When the House adjourned last night, I was pointing out that this Act would have the effect that certain malpractices which occurred in registering persons would be eliminated by this legislation. I want to continue and mention a second effect this Act will have, namely that now, for the first time, it is laying down a very clear basis which can no longer be circumvented. Whereas in the past a person’s appearance, which is very doubtful and discretionary, formed in the first instance the basis for a person’s classification, as well as his association which, as I have indicated was seriously abused and misintr-preted in many cases, a new basis has now been substituted which will in the first instance predominate and be accepted as the criterion, namely his descent, which is determined directly by the registration of his parents. In view of the fact that we have or ought to have virtually full registration in South Africa at the moment, this is a very simple and effective basis for saying that, if a person’s parents were classified as belonging to a certain race group or race groups, then he belongs to that group. There can no longer be any obscurity in this respect. There is at present an absolute basis of descent which is being determined by the registration of one’s parents and which will in future determine what the classification of a person will be.

A third effect—which is very important to me and I do not apologize for mentioning it —is that the survival of the white man is being safeguarded by this Act. I say that I do not apologize for saying so. I think that this is one of the things of which the white nation in South Africa is very proud, namely that after 300 years of living under the conditions in which we have been living in Africa and in South Africa, it can still boast of a group of people who have remained pure members of the white race.

Legislation was not necessary.

New situations developed here and we are just as proud of the fact that we helped those lesser nations of Africa and of South Africa to get out of the morass in which they had found themselves in an absolutely inferior position. As we were helping them to get out of the morass of inferiority, we also realized that more distinct dividing lines had to be laid down. I want to ask the hon. member whether he denies that the situation has changed, that we are contending with a new situation in South Africa because we helped those people to develop into decent human beings. As those people developed into decent human beings, they started to make claims, rightful claims, and we told them: Fine, we do not begrudge you any claim worthy of a human being, but we lay down the condition that the survival of the white man should not be jeopardized by these things. Now I challenge any hon. member on the other side to make another interjection and to tell me that that is not necessary.

Who represented it that way?

When I was making my statement the hon. member on the other side made an interjection by which he intimated that he did not agree with my statement. I think the hon. member has once again put his foot in it, as he has done on so many previous occasions. I say that it safeguards the survival of the white man, and we are very proud of that. This is one of the things for which we in this House absolutely refuse to apologize, not to the world outside nor to anybody, and least of all to the liberalists sitting in the benches over there and nagging about this measure before us. I say that we are not even apologizing to them, not even to the hon. member for Musgrave. For that reason it is so clear to me why so much nagging about this Act is to be heard from those benches, because it eliminates those abuses which occurred under the old Act, in which they had found certain loopholes. [Interjection.] I shall deal with that.

I want to mention a fourth effect this Act will have. I shall deal with it hurriedly since my time is very limited. I say that it will afford the Coloureds the opportunity of developing their own national pride. I mentioned the position of the white man on the one hand, and now, on the other hand, I want to emphasize just as strongly the position of the Coloureds, because never in the past were the Coloureds defined as clearly as they are in this Act. In this Act the Coloureds are being defined in the same terms as those in which they have traditionally been accepted in this country. The other day I tried to prove this under a wrong amendment, and for this, Mr. Speaker, I must apologize to you because I did not see your point immediately when you corrected me. I proved that according to dictionaries, national and international, a Coloured had always been accepted as a person born from any mixed marriage between members of different race groups. Any person who is a product of a marriage between members of different race groups has been accepted as a Coloured. That was accepted and from both an American dictionary and a South African dictionary I proved to you that it was traditionally accepted that way. Now we have a definition in the Act which makes that position so clear that nobody can argue with one and say: “I am a Coloured.” If that person can tell you that his parents were both Coloured, then he is a Coloured, and if that person can tell you that he is the child of a Bantu and a white person or of a white person and a Coloured, then he is a Coloured. There cannot be further arguments. Those people now have their own definition in respect of who they are, who are included in their group and who the people are who form part of their community.

A fifth effect of this legislation will be that of establishing better race relations between white and Coloured groups. We know that we in South Africa pursue a policy of neighbourliness with the other groups, but we also know that an absolute prerequisite for neighbourliness—and this has been proved throughout life—is the fact that neighbourliness can only exist where there are sound dividing lines. We in South Africa and this Government are laying down sound dividing lines between the various groups and providing bases which will determine those dividing lines so that in future there may be no more arguments in respect of the group to which a person belongs. The provisions of this Act are framed in the most explicit language possible. Now the Opposition wants to obscure and wipe out those explicit provisions. This will also have the side effect of the Opposition being wiped out further than is the case at present.

The hon. member for Green Point very ostentatiously read out certain quotations from statements the Minister of Defence and the hon. the Administrator are reputed to have made, statements in which both of them plead that the Coloureds should be drawn closer to us and that there should be better relations between the white race and the Coloured race. I wonder whether the hon. Opposition are really so naïve that they fail to realize that good relations between various groups may exist without integration taking place. Not one of those hon. gentlemen has ever said anything to indicate that they wanted to obliterate the dividing lines between those groups. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Defence is not present, otherwise he himself might perhaps have said what he had meant, but he never indicated that he thought that, because he wanted good relations, the differences and the dividing lines between the race groups should be obliterated. I think that it is absolutely absurd to suggest something of that nature. I think that it is so naïve that it is not really worth replying to that. The same applies to the hon. the Administrator. He pleaded for better relations and neighbourliness and he never pleaded for the obliteration of dividing lines. He never pleaded for the definition to be vague and obscure, as the hon. Opposition has been doing for days. I really think that this Bill is an excellent piece of work which will now be placed on the Statute Book and on which we definitely want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his Department. We regard it as an excellent piece of work.

Before I resume my seat, I should just like to refer to the statement made by the hon. member for Green Point when he spoke of human tragedies. He levelled the accusation against us that we simply ignored the human tragedies which resulted from this legislation. I want to level the accusation against him that he is closing his eyes and that his Party and all the liberalists are purposely closing their eyes to the human tragedies which are resulting from the present situation. We have certain traditional relations in South Africa. We have certain traditional concepts in South Africa, and these they cannot obliterate with a stroke of a pen or a sweep of the hand. These are things which are and should be taken into account. Now I want to tell them what happened in my constituency and elsewhere, namely human tragedies of the worst order, tragedies which are attributable to this spiritless attitude adopted by certain people. There is the case of the daughter of a well-known Coloured family, or half-caste family, who was registered as White with the aid of some of these people whom I described at the beginning of my speech and who made a false statement by saying that these people had always been accepted as White. She was registered as a white person and took up employment, in another town, where she married a young man from a highly thought of family. He was a young man who was highly thought of although he was poor and who occupied a position of note in society. That couple had a little boy who was completely White, and there were no problems. Then that couple’s second child, a little girl, was born— and now we must remember that the laws of nature take their inevitable course—and that little girl was an out-and-out Coloured with peppercorns, and so forth. That man was a deacon in the D.R. Church, and at present his little girl is five years of age, and still he does not have the courage to have her christened. Now I ask you: who is responsible for human tragedies? Those people have simply disappeared from society because they are self-conscious and unhappy. Who was responsible for that human tragedy? If that young woman had married one of her own people, a leader from her community, a teacher or another Coloured leader, then she would not have been a frustrated person to-day and then that wretched human tragedy would not have taken place. I challenge hon. members on the other side to tell me what they intend doing about those human tragedies for which they are responsible and which this Bill, which they are fighting tooth and nail to-day, will prevent from being repeated. I say that the people who do not take human tragedies into account are the very same people who have been obstructing the progress of this House for days with their arguments and with deliberately obstructing this Bill.

Order! The hon. member may not use the words “deliberately obstructing”.

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I shall say “obstructing”. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister as well as his Department on a piece of work of which all of us are very proud and of which this nation will be proud in time to come and for which he will be thanked by future generations.

Mr. Speaker, it ill becomes an hon. member on that side of the House to talk about human tragedies in relation to this Bill. What does this hon. member mean and what do all these hon. gentlemen mean when, as this hon. member did, they talk about “suiwerheid”. We will be proud to be “suiwer lede van die blanke groep”. What is “’n suiwer lid van die blanke groep”?

Are you one?

I think I am. Who in this country who can trace his ancestors back to before 1800 can be sure that he is “suiwer van bloed”?

This Bill does exactly the opposite to what that hon. member says it does. This has nothing to do with “suiwerheid”. It has nothing to do with the “suiwer bloed” of anybody. The hon. member chose one example to show that if a person’s parents were classified Coloured, he would be Coloured. Surely this is exactly what we are arguing about. If the effects of being a Coloured person or a white person were the same, if no tragedy were visited upon those persons and no disabilities were visited upon persons who become Coloured, having been White before, does anyone think that we would have spent all the time that we have spent in this House debating and opposing this Bill? [Interjection.] I only have two minutes. The hon. the Minister says in the first place that he can give us an assurance that what was done in the past would not be affected. The hon. the Minister gave us that assurance. When he was tested on his assurance in the Report Stage and he was asked to assure this House in law and to assure the country in law that persons who had been classified would not be reclassified in accordance with all the “nonsenses” that are in this Bill, the hon. the Minister would not do it. What he said was: What I really meant was that those persons already classified by a board or by a court would not be affected. We do not need that assurance, Sir. The Bill already provides for that. We are here dealing with people who are either White or Coloured, people who are and have been accepted as white people, people who have been born into this country of ours because their parents were married as white persons. When the hon. the Minister was asked not to apply any presumption that the parents of persons who were married as Whites under this Nationalist Government’s law relating to mixed marriages were Coloured, he refused the amendment.

Business interrupted in terms of Standing Order No. 68 (1).

Mr. Speaker, we have now reached the stage, namely the Third Reading stage, where a very important and also extremely contentious amending Bill has to be finally put through. It is not my intention to take up too much of the time of this House. However, the Opposition deemed it necessary to fight this Bill very passionately and emphatically in all its stages, even in the Report Stage and now in the Third Reading stage as well. Therefore I think that, in dealing with and briefly summarizing the implications of this legislation it is perhaps also necessary for me to reply, as I go along, to some of their statements which, to my mind, do not hold water at all. The reasons for this legislation having been fought so vehemently are obvious to me. This Bill, as amended now, will make it more difficult for people belonging to one population group to cross over or to be dragged over to another population group to which they do in actual fact not belong. That is the fundamental principle in this Bill, and that is the effect of these amendments. This will be proved in the future. It is to these stricter provisions, which are to have this effect, that the entire hon. Opposition is so strongly opposed. As a result of the more explicit definitions in clause 1 and as a result of the further provisions in clause 2, where, unlike the position in the past, a great deal of, and in most cases decisive, significance is being attached to the classification of the parents, along with the provisions in respect of appearance and acceptance, we shall to a large extent be putting a stop to reclassification on a doubtful basis. In 1950 this Act was passed in this House for the first time, in the face of the most vehement opposition from that side of the House. At that stage the definition was extremely vague, but I do not want to criticize that. In 1950 that Act marked the beginning of the implementation of the principle of race classification. At that time the Government felt that they had to proceed slowly so as to cause as little hardship and disruption as possible. The person concerned had to be given as much benefit of the doubt as possible, actually in order to place him in a privileged position. This was why the entire classification was based on appearance only. This worked well. Millions of people were classified during the period 1950 to 1962. To a certain extent the borderline cases in terms of the old definition were all that remained. It was obscure because at first descent and association had nothing to do with the matter. Appearance was the only factor that applied to classification—classification into a group to which one could perhaps not belong because of association, acceptance or descent. But that was done. Then we came to 1962. It was felt then that there had to be more clarity, because we had to contend mainly with borderline cases. At that time the principle of acceptance for certain population groups was introduced, and it was once again opposed strongly by the Opposition. Now we have gone further. I maintain that 98 per cent if not 100 per cent of those borderline cases of that time are cases of the past. They were settled in that lenient way. Now, after we have been classifying and registering people as members of various population groups for 17 years, we find that there is a new wave of borderline cases. These borderline cases are cases which, if we did not amend this Act, would increase instead of decrease in number. We would never have stopped reclassifying and dealing with borderline cases. Owing to prevailing circumstances, it has now become necessary to effect a further amendment in the Act, an amendment in terms of which we are also taking into account the classification of the parents of people applying for classification or lodging appeals for reclassification. In other words, there will be descent according to classification and not necessarily descent according to blood. That is the point hon. members on the other side want to make—and did make all the time—and they did not want to understand that the statement I am making now is the accurate, the correct, one. The classification to which reference is being made in the new section 1 (2) is not classification according to descent. It is a classification in terms of the provisions of the 1950 Act, which only used appearance as a factor. From 1962 to 1967 classifications have been done on the basis of appearance and acceptance. Now we are making it classification according to appearance and acceptance as well as the classification of the parents. Their descent is the only factor which is being taken into account as far as classification is concerned. I hope that it is very clear now.

You sound like Pontius Pilate.

I am asking, in the first instance, all reasonable people … [Interjections.] I do not blame the hon. member for Durban (North) if he does not have sufficient reason for being reasonable. I am putting this question to all reasonable people in any country—because they will understand when they read this and when this question is put to them—why classification was introduced at all and implemented for 17 years. Why have we had classifications for 17 years if those classifications may never be used for the purpose of proving a person’s descent? If that had not been the reason, there should not have been any classification.

Quite correct.

There it is! I knew it was coming! Because the Opposition is opposed to classification in principle …

That is correct.

… because in principle they are opposed to any separation of the races; because in principle they are opposed to this Government’s policy of development on the basis of various race identities and groups and giving recognition to them; because they know that this is to a large extent the basis of whether or no we shall achieve success in this country with separate development for the various race groups along their own lines; because they think that their success depends on the extent to which we do not succeed with our policy, that is why they are in principle opposed to classification. That is why we are hearing these stories about “hardship”, that is why we hear hon. members on the other side saying “I am so concerned” and “We are so concerned” about the poor people who will supposedly be classified too high or too low. But these stories are not worth the paper they are printed on in Hansard. I shall tell you why I say so. Right at the beginning of the discussions on this measure, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition put it in the most explicit terms when he said, inter alia, the following (Hansard, col. 3191, 1967)—

He might just as well have said “with a great deal of Coloured blood”—

There we have the basis, the corner-stone on which the Opposition’s entire objection is founded. In this connection I can merely refer to the hon. member for Umlazi’s objection that in this respect there is “no flexibility any more”. According to him there is “too little flexibility”. He wants this measure to be more flexible. The Opposition’s starting-point is that this measure should be so flexible that biological integration among the various races, and particularly between the non-white and the white races in South Africa, should take place at will. [Interjections.]

Rubbish!

Oh yes! They do not say that they are in favour of that happening, but they say that we should not prohibit it by means of legislation. That is why we should not have a Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act, either. [Interjections.] That is the case. It is no use trying to get past that. In other words, if we want racial harmony and peace in South Africa; if we want to foster national pride amongst the various race groups; if we want to put a stop to the exploitation which is taking place, and which may take place, through the cream being skimmed off one race group and added to another, if we want to achieve all these things, then this Government and this Party must do its duty and perform its task, and it is for that reason that we are introducing, inter alia, this legislation. That will be the effect of the provisions contained in this measure.

