department had therefore not acted in the way they informed me that they would, then I can assure the hon. member that I shall take action against such officials. I believe that there must be a misunderstanding somewhere.

But there is still the matter of the letter.

A misunderstanding might have arisen with the transmission of a message from one office to the other. I do not want to give judgment against people before I have heard their side of the case. I shall leave the matter there.

We shall not leave it there.

I am giving hon. members the assurance that if my officials had been disloyal to me in the manner in which they had informed me, I shall take suitable action.

The hon. member also went further and made various further deductions from what I had said here. The hon. member for Orange Grove also took the matter further by trying to drag in all manner of ridiculous circumstances. I am not prepared to reply to all of those ridiculous arguments.

That is no reply.

I just want to say that, in cases where circumstances arise where non-Whites want to attend a meeting intended mainly for Whites and where there is no opportunity for them to obtain the same facilities separately—such as the case mentioned by the hon. member for Green Point, where the Medical Society, for instance, had invited an overseas expert in a certain field to address them on a particular matter and where the non-White or the Coloured Medical Society was not sufficiently strong to arrange a separate meeting of that nature—it is and will of course be my policy to grant them permission, subject to certain conditions, to attend such meetings. Hon. members must bear in mind that we are dealing here with the implementation of a policy through which we are gradually correcting that which has developed wrongly in South Africa over a period of many years, and for that reason, since we are dealing with the inheritances of the past, one has to make provision for exceptions in a period of transition, and one has to implement one’s policy in such a way that although one keeps to a straight course one always acts fairly so that no injustice may be done to people. That is the manner in which I shall act.

The debate here this afternoon dealt mainly with the question of the availability of housing. As regards the question of publicity which was raised by the hon. members for Langlaagte and Umbilo, I want to say at once that the brochure we published some time ago, will be revised and re-issued in the foreseeable future. By means of film shows and exhibits at the Rand Easter Show we shall also bring to the notice of people particulars regarding the manner in which the Department can and will help people to housing. We shall pay more attention to publicity. As far as housing is concerned, I want to tell the House that I am most concerned about the present backlog in housing in South Africa. It is a backlog which has developed as a result of circumstances. Over a period of years the State has been making more and more money available, more money than the local authorities could take up. Only four years ago there were still municipalities which refused to embark upon these schemes because they said that they did not want to run the risk of being landed with empty houses. Let us not reproach one another about that. It is as a result of the tremendous population explosion, the tremendous development the country has experienced, the tremendous influx of immigrants, the temporary influx of rural inhabitants to the cities to find a temporary refuge owing to drought conditions, that a serious shortage of housing has arisen. Add to that the fact that as a result of the inflationary conditions, prices and price levels have risen so much that self-building schemes are getting more and more beyond the reach of more and more people. All of these are facts we cannot argue away, and it will be our duty to tackle this problem properly. We have done our best in this regard. In 1963-4 an amount of almost R19,000,000 was made available for housing. Much more was made available during that year, but I mention the amount actually spent. In 1964-5 the amount was R29,000,000, in 1965-6 it was R43,000,000.

Has all that money been used?

Yes.

Why then do you tell me in your reply that it was not used.

I am now referring to the Housing Fund, not to the Development Fund. The hon. member referred to the Development Fund, which is a quite different matter. The amount of R46,500,000 was made available for housing this year. Hon. members will therefore see that year after year there has been a progressive increase in the amount. We should like to and we wanted to make more money available for housing this year, but in the circumstances—hon. members on the opposite side are blaming my colleague, the Minister of Finance, for taking too much money out of the pockets of the taxpayers by means of his latest Budget—we could not take more money this year, and it is for that reason that it was necessary to warn the municipalities against undertaking tremendously large, grandiose schemes, because it was the latter that gave rise to the letter to which the hon. member for Orange Grove referred. On the part of certain municipalities, through the United Municipal Executive, schemes have been presented in regard to resettlement and replanning, even of areas in which housing was still reasonable …

Why did you tell me then that there was no such letter?

No, I said that I did not know about that letter; that the hon. member should let me have it and that I would look at it then. I cannot remember everything immediately, but when I saw the wording of the letter, I immediately knew what it referred to.

Don’t you know anything about your portfolio?

Order!

As a result of that we notified the municipalities that they should not come with large grandiose schemes at this stage where all departments have been requested to curtail their budgets. I may just inform the committee that the curtailment in respect of housing was smaller than that of any department. The Government realized the importance of housing, and the amount made available for housing this year was the maximum it could make available. We hope conditions will change and that in the near future we shall be able to make available larger amounts for housing. In this financial year it is simply not possible. We shall only be able to continue with that in the next financial year.

I shall get the particulars for the hon. member for Gardens. I am not aware of the specific case he mentioned here. I have instructed the Housing Commission that in future, when they approve a housing scheme, they should make it absolutely clear to municipalities that they may not invite tenders before the money has been made available, because in that regard there was a possibility of a misunderstanding in the wording of letters sent out in the past. Although it was stated explicitly in one sentence in the letters that municipalities were not allowed to enter into commitments until such time as funds had been allocated, it was possible to deduce from another paragraph that they could proceed with the planning, which could also mean that they could invite tenders. It was an obscurity in the form of the letter which was sent out. I discovered that a long time ago and I gave instructions that it should be phrased very explicitly in future. It is true that the Housing Commission has to investigate and approve housing schemes, and it is only after the commission has approved them in principle that they are sent to the Department for the allocation of funds, and then the funds have to be allocated in such a way that it provides for the greatest and most urgent needs of the country.

Under those circumstances, would you make more funds available soon?

In January we shall make another allocation of funds which will then be available as from the next financial year.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to research. It is true that research into modern methods of building houses is one of our solutions for making cheaper housing available. I spoke about that on a previous occasion; I do not want to elaborate on it again. Unfortunately it is true that there is still resistance to the type of factory-constructed houses we are building, but it is with great conviction that I can say that we are conquering that resistance altogether. I think that the resistance which is still to be found, is an artificial resistance coming from possible interested parties. Where-ever factory-constructed houses are being built, I myself went to the inhabitants to meet them and to hear from them how satisfied they were with those houses. I investigated the matter personally. Although there is room for improvement here and there and although we always try to make improvements, I do not think that we need to be afraid that our standards will suffer as a result of using the method of factory-constructed housing. Hon. members are welcome to go and have a look at the housing scheme here in Bothasig. It is one of the fine housing schemes where we have made use of the method of factory-constructed housing.

