Mr. Speaker, I move—

In my first Railways and Harbours Budget speech last year I outlined the role played by the Railway Administration in providing an effective infrastructure, and set out my policy in respect of the main problems involved.

In the survey of the past year’s activities which I shall give the House in a moment hon. members will hear what progress has already been made, whilst the subsequent discussion of staff and other matters will show that all steps and spending of money are aimed at realizing the basic objective of having an effective transport system.

Since the weal and woe of the Railways is to a very large extent determined by the state of the national economy, I want to begin by giving a brief survey of present and anticipated economic trends.

The start of the fourth quarter of the 1972 ushered in an exceptional period of economic growth in the South African national economy. Over a period of approximately 21 months after that, i.e. up to the end of the second quarter of 1974, South Africa succeeded, in contrast with the trends evident in most other countries, in gradually raising its real growth rate to a level of approximately 7% per annum. This exceptionally high growth rate naturally started to exert a strong pressure on available production factors, whilst the recession conditions abroad, coupled with unprecedented inflationary pressure, also made their influence felt. In the third quarter of 1974 it became apparent, however, that an underlying tendency towards slower growth had set in in the South African economy.

In order to check recession conditions and increasing unemployment, some of the major industrial countries had already started to relax anti-inflationary monetary control measures moderately and to stimulate real demand by means of tax concessions and other fiscal control measures. In view of these factors and with due regard to present trends in trade and capital flow, as well as the relative strength of the gold market, it is being expected everywhere that South African’s balance of payments will take a favourable course in 1975—a prospect which is being heightened by recent steps in the direction of a valuation of the international central banks’ gold-holdings at market-related prices.

Backed up by a favourable balance of payments, indications of fine achievements in the agricultural sector, and an anticipated levelling off in the rate of inflation, the present period of stabilization in the South African economy ought to be a relatively short one, with an improvement in most sectors from as early as the third quarter of 1975. Although the real growth rate for 1975 is therefore expected to be lower than the one attained in 1974, it should nevertheless not be substantially lower than 4%.

It is against this background, then, that I should first like to review the course of events in the present financial year.

Passenger Services

The upward trend in the total number of passenger journeys in recent years was once again maintained. During the period 1 April to ’1 December 1974 there was an increase of 24,9 million journeys, or almost 5,7%, in comparison with the corresponding period of the previous financial year. As a result of the great demand for transport, partly because of fuel restriction measures, the department was obliged to put 266 more special trains into service than was the case during the same period the previous year.

The second set of the Drakensberg Express, which was renovated completely, was put into service, and as from 21 January 1975 this luxury-train service is being offered twice a week between Johannesburg and Durban and once a week between Durban and Cape Town via Kroonstad, Bloemfontein and Kimberely. Indications are that this service is being welcomed everywhere and is going to receive good support. The fact that passengers can have their motor cars railed on this train in specially equipped trucks is an added advantage. Hon. members who have already availed themselves of this facility will be able to testify to the enhanced travelling comfort which is now available over the latter stretch as well.

Third-class passengers who, in the past, were unable to book their seats on trains and therefore had to suffer inconvenience as a result of the large number of fellow-travellers, have for several months now been able to book their seats on the train leaving Pretoria for Louis Trichardt on Fridays and returning on Sundays. This facility is now being extended to trains on the Johannesburg—East London, Johannesburg—Vryheid, Cape Town—Umtata, Cape Town—Port Elizabeth and De Aar—Windhoek routes.

Goods Traffic

For the first nine months of the present financial year goods traffic once again showed strong growth in comparison with the corresponding period during the previous financial year. The tonnage of goods conveyed in tariffs 1 to 10 increased by 13,6% and that in tariff 11 and lower by 2,7%. Coal and coke, for instance, showed an increase of almost 1 million tons.

Whilst there was a decrease in the tonnage of wheat conveyed, i.e. 1 151000 in comparison with 1319 000 in the corresponding period last year, the volume of maize for export increased from 456 000 tons to 2,1 million tons. In respect of grain sorghum there was an increase from 154 000 tons to 336 000 tons. Increases were also reflected by citrus and deciduous fruit, both for export and for the local market.

The total tonnage of manganese, chrome, iron and magnetite ore, asbestos, clay and kaolin, as well as granite and marble conveyed for export during April to December 1974 was the same as the previous year, namely 6,9 million. However, the tonnage in respect of local consumption increased from 6,8 to 7,5 million tons, or by 10,6%. Prepared foodstuffs, liquor and tobacco showed a slight increase.

Road Transport

During the period April to December 1974 first-class passengers on the road transport service once again showed downward trend, but the number of third-class passengers increased by 15,6% all in all, i.e. to more than 13 million, mainly as a result of the increasing number of weekend travellers to and from the homelands.

Goods traffic on the road transport services increased to 2,8 million tons, or by 0,8%, which can primarily be attributed to the increased volume of cement and steel conveyed to the Government water schemes and for the Sishen/Saldanha project.

The departmental cartage service is still under pressure owing to the revival in the commercial and industrial sector and the increase in container traffic. Although a further improvement in productivity is possible if more deliveries can be made after ordinary working hours, the co-operation of most of those involved is still lacking. In order to achieve a more effective utilization of equipment, labour and space, consideration is being given at present to making certain concessions to firms in major cities which are prepared to take delivery of consignments after hours or during the night.

