Mr.

Speaker, I move—

The Uranium Enrichment Corporation of South Africa (Limited) was established in terms of Act No. 33 of 1970 to enrich uranium, alone or in co-operation with other persons and in the manner which I may approve in consultation with my colleague, the Minister of Finance.

On 9 October 1974 a nuclear site licence was then granted in terms of the Nucleur Installations (Licensing and Security) Act, 1963, to the Uranium Enrichment Corporation since it was at that stage on the point of putting a portion of the pilot plant into operation and consequently had to activate it with nuclear-hazard materials.

†In view of the new and unique nature of the Corporation’s activities and that of materials handled by its personnel, proper insurance to cover the Corporation’s personnel against injury, disease or death is unobtainable. These problems were first encountered by the Atomic Energy Board and legal provision was made in sections 32 and 33 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1967. Of special importance in this connection is the problem that it can be difficult to ascertain whether an injury, disease or death is the consequence of conventional or nuclear causes. I shall cover this point later on. The purpose of this amendment, namely the insertion of a new section 11A in the Uranium Enrichment Act, is to provide for the mutates mutandis application of sections 32 and 33 of the Atomic Energy Act to the Corporation and its employees.

*Section 32, as it will be applied to the Corporation, makes the Corporation liable for the payment of compensation and medical expenses as well as restitutional damages in respect of injury, disability or death which is attributable to ionizing radiation of any radioactive material or to the inflammable, explosive or special properties of such material or any product or apparatus involved in the application thereof. This liability applies in respect of any person engaged in any capacity by or on behalf of the Corporation, or his dependants. The abovementioned section entrusts the determination and methods of settlement of damages to the Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner. Consequently portions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act are mutatis mutandis applicable in so far as it is necessary for the practical application of this section.

†Section 33, as it will be applied, will provide that compensation out of the funds of the Corporation can be paid to a person engaged in any capacity by the Corporation if such person contracts a disease or personal injury not covered by section 32. In the event of his death, his dependants can be compensated out of funds of the Corporation. This section also makes provision for a committee of five members under the chairmanship of a judge of any division of the Supreme Court and four other members who shall be experts in that sphere of the Corporation’s activities from which the injury, disease or death may arise.

From the nature of the Corporation’s activities, experts will be necessary to ascertain the cause of an injury, disease or death because of the extreme difficulty to prove causation. Two of these experts must be persons outside the employ of the Corporation. This committee receives and considers all the available information in any matter referred to it and advises the Minister on the amount of compensation, if any, to be paid. A person who considers himself aggrieved by the finding of the committee or by the Minister’s decision has a right to appeal to the appropriate division of the Supreme Court of South Africa.

*This measure is being made with retrospective effect from 9 October 1974, i.e. the date on which a nuclear site licence was granted to the Corporation.

Mr. Speaker, from this side of the House we will raise no objection to this amending legislation. It is, if anything, a matter for some small surprise that the provisions of the Atomic Energy Act relating to radioactive injury to persons were not applied to the Uranium Enrichment Corporation from its inception, because the conditions which apply to these two bodies, viz. the Atomic Energy Board and the Uranium Enrichment Corporation, are in fact very similar. We entirely agree with the logic of amending the Uranium Enrichment Act in a manner which will make it consistent with the provisions which apply to the Atomic Energy Board.

I conclude by saying that we will support this Bill. We welcome it because we think it is a logical measure. Hence we shall raise no objection to its Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, may I just express my thanks and appreciation for the support for this Bill. I have no doubt that it is in the interests of all the people concerned.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Committee Stage taken without debate.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned I was informing the hon. the Minister that we would be introducing a further amendment to clause 12 in the Committee Stage, in addition to the one mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton. Both of these amendments are primarily and totally directed at the extremely undesirable and callous behaviour typified by the activities of Messrs. Wainer, Jacobs and Mouton. Unfortunately, as the Minister will know, these gentlemen have had such success, if that description could be used in relation to the results of their activities, that their tentacles are spreading and more blocks of flats are falling under their control as they utilize the profits which they have extracted from tenants to purchase other blocks of flats from other more sensitive and humane landlords who are not prepared to condone or act in such a way. As a result, in our view, not only should the penalties be made more severe for such behaviour; they must also include a deterrent as these people must be stopped from pursuing such activities. A fine on its own at the level proposed is unlikely to prove a sufficient deterrent to such people. Hence the amendment to incorporate the additional penalty of a term of inprisonment. We strongly recommend to the hon. the Minister that the fine should include the attempt to induce tenants and should not be restricted to circumstances where it has already been perpetrated and tenants have in fact already left as a result of the insecurity, the anxiety or the gross inconvenience caused by such harassment and intimidation. As it stands now, the Rents Control Act is bad law and bad economics. The result is simply that the country is not going to get the accommodation it otherwise would. Indeed, it encourages or permits excessive and uneconomic usage of the present available space. Through the element of subsidy it allows people to stay in much larger apartments than they could otherwise afford.

We have already said that the hon. the Minister does not have a particularly easy road to hoe. We would, however, like to suggest that he aims at the following. Firstly, he could decide to phase out rent control over a reasonable period of time. By a “reasonable period of time” I mean that the length of the period should be such that it would give adequate protection to the present tenants of buildings which are subject to rent control. Secondly, the hon. the Minister should categorically state that it will not apply to any new development Thirdly, he should state that any flats or buildings where rent control is in force at present will cease to be rent controlled as and when the tenants leave the premises. Fourthly, the Government should recognize and accept it that it is a social decision and that it is the Government’s responsibility to provide housing or accommodation for those who cannot afford to pay rentals which will give an economic return to the landlord. Finally, and this point goes together with the first point that there should be adequate protection for those who are presently occupying rent-controlled premises, the Government should allow the market place to determine an appropriate rental in regard to such accommodation. The Government should go further and determine the cases where people cannot afford to pay such a rental and face up to the fact of subsidizing them on the grounds that it would be for the social benefit of South Africa. The hon. the Minister will know that building societies apply a rule of thumb in regard to what percentage of an individual’s income after tax should be spent on his residence. At the moment the percentage is 25%. We feel that not only will the housing shortage be cured in a short period of time, but the people will also get the benefit of a reasonable rental. Where they cannot afford to do so, they ought to get assistance from the Government.

The only justification whatever for rent control is that it gives protection to South Africans in circumstances where the supply of accommodation cannot be rapidly expanded. The trouble is that the way rent control works at present, it does not improve the situation, neither in the short term nor in the long term. We on these benches agree that the present tenants must be protected but let us phase it out and let us move along the lines we have suggested. This will encourage the erection of new buildings and the renovation of old accommodation.

Finally, the hon. members for Green Point and Walmer have talked about increasing the allowance for depreciation. That is certainly one way of making it possible for more money to accrue to the landlord, but let us not get confused on the subject. It would be much better for the Government to be direct about it and to go openly to the market place to establish the level of rentals. Where people are in such a position that they cannot for some reason or other afford the rentals, they should be provided directly with a subsidy.

Then there is another point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister although I appreciate that nothing can be done about it at this stage. I refer to section 21(l)(c) as amended by clause 12 which reads:

The point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is that there are in growing numbers joint lessors of one property. As it is very difficult to have a number of lessors occupying a building for their personal occupation, I ask the hon. the Minister to consider amending this provision to “one or other lessor”.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I was not in the House on Thursday when the hon. the Minister delivered his Second Reading speech, but through the agency of the outstanding Hansard service which we have in this House, I could soon get an idea of what had happened here. If one reads the speeches which were made during the Second Reading debate on this Bill at one’s leisure, it strikes one that the speeches which came from this side of the House were outstanding contributions, contributions which testify to knowledge of the contents of the legislation and were not based on a lot of vague platitudes as the Opposition tried to intimate. I say that the speeches from the side of the Opposition really dumbfound one when you look at them. In this very ordinary debate on legislation we had a manifestation once again of political bankruptcy and of opportunistic double talk. And now I am not even referring to the absolute nonsense which the hon. member for Walmer, for example, spoke here, when he alleged that the shortage of housing necessitating rent control, was caused by the Group Areas Act.

The hon. member for Green Point is a willing old horse, but I think he tried to blow hot and cold at the same time. He did this by levelling the charge at the Government that we did not provide sufficient housing and that we did not try to strike a balance between demand and supply. I think that the hon. member for Mossel Bay has already destroyed that argument of the hon. member for Green Point very effectively. If the hon. member’s charge carries any weight, viz. that there was a failure in the provision of housing, then the hon. member himself has been neglecting his duty shamefully this year. This session we have already had two major Parliamentary debate', viz. the No-confidence Debate and the debate on the Part Appropriation Bill. If the position was so critical and the Government was failing in its duty to the extent which the hon. member said, it really was his duty to raise the matter in those two debates. He could just as well have raised it on the hon. the Minister’s Vote, but I think that it is purely because he had nothing better to say that he lapsed into such a lot of platitudes. He cannot, in fact, criticize this Bill. The fact is of course that the United Party cannot even keep its own house in order. It has become so unruly lately …

Order! We are dealing with the Rents Amendment Bill now.

That is right, Mr. Speaker. The United Party has made it so impossible for some of its lessees that they have preferred to go and build their own little house, a little house which is psychedelic ally coloured and seems big, but which will certainly not be able to withstand the storms of politics. So the hon. members criticize this Bill not on its merits, but on grounds of generalities.

The Opposition—now I am referring to all the Opposition members who have taken part in this debate—vary their criticism with very clever formulas which vary from “a professional committee which will look once a year at the cost-of-living index and the devaluation of money, and then decide by amending the Act each year to give the owners of flats a certain percentage increase”, on the one hand to “business-based incentives involving fiscal or tax adaptations” on the other hand.

You do not even understand that.

I understand it reasonably well. In fact I understand it so well that it appears to me to be nothing but specious formulas which will not stand the test of practice in any case. After all, this Government is not trying to be popular at all costs with all sections of the population through this legislation. The Government cannot serve the interests of one section of the community only, and in that process, smother the other sections of the community. In fact, no Government can allow, in this time of rising prices and rising costs, that one of the primary elements in the composition of the cost of living index rises excessively. The cost of housing is, after all, a primary element in that formula.

This side of the House made a very critical analysis of the legislation which is before us today. I want to tell you that one might have had reservations if one had not studied this Bill properly. I want to tell you that we as the governing party analysed this matter very critically, perhaps more critically than the United Party did, judging by their speeches. I do not say this because this matter is so readily exploitable politically, but because basic errors were apparent throughout in the criticism of Opposition members of the measure. After we had considered this amending Bill very thoroughly, we satisfied ourselves that none of the new factors which were to be incorporated in the Act, would increase rentals excessively. What we do want to ask the hon. the Minister today with great respect, is that he gives us two basic assurances. The first of these is that he must see to it through his department that all rent boards in the country will be properly informed in the light of the amendment and its application, so that, as far as the Rents Act is concerned, we shall have uniform action throughout the Republic. In the second place we want to ask very seriously that he will guard scrupulously against excessive increases in rentals, especially where rent boards may possibly attach exaggerated weight to new elements in the formula for determining rent value. The cardinal aspect of the Rents Act, as has been emphasized over and again by hon. members here, is that the lessee on the one hand, must enjoy protection and that the lessor on the other hand, will be allowed a reasonable return and a reasonable capital growth. Naturally this Rents Act with its restrictions brings about a degree of disruption of the economic laws which want demand and supply to determine the price, in this case the rent. Therefore the scope of this Bill must not be such that it will smother the supply. We have had projections made by various members and the hon. the Minister also made a projection for us of what the housing needs will be up to the end of the century. I think that no Government can stand alone in such a situation as far as the provision of housing is concerned. It cannot allow that the partner which it has in this process, viz. the developer, will be strangled. On the one hand I do not think that any sensible Government will give any thought whatsoever at this stage to abolishing rent control. Nor do I think that there is such an optimistic lessor today who will expect rent control to be abolished, because this will lead to absolute chaos. Nor could we leave the Act as it stands on the Statute Book today, because the existing Act lends itself to malpractices. However, to adapt this Bill one-sidedly, would also be fatal. This is a delicate matter. In his Second Reading speech the hon. the Minister indicated that it was extremely difficult to create a proper and just balance between the interests of the lessee and those of the lessor. He made this statement in spite of the fact that he had an expert report at his disposal, the report of the Johannes Commission, which had to make recommendations to him in this connection.

Why can we not get it as well?

I want to say that I really hope that hon. members on the opposite side will stop moaning about the report of the Johannes Commission.

Have you seen it?

Mr. Speaker, I have not seen it, and at this stage I do not need to see it because the report of the Johannes Commission was not meant for public consumption. This commission was appointed exclusively to advise the hon. the Minister. I think the witnesses who gave evidence before the commission in this connection, were under that impression as well —that it was a report to the Minister and was not meant for public consumption.

Sir, in what way does this Bill affect the interests of the two parties, the lessor on the one hand and the lessee on the other hand? A more scientific formula than the one which is currently applicable is laid down for the lessor, in that replacement value less depreciation is now brought in as an element into the formula for the determination of rent value, as well as the fact that the value of uncontrolled premises can now also serve as a guideline. Sir, this does not mean that the rentals of uncontrolled flats will determine the rentals of controlled flats; it is purely a guideline which is laid down to see that absolutely excessive rentals will not be charged. Sir, a further advantage which lessors receive in terms of the provisions of this Bill, is the combining of the value of land and buildings and the increase of the return to 8½%, as well as the increase of the maximum maintenance allowance from 2% to 2½%. Naturally there are also smaller concessions such as additional insurance premiums which the lessor will be allowed, as well as the business rates and taxes on premises which are used for residential purposes only, but which are zoned for business; then there is also a concession in respect of the distribution of electricity, etc.