The hon. member also said that there have been objections on the part of the Municipal Associations to the effect that the houses are too small and that they do not have enough room for the families. That does not only apply to factory-constructed houses; it also applies to conventional houses. The choice we are faced with is either to build larger houses or to build fewer houses; to build houses of this standard and to provide more people with housing. We have set a standard which makes it possible to catch up with the tremendous backlog there is at present, and as soon as we draw level with that backlog, we can start thinking of better standards. Better standards are, of course, also available through the Community Development Board, but I do not think that larger houses and better houses and finer houses are important at this stage; at this stage thorough, durable and decent houses which provide the minimum facilities are more essential for meeting the great housing need in the country at present. The hon. member also asked whether we were not creating new slums owing to the density of the dwelling units. He spoke of six, seven, up to nine families per acre; I do not know where he obtained that information; it is totally wrong.

It is a municipal scheme of the Durban Municipality.

If it is a scheme of the Durban Municipality, then it has to be a scheme which that municipality finances with its own funds, because where the Housing Commission provides funds for schemes, the standard we require is that there may not be more than seven White families per morgen in an economic housing scheme, and in a sub-economic scheme, consisting of detached houses, the number of families per morgen may not exceed 12. If one subtracts from the total area the open spaces and the school premises for which provision has to be made, one may perhaps find parts where the area per house may be smaller than is perhaps to be desired. We shall have to choose and we shall have to cause the matter to be examined more closely in order to determine—bearing in mind the fact that our population is increasing rapidly, that it is expected that our population will double itself within the next 30 years, that within the latter period our urban population will more than double itself because the rural towns and the rural areas themselves will not be able to absorb their share of the population increase—whether we should merely build more single-storied houses or whether we should, to a greater extent than at present, also as regards housing for the various non-White race groups, start thinking of properly planned houses where one may perhaps, by building double or three-storied houses, leave larger open spaces in between, so that despite the greater density of population which may result, there will be even larger open spaces than is the case when single-storied houses are built. I do not know which is the correct answer; that is something we are investigating, but I think that we should give serious attention to this.

The hon. member for Humansdorp spoke about the question of farm labour. My Department, in association with the Departments of Coloured Affairs, Bantu Administration and Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure, is making a thorough study of this whole matter. At this stage we are not yet in a position to give you a reply, but we are studying that problem.

The hon. member for Wynberg asked that in the housing schemes we should allocate a certain number of houses to elderly people as well. That is what we are doing. Recently I opened Cologne, the new residential area in Springs, and on that occasion I handed over to a pensioner the key to the first house. That was an economic house, but pensioners also qualify for houses in sub-economic schemes. In addition we are increasing the number of old-age homes considerably. On a previous occasion I furnished the House with that information. We shall continue along that road.

The hon. members for Durban (North) and Imhlatuzana referred to Riverside and Prospect Hall in Durban. The position there, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana said, is that there has to be a complete replanning of that entire area. The roads have to be diverted; the services have to be diverted, and that can only be done if the entire area belongs to one body or one person, and for that reason the entire area was expropriated. However, I have given instructions—and this is my Department’s policy—that in cases where the houses of persons who settled there will not eventually be affected by the replanning, such persons should be granted the right of buying those houses back at at least the same price as the price at which they were expropriated from them. They will therefore receive sympathetic treatment in that regard.

I shall now deal with the hon. member for Wynberg. The hon. member had a great deal to say about District Six. I want to tell her that I simply do not know where she obtained her information. Somebody must have furnished her with totally wrong information. Let me start with the Niemand Committee. She referred to the Niemand Committee as consisting of a Mr. Niemand who is associated with the C.S.I.R. That is not so. Mr. Niemand is the Secretary for Community Development. He is not associated with the C.S.I.R. She said that an American engineer had planned District Six for the City Council of Cape Town for housing purposes. That is in actual fact not so, either. A former mayor, Mr. Honikman, who is an architect, wanted to develop a small pilot scheme on slum property which had been bought by the City Council with housing funds as far back as 1938. I am now talking about matters which date back to the time of my predecessor. My predecessor did not want to permit that, since he was of the opinion that the entire area had to be replanned and redeveloped, and that is why my predecessor appointed the Niemand Committee at that time.

But that does not concern group areas at all.

It did not concern group areas at all; that is correct. The terms of reference of the Niemand Committee were to investigate the possibility of replanning and redeveloping the whole of District Six, Wood-stock and the surrounding areas. The question of race determination did not enter into the matter at all, since the area they had to investigate included declared White group areas and controlled areas. But the Group Areas Board held public sessions, where all interested parties had the right to give evidence …

And what was their evidence?

The Group Areas Board decided on the zoning and the determination of District Six, not the Niemand Committee. The Niemand Committee did not enter the picture in that regard.

I did not say so.

The hon. member said that the Coloureds living in that area did not have the opportunity of putting their case. They had the opportunity because the Group Areas Board had held a public session before that area was declared a White group area.

They did not know that it would be declared a White group area.

This area was advertised by the Group Areas Board, before the inquiry, for either Coloured or White occupation. From that they could only conclude that that was the matter on which the Group Areas Board had to decide. I just want to tell the hon. member that the Coloured Chamber of Commerce told the Niemand Committee that District Six should not be developed for sub-economic houses but that persons who had to obtain sub-economic housing should be removed from that area.

The hon. member also said that the Coloureds had received one year’s notice to vacate that area, but surely that is not so. The area has been declared a White area but only when alternative accommodation can be supplied …

Where?

Where we shall provide it; the hon. member need have no doubt about that. Hon. members must remember that the Coloured Chamber of Commerce itself said that one could not accommodate people in that area on a sub-economic basis and that one must remove those people from the area. That is precisely what we are going to do. It is therefore being done with the approval of the Coloured Chamber of Commerce. Those who do not belong to the sub-economic group can afford to go and live somewhere else, but they will not be asked to leave until such time as alternative provision has been made.