Airways

Sustained growth on the domestic, international and regional services was once again a feature of the activities of the S.A. Airways during the period April to December 1974. The number of passengers increased by 17%, mail-ton-kilometres by 24% and freight-ton-kilometres by almost 25%. It is particularly gratifying to report an increase of as much as 63% in passenger traffic on the American service.

The change in the grouping of seats on the Boeing 727 and 737 aircraft from five abreast to six abreast has virtually been completed. Owing to this change-over reservations on these aircraft could not be made through the Saafari system, with the result that everything did not always go smoothly. However, practical considerations have necessitated this alteration, and these aircraft are now capable of carrying approximately 20% more passengers. To compensate for the freight capacity forfeited through, this step, all-freight services on chartered aircraft were introduced on the Johannesburg—Durban—Port Elizabeth—Johannesburg route with effect from 1 October 1974.

Pipelines

During the period April to December 1974 more traffic was conveyed by the pipeline for white products than had been the case the previous year, but crude petroleum conveyed by the other pipelines showed a decrease.

Owing to the increasing demand the present pipeline for the conveyance of white products between Durban and the Witwatersrand is expected to reach its maximum capacity in the course of this year instead of in 1979, as was initially expected. Approval will consequently be requested during this session for the construction of an additional 40 cm pipeline for white products at an estimated cost of R92 million.

Harbours

Hon. members will recall that I referred last year to the great pressure to which South African Harbours were subject. This has meanwhile shown an increase rather than a decrease, and I should like to deal with this matter in detail.

In the past there were times every two to three years when abnormal tonnages of general loose cargo had to be discharged, but no real problems were experienced in that regard. However, since 1969 there was an unusual increase which reached a high in 1970-’71, and at present we are on an even higher peak which in fact started building up as far back as 1973 and is still doing so. Conditions in our neighbouring states have, moreover, resulted in the volume of cargo to be handled exceeding the normal available quay capacity. The present state of affairs at our harbours is therefore abnormal in the sense that the high level of imports has lasted unusually long, and, to crown it all, there is no reliable information available in terms of which either the extent or the duration of the present high level can be determined. Although ships are still being delayed at certain harbours, a marked improvement has already taken place as a result of special short-term measures which have been taken in the meantime and to which I shall refer later on. The general expectation is, furthermore, that imports will not remain on the present high, level.

Additional quays for the handling of general cargo can, of course, not be built overnight. In addition, the advent of containerization will result in additional quays for the handling of general cargo becoming available. The department is therefore doing everything in its power in the short-term to place and maintain the production of the harbours on the highest possible level. The private bodies and persons involved in harbour working will have to ensure that they keep pace with this.

Hon. members will recall that the Government decided during 1970 that our harbours and the shipping lines serving our harbours were to prepare themselves for the introduction of cargo containerization.

Consequently the department had to guard against the possibility of too much harbour capacity being left under-utilized in the course of time. In addition it was faced with the problem that its planning had to be concentrated on the introduction of cargo containerization, pending an indication by the shipping lines as to their port requirements and the type of ships for which provision had to be made. A final decision by the shipping lines in this regard was only received in March 1974.

In spite of this considerable delay the department adapted its development plans for our harbours with a view to the advent of containerization. A start was made with the construction of the necessary quays, and it is the intention to use them in the meantime for the handling of general cargo as these quays become available. This is precisely the stage at which we find ourselves at present. In Durban harbour, for instance, two completed quays for the five envisaged for containerization are already being used for the handling of general cargo. Similarly, one berth in the new outer basin in Table Bay harbour will be ready by May/June this year for the berthing of coastwise containers, thus making available general cargo quays in Table Bay harbour for the berthing of other ships. Large-scale containerization of ships is now expected to take place by the middle of 1977 and will be fully developed by the end of 1978, by which time it is expected that approximately 70% of cargo destined for South Africa will be conveyed in containers. It is logical therefore that the full impact of the new techniques of handling cargo should be considered before any further major harbour development plans are undertaken. As far as harbour construction is concerned, the position in South Africa is also different from that in many overseas countries, where extensive sheltered stretches of water can relatively easily be used for the construction of new quays without excessively high costs having to be incurred. The physical limitations of our coastline and existing harbours are the cause of the construction of additional berths being a major task involving major capital spending.

Mr. Speaker, the tonnage of general cargo handled in our ports during the past two years has, however, exceeded all expectations. In the calendar year 1974, in comparison with 1973, an increase of 24% was recorded. However, since imports for 1973 had already reached a high level at the time, one can only obtain a proper picture of the unprecedented increase in cargo handled by comparing the 1974 figures with those for 1972. At Durban there was an increase of 69,8%, Cape Town 51,3%, Port Elizabeth 52,7%. East London, 44,6%, and at all the harbours taken together, 58,7%.

In addition to this it should be remembered that, whilst the department has some control over South African exports traditionally flowing through the ports of Mozambique, it has no control over imports which, for geographical reasons, used to flow through Lourenço Marques. Owing to developments in that country that traffic, too, is partly being imported at present through South African ports, which imposes an additional burden on our ports and the internal infrastructure.