Sir, what are the advantages which the lessee will gain from this Bill? Although this formula could possibly have resulted in large increases in rentals, rentals are stabilized by the abolition of interest on loans, which was a recoverable cost in the calculation of rentals. Sir, in addition to this the lessee also receives a much larger degree of protection, although hon. members opposite tried to indicate that this Bill did not afford additional protection to the lessee. Sir, we can probably deal with that in greater detail at the Committee Stage. I just want to mention a few of the provisions which give the lessee additional protection. There is the protection that smaller alterations to the rented unit will not change the identity of those premises so that it may then be removed from rent control. Sir, I want to mention here to you the classic example, of a house in Parow where the controlled rent was R36; it is a house which was converted into seven rooms which are now rented at R55 per room. In other words, the income in rental from those premises now amounts to R385, while the controlled rental is only R36. Sir, the restrictions on rent inspectors are lifted so that they may visit all premises; the prohibition on ejectment is extended to the garage or parking place, which in actual fact was a lever which lessors could use to get rid of lessees. The provisions in connection with own use which the lessor could obtain of his premises by putting a child in a room and then giving the lessee notice, are amended by providing that the lessor must use the whole of the premises. The ejectment of a lessee on grounds of the breach of trivial provisions in the lease is eliminated. Sir, another very important matter is the intimidation of lessees by lessors, about which lessees have often complained. The intimidation clause, section 21(4) of the existing Act, has been tightened up. Hon. members will concede that it was difficult to prove that a lessor had done something with the aim of depriving the lessee of peaceful enjoyment of occupation. This matter is now stated very specifically, so that there can be no doubt about this, and the fine in this connection has also been increased. The lessees will now have access to the applications made to the Rent Board for increases in rentals as well. The lessor will not be able to collect more than his rental. He will not, for example, be able to collect for extra repairs. Sir, I have run through the Bill just briefly, and I am sure that I have missed a few things, but, in at least 18 instances, the penalties are doubled at least and in many instances, as in this intimidation clause, increased from something like R100 to R1 000. In other words, considerably more protection is afforded to the lessee in this Bill.

Now, what are the principal objections to this legislation that we have had from the Opposition? I think that in the first place, in spite of their pleas for the lessee, they have been opposed to the 8½% which is now allowed to the lessor on the joint valuation of his land and building, and the argument throughout was that this 8½% was too low. Now I want to refer in particular to the statement which the hon. member for Walmer made, a reasonably arrogant statement which he made, and I want to give it a little attention, if this little bit of attention will not make him more conceited than he already is at this stage. I quote from the unrevised copy of his speech. He says—

Sir, here this hon. member proceeded upon a totally erroneous view. He is guilty of an error if he alleges that the lessor only receives 8½% of his investment. Surely this is not so. The lessor receives 8½% on an inflated amount, or let us say, on a fictitious amount. He receives 8½% on the rent value of those premises, which in any event is considerably higher than his investment in those premises. If this 8½% is to be increased, as is advocated, it can bring about a considerable increase in rentals. The advocation of certain fiscal and taxation measures as a solution to serve as a buffer against an increase in rentals is, I think, something which the hon. the Minister will deal with himself. Sir, the hon. member for Walmer, when he speaks about this matter, should first consult with the hon. member for Constantia, who also spoke about this matter, but stated a totally different standpoint. But, as I said in the beginning, it is customary that there should be a little double talk on this matter. The hon. member for Wynberg said he did not believe there were such things as “poor lessors”— or rather, he did not even think there was such a thing as a lessor. I quote what he said (translation)—

Now do you see, Sir, what undiluted wisdom has been pronounced in this debate?

The second objection which we could detect in the ranks of the Opposition, is that they feel unhappy about this new element in the formula for determining the rent value. They believe that it will bring about a considerable increase in the value, viz. this replacement value less depreciation, as calculated by the quantity surveyors. The fact is that this is only one of five factors which determine the rent value. It carries no greater weight than any of the other elements in this formula. I refer here to the other elements such as the municipal valuation, the divisional council valuation, the building society valuation, etc. The hon. member for Green Point alleged that the municipal valuation in the Cape was, in any case, based on replacement value less depreciation. If that is the case, then I do not know why we are worried, because then there is no new element in this formula for determining the rent value. The hon. member went further and attempted a practical exercise in showing how rentals were going to increase in terms of this new formula. Now it is interesting that he used for his argument, a small block of flats which was not mortgaged. On these grounds he tried to prove that there would in fact be an increase. However, the hon. member made the basic error of isolating only one of the factors in the calculation of the rent value, viz. the municipal valuation, and regarding it as the rent value in his calculation. In other words, his calculation is totally incorrect as far as that is concerned. Sir, I could do likewise and make a calculation for the hon. member for Green Point on the basis of a practical exercise, according to which I could indicate that as a result of this formula a reduction of rentals could be possible.

Give us an example.

I can do that quite easily. If time allows me, I shall mention such an example where there is a tremendously high mortgage on a flat at a high rate of interest. The fact remains that the omission in terms of this Bill of the interest on a lone is the key in this connection. Apart from the fact that this will be a damper on increases in costs, it is one of the most positive factors in this Bill to stabilize rentals for the future. By establishing a fixed return of 8½%, without including the interest on a loan, which differs from place to place and sometimes from building to building, we are putting lessees and lessors more or less on the same footing. Even the pensioner whom the hon. member for Green Point brought into the matter, who received an increase of R12 in his pension, and had to pay R11 more rent the next month because of an increase in the interest on a loan, will now be assured of a more stable rental. After all, Sir, we can all undertake practical arithmetical excursions to prove an argument. So the hon. member for Green Point cannot say that because the maintenance costs allowed may rise from 2% to 2½%, it is indeed going to rise to 2½%. It will depend on the physical inspection which the Rent Board concerned will hold on those premises. But because it is so difficult to calculate a real case beyond any doubt on the basis of the proposed adjustments—I have already indicated why it is hardly possible for us to make a proper calculation—I want to repeat my request to the hon. the Minister to keep a watchful eye on this.

Sir, I want to conclude. There are two things which lessees and lessors have in common. In the first place all lessees and lessors are definitely not rogues, and in the second place, perhaps so much more than in the first place, neither are they angels. Mr. Speaker, what is most disquieting to me today, is the complete ignorance of so many lessees about the protection which they can enjoy in terms of the Rents Act. Many of our lessees allow themselves to be intimidated. Many of them pay too much rent, more than is allowed for those particular premises; only they do not get a receipt for the amount in excess of what is allowed. They are people who let themselves be totally intimidated because they are in fear of ejectment. That fear of ejectment from reasonable rented premises is dominant among people, with the result that they never lay claim to their rights. One so wishes that lessees could be better informed about their rights. I wish that a radio programme such as “Monitor”, which caused such a sensation in the past about wages, would rather take up this issue of rent control to inform lessees of what their rights within the Act are and also what their supplementary rights are in terms of this amending Bill.

We on this side of the House support this legislation because it is better legislation and because rent value and rental will be calculated in a more scientific way and enhanced protection will be given to lessees as well. Above all, we do it because, under the guidance of this Minister and his department, an ever watchful eye will be kept on rent adjustments, so that there will be no excessive rent increases as a result of this new legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei made a very good speech which, I am sure, caused the hearts of his Whips to beat faster. I see now that the hon. member for Langlaagte has suddenly disappeared without trace and withdrawn from the debate. Possibly his Whips were not quite so satisfied with his speech and with a few of his ideas which were, perhaps, aimed against this legislation. The reason why the hon. member for Langlaagte made a few blunders is the fact that in this Bill we have a real old crock. The original Act dates from the war years. It has been touched up and put right and now and again something has been done to keep it going. This is one of the reasons why we on this side of the House are concerned about the fact that the report of the Johannes Commission has not been tabled. We are certain that that Commission was fully aware of the difficult nature of the legislation we are dealing with here.

The objection of this side of the House is that in fact, this legislation solves nothing. It solves nothing for the lessees nor does it solve anything for the lessors. In my opinion we are in agreement with the Government that an attempt is being made to take action against exploiters. We note, too, that the hon. member for Houghton has wholly forsaken her interest in civil freedoms with regard to this matter because she goes even further and wants to see these exploiters thrown in gaol. Fortunately, we on this side are faithful to our principles and we shall not support such proposals.

As I understand this Bill, the most important aspect is to decide how Rent Boards are to arrive at a valuation. Many people are of the opinion that quantity surveyors will be inundated with work because they will now have to determine the replacement value of buildings and submit a finding to Rent Boards. However I do not think that this will occur, because in any event, the Rent Boards determine the value of land and buildings on a very arbitrary basis. In this regard I want to refer to an MBA thesis submitted to the University of Pretoria, which investigated investments in blocks of flats in Pretoria. In this thesis an example is given of one of the Rent Board decisions. It is entirely arbitrary. The municipal valuation of the land is R77 200, whereas the Rent Board gave it a value of R50 000. The Rent Board did so in 1972 and again in 1975. People with experience of Rent Boards will agree that there will be no point in obtaining a quantity surveyor’s estimate because Rent Boards do just what they like.

I have before me more examples concerning other blocks of flats in Pretoria from which it is clear that the Rent Boards have not applied any social yardstick in determining the value of the land. In passing, I just want to mention that the Bill only provides for quantity surveyors determining the value of properties. However, in this regard South Africa has a valuable institute, namely the South African Institute of Valuers, which tries to maintain a reasonably high standard. This, of course, is a professional institute. I should like to propose that they, too, be allowed to determine the value.

If we want to arrive at the value of an investment, the only scientific way, the basic and most important aspect in the determining of value, is to work out what interest or return the investment affords and then to capitalize it. It depends entirely on an open market. If we do not have an open market in whatever commodity we are dealing with—be it agricultural products, flats or accommodation—then we will be unable to arrive at a valuation of this kind. That is the trouble with this legislation, viz. that it does not create circumstances in which there is a free market in accommodation. If, for example, we consider a city like Pretoria, we will find that there is a reasonably good market for accommodation. Of course, this is for people who are not poor—I shall deal with the poor people later. There is an open market for flats in Pretoria, because there is a reasonable supply of dwelling units.

I know of a new block of flats in Pretoria from which it is planned to draw a return of 11 % per annum. The interest on the mortgage has now risen to 12%, which means that the owners are now starting to lose. Nevertheless the owners of that block of flats are not prepared to push up their rents, because they know that the market could not stand it. In Pretoria, therefore, the situation as regards supply and demand works perfectly. I believe that if we were to achieve that situation throughout the entire country, then we should have a sound accommodation market.

Our difficulty in this country is that our citizens have become used to unnecessarily cheap accommodation, in other words accommodation that is uneconomic for private investors. Accommodation is, of course, provided for the Police, and only yesterday we approved the purchase by the Department of Community Development of blocks of flats for the Defence Force. The Department of Water Affairs, too, provides accommodation at a very low cost, with which the private investor and developer is unable to compete. The problem is that the poor people do exist but there are many people who can afford decent accommodation and who get it at a very low price. What, then, is our policy in respect of these poor people? I believe that the National Housing Fund must provide decent housing for these people. There is provision for this, and we know that. The problem arises with people who quite possibly could afford more expensive accommodation. For example, let us consider this House—every M.P. who comes here to the Cape from the interior, to this cradle of South Africa, must seek accommodation. He can do so in two ways. He can either try to get it on the open market in Cape Town or he can go and stay at Acacia Park. The position is that there is subsidized accommodation at Acacia Park. People living there occupy very convenient and cheap accommodation. I contend that every hon. member who does not live in Acacia Park, who has to seek accommodation on the open market and who is able to afford reasonably good accommodation —I do not want to investigate where the members of Parliament live here in Cape Town—lives in a block of flats that falls under rent control. Now the hon. the Minister must ask whether this is reasonable and fair towards the lessors of flats.

We are now moving the amendment which the hon. member for Green Point introduced, namely that we should establish certain benefits for developers. As I understand it, no reasonable developer has any complaint in regard to this principle of rent control. What they are complaining about is the system in this country, and in addition, the fact that it does not provide for a fluctuating criterion for determining rent. I think it is important that we should consider for a moment why exploiters do in fact exist. We must not forget the reasons for the fact that exploitation does occur. If there had not been an Act like the present one, it would in fact have been a little more difficult for them to exploit people. If we were in fact to determine rents on the basis of 8½% of the value of the land and the building—I just want to say in passing that I think that this is a very sound change—then we must try to introduce some form of indexation. Suppose our friends in Arabia bring millions of rand to South Africa with the result that we have ample money in the country and the interest rates drop to the level they were at eight to ten years ago—viz. to 6%—is the hon. the Minister going to come back to this House with an amendment to change the percentage? Would it not be better if there were indexation? We all realize that owing to the rising interest rate, we are experiencing difficult times financially, but I believe that it would be better if we had some form of indexation.

To conclude, I want to say that in the United States of America there is a very good system of determining the value of buildings and in terms of which certain benefits are afforded the owners. Every year a farmer or a company depreciates the value of a motor car by a certain percentage. If anyone constructs a building in the United States, he can inform the department that collects income tax that he wants to write off the building within 30 or 40 years. Then he is allowed to write off a certain percentage in depreciation every year—say for example 2½%. The owner has determined the value of the building. If we were to introduce this here, it would be very easy for the Rent Board to make a specific valuation. I believe that this is the kind of approach we must adopt in order to afford certain benefits to the developers.

In conclusion I want to refer to clause 1(i) that replaces paragraph fa) of the definition of “value” in the principal Act. In the principal Act there is also a paragraph (c) under the definition of “value” which contains a reference to a “sworn valuation” or a “building society valuation”. Hon. members probably know that the hon. the Minister of Justice only allows the sworn appraiser or valuer to do work of this kind pertaining to estates. The word “sworn” in the principal Act is therefore no longer applicable. In my opinion it should be amended accordingly in the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Tygervallei tried to perform quite an egg dance this afternoon. I suggest that the hon. member who is sitting quite close to him, should go and ask his colleague and Chief Whip who is sitting in front of him, whether he has not received any representations in connection with the problems this legislation is trying to rectify. He should go and ask the hon. Chief Whip whether he would be willing to go back to his voters who have written letters to him and tell them that he has taken no notice of their letters, that he voted for the legislation and that he is quite satisfied with it. That is the test. The hon. Chief Whip will force members on that side to join him in voting in favour of the Bill. The hon. member for Tygervallei will vote for the Bill.