Ten years.

The notice given for one year just means that they may not receive notice to vacate before one year has elapsed after the declaration of a group area. They may not be given notice before that time. If this is stated in the Act, why is the hon. member saying that they are only being given a year before they have to move? Surely that is not correct? It is unfair to make a statement like that here.

The hon. member also spoke about the provision of housing for Coloureds in the Cape Town area and she mentioned the problem of District Six, together with the problem of the resettlement and provision of housing for Coloureds in Cape Town and its environments. I want to make the allegation tonight that it is as a result of the fact that the Cape Town City Council does not want to co-operate with the Department that there is such a major backlog here as far as Coloured housing is concerned and that that is also the reason why the resettlement is taking such a long time.

That is not true.

I shall tell you why. In the initial stages the Town Council was informed that loans would be provided for Coloured housing on condition that only 40 per cent thereof had to be used for resettlement and that they could use 60 per cent for their own purposes. But in the overall planning done by the City Council they were continually planning on a smaller scale than was merited by the natural growth of the Coloured population in the Cape. They never wanted the reputation for co-operating in the establishment of group areas in the peninsula. That is why my Department began with major schemes here. If the City Council does not want to co-operate properly in that connection then it must, if it wants to make use of housing loans, spend those amounts entirely on resettlement. If the Cape Town City Council had been prepared to plan properly for the needs in respect of growth plus those which were necessary for resettlement, we would of course, as we do with all town councils, have found a formula for doing this.

May I put a question? Did the Minister or any official in his Department not receive a memorandum from the Cape Town City Council proposing that 40 per cent be spent on people who were being disqualified under the Group Areas Act?

I have said that initially we helped them on that basis and that was the basis we worked on, but it was because we came to the conclusion that they were not always doing their duty to the full that the Housing Commission made the provision that that money was to be used only for resettlement, and that for the rest the Housing Commission and my Department itself would take care of housing in the Cape.

The hon. member for Springs asked me to increase the maximum of R5.600 and he asked me about the take-over of mine houses. The hon. member for Bloemfontein District made a plea for the persons already occupying houses and who fall under a higher income group. I shall go into all those matters. At this stage I cannot see my way clear to conceding unreservedly to the request made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein District. I can only tell him that we shall be a little tolerant. As far as the take-over of mine houses are concerned. we shall investigate that matter. I do not think it ought to be a serious problem. I think we ought to be able to find a solution there.

Various members spoke about the resettlement of Indians, particularly in the Transvaal, but also in Natal. The hon. members for Langlaagte, Turffontein and Boksburg, as well as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. spoke about that matter. Hon. members must realize that we are engaged in a tremendous task. There is the task of providing housing for Indians in cases where one has to resettle them, and there are also Coloureds and Bantu which one has to resettle. We must realize that this process cannot proceed quickly and that from time to time we must fix priorities. At this stage the Government has made housing for Whites a priority and the provision being made for the resettlement of other groups has been decreased, while the provision for White housing has been increased. We hope that in the future we will again be able to proceed apace with the resettlement of the other racial groups where they are disqualified persons. We are still busy with that. We have not come to a standstill. In fact, we are still going faster than we have done in the past. But we have not gone ahead as rapidly as we are doing with White housing. It will take some time. In Boksburg, particularly since the Indians are being moved to Benoni, the first problem was to get the Bantu there resettled, and now the Indians in turn have to be resettled. It will ultimately be accomplished. There is very good co-operation between the two town councils in question and the work is proceeding very smoothly. But at this stage that only applies to accommodation and occupation. The same applies to the other areas which hon. members mentioned, such as Langlaagte, Turffontein and Umhlatuzana. We are proceeding with those schemes, but it has to be realized that they cost money and as the money is made available we will take them into consideration, together with the essential need to provide White housing. I just want to add that at this stage we cannot give preference or particular attention to the removal of Indian traders. We must first of all transfer the Indians residentially and we must first of all develop commercial potential in the areas to which they must be removed, because one dare not make use of the laws of this House to deprive people of their subsistence without offering them other means of existence. We are engaged in planning for the creation of other avenues of employment for Indians on a regional basis, and as it comes, so a commercial potential amongst their own people will arise in their own areas, and then the disqualified Indian trader in the White area will be afforded the opportunity of going to his own group area and doing business there. But it is a long-term process with which we cannot proceed too rapidly.

I want to thank the hon. member for Von Brandis for his support of the principle of separate residential areas. He asked me to speed up separate residential areas in respect of the Chinese as well. It is the hon. member’s own supporters who asked him to see to it that the Chinese did not come in there. He is therefore not merely asking me to carry out my policy; he is asking it on behalf of himself and of his supporters, and I do not blame him because basically we feel the same.

He is afraid of losing his seat.

The problem is that a group area for Chinese people has not yet been declared in the Witwatersrand area. For some reason or other, which we have not yet been able to fathom properly, an influx of Chinese from various other towns and cities to Johannesburg has apparently taken place during the past six months. Now we are saddled with this problem; we can prosecute them under the Group Areas Act, but what do we do with them then? One makes court cases against people, one evicts them, and what does one do with them then? That is why, when the problem began to develop, we approached the Department of Planning, which has been considering various plans for some time now, and requested it to speed up the planning for a Chinese group area for the Rand. I may tell the hon. member for Von Brandis that it is not only in his constituency that this is happening. There are many other constituencies where the same thing is happening, and it is not a case of our closing our eyes to it and letting it happen. We are not merely allowing a Chinese group to develop there; we are engaged in planning. At this stage there is still a difference of opinion about where that area should be. It was arranged a long time ago but on Monday the various departments which are directly or indirectly concerned with this problem are going to hold a discussion to see whether they cannot find a solution. We shall have a group area for Chinese people somewhere on the Witwatersrand declared as soon as possible, and then we shall resettle them there.

When may we expect finality?