It was mentioned here that we were causing people to degenerate, that we were pushing them down. The hon. member for Green Point—I see that he is not present—in his fine-sounding speech said, for political reasons, that I was really the person who had referred to “high” and “low”. I did in fact refer to “high” and “low”, but I shall tell hon. members what I said. I said the following—

There I talked about “too high” and “too low”, and that is the only time I talked about “too high”. But why did I do so? Because it was the only way in which I could bring a certain concept home to hon. members on the other side—I tried other ways as well, but it would not sink in among hon. members on that side. Then I decided to use the terminology of that side, because they are the people who referred to “too high” or “too low” first. I want to quote what the hon. member for Umlazi said some time ago, not what he said during the Third Reading or the Report Stage, but what he had said during the Second Reading Debate. He said the following—

That is where the “ups and downs” started! [Interjections.] The hon. member for Houghton has the courage of her convictions so as not to jump about. She also referred to “up” and “down”. But she explained—as was said once again by the hon. member for Durban (North)—and said the following: “… because there are disabilities to be a Coloured.”

Of course there are.

You are quite right. You said it three times.

But for heaven’s sake, Mr. Speaker, there is nobody in the world who will deny that the Whites, by virtue of the older and higher civilization they have as background and their position of leadership here in South Africa, which is Western in origin, are in various respects better equipped and doing more than the, non-Whites not only in South Africa, but in the whole of Africa and, indeed, in the world. There is nobody who will deny the difference between White and non-White in respect of various matters such as background, history, intellect, and so forth. The white man hewed his own way, and I suppose that the white man is entitled to the standard of living which he is maintaining at present and which he himself has built up. Moreover, there is probably nobody who will deny that the non-Whites in South Africa, who are better off at present than the other non-Whites in the rest of Africa, would have been much worse off if it had not been for the influence of the white man and the helping hand the white man had extended to them. If non-Whites had availed themselves of the opportunity, which was afforded them under the existing Act, to be classified higher merely for the sake of deriving benefits that way, then it would have been a different matter, but they did not avail themselves of this opportunity in that sense. They availed themselves of it in a different sense, and the hon. member for Peninsula, who is a Coloured Representative, went as far as to refer to second-class citizens and first-class citizens, first-class if one were White and second-class if one were a Coloured. In other words, if I were to carry the hon. member’s argument to its logical conclusion, it means that the people he represents in this House are second-class citizens of South Africa and that he is a second-class representative here.

Third-class.

Yes, he represents them and therefore he is third-class, really. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is no argument. That merely proves the basic difference in our outlook and in the approach to this entire race problem in South Africa. This Bill will make it more difficult for non-Whites to cross over from one race group to another race group and it will contribute to preventing them from running away from their own race group and leaving their own race group in the lurch in order to try to be something other than they really are; it will compel them to cast in their lot with that of the non-Whites and to devote their talents mainly to the education and the upliftment of their own people. This is also what Mr. Schwartz, the chairman of the Coloured Council, said at their 30th annual meeting. They cannot swallow the argument the hon. member for Peninsula advanced yesterday, namely that one had to leave the door open because it would cause “hardships” if people, once they had built up certain associations, were not allowed to be dragged over to the white group and, by doing so, to leave the Coloured group poorer than it would have been if this had been prohibited.

They are going to Canada.

They will devise plans and the Opposition will devise plans to see whether this Act does not perhaps contain more loopholes through which they may escape, and that is why I am not prepared to say that this Act will never be changed again. Hon. members of the Opposition made mention of the fact that my predecessor had promised in 1962 that descent would never be taken into account. They claim that I am breaking the promise given by the Government and that one cannot, therefore, take the Government’s word. Mr. Speaker, that is sheer nonsense, because the descent my predecessor referred to relates to blood. When I refer to descent, it relates to classification only. If the criterion had been blood, why are we not simply going back to grandmother and grandfather and great-grandfather?

Mr. Speaker, I have dealt with the primary object we want to achieve with this Bill, and I have pointed out the basic difference between this side and that side of the House. My time is relatively limited and in concluding I should like to deal with the question of objections lodged by third parties. We have done away with objections by third parties. In view of the fact that the Secretary still has the right to reclassify persons if he receives information which justifies such a step, hon. members on the other side suggested that a witch-hunt will now be started. The possibility of a witch-hunt was a thousand times greater when, under the old Act, third parties had the opportunity and the right to lodge at any time, years and years after people had been classified, objections which could lead to reclassification. In this Bill we are not at all detracting from the right any person has to lodge, within the prescribed period, an objection on behalf of himself—or on behalf of a child—against his classification. On the contrary, that right still applies; he can lodge an objection and he can lodge appeals right up to the highest courts. People who object to a person’s classification may bring the information at their disposal to the notice of the Secretary so that he may consider it. If it is valueless, he will not take notice of it; if it is based on fact, he will pay attention to it. He may reclassify the person concerned himself, or he may refer the case to a board. People who are affected by reclassification, have the right of appeal; they themselves will have the right of appeal, but the third party will not. People who have been reclassified and who are too late in lodging their objections will have no right of appeal to a court of appeal. I believe that this is a step in the right direction and that it is an improvement on the provisions of the old Act. The effect of this will be that this very same Opposition will say in a few years’ time that this Act functions well, and it must please not be changed. Another point which is connected with that and with which I also want to deal is what hon. members of the Opposition described as the curtailment of the jurisdiction of the courts. It is being provided explicitly that in this case the courts will not be revision courts, but courts of appeal. This provision can, moreover, only contribute to sounder judgments and to justice being done to the appellant. That is why—regardless of what blame is being cast upon me personally or upon the Government—I believe that this Bill will contribute to giving greater satisfaction as regards the classification of all race groups and the way it will be done in future.

Why in future?

Because the Act comes into operation now and will actually have effect in future. There are a few exceptional cases which may occur and in respect of which reclassification will still have to be done on the application of the persons themselves or by virtue of the fact that people may submit to the Secretary certain true facts which may convince him that the original classification was wrong.

Why not before a judge?

He did so in the past in thousand of cases; if he reclassifies persons under this Act, such reclassified persons will have the right of appeal. They are not being denied that. But those hon. members do not want to listen and read the Act properly. They merely want to see something sinister in it. I believe that it will also contribute to achieving racial harmony in this country and to greater co-operation, and it will eliminate the process of continuously dragging non-Whites into the white arena, whether for party-political purposes or otherwise.

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to thank the Government for the additional amount of R6½ million made available for housing this year. I think we may testify to the goodwill of this Government in respect of the provision of housing in the Republic because it is certainly a matter which is very dear to our hearts. We are aware of the fact that there is a great leeway, but it is a leeway over which we have no control. Hon. members will recall that when we came into power in 1948 we inherited a great leeway from the previous government. As a result of the normal population increase and also as a result of the flow of immigrants to South Africa, the leeway became larger through the years and it also became necessary for the Government to devote more attention to housing. I want to say that in my view the fact that we have not yet succeeded in making up this leeway is also attributable to a large extent to the fact that local governments have not readily drawn on the financial resources made available to them. I say this because it sometimes appears to me as though in larger cities in particular, for example Johannesburg, political motives are involved. There is speculation throughout the country, and particularly now that a by-election is being held in Johannesburg (West), that everything is done for the Bantu as far as housing is concerned and nothing for the Whites. If anybody is to be blamed for the leeway in white housing in the Johannesburg areas—I wonder whether the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) will not get up here to-day and give us some information on the matter—that blame is to be laid at the door of the City Council of Johannesburg. I also want to say that I think that on the part of the Government, particularly as far as the previous Minister, Mr. P. W. Botha, is concerned, and now the present Minister, a great effort is made to effect the necessary liaison between the Government and the local governments, particularly to ensure that progress is made in respect of housing, and we are grateful for that.

I want to deal with my own constituency more specifically, and here I want to break a lance to-day. We are grateful that an amount of R1½ million has been made available to that constituency for the erection of houses, but I want to make a plea to-day and I want to couple it to a second point I want to make, namely urban renewal. If we study the housing projects undertaken in our towns and cities, we find the extraordinary situation that these schemes are moving further and further away from the central city or town areas. One finds that in the hearts of the towns or cities a process has been started, namely that those parts are dying off more and more rapidly. They develop into slum areas. It is a trend one finds throughout the world. One sees it in large cities like Washington, London and other cities in Europe, where this phenomenon is noticeable. As far as my own constituency is concerned, the same process is going on. One finds that there were previously beautiful residential areas adjoining the business centres or the factories in the town. The zoning practices of the local governments have caused a kind of slump which is giving rise to slum conditions. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister to-day, and we know that some work is already being done along these lines and that a liaison section has been established in his Department, to give consideration to urban renewal and to devote more attention to it, I want to plead that as far as this is concerned we should consider whether the time has not come for the Minister to adopt an approach to urban renewal which is completely different from the one we have had so far. At present we find that urban renewal is simply left in the hands of the local governments, with sympathy and support from the Central Government. The line I am thinking on is whether we should not study the possibility of establishing a completely separate statutory body to deal exclusively with urban renewal. If there are recalcitrant local governments such a body may deal with the problem and try to solve it. In such a case the Department may then call on the assistance of the statutory body, which will continue the process of renewal. I want to mention an analogous case. Hon. members will remember that when the City Council of Johannesburg adopted a recalcitrant approach as regards the removal of black spots, the Government appointed a resettlement board, which is a statutory body. Now we have an exactly analogous case here, in that the City Council of Johannesburg is getting nowhere, despite the fact that they have sent quite a few missions abroad to investigate this problem and have submitted lengthy reports to the effect that the matter should be dealt with sympathetically. I get the feeling that we should consider establishing a similar statutory body to deal with this kind of matter. I should like to hear the Minister’s opinion in this regard. Perhaps the existing liaison between the Department and the local governments is actually good, but it was my experience, in the years I dealt with this matter in a variety of bodies, that it simply does not work. We still have the position as far as the local governments are concerned, and here I am speaking of the Transvaal in particular, that where there are management committees and where other city councils have committees handling matters of this nature, there are nothing but disputes all the time, and that one cannot actually make a quick decision to carry out a project. We find this position, which is called primus inter pares. This means that we have a whole horizontal organization system under which there is no close liaison between one department and the next. We then find that there is no joint action as far as these matters are concerned. For that reason I think that if we can think along these lines, namely to establish a statutory body which will be exclusively concerned with urban renewal, we will get that uppermost “umbrella body” which will be able to take all these strings in hand and to implement these matters. [Time expired.]

So many matters have already been raised here that it seems to me that I should try to reply to quite a few of them now in order to help hon. members to touch upon other matters afterwards or to express criticism in regard to the direction which I am taking. I want to divide my reply into different sections. I want to begin with the housing programme to which various members have referred. The hon. member for Umlazi made it one of his most important points when he spoke. He expressed the fear that there was going to be a slowing down of the housing programme. He mentioned as an example the fact that there are several projects which local authorities wanted to tackle but for which they could not receive the necessary money from the Housing Commission during the course of this year.

He took that as an indication of a slowing down or a relaxation of the housing programme. Before I go into that in detail I want to state briefly that in regard to the general programme in South Africa for housing which falls within the range of activities of the Housing Commission there is no acute shortage. There are in fact shortages, but those shortages arise as a result of the natural increase in the population, as a result of industrial development or expected industrial development in a particular area, as a result of immigraton, as a result of slum clearance and the improvement of inadequate residential units, as a result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act and also as a result of the provision for the aged, which has come strongly to the fore in recent times. A great many of these matters fall within the ambit of the Housing Commission’s projects. In other words, they fall into the category of the lower income groups.

I just want to say that as far as the lower income groups are concerned, there is really no acute housing shortage in South Africa. The shortage which actually exists is, according to my observations as well as those of my Department, only in respect of the middle income groups, i.e. the groups which fall outside the category of the National Housing Commission’s obligations. I have already discussed that on various occasions. I have already indicated that steps are being taken to investigate possible means of making sites more readily available and of finding other methods of making house building easier for the middle income groups, so that each individual will not have to have a house built himself. I think that as a result of the increased building costs it is beginning to become a luxury article in South Africa. We have done all that preparatory work, and we are carrying out investigations into the matter.

I want to confine myself now to the housing programme which falls within the ambit of the activities of my Department and which falls within the ambit of the Housing Commission. That is what the hon. member spoke about. He is afraid that the process is beginning to be slowed down. Although I am discussing this matter I do not want to refer back to the past. Yet, I want to express my wholehearted agreement with what the hon. member for Benoni said. He said that we still had serious shortages principally in those areas where, until two years ago, we had had to beg the local authorities to accept and make a start with housing schemes. Those are areas where they did not want to do that. They said that they would not take the risk of taking those obligations on their shoulders. They did not want to take the risk of being saddled with houses which they could not lease. According to surveys of my Department the greatest housing shortage amongst the lower income groups is in the Johannesburg and Cape Town areas. It was precisely in those areas where my predecessor and his Department experienced the greatest problem of getting them to make a start. They had to make a start with their own departmental schemes. They were forced to say to those people: If you do not make a start with your building schemes now, we will undertake those building schemes ourselves and we will then force you to take over, after we have built those houses. It was only then that we were able to get them started. Fortunately there has been a change in approach. To-day I must testify to the fact that I am getting the greatest co-operation from most of the municipalities in South Africa in respect of most matters. There are still municipalities where problems are being experienced, but I do not think the problems lie so much with the town councils themselves, as with a few officials of the town council who, for some reason or other, are not yet co-operating properly with my Department. I think we will get those problems ironed out. I do not think that this is the occasion to discuss that.

As for the programme, I simply cannot understand how the hon. member for Umlazi can imply that there will be a slowing down of the programme. Let me give him the particulars. I shall just furnish him with the particulars for the last four or five years. In 1963-’64 the amount spent on housing, from housing funds, was R10.9 million. That is the amount which was actually spent. It is not the amount which had been voted. A much larger amount had been voted in that year, but, as the hon. member recalls, R10.5 million which the local authorities had not used was paid back in that year. In 1964-’65 R20.9 million was spent. In 1965-’66 the amount was R33.25 million. In 1966-’67 the amount was R42.9 million. In the 1967-’68 financial year it is expected, according to the Estimates, that we will spend R49.25 million.

Are you satisfied that it is used to the best advantage?

If I could get more than that amount from the Treasury I would take it gladly, but hon. members know what the general position is and I think, where a single service is being granted an increase of almost 14 per cent in one year and taking into consideration the general financial state of the country, that it can be regarded as an exceptional achievement that the Government has been able to give this service the priority it did. But there are other arguments too, i.e. it is unnecessary to make the money available if the service cannot be carried out. I shall deal with that in a moment when I come to discuss the overall picture of building programmes in South Africa.

Are those figures divided up amongst the races or are they overall figures?

They are overall amounts.

Is there any division?