I agree with the hon. member for Tygervallei.

However, if hon. members return to their constituencies the matter will be completely different.

It was gratifying to hear what measure of confidence the hon. member for Tygervallei has in the report of the Johannes Commission. He said it was an excellent report, but when I asked him whether he bad read it, he said “no”. This is the kind of egg dance hon. members opposite perform here.

I did not say it was excellent.

He said it was a good report, an important …

I said “expert”.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is basing his support for the legislation on an expert report, but when I asked him whether he had read it, he said “No, I have not read it, but this is the report according to which the hon. the Minister should act”. Well, that kind of egg dance does not help at all. In the Committee Stage we shall produce some calculations, and we shall then see where the hon. member stands and what the effect of this Bill is going to be.

†Mr. Speaker, I cannot let the speech of the hon. member for Johannesburg-North pass unnoticed. I want to put it on record and to emphasize it so that every tenant in South Africa can hear and know that the Progressive Party have today asked for the gradual withdrawal and abolition of rent control.

No, Vause, it is not …

Yes, he said it; he asked for the gradual phasing out of rent control.

In certain circumstances.

Wait, let us deal with it in detail. The Progressive Party has asked the Government to phase out rent control in steps. The other alternative is that, as a tenant leaves a flat, that flat will from then on be exempted from rent control. In other words, if a public servant is transferred, the fact that he is transferred in the service of his country, means that he loses the protection of rent control. I want it to go on record here that the Progressive Party has asked for the gradual abolition of rent control and the throwing to the wolves of the people who today enjoy protection, unless those people are social welfare cases in which case they can be subsidized.

But the hon. member for Green Point said so too.

In other words, Mr. Speaker, everyone must go to the Government with cap in hand and beg for a subsidy. I can understand the attitude of the Progressive Party. They do not have any tenants supporting them; only landlords support them. I challenge them to produce the tenants who support them. They do not give a tinker’s damn for the tenants. They are prepared to lift rent control over a period of time or as people leave. They say rent must be determined by the market, but the market reflects an imbalance since there is a shortage in the supply and an excess in the demand. That is the market place which, according to the Progressive Party, should determine the rental which the people of South Africa must pay.

That is exactly the attitude of the hon. member for Green Point and of the hon. member for Pinetown.

No, it was not. I shall come back to that point. The hon. member for Green Point made positive proposals.

It is a case of Waddell vs. Wainer.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not react upon that comment. I want to talk with the deepest sincerity because this is a matter which touches many thousands of people very deeply. This is a Bill for which many thousands have waited and for which many hundreds have literally prayed. I know of people who go down on their knees in prayer because they are desperately afraid of what the future holds for them as far as housing is concerned. To thousands of people this Bill was something to which they had looked forward. There had been an inquiry and at long last there was a Rents Amendment Bill. They looked forward to it because they themselves faced a situation of desperation. Does the hon. the Minister not understand the heartbreak, tragedy and despair of people who see the roof over their heads becoming something they can no longer afford? It is these people over whom the sword of Damocles hangs. While we debate the matter here with the hon. member for Tygerberg, while we split hairs over percentages and formulae and theories these people are wondering what is to happen to them. To these people these are not formulae or theories. To these people it is a question of their very existence. I do not say that this Bill will solve the problem of those people. Other measures are needed. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned some of the measures that could be taken. However, this Bill could delay that threat, it could ease that burden, it could protect for a time. This in fact it does do. I want to say frankly and publicly to the hon. the Minister how grateful I am for many of the amendments in this Bill which I believe will do a great deal of good. I shall come back to them. I want to express my appreciation because many of these amendments have flowed from correspondence and discussions which the hon. the Minister and I or his department and I have had. Therefore it is all the more unfortunate that out of 22 clauses not even one clause but merely a few words, a few phrases, should serve to turn the hope which thousands of people have placed in this Bill into a nightmare. In essence there are only a few phrases which bring about this change. There is the question of a percentage figure and the words “replacement value”. These are the two essential factors. Out of this entire Bill of 19 pages and 22 clauses there are two or three phrases in the first clause to change it from something that would have been welcomed and have relieved thousands of people of their worry into yet another nightmare. This is not a political issue. It is simply a human tragedy. We can talk all we like about balancing factors and interests. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that that is not the problem that faces us. I want to appeal to him in the name of all those people to whom this measure was to have brought security of tenure, to all those who looked forward to this measure as something which would remove that sword over their heads, to withdraw clause 1 from this Bill. Let us consider clause 1 separately. Let us then debate the matter and work out percentages but let us pass the other 21 clauses unanimously first. Let us do so with the support of this whole House and let us deal with clause 1 in isolation. Let us then approach this matter on the merits of this one issue. It is most unfortunate that all the good that is in this Bill should be outweighed by the one inescapable fact that if this Bill becomes law the rentals paid by hundreds of thousands of people are going to be increased.

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense, it is a fact.

You cannot prove it.

If this is going to be a package deal—this debate will have to be adjourned in a few moments—let me make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. Let us adjourn this debate for two or three weeks and let him go with me or with other members to our constituencies where he can meet these people for whom I am talking here this afternoon; where we can calculate on the ground, with his officials present, the practical effect which this is going to have on thousands of people. I ask him to adjourn the debate while we go back to Durban Point, to Green Point, to constituencies like Hillbrow and Yeoville, if that hon. member is at all interested.

To Benoni.

Yes, to Benoni …

To Parow.

Let us go to Parow and to every constituency where there are flats and where there are tenants.

To Killarney.

Sir, I will be the hon. the Minister’s guide; I will take him from building to building where I will introduce him to the people who are going to be affected. We can then get the file from his local office and we can calculate the rental under the present situation and also what effect this Bill will have. I agree, Sir, that the removal of interest is going to remove one of the constantly recurring complaints.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Sir, I have three minutes left before this debate will be adjourned. The hon. member had ample opportunity to state his case. He appealed for the abolition, the withdrawal, of rent control.

[Inaudible.]

Let him explain to his voters, if he is interested, what effect that will have on them. Sir, let the hon. the Minister, having made this inquiry, then come back here, and let us then face the factual situation. I would like to ask him to tell this House how many practical calculations he has done on the factual position as it applies today in rent-controlled buildings. [Interjection.] I was hoping the hon. the Minister would tell us how many actual calculations he has done to determine the effect of this measure. I want to say in the few moments I have left that I accept unquestioningly that there is another side to this coin, and that is the side of those people who exploit accommodation, who can afford more and who are living in rent-controlled accommodation. There is the side of the owner who has invested his life’s savings and finds that he can no longer live on the return that he is receiving. There is the side of the vast majority of landlords—and I emphasize this—who are humane, fair and honest people, and I want to exclude them immediately. I want to say that their humanity and their fairness to tenants is something which I believe deserves only the highest praise.

You are covering yourself on both sides.

No, I am not covering myself because I am going to name names. When I talk of evils, of injustice and unfairness, I am talking of the minority of landlords. The firms with whom I deal, thank goodness, are people to whom you can go and talk; they are in the majority; they are people to whom you can take a hard luck case, people to whom you can go and say: “Look, this is the situation with Mrs. X; her husband has died; this is her only income; can you help her?” Sir, these are people who are human beings in every sense of the word, but unfortunately we are not dealing only with those people; we are dealing also with people of another type and those are the people for whom this Bill will present a break to exploit people who are suffering under them. I hope that when we continue with this debate, Sir, I will be able to deal then with that side of the coin, with the question of intimidation, of victimization and of SS tactics which are being used in many cases.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30(2).

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I have pleasure in moving the motion appearing in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (a) the development and progress of Bantu businessmen;
2. (b) more economical and efficient operation by Bantu businessmen; and
3. (c) lower prices to the urban Bantu consumer.

Before I deal with it, I would like to inform this House, because I have heard statements to the contrary, that this motion has not been prompted by an article which appeared in the Financial Mail on 14 February, dealing with the same subject. My motion appeared on the Order Paper on 12 February and was, in fact, conceived quite a considerable time before that. In fact, if anything, the opposite is likely to be the case.

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to highlight what I consider to be a very important matter, and I am very glad to see that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration is here to deal with the motion, because I believe that he is one of the Ministers who is likely to deal sympathetically with some of the problems which will be raised. The purpose of this motion is to highlight the disabilities, both legal and other disabilities, which are suffered by African traders in the urban townships; to highlight the effect which these disabilities under which these African traders suffer has on their economical and efficient operation, and above all, to highlight the effect which this whole situation, the disabilities under which the African traders exist, has on the Black consumer in the urban townships. This motion asks for a commission to investigate the situation, because although it may be reasonably easy to determine the facts of the situation and the cause of the disabilities, it is a very complex question as to what should be done about them. I shall certainly in the discussions which follow put forward certain ideas on how the position can be improved.

I think, first of all, Sir, we must get one thing quite straight, and that is that basically many of the difficulties under which African traders in urban townships suffer stem from the Government’s policy of apartheid and the Government’s ideology of separate development.

You are starting off with nonsense.

The urban African trader is not regarded by the Government as a permanent member of the urban population and the Government considers that his ultimate destination is not the urban areas but the homelands.

Sir, this ignores the realities of the situation. It ignores the fact that the urban African is part of the whole South African scene. It ignores the fact that the urban African is necessary to the South African economy. Without the urban African playing his part in the urban areas, the whole economy of South Africa would grind to a halt. It ignores the fact that there is no other viable alternative to the urban African’s existence because the homelands cannot support him. The homelands cannot support double or more than double the population that they already have to support because they do not have the resources to do so. In carrying out this general policy, the Government have deliberately made trading for Africans in the townships as unattractive as possible and they have discouraged the development of African traders on a sound and permanent basis.

Sir, what are these disabilities to which I refer? Some, and probably the most important of them, are legal disabilities, that is, disabilities caused by legislation and regulations.

I shall list what I consider to be the most important disabilities that African traders suffer under. They are not allowed to own the site on which they conduct their operations. The fact that they have no real property to offer as security means that their ability to borrow from financial institutions and their ability to obtain supplies from suppliers is badly impaired. In other words, they find difficulty in borrowing and their credit rating is a low one. Under these circumstances it is general that African traders in the townships are under-capitalized.

Then, Mr. Speaker, an African trader may only have one business. This means that in the main they are small businessmen. They cannot develop into businessmen of any size in a world of commerce where size, or a certain size, means economical operation. This minimizes their buying power, which has the effect that their selling prices are liable to be higher, and in most cases are higher than can be obtained in the White areas. They are not allowed to form companies or partnerships and they are not allowed to run wholesale businesses. This precludes joint ventures. It precludes them from getting together and forming economical operating units. They may conduct business only for the daily essential requirements of the Bantu population. For this reason the development of the Bantu trader has virtually stopped at the level of the general dealer with a relatively small range of merchandise. This does not tie in with the modern concept of retailing. They are not allowed to effect alterations to their premises without the permission of the Bantu Board. This inhibits modernization and means in practice that shop lay-outs are usually poor and unattractive. Licences are subject to annual review and may be terminated at any time after a year. This means that a Bantu trader has to satisfy the authorities each year that he is a competent trader and that he is fit and proper to have a trading licence. This creates a situation where he has no security of being able to operate a permanent business. What incentive is there for him to improve his business and to operate it efficiently, or to put any money into modernizing it?

There are other disabilities from which the African trader suffers, both social and economic by nature, and many of these also stem indirectly from the legal disabilities from which he suffers. Because of the legal restrictions which lead to this lack of incentive to improve, the level of retailing technology in the African townships has not progressed beyond the general dealer stage. The opportunities and the incentive to acquire and practise modern retailing knowhow are, because of this general situation of lack of incentive, very limited.

A further disability they suffer from is that modern retailing involves planned decentralized shopping centres such as we have in the White areas. These shopping centres are located in suburban areas for maximum convenience and accessibility, and afford the opportunity of one-stop shopping. The present situation in African townships is that the shops are scattered. They are haphazardly located and there is a virtual absence of planned shopping centre development in the modern sense.

The final disability from which African traders suffer, I would say, is that their clientele is virtually 100% a poor clientele. In other words, the buying power of their customers is low. They have to do more than a day’s work to get a very small turnover.

These are some of the disadvantages and disabilities under which African traders in the townships suffer. In total, I think they add up to a very considerable amount. Their effect upon the ability of African traders to develop and satisfy their customers is a serious one. I would say the general position is that the majority of urban African shoppers prefer to patronize retail establishments outside of the townships and are dissatisfied with the shopping facilities which are available in the townships. A recent survey undertaken by the University of Port Elizabeth established that out of all African consumers in the Port Elizabeth townships approximately two-thirds were dissatisfied with the shopping facilities in the townships. I believe that an even higher percentage than that— I would put the percentage at as high as 90%—of the available buying power of the inhabitants of the townships is spent outside and not inside the townships. The reasons for this trend are not difficult to establish. Prices charged by traders in the African townships are considerably higher than those charged in White areas. The appearance, the lay-out, the range of merchandise and the quality of the goods available are not comparable to what are available in the White areas. The implications of this trend are very significant and I think they are very serious as far as the African trader is concerned unless steps are taken to reverse them. A situation of disability such as exists, causes African traders to operate, first of all, at a low level of efficiency and profitability.

The fact that they are operating at a low level of profitability inhibits the incentive to improve and inhibits the practice of initiative. The fact that they do not want to improve and that they do not use their initiative in turn lowers the quality of the service which they offer to customers, which in turn drives further customers away to shop in the White areas. The present situation is one of a vicious circle and of one which is becoming more vicious. I believe it is harming the African retailers in the townships themselves, but more important, it is harming the African consumer in the townships. I put it to the hon. the Minister that it must be in the interests of the African consumer in the townships to have shopping facilities equivalent to what is available in the White areas, if only for the reason that shopping time and the expense of travelling to the White areas will thereby be saved.