I am afraid that I cannot say for certain. There are considerable problems in regard to the areas which have up to now been proposed. We first want to see whether there is no open ground sufficiently close where we can lay out an Indian residential area without having to disrupt other people. I cannot say for certain how long this will take.

Your predecessor decided where the area would be. It had only to be carried into effect, and the establishment of the Department of Planning prevented the proclamation.

No, the hon. member does not know what he is talking about now. No decision was ever taken in that connection. I can assure the hon. member that we shall not act over-hastily and take erroneous decisions. We shall at the right time adopt the right resolutions and act in the interests of the entire Witwatersrand where this problem is general.

Vote put and agreed to.

Vote 21.—“Public Works—R31.296,000” and Loan Vote B,—“Public Works—R31,200,000”, put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 22,—“Social Welfare and Pensions—R107,152,000”.

The hon. the Minister has only recently assumed the portfolio of Social Welfare and Pensions. We on this side of the House hope that this Minister will show a more modern approach to the whole question of the care of the aged, which we believe is perhaps the most important aspect of this Budget. This Vote involves some R107,000,000. We have had in the past the National Welfare Act during the 1965 session, and also an amendment to the means test applicable to social pensions, two of the major pieces of legislation moving towards the right direction, as we believe. However, we believe that the whole approach to this question of the care of the aged is a matter which requires the urgent attention of the Minister. We can see, in a study of other countries in the Western world, that almost all these countries have adopted a new modern system of social security which can bring about true social security by providing security in old age, which is undoubtedly the cornerstone of any system of social security. We believe that this is a challenge to a modern young country such as South Africa, and we believe that on an occasion such as this it is an opportunity for the Minister to state his policy in regard to this most important matter. We concede that with the increase in the life expectancy due to modern medicine, at the beginning of the century when only 4 per cent of the population was over 60 years of age, to-day approximately 10 per cent of the population are over 60 years of age. Therefore it is a problem which will grow, but I believe it is not so much a problem as a challenge. We on this side believe that the present system being followed in the payment of social pensions which are subject to the means test is not in accordance with the modern approach to this whole problem. I hope that the Minister will give us some indication of the policy he intends us to follow. We know that under the present strain of increases in the cost of living, one of the groups most adversely affected by any increase in the cost of living is the social pensioners. It means, too, that there are many people who have made provision for their old age by saving and accumulating assets but who then find that their provision is no longer adequate and that they have to appeal to the State for assistance. I believe it is not in the interest of South Africa to take the path towards a welfare state. We on this side of the House firmly believe in free enterprise and the initiative of the individual. However, we have to be realistic. I think the approach that has been adopted by most Western countries is not one of being socialistic but of being realistic. I feel we can learn a great deal from the various schemes which are successfully in operation overseas. We know that the Minister’s predecessor had a trip overseas where he studied the various systems applied in those countries. He felt that many of those systems had shortcomings, and he came to the conclusion that it was not in the interest of South Africa to introduce such a scheme. However, most of these countries agree that their systems have shortcomings. For example, in the U.S.A, they have a system which has been in operation since 1935, but they continue to improve and bring about amendments to that scheme. I do not believe that is a bad thing. The whole question of the care of the aged is a matter which does not remain static. It moves with the times and I think we in this country should also move with the times and be able to learn from the various systems existing in other parts of the world so that we might devise a system here which will suit our way of life. I believe these countries—and I have studied the systems of about ten countries—have evolved quite good schemes, but I have been impressed most by the system adopted in the U.S.A., which provides for various benefits and where the contributors to the funds are fully advised of their rights and privileges. I believe there are three main aspects why such a system would be in the interest of South Africa. Firstly, it would bring about the abolition of the means test and it would be possible for a higher rate of pension to be paid, more commensurate with the increase in the cost of living and the devaluation in the buying power of money; and finally it would provide a very necessary cornerstone in a system of social security by having security in old age. This is not a departure as far as South Africa is concerned, in that we have in existence at present a modified system of social security. I believe that the Minister would be doing a great service to the country if he would be prepared to set up either a Committee or a Commission to investigate the whole question of the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. I believe that if the Minister would do this he would have the benefit of being able to consult with other experts on the various schemes in existence in different parts of the world, and it would be to the benefit of the Minister and of the country to see that South Africa is placed on a sound footing in regard to the policy to be followed concerning social security. I believe the other countries which have taken this step have not regretted it. They have found that it was to the benefit, broadly speaking, of the countries concerned. A country such as Canada, for instance, has introduced a new system, a contributory pension scheme, which came into operation on 1st January, 1966. There are other countries which could perhaps be labelled as welfare states, but at the same time they have systems, for instance in the Federal Republic of Germany, whereby insurance cover can be bought for the community. In Sweden and Norway they also have a system whereby supplementary pensions become payable which are linked with the cost of living. People in the Netherlands and Belgium all enjoy various systems of social security which provide security in old age. In this country we realize that as long as the means test is in existence it does not matter whether that means test is amended or radically changed in any way, but basically the system remains wrong, because it is a system of discrimination against thrift. We believe that this whole system whereby there is discrimination against thrift, and discrimination against the people who have made provision for their old age, is not in the best interests of South Africa. There are various points which we intend raising from this side of the House during the debate on this Vote, to show where the means test can be relaxed in certain respects. It does not matter whether the Minister accepts those recommendations or whether further amendments are made. It is the whole question of the principle which is involved in the introduction of such a scheme. I believe that hon. members opposite are not so much opposed to the principle whereby a person buys cover for his old age. The policy followed by the Government has been one of encouraging private pension schemes, but how long will it be before all persons in South Africa are covered by some private pension scheme or other scheme? It is a very long-term policy indeed, and I believe there will always remain that group of persons who will not have any cover whatsoever as far as their old age is concerned. They will not be able to look forward to their years of retirement with a certain degree of certainty that they will be well cared for. To-day there are large numbers of old people who, when they reach the age when they can no longer be gainfully employed, are filled with fear and anxiety for their future. [Time limit.]

Where tonight is the first time that we have the hon. the Minister here in this particular capacity, I think it has been proved, in the short while he has been in charge of this portfolio, that he not only has a very clear grasp of his task, but that we can also be assured that he will do everything in his ability to cope with and promote the welfare of the people as far as possible. We want to wish him everything of the best in the great task that awaits him.