Other factors such, as unfavourable weather conditions, which often forced the handling of cargo to a standstill, a high percentage of uncleared cargo, which similarly disrupts harbour work, and both the inability and the unwillingness of many importers to take delivery of their cargo after normal business hours, were important contributory factors to delays being experienced in our ports. An urgent appeal to the private sector to take delivery of consignments during the December/January holiday period similarly met with a poor response, generally speaking. An exceptional increase in steel imports, which gives rise to special handling, storage and transport problems, also constituted a major single hampering factor. Last year this commodity constituted almost 10% of the total general cargo landed in Durban harbour, and 8% in all our harbours taken together. Exceptionally large quantities of fertilizer were also imported unexpectedly. For instance, during November 1974 140 000 tons had to be handled in Durban alone. It stands to reason that this also had an adverse effect on the delaying of ships.

I want to state unambiguously that the present harbour situation cannot be blamed on lack of timely and adequate planning. However, this does not mean that the department accepts the position resignedly, under the delusion that the problem will resolve itself in the course of time. On the contrary, positive steps have been and are being taken, steps about which I shall now proceed to inform the House.

At Durban harbour certain construction work on berths Nos. 201 and 202 at the new Pier No. 2 at an additional cost of R840 000 has been speeded up in order to make interim facilities available. These berths, which will eventually be used for containerization, are meanwhile being used for the storage of general cargo which need not be under shelter. A large percentage of this cargo is being loaded directly into or from railway trucks by ships’ cranes. A waterfront railway line plus two additional railway lines and a hardened surface for storage purposes have been provided for this purpose. In order to ensure maximum utilization of these berths, 26 new fork-lift trucks, with lifting capacities four, seven and ten tons, and four mobile cranes are being provided at a total cost of R675 000.

The road behind berths Nos. 108 and 109 at Pier No. 1 is being extended to the full length of these berths, and the remaining area between the quay area and the road is being tarred. This area is approximately 97 metres wide and will link up with the hardened area behind berth No. 201. Two sets of railway lines, with a crossing in the middle, are also being constructed in order to serve this area, and a further 50m-wide strip extending over the full length of berths Nos. 108 and 109 is being hardened behind the railway lines. All this work costs R600 000.

The additional rail and storage facilities behind berths Nos. 108 and 109 will result in trucks being released quickly and will generally promote enhanced productivity at these two deep-see berths. The construction work ought to be completed by the end of September 1975.

At Fynnland an area covering four hectares of land has been subdivided into smaller premises for letting to private bodies and persons. These premises will be used for stacking large export cargoes before the arrival of the ships, and will contribute to enhanced productivity at these berths.

The eastward extension of the East London West Quay by 102 metres, at a cost of just over R1 million, for which provision was originally to have been made in the 1977-’78 Brown Book, is now being advanced to 1975-’76.

In order to facilitate the handling of cargo by means of ship’s equipment, special authorization has been granted for the provision of waterfront railway line on the West Quay, whilst the railway line at “S” Quay on the West Bank is beinn extended into a loopline so as to facilitate shunting.

In order to raise the capacity of the harbours further, a great deal of mechanical handling equipment was acquired during 1974 at an estimated total cost of R1 071 000. Additional equipment, mainly for East London and Port Elizabeth, will be purchased at a cost of R250 000.

The first straddle carriers, at R230 000 a piece, capable of stacking three containers on top of one another, have already arrived in Durban and Cape Town, where they are being equipped at present. These sophisticated machines will supplement the side-loaders and fork-lift trucks being used at present for the handling of limited quantities of containers during the transition period, and will eventually form part of the basic equipment at the specially equipped container berths which are under construction at present. The restriction on the number of containers which may meanwhile be loaded onto and from ships has been relaxed and will gradually be relaxed further as the handling capacity at the harbours permits.

In order to regulate the arrival of export traffic at the harbours and control the flow and shipment thereof in an effective manner, a system of staggered loading dates was introduced for all domestic consignments with a mass of ten tons or more railed directly to the quay-side. This system was introduced at Durban on 15 November 1974 and was extended to other harbours on 1 January 1975. In terms of this system arrangements are made for all cargo to be loaded on consecutive dates in accordance with the predetermined loading rate of each vessel. Trucks carrying export traffic are controlled by computer.

As a result of the position obtaining at South African harbours a National Consultative Committee—constituted from representatives of commerce, industry, shipping lines, stevedores, shipping and clearing agents as well as several Government departments—was established to determine the factors contributing to congestion at the harbours and to formulate on a national basis the steps to be taken by each sector so as to enhance productivity in the harbours.

Since September 1974 this committee has been meeting regularly, and, as far as the department is concerned, it has succeeded in bringing the various port users together for frank discussions on questions of common interest. Several subcommittees have already been appointed to investigate specific aspects of harbour working.