I have put some of the disabilities and have, in fact, painted a fairly comprehensive picture of the disabilities under which the African trader suffers. What is the answer as far as the trader and the consumer are concerned? I do not think that there is a simple answer and for that reason I suggest, in this motion, that a commission should be appointed to study this whole subject in depth. I do believe, however, that there are certain steps which should be taken immediately. The first of these steps should be in regard to the question of ownership or the method of occupation of the premises which African traders occupy to do their business.

I believe that one of the best ways of giving the African trader some security of occupancy would be a long leasehold arrangement which would be on a transferable basis. It will have to be transferable if it is to be used as a security for borrowing money or as a security for suppliers. At this stage a leasehold basis is probably a better arrangement than freehold until we can reach a stage where freehold can also be extended to all property in the townships. To extend it only to business premises might be inviting monopolistic tendencies. Traders must also be allowed to alter their premises, to modernize their premises so that they can have lay-outs that are comparable to the layouts of White traders. If these steps were taken in regard to the properties which traders occupy, the whole financial status of the African trader, his ability to buy and his credit-worthiness, would improve and he would be able to conduct his business in a modem lay-out.

Secondly, I think that the whole licensing system of African traders in the townships requires review. The present system whereby licences are reviewed annually, should be changed to one whereby they are reviewed annually only during a proving period until the African trader has proved his competency and has established a level of efficiency and profitability.

What is the position in White areas as far as renewal is concerned?

In the White areas there is automatic renewal. I believe that after a proving period, once an African trader has proved his competence and profitability, the issue of licences should be automatic. Only by ensuring that there is a certainty that he can continue his business, will he have the incentive to improve his efficiency and to progress.

The third step that can be taken immediately, is the removal of the restriction on African traders that they may only operate one business. Once the traders are permitted to form branches or to go into other types of business they will be able to grow to an economic size which will enhance their buying power and promote growth and efficiency.

Finally, as far as the steps that should be taken immediately are concerned, I believe that there should be no restriction in the townships on the type of merchandise which is sold by a trader. This step, if taken, would allow African traders to compete on an equal footing with their counterparts in the White areas as far as the range of merchandise is concerned. As I say, those are four steps which I suggest the hon. the Minister should take immediately.

Then I think there is need for a considerable amount of rethinking by the Bantu urban boards on the planning of shopping centres in the townships. The development must be in the direction of the neighbourhood type of shopping centre which we have in the White areas, focused in due course around a supermarket type of operation. That, however, can only come in time as improved technology comes to the townships. As improved technology comes to the townships, the present dispersed premises of traders should disappear.

This brings me to the vital question as far as the improvement of trading in the townships is concerned and that is improved retail technology. With some notable exceptions I think it can be said that African traders in the townships are generally technically far less advanced than their European counterparts. Retailing technology has advanced tremendously over the last 20 to 30 years. We have had the establishment of self-service on a wide scale, improved display, improved lay-out, improved buying methods, promotions and so on, but because of the restrictions and the disabilities under which the African traders suffer, they have not participated to any extent in this advance. I believe it is important for the African trader, for his future and for the consumer that modern technology be brought into the townships as soon as possible. I believe that the best way to do this would be to evolve some form of partnership between White businesses who have the technical know-how and Black traders in the townships. Obviously if a partnership arrangement is to be of any attraction to a White trader, it must mean that he be allowed to invest capital in the townships. I believe that that could be done on an agency basis similar to the agency basis which prevails in the homelands. What is important is not the investment of White capital in the townships, but the provision of the technical know-how which the White trader has. If a partnership arrangement were allowed, initially partnerships would be managed by the White partner, but I think it should be a condition of any partnership to provide intensive training for the Africans in the townships so that they would be in a position to take over more and more responsible positions. In a partnership the positions of responsibility must be open to competent Africans and every effort must be made to train the Africans to be competent in these positions, but such positions must be filled strictly on merit. I believe that it is also important in any partnership arrangement that the goodwill of the name of the partner established in the White area should also be given to the partnership business in the township. Names such as O.K. Bazaars, Woolworths, Edgars and so forth have a tremendous drawing power with the Africans. If that drawing power is to be retained in the townships by the traders who have a partnership arrangement, it is necessary that those partnerships be identified with the names that are well known in the White areas.

I appreciate that improved technological methods which, of course, would also carry with them lower prices to the consumer, will lead to the less efficient African traders being hurt and possibly going out of business. Nevertheless I believe that the partnership concept and the fact that it will bring to the townships greatly improved trading methods, will also lead to a greatly expanded volume of trade in the townships. In the overall picture it will mean that the participation by African businessmen will not suffer but will actually be expanded. I also believe that, with the increase in overall trade that should occur in the townships, even independent African businessmen should benefit from this change provided they are efficient.

Finally I would like to say that in the final analysis the person who counts is the consumer. I believe that, if some of the ideas I have mentioned this afternoon were put into practice, there would be great benefits in store for the consumer in the form of improved shopping facilities and lower prices. I believe that this is one important way of combating inflation and of raising the living standards of the Africans living in the townships.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia is the Opposition’s main speaker on financial matters and, after having listened to him this afternoon, it would seem to me that he should rather confine himself to finances and leave Bantu affairs to people who know more about it.

Like you?

Yesterday, the hon. member for Constantia made a very fine speech here on the wines of Constantia, but it seems to me the wines went down too well, as the result of which the hon. member is suffering an excess of bile here today.

Go and play rugby.

I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for having introduced this motion this afternoon. I also know that be raised this matter with the best of intentions, but I do take it amiss of the colleagues of the hon. member for not having warned him about or enlightened him a little on Bantu affairs. The least the hon. member could have done was to have gone to his colleagues or to the Department of Bantu Affairs, which is always very eager to help, and to have said: “Look, I want to discuss this motion and I know very little about this matter”. If the hon. member had done that, he would have discovered that this motion of his was totally redundant. Then he would not have wasted the time of this House this afternoon by asking for a commission of inquiry. This problem which was touched upon by the hon. member this afternoon was identified a long time ago by the Government. The Government has been devoting attention to it for a considerable time.

What has the Government done?

I shall tell you what the Government has done in this regard, and what is being done in this regard. If the hon. member had only taken the trouble, before he discussed this motion in this House, of personally trying to ascertain what the position is, he would himself have realized how completely unnecessary and redundant this motion which he introduced here this afternoon is. Since the hon. member has not been properly informed on these matters now, I think it is necessary that we tell him about everything that is being done in this regard.

The Bureau of Economic Research on Bantu Development has for a considerable time been engaged in investigations and intensive research in this field. BERBD has at its disposal the services of at least eight senior researchers who work in co-operation with NAFCOM—the National African Federated Chamber of Commerce—an organization of Bantu traders or a Chamber of Commerce which represents 6 000 members in South Africa. What is of further importance is that the president of NAFCOM is the chairman of a research advisory committee on this subject, a committee which consists of members and representatives of the following bodies and organizations: NAFCOM, BERBD, the Market Research Bureau of UNISA, the Advisory Bureau for Small Business Undertakings of the University of Potchefstroom, the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce, and a major private concern. Here we have a committee which is undertaking investigations and research and which cannot be replaced by the best commission of inquiry. I wonder whether the hon. member for Constantia has any objection to any of these members who are giving attention to these matters in a scientific and penetrating manner.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

No, Sir, I have a very limited time in which I want to deal with this matter. If only the hon. member would listen I think it would become clear to him from what I am going to say that proper research is being carried out in regard to this matter, and that this request for a commission of inquiry is therefore completely redundant. What is of further importance is that this research committee, with its research and investigations, has already made such progress that the first scientific results are expected during April 1975, i.e. next month, and further results will follow according to a list of priorities. The hon. member is therefore asking for a commission of inquiry to investigate an investigation which has almost been completed.

But Baxter kicked a goal.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Constantia did not kick a goal. He reminded me of the fellow who was so boastful of his achievements at school. He said that he had been awarded two medals at school. The one was for having a good memory, but he had forgotten what the other one was for. The hon. member forgot that he was dealing with a Government which is able to identify a problem long before the Opposition sees it, and then copes with that problem in the interests of South Africa.

The hon. member for Constantia is now requesting that the laws and regulations governing trading and business activities by Bantu persons in the urban areas be investigated in the interests of points (a), (b) and (c) of his motion. However, this is precisely what is being done by this research advisory committee. There are quite a large number of matters and fields to which they are giving attention, far more fields than the hon. member for Constantia thought of including in his motion. Included in the eight aspects which are being investigated by them is this one: External environmental factors influencing business activities, including present measures of central, provincial and local authorities. This is only one of the eight fields which are being investigated by this advisory committee. In addition it is also necessary to note that it is not only the laws and regulations which restrict businessmen and which have a hampering effect on them so that their firms cannot be termed sound business undertakings. I think this is the theme which hon. members of the Progressive Party would probably like to expand on. This is the note on which, they are always harping. After all, their harp is only capable of playing one note. I think the hon. clergyman who is apparently going to speak after me, always has only one sermon, i.e. that it is the laws and the restrictions and the regulations which are making it impossible for the Black businessman to make progress. The reason why the vast majority of Black traders do not have very successful undertakings and are not progressing and expanding, has, in the first place, nothing to do with laws and regulations, but with an approach, with an attitude to their profession, to commerce and business life as a profession. Among many of these businessmen there is an incorrect approach to sound business principles; among many of them there is no proper planning; there is no question of any refinement of sales techniques. Sir, hon. members on that side think that one sucks these things out of one’s thumb, but a study by Wolmarans of the Department of Economy of the University of Pretoria, which he completed in 1969, pointed out for example that in regard to most of these Black businessmen there is little question of any refinement in their sales techniques; that there is no sound bookkeeping, and in most cases no proper financial controls either. The investigation also pointed out that in regard to most of the Bantu businessmen there was a low income motive as opposed to a high freedom motive. In other words, it is of greater importance to the businessman that his business and his undertaking should make more freedom, i.e. more free time, available to him, than it is for him to expand his business further and to increase his turnover and his profits. The investigation does in fact point out that the Bantu businessman has the potential, if he is properly trained and also if it is possible to cultivate in him a different attitude to the profession, of developing into a good businessman. Sir, it is also very clear from the investigation that many businessmen in a city such as Soweto are not very keen to expand their existing business concerns further. An investigation in Soweto also demonstrated that many of the Black businessmen are seldom to be found at their places of business, because many of them leave their business to be run by their wives and children while they use their free time to go visiting. Mr. Speaker, it is important to note that the attitude of the businessman to his business is an important factor. In an investigation into the attractiveness of various professional careers instituted among promising children in Soweto, it was found for example that of the research group a scant minority of less than 3% were interested in entering the commercial or business world, while 43% indicated that they would like to enter the medical profession; i.e. that they would like to become medical practitioners or nurses; and 15% thought that they would like to enter the teaching profession, etc. Sir, with this I do not want to imply that there are not, in addition, statutory provisions and regulations which ought to be reconsidered under changed circumstances, but it would be a complete misconception to think that this is the only aspect which retards the Black businessmen in the urban areas and which makes it impossible for him to run his business properly.

Is it important …

But, Sir, hon. members must also realize that these very laws and regulations in many respects act as protection to the Black businessman, so that he can run his business without being subjected to the severe competition of the White businessman. In Soweto there are 1 600 businessmen, of whom not more than 5% could be classified as good businessmen, but all of them make a reasonable livelihood. In South Africa today there are 5 730 businesses in the Bantu residential areas which fall under the Bantu administration boards. Sir, under the present protective measures the vast majority of these businessmen would not be able to manage their undertakings nor make a living from them. Hon. members on this side of the House would also like to see Bantu dealers who have the necessary ability and potential being trained and afforded the necessary opportunity to run their concerns more effectively, to make increased, profits and to become part of a higher or middle class income group. But the problems which are standing in their way are receiving proper attention and are being subjected to exhaustive investigation. Sir, if I had more time at my disposal I would have been able to point out to the hon. members all the aspects which are being investigated by this research advisory committee, far more than the hon. member for Constantia tried to indicate in his motion. This is a complicated problem, with many facets. No, Sir, I am convinced that the results of this research will enable the Government to solve these problems properly, within the framework of our policy.

In conclusion there is only one other aspect to which I should like to draw attention. This is that it has now become important within our ethnic pattern that hon. members on that side of the House should also take cognizance of the fact that the Black leaders are able, in an ever more independent and responsible manner, to speak on behalf of their own people. Hon. members on that side of the House are quick to prey on anything some homeland leader or other might say from which they could make a little political capital, but when these leaders negotiate with the Government in a sensible and responsible manner, in the right place and at the right time, and specifically with the hon. the Prime Minister, on matters affecting their own people, then they conveniently ignore this. In the Press release on the negotiations which took place between the hon. the Prime Minister and the homeland leaders, there is an entire paragraph which was devoted to this aspect. Unfortunately I only have the English version here, but it refers to “trading rights for Black people in urban areas”, and then goes on to point out that Chief Buthelezi brought this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister in no uncertain terms, and then—

Sir, I think that in view of the comments made by the hon, the Prime Minister and ip view of the research which is already being done, the motion of the hon. member for Constantia is totally unacceptable to us on this side of the House, and for that reason I should like to move the following amendment—

To omit all the words after “House” and to substitute “notes with appreciation—

1. (a) the positive steps that have been taken and will be taken by the Government to promote business activities by Bantu businessmen, with special reference to the Prime Minister’s talks with the homeland governments in this connection;
2. (b) the measures being taken to protect Bantu businessmen and business enterprises; and
3. (c) the favourable effect of Government measures on the general welfare of the Bantu.”.