We have listened to what the previous speaker had to say. He makes a plea year after year with regard to better care for the aged, on which we are all very much in agreement. The cause he advocates, a national contributory pension scheme, we all know to be a matter which was frequently investigated in the past, on which important commissions have reported, and we know that the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions has in recent times proved that it is a wide-awake Department and is carrying research on a large scale into many aspects of social problems. We are convinced that if there is a formula to be found anywhere in the world that can be applied here and that is better than the one we have at present, the Department’s information and research departments will not hesitate to propagate it and to recommend it to the Minister. The Minister himself will surely have the opportunity of going into this matter in more detail. But I am in full agreement with the previous speaker that we should give much more attention to the problem of our aged people. In the first place I should like to emphasize that it has become essential for us to make better use of the services of the aged people.

If we consider what a large number of our population is at present classified as aged, then we see that in 1931 the aged people above 65 years represented 4.29 per cent of the population, whereas in 1960 they represented 6.65 per cent of the population. Thinking in terms of percentages does not give one such a clear grasp of the actual scope. What does it represent if one converts it into numbers? Is it 2,000 or 4,000? We then see that in 1960 the number of aged White people in that category totalled 301,000. That is a very large number of people. We live in times in which we are experiencing a shortage of manpower. Among those aged people there are talented men and women whom we have dispensed with much too soon, people who can still make an important contribution to society, people with vocational knowledge, people who are capable of doing their work perhaps better than the young men who have now taken their places, because they have the experience and the technical knowledge, and they still have the physical powers to perform it. We therefore want to plead for better use of the services of our aged people, and we want to tell the Minister and his Department that we are grateful for the supplementary pension which now makes it possible for a person who qualifies for an old-age pension but who does not apply for it immediately and carries on for a year or two or five, to receive a supplementary pension, with the result that his pension is higher when he eventually receives it, which enables him to remain on the labour market in the meanwhile and to make his talents available to his country and his people even longer. We are grateful for that. Those people regard it as a privilege to be able to carry on. It is not merely a question of their receiving a larger income, but the psychological effect on those people, of feeling that they are still useful to society, is of the utmost importance. We therefore plead that better use should be made of the services of our aged people. A few weeks ago a symposium was held on this important topic in Cape Town. There was a speaker from Scotland. There were also speakers who came from other parts and who gave evidence that this problem was being recognized throughout the world and was being tackled more effectively. Because, Sir, as I have demonstrated to you, the number of aged people is growing continually. If we look at the population pyramid we see that the age group above 60 and 65 is increasing continually. That compels us to come to the conclusion that we are reaching a stage where fewer and fewer people have to support more and more, because those people are dependent on those who have an income for giving them what they need.

But, Mr. Chairman, I do not only want to plead for better use of the services of our aged people, but also for better care of our aged. If we consider how our pensions have been improved year after year and have been adopted to the changing living conditions, and how the means test has been relaxed year after year, we acknowledge it as a healthy sign, a healthy trend, something for which we are grateful. And we plead that the increasing of these old-aged pensions and relaxing the means test wherever possible should continue, in order to make it possible to care for these people materially.

But we are not thinking only of financial care. We are also thinking of the housing of our aged people. Here I want to point out in particular that a great deal is being done to make the establishment of old-age homes possible. As far as the rural areas are concerned, however, the old-age homes have almost reached saturation point. What is needed is more old-age homes in the cities. Now we know that some time ago the Department announced that R250,000 had been made available to people who wanted to establish old-age homes, to purchase land, for furnishings or for other items which cannot be covered by loans. It is given to them by way of a grant. I know there is still a fairly ample amount available. We want to plead for the establishment of more old-age homes in our cities, and for the increased use of these means that are made available, to make it possible to provide better accommodation for the aged people in our cities. People who establish old-age homes should remember that they receive a subsidy from the State in respect of every aged person. They receive R3.50 per capita. If an aged person reaches the age where he becomes infirm, the amount is increased to R10. And if he reaches an even higher age, the amount rises to R17.50. That makes it possible, it makes it easier, for those people to care for the aged. The Government is doing everything in its ability to assist them.

I also want to plead for the better protection of our aged. The hon. the Minister’s predecessor appointed a working group to inquire into the desirability of legislation for the protection of the aged. That working group has published a very important report. I think they suggested tentatively that legislation may be introduced to protect the aged. We want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will not take the House into his confidence and tell us whether he intends proceeding with such legislation. We look forward to that, Sir. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat mentioned the question of the symposium that was held recently here in Cape Town. There was one particular point which. I think, illustrates that hon. members sitting opposite and members of the Government also believe that a great deal more can be done in South Africa as regards the care of the aged and the tackling of this whole problem. I quote from the Cape Argus of 15th August, 1966, where Dr. L. A. P. A. Munnik, M.E.C., who opened the symposium, had this to say—

That is part of the address by a member of the executive committee of the Cape Provincial Council, which I believe shows that members on both sides of this House consider that this whole question of the care of the aged is of paramount importance in dealing with this challenge which faces South Africa at the present time. I believe that there are certain aspects of this whole problem which the hon. the Minister can give attention to. Unless a contributory pension scheme is introduced in South Africa, it will be necessary to retain the means test. I think it would be irresponsible for a person to advocate the abolition of the means test, unless one also states that such abolition can only take place with the introduction of a contributory pension scheme. However, Sir, until such time as such a scheme is introduced, it is obvious that certain aspects of the means test as applicable to social pensions should come under review from time to time. Here I particularly wish to refer to a certain aspect of the means test which I believe the hon. the Minister should give attention to. I refer namely to the question of applicants who own property. We know that in terms of the means test that came into operation on the 1st October, 1965, certain ceilings in regard to that aspect were raised. We know that an applicant who has no income from any other source can still have assets up to R5.600 before the pension is subject to deduction on the basis of the value of those assets. However, many of these people have paid for a property—and, after all, the hen. the Minister is also the Minister of Community Development and encourages home ownership—and many of these older people have struggled throughout their working lives to pay off a property, perhaps over a period of 39 to 35 years. Then they find that when they apply for a pension, the fact that the property has been fully paid for is to their disadvantage. If the property has not been fully paid for, and there is a bond on the property, the unencumbered value is taken into account. We know, too, that in the application of the means that they take into account the municipal rateable value of such property. These are important factors, because it has come to my notice that there are persons who have applied for and received pensions on the basis of the rateable value of their property. Then, a few years later, after a revaluation has taken place in the area of that local authority, an applicant comes forward, and he finds that a house of a similar type and value, has a higher municipal rateable value. We find that that person is unfairly discriminated against. In one particular instance the applicant failed to qualify for a pension.