Arising out of the meetings of the National Consultative Committee a two-shift system for cargo handling has been devised. In terms of this system all the available stevedore, quay and pilot staff are set to work at specific quays so as to obtain the highest possible utilization of quays. Two equal shifts of eight hours each are worked from six o’clock in the morning to ten o’clock at night, and at the remaining quays from six o’clock to two o’clock. This replaces the previous system, which required many hours of overtime to be worked. The staff are consequently getting more time to rest and are motivated into being more productive by an incentive payment if a predetermined production level is reached. Urgent measures have been taken to recruit and train additional staff in order that two-shift working may be introduced at most quays. This system also holds the advantage of flexibility in that single-shift quays can be changed over to two-shift quays, whilst if there should be a downward trend in traffic, the number of work teams and/or two-shift quays may be adapted accordingly.

After consultation with and with the full support of the shipping lines and stevedore companies, this system was introduced on a pre-planned basis in Cape Town on 16 December 1974 and in Durban on 16 January 1975. At Port Elizabeth and East London the numbers of the quay and stevedore staffs had to be supplemented considerably before the system could be introduced on 16 February 1975. The results achieved up to now point to a significant increase in productivity. The number of teams on the second shift at Durban harbour was increased by ten on 16 February 1975 in order that all berths at Pier No. 1 might be served on a two-shift basis.

There are, in addition, numerous other measures that have been introduced in the short term in order to streamline cargo handling and the control of cargo to a greater extent, some of these being the restriction on the subdivision of bill of lading consignments, a simplified method of checking boxes containing motor-car spares, the shipping of ferro-alloys by way of the mechanical loading appliances at Durban, the extension of unitized cargo working in Durban harbour, and the use of copying machines to simplify the preparation of delivery and forwarding documents in the ports and to save manpower.

As far as long-term planning is concerned, hon. members are aware of the new outer harbour scheme at Cape Town, the No. 2 Pier scheme at Durban, the extension of the Chari Malan Quay at Port Elizabeth for containerization and the construction of the large new harbour at Richards Bay. Good progress is being made, in terms of the planned programme, with all these schemes.

The No. 2 Pier complex at Durban harbour will, on completion, have a total quay length of 1 630 metres, and a surface area of approximately 120 hectares. The first fully equipped quay for containerization will be available by July 1977, followed by the second one in October 1977 and a third one in June 1978.

The roll-on/roll-off berth in the new outer harbour at Table Bay will be brought into service by the middle of 1975, followed by the completion of seven quays, five of which are destined for containerization.

At Richards Bay the two coal quays will be available in April 1976, whilst quays for the handling of clean cargo will be completed during 1977 and 1978. A multi-purpose handling apparatus for bulk cargo, as well as additional quay facilities for general cargo, is being planned at present. The Government has given its blessing to the planning and provision of the necessary structure for developing Richards Bay into a full-fledged harbour being proceeded with straightaway.

Wharf cranes, floating craft and mechanical handling appliances are being replaced and supplemented all the time. The Administration is engaged in an intensive programme for the modernization of its harbour craft, especially as far as its tug fleet is concerned. This started in 1972 with the commissioning of a medium-sized tug making use of the versatile Voith-Schneider method of propulsion. Another four of the most powerful Voith-Schneider traction tugs in the world were put into service in 1974.

Floating craft under construction at the moment and due to be delivered before the end of 1976 include the following: a harbour tug for Table Bay harbour, two dredgers (one each for Durban and Richards Bay), two floating cranes (each with a lifting capacity of 125 tons and destined for Durban and Table Bay harbour, respectively), and a number of smaller craft. The estimated cost of these craft amounts to more than R24 million.

Other harbour equipment on order, some of which are being delivered at the moment, include wharf cranes to the value of more than R3,5 million.

Tenders have also been invited for the supply of seven special wharf cranes for container handling, which will cost approximately R8,75 million.

In line with the policy of putting specialized officials in charge of all aspects of the activities in our harbours and of ensuring that a sufficient number of such staff is available, 20 additional senior-official posts were created for administrative, engineering, shipping and other technical personnel over the past three years. At the same time 16 similar posts were upgraded.

In certain cases the tonnage of minerals exported through Lourenço Marques has shown a drop of 40% of late. This has caused a considerable piling up of ships in that harbour.

When it became clear that the export tonnages could not be maintained, the General Manager of the South African Railways paid a visit to Lourenço Marques. After a thorough on-the-spot analysis, it became apparent that the conditions prevailing there could to a large extent be attributed to the failure of the 93 km of railway line between Komatipoort and Lourenço Marques to cope with all the traffic offered, and to a shortage of locomotives and other rolling stock. Arising from this visit assistance was requested in several spheres and made available by us. For instance, an undertaking was given to make diesel locomotives available to the Mozambique Railways, so that bigger loads may be cleared over the section of line in question. In the meantime a team of experts, using the S.A. Railways’ modern dynomometer test truck, has been helping the C.F.M. technical staff to test tile track, whilst assistance is also being given in connection with the modernization of signals, the repair of trucks, the provision of spares and the acquisition of rolling stock.

In addition, talks have already taken place between South African chrome exporters and the heads of the South African Railways and the Mozambique Railways in order to inform the exporters on the steps that are being taken to improve the capacity of the C.F.M. leg of the eastern railway line, and to give consideration to an interim co-ordinated export programme.

The hope is being cherished that the initiative taken by the S.A. Railways in this regard will contribute to the position at Lourenço Marques improving speedily and to the good name of the South African exporter being preserved.