Mr. Speaker, I must say I was unpleasantly surprised by the tone which the hon. member for Johannesburg West adopted. Here we have a perfectly innocuous motion which asks for a commission of inquiry, and one in which misgivings are in fact expressed at certain aspects of Government policy. The object of the motion was not to make partypolitical capital out of the matter. I regret to say that I have to conclude from the tone which the hon. member for Johannesburg West adopted that his approach to this matter was in fact a purely partypolitical one. I just want to point out that when we refer to a change in attitude which has to take place among the Bantu traders in urban areas, it would perhaps be a good thing if we began with ourselves in this regard. Arising out of the reference to the consultation with Black leaders, I believe that the hon. member for Johannesburg West will certainly concede that there are many of us who are practising that form of contact. The hon. the Prime Minister indicated that consideration will indeed be given to a fundamental review of what has up to now been regarded as fundamental standpoints, in the Government’s policy, viz. a term of lease for Bantu in urban areas. I hope that this will in fact be done.

I associate myself fully with the motion of the hon. member for Constantia. What the motion requests, is a commission of inquiry. The primary object is not to express condemnation. The question which the hon. member for Johannesburg West must ask himself, and which this House must ask itself, is whether a case has been made out for a commission of inquiry to go into this matter properly. That is the question.

I want to associate myself with this, and in my argument, go into a little more detail on some of the aspects touched upon by the hon. member for Constantia. Attention has been given to all these matters by certain bodies, and some of them were mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg West, bodies such as the BERBD and others, as well as the Market Research Bureau, which cannot really be regarded as being hostile to the Government and its policy. I want to participate in the debate in that spirit, because it is not my intention to approach the matter from a narrow political viewpoint. The kind of results to which. I shall refer, were obtained from the research reports of the Market Research Bureau of the University of South Africa, in particular reports Nos. 24 of 1968 and 33 and 34 of 1973, the special report No. 2 of the Institute for Planning Research of the University of Port Elizabeth, the report of the subcommittee of the Natal Provincial Division of the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs, and, last but not least, the paper read by Dr. Lucas before the IANA congress held in 1973. From the nature of the case, many of my particulars will be derived from those reports.

The present situation is characterized by certain facts, and I think I can state them as facts without any need for them to be disputed in the House. In the first place there is the large-scale outflow of Bantu buying power to shopping facilities in the White urban areas, with a consequent considerable influx of Bantu to White business areas and the resultant relatively large capital investment in the White business areas to meet the purchasing needs of the Bantu. The second characteristic is the faulty opportunities and facilities for the proper development of Bantu entrepreneurs and a Bantu managerial class, and the third characteristic is the serious statutory obstacles which exist in this regard. I want to approach this matter from these three viewpoints.

In regard to the shopping and spending pattern of the Bantu I refer to the 1970 report of the Market Research Bureau of Unisa which dealt with the following metropolitan areas: The Cape Peninsula, the Port Elizabeth/Uitenhage complex, East London, the Durban complex and the Pretoria/ Witwatersrand/Vereeniging triangle. From this it appears inter alia that the total spending of the Bantu on the principal expenditure items amounted to approximately R625,4 million. Of this approximately R238 million or 38% was spent on food; 13,6%, or R85 million, on clothing; 9%, or R56 million, on furniture and household requirements; 7,8%, or R48 million, on alcoholic beverages. These items represent in aggregate approximately 68%, or R428 million. The remaining 30% represents expenditure on transportation, education, recreation and housing, and other less important retail commodities. This total spending of R625 million takes place at the following kind of undertakings: 43% at White retail undertakings, 37% at Bantu retail undertakings, 5% at Coloured and Asiatic retail undertakings, and 15% at other undertakings and institutions in respect of transportation, housing, education, insurance, recreation and so on. If we analyse this expenditure we find that in the case of food 38% was purchased from White traders, 7% from Coloured and Asiatic traders, and 35% from Bantu traders. However, when we consider clothing, which comprises a total of R85 million, or 13,6% of the total spending of the Bantu, we find that 77% was spent at White traders, 9% at Coloured and Asiatic traders, 7% at Bantu traders, while the other 7% is not applicable in this context. We find the same pattern in the case of furniture and household requirements—86% are purchased from White traders, 1 % from Coloured and Asiatic traders, and only 5 % from Bantu traders. [Interjections.] As far as alcoholic beverages are concerned, 29% is purchased from White traders, 1 % from Coloured and Asiatic traders, and 69% from Bantu and similar traders. It is clear that, particularly in the case of food and alcoholic beverages, the greatest percentage of the purchases take place in Bantu residential areas. In contrast to this clothing, furniture and household requirements, in other words specialized goods, are purchased primarily from White traders in White urban areas.

Of the total spending of R625 million, approximately R512 million was spent on all kinds of retail commodities, of which only 42% was spent in the Bantu residential areas, while approximately 50% was spent at White traders in White urban areas. On this basis the Bantu residential areas have a total buying power outflow of approximately 85% in respect of retail commodities, primarily clothing, furniture and to a lesser extent household requirements and food. In Port Elizabeth the University of Port Elizabeth found that approximately 50% of the buying power of the Bantu is channelled to shopping areas outside the Bantu residential areas. Dr. Lucas himself found in respect of Saulsville, Atteridgeville and Mamelodi near Pretoria, that the purchasing power outflow to Pretoria, in other words to the White area, amounted to nothing less than 72%. Obviously this kind of situation leads to a tremendous influx of Bantu to the White business areas. Apart from that a complete lack of certain retail purchasing facilities in Bantu residential areas—such as supermarkets, clothing shops, furniture shops, and so on—has been pointed out as reason for the influx to the shopping facilities for Whites. Studies in Pretoria, Port Elizabeth and Sasolburg have demonstrated that 72% of the commercial undertakings in the Bantu residential areas are amenity goods enterprises—for example, general dealers, greengrocers, butcheries, milk depots, and so on—and that there are virtually no select or specialized enterprises such as clothing shops, shoe stores, and so on. In addition we know that they are very small. In fact the hon. member for Johannesburg West conceded as much with his reference to the large number, namely 1 600, in Soweto of which only 5% may really be regarded as profitable or proper business undertakings. Physically these Bantu business under takings are very small. Sixty three of these undertakings in the Bantu residential areas have a floor area of less than 47 sq. metres, i.e. less than 500 sq. feet. In addition there are a large number of other retail businesses in the Bantu residential areas, with the result that the Bantu buying power has to be distributed among them, and it is therefore impossible to develop a proper Bantu business sector on this basis.

From a study made in Port Elizabeth it appears that more than 80% of the gross turnover of the amenity goods undertakings is less than R6 000 per annum. The sales of only 4% of the undertakings exceed R48 000 per annum, in conformity therefore with the figures which the hon. member for Johannesburg West mentioned. The other factors such as distribution, the location, the planning criteria of the local authorities and similar factors which I do not want to go into any further, were mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia. There are various reasons—the hon. member for Constantia indicated them —why Bantu buyers prefer to buy from retail entrepreneurs who are situated outside their residential areas. I want to point out that in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Johannesburg West there is not a single reference to the interests of the Bantu consumer. One of the primary reasons for such an outflow of Bantu buying power to the White business areas, is because the prices in the Bantu residential areas are higher throughout than they are in the White business areas. I know of a particular case, this happened locally, where a primus stove cost three times as much in a Bantu residential area than it cost here in the central part of Cape Town. In the case of Port Elizabeth, where 15 selected commodities were taken, it was found that the prices in the Bantu residential areas were 8% higher than the prices in the White business areas. There are various reasons for this, which I cannot go into because of the time factor. Other reasons for the outflow of the buying power are obviously that the commodities are not available in Bantu residential areas, and if they are the variety is usually smaller and the quality poorer. It is more convenient for the Bantu to make their purchases in the White business areas, because these are frequently much closer to their places of work. In terms of service there are cases where far better service is provided in the White business areas than in the Bantu business areas. In addition they frequently obtain credit facilities more easily from the White business undertakings than they do in the Bantu residential areas. In the study made in Port Elizabeth, 87% of the Bantu who were questioned commented unfavourably on the shopping facilities to be found in the Bantu residential areas. In addition there are the travelling costs which the Bantu have to incur regularly in order to make their purchases in the White business areas. These days this is a factor of special significance.

I come then to another factor and one which I have already mentioned before, namely, the question of the Bantu entrepreneur, and again I want to point out that I base my statements here on the studies which have been made and which are available. The conclusions to which we are drawn are firstly that the Bantu entrepreneur is lacking in knowledge and insight into effective business methods and know-how. The organizations mentioned by the hon. member for Johannesburg West are trying to remedy these deficiencies in part, and one is grateful for that. That lack of knowledge applies in particular to the methods of purchasing supplies, the choice of supplies, as far as quality, and so on, are concerned, the newest kinds of products which are available from the various wholesalers, direct purchases from factories, the competitive prices of certain wholesalers, the pricing of goods, the requirements of Bantu shoppers, the grouping and display of goods, etc. In this regard I want to point out that it is the policy of the department to prevent consumers in Bantu residential areas from being subjected unnecessarily to aggressive salesmanship. Instructions to this effect have been issued by the department by way of circulars. Consequently certain forms of aggressive advertising have been prohibited in Bantu residential areas, and all advertising by non-White undertakings or manufacturers of products, is subject to the prior approval of the relevant official. Obviously these measures have not succeeded for we cannot prohibit the Bantu from reading the newspapers, or from tuning in to Springbok Radio and Radio Highveld, nor can we prevent them from watching television advertisements—those which are provisionally going to appear on television. As the hon. member for Johannesburg West said, it is true that the owner is seldom personally present at his undertaking and frequently records are not kept of business transactions. As we know, the level of education of the Bantu trader is usually low and he seldom employs better trained persons because he is afraid that he may be exploited. In addition to that the Bantu trader also experiences a lack of capital. As the hon. member for Constantia indicated here, it is not easy for Bantu traders to obtain loans for business purposes from banks, primarily as a result of a lack of security. Even where security in the form of insurance policies is available, it is not easy to obtain loans. We hope that the Bantu Bank will indeed be able to help meet this need.

As far as this aspect is concerned, I want to summarize by saying that our present system is not conducive to the effective promotion of a Bantu entrepreneurial class and a Bantu managerial class.

I should like to dwell on another point mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia and tell the hon. member for Johannesburg West that the points raised by the hon. member for Constantia were all important points. Since we are advocating the appointment of a commission of inquiry, we are also advocating that a proper investigation be instituted into the statutory obstacles, and that the question should be asked—something which not one of the other bodies are doing—to what extent those obstacles might in fact be eliminated. I want to point out that section 37 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act (Act No. 25 of 1945) regulates the general conditions under which a local authority, i.e. the Bantu administration boards, may let sites for commercial or business purposes. Section 37 provides that letting may take place provided that—

1. (i) no site shall be let under paragraph (a) to a person who is not a Bantu, and no person who is not a Bantu shall be employed on any site so let.

Section 38(3) of the same Act, makes provision for the promulgation of the necessary regulations. Government Notice No. R.1036 of 14 June 1968, as published in the Government Gazette Extraordinary No. 296, promulgated further regulations in this regard. I want to point out that since 1963 only a local authority has the right to construct premises for letting to Bantu for businesses or commercial purposes. Prior to 1963 the Bantu were allowed to construct buildings themselves in various areas. I do not want to take up the time of the House with this matter, but I do nevertheless think that hon. members have no idea of the extent of the obstacles as stated in this Government Notice. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the following facts. Firstly, the allocation may be made only to Bantu. The local authority—which is the body concerned according to the definition in the Act—may indicate what type of trade or business may be carried on on the premises. They may even determine what goods may be purchased on the premises. In addition no person may carry on or conduct any trade, business or profession in the Bantu residential area unless a site has been allocated to him, and no person may carry on or conduct any trade, business or profession in the Bantu residential area on a site other than the one set aside by the board and allocated to him. In terms of regulation 2(2) a site may only be allocated, in terms of my interpretation, to the bona fide breadwinner of a family. Why is this the case? What is more, the board has absolute discretion.

In accordance with regulation 4 no site is allocated for trade, business or professional purposes to certain persons. The hon. member for Constantia mentioned this; I am repeating it precisely as it stands in the Notice. For example, such a site is not allocated to a person who is not a Bantu and who is not older than 21 years of age. It is only allocated to a Bantu who qualifies in terms of section 10(l)(a) and (b) of the Act, unless specially authorized thereto by the Chief Bantu Affairs Commissioner. In addition no site is allocated if the business is to be established and carried on for any purpose other than the supply of essential household requirements of the Bantu inhabitants. This was also pointed out the hon. member for Constantia. In the fourth place no site is allocated to companies, partnerships, financial institutions, wholesalers or industrial institutions, even if a Bantu has a controlling share in any of these. In other words, even if a Bantu has a controlling share in any of these, permission may still not be granted to such an institution to carry on a business. This is in terms of regulation 4(d). In terms of regulation 4(e) no site may be allocated for commercial, business or professional purposes for the carrying on of more than one business in the Bantu residential area, whether or not of the same type by one and the same Bantu. How the devil we can develop a proper Bantu entrepreneurial class if we limit them to a single business undertaking is beyond me. Lastly no site may be allotted to a Bantu who has commercial or business interests outside the Bantu residential area. He may not even have business interests in another residential area. In addition a trader may not employ a non-Bantu on an allocated site.

In addition the regulations provide that each trader shall personally carry out, conduct and maintain supervision over his trade, business or profession. He may not leave it to a manager. I wonder where we would have been if these requirements had applied in respect of our own business undertakings. Except with the written approval of the board, the trader may not allow any person to share in the profits of his trade, business or profession …

That is for his own protection.

… provided that it does not prevent such a trader from negotiating a loan. In addition the superintendent must approve of the assistant whom the trader employs. Then, too, the superintendent must approve the number of assistants. Surely these are patently absurd requirements, requirements which were obsolete a long time ago. Apart from that, no person may canvass or try to obtain orders within the Bantu residential area without the prior approval of the superintendent for any trade, business or profession which is not being carried on in the Bantu residential area. What is more, a trader who occupies board trading premises may not alienate his trading rights in any way. If he does not occupy board trading premises he may sell his trading rights to the board or to a person approved by the board. In this respect too his freedom of action is being restricted. The hon. member said that the annual renewal takes place automatically, but according to the regulations it is subject to quite a number of conditions, including the condition that the Bantu shall be a suitable person. Who determines whether or not the Bantu is a suitable person? There are other conditions as well, which time does not allow me to deal with.