We know, too. Sir, that many of these older people come to look upon their homes as their most valued possession. They are most loath to try and sell that property and try to realize the financial pain from the sale of such a property. It is their home. It has often been their home for a long period of time. I believe that we must find some means of assisting these people to a greater extent, so that they can still maintain their homes and retain their homes, and qualify for a pension. The only way in which that can be done is for the value of such a property not to be taken into account as far as the value of an applicant’s assets are concerned. Immediately people will ask, “What will that cost the Government? Will it not involve them in a great deal of additional expenditure?”

What is the difference between owning a house and owning a farm?

A farm can come into it as well as far as the value is concerned.

Then he can have a big farm of some 4,000 or 6,000 morgen …

I have not yet finished developing my argument. The next point I wanted to raise was that if it was not possible for it to be completely disregarded due to various difficulties involved, then up to a figure of R6,000 such property should be disregarded. In other words, only its value above R6,000 should be taken into account. I believe it is possible that a ceiling could be placed on such values; otherwise persons owning property worth perhaps hundreds of thousands of rands could also qualify for a pension. That is why I believe that the value of such a property should be fixed at a figure which I suggest should be R6,000. Thereafter the value of the property will be taken into account as far as the assets are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that it is an important facet of the means test, and in actual fact the old system took into account whether an applicant occupied a property himself. That system was abolished when the new system came into operation on the 1st October, 1965. So that special consideration granted to an applicant occupying his own property was no longer applied when the new means test system came into operation. I believe that to many of these people it is a great sacrifice to have to move from their homes, but unfortunately some of them have no alternative. It is impossible for them to retain their homes while receiving no or a very small income indeed from some other source.

Now, Sir, the other group of persons whom I believe deserve consideration from the hon. the Minister are those persons who performed full-time service during World War I, the 1914-1918 war. Some consideration should be given to these people to see whether it is not possible to extend the privilege that is enjoyed by the war veterans of the South African War of 1899-1902. Is it not possible for those people to enjoy the same privilege? If that is not possible, if it is felt that the financial implications would be too great, would it not be possible for war veterans over the age of 75 years not to be subjected to any form of means test?

The other short-term steps which I believe the hon. the Minister could take to alleviate the position of the aged section of our community, the pioneers of South Africa, is the rendering of greater assistance to the welfare organizations. We on this side of the House agree with the principle that it is not left entirely to the State but left to the community as well, to welfare organizations and to churches, to play their part. Many of these organizations are finding it exceedingly difficult, for instance, to equip and furnish homes for the aged. I believe that the formula which is laid down should be revised to take into account the decrease in the purchasing power of the rand.

The other group of pensioners for whom one can only feel a great deal of sympathy, but in regard to whom the Government is perhaps in a position to assist materially, are those people who are unable to obtain accommodation in homes for the aged, particularly widows, who often have to lead a rather bleak existence in backrooms. The registered welfare organizations do a great deal towards assisting these people. They have schemes such as the “Meals-on-wheels” system, whereby the pensioner is assisted as regards receiving nourishing food. Here, too, I believe that further assistance could be rendered to these welfare organizations to encourage this system. After all. Sir, these people are in fact doing welfare field work. A vitally important aspect of welfare work is the field work. These welfare organizations are indeed a vital cog in that organization. These people have direct contact with many of these pensioners who live under the difficult conditions which pertain in the back-streets of many of our cities. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, each one of us in this House have aged or elderly people in our constituencies, and each one of us also have in our constituencies those whose circumstances are such that they fall under the category of indigent elderly people. That is why I want to discuss in my speech to-night elderly people and the treatment of elderly people. In the first speech he made tonight the hon. member for Umbilo remarked inter alia that the application of the means test “is a discrimination against thrift”. Is that what the hon. member said?

Yes, that is correct.

For me that statement implies that the hon. member wants the means test for elderly people to be done away with altogether.

No.

That is what the remark implies to me. It really means that every elderly person should receive a pension. We should then be moving entirely in the direction of a welfare state. We know that those states which are welfare states are already very sorry that they had entered that stage.

Over the years the percentage and the number of elderly people in our population has increased. The ratio of elderly people to the rest of the population, as well as the number of elderly people as such, has increased. At present it is calculated that there are approximately 250,000 Whites over the age of 65 in South Africa. We are aware, Mr. Chairman, that medical science, particularly during the past few decades, has succeeded to a remarkable degree in lengthening the life expectation of human beings. It is maintained that the human life span has undergone drastic and tremendous changes during the course of centuries. I read somewhere that the life expectation in the days of the Greeks was only 21 years. In the time of Christ it was 25 years. In the previous century it was approximately 40 plus years. At the moment it is approximately 67 years. In 1904 there were 17 children under the age of 15 years for every White person in South Africa above the age of 65 years. In 1946 the ratio diminished to five and to-day it is even somewhat lower.