The unusual increase in harbour traffic has of course resulted in harbour revenue being maintained at a very high level, and it is expected that the original estimates for the 1974-’75 financial year will be exceeded by more than R10 million. It has also given rise in the Railways experiencing a more favourable ratio between high and low-rated traffic, with a relatively higher goods revenue than was expected. Together with the general increase in traffic and the effect of the rates increase on 1 November last year, provision was made in the revised estimates for 1974-’75, as reflected in the documents tabled here, for a surplus of R28,7 million. However, if the trends which have emerged now, i.e. after the finalization of the revised estimates, should continue, the surplus will be a great deal bigger still.

†Staff

Turning now to staff matters I am happy to say that sound relations are being maintained despite the pressure under which everybody has to work these days.

There were less than 1 300 registered unemployed White males in the Republic at the end of October 1974, or 0,14% of the total economically active White population. In the face of the resultant keen competition among employers in all sectors, and despite intensified recruiting campaigns, improved salaries and wages, benefits and general working conditions, the department is still finding it difficult to meet all its requirements in the “bread and butter” grades. On the other hand, the department has become more selective with regard to employment in order to enhance efficiency and adaptability to modem techniques.

Various short and long-term measures have been devised in an endeavour to overcome the manpower shortage.

Apart from the clerical grades, where the position has improved considerably as a result of the employment of women, over 1 000 females are now employed as checkers, ticket examiners, crane drivers, vehicle drivers, machine operators, baggage handlers, cargo handlers and constables.

Non-White staff are being employed to an increasing extent in positions traditionally filled by Whites, principally flagman, plant operator, trade hand, vehicle driver and crane driver, and as at 31 January this year some 4 600 non-Whites were so employed. In addition, various replacement schemes have had to be evolved in order to keep the wheels turning, and approximately 7 300 non-Whites are now employed under these schemes. The artisan-assistant scheme, for instance, which has been in operation for some time now and provides improved opportunities for Whites and non-Whites, to date embraces the trades of painter, brick-layer, carpenter, plumber, motor mechanic, motor vehicle body builder, electrician, fitter, trimmer and underframemaker. Should the need arise, it will be extended to other trades.

Non-Whites are now also employed in 60 shunting yards and it is the intention to extend their use to other yards where shortages of shunters are experienced.

In addition, non-Whites are now being trained, and in some instances already employed, as carriage and wagon assistants, trackmen (plate-laying duties), sorters (checking duties), tallymen (Indians at Durban harbour), coalmen in shunting yards, and as ticket collectors on non-White commuter trains.

I have recently approved in principle of the participation by non-Whites in bonus schemes in certain areas and, as a first step, a scientific evaluation is being made of the functions and productive assistance rendered by these groups of staff. This will not only result in greater productivity but also in increased remuneration for non-Whites. Job evaluation is also being conducted where non-Whites operate in non-bonus-working fields with a view to providing incentives towards greater productivity and self-reward. At the same time it will be a further step in the process of narrowing the wage gap between Whites and non-Whites. Hon. members will readily appreciate that an evaluation of the work of all non-Whites in the Service is a task of great magnitude.

Apart from improving the employment opportunities and conditions of non-Whites, the service conditions of White staff are also constantly under scrutiny. Recently the structure of certain grades has been adjusted. Salaried status was accorded to station foremen, signalmen, drivers and other trainmen, artisans and constables and sergeants in the Railway Police Force. Apart from the conversion of their wages to salary rates, the staff under notice now share in leave and other service benefits on the same basis as other salaried staff.

The contributory pension scheme for non-White servants, briefly referred to in my last Budget Speech, was put into effect on 16 December 1974.

Hon. members will also recall my announcement of an overall increase of 10% in the pensions of White pensioners from 1 July 1974, and the raising of the minimum income levels. It subsequently came to notice that pensioners who prior to that date had been in receipt of a bonus, could suffer financially in that the increase could, in certain instances, result in a reduced bonus. These anomalies have since been eliminated.

The housing of staff continues to receive consideration. In addition to the 24 500 departmental houses already available, an amount of R10 million has been earmarked for the erection of over 400 houses during 1975-’76. As a result of the increase in building costs, the maximum permissible loan available under the house ownership scheme has been raised from R17 000 to R22 000 from June 1974. In addition to the existing house ownership schemes, a further scheme, to be called the House Ownership Scheme with Pension Fund Assistance, is to be introduced next month.

The house ownership scheme for Coloured staff introduced in 1973 was successfully launched and already 50 loans totalling R348 000 have been granted. Approval has now also been given for the introduction of a house ownership scheme for Indian staff as from 1 April 1975. Provision is made in the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works for an amount of R100 000 for the launching of this scheme.

In common with other branches of modern industry the Railways is steadily becoming capital rather than labour intensive, but this, in turn, has brought about a growing need for a work force trained and adapted to using to full advantage the more sophisticated tools and equipment placed at its disposal. To this end the department is continually expanding its training facilities, both institutional and in the work situation, to develop and ensure optimum efficiency of its human resources.

Apart from the purely human element, new schemes, techniques and appliances are constantly examined, tested and applied as aids towards streamlining working methods, ensuring quicker and more efficient functioning of men and equipment and increasing productivity.