I shall be able to tell the hon. member how they are divided up, but it would take me a long time. Let me now, to satisfy the hon. member, furnish the figures in respect of Whites. We must remember that these amounts are often spent for purchasing land on which the houses must be built, for laying on services, and so on. But the real question is: How many dwellings are being provided? What is the picture there? I shall now indicate the number of dwellings for Whites against the relevant year:

The estimate for 1967-’68 is 7,600 dwellings for Whites. These dwellings are being constructed from the funds of the Housing and Community Development Council only. In other words, there has been a considerable increase in housing provision for Whites. If it is now being alleged in certain areas, for the sake of catching votes, that this Government is spending too much money on housing for non-Whites and too little on housing for Whites, then I say that it is a deliberate distortion of the facts, because particularly since last year the Government has in fact decided, as a result of the prevailing conditions, to give top priority to housing for Whites and has cut down to a considerably greater extent on the applications for housing for non-Whites than it has done in respect of housing for Whites.

It is true of course that if the money had been available one would have been able to make much more housing available, but I should rather prefer to deal with this aspect in connection with the second topic which I want to deal with and that is the question put to me by the hon. member for Durban (Point), i.e. whether rent control is not having a prejudicial and impeding effect on housing provision in the country? It is extremely difficult to gauge this matter, but I think it would be a good indication if we were to glance at the true picture in regard to the building industry in South Africa. Here I once more want to view this matter in the overall connection, i.e. in respect of approved building projects as compared with the building projects which have actually been completed by the building industry over the past few years. I begin again at 1964. In 1964 residential units to the value of R197 million and non-residential units to the value of R135 million were approved. In other words, construction work to the value of R332 million was approved during that year. But the building industry was only able to complete construction work to the value of R181 million during that year, of which R1ll million was for residential units and R70 million was for non-residential units. In other words, a backlog of construction work to the value of R151 million which could not be completed mounted up. In 1965 there were additional new approvements to the value of R209 million for residential units and R174 million for non-residential units. Add to that the backlog of R151 million then it means that the building industry could have constructed buildings to the value of R434 million during that year. But the building industry was only able to complete construction work to the value of R151 million in respect of residential units and R91 million in respect of non-residential units—that is to say, construction work to the value of R242 million. In other words, the backlog increased to R192 million.

In 1966 residential units to the value of R176 million and non-residential units to the value of R158 million were approved. Add once more the backlog of R192 million, then in 1966 there was work to the value of R526 million available to the building industry. But in 1966 the building industry could only complete residential units to the value of R147 million and non-residential units to the value of R255 million. That means that at the moment there is a backlog of approved buildings to the value of R271 million on the waiting list which still have to be dealt with by the building industry. In respect of residential units alone the backlog at the moment is R163 million.

It is not a question of the building having been approved but that the owners did not want to build as a result of other considerations. It is true that higher rates of interest may have had an influence on a few projects. It may have been the case that credit control had an influence on certain projects, but it is not true that either rent control, credit control or the rates of interest has really had a dampening effect on the interest of investors in that direction because just in the last few weeks I have heard of new projects. One particular financial undertaking is for example drawing up plans for a project to the value of R5 million. This consists of flat and business premises in Bloemfontein. The same undertaking will construct 800 residential units in Pretoria. Last week a party inquired from me how soon we would have made such progress with the provisional planning for District Six that he would be able to obtain a site on the mountain side of District Six on which he wanted to erect flat units to the value of R1 million. In this way I am continually receiving inquiries from possible investors in this direction. I do not get the impression of there being a problem in this connection at all as a result of rent control or the other factors which were mentioned.

As far as rent control is concerned, I want to furnish hon. members with the following interesting particulars. I had a survey made of what the effect had been, and it was found that during the period 4th November, 1966, to 31st March, 1967, 4,095 applications for increased rentals for residential units had been investigated. Of those 4,095 applications which were investigated, 3,253 had been granted, in other words, that many increases in rental had been granted. There had only been 312 applications for a decrease in rental in respect of residential units. These are not flats but single units. In 230 cases the decrease in rentals was in fact granted. Thus one is left with the impression that where applications for an increase in rental were received, there was justification in the vast majority of cases—in more than three quarters of the cases—for an increase in rental, which was subsequently granted. As far as applications for a decrease in rental were concerned, there was justification in two thirds of the cases for a decrease in rental. These are interesting particulars and I thought that hon. members would be interested in them.

As far as rent control is concerned, I just want to say the following: I have already said that it is not my intention that rent control should remain in force for ever, and that I should like to reconsider the position. I have given the undertaking that I would reconsider the Act in respect of certain aspects after the necessary particulars had been supplied to me but each time I have come up against an almost insurmountable problem for which I have not been able to obtain any solution, and that is the question of valuations. When we are dealing with valuations it has been my unfortunate experience that if one has a valuation made by two persons the valuations of those two persons of the same place will differ up to 25 per cent from each other. That is why it seems to me that the method being followed by the rent boards, namely of making comparisons with buildings in the vicinity and then taking those valuations into account, is in the long run the only method which works.

Have you invited the interested parties to submit suggestions to you?

Yes, and they have in fact forwarded quite a few suggestions to me. We are making a careful study of all those suggestions but not all of them deal with the question of valuation. What is the value of a building and how is one going to determine the valuation? One cannot always accept the owner’s valuation. We have had cases where the owner made a valuation of a building and where the Department also obtained a valuation and where the Department’s valuation was considerably higher than that of the owner. Then one also has other cases where the valuation of the valuator who was asked by the Department to undertake the valuation is much lower than the valuation which the owner places on that property.

Have you accepted the principle of market value?

Who determines the market value; what is the market value?

The price that a willing seller is prepared to accept from a willing buyer.

We are considering this entire matter. There are still quite a number of applications which have to be dealt with and as soon as the slack has been taken up we shall have a more or less fixed rent pattern, and the impression I have at the moment is that the number of cases of exploitation which are in fact taking place is so comparatively small in relationship to the number of residential units in South Africa which are being made available by private initiative, to judge from the number of complaints and the applications for a reduction in rental which have been received, that the time may perhaps be very nigh at hand when we will be able to repeal the rent control measures which were introduced last year. It seems to me that it will be possible to do so. We have in the meantime caught up with and dealt with the small number of exploiters which there were but I do not think it is in the public interest that we should continue to apply rent control longer than is necessary, something which might possibly hamper the contribution of private initiative to the provision of dwellings

Will you do away with it?

Yes, I have said that I will do away with it as soon as the slack in regard to the applications which are at present before the Rent Boards has been taken up to a reasonable extent. We are taking up the slack very rapidly. I am not committing myself now but it appears to me that this could be the result, if I am correct in my judgment. However, I do not want to give a definite promise too soon. But to that I want to add a serious word of warning, particularly in respect of business premises. It has come to my attention—and I had quite a number of cases investigated and it has been established beyond doubt—that there have been cases in the past two to three months where the owners of business premises have suddenly increased the rental in respect of those business premises by 300 per cent. Again these are again isolated cases; it is not a general pattern and it may be necessary for us to make a small amendment in the Rents Act in order to give me the power, where an isolated case like that comes to my attention, to place that particular building under rent control. I am considering it at present. This problem in regard to the provision of buildings and also of buildings in South Africa, is assuming such proportions that there is a tremendous backlog, not so much as a result of a shortage of funds, but particularly as a result of a shortage of skilled labour, particularly as a result of the fact that we simply do not have the trained artisans to carry the building industry in this time of prosperity which we are experiencing. It has therefore become necessary for us to think more and more along the lines of pre-construction building methods. I know that the brick industry is faced with the problem that it has great surpluses at the moment and that it would be to its advantage if the conventional building industry could proceed more rapidly than is the case at the moment.

I am aware that the brick industry is at present investigating ways and means of trying to make a contribution on their part by having skilled workers trained to construct dwellings and buildings according to the conventional method.

I am aware of all the attempts which they are making, but in view of the entire programme with which we have to deal—I shall say something more about this in a moment —it is clear to me that we will have to investigate ways and means of making better use of pre-constructed building methods. I have come to the conclusion that one of the reasons why pre-constructed building methods cannot always, as far as the cost aspect is concerned, compete with the conventional method, is the fact that if one should want to manufacture factory-made buildings on a large scale in a factory then there has to be an assured market within a given area over a period of years, otherwise that factory simply cannot be established, it does not have a regular market for its product, and consequently it cannot offer the product at the most economic price. Where we still have pre-constructed building projects in the country, it is only partially factory-made projects with which we are working. But factory-made projects are a relative concept. Even the ordinary brick with which one builds is a factory-made product. What I am getting at here is the question whether we should not do something in order to have larger units, which are used in building construction, manufactured in the factories and merely put together on the building sites. This is what is happening in overseas countries and to a certain extent here, but here it is still happening principally where one is able to manufacture those units for the most part on the site, and then it only has limited possibilities.

We shall have to investigate whether there is not a method whereby we can encourage a greater measure of pre-fabricated construction of houses. I do not want to say more about that topic at this stage because a Building Advisory Council has just been established. That Building Advisory Council will possibly have as a subsidiary an advisory committee on pre-construction building. I would very much like to discuss this entire matter in full with the representatives of the building industry and with the experts in that field before I adopt any definite attitude in this regard. I am merely mentioning it to indicate that I am aware of the problems and that I am aware that something drastic will have to be done to be able to make up the leeway in the building industry if we want to get on with our programme.

The hon. member for Umlazi asked me whether, in the light of these problems, we should not alter our entire approach; whether we should not let the emphasis shift more from resettlement to housing provision; whether we should not rather slow down the implementation of the Group Areas Act, since the people are still living in houses; and preferably just supply houses. But it is not as easy as all that, because one of the main problems—and the hon. member for Benoni touched upon it—is that we simply cannot any longer, with the population explosion which we are experiencing to-day, with the tremendous expansion of our urban complexes, with the expected larger complexes which there will be in future, merely expand outwards and be left with all the unsightly conditions in the centre of our urban complexes. Often one has to do just that in order to provide housing, i.e. undertake removals. Let me take Durban as an example. The Durban area is hemmed in between the Bantu areas to the north and to the south and the Cato Manor area to the west. One can only tackle house building on a large scale after the Cato Manor area has been cleared. I shall return to that point in a moment. That is why urban renewal and slum clearance are things which have to go hand in hand with housing provision in South Africa to-day, otherwise we shall build up such a backlog that we will subsequently be unable to deal with the problem any longer.

The hon. member for Benoni asked me whether the time has not come for us to take some drastic steps or other and possibly entrust slum clearance and urban renewal to a statutory body. I do not want to commit myself at the moment but what I do want to say is that to us in South Africa the problems are relatively new ones. Our local authorities really know very little about it. Our various Government Departments are only in the initial stages of gaining experience in regard to this entire matter. We are now following the pattern of appointing a Government Committee in each area where such a renewal project has to be tackled, one which must, together with the local authority, undertake the planning. We are appointing consultants from one place to another to advise us. But all these people are doing reconnaissance work. I think the time has come for us, with a view to the programme, to undertake a thorough investigation of the entire matter of slum clearance and urban renewal. I have already appointed a committee in regard to the prevention of deterioration in our urban areas. During the recess I shall give particular attention to this problem and we shall, if necessary, also investigate carefully what is being done in other countries in this regard in order to draft a proper programme according to which the State and the local authorities can co-operate closely, and according to which it will be made possible for local authorities and private bodies to contribute to the prevention of slum and the clearance of slum conditions. In the past three years, from 1st January, 1964 to 31st December, 1966, our slum clearance courts have only declared 764 sites as slum areas, and in only 270 cases have those orders been rescinded. In other words, it is only a small drop in the bucket of the major problems with which we are faced.

Hon. members who go and have a look at the conditions which are prevailing—if they were merely to drive up Roeland Street where the road is under construction and look to both sides they would see what conditions are prevailing in the heart of our cities—will realize that these conditions simply cannot be allowed to continue. We simply dare not go further afield and build houses at Bothasig and even further, while in the heart of Cape Town itself the conditions are deteriorating, as they are doing at present. During this year my Department will spend a total amount of R10 million on land purchases and additional services, but chiefly on land purchases. This is for the purchase of these dilapidated areas where renewal must take place. It is an amount of R10 million in one year only and then there are still the following areas to be dealt with in the next five to ten years.

Here in Cape Town there is the entire District Six area, which will require a further R20 million merely for the purchasing of land and the development of services. In Port Elizabeth there is the South End and there is also East London. In Durban there is Cato Manor, Prospect Hall and Riverside. In Johannesburg there is the Newclare complex, Fordsburg, Pageview and Vrededorp. In Pretoria there is the Asiatic Bazaar. In Stellenbosch there is also an area. In Firgrove there is also an area which must be replanned. There is the entire Jeppe area in Johannesburg, and also Doornfontein and New Doornfontein, and in Germiston there is the Georgetown area and Parelshoop. In Pretoria there is the Walmer area and the Lady Selborne area, Highlands and Eastwood.

In Durban there is the block AK in Umgeni Road and Overport. In Cape Town there are still places in Claremont and Epping, and in Paarl there is still the Old Garden. These are only a few of the areas. Do hon. members realize that purchases of land with a view to replanning and development costs in those areas alone will amount to R100 million over the next five to ten years? And then the people at present living there have not even been resettled yet. Can you see therefore what a tremendous project we are tackling here? And we can brook no further delay in regards to this project. If we do not tackle this project in all earnest now these conditions will become a disgrace to our country, health conditions will be undermined and the social values of the people living there will be destroyed. That is why I cannot associate myself with any idea which may arise that the programme of resettlement, slum clearance and urban renewal should be curtailed even further.

We have already had to cut down on this programme to a certain extent according to the amount of funds available. These are things which one would have preferred to have tackled in times of economic recession but I do not think, in view of the conditions prevailing in our larger urban complexes, that we can brook any further delay with this project.

During the recess I also intend devoting particular attention to this aspect and if necessary we will also undertake investigations in overseas countries to see in what way the problems are being tackled there. We want to do that so that we can draw up a programme which will be acceptable to the local authorities and to the Government and so that the problem can be tackled and solved as part of a joint effort. As regards the removal of Indians, from Johannesburg for example, I can say that we hope to remove a further 1,000 of them during this year. However, this removal of Indians is merely a small subdivision of the tremendous programme with which we are faced. We must not stare ourselves blind at the removal of only a few people and forget about the urgent need to save our cities from dilapidation and destruction, with the concomitant social and moral disintegration of our people.

The hon. member for Umlazi also asked me to have a thorough investigation made into the method of providing houses. He mentioned a few cases, inter alia, Tileba. He quoted at length from the objections made by a certain person there, alleging that the houses were being sold to people there as they stood, that the construction work there was poor—he called it “jerry built”—and that they would have to make the best of a bad job. I want to ask the hon. member, when in future he rises in this House to make allegations of this nature, not to rely on letters which he has received from individual persons. He must first have the circumstances in question investigated properly. I have already had all the particulars in regard to Tileba put at my disposal. But when the hon. member raised the matter again, I again obtained all the particulars and on the basis of those particulars I want to inform the hon. member that the scheme houses at Tileba were built by the Roy Bond Construction Company. The hon. member also alleged that the same people who built the houses in Tileba had been given the contract for the construction of houses in Durban.

I did not say in Durban. I said that they had been given a contract for some other place, but I did not say in Durban.

Then I probably misunderstood the hon. member. In any case that contractor was not given a contract in Durban, but in Pretoria. The work of this contractor is of an excellent quality and if he tenders again and his tender is again the lowest one he will get another contract from my Department. My Department does not award contracts arbitrarily. The normal tender procedures are followed. But as far as this contractor is concerned, I can say that his work at Tileba cannot be criticized in any way. Neither at Tileba nor at Jan Niemand Park where the other contract was awarded to the contractor, can there be any criticism in regard to the quality of his work-in fact, he is one of the most satisfactory contractors with which my Department has had to deal. But what happened at Tileba. Just across the street there are sand quarries from which deliveries of sand are made. When the surface soil was examined, sand formations were found everywhere and nobody thought that there could be subterranean clay deposits present. The formation of the entire vicinity never gave any indication of this. Only after the houses had been built it was found that at a depth deeper than normal, there was moving clay—that was only after some of the houses had begun to crack. The cracks were caused by the presence of moving clay which was situated deeper underground than is normally the case. In any case, nothing like that had ever been expected in that vicinity.

In other words, there was no proper pre-investigation.

At what depth?

Surely hon. members are aware that in our country there are certain regions which are known for the presence of clay formations. There an investigation is carried out to a great depth. Then, again, there are other regions which are known for other formations, and normally investigation is not carried out beyond a certain depth. As I have already said, the clay formations at Tileba were found at a greater depth than normally revealed by investigations throughout the country in areas where there was no suspicion that clay may perhaps be present. In any case, immediately after it became known that the houses—there were 12 to 15 of them—were being affected by this moving clay, the Secretary for Community Development instructed that the occupants be informed that they would be released from their contracts of sale and that they could choose whether they wanted to occupy the houses on a lease basis until such time as the houses had been repaired and that they could then decide whether they wanted to buy, or whether they wanted to cancel the original sale transactions. Although all the occupants received this offer, only three of them elected to make use of the concession.

The people did not, of course, have another place to go to.

But they could elect to remain on a lease basis until the houses had been repaired. They could then decide whether they wanted to stay on on a lease basis, i.e. until such time as they could find somewhere else to go, or whether they wanted to buy. We would not have thrown any of them out. After all, we are not so inhuman as the hon. member imagines us to be. He must not make generalizations here in order to make people think that we are the most inhuman and the cruellest government out. The fact of the matter is that we are treating the people in an accommodating way.

The hon. member received a letter from a certain Mr. Van den Berg. Now, the fact of the matter is that Mr. Van den Berg was the only person in the whole scheme with whom we experienced problems. Nobody else there was a problem to us. He is the only person with whom we had problems. His problems were due to the fact that, after he knew that the house had begun to develop cracks, he made additional alterations and improvements to the house. He assessed the improvements at R1,424, but the technical officials of my Department said that those improvements were worth nothing more than R837. He did not want to give up the house, but he did want us to reduce the purchase price of the house by R2,600; either that or we were to pay him R1,400 for the improvements. His claims were absolutely unrealistic and totally unacceptable.

When he made those claims and when he was told that he could return his house and that he would be paid out R837 for the improvements to that house—the valuation placed on those improvements by the technical officers of my Department—he refused that offer and threatened to write to the Leader of the Opposition and the newspapers. That is how he ended up with the hon. member for Umlazi. [Interjections.]

So you offered him R340 off his bond?

The R340 which we allowed him was the estimated amount which it would have cost to repair the cracks in the house.

Why do you not give him the money? Where is he going to find R340?

There is no problem. There are other people who were placed in the same position after the houses were repaired. There are other people who would have had to pay a great deal more to repair their houses. There were relatively few cracks in his walls. Those other people were quite satisfied to have the amount added to the purchase price. It would have meant a small additional amount of a few cents per month on their payments. That is all it would have meant.

He did not have the money.

That gentleman had money enough to have unnecessary alterations and luxury improvements to the value of more than R1,400 made, which were in reality not worth more than R800 to any occupant. He is the last person who should complain. That is why, as far as Tileba is concerned, I want to state clearly that I reject absolutely the suggestion that there was any question of poor construction work. I now come to Yellowwood Park in Durban, and the blocks of flats there. I just want to tell the hon. member for Durban (Point) that, according to information which I received yesterday, all the flats except two have been leased at the new rentals.

In the one building?

No, in all of them. All the flats, except two, have now been leased at the revised rentals. I may just add that the calculation of the rentals made by the Community Development Board was originally based on a short-term redemption of the capital costs of the building, which were actually unrealistically high. That is where the increased rentals came from.

What are the new rentals?

I can furnish the hon. member with those particulars later. I am not certain at the moment. It is a decrease of approximately R18 or R20 per month per flat. That is merely because the redemption period has been calculated in a more realistic way. I want to make it clear now that, as far as the Yellowwood Park houses and flats in Durban are concerned, I am very dissatisfied with the quality of the construction work. I want to say at once that my Department was not directly responsible for it. It was part of the crash building programme which had to be dealt with at a time when my Department had at one stage to handle housing construction to the value of R9.5 million. On the approved establishment of the Department there were 55 approved posts in respect of professional officers. Of those 55 approved posts only 18 were filled. We simply could not get the people. The result was that the Department could not itself supervise and do the work. They had to give it out on contract. In the case of the construction work in Durban it was given out on contract to two professors who were associated with the engineering faculty of the University of Natal. On the basis of the reputation of these people in the engineering world, my Department of course assumed that they could rely on the work of these people and that it was not necessary for them to undertake careful supervision there, and that it could rather concentrate its supervision on other places. I want to state unequivocally here that those two gentlemen will never again, as long as I am Minister, get work from my Department. I must also add that the contractors there, particularly in the Yellowwood Park area, were given revised instructions by the consultants in respect of the foundations for the inside walls. Look at what they did. The original instructions were that there had to be normal foundations for the outside as well as for the inside walls. Then the consultants went and gave instructions, without consulting my Department, for the foundations for the inside walls to be omitted. The contractors did so. Now the inside walls are cracking, my Department is being held responsible and I must see to it that the matter is rectified. It is being considered whether we cannot institute a claim against these consultants in regard to this matter. These are the kind of problems one will come up against if one tries to provide dwellings on a large scale at a time when there is a shortage of dwellings, and when one does not have the staff to deal with everything themselves. However, that does not mean that general use is being made of “jerry built” methods, as the hon. member has said. Go and look at the schemes which my Department handles itself. Go and look at Bothasig. Go and look at Triomf in Johannesburg. Go and look at the other schemes which the Department handles itself. Go and look at the schemes in Port Elizabeth. Let one member tell me now that inferior building methods are being used there. No, I am satisfied that my Department is acting with the greatest circumspection. That it is being let down here and there by consultants, is unfortunately so, but we are trying to restrict that to a minimum.

The hon. member for Uitenhage made a plea for variety in respect of construction, larger areas for houses, the elimination of semi-detached houses, etc. As far as variety of construction is concerned, I want to say immediately that I agree with him wholeheartedly. In fact, I spoke about this subject in Port Elizabeth when I opened a housing scheme there. I made a very earnest appeal to local authorities to consult my Department and to draw up plans in order to bring about variety in their houses. But when the hon. member talks about larger floor areas for houses and the elimination of semi-detached houses, I want to say to him at once that we must remember that there is a cost aspect which goes hand in hand with this matter, and that it is of no use whatsoever to provide houses for people which those people will find too expensive. We in South Africa are still in the fortunate position that most of our people are able to live in single dwellings situated on reasonably-sized pieces of land, but ours is one of the few countries in the world where this is possible. With the population explosion which is taking place the time is coming when we shall, to an ever-increasing extent, have to live in semi-detached houses and in flats. There will simply be no alternative. We have to make provision for the development of the country, and for the increase in the population which is taking place, and for that reason we shall have to adjust our standards of living. In various European countries I saw how senior government officials on the same level as Secretaries and Deputy Secretaries of our Departments were living in small semi-detached houses. Nor were they those semi-detached houses which are attached on the one side only, but were those which were attached on both sides to other houses. We would prefer not to have that state of affairs here, but because of the costs we will not be able to eliminate it. I want to say that we should try as much as possible to retain the privacy of houses. We are trying as far as it is possible to protect the aesthetic aspect of house-building. At the same time we are trying as far as possible to keep the cost aspect so low that it is within the reach of the people.

The hon. member for Port Natal asked for a commission of inquiry into the operation of the Group Areas Act. He said that little heed was being given to human rights and human dignity. Mr. Chairman, I want to say that what the hon. member had to say here was absolute nonsense. It was merely a belated protest against a principal decision which had been taken by this Government years ago, it was merely a belated protest against a process which has been in progress for a long time and which the hon. member will not be able to stop, no matter how hard he tries. I want to tell him that where cases of actual hardships come to our attention we go out of our way to accommodate those people. It is of no use, as the hon. member did here, merely to say that we pay no heed to human dignity, that we do not concern ourselves about the rights of people. The hon. member must mention specific cases. He must bring those cases to my Department and I shall have each one investigated. But the hon. member has never come to me or my Department with a single case. What he does do, however, is come forward in this House with generalizations. The hon. member did in fact mention a few aspects which ought to receive attention and which are in fact receiving attention. However, they are not concerned only with the implementation of the Group Areas Act. The hon. member spoke about the high prices of sites at Isipingo. Those high prices are not in respect of sites which my Department dealt with, where Whites were bought out and where the sites were made available for Indians. Those prices are in respect of sites which were subsequently developed and which were made available to the Indian public. The hon. member must remember that Isipingo is a much-sought-after beach resort for the Indian community of the entire country. Since Whites have to pay very high prices for a seaside plot he must consequently not expect us to be able to treat the Indians in a different way. We cannot be expected to protect them so that they may obtain their seaside resorts at low prices, or that we should eliminate speculation entirely there. It cannot be done. There cannot be interference of such a nature with private initiative in the country. For if we do it in respect of the Indians then we must also do it in respect of the Whites.

There is another problem. Here the hon. member could perhaps be able to help to a greater extent than I could. In the Durban area there are quite a number of sites belonging to the Durban municipality. Those sites are being divided up into small groups and sold at very expensive prices—because the demand is great—to the Indians. I have already reported this to the Administrator of Natal and he is negotiating with the Durban City Council to see whether there is no solution to the problem, because, Sir, where land is owned publicly, where it is owned by a local authority it is neither fair nor right for the local authority to make irregular profits on that basis at the expense of the non-White community. That is what the Durban municipality is doing.

There is no excuse for that.

That is why I say that I hope the hon. member will help me in this respect because it falls outside the purview of my authority at the moment. I cannot intervene. The hon. member also said that Shallcross compares unfavourably with Chatsworth. I concede that that is so. But the hon. member must remember that Chatsworth is a tremendously large undertaking where contractors are given a large number of houses to build, whereas Shallcross is only a small project. When contractors are given large undertakings to complete they can render better service and, for the same price group, give the houses a better appearance than they are able to do in another place. Becuase I had already realized these facts and because my Department’s Secretary had already gone there to have a look, I have already given instructions for steps to be taken to try and improve the conditions at Shallcross. As far as the roads there are concerned, the hon. member must remember that we do not accept the through-road which the Durban City Council has built through Chatsworth as the standard for our residential areas. Nevertheless, as the area develops in due course proper provision will be made for the roads and the services there. These things are not always immediately forthcoming. In fact, many of our white residential areas only received their tarred roads and additional amenities long after the houses had been built.

Is that not putting things the wrong way round?

No. For years it has been the custom throughout the country to build the houses even though there are only gravel roads to drive on there. The roads are only tarred afterwards. This is the case everywhere and for all race groups. If we had to provide the services, etc., first, it is going to take even longer before the houses are built for which the hon. member pleaded so seriously the other day. Let us first supply the houses! Surely they are more important. To my way of thinking the house is much more important than the quality of the streets in which the motor cars have to drive.

The hon. member also said that there was no interest on the part of the Whites in Cato Manor. But I think the hon. member is wrong.

It was as a result of the interest which is in fact being displayed that I appointed a Government committee a short while ago to undertake the replanning of Cato Manor, Riverside, Prospect Hall and Wiggins Estate, and this year we shall spend R500.000 in Cato Manor, Riverside and Prospect Hall for the purchase of land. In the same area we shall spend R250,000 on supplying services. At Wiggins Estate we will spend R100,000 for services. We are doing so precisely because the demand is there for those areas to be developed. The Whites of Durban are waiting eagerly to take over that land as soon as the services are provided there. But here we are to a certain extent in the hands of the local authority again. I am not satisfied that the co-operation in regard to the provision of services which we are getting from the officials of the Durban municipality is all that it should be. I do not want to say any more about this matter.

The hon. member for Boksburg spoke about the problem of housing provision, particularly in regard to housing for the middle income group. He mentioned one important matter, i.e. the question of uniform building regulations. The S.A.B.S. has been working on this for a considerable time now and they have reached the stage where they hope to publish standard regulations shortly so that local authorities will only have to refer to those regulations in their regulations, and as a result of which there will be absolutely uniform regulations. The hon. member has told me that he could not be here to-day.

The hon. member for Parktown touched on two matters to which I want to refer. The one is the petition which I received from certain persons in regard to the purchase of houses by groups of immigrants. I could not quite make out whether the hon. member wanted me to prohibit this. In reality one cannot do so. Any competent person is at liberty—and a white immigrant is a competent person in a white area—to buy a house. We can do nothing about that, but we can step in where overcrowded conditions are developing. Cases have been brought to my attention where three or four families have jointly purchased a house and then created overcrowded conditions. There we can in fact step in. Investigations are being made and we will be able to act under the Slums Act if such overcrowded conditions were to develop.

The hon. member has also referred again to the delay in regard to the establishment of townships. The fact which he brought to my attention I have in turn brought to the attention of the Committee which I mentioned. I may just say that I have discussed this matter with the Administrators. They maintain that no unnecessary delays are taking place on their part and on the part of the town council as far as the laying-out of new township areas are concerned. I have consequently decided in collaboration with them that as an initial step we will constitute a fact-finding committee to collect all the facts and to establish how many available residential sites there are in the township areas of the country and into what price categories those building sites fall, and to establish what the procedure is in regard to the declaration of new township areas. The cases which the hon. member brought to my attention, and other cases, have been brought to the attention of this committee. It will take a little time to make the whole survey but as soon as we have all the particulars then this committee will report to me and to the Administrators and then we will discuss further steps in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the question of persons in the sub-economic group who go over to the economic group and who then suddenly have to pay a considerably higher rental. The hon. member said that the increase is often more than the wage increase which they received. Theoretically this can be true, but in practice it does not actually work out like that, because a person living in a sub-economic house is not put out of that house when his income passes the sub-economic mark. He then goes on to a sliding scale and for every rand he earns per month which is in excess of the notch of the sub-economic group he must pay 30c extra in rental. In that way the rental is gradually pushed up until he then falls under the 3 per cent and 5 per cent categories which I introduced last year, but these are not sub-economic houses. This sliding scale system applies in the case of sub-economic houses. It may well be that a person who falls in the economic group, those earning more than R130 per month, can find himself in a difficult position. But we are going into that. These new scales have only recently been introduced. We are having them examined carefully and if improvements can be made we shall do so in due course.

The hon. member for Boland asked me why there had been a decrease of R4,320,000 on the Loan Account in respect of Community Development Council. There will always be these kind of fluctuations from time to time. It depends in the first place on the way in which we divide up the overall grant which we get from the Treasury amongst resettlement, urban renewal and housing provision. It also depends upon the number of areas in which the necessary preparatory work has been done to be able to undertake purchases or expropriations. This kind of fluctuation will therefore be a regular occurrence. It does not mean that the amount of work has been reduced; it simply means that we will as a result be able to do more in regard to housing.

The hon. member also expressed misgivings in regard to what he called the pattern of the sub-economic housing provision for Coloureds. He said that it should really be the exception to provide sub-economic housing for Coloureds and not the rule. The hon. member pleaded for house ownership schemes for the Coloureds, but it is in fact the rule to provide house-ownership schemes for them. During the past year alone altogether R5 million has been spent on the provision of housing which falls under the selling schemes for Coloureds. It is therefore the rule. Sub-economic housing is only provided to Coloureds who earn less than R60 per month and who cannot afford the economic houses, but because the salary and wage structure of the Coloureds is continually rising, the sub-economic groups will become smaller and smaller. As soon as a Coloured falls outside the sub-economic group then he comes into consideration for one of the houses under the selling scheme, of which there are many. The hon. member must drive about a little more in the Cape Flats and he will see them.

The hon. the Minister has given an interesting address to the Committee covering a very wide field of his portfolio as Minister of Community Development. Sir, there are certain matters that he raised which are of considerable importance. I think one of the important matters that he dealt with was the question of the housing commission’s programme and the efforts which are being made to provide a greater number of housing units for all racial groups. Sir, over the past two or three years we have seen a serious shortage of accommodation developing for the lower and middle income groups, and we share the Minister’s disappointment at some of the projects, particularly as regards the standard of some of the flats, which have been built by his Department in the Durban area. As far as housing is concerned, we know that important commissions have sat from time to time to discuss various aspects of the housing problem in this country. One such commission was the Piek Commission which dealt with the question of family allowances. That commission stressed the fact that the provision of housing was a prerequisite for developing a healthy family life and for producing bigger white families. The provision of housing is an important factor therefore in promoting the welfare of our people.

Sir, we all look forward to the time when the Minister will be able to withdraw rent control and when it will be left to private enterprise and free competition, but that will be impossible until such time as the backlog in the provision of housing has been undertaken and until such time as the elementary economic law of supply and demand once again prevails. In the interim it is obvious that people in the lower income groups in particular have to receive protection by way of rent control. It is hoped that in the not too distant future the Minister will be able to withdraw rent control to a certain extent so as to enable the law of supply and demand to prevail once again.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the action of certain types of landlords who owned business premises. The hon. the Minister is aware of the fact that some of these landlords have seen fit to increase rentals very steeply upon the expiration of existing leases. The small shopkeepers, of whom there are considerable numbers in my constituency, and many thousands throughout the Republic, look to the hon. the Minister to issue a warning to those landlords not to raise their rentals to such an extent that it becomes necessary to impose rent control so as to protect their tenants.

Then I wish to say a few words about the working of the Department and of the various projects which fall under the Minister’s Department. I have in mind particularly the Department’s slowness in the handling of applications for the erection of important projects where funds are made available by the National Housing Commission to local authorities. I am thinking here particularly of organizations that wish to erect homes for the aged and other institutions of a welfare nature. As you know, Sir, a most comprehensive housing code was issued to all local authorities and guidance was given to them as to the method of dealing with applications for schemes for aged Whites, Coloureds and Indians undertaken by registered welfare organizations. It would appear, however, that somewhere in the administration there is a bottleneck in dealing with these various applications. This is an important matter because many of these organizations are formed with the specific purpose of establishing a particular home for the aged or a particular institution. They rely to a great extent upon public support, and it becomes very difficult for the management committees of these organizations to maintain a degree of enthusiasm when there are long, protracted dealings with the Department of Community Development and also with the local authorities.

I understand that the Department of Community Development had a steering committee of the National Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. On this committee the Departments of Social Welfare and Pensions, Health, Community Development and, of course, the C.S.I.R. were represented. The information that was furnished by this committee was circulated to local authorities, and the local authorities have obviously placed this information at the disposal of the various welfare organizations.

Sir, I believe that the hon. the Minstier will have to give more sympathetic consideration to the question of increasing the allocations in respect of the different categories of accommodation that may be provided. According to this report there are three categories of accommodation as far as homes for the aged are concerned. Provision is made under (a) for double occupancy, for self-contained and semidetached units for aged couples, and under (b) for single and double rooms for residents who are normally healthy but not able to manage for themselves, and under fc) provision is made for the accommodation of physically and mentally infirm residents in need of care and nursing. These organizations are subject to a formula in terms of which the per capita cost has to be restricted. Under category (a) the per capita amount per resident is R1,400; under category (b) the amount is R1,600 per resident, if it is a single room; in the case of a double room it is R1,350 per resident, and in the case of sick-rooms the amount is R1,300 per bed resident. Under category (c), the most expensive group of all, the per capita amount is R1,750 per resident. In the case of category (a) accommodation, if the income does not exceed R46 per month, these funds are made available at one-twentieth per cent. In the case of persons whose incomes do not exceed R50 per month the money is made available at ¾ per cent. In the case of the third group, namely those aged persons whose income exceeds R90 per month, the money is made available at the economic rate of interest.

The position is that in erecting a home for the aged it is most difficult to try to establish such a home with the ever-increasing cost of building that is taking place. Figures have recently shown that in 1961 building costs amounted to R4.50 per square foot, but it has now risen at the end of 1966, to R7 per square foot. Therefore these organizations are dependent on the Department. The local authorities are to blame to a certain extent, but they are also dependent on the Department for the expeditious handling of these applications for loans. Where a long period elapses, the continual increase in the building cost is to the disadvantage of the organizations concerned. It means that they are then called upon to raise a greater sum of money as their share of the cost of such a project. Therefore I think a method should be devised whereby these matters can be more expeditiously dealt with. For instance, in Durban I know of two homes for the aged in connection with which negotiations have been taking place for a number of years and still very little headway indeed has been made. There is a long-felt need for this type of accommodation. One of these organizations which plans to provide accommodation for over 450 residents has now been negotiating for over three years to try to obtain the loan and permission to proceed with the establishment rtf that much-needed home for aged persons. There is also an acute shortage of accommodation for the frail and infirm aged, and another organization which has been endeavouring to build a home to provide accommodation for nearly 190 frail and infirm old people have had a similar experience in their struggle to obtain the permission of the Department to proceed with their project. That project is one to which the public has made generous contributions, but many members of the public soon get tired when the organization takes such a long time before they can proceed with the establishment of such a home. [Time expired.]

I have listened to the discussion on this Vote for a long time, and if I have to sum up the debate, I must say that the opposite side of the House has placed the emphasis mostly on the housing shortage. That brings me at once to the question why there actually is such a housing shortage. Firstly, I feel that the shortage is due to the normal population increase, or the population explosion, as the Minister called it; and secondly, it is due to immigration; thirdly, to the expansion in the industrial field, where a great deal of housing had to be supplied. But then the hon. member for Durban (Point) introduced a fourth reason, to which I want to refer. He said that it was actually due to the resettlement of people, which the Government had to carry out in consequence of its ideological schemes. But if we take him at his word, and I would agree that there is in fact a housing shortage, we should say that that shortage is due to a fifth reason. This is that the previous government failed to do its duty to the people by providing adequate housing. But if one says that, hon. members on the opposite side say, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) also said the other day, that there was a war going on. That is the only reason they want to advance, but that old horse has become so hackneyed that I do not want to spend any time on it. If one looks at the hon. member and all the dust he is raising here, I actually want to say that it is no more than a windstorm; and if I say that he is the hon. member for Durban (Point), then I should add that it is more wind than point. The actual reason why hon. members on the opposite side accuse the Government of not providing enough housing for the people, is that they want to cover up the fact that they neglected their duty scandalously.

I want to ask the hon. members on the opposite side, and in particular the hon. member for Durban (Point), in view of the fact that they placed so much emphasis on the fact that the Government had to provide housing because its separate development legislation requires that approximately 40 per cent of those houses shall be allocated to people who have to be resettled: Are they opposed to the fact that those people have to be resettled? I hope he will reply to that, but he will never reply by saying that he is in favour of it or against it. He will never say that, because this Government has to clear up the mess his Party made. They were the ones who allowed the situation to develop on the Cape Flats where there was a house behind every shrub, built of hessian or paper or cardboard, in which several families lived. They allowed those complexes to develop around the cities. Their deceased leader said: “Let things develop”, and they let things develop anyhow. Because those people never applied for houses —because there were no houses and one does not apply for something which does not exist —the magnitude of the shortage was never placed on record. But now that this Government has increased the standard of living so much and has provided houses for those people to live in, every non-white with a family comes along and asks for a house; and quite rightly too, because we have provided houses,170,000 houses, for those people. And yet the hon. member says that we have not provided enough houses for Whites. But since 1948 we have provided 100,000 houses for Whites. If one adds up these two figures—altogether 270,000 houses—and one refers to the hon. member’s own words, namely that 40 per cent was intended for resettled persons, it leaves 67,000 houses which we had to build for occupation by people who lived in hovels and under bushes as a result of their policy. If there had been no need to resettle them, those 67,000 families could have lived in decent houses long ago. For that reason I blame this housing shortage largely on that Party on the opposite side, and the charge they level against this Government, I fling back in their teeth. If they had done their duty, there would have been no need for us to accommodate all those people. [Interjection.] I said the hon. member was more wind than point, but if I look at him he appears to be more flesh than spirit. He is not a very great spirit either, because he does not even have the decency to sit up if he wants to say something; he is asleep.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it. I want to continue by saying that in view of the fact that this Government provided housing to the tune of 100,000 houses for Whites, and the Minister has just announced that he is still doing so at a rate of approximately 7,000 to 8,000 a year, I do not think the Opposition is entitled to accuse the Government of not doing enough for housing. I feel the Government has gone out of its way to care for people who were neglected by the United Party, those thousands of people in the slums, whom we have had to resettle. And yet they have the temerity to say that we are not doing enough.

I want to conclude by saying that if ever there was a government which did something for housing it is this Government, which has gone out of its way to help to provide houses for the less privileged.

Before concluding I just want to make a request to the hon. the Minister. I want to ask the Minister whether he will not consider expediting the scheme which has already been commenced with at Kimberley, along the road from Kimberley to the Free State, because the housing shortage in Kimberley is acute. Kimberley is expanding tremendously, and we should like to see that scheme expedited. A second question I should like to ask the Minister is whether more houses cannot be built at the Ganspan settlement. We have the land there, and we should like these two projects to be expedited. [Time expired.]

There are some matters I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first is actually a matter affecting the hon. member for Peninsula, but I raise it with his permission and because the people approached me. During the past weeks I have had quite a few dealings with members of the Indian community, amongst whom the story is being spread that Ryelands Estate, which is now the proclaimed Indian area of Cape Town, will be proclaimed a Coloured area because it is a small spot in the midst of the large Coloured complex. As I understand, this has caused great alarm. As the hon. the Minister knows himself numerous people have bought land and built houses in Ryelands Estate since it was proclaimed an Indian area. Some business people in the Indian community spent a great deal of money on their houses, and now there is concern that they may be re-settled once again. I should like to have a reply from the Minister in that regard. I have my own opinion on the matter and I have given it to those people, but I should like to hear officially from the Minister whether there are any such intentions.

In the same connection—and this gives one an indication of what lies behind everything; in my view what lies behind the rumours is of a dual nature. The first is a deliberate attempt to cause unrest, and the second is an attempt at exploitation. There are people who own more than one plot. I know of one person who bought 16 plots years ago. They have been given to understand that if it becomes a Coloured area, a ceiling will be placed on the sale price of the plots, and they are told that they should rather sell them quickly. It is therefore clear what may be at the back of the rumours. Moreover, the people are given to understand, those who own more than one plot, that a ceiling will be placed on it, because where a Coloured housing scheme is developed people are not allowed to buy more than one plot, which we can understand, of course: this is to prevent speculation. But as the Minister rightly pointed out, private initiative cannot be curbed altogether, as in the case of Isipingo. I should like the Minister to explain that aspect to us.

There is another matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister once again. I did bring it to the attention of his predecessor. In 1960, after I had taken part in the debate on this Vote, the then Minister gave this undertaking. He dealt with various aspects of resettlement and he gave the undertaking that no person would be put out of his house or told to leave his house before alternative housing was available. I should like to bring it to the Minister’s attention that at the time when District Six was under consideration, I made representations to the committee of enquiry to the effect that it should remain a Coloured area because it was traditionally a Coloured area. District Six was then in fact proclaimed a Coloured area. In my view it should not have been proclaimed a Coloured area, but a slum area which should be re-planned, and it goes without saying that as it would then be demolished progressively —because surely one could not renovate it— the people would have to be re-settled somewhere, and the agitation that has arisen could then quite possibly have been avoided. When District Six was proclaimed a Coloured area, people who had absolutely nothing to do with the matter and who had no interest in it, but who were merely seeking publicity and perhaps also had ulterior motives, amongst them the former Mayor of Cape Town, made Press statements about it, in which it was stated that people would be forced from their houses and that the fruit stalls on the Grand Parade would disappear and the flower sellers be driven from Adderley Street, etc. At the time the present Minister’s predecessor emphasized once again that people would not be given notice to leave their houses until alternative housing was available. But I can assure the hon. the Minister, particularly with a view to a meeting which is to be held in Cape Town to-night, as I understand, that it will be appropriate to place on record that this is still the policy of the Department and that if so-called disqualified persons find themselves in a proclaimed area which is earmarked for another group, no action will be taken before alternative housing is available for them. I can assure the Minister that it will eliminate great concern.

I give you that assurance right now.

I accept that. I know that is the policy, but the hon. the Minister would be surprised to know how many people enquire about it continually, throughout my entire constituency and in particular in Cape Town. I have been living here for the past 30 years, and people know me and come to see me at home, and they do not know when they will have to move. Time and again this is the result of the fact that people exploit the matter for political purposes, or, if he is an owner, to persuade him to sell at the amount they want to pay for it, because the owner has to move in any event.

Then there is the question of mosques in areas proclaimed white areas. I know this is a delicate problem. Under the religious creed of the Moslems the land on which a mosque is standing becomes consecrated land once that mosque has been consecrated. That land may therefore not be alienated. I regret that the hon. member for Karoo is absent, because he will know about the debacle which took place in Kimberley some years ago over such a mosque. I am prepared to discuss this matter privately with the hon. the Minister. I have done a considerable deal of thinking about this, and I have also talked to the imams and the sheiks of the Moslem communities. Once the replanning and redevelopment of South End in Port Elizabeth, for example, have been completed, one will find that if the mosque is left standing there, the Moslems will have to build a new mosque. Under their religious creed, however, they may accept no price of sale for the present mosque. The hon. Minister will have to think about this, and if he feels that I can be of any assistance to him, I would gladly discuss the matter with him.

Previous speakers referred to the quality of the work performed by contractors, and the hon. the Minister has already referred to those speeches. My father was a builder for many years, and as I have therefore some knowledge of the matter, I can see the problem in this connection. But there is another aspect to which the Minister and his Department may give careful consideration, if they are not already doing so, and that is the way in which local authorities supervise the execution of the building work. In this regard I am thinking of two areas in my constituency. The first is Bethelsdorp, where there is a sub-economic housing programme consisting of semi-detached houses. I carried out a personal investigation there. I would not discuss a matter here unless I had personal experience of it. One should not make allegations here on hearsay. Well, in the case of Bethelsdorp there are such cracks in the walls that there is virtually no privacy between the occupants of one semi-detached house and the occupants next-door. I do not think those cracks are due to the presence of a clay layer, because the soil there is quite different. It appears that the work there was clearly of a very poor quality. I must admit that this particular scheme was completed quite a while ago. Perhaps the quality of the work there has already been brought to the attention of the Minister, and better supervision is now exercised. I can give the Minister the assurance, however, that this kind of thing did occur. Jerry building is an easy way for contractors to make money if they are building for the Government. Or could it be that the municipality concerned does not exercise proper supervision? [Time expired.]

If one looks at the report of the Department of Community Development, one wishes in the first place to thank the Minister and the Department for it. But the report is old. In this regard we appreciate, of course, that the Department’s other commitments do not make it possible for it to publish a report more regularly. What is striking, however, is the fact that this Department started as a small subdivision of the Department of Housing and that it has since expanded to the point where it is the largest Department in the Public Service at present. The Department of Community Development is the Department which has the greatest effect on our national life at present. It plays a most important part. In the field of housing it is responsible for the welfare and prosperity of all four population groups in the Republic. Having regard to this, we have to admit that the Department is carrying out this great and responsible task most successfully. No matter what population group we may consider, we shall see what a great task the Department has already fulfilled in providing housing to our people. It is a vast task, and the person who would say that there is no longer a housing shortage would most certainly be a stranger in Jerusalem. On the other hand, the person who says that nothing is being done is most certainly blind and is going about the country with his eyes shut.

On this occasion I should like to raise the constitution of rent boards with the Minister. A new policy is being applied in this regard, in that part-time rent boards are being abolished and replaced by full-time rent boards in respect of certain areas. Thus, for example, the part-time rent boards for Brakpan, Boksburg, Springs, Benoni and Nigel have been abolished, and in their stead a fulltime rent board has been established to cover all these East Rand towns. It is a vast area which has to be covered by this full-time rent board. Germiston has now been grouped with Johannesburg, whereas both Alberton and Kempton Park still have part-time rent boards. I want to ask the Minister whether he does not also think that the time has come to investigate this matter thoroughly—I mean a new demarcation of areas. We are experiencing problems under the present dispensation, and we are convinced that a new demarcation of areas—those towns which belong together and which have common interests should be joined together—will enable fulltime rent boards to function more efficiently.

I also want to bring certain illegal practices to the attention of the Minister, practices which are still taking place at the moment. We have applied rent control to certain buildings. We are making every attempt to meet this housing shortage. But what do we find? What are unscrupulous persons doing to exploit this housing shortage? We find that where mines on the East Rand are no longer operating, and where those mining houses are now put up for sale, companies are buying in those mining houses. And what do they do? Instead of going to the rent board to obtain a rent determination, and then letting those houses, they enter into a hire-purchase contract with such a person. The hire-purchase contract is as follows: The person’s rent will come to R20 a month, but then a further R20 a month is charged as an option fee, in order that that person may eventually become the owner of the house. Then this person also has to pay the municipal rates. By this method these companies are exploiting our people blatantly. I want to ask: Is a person entitled to charge a monthly option fee if he sells such a house to a person? Should a term not be specified after which that option will lapse, say three months? This is one of the things we are now confronted with. I hope and trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to this matter, and that we shall put paid to this illegal practice which is rearing its head on the East Rand, particularly as regards the mining houses which are now becoming empty. The option fee these people have to pay every month is something which should be nipped in the bud.

I have another matter which I also want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister this afternoon. It is a new suggestion, and I do not know whether it has been made before. While we are providing housing to all our different income groups, we find that the greatest problem newly-wed couples are experiencing nowadays is the following: As soon as they have acquired the house, they experience tremendous financial problems to furnish it properly, as a result of the high rate of interest applicable to furniture at present, and also to refrigerators and electric stoves. Has the time not come that the Deparment should go even further to help our young people and our less privileged persons in the various income groups by seeing whether they cannot provide furnished housing to these people, in order that it may not be necessary for them to pay that high rate of interest on furniture, refrigerators and electric stoves? If we can succeed in providing furnished houses to these people at the same rate of interest, namely 8 per cent or 9 per cent, we shall be conferring a benefit on them. It will be a good deed to provide these good families, white families which we would so much like to see in the country, with furnished houses. Nowadays hardly anybody can afford to bring a child into the world if he wants to start a household. I make this plea to the Minister. If it can be done, it will be a great step forward. [Time expired.]

I want to offer the hon. member who has just sat down my congratulations on his concluding thought. We on this side of the House often have to listen to the ideals of members on the opposite side, ideals that can never be realized. But it is the Minister and his Department that are able to translate a policy into reality. I should like to discuss this Government’s group areas policy this afternoon. I want to test the policy by the facts of reality, especially in connection with my constituency. As long ago as 1956 there was an investigation into group areas in parts of Simonstown. Then, in 1961, the first white group area was declared in the constituency. That was Tokai, Westlake and Pollsmoor. That is the southernmost part of the historical Constantia Valley. It is one of the oldest agricultural areas in South Africa. Originally, as hon. members know, it was exclusively an agricultural area, but now, with the shortage of land and properties, it is developing into a residential area of a high standard. As long ago as seven years, in 1961, it was declared a white group area. At that time there were three Government institutions for non-Whites in the area. To-day there are no fewer than seven. In September, 1966, I put a series of questions in this House and obtained the necessary information in order to determine that at that stage there were 2,634 inmates in those Government institutions. In addition there were approximately 700 non-Whites in the two Divisional Council institutions in the same area. But what is the position to-day? At the Klaasjagersberg Reformatory there are 150 non-Whites and 20 non-white members of staff. At the Porter Reformatory there are 704 non-Whites and 134 members of staff. At the Westlake Prison there are 650 non-Whites and a staff of 13. At the Westlake Institution for mentally deranged persons there are 455 nonwhite inmates and 187 members of staff. At the Westlake detention hostel there are 28 inmates and seven members of staff. At the training college for non-white prison wardens there are 36 persons and seven members of staff. This represents a large increase in the number of non-Whites in this white area. Today there are 4,211 non-Whites in the area which has been declared white. There are 525 members of staff. If one adds the two Divisional Council institutions there are a further 761 non-Whites and more than 400 members of staff in those institutions, that is to say, a total increase of more than 1,500 non-Whites since September, 1966.

If one were to remove all the deviates from your constituency, it might become Nationalist, and what would happen to you then?

Mr. Chairman, surely the hon. the Minister ought to know that the policy of this side of the House is social and residential separation. I now want to refer to another Government development, namely the Pollsmoor Prison. At the moment there are 2,098 non-Whites in that prison. The proposed development programme for that prison is to make provision for 3,132 nonwhite inmates and more than 300 members of staff. This is something which is happening in one of the two areas of my constituency which have been declared white. It is a change in Government policy which is affecting the whole character of the constituency. It is a violation of the principle of group areas. In my opinion it is a double standard which is being applied by the Government, because the ordinary Coloured in a white area has to move, but the Government can establish Government institutions for non-Whites in those white areas. It is definitely a double standard, just as in the case of the combating of inflation. The man in the street has to save in order to combat inflation, but Government expenditure increases from day to day.

I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to investigate this state of affairs in the area to which I have referred, to stop any further expansion of non-white institutions in that area, and to remove the nonwhite institutions in that area to non-white areas. Lastly I want to ask the Minister very respectfully to sell the surplus land in the area which at present belongs to the Government to the Cape Divisional Council, so that the Council may erect a housing scheme for Whites there.

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that there is agreement in this House on the fact that the country is facing a housing shortage. That is why one is so pleased to know that the Department of Community Development is doing everything in its ability to make up this leeway. In speaking of a leeway, one should have regard to certain factors which caused it. I do not want to go back to the days of the United Party and their sins, which had the result that they handed over, amongst other things, a leeway in the field of housing to this Government. I would rather deal briefly with additional factors, and in the first place I want to refer briefly to a process which we find everywhere in our cities nowadays, namely re-zoning. This re-zoning involves widening streets and building expressways, which have the result that numerous hotels, dwellings and flats fall by the wayside. Not only re-zoning but also the tremendous flow of Whites and non-Whites from the rural areas to the urban areas, have contributed to the housing shortage. Another factor is the deterioration or unserviceableness of many old houses of corrugated iron and wood which were erected in the past. As you yourself know, Sir, those houses are not proof against the weather in the coastal regions. All those houses have to be replaced.

But now I want to mention the most important contributing factor, and that is the failure of certain city councils to use the facilities and money made available to them by the State. I am thinking in particular of those city councils which approve of the Opposition’s policy and which have always presented an obstacle to the implementation of the Group Areas Act and our apartheid policy.

Are you dissatisfied with the housing position in Port Elizabeth?

Yes, wait a moment; I am coming to that. I shall deal with that in a moment. The hon. member for Port Natal said that one of the reasons for the shortage should be sought in the resettlement of certain groups. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he is opposed to the removal of the non-Whites from the white residential areas between Holland Park and Kensington? Does the hon. member want those Coloureds to be returned to those residential areas; are you dissatisfied —and I am now speaking to the hon. member for Walmer—because we removed the non-Whites from Lee Plek and are now making that residential area White? Are you opposed to the fact that we have converted the Stewart residential area, in your own constituency, which used to be a non-White area, into a white residential area? Would you have us return the thousands of Natives who lived in Dassiekraal, adjoining Sidwell, in my own constituency, and whom we resettled elsewhere, to the white residential area? [Interjection.] You will get your turn. I challenge you, as a representative of Port Elizabeth …

Order! The hon. member must please address the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park the following question: Is it not true that your party’s policy would have given rise to mixed residential areas, such as those which developed in Port Elizabeth (North) and in Port Elizabeth (Central)? Is your party willing that we should bring back all those non-Whites …

Order When the hon. member speaks of “you” he is speaking of the Chairman.

I want to ask the hon. member for Newton Park whether he wants us to bring back all those non-Whites? If the removal of non-Whites from white areas was a sin committed by the National Party, I should like the hon. member for Newton Park to go back to Port Elizabeth and to tell the people there that the sins committed by the National Party were making the white residential areas white and implementing the Group Areas Act.

But you have just said that the city council of Port Elizabeth does not use the facilities!

I should like the hon. members for Newton Park and Walmer to join us and assist us in order that justice may be done to those groups which are poorly housed, as one finds in the slum areas, conditions which the hon. member for Port Natal wants there. Does the hon. member for Port Natal want those conditions to continue, those miserable conditions of crying poverty and misery which existed under the previous government? Here I have some photographs taken on the shores of Korsten Lake. There is a slum area with more than 2,000 Coloureds.

Your party has been in power for 20 years—why do you not put these things right?

Does the hon. member know how those slum areas came into being? They came into being during the war years, when you used Jan Hofmeyr to create conditions here which could be a breeding ground for Communism in South Africa. [Interjections.] If the National Party had not come into power in 1948, the hon. member would also have been governed by communists to-day.

I should now like to turn to the hon. the Minister with regard to certain matters. Before I do so, however, I just want to tell the hon. member for Newton Park this: In the past six years the National Party has spent R172 million on housing, whereas the United Party, over a period of 18 years, spent only R54 million. That means that in six years the National Party spent R118 million more than the United Party Government spent over a period of 18 years.

And there are still not enough houses.

I should now like to make a plea to the Minister for our lower income groups, for whom we have to provide housing. There is no need for me to waste my time on the Opposition. They received one talent, and they have buried that. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to what the Chairman of the Housing Committee wrote in Port Elizabeth. He wrote the following (translation)—

That is what the Chairman of the Housing Committee of the Port Elizabeth City Council said. He said that unfortunately they could no longer provide houses for those people. But do you know, Sir that since 1934 that city council has never applied for a sub-economic housing scheme? If the city council had done its duty and had applied for a scheme for the lower economic groups, we would not have been in that quandary to-day. Section 11 (4) of the Housing Act provides that—

In other words, the National Housing Commission—

I want to ask the hon. the Minister to see to it that the Housing Act of 1966 is enforced. Secondly, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to revise the income limit of the low-income group. [Time expired.]

I do not want to enter into the local war at Port Elizabeth, but I would like to remind the hon. member who has just sat down that the Nationalist Party has contributed nothing to housing. It happens to be the public’s money and I think it is wrong to say that the Nationalist Party has done this, that and the other thing. The Nationalist Party has not spent a single cent on housing; it happens to be the public’s money. The Government has merely directed how the money should be spent.

In dealing with the provision of housing we must, of course, accept the fact that there is a shortage of housing not only in South Africa but all over the world, and that there are various ways of tackling this problem. Here in this country we find that there is a terific delay in establishing housing schemes. We hear from time to time of crash programmes but nothing really happens. It takes years before we see anything developing. We know that recently a new prefabricated township called Bothasig was established here in the Peninsula. I think that is just about the quickest bit of work I have seen for a long time. I do not know whether that is the ideal type of house. I think only time will tell. In addition to the prefabricated houses, you also have houses constructed of brick there. Only time will tell whether these prefabricated timber houses are going to withstand the weather conditions. Sir, the hon. the Minister has said, and I think it is common knowledge, that it is not the Government’s duty to provide all the housing required in the country. We know that the people who are the real sufferers at the present moment are those in the middle income group. Sir, you will recall that in the early days private enterprise did most of our house-building but to-day things have changed. If you want to lay out a township you are involved in tremendous costs. You acquire a piece of ground; then you have to lay it out and build roads, access roads; you have to provide a water reticulation system and a sewerage system; you have to provide the open spaces and sites for schools. I do not know what the position is in the rest of the country but in the Cape a percentage of the plots must be endowed for the township itself. The establishment of such a township becomes very, very costly, and the would-be house-owner finds that he has to pay a substantial amount for his plot.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in order to encourage the would-be house owner to build, his Department, in order to expedite the building of houses, would not accept the responsibility of laying out the township and then leaving it to private enterprise to develop it. Sir, the hon. the Minister smiles, but the Government could probably acquire the ground much more cheaply either by expropriation or in some other way, and I feel certain that the Government would not have to hand over a certain number of plots for endowment, although naturally open spaces will have to be provided. Then, Sir, there is also another point of view that must be borne in mind when we discuss townships. When we contemplate the establishment of a township we usually go miles outside of the city and select what we regard as a beautiful site for a township for the middle income group. We always forget that these people have to travel considerable distances in order to get to their work. His travelling expenses make it very costly for the owner to live in such a township. I would like to prevail upon the hon. the Minister to look for ground closer to the cities and when he begins his urban renewal schemes to do a substantial amount of vertical development. Hon. members opposite usually ask us what the United Party did when we were in power, but I would remind them that Schotsche Kloof was developed under the United Party Government years ago before the war. Then we also have large blocks of flats in District Six, and in Q-Town in Athlone you will find that there are some very large blocks of flats that were developed before the war. Vertical development is therefore nothing new. I think the hon. the Minister will have to make a special effort to house the middle income group closer to the cities in which they work. Here I would like to quote what is being done by the Railway Administration for example. The Railway Administration has over the years accepted the responsibility for housing its workers, and they have very fine housing schemes. You do not find the Railway Administration building a lot of new houses for its workers; instead of building houses the Railway Administration acquires houses all ready built and in that way assists them.

Sir, I would like to say a few words about District Six. I know that this is a highly contentious subject. We know that that area has been frozen and that the hon. the Minister has set up a committee to investigate the development of District Six. I think we are due for a report from that particular committee. The people living there are not very happy at the prospect of having to move. We know that it is Government policy to move them from District Six, but these people would like to know how long they are going to be there and where they are going. The majority of them are Malays. They would like to know whether the Minister is going to provide the necessary Mosques in the new area to which they are going to be moved. They would like to be assured that they are going to receive compensation for the Mosques which have been established in District Six.

They cannot take compensation; it is against their religion.

I was not talking to the hon. member; I was talking to the hon. the Minister. Sir, these churches cost a lot of money. Furthermore, at the present moment there is a new valuation taking place in Cape Town. The Minister has set the basic valuation of properties in District Six and these people would like to know whether, when the new valuations are made, the Minister will accept a higher rate on the basic valuations. Then there is also the position of white owned property that Coloured persons have occupied and have moved out voluntarily. They, the white property owners would like to know whether Coloureds will be allowed to occupy those properties on a temporary basis until the Minister has completed his plans or whether these properties are to be left unoccupied and to deteriorate. These are things these people would like to know. I am pleased to hear that there is going to be a meeting to-night at which officials of the Department will address the people from District Six. I hope that the officials will be able to answer the questions which will be put to them. I would like to point out that the people in District Six are not a lot of rebels. I am satisfied from the inquiries I have made that they are accepting the Governments’ decision. They regret what the Government is doing to them but they want to feel that wherever they are put, they are not going to be at a disadvantage. [Time expired.]

I rise to associate myself with an observation made by the hon. the Minister this afternoon, which I am personally convinced is in the national interests, and most timeous. This is the remark that the hon. the Minister was getting the impression that as far as the private sector was concerned, I presume that was what he meant, the tendency was developing to claim unnecessary luxury as far as housing was concerned. I say this particularly in the light of certain circumstances as far as our national economy is concerned. Recently we also heard from the Administrator of the Cape Province that local bodies were finding it very difficult, if possible, to attract funds from the private sector in the form of loans. Here I have an article from Die Beeld of 23rd April, 1967, which provides further evidence of this. It refers to a survey made of 232 families in Johannesburg with an income of less than R5,000 a year, who spent on an average more than R103 a year in excess of their incomes.

The survey was carried out by the Economic Research Bureau of the University of Stellenbosch. It was found, furthermore, that the overdrafts decreased gradually as the incomes became higher. Thus, for example, the average family with an income of less than R2,000 a year spends R142 a year more than it earns. The family with an income of R2,000 to R3,000 a year spends R188 more. The family with an income of R3,000 to R4,000 a year spends R28 more, and those with an income of R4,000 to R5.000 spend R54 more. Where it is hardest to make ends meet, according to the finding of this survey, is in the lower income groups, and this relates particularly to two items on the private budget, namely food and housing. What we have to do with here may be expressed in the words of a pioneer in the field of industrial development in this country, who one day remarked that if we had invested somewhat less in bricks, we would to-day have had a greater share in the gold of this country and also in its mineral riches. I should like to underline that and tell the Minister that I am in complete agreement with him as far as this timeous warning is concerned. This also reminds one of the element in our society which is more interested in the colour and model of a motor car than in its performance. It is not the external appearance of the dwelling or house that counts, but the spirit inside that house and the rational way in which life outside and around that house is organized by the head of that family.

I think it has become time to issue a word of warning to our general public in this connection, namely that we should abandon the false norms of prestige value and social status which are nowadays too easily and too readily coupled to a dead brick house, if we want to prove allegiance and loyalty to this country and its national needs and its development in the more profound sense of the word. I think the Minister has rendered a great service in these times in which we are living, and I hope and trust that in course of time, as this negative phenomenon becomes more evident in our national life, he will not hesitate to lay a finger on it and to point it out to us more frequently. If we take into consideration that at present a comparison is made … and this is the second standpoint the hon. the Minister adopted, and with which I want to associate myself completely, and in this regard I also want to express the hope that he and his Department will carry out a further investigation in this connection and will see whether we cannot to a large extent find a solution to our housing problem in this, namely the preconstruction or prefabrication of houses, as he called it.

At present information is available which indicates that in capital costs alone this building method means a saving of approximately one third, not even to mention the additional interest burden to be carried by that family foR15 years. It may be asked whether it does not mean interference with the private rights of the individual. I want to respond to that with the observation that we should take care that what is actually intended for the education of our children and the more fruitful use of leisure time is not all absorbed, and this to the extent of a deficit in the case of people with an annual income of R5,000. This indicates that our nation is undergoing an erosion process, and particularly on the spiritual front. We cannot leave it to the State to take the sole responsibility in respect of the education and in particular the post-school and university education of our children, and if we continue at this pace and incur deficits on our annual incomes, where are the means to come from to meet our commitments on the preparation of our youth in this country honourably, as parents should? To me it seems to be a reality that we are already wrongly allowing investments in and spending on raw bricks in our private budgets, instead of investments in developing the spirit of the youth of this country. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because housing is such an important factor in the rapidly developing country in which we live, I think we all listened with great interest this afternoon to the hon. the Minister’s exposition of what his Department was doing to provide adequate housing for the Whites in South Africa, and the great task he has tackled to eliminate the housing shortage purposefully and in every possible way. I also know that the hon. the Minister will be amenable to suggestions from both sides on how to make a contribution to the further expansion of the provision of housing, not only by his own Department but also by private concerns. With reference to what he said some time ago, namely that all financial concerns should receive an opportunity to make a contribution to the provision of housing in this country, I want to ask him whether it is not possible for him, through his Department, to form a liaison with the Department of Finance and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Finance, in order to see whether it is not possible to amend the Financial Institutions Act in such a way that in future building societies will also be able to play an active part in the provision of housing. Is it not possible for the Act to be amended in such a way that building societies, just like other financial institutions, for example insurance companies, may also buy land and initiate large-scale housing projects? I do not know whether it is possible to amend the Act in this way, but it is something which has been suggested to me and I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to investigate this. At the moment, as I construe the Act, building societies cannot buy land, but insurance companies can in fact do so. As we know, building societies have vast funds lying fallow. Is this not perhaps a profitable method of utilizing these funds in future, in order to help to meet the housing shortage? We all know that the building societies of South Africa have made a tremendous contribution to the provision of housing in this country in the past, by means of housing loans and mortgages. If the Act can be amended in this way, is it not possible that they may also make a tremendous contribution in this field, in the private sector, to ameliorate our housing shortage, for example by building houses and flats themselves on the land bought by them and by making available the accommodation provided in this way at a reasonable price?

I also want to ask the hon. the Minister, now that more and more attention is being devoted to the shortage of housing in this country and the methods employed to ameliorate it, whether he cannot perhaps tighten up building control even further as far as non-essential building projects in our cities are concerned. I was in Johannesburg last week, and I was surprised to see how huge buildings were still being erected virtually overnight. The question occurs to one whether all these buildings are really essential.

Then I should also like the hon. the Minister to give me some further information in respect of the progress made with the proposed business centre in Fordsburg, because this affects the entire question of the resettlement of Indian dealers, not only in my own constituency, which will be affected to a considerable extent, but also in many other Rand constituencies. How much progress has been made with the expropriation of premises in Fordsburg and what stage of planning has been reached as regards the lay-out of the entire business complex? The Whites of the white proclaimed suburbs of Johannesburg look forward anxiously to the resettlement of the Indians, but we also know that under the present circumstances, as I understand, at the most 30 more Indian dealers can be resettled in Lenasia if they are still to make a proper living there. Alternative business accommodation, as the Minister also explained last year, will have to be found elsewhere if all the Indians cannot be accommodated in Lenasia. We are therefore of the opinion that Fordsburg is the suitable place which should be developed to absorb these Indian dealers. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what number of Indian dealers could be settled in Fordsburg in future and whether there are any possibilities for further expansion in order that all Indian dealers who are now distributed throughout the Johannesburg complex may eventually be absorbed there. I would also appreciate it very much if the hon. the Minister could give us some further information on the nature of the Indian business complex to be developed in Fordsburg. Will it consist of isolated business buildings, or will it be a coherent business centre? I think the Whites of Johannesburg would also appreciate it if the hon. the Minister could give the House an indication of when the actual construction of the business complex will be com menced with, and if he could inform us how long it will take to complete the complex.

I also want to deal with the re-settlement of Indian families who are still living in the white suburbs of Johannesburg. I know that some 700 of these families have already been resettled in Lenasia, but there are still some 1,100 left, as I understand. Of those Indians there are still quite a few in my constituency. The Indians are most unwilling to move to Lenasia. They contend that there will not be adequate facilities for them in Lenasia. I do not know whether that is the position, but it appears to me that the time has now come for the Government to exert pressure on the Johannesburg City Council for the incorporation of Lenasia with the Johannesburg Municipality, in order that better facilities may be made available for the development of Lenasia. At the moment the population of Lenasia is between 5,000 and 6,000 strong, but in my view the capacity of the Lenasia residential area is unlimited, as there must be some thousands of acres available for further development. I want to say that most of the Indians living in Lenasia are nevertheless working in Johannesburg. It is therefore no more than fair that the Johannesburg City Council should accept the responsibility for Lenasia and for the development of that area.

Finally, I want to come to the question of urban renewal, which was so thoroughly dealt with by the hon. member for Benoni. I just want to say that I appreciated the Minister’s announcement that he intends sending a mission overseas to study urban renewal projects there. I also saw in a newspaper that later this year a great international congress on urban renewal will take place in Toronto. I want to plead with the Minister that if he himself cannot go he should send a very high-ranking official from his Department to attend this Congress, because I think that in future, in view of the opportunities this country has, South Africa will probably be able to play a leading role on the African Continent as far as urban renewal is concerned. In South Africa it is essential that we should have clarity on the financing of urban renewal projects, for example, and particularly on the financial relations between local governments and the Central Government. In the United States, for example, the Federal Government finances certain projects to the amount of two-thirds of the total costs of a project. Perhaps we could go and learn from the rest of the world in regard to this matter, at the Congress. I want to make a very strong plea to the Minister that he should consider sending a strong delegation overseas in connection with urban renewal.

Without further ado I want to begin where the hon. member for Turffontein left off, namely with the question of town renewal. Well, I whole-heartedly agree with him that this matter has to be tackled in all seriousness. It has already been decided that a mission will go to the congress in Toronto, but as far as other plans are concerned we are not absolutely clear about them as yet. Consequently I do not want to say anything more in this regard now. As soon as I have had an opportunity of discussing the entire matter with my colleagues in the Cabinet, I shall make a further announcement. But that we are going to do something drastic this year, something important, is very certain. As regards Lenasia, I may inform him that I have had discussions with the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal and with the City Council of Johannesburg. At present there is greater clarity, also as a result of the discussions, as regards the planning of the entire Lenasia area and consequently the City Council of Johannesburg is now prepared to incorporate Lenasia in the Johannesburg urban area. In order to effect that the necessary steps are now being taken by the City Council and the Provincial Administration in consultation with each other. I am glad that we have reached this stage because I think that it will expedite progress at Lenasia considerably. Planning in the Fordsburg area has progressed a great deal. In this regard it is the intention to start the actual building operations in the 1968-’69 financial year. We cannot do it any earlier than that because there still are expropriations to be made, as well as planning, etc.

As regards the participation of financial institutions and other bodies in the housing programme, I have said on occasion that those bodies do in fact have an important obligation in this regard. I shall do everything in my power to obtain the assistance of those concerns in providing in the housing needs of our country.

As regards the hon. member for Randburg, I agree whole-heartedly with him with the one reservation that we must never overlook the aesthetical appearance of the dwellings. Subject to this qualification I whole-heartedly agree with what he proposed. The hon. member for Salt River asked me whether it was possible for my Department itself to undertake the establishment of townships. His intention is that such a township is to be handed over to private initiative after the land has been acquired and the necessary services have been provided. Here I cannot agree with the hon. member because in my opinion it would not be right to do so. That would mean that public money would be invested in a project which would enable private initiative to make profits from that investment once the township had been handed over to private initiative. In the case of utility companies and local authorities, however, we can in fact do so. Matters relating to new townships and the provision of building sites are being investigated very thoroughly at the present time, and we hope that this investigation will show us new approaches. I agree with the hon. member that we shall have to resort to vertical development to an ever-increasing extent, although in this regard I want to repeat a previous warning of mine, and that is that we have to guard against building large blocks of flats the one next to the other with the eventual result that our people may perhaps not even have the opportunity of ever setting their feet upon the ground. I believe in vertical development provided that sufficient open spaces are left between buildings and provided that that does not adversely affect an aesthetical appearance.

As regards District Six, the assurance has repeatedly been given that the inhabitants will not be moved out of that area before provision has been made for them in another area. The idea should not be entertained that we will be able to move out the entire population of District Six all of a sudden within one week or within one month. They will be moved out step by step or perhaps block by block. In this way one street block will first be vacated and made available for redevelopment before a next block is tackled. Where houses are vacated in this way and Coloureds are still living in the immediate vicinity, it will, of course, be possible to relet those houses to Coloureds until such time as the vacating of that area starts. Valuations cannot be affected because in terms of an Act of Parliament an owner receives the full benefit of all appreciations over the next five years.

The hon. member for Outeniqua spoke of mosques. I shall once again go into this entire matter. If it appears that Moslems are not allowed to receive any compensation for such a mosque and if they have to build another mosque I shall see whether another method of compensating them cannot be found. I think such possibilities do exist and I shall go into the matter. The hon. member also asked me whether Rylands was going to remain an Indian area. It is out of the question that Rylands will be declared a Coloured area. It is an Indian area and will remain an Indian area. Any stories to the contrary are un founded and untrue. In this regard I have contacted also the Department of Planning, the Department concerned with the planning of group areas, and from that Department I learned that it was not its intention either to declare Rylands a Coloured area. Consequently Rylands remains an Indian area.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) referred to sub-economic housing schemes in urban areas. In this regard I may tell him that I have already instructed my Department to inform local authorities applying for economic housing schemes that, before final approval for such a scheme can be given and, as from next year, before money can be made available for such a scheme, we first require a proper survey to be made of the need existing for sub-economic housing in the urban area concerned. We are imposing this requirement so that we may satisfy ourselves that adequate provision has been made for the needs of the sub-economic groups before economic schemes are to be undertaken. Consequently we are placing emphasis on first providing houses to those people who need them most, namely the sub-economic groups.

The hon. member for Simonstown tried to chase up a hare on account of the fact that non-white institutions still exist in an area within his constituency which has been declared a white area and that in addition these institutions are still being extended. That, he said, was a flagrant offence against the principle of separate residential areas, a principle laid down by the Group Areas Act. Naturally I am very glad to find such a strong supporter of the principle of group areas and separate residential areas in the person of that hon. member.

I have told you what our policy is.

But apparently your policy does not agree with the policy of your party, because your party has been opposing this principle throughout the years. Wherever we have been engaged in clearance operations, that has been held against us. What the hon. member said contains a large degree of truth in the sense that it is wrong that those institutions are there and it would be wrong if those institutions were to remain there. The hon. member must realize, however, that we are faced with large numbers of unqualified persons living in proclaimed group areas and that the vast majority of those unqualified persons live in dilapidated and slum areas which are something much more detrimental to those areas and townships than the presence of those institutions in his constituency to which the hon. member referred. In this process we are therefore placing the emphasis first on clearing those areas which are dilapidated areas, and consequently the moving of institutions will only be undertaken at a later stage.

Are they only there temporarily then?

Yes, they are there temporarily. They will be moved to the non-white areas. Like some other institutions the Pollsmoor Prison, which is being extended at present, is being extended in such a way that it will eventually be possible to use it as a prison for Whites only. In other words, the Coloureds will eventually be removed from that institution. The intention is that all Coloured institutions will eventually be moved to Coloured areas. But these are major projects, expensive ones, and at this stage we need so much money for the clearance of dilapidated areas that the hon. member will still have to put up with those institutions in his constituency for many years.

Are you aware of the fact that many of those Government institutions are now being extended?

Yes, but those extensions are of a relatively minor nature in proportion to the large size of the institutions.

But one extension amounts to R½ million.

Sometimes it is better to spend R½ million at one place, particularly in times of inflation such as we are experiencing now, than to spend R5 million or R6 million for moving that place somewhere else. Those projects, however, will be undertaken in due course. As regards extensions to those institutions, I shall again bring it to the attention of my colleagues that further extensions are not to be effected unnecessarily and that we must keep an eye on the matter.

The hon. member for Brakpan spoke of the temporary rent boards and of the rearrangement of the rent boards on the East Rand. With reference to what I said earlier in the debate in regard to the entire position concerning rent control, I want to say that the matter is so liquid at the moment that I should not like to create further full-time rent boards, particularly not on the East Rand complex. That is one of the areas where there is at present no backlog of applications to be considered. However, I shall keep an eye on the position so as to see what can best be done in that regard in the light of what happens during the next few months and in the light of the pattern which develops as a result. I shall go into the matter of option money charged uninterruptedly over a long period. On the face of it it seems to me to be an evasion of the Rents Act. I am not sure about that but I shall go deeper into the matter. If it is possible to take action, we shall take action and if it is not possible to do so we shall see whether it is not possible to check that kind of exploitation by other means, for instance by means of negotiation.

Will there be further amendments to the Rents Act during this Session in order to cope with irregularities?

There will possibly be a minor amendment in regard to the application of the Rents Act to business sites. As the Act reads at present I can only reintroduce rent control over business sites if all business sites which were let prior to 1949 are once more made subject to rent control, and I should not like to do that. There will possibly be a minor amendment which will be embodied in the General Law Amendment Bill so as to empower me to make individual buildings subject to rent control in individual cases where there is exploitation in respect of business sites. I am still considering the matter.

Other aspects will not be affected?

I think the other aspects should be held over for this year so that we may obtain greater clarity and will have more time to go into the entire matter very thoroughly as well as to see how things develop and what the experience of the rent boards will be. As I said before, it seems to me as though the number of cases of exploitation is relatively small as against the large number of cases where rent increases are in fact justified. It may be that we shall reach the stage much sooner than we anticipated where it will again be possible to relax rent control.

The hon. member for Umbilo referred to problems in connection with the examination of applications for the erection of old age homes by welfare bodies and utility companies. The handbook which was recently distributed was only finalized beween the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Community Development in the course of last year. Consequently the very explicit handbook which exists at present was not so readily available to people in the past. Experience has shown that the vast majority of bodies did not really know how to set about things. They operated through their local authorities, their Members of Parliament and other bodies and eventually arrived at the Department of Community Development where they should indeed have gone in the first instance. Had they gone there in the first instance they would have obtained the necessary advice and assistance much sooner. A further delay did, of course, occur during the past financial year in that—as hon. members know—withdrawals from the Housing Fund by local authorities engaged in large schemes which they initially thought would be carried out over a longer period, took place at a much more rapid rate than we had anticipated. Consequently there was a deficit of approximately R8 million which we had to supplement. As a result new applications for funds for old age homes during the past financial year could not be dealt with immediately. But the position is different now and for this year sufficient funds are available for homes with the result that it will be possible to undertake the work immediately once everything has been prepared. Consequently provision will be made in the course of this year for the cases in Durban to which the hon. member referred.

Revenue Vote No. 13 and Loan Vote K put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote 14,—“Public Works, R32,337”, and Loan Vote B,—“Public Works, R30,350”:

Mr. Chairman, I wish to raise one or two aspects of the work of the Department of Public Works, and I want to start by saying that there is in many quarters —I am talking now of State quarters—frustration and dissatisfaction in regard to the services which Public Works are able to provide in the field of building, provision of accommodation, the maintenance of and alterations to accommodation. I want to ask the Minister whether he has considered and studied the extent to which regulation and red tape often strangle and negative the efforts of the practical people who want to get on with the job at grassroots level. The complaint which I have heard on a number of occasions is that recommendations come forward from the man on the spot, the person who wants to carry out the particular job and who, as a qualified technical man, knows what is necessary and what is the best way to deal with it. But after that recommendation has sifted through all the purely administrative hands through which it has to pass and has been tested against regulations, rules and red tape drawn up by administrative personnel, by the time it gets back to the person who has to execute the job, the costs have either gone up to nearly double what it was before, or at least have increased considerably. Because of the delay often repairs, maintenance work or other action which could have been seen to timeously is then too late. I want to ask the Minister whether he would consider investigating the delays created administratively in dealing with practical problems. I know that he is now dealing to a large extent, especially in respect of maintenance work, with private firms. But here again one is bound by rules, regulations and red tape. For instance, if a plumber goes into a house he cannot touch an electric light but has to send for the electrician. He in turn comes in and finds a door handle to be loose. Can he fix it? No, he has to summon the carpenter. The carpenter discovers that there is a tap leaking so he has to send for the plumber again. I do not believe that sufficient use is being made of ordinary handymen who can do these minor repairs to State buildings, who can deal with the ordinary job that does not require a qualified artisan. Instead of sending in four people to attend to four small tasks which may take them a minute or two each, one handyman could in the course of a single morning go through a complete building and probably repair 50 or 60 such minor things which often are left to deteriorate, rather than waste time sending for an artisan to come and do the necessary repairs. This approach to the whole question of building maintenance is one which I believe could improve the position of the department very much indeed.

This does not apply to maintenance only but I believe in regard to basic expenditure also there is room for improvement. I now want to take a few examples at random. I should like to ask the Minister whether he does not consider that there is wastage where temporary work is carried out when it would have been better to get on with the permanent job straight away? I will deal with one example in my own constituency, namely that of the Durban prison. An amount of R100,000 has been allocated of which R5,000 will be spent this year, R62,000 has already been spent, and a further R33,000 is still to be spent. The Minister is aware of the fact that that prison is going to be moved. It may be moved fairly shortly, or at any rate it is hoped that it will be moved shortly because its removal forms part of the overall planning of Durban. I admit that minor improvements and minor additions, particularly for staff, can be necessary. But when one is dealing with R100,000 which is spent on temporary improvements, knowing that long-term improvements are going to be made, then I feel that there is something wrong.

Take the Indian university in Durban for instance. The original estimate was R10,000. That has now gone up to R168,500 under the heading of “Temporary Accommodation”. In the very next line one finds “University College for Indians—R9.5 million”. In one line one finds that R10,000 has grown into R168,000 for temporary accommodation whilst in the very next line one sees that R9½ million is being spent. This appears to me to be wastage due to improper planning or inability somewhere in the Government administration to take a final decision and get on with it. If one adds to these few instances the dozens of instances throughout these estimates where temporary work is being done then I believe that a tremendous saving could be effected.

Then one finds wastage because of delays. Here I take again one example, namely the Department of Defence. After a commission had reported damage and harm to military equipment through improper storage a plan for R1 million for covered accommodation for vehicles was approved. An amount of R1 million was decided on after a commission had sat and after pressure and debate in this House. Of that amount the fifth stage is to be voted this year, that is R150,000, but for the other four-fifths together a total of R50,000 has been spent. Added to the R150,000 for this year that means that R200.000 is accounted for, and R800,000 is still to come. Yet in the meantime, year after year, the vehicles stand out in the rain and the sun, continuing to deteriorate, continuing to suffer from the very things which a departmental commission said should be dealt with very urgently indeed.

Then there is the wastage due to policy. I do not have the time to go into this aspect at length. However, it is interesting to find in the Loan Vote that eight residences are being built for white Government officials in Umtata. I should like to ask the following question. The hon. the Minister of Public Works has handed over the responsibility for public works to the Transkeian Government. There is a Transkeian Minister of Public Works. The Transkeian Government is responsible and yet we are being asked to vote money. The white Minister of Public Works is asking the white Parliament to vote money when we have handed over control to another parliament to deal with that. I want to ask the Minister to what extent this Parliament is going to go on voting money to carry out responsibilities in fields which other Ministers of the Transkeian Government have already taken over?

Now, Sir, in the moment or so that I have left I should like to ask the Minister to clarify a matter which I feel is indicative of government contempt towards hon. members of Parliament. I put a question on the 5th February, 1965, to the then Minister of Public Works. It was not this Minister and I am not blaming him personally. However, the answer which I received and the answers to subsequent identical questions indicate an attitude either of irresponsibility or an attempt to avoid the issue—or plain carelessness. I asked whether the Minister had been requested to provide premises for a post office in the area of Addington Hospital, Durban, and if so, etcetera. The answer then, in February, 1965, was yes, he had been asked to provide it, and he went on to say that those premises had not yet been found. That was in February, 1965. In February, 1966, being persistent, I asked the same question, and I asked the Minister on what date he first received a request to provide alternative accommodation for a post office in the area of Addington Hospital. The answer was that it was requested by the department on the 22nd July, 1965. In February 1965, the Minister of Public Works said that he had already had a request. A year later he tells me that he received that request five months after he had told me that he already had it. And this year, still being persistent, I asked the same question, I asked how long had this matter been in the hands of the department, and the anwer was: “No—(a)—and

(b) fall away.” [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, imagine having only ten minutes to discuss a matter to which you have been devoting your energies for ten long years and with which you have progressed only ten inches! After I have made this speech, I shall have been dealing with this matter for exactly ten years and ten minutes. We are suffering from the disadvantages of our prosperity. This is how things are. To put it in rustic terms, our backlog is the front wheel of the wagon. This seems to be an anomaly. The backlog is the front wheel of the wagon and our attempts to make up that backlog are the back wheel, and the two wheels roll and roll and roll, from the Cape to the Limpopo, but the back wheel simply cannot catch up with the front wheel! The matter I have on my mind is this. There is one matter that causes me sorrow. I am sorry that I will have to conclude all my efforts on this note, because this is the last opportunity I shall have to discuss this matter in this House. As I say, there is one matter that causes me sorrow, and that is the one-year pregnancy of Nylstroom in expectation of the birth of a technical high school.

You are going to have twins.

I am the “father” of this long-awaited newcomer. I had hoped to be able to welcome this newcomer during my term of office as a member of Parliament. As a result of the new legislation, however, I shall have to ask the Provincial Administration to take over from me the task of cuddling and looking after the newcomer. I shall have to renounce my “fatherhood”. It has now come to my knowledge that this school is not included in the five-year plan. Every time one year passes, a fifth year is added, so that we always have a five-year plan.

Order! Does that school appear anywhere on the Estimates?

No, it does not appear on the Estimates.

Then the matter should not be raised here either. The hon. member is discussing something which should not be raised here.

It does not appear on these Estimates. I asked for it, but unfortunately it does not appear there.

It does not belong under this Vote.

Well, then my sorrow is only increased in that I shall have to refrain from discussing this matter. I can only ask that everything possible should be done to expedite the erection of this school, and when the time comes and if the Provincial Administration should not have the funds at its disposal, the Government will be asked to bear the costs of the confinement.

Mr. Chairman, following the debacle of the hon. member for Waterberg I stand before you this afternoon with some trepidation myself. Before I start my speech I wish to tell you, Sir, that I intend to sneak to the item under Loan Vote B, subhead (17), namely “Pietermaritzburg—Enlargement of automatic telephone exchange building—R200,000” which appears on page 29 of the Estimates of the Expenditure to be defrayed from Loan Account. This amount I find first appeared in the Estimates of 1965. Now, three years later, construction still has not commenced. When it first appeared on the Estimates it was already an urgent necessity in this city which was then already shaking off the soubriquet of “Sleepy Hollow”—industrial and other development had already begun. But over the period of three years we find that nothing has been done in this regard, and even now in reply to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister on the 14th April we were informed that a tender had still not been accepted. We find that an amount of R90,000 has been allocated to be spent during the current financial year on extensions to the telephone exchange in Pietermaritzburg. One of the questions which I wish to put to the Minister is this. If one of those tenders is accepted now, when will construction begin, how long will it take to complete this contract, and, further, how long is it going to take to complete the full extension planned for this telephone exchange? When, in fact, will the people of Pietermaritzburg get their telephone services? Rapid development is taking place in that area. I am sure that the Minister knows that Pietermaritzburg is one of the centres where this Government’s policy of border industries and border industrial development is applied and such development is taking place there very rapidly. I know that since 1955 the provision for telephone services has gone up by 70 per cent. This is a commendable effort. But at the same time I feel that it is not good enough. As I said earlier, it is obvious that these plans—and this point I particularly want to make with the hon. the Minister—were drawn up more than three years ago. I sincerely hope that when these plans were drawn provision was made for future expansion and for the demand for services. In reply to a question on the 23rd August the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs advised us that he had hoped that R200,000 would be allocated during this financial year for the establishment or for the extension and addition of a new wing to house equipment for 2,000 subscribers. However, on the 14th April he advised this House that on the 31st December last year 809 applications were outstanding. This means that now, before they had even commenced construction of this building to house these new telephones, half the space allocated for telephones has already been taken up by outstanding applications for telephones.

We have already received the tender for the erection of the exchange.

I am very glad to hear this from the Minister because it was only the other day, on the 14th April, that the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs said that it had not yet been accepted.

We have received it, but it will be submitted to the tender board first.

Well, we hope that this matter is not going to take too long. That is the point I am making. What I want to say is that I hope this building is going to be constructed before it is already too small. Pietermaritzburg is developing at such a rate and I am sure that the Minister and the Government know that.

Better send some of the people up to Newcastle.

320 acres have been allocated for industrial development and more than half of this has been taken up. During the past year 14 new industries were established there. Six more are to be built in the near future. Six more are now being negotiated and in addition to that the Pietermaritzburg Corporation intends establishing anotheR1,800 new houses, 9 churches, 33 new businesses, 11 schools, 17 blocks of flats, and so it goes on. All this development is taking place and a building which was planned to accommodate an essential service is not yet under construction. Notwithstanding the claims of the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs I maintain that this is an essential service. Without this service the wheels of industry, of commerce, of everything will grind to a standstill. This building has been planned. Now, when is it going to be built? Even now we find on the Estimates that less than half of the amount which it is anticipated this building will cost is to be spent during the current financial year.