To approach the matter from another angle—a decade ago the numerical relationship between the people over 60 years of age and those under 60 was 10 to 52. To-day it is 10 to approximately 48. It is expected that in 40 years’ time the ratio will be 10 to 37. Now this is a clear indication that the base of the White age pyramid is becoming smaller and that it is bulging at the top—in actual fact we can no longer talk of a population pyramid. Economically it implies that—and in this regard I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Kimberley (South) has said—that a relatively smaller percentage of people of a productive age must supply their own needs as well as those of a relatively growing percentage of retired or elderly people. And that is happening in the midst of increasing costs of living. Not only are we dealing to-day with an increasing number of elderly people, we are apparently also dealing with an increasing number of dependent elderly people. In other words, Sir, the number of White South Africans who fall within the group of potential indigent people is rapidly increasing. According to a factual report by the National Bureau for Educational and Social Research which was published in 1963, almost half of the then 308,000 elderly White people—it was calculated on the basis of people over 60 years of age—were, not finding it easy to make ends meet financially. The income of approximately 25 per cent of them was only R400 or less. But now it is a fortunate fact that age cannot always be measured in years, but also in terms of a person’s powers and that is why a person in the age group between 60 and 65 can no longer be regarded as an old person to-day. In fact, he has then just reached maturity and has had valuable experience. That is why the retirement age has been raised to 65 in many cases. We are very glad that there are so many people older than 60 who are still so healthy that they can continue being of assistance in alleviating our manpower shortage.

This Government definitely has a soft spot for our elderly people. This National Party Government has created a welfare service for the indigent sector of our community, under which our needy elderly people also fall, which is unique and which has a fruitful effect on the partnership which exists in this connection between the State and organized welfare services. In order to stabilize this partnership it is necessary that the conscience of our more privileged people in particular be kept awake.

As far as the provision of housing for elderly people is concerned, this Government has already done much and much is still being done. There is only one aspect I want to refer to in this connection. Amounts are being made available for the erection of housing for elderly people, for the building of hostels which, with the assistance of State loans, are being made available to welfare organizations or to local authorities. In December, 1965, the National Housing Commission decided to increase the maximum per capita contribution in respect of elderly White people in the economic as well as in the sub-economic group which then stood at R1,100 and R1,000 respectively to R1.475 in both cases, i.e. an increase of 47.5 and 43.5 respectively when expressed as a percentage. That in itself is a very great accommodation and it ought to stimulate welfare organizations and other bodies such as local authorities to do more in this regard.

In conclusion I want to quote from a letter by the Rev. Lodewyk P. Spies of the welfare service of the Dutch Reformed Church on the Rand. His letter appears in the Transvaler of the 23rd August, 1966. With regard to the care of elderly people the Rev. Spies writes as follows (Translation)—

[Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, since we are discussing the vote “Social Welfare” and “Pensions” here, I think I can say that in general we all agree with the aims of this Department. That is why I hope the hon. member who has just resumed his seat will forgive me if I do not respond to what he has said, except to point out to him that my colleague here, the hon. member for Umbilo, stated very emphatically that he was not in favour of the means test being abolished. What he did in fact say, was that if we want to plead for the abolishing of the means test, then something in the nature of a contributory pension scheme must be introduced.

As far as I am concerned there are two small matters which I would like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister on this occasion. These two little matters form, in my opinion, the only remaining loophole in our legislation in regard to war pensions. The first is the question of the time limit of ten years, and the second is pensions for war widows who subsequently remarry and once more lose their husbands. These two matters have been brought to the attention of the hon. the Minister’s predecessors year after year without any of them seeing their way clear to doing something in this regard. We now hope that the first task of this hon. Minister, who is new to this Department, will be to supply this deficiency. This is a good thing which he is now able to do. By doing so he will prove that he too has the interests of our ex-servicemen at heart.

As far as the first of these two little matters is concerned, we all know that our legislation stipulates that if a war pensioner marries more than ten years after the date of his discharge from the Army, the wife and children of that marriage have no right to an allowance even if that pensioner were to die. If he marries within the period of ten years however, the wife as well as the children which were born within the ten year period are entitled to an allowance, but not the children who are born after the ten year period. We think this is wrong and that is why we hope that the hon. the Minister will approach this matter sympathetically and see whether he cannot rectify it. It happens that a pensioner loses his wife who is entitled to a pension allowance, but marries again later. In many cases he is compelled to do so in order to get somebody to look after him. His second wife, if the second marriage is concluded after the ten year period, is not entitled to an allowance. This ought not to be the case. May I point out to the hon. the Minister that all our war allies have removed this restriction from their pension legislation. In Australia it was totally abolished in 1950 already and in Canada in 1958. New Zealand never had it and even Rhodesia, which is not such a strong country as ours, abolished it in 1958. as did the United Kingdom. This particular restriction was introduced into our legislation with the purpose of preventing abuses, abuses which were supposed to originate from what was called “death-bed marriages” at that time. However, I think that abuses of this nature can occur without having legislation such as this on our Statute Book. This matter has another aspect as well. The other aspect is that all our young men who are at present receiving training in the army may also be affected by these provisions. If they were, for example, to be injured during their period of service in such a way that at a later stage they could share in these pension benefits, this time limit is made applicable to them as well. They are all young men because all of them are in the region of 17 and 18 years of age. They have not even begun their training in civilian life yet. Apart from that, most of them will not marry within ten years and will in any case not have reared a family before the end of that period of ten years. That is why it is also in their interest that this restriction be eliminated from our legislation.

It is difficult to say what such a concession will cost the State, although I can say that it will in any case be only a small percentage of the amount which is being paid out in war pensions at the moment.

Then there is also the question of war widows. When such a widow remarries she loses her pension. Of course nobody can find fault with that. Were this woman to lose her second husband as well—whether it is due to his death or to a divorce—then she does not receive her pension again. Our argument is that if this widow had not been deprived of her first husband by the war she would not have had a second husband to lose. That is why we think she ought to receive her pension again. In addition it must also be remembered that widows of the last war are already on the old side now and that in any case many of them suffer disabilities. That is why I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will not also consider this matter favourably and rectify it I do not want the hon. the Minister to give us a decision to-night. We shall be satisfied if he decides to investigate the matter later on and gives us a reply in the affirmative at a later stage.

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat is himself an ex-soldier and that is why he, as we all do, obviously is sympathetically disposed towards war widows. The hon. member has asked that these widows should again receive their pensions after having lost their second husband. Supposing the hon. member found himself in a position one day where he had to marry such a war widow, would it not then be his duty to look after her? Why should the state do so? Would it not then be his responsibility to provide for her care after his death? Surely that is the responsibility of every man when he marries? It must be remembered that if that widow is still destitute despite this, she can apply for a social pension.