The most prominent of these aids in the present realm of technology is, of course, the computer, the use of which is being extended rapidly throughout the department. In fact, the Railways has not only been one of the pioneers in the application of computers in this country but is presently one of the biggest users, having already 23 large computers as well as a large number of mini-computers in use. At present over 2 000 different programmes are used, the main applications being paysheet compilation and ancillary accounting functions, revenue accounting, expenditure and general accounting, rolling-stock control, the Safari seat reservation system for S.A. Airways, stores inventory control and a variety of technical programmes.

Additional systems being installed and developed relate to time sharing services for engineering staff, personnel administration, production control, computerized central traffic control and a goods information system.

Swift, efficient communications play an important part in ensuring efficient train services, and the department’s communications network is undergoing a continuous process of expansion, whilst the use of radio aids for fast direct communication in the work situation and for feeding data to computer terminals is increasing in importance.

To function effectively within the present highly competitive environment requires constant and co-ordinated research into and analysis of the price and service structure to enable positive decisions to be taken. To this end the commercial and rates research sections at Railway Headquarters have been combined in a single organization under a Director (Commercial Research).

Unified, co-ordinated research can now be undertaken in line with total railway strategy and will ensure that areas of conflict are resolved, priorities established, and that the commercial policy formulated is put into practice.

Apart from functioning as an internal co-ordinating commercial link, the organization will also serve as an external feeler, in which respect its task will be to make the transport milieu in which the Railway operates receptive to changes in policy and strategy and also to gauge broad economic needs and the acceptability of such changes. Good co-operation has already been established with commerce and industry.

It also became increasingly apparent that there was a growing need for closer coordination, at high managerial level, between the commercial and operating activities. The Commercial Section is basically concerned with the loading and unloading of trucks whilst the function of the Operating Section is to ensure the availability of trucks and to move the traffic. The close relationship between these two divisions has become even more evident with the introduction of computer control. The two sections, formerly controlled by different Deputy General Managers, have accordingly been placed under the control of one such managerial head with a view to more effective control and co-ordination.

Research

Changing requirements and the need for continual improvement in transportation equipment necessitate unremitting research to ensure that the services rendered by the department can meet demands. The engineering and other scientific staff devoted to this purpose have been instrumental in solving many problems and developing new techniques and equipment. Whilst their work remains largely unheralded, its effects are noticed throughout the Service and it is in great measure due to them that the South African Railways is today regarded as technically among the leaders of railway operators in the world. This is no idle boast as on occasion individual developments have leapt into prominence and their inventors have become household names in their respective fields. To mention but two examples, there have been the Van Schoor system of train control and the Merrifield “dolos” which is being increasingly used both locally and overseas in the construction of breakwaters and similar harbour works.

Only recently a revolutionary concept in the design of the railway bogie has emerged. This bogie, the result of research commencing in 1966 by one of our mechanical engineers, is expected to solve many problems associated with steering stability around curves and oscillation (or “hunting”) at high speed, with resultant wheel and rail wear. It should contribute towards greater safety at higher speeds, better riding qualities, reduced rail and wheel wear as well as less rolling resistance whilst simultaneously facilitating higher wagon loads. Excessive wear, especially under conditions of heavy truck loads and intensive working—such as are experienced with the transport of export or in bulk from Post-masburg to Port Elizabeth—is a world-wide problem.

When the concept of the new bogie was dealt with at a recent international railway conference in the United States it excited immediate interest. In fact, this particular contribution was described in one influential journal as being the “biggest surprise of the conference”. World patent rights for the bogie have been applied for in South Africa and overseas.

A new railway test centre for rolling stock was commissioned last year at Koedoespoort. This centre is equipped with the latest facilities, including electronic instrumentation, for testing rolling stock in conditions where this cannot normally be done in the track or by calculation. This centre will be instrumental inter alia in solving many other technical and operating problems arising from the hauling of heavier wagon loads and longer trains of high capacity.

New Works and Equipment

The department has made large capital investments during recent years in order to expand and streamline the country’s rail transport infrastructure. The switch from steam to electric and diesel motive power is proceeding rapidly. During 1964-’65, 56% of our trains were steam-hauled, electric being 37% and diesel 7%. By 1973-’74, steamhauled trains comprised only 27% as against 50% and 23% by electric and diesel locomotives, respectively. There is every indication that the number of diesel-hauled trains will outstrip steam-hauled trains in the very near future, although diesel traction is not expected to maintain its strong interim position by virtue of the fuel situation and the department’s long-term traction policy which provides mainly for electrification. In terms of freight volumes conveyed, there are even more significant changes. In 1964-’65 steam locomotives hauled some 54% of rail freight compared with 37% by electric and only 9% by diesel locomotives. By 1973-’74, however, electric locomotives were hauling 53% whilst the diesel locomotives’ share had grown from a modest 9% to almost 28% compared with 19% for steam locomotives. Measured in relation to operating productivity the shift in emphasis—aided, of course, by the implementation of various other operating and organisational techniques—can best be evaluated by examining three of the more important productivity factors, namely, average load per train, volume of goods traffic, and operating efficiency.

In the past ten years the average load per train improved by over 30%; a factor which did much to alleviate the limited track capacity of the Railways.

The volume of goods traffic in 1964-’65 amounted to 100,6 billion ton kilometres. The corresponding figure for 1973-’74 was 129,5 billion, and it is expected that that figure will be at least 7,5% higher in 1974-’75.

Bearing in mind that the department has had to cope with an increase in the volume of goods traffic of more than 30% over the past decade, it is interesting to note that the ratio of gross ton kilometres per locomotive man-hour improved by almost 50% during that period. Taking this ratio as an indicator of operating efficiency, there can be no doubt that the South African Railways has effectively met the challenge of an ever-increasing transport demand.

Technological advances such as the implementation of centralized traffic control schemes on a number of sections of line, the containerisation of traffic and the development of special single-purpose goods trucks to cater for specific needs of customers, coupled with a concerted effort to eliminate bottlenecks in the railway organization and network, have resulted in significant improvements over the past decade.

Major new works for which provision is now being made include the replacement of the existing signal cabin at Langa to provide the signalling control of the new line between Nyanga and Mitchell’s Plain for Coloured commuters, and the septupling of the line between Durban and Umgeni to cater for workers from the Inanda, Ntuzuma, Newlands and Phoenix areas.

To improve commuter services in the Reef area, staging and cross-over lines will be provided at Orlando whilst the outdated signalling system at Nancefield and Midway is to be replaced; the line between Dube and Naledi will be quadrupled and a large new signal cabin is to be built at New Canada.

The Estimates also provide for stage 2 of the new central marshalling yard for the Reef area and the doubling of the section Houtheuwel—Potchefstroom to increase capacity and permit the operation of long 7 300 ton ore trains to the Vanderbijl and Newcastle steelworks.

On the Airways side an appropriation of R64 million is sought for additional aircraft that will be required by the end of 1976 for the domestic and the regional services. The number and types of aircraft to be acquired must still be decided. To provide increased hangarage for the maintenance of aircraft, an item has been included for an additional hangar at Jan Smuts Airport.

Provision is made for the acquisition of 150 electric and 50 diesel locomotives. Some of these electric locomotives are to be operated on alternating current on the Ermelo—Richards Bay line.

Also included in the Estimates are 610 main-line saloons, 508 suburban coaches, 30 guard’s vans, 10 parcel vans and 10 double dining cars.

To cope with the anticipated increase in traffic the Estimates provide for 9 000 bogie wagons of various types.

Provision is also made for a wide variety of road transport and cartage vehicles at a cost of approximately R19 million.

I should now like to give the House a brief review of the progress made on some of the more important major new works.

The connecting line between the new harbour complex in Table Bay and Bellville should be in operation by September 1977. The installation of centralized traffic control between Wellington and Touws River is being introduced in stages and is expected to be completed towards the end of 1976. Work on the scheme to deviate the line and construct a tunnel through the Hex River Pass has recommenced and the target date is December 1978. The synchrolift replacing the old slipway in the Alfred Basin was placed in service during February this year, whilst the new air freight depot at D. F. Malan Airport is already in use.

The electrification of the Welverdiend—Lichtenburg section should be completed by March 1976, whilst tenders are under consideration in respect of the doubling and installation of centralized traffic control on the section Fieldsview—Postmasburg—Hotazel.

The Kroonstad—Hamilton and Whites— Welkom electrification is progressing well. The section Kroonstad—Welkom is in operation whilst the completion date for the balance of the electrification work is set for March 1976.

The new line from Vryheid to Empangeni will be brought into service next month and will bring about much needed relief for the Natal main line.

The rail link from Richards Bay marshalling yard to the coal quays in the harbour is expected to be completed in January next year.

The target date for the shipment of export coal from Richards Bay harbour remains 1 April 1976. Hon. members who visited that project in 1973 and who have not had the opportunity of doing so since, will be interested to learn that so far 30% of the dredging has been completed and that four large cutter-suction dredgers are at present engaged on this work, whilst 12,8 million cubic metres of sand have been dredged from the river estuary. Some 3 100 metres of the 4 500 metre long berm wall across the bay have been built. The 14 prestressed concrete bridge girders for the tidal control gates are complete and the construction pit flooded. At the coal quay the excavation for the 700 metre quay wall is complete and in terms of concrete cast the quay wall structure itself is 89% complete. Excavation for the return wall at the north end of the coal quay is complete, piling is under way and construction on the superstructure has commenced. Nearly 44 000 dolosse have been cast and 984 metres—55%—of concrete capping on the South breakwater have been completed, 550 metres—96%—on the North breakwater, 324 metres on the North Headland and 52 metres on the South Headland. Work on the quay for departmental craft, comprising a tug and pilot boat jetty, a small craft quay, a dredger berth and a quay for ship repairs is well in hand and to date 35% has been completed. It is expected that this quay will also be operational by 1 April 1976.

The electrification of the coal line from Broodsnyersplaas to Richards Bay is well under way. The section Ermelo—Vryheid —Richards Bay will be the first 25 kilovolt 50 hertz AC electrification introduced on the South African Railways and the design and execution of this work is progressing very favourably.

The section Brits—Thabazimbi will also be similarly electrified. Tenders for both these projects are now being adjudicated. A contract for the complete electrification of the section Kaapmuiden—Phalaborwa was placed on December 1974. This project is expected to be completed by the end of 1977.

On the Western Transvaal System various capital works have been completed or are expected to be taken into service this year. These include the extension of the North and East yards at Kaserne, the remodelling of the yard at Rooikop, the installation of centralized traffic control between Potchefstroom and Klerksdorp, the Davel—Ermelo connecting line, stage 1 of the quadrupling between Knights and Elandsfontein, and the cabin services and flight kitchen building at Jan Smuts Airport.

Contracts have been awarded for aerial surveys to establish the routes of the new electrified lines to serve the central marshalling yard at Bapsfontein. The approximately 6 000 hectares of land required for the yard itself have been expropriated.

The planning of the turn-round and staging facilities required at Geldenhuys, Ikwezi, Phomolong and Naledi is proceeding. Every effort is being made to expedite the schemes as the facilities are urgently required for the handling of non-White train sets. The electrification of the section Springs—Kaydale should be completed by March 1976.

The remodelling of the yard at Rustenburg is scheduled for completion during this month. The new single line from Broodsnyersplaas to Ermelo, as well as the improvements to the existing line between Ermelo and Vryheid, is progressing well.

The deviation of the line between Groenbult and Rubbervale will be completed in July this year, and the Derwent—Roossenekal electrification will be commissioned during the second half of next year.

Every endeavour is being made to expedite the detailed planning of the several schemes for the provision of facilities to convey non-White passengers by rail from the Tswana Homeland to their places of work, mainly in the Pretoria area. Included in this project are the proposed new line to be provided between Wintemest and Mabopane, a new station for non-Whites at Belle Ombre, and the associated railway network.

At Windhoek, the improvements and extensions to the goods depot were completed in November last year, whilst the plans for the subway at Republic Road as well as the deviation of the line between Swakopmund and Walvis Bay are in the course of preparation. A contract was recently awarded for the improvement of the departmental telecommunications between De Aar and Windhoek.

In submitting the Estimates of Expenditure on Capital and Betterment Works I am well aware of the fact that the department will probably again be criticised for not providing sufficient facilities and equipment. I should like to point out, however, that this expenditure has risen from R136 million in 1963-’64 to R483 million in 1973-’74, whilst it is expected that expenditure for the current financial year and the proposed spending during 1975-’76 will amount to R602 million and R866 million, respectively. Based on the 1963-’64 price index the appropriation for the next financial year represents a real investment of some R400 million, which is a spending rate three times higher than during 1963-’64.

Investments of this magnitude in only one section of our national infrastructure require to be viewed with circumspection in relation to the availability of capital, labour and other resources.

The department’s planning section is responsible for the necessary research, liaison with other sectors of the economy and the co-ordination of its projects. However, there would appear to be a dire need for a wider application of planning principles in order to ensure, the equitable distribution of the country’s resources.

Enormous schemes have already been started or announced for the next decade or so and the optimism engendered by the expected buoyant economy will act as a strong stimulus for still further expansion. It is my view that all large projects in both the government and private sectors should be appraised on a national level in future so that priorities can be determined.

Estimates for 1975-’76

Mr. Speaker, I now come to the Estimates of Expenditure to be defrayed from Revenue Funds during 1975-’76.

In view of the sensitivity to rates increases and the anticipated levelling off in the economy, first and second class passenger journeys for 1975-’76 are expected to be only marginally higher than in 1974-’75. Third class main line journeys are expected to move with the business cycle and should reflect an increase of some 5,5% whilst the growth in third class suburban passengers should be on an even lower level.

Goods traffic during 1975-’76 is expected to increase by 4,25 million tons, or 4,7%, as against the anticipated increase of 6,1% during 1974-’75. Maize exports are expected to exceed the 1974-’75 figure and contribute largely towards a million tons increase for the vegetable products sector. No change is envisaged in the conveyance of export ores, but a further expansion of the Republic’s steel industry requires large additional tonnages of iron and manganese ore, limestone and dolomite. It follows that locally produced iron and steel products will increase whilst imports thereof will decline. Additional truck allocations should increase the mass of coal and coke exports through Durban and Lourenço Marques by some 750 000 tons per year. Together with the provision for domestic demand, coal traffic is expected to increase by 7,7%.

On account of the downward trend in the business cycle it is anticipated that real growth rate in respect of the Road Transport Service will be below the 1974-’75 level.

In the case of the harbours, real imports are expected to decline by 2% whilst a real growth of 2% is projected for exports. The re-opening of Suez is not expected to have an appreciable effect on the earnings of the South African harbours during 1975-’76.

On account of the recessionary conditions presently experienced by the major industrialized countries, the levelling off in the South African economy and a moderate resistance against the rates increases on the domestic services in November 1974, the real growth rate of the South African Airways is expected to dwindle further to a level of 10% for the financial year 1975-’76.

Pipelines traffic for 1975-’76 is expected to reflect an increase on the relatively low level set in 1974-’75 as a result of the fuelsaving measures.

Total earnings for the financial year 1975-’76 are estimated at R1 824,9 million whilst expenditure (including appropriations from Net Revenue Account