In conclusion I just want to say that there are various alternatives which may be considered in this regard. I associate myself wholeheartedly with the recommendation made by the hon. member for Constantia in this regard. I do not want to go into this any further. I can only say that I hope that in the light of the facts which we have furnished, in the light of this approach, a case has been made out, not for one or more of the alternatives, not even for whether White supermarkets should be established, nor even for whether they should be done on an agency basis, nor even for whether the Bantu should be granted ownership—I think these things should be done—but at least for a proper commission of inquiry. That is all we are asking for. I do want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister, in the light of these factors, to consider complying with this request which has been made to him by this side of the House.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall react to some of the statements made by the hon. member for Edenvale. I believe that this Government acts in the best interests of the various peoples in South Africa. I think that the honesty that characterizes these actions on the part of the Government is above suspicion. In fact just recently we have had proof of this, too, in the exceptional success the hon. the Prime Minister has achieved in regard to relations politics not only here in the domestic sphere, but beyond our borders as well.

At first I accepted that the hon. member for Constantia’s intentions in introducing the motion were good. However, after listening to some of the statements he made here in the House this afternoon, I fear that this is no longer my opinion, particularly, too, in the light of details provided by the hon. member for Johannesburg West in regard to research that has already been carried out and of which I must assume hon. members are aware. In connection with that I want to refer to a brochure I have here in my hand which was issued by the United Party-controlled City Council of Johannesburg. It concerns Soweto. I quote the following extract from it—

I take it that according to this brochure it is acknowledged that as regards his business enterprises in the Bantu towns, the Bantu in the White areas is very successful. I also want to refer to a report that appeared in Die Burger of 7 November 1974 under the heading “Business facilities for Black people” (translation)—

I take it that these hon. members must surely have taken cognizance of this. In the light of these facts I find it inconceivable that this motion could have been introduced here today without ulterior political motives, notwithstanding the fact that the hon. member for Edenvale tried to protect his colleague. I want to argue the point that, as I said at the start, the Government acts in the best interests of our Black people, too. Legislation and regulations concerning trading rights are there in the first place to protect the Black traders and to encourage the successful black businessman to develop and utilize his entrepreneuring talent in the interests of his own people and also, eventually, in the homeland. I mention this to you, Sir, because I believe that one of the limitations, as it is seen by the hon. Opposition, that protects the Bantu themselves, is this very provision that it is only the Bantu who may do business in the Bantu towns.

There would most definitely not have been equal competition if it had been the other way round and if, for argument’s sake, we afforded the Whites, too, the opportunity to do business in the Bantu areas. In that respect, therefore, this is already a protective measure. In addition, the fact that trading rights are only allocated with regard to the provision of daily essential domestic requirements is in fact a protective measure too, and we must recognize this as a fact. We must bear in mind that the Bantu have not, in fact, been in a position to acquire business experience for so many years, and if he were to tackle an enterprise that was beyond him, then we must accept that ultimately this would not only be to his detriment, but also to the detriment of those whom he served. It is also true that these people in the Bantu areas are protected by a regulation that protects them from exploitation arising out of highpressure salesmanship and advertisements that could give rise to the Bantu businessman misleading his own people by selling them articles they do not really need.

Mr. Speaker, let us come back to the real training that these people are getting with the object of making successful businessmen of them. According to a study carried out in 1966 by Mr. Wolmarans of the Economics Department of the University of Pretoria, it was found, inter alia, that 60,5% of the Black traders had undergone training in high schools or fur there training after high school. In more detail: 43,7% of the Bantu businessmen received high school training and 16,8% were in possession of a teaching diploma. In addition, it is also known that as part of its non-degree activities, Unisa’s School of Business Leadership is planning training for the managers of small businesses in accordance with which Bantu owners and managers with limited business experience will receive training, particularly in respect of the establishment or the improved management of their own businesses. This training will be provided for them, and in the middle of June a start will be made in this regard at Tembisa, Ga Rankuwa, Babelegi, Sebokeng and also Soweto. It is also known, Sir, that various opportunities and training facilities exist for the Bantu businessman who wants eventually to practise his entrepreneuring talent in the homeland. It is most decidedly of importance, too, that these people are being trained eventually to go and help their people there. Sir, the question arises whether these Bantu businessmen do in fact have entrepreneuring potential. My answer to that is an immediate and very definite “yes”. Sir, I refer to a report published under the heading “Blacks in business” in the Business Times of the Sunday Times. I want to quote from this report a statement by a Black businessman, with reference to what the hon. member for Constantia said, namely that this problem is the result of the apartheid policy of the Government. It is very clear from this statement that this is not so, or, at any rate, that the person who made this statement does not agree with that. I quote what was said by Mr. Zasie Kuswayo, a Zulu from Clermont near Durban—

In the same report, reference is made to Mr. Maponya of Soweto, a person with a current business turnover of more than R1 million; and then the hon. member for Constantia comes along and tells us that as he sees it, these people are unable to expand their businesses owing to restrictive measures. I quote further that the biggest filling station, or rather, the filling station with the biggest turnover in the entire Republic, belongs to a Bantu man by the name of Tshabalala and is situated in Soweto. Sir, if this is the case, surely it is very clear that the charge levelled here today by the Opposition in regard to this measure is most definitely an unfounded one, and it is on that basis that I want to support the amendment by the hon. member for Johannesburg West.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened very carefully to the contributions made by the hon. member for Johansburg West and the hon. member for Virginia. I was surprised to hear from the hon. member for Johannesburg West that he believes that I have only one text or one sermon, but of course he should know, as one who has had experience in this field, that if you are a preacher you go for the heart of the matter and you do not bother about the things on the periphery. Unfortunately, however, he seems to have abandoned that approach. The hon. member for Virginia referred to Mr. Tshabalalala as owning the largest filling station with the biggest turnover in South Africa. That is quite true, but if he knew the legislation he would also realize that these people are not even able to own a proper garage, and if people in the townships want to have their cars repaired they have to take them outside.

Sir, the thing that amazes me about this Government is that although we have a motion before the House which deals with something which affects the lives of hundreds of thousands of people, a very important motion, we are immediately reprimanded, or rather the hon. member for Constantia is, by the first speaker on that side of the House for daring to do this in the light of the fact that there is already a commission and that research is already being done. But hon. members opposite forget of course that it is this Government which over 26 years has introduced the very legislation which has caused all the hardship we are referring to, and which has declined or refused to amend the legislation which was in existence before they came into power but which is now redundant and ought to be taken from our Statute Book. We have every right in this House as legislators to give our attention to something which is so significant and so important. Sir, what we have here infact is that on the one hand we say we must protect the Black man. The way we protect him, of course, is to put him into a box and hammer the nails in securely so that he can hardly move. That is what we call protection. Or, on the other hand, we must say that we must not interfere with what is going on with the development of the Government’s marvellous ideology, so that after many, many years of negative implementation we are now beginning to have small discussion groups with the hon. the Prime Minister. We hope this continues. We think this is very good news.

You do not like it.

Yes, we do, because anything can be an improvement on what is before the House at the moment. We discuss this against the background of some very important facts and figures, For example, 70% of all Black purchasing power now lies in the urban areas and not in the homeland areas That is the kind of purchasing power about which we are talking. The African consumer market which is estimated at the moment to be worth about R1 960 million is now expected to expand to about R4 590 million in the next ten years. This is what we are talking about, This is how important this whole subject is and therefore we should give our minds to it; therefore we should try to do everything we can to improve the situation rather than throw insults one against the other. Again we look at Soweto, the largest city, if you like in South Africa. When one sees the incredible prohibitive legislation under which people have to trade in that city, then one realizes that we need an urgent look at this from every aspect by everyone and that includes the people who are in this House. The hon. member for Constantia referred to a report on Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage and over and above what the hon. member quoted from that report, it went on—

This is a report, not produced by the Opposition, but produced on an independent basis. The chairman of the committee that issued the report, Mr. Erasmus, summed up by saying—

Black shopkeepers in Cape Town claimed that they were told officially that they would never be allowed to run anything more than “match-box shops”. A survey made in November 1974 shows that the people most affected are the African customers who have to pay more for their basic food in travelling expenses to White supermarkets for the best prices because of this situation. This is euphemistically called “protection”.

I only have ten minutes in this debate and therefore I must already start to conclude. However, I want to say one last thing. The Financial Mail suggests three alternatives: One, free competition everywhere; two, the removal of limitations on Blacks in townships while continuing to keep the Whites out; or three, the removal of limitations on Black businessmen to allow White enterprise on a controlled basis. What is the reaction of the Black man who actually has to do business in the townships? What does he really think? We have heard some examples from the hon. member for Virginia, but let me quote a few more. A Soweto business woman, the well-known Constance Ntshona, believes that it would be disastrous to allow White-controlled firms to operate in Black areas. Instead, she says—

Port Elizabeth Black businessman D. D. Qeqe, member of Port Elizabeth’s Joint Bantu Advisory Board, says—

Sam Motsenyane, president of the African Federation of Consumers, says—

Richard Maponya from Soweto is quoted in Rapport, but unfortunately I do not have the time even to read this. However, in reply to a question put to him by Mr. Crause in the “oop gesprek” article in Rapport viz.: “What do you think about the legislation?”, he said that it seemed to him at least that this legislation had come into being so as to protect the White businessman against the Black man in South Africa. I am quoting him and what he thinks about this as a very prominent businessman in South Africa. He goes on to say that if these Black areas have been set aside for them it must be left to them to get on with the job, because they believe that with training, help and guidance they can do what is necessary there. The thing that bedevils the African trader and his work in the townships is simply the restrictive legislation that hangs about him like a chain and which forbids and prevents him from continuing a normal business. Until such time that that is removed from him he cannot operate and run his business properly.

Mr. Speaker, the motion moved by the hon. member for Constantia I think deserves the support of all people who have the justice which is involved in the Black man’s rights in the urban areas at heart. One finds it somewhat difficult when the criticism made of this proposal is based upon premises which I think need examining and need to be demonstrated as being incorrect ones.

The first point is that the Black man is regarded in the urban areas as being there not as of right by the National Party but as a matter of privilege. I think this is the first premise that needs to be destroyed. I think there are hundreds of thousands of White South Africans who believe with us that the Black man has just as much right to be in the urban areas as anyone else and that it is not a privilege that he is allowed to be in the urban areas. Once you accept that this is not a privilege but a right, the whole approach to trading by Black people takes a different course. If we look at the urban Black townships themselves how can one justify the morality not only of restricting Black people to trading within the urban townships allocated to them, but then, in those very townships themselves also not giving them free rein in order to expand their businesses, to promote their businesses and in order to carry out what is required in a normal capitalistic society. The hon. member for Virginia quoted two names of two people from Soweto. Maponya and Tshabalala. I do not believe that one should quote names of businessmen when one deals with a matter on its merits. What he did not mention, however, is that there are no other Maponya’s and Tshabalala’s in Soweto who are allowed to expand and to do this kind of thing. There is an inability on the part of the Black businessman in Soweto to expand his business and to get more land in order to have supermarkets and larger businesses. This also applies even to professional men. The hon. member for Johannesburg West mentioned earlier that Black people prefer to go into professions and into business. I do not know whether that is unique to Black people only, but even professional people in Soweto have been restricted from expanding their consulting rooms and have been frustrated in expanding their businesses there. I cannot see the morality of restricting people to a particular area to trade and then to restrict the scope of their businesses within that area.

There is another matter. Why should Black people, in fact, be restricted to trading with and catering for Black people only? Whites in South Africa trade with Black people. If we take the supermarkets in the centre of Johannesburg as an example and also supermarkets here in Cape Town, one sees that a very substantial portion of their trade and business does not come from White people, but, on the contrary, comes from Black. Coloured and other People who frequent these shops. What is wrong with opening up the trading areas, the business areas and industrial areas in the cities of our country to free competition? Why should Black people who would want to cater for and trade with others not be permitted to do so?

May I put a question to the hon. member?

Yes, but I have only ten minutes at my disposal. Therefore the hon. member must be quick about it.

Could the hon. member tell us whether Bantu in the homelands are not able to conduct their business concerns as they please?

The hon. member does not, of course, understand what we are talking about. We are now discussing urban areas. We all know that does happen in the Bantu homelands. Even that hon. member knows that in the cities of South Africa it is the Whites who are selling businesses to the Blacks and making a profit from it. The hon. member is the auditor for certain of those companies and is therefore aware of this.

†The issue is a very difficult one and I shall tell you why. If you continue with the present policy you will have Blacks and Coloureds saying that they are creating the profits which are being earned by White businesses in South Africa. They will also say that, if that is so, then they are entitled to a share of that taxation for themselves. There are some radicals who go further and say that one of the reasons why they are not allowed to trade there is because it is a form of exploitation of their people. With great respect, to my mind, there can be no justification for not allowing people of other races to play a part and conduct their businesses in the trading areas, business areas and industrial areas which exist in South Africa and which cater for all the races in South Africa.

I concede that when you have an emergent business community that community needs protection; without it you cannot grow. This is one of the reasons why you have Black businesses in the homelands. It is also one of the reasons for trying to foster Black businesses in the urban townships without undue competition from outside. Living costs, however, are also material and true competition is also material in our society. What is even more important is that you cannot in the South African scene create a situation where you regard the Black man as being only the worker and consumer and exclude him from participating in a meaningful way in the capitalist system by enabling him to own means of production, to own big stores and to participate in this kind of free enterprise situation. What you are going to do on the South African scene of the future if you prevent him from doing this is not only aggravate a problem which exists at the moment between people of different colours but also create a further problem between capital and labour which will be bedevilled by colour. If you want a capitalist system to survive in South Africa and if you want a free enterprise system to survive in South Africa you will have to draw the Black man into that capitalist system and not only just as a worker. The lesson which has been learned all over Africa is that when you make a people only a people of workers, they turn to socialism and other means in order to get their share of the ownership of the means of production and the means of distribution. It is an important lesson which we in South Africa should learn before it is too late. We in South Africa must deal with a free enterprise system and at the same time with a situation in which there is an emergent people who are entitled to share in the wealth of South Africa.

There are many people who talk about sharing. Sharing, however, does not only mean political sharing; sharing means sharing in the economy and sharing in what is good in the country. One of the things one does by keeping people in this kind of situation is I believe, that one create a feeling of frustration and helplessness for which future generations will take us to task if something is not done.

This is the reason why, even though I support the motion of the member for Constantia, I would like to move an amendment which goes somewhat further. I therefore move as an amendment:

Mr. Speaker, this innocuous motion submitted this afternoon by the hon. member for Constantia has now revealed its political character, as is apparent from the speeches by hon. members of the Opposition.

A wolf in sheep’s clothing.

Yes, that is quite right; one can say that they are wolves in sheep’s clothing. I want to go back a little into history, something that is so soon forgotten by the hon. members of the Opposition, and ask them what they did for the Bantu trader in the years before 1948. Let these champions of the Bantu businessmen tell us now what they did for the Bantu businessmen. Did they not give Whites business rights in the Bantu areas, enabling them to carry on their businesses in the vicinity of Bantu residential areas without giving the Black man a chance? I want to say that there will still have to be a great many improvements, but we are grateful to note, as we hear from the hon. member for Johannesburg West, that this matter is being investigated. We are grateful that study groups are working on this matter at the moment and ascertaining where improvements may be effected. However, to condemn the whole matter, as the hon. member for Constantia has done, and to say that the Black man is stooping under and is oppressed by legislation and regulations, is untrue. The regulations that have been promulgated have always been protective of the Black man trading in the Bantu areas. I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that he did thousands of Black businessmen today a disservice. Let us take a look at the large number of businesses of which Black businessmen are the managers or the owners. On the West Rand alone there are 2 059 Bantu businessmen, while on the East Rand there are 612 Bantu businessmen, not to speak of Soweto. The hon. member for Edenvale did these businessmen a disservice this afternoon. The hon. member said that it was these businessmen who sold a primus stove at three times the price at which it could be purchased at any other shop. This is probably untrue.

It is true.

The standard of living of the Bantu has risen to such an extent that they are particular as to whether they go and shop. Those people can go and buy where they like. I want to tell the Opposition to go and tell their voters what they said in the House of Assembly today. They must go and tell their voters that they are pleading that all the existing large business enterprises in Johannesburg or on the Witwatersrand should transfer large sections of their business activities to the Bantu towns. Are the hon. members in favour of that?

You have misunderstood the whole thing.

No, I have not misunderstood it. After all, that is what the hon. members advocated. I repeat that the investigations will bring to light many points in respect of which improvements will have to be brought about in favour of these business undertakings.

What kind of improvements will you bring about?

We do not want to anticipate the findings of the investigation, but I trust that improvements will in fact take place. That is so.

What kind of improvements are you advocating? Mention just one.

It has been said that we should not mention names. But there are two Bantu businessmen on the Witwatersrand today …

Very good people.

… who are today numbered among the millionaires of South Africa. Like them there are many other rich businessmen in Bantu towns today who started at the bottom, on the lowest rung, and who built up their businesses into large and prosperous businesses. It is true that problems do exist, but the Department of Transport provides various subsidies to keep the cost of living of the Bantu in the Bantu towns as low as possible. Apart from that, we give the Bantu the essential business enterprises to enable them to meet their daily needs directly. The inhabitant can make his purchases there. The Government also provides for those who have to go and buy in the big cities. It is true, as the hon. member also mentioned, that thousands of these people make their purchases in the big cities, but the National Government has also provided for the lesser privileged and for those people who have to make use of transport to make their purchases. Thus, for example, there is the transport subsidy which assists the Bantu and enables them to travel to the cities by bus. In the West Rand, for example, they get R766 000 per annum. On the East Rand the Bantu get a bus subsidy of R335 000. I am giving the figures in round numbers. The total transport subsidy received by the Bantu throughout the Republic adds up to R3¼ million per annum. These are services that are established for the benefit of the Bantu. This is done because we realize that sometimes he lives a long way from the city.

The motion introduced by the hon. member for Constantia has an exclusively political background and I want to stress that. They want to drum it into the Bantu that we as the Nationalist Government do not provide for the needs of the Bantu. That is positively not so. Vigorous action is being taken. I am proud to be able to say …

Tell us what is being done.

I shall tell you what is being done.

Give just one example.

Will that hon. member, who keeps cackling like an old hen please be quiet? There are many Bantu businessmen who own their own businesses today. In the Northern Transvaal there are 26 such owners. However these people must first learn to crawl, as our people also had to do. In the Central Transvaal there are 44 such Bantu owners. I shall only mention a few. On the West Rand there are 1 333, in the Northern Orange Free State there are 313 and in the Eastern Cape there are 118. There are a total of 2 768 businesses which the Bantu themselves already own. We have progressed a long way along this road of training and assisting the Bantu. I am not referring to the Bantu towns only, because the object is of course that these businessmen be encouraged to establish their businesses, if possible, in the homelands in future. After all, hon. members of the Opposition know that if a Bantu applies today, there are channels through which he can be assisted to enable him to establish, business enterprises in the homelands. Here in White South Africa I, as a White, probably have the primary right to make an economic living. This is true. Millions of rand have been expended by the Whites on the establishment of cities, That includes all facilities. We are not going to take large portions of them and transfer them to the Bantu towns That cannot be done. Let us be honest. I believe that at this stage the Bantu is still at the crawling stage. However, I also believe that the good results achieved by the department are such that even now we are reaping the fruits of that large number of Bantu businessmen who have made themselves proficient in the sphere of business. I think that in the future we shall be able to look forward with pride to these people being a tremendous asset to their people in their area, too, as they complete their training here in the Bantu towns. I am full of confidence in that respect. I am confident that the Black man will furnish proof of his initiative and his entrepreneuring spirit, although at this stage, it will still be on a smaller scale. I am sure that in the future he will do outstandingly well in this regard. We have confidence that all the investigations that are taking place now will contribute towards solving all the problems that exist at the moment. From experience I want to say that I believe that if he is given the necessary time, the Bantu businessman will prove that he is a good businessman.

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid that I can agree with only the last few sentences spoken by the hon. member for Stilfontein. Of course it is the wish of every one of us that the Bantu businessmen will develop and of course it is our hope that we will be able to give them all the assistance and all the encouragement they require in order to become successful businessmen and so that they can assist their own people in their own areas. That is the whole object of the motion of my friend, the hon. member for Constantia. I am afraid that that is all that I can agree with, in regard to what was said by the hon. member for Stilfontein.

I want to point out to you, Sir, and to hon. members in this House that there is a final leg to this motion of the hon. member for Constantia which deals with the welfare of the Bantu consumers. However, we have had one sentence precisely dealing with these people from three speakers on the other side of the House and that came from the hon. member for Stilfontein. We had one sentence precisely dealing with the fact that those people are also entitled to a lower cost of living and that they are also entitled to goods at the lowest possible price. The hon. member for Johannesburg West and the hon. member for Virginia, who is not here at the moment unfortunately, never mentioned the Bantu consumer—not at all. Sir, a little later I will deal with, this aspect of the Bantu consumer. The hon. member for Stilfontein challenges us to go back and tell our voters what the hon. member for Constantia said …

And Edenvale.

And Edenvale. He challenges us to go and tell our voters what these hon. members said about “transferring”, as he put it, White businesses into the Black areas. Sir, either that hon. member does not understand, or else he is deliberately obtuse. Sir, that was never said and I want to put it right for the sake of the record. What the hon. members did say was that White businessmen should be allowed to go in on a partnership or agency basis, the term which the hon. the Deputy Minister likes so much, or on some other basis, but not on the basis of being transferred.

In Hammarsdale?

Even in Hammarsdale; it does not matter where. Sir, let me declare my interest here before the hon. member for Klip River, who is always so clever about these things, takes any point of order or makes any capital out of it. Sir, I am a supermarket-owner in a White area, and I am proud of the fact that it was the first supermarket established in this country especially designed for the African people, and I am proud to be able to say that I enjoy the confidence of the African people in my supermarket.

And you are also making a lot of money.

Sir, the hon. members for Stilfontein, Virginia and Johannesburg West also referred to “studie-groepe”, to the investigations which are going on and which have been going on for some years regarding the trading position of the Black people. I want to ask particularly the hon. member for Johannesburg West: Where have any of the findings been published?

I told you— next month.

Sir, why does he take my colleague, the hon. member for Constantia, to task by saying that it is not necessary to call for a commission of inquiry because we have already done all the investigating and that we have all the facts at our disposal? That is what the hon. member said, Sir. He also said that they have all the facts at their disposal and that he accepts that there must be a decentralization, as is the case in business generally in the country, that is to say, a movement away from the centres of the cities and a decentralization to the suburban areas. That is what he said, and we accept all that, but I want to ask the hon. member: Where has such a development taken place in any Bantu urban area? Does he know? Does the hon. member for Stilfontein know of one Bantu urban area where such development has taken place? No, Sir, they do not know, and I am going to tell them where it has taken place and tell them how much homework they have done. There is one such development already in Umlazi township outside of Durban and there is another one planned in Imbali outside of Pietermaritzburg. Sir, those hon. members do not know what is going on and yet they come here and try to take the hon. member for Constantia to task for moving such a motion.

Sir. I want to get back to the hon. member for Johannesburg West, who spoke about Benbo and the National African Chamber of Commerce and about the confidence they have in this Government.

I never said that.

He had the nerve to come to this House this afternoon and to move an amendment in the following terms: That the House—

1. (a) the positive steps that have been taken and will be taken by the Government to promote business activities by Bantu businessmen, with special reference to the Prime Minister’s talks with the homeland Governments in this connection …

And then, Sir, he put his hands in the scrum. Unfortunately he has been caught this afternoon with his hands in the scrum. It is all very well, Sir; you can put your hand in the scrum as long as the referee does not see it, but this afternoon he has been caught with his hands in the scrum …

You do not know your rules.

I am afraid it is the hon. member for Johannesburg West who did not know the rules, because he quoted from this statement that was issued as a result of the Prime Minister’s discussions with the homeland leaders, but he quoted only the first sentence and the last paragraph.

No.

Yes, not “No”. I have the very statement here from which he quoted, and I am going to quote it now to put the record straight. The hon. member for Johannesburg West quoted this sentence—

Then he went on to read—

And that they would now get his sympathetic attention: but what he left out was the second sentence, which reads as follows, and I challenge him to tell me that I am incorrect in quoting this—

That is right.

That is exactly the thing for which my hon. friend, the member for Constantia, asked. Why did the hon. member not quote it? The statement goes on to read—

Sir, these are exactly the points which were used by the hon. member for Constantia— all of them.

It was in all the newspapers.

Now he admits it! Why did he not read it out at the time he read this report? Sir, I believe we have caught him this afternoon with his hands in the scrum and he is going to be penalized just as this Government is going to be penalized, and I will say now that we will convert that penalty.

Do you not read the newspapers?

No, there is no need to read the newspapers. All I ask of the hon. member is that when he quotes something, he should quote it completely.

Why did you not quote what the hon. the Prime Minister said?

It is there, and the hon. member read it, but I will read it again if that is what he wants. It reads—

Is that not what my hon. friend here is asking for? That is exactly what he is asking for. That is what the Prime Minister says he is going to do. Is the hon. member for Johannesburg West repudiating his own leader, the Prime Minister? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must make fewer interjections.

He not only has his hands in the scrum, but he is also offside. Sir, I believe that this afternoon we had from the hon. member for Edenvale a brilliant exposition of the disabilities under which our African people suffer, particularly when they try to lift themselves up by their own shoestrings and try to better themselves. I believe that the heart of the third ex-dominee who will take part in this debate, the hon. the Deputy Minister, cannot remain hard when he replies to this debate, and I am sure that he must at least acknowledge, when he comes to sum up this debate, that the hon. member for Edenvale has used absolutely irrefutable arguments to show that the time has come when we must investigate the disabilities under which these people suffer.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West made no mention at all of the restrictive laws, in regard to which I want to add something to what the hon. member for Edenvale said. There is the question of the representatives of White enterprises. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows how often he has had representations from White businesses, wholesalers, because permits have not been granted to their representatives to go into the Black areas to do business with the Black traders, in the urban as well as in the rural areas. The hon. member knows about this. Sir, this is another thing which must be looked at, because until such time as the restrictions placed on the Black traders are lifted you cannot have fair competition in those areas. As long as there is a decree—and the hon. the Deputy Minister knows it—that these people shall only deal with the Bantu Investment Corporation wholesale or with the Xhosa Development Corporation wholesale, there is not going to be any competition. What good is it for people to walk from one store to the next to find the same goods displayed at the same price because the goods were all bought from the same source? Where is the competition in this? There is no competition in it at all. The Deputy Minister also knows the difficulties which the African population of these urban areas suffer in trying to get delivery of any goods which they do happen to purchase else where because they are cheaper or because they are not supplied in their residential areas. The White firms are battling to get permits for their drivers to go in and deliver goods in these urban Bantu townships. There is the question of collections. Take the drycleaning business alone. There is another one which suffers under this disability. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows also about the question of the supply of milk, where the farmers have been precluded from delivering milk in these urban areas. Why? Because of a technicality, that they have to get a permit first and the permit is withheld. Why? It is done in the name of defending the Black businessman in the area. He does not need any defence at all and he does not need that protection at all. Above all, the hon. member for Stilfontein said that he wanted to see these Black businessmen in the urban areas move to their homelands. How can he move when he does not engender any goodwill? He cannot under the present circumstances engender any goodwill at all. He cannot generate any goodwill from his business and he cannot even sell it when the time comes, if he does what the hon. member for Stilfontein has asked, and he moves to the homeland. The point that he cannot even sell his business was made by my hon. colleague, the member for Edenvale.

I want to draw the hon. the Deputy Minister’s attention particularly to an organization which exists in this country. It is an affiliate of the Spar organization which is an international organization. This affiliate operates under the name of Savemor. This affiliate is aimed particularly at the African market and particularly through supermarkets. They have already, after great difficulty, handed out 14 franchises to Black traders. These Black traders are doing extremely well. They do not include the man mentioned by the hon. member for Virginia, Mr. Zazi Kuswayo, who wrote those paeans of praise on an occasion when he received a very handsome loan from the Bantu Investment Corporation. I know because I was invited to attend that function and that is why I knew who it was before he even read the name. [Interjections.] When one considers people like Mr. Pele in the Clermont township. Mr. Mfera and Mr. Mapumulo of Kwa Mashu, just to mention a few, who have benefited from this organization, then I want to appeal to the hon. the Deputy Minister please to give this organization a more sympathetic hearing when it applies for permits for its men, its retail operation advisers, its ROAs as they are called, to go into the Black areas to advise these traders. One trader in a Black township close to Durban with an average monthly turnover of R15 000 joined this organization and within eight months his turnover jumped to R23 000 per month because he was applying modern merchandising methods, methods which are not readily available to the African traders but which this organization makes available to them not at any profit to the organization itself. The hon. member for Yeoville pleaded that the White man must help, must pass on his technology and know-how to the Black man. Here is an opportunity which we have with a ready-made organization which wants to help the Black man but which is precluded from doing so by the red tape and the regulations and laws of this Government. This is another reason why the hon. member for Constantia has asked for a commission of inquiry.

To come back to the point where I started, as far as I am concerned the most important benefit which can be derived from the assistance which will be given to these Black traders, the most important befit which can be given as a result of a lifting of the restrictive enactments which exist today, will be for the people as a whole, the population of these townships, to have access to cheaper goods, to which they are entitled. Why is it today that when you go into any supermarket in any White area you find that there are more Black customers than Whites? Only because their prices are lower. Their prices are only lower because they have the technology the know-how and they know about modern merchandising methods and marketing.

And the buying power.

They may have the buying power as well. This is why I must support the motion of the hon. member for Constantia, particularly when he pleads with the hon. the Deputy Minister to allow those organizations which have the buying power and the knowledge to go into partnership with the Black traders to assist them not only to help themselves, but to help the population of these townships.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank members on this side of the House for the support they gave me and for the replies they have already furnished. The hon. member for Johannesburg West was accused towards the end that he did not quote a passage in full. I do not want to level any accusations on this matter, but for record purposes I want to point out that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South did not quote in full either. I can understand that one is not always able, in the course of a short speech, to quote such passages in full, but I want to say to the hon. member that there is one very important aspect which he left out. Quite a number of points are mentioned here which were brought to the attention of the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister by the homeland leaders at the time of the deliberations, and it is quite correct that most of these matters which were mentioned by the hon. member for Constantia were mentioned here as well. But one paragraph reads as follows—

Now, I can appreciate that the hon. member will not be aware of it and that he will not know what the contents of it is, but where does such a memorandum come from Sir? I shall tell you where this specific one comes from. These matters were deliberated at length, and inevitably a responsible Government has to consider these matters. That is why these so-called “chambers of commerce”, NAFCOC, were asked for a memorandum. That memorandum was considered by the homeland leaders and to the Minister of Bantu Administration. But I want to go further. Even before this memorandum was submitted to them, I asked, on behalf of the Government, that people who have any positive suggestions to make in connection with an improvement of relations between people and people, between Blacks and Whites, should submit such suggestions to us. Surely, this is no secret. There are people who made a great fuss about it and there are people who regarded it as an empty invitation, but there were also some of them who took it seriously. We said repeatedly that it was not simply empty words. This report I have here, dated 1 August 1974, was received and scrutinized by the department. A senior official of the department undertook research in this connection, after he had received memorandums from various bodies, from private persons, from Blacks and Whites in commerce. In paragraphs 106 to 113 and 151 to 161 of this report the difficulties Bantu traders have to deal with and the problems as a result of which Bantu inhabitants of our townships are penalized, are set out. It is no use denying the truth. It is a fact as the hon. member for Constantia and other hon. members have said, that the cost of living in the Bantu living areas is higher than in the White areas. What is the use of my denying the truth? The only difference is that we have been aware of this for a long time, and that we had it investigated long ago. Now a commission of inquiry is being asked for. I cannot but agree with hon. members on this side of the House who said that we should not make a political football out of this matter. That party opposite wants a commission of inquiry to be appointed to investigate this matter. It is simply enough only to admit that this work has already been done and that it will continue to be done in future also. I am giving it to you in chronological order. After this report had been received it was dealt with departmentally and people were asked for their comment. This resulted, inter alia, in NAFCOC’s submission to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration for the latter’s consideration. Long before the first discussions took place between the homeland leaders and the hon. the Prime Minister and the Ministers, these difficulties and problems were experienced by the urban Bantu—as hon. members call them—and this matter was raised on the day the discussions took place. The following was said by the hon. the Prime Minister on that occasion—

†I can remember his words to this day. I think that it was quoted in the statement which was issued after the meeting. It said that “the whole vexed question of the problem of the urban Bantu” would be discussed by the hon. the Prime Minister and the homeland leaders. It is history now that this meeting had to be postponed on several occasions not—and let me state the fact—because the hon. the Prime Minister was not available—even with his busy programme he was available, but because we had to fix a time when all the homeland leaders could be available together with the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of my department. The earliest opportunity that the meeting could be convened was on 15 January this year.

On that day these matters were discussed freely with the homeland leaders. It was discussed—as I have already pointed out—also with reference to this memo which was presented by NAFOC on behalf of the business people. Several points have been raised by the hon. member for Constantia and I apologize beforehand that I cannot reply to all the matters raised in the short time at my disposal. I think that many valid points have been raised by speakers on both sides of the House. However, I think that I owe it to the mover of the motion to reply as fully as I can to the few points which he has raised.

The first point that he mentioned as a possible point in a programme to cope with the problem and to find some sort of solution, is the method of occupation and security which these people lack. This is something which, he said, could be regarded as a major obstacle in the process of making them happy in pursuing business in their own areas. I agree with him quite openly, and if the fact that I agree does not matter so much, I may point out that also the hon. the Prime Minister and my hon. Minister agree with him. This was stated in the Press statement which was read out by the hon. member for Johannesburg West. The hon. the Prime Minister agreed that these were valid points, these points raised by the homeland leaders. He gave instructions that this matter should immediately be investigated. I think that the hon. member will agree with me that it would be very unwise to make any announcement in this regard. What I can say is that we have been following and carrying out the instructions of the hon. the Prime Minister, and together with senior officials of the department we have been having discussions along the lines which had been discussed at the conference with the hon. the Prime Minister. We have made suggestions, and I imagine that either the hon. the Prime Minister or the hon. the Minister will shortly be in a position to give hon. members the results of what has been decided, also in regard to this question of long leasehold to be given to Bantu business people in the White areas. One hon. member did mention that he was not quite happy with the idea of ownership. I found that very interesting because whenever an hon. member opposite gets up to speak on this subject we hear the same refrain over and over again, viz. that what makes the people of the urban Bantu townships unhappy is the fact that they do not have ownership.

Home ownership.

Yes, home ownership. It has also been mentioned over and over again that they must have title to land, but now the hon. member who introduced the motion says that we cannot possibly consider giving them ownership “because that may lead to monopolistic dangers.” Those were the exact words of the hon. member. I wrote them down. May I mention how true it is? It was already proved outside Pretoria. It was very in-interesting that the hon. member for Edenvale—in a very good speech—mentioned the fact that 70% of the trade in the Bantu areas of Pretoria was done by White businessmen. I think that was the percentage he mentioned. The hon. member nods his head in agreement.

*Do hon. members know what is so strange? There are three large concentrations of Bantu outside Pretoria, the largest of which is the one in which home ownership, land tenure and all those privileges exist and where trading is done under the control of the homeland governments. We have these concentrations at Mamelodi and Atteridgeville, but the largest concentration of trading activities—legal as well as illegal—is at the Ga Rankuwa/Winterveld complex. Did the hon. member for Stilfontein and other hon. members not say that these residential areas were situated in a Bantu homeland and that the authorities had the right to grant licences? The homeland authorities, as hon. members know, have the right to invest capital in that area. Hon. members should compare the percentage mentioned by the hon. member for Edenvale in respect of Pretoria with that of other places. If I remember correctly, Pretoria has by far the largest percentage of White trading in Bantu areas. What the hon. member says is therefore true, but there was no option, because the streets of Pretoria were black with Bantu who came from the Bantu residential areas to do their shopping. It is a fact we cannot escape from. The percentage at Pretoria, however, is higher than that at the Johannesburg complex or at the Cape Town complex. I am not all that conversant with the position in Natal. Perhaps I should have known better what the position is by now, but surely, there are examples in Natal too. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South knows that there are examples of Bantu having ownership in close proximity to White urban areas. I see this hon. member is also nodding his head in agreement. The Bantu have the right to obtain trading licences in those areas and they have the right to establish large business complexes. However, what happens? We find that the greatest percentage influx is from those areas. The problem is not as simple as many people often want to pretend, and one is unable to find one specific solution for this whole problem.

Hon. members are asking for a commission of inquiry to be appointed. I want to say with all due respect that even had the commission of inquiry been appointed from this House which would consider these matters, it would still not be able to view this matter in its true perspective, because matters differ fundamentally from one place to another. What is at issue is not a simple matter such as leasehold or solutions of that kind.

The hon. member mentioned a second obstacle, i.e. the licensing system. He said that this system is an Obstacle because licences have to be renewed annually. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. If we are dealing here with, unjustified discrimination vis-a-vis the Whites, I agree with him. I said so by way of an interjection, and I want to confirm it again, that the White persons also have to renew their business licences with the health department of local authorities annually. Hon. members who are dealing with local authorities will know that this is not so much nonsense. We should, therefore, not represent every measure as the greatest injustice and the greatest discrimination.

In the third place, the hon. member referred to one man, one business. At this stage I am able to tell him that not I, but the hon. the Prime Minister indicated in his statement, and I quote. “These points are valid.” This was one of the matters mentioned at the conference and as it has already been published in the Press, I do not breach confidence by mentioning it to hon. members. The hon. member said: “There must be no restrictions on the range of merchandise.” I think there is a great deal in what the hon. member said. He asked what scope is allowed when a person is granted a general dealer’s licence. All I can tell him is that the matter is being investigated and that a decision will be taken in that regard.

I want to put one minor matter right. We can dismiss these things so lightly by saying that the National Party Government does these things to discriminate against the Black people in our country. Mr. Speaker, never in my life have I disclosed caucus secrets, and I hope never in my live to do so, but I want to disclose one caucus secret one can discuss with pride outside any caucus.

I am not referring to policy matters now. Years ago representatives of the rural areas came to see us about the depopulation of the rural areas. I happen to know this because it was subsequently discussed in this House itself, and probably it was also discussed in the United Party caucus. Hon. members will remember this, and so will the hon. member for Durban Point. Do you know what one of the first things was they said in this connection? They referred to the smaller businesses we had strangled, to the monopolies of chain-stores and they asked us, for heaven’s sake, to keep chain-stores out of the rural areas and to protect the small dealers, those who have to make a living in the rural areas. This was one of the main arguments raised by all of us in this House, those of us who represent a rural constituency. We said it was a sound argument and that attention should be given to this matter. Now we have had representations from the smaller Black traders who say—

†I am not merely making some silly statement; I have had these people coming to me. The question of milk, for instance, was mentioned. I can tell the hon. gentleman who moved this motion, that one of the first problems I was faced with when I became Deputy Minister was that I had to receive a deputation of the Dairy Board who had pointed out that in Soweto people were paying 19 cents for a pint of milk whereas in the White areas the price of a pint of milk was 9 cents at that stage.

Why did you not let them go into Soweto themselves?

I shall tell the hon. member why not. I did not allow it because the Black traders themselves protested en masse against that. That was the reason. Notwithstanding that I can tell the hon. member—before he starts gesticulating—that I immediately said with the full knowledge of the Minister that we could not allow things to continue in this way. We immediately gave permission to the Milk Board to deliver the milk directly to a depot in Soweto from where it was distributed at the lower price which was applicable at the time.

One depot for a million people.

The hon. member, while speaking on his motion, said that the planning of centres was something that must receive priority; I could not agree more, and I can assure the hon. member on this point that representations have already been made, that we are going into this matter and that we will make an announcement shortly in this regard.

I now come to another point very briefly, namely the question of retailing technology, which is a term that I had not heard before; I did not know that such a thing existed, but I believe it must exist. However, I can tell the hon. member that UNISA has already planned a course in retailing technology and that we shall encourage students as far as possible to get the proper training there. I can also tell the hon. member something that is not generally known, and that is that through the Bantu Investment Corporation 80 Black students have been enrolled and are at the moment taking a course in business management. Eighty students have been given bursaries by us this year to take this special course.

I am very glad to see that people are worried about the consumers. I am worried about them myself. I think it is only fair that we should give the poorer section of our community the opportunity of obtaining their daily needs at the lowest possible price. The Government realizes this and instructions were therefore given by the Prime Minister and the Ministers that solutions must be found to this problem. Therefore I cannot agree that a commission of inquiry be appointed; I can only appeal to all hon. members who have some knowledge of these matters, and also to the Chamber of Commerce in the White areas, to give us their suggestions as to how we should set about this to the benefit of both the consumer and the businessman and in the best interests of this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 32 and motion and amendments lapsed.