But I want to come to the hon. member for Umbilo. He said that the State ought to lend more support to those bodies which take care of old-age homes. I really cannot see what task will then remain to those bodies. It is already the position that the State supplies a loan covering the total costs of the building. The interest on that loan is only one twentieth per cent. After all, that is next to nothing. In addition the State contributes to the furnishing at a rate of R90 per person. In cases where the local community cannot make up the rest, they can also apply for further assistance. If the State must do more, what on earth is the local community doing for its elderly people? For me taking care of its elderly people is a sign of a civilized community. Such a community must in any case stretch out a helping hand to care for the infirm in that community. The hon. member’s request put me in mind of a story I was told by a good friend. He was a teacher and he had a very promising boy in his class. After this boy had passed standard six, he had the boy’s parents called in and said to them that they should send their Johnny back to school the next year because he was such a promising boy that they could not allow him to leave school so soon. To that the father replied that he would do so provided that everything was paid for him. The teacher then told him that the Administration would pay the boy’s school fees, that he could stay in a State-aided hostel and that for that reason the father would not have to pay any board. In addition the school fund would pay for his books. All that the parents had to do was to pay for Johnny’s clothes. The father then said that if the A.C.V.V. or some other body did not pay for the boy’s clothes he would have to return to the farm. My friend asked the boy’s father what he wanted to give, whereupon the father replied that he was giving the child. Now it is the attitude of the hon. member for Umbilo that we are giving the elderly people and that the State must supply their needs.

The hon. member then proceeded to complain that social workers were not receiving sufficient support. But is the hon. member not aware that the allowance which the State pays a social worker has recently been increased to R1,400 per year? The State is already paying R1,400 per year for every social worker who is being employed by a welfare organization. If the State has to do more than that, what is the task of the welfare organizations going to be? The State can then just as well undertake all welfare work itself. It is fortunate that in this fine country of ours we still have people who are willing to stretch out a helping hand and who would like to make provision for the care of elderly people. Here I would like to break a little lance for those welfare organizations who are prepared to go out of their way to supply the needs of our elderly people. There are many such organizations where women are going out of their way offering up their time to do this work. For that we can never be thankful enough. However, we cannot expect the State to have to pay everything. In fact, if the community does not itself make a contribution in this connection, we would be an unfortunate nation.

There is one aspect in regard to our pensions which I would like to bring to the favourable attention of the hon. the Minister. For many years we have had this anomaly that, as a result of the system of bonuses a person in receipt of a personal income of R312 and more, was worse off than a person with an income of less than R312. This anomaly grew to such an extent that a person with an income of R312 was able to obtain a total income of R504, i.e. pension, plus bonus, plus personal income. Over and against that a person with an income of a little more than R312 could obtain nothing extra and had to come out on that amount. This state of affairs was certainly not conducive to thrift amongst our people. Fortunately, however, the situation was rectified in 1965. At that time pension and basic allowance were consolidated. Pensions were then increased by R12 until a pensioner was in receipt of a total amount of R528 per year. But now this principle is being deviated from again and a small bonus is once more being paid to a pensioner. This can, in my opinion, once more lead to anomalies arising. This is only the thin end of the wedge. The situation will once more arise where a person with a total income of R528 will have to come out on that amount while another pensioner will be able to obtain R24 extra per year. [Time Limit.]

The hon. member for Paarl referred to the contributions of the community towards care for the aged. I think we all agree that the community should carry some responsibility for its aged but I believe that the major responsibility therefor should be on the State. The attitude of the State should always be that those in the community who need assistance from the State because they cannot get assistance from elsewhere, should suffer no hardships. I do not want to follow the hon. member for Paarl any further because I should like to ask the hon. Minister certain questions relating to certain headings of this Vote. The first of these questions relates to Head A and especially to the item “Accounts Division”. Here I notice that there has been a reduction in personnel from 202 units to 140 units. Despite this, however, there has been a significant increase in the provision made for salaries, i.e. from R286,720 to R346,000. Could the Minister indicate the reason for this reduction in staff as well as for the increase in the total salaries?

Another item I should like to draw attention to is the one relating to rehabilitation of alcoholics under Head N. I notice that the allocation in this respect has been more than doubled, i.e. from R38,500 to R79,000. Could the Minister give us details of the extension to services envisaged here? Under Head M there is a new item: “Rehabilitation and social care of physically and/or mentally handicapped persons.” For this service an amount of R32.800 has to be voted. As this is a new item I should like the hon. the Minister to give us some indication of the services intended to be covered by this expenditure.

In passing I should like to deal with Head G dealing with medical treatment for war pensioners. Here I notice with satisfaction that provision is made for medical fees, medicines and drugs, etc., to an amount of well over R200,000. I think the time has arrived that the Minister should seriously consider ways and means whereby all social pensioners can be protected from the nagging anxiety brought about by illness which besets all older people. Mr. Chairman, I know I shall incur your displeasure if I ask for an increase in expenditure, but it is not my intention to do that. I merely want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should follow the suggestion made in this connection by the hon. member for Umbilo, i.e. to set afoot a complete investigation into all matters affecting pensions. This question of the health of the aged social pensioner is one which deserves urgent attention. I believe there are temporary solutions, especially in regard to the manner in which the Minister can deal with the matter. I do not think a great deal of administration is involved. From the reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister earlier in this session it appears that the total number of social pensioners is in the vicinity of 92,000. In addition to that there are 941 blind pensioners, 17,000 odd receiving disability grants and then the war veterans. All in all there are about 130,000 pensioners. I believe that the trend of illness is changing quite dramatically. This may be due to many circumstances; in one way it is possibly connected with the advance of medical science. In the country where such details are available, namely America, the number of deaths due to infectious diseases has fallen drastically whereas the number of deaths caused by chronic illness has risen. Whereas in 1910 there was almost an equality between these two the position has changed in the meantime to such an extent that nowadays the ratio of the number of deaths due to chronic illnesses to the number of deaths due to infectious diseases is almost 6½ to 1.

Progress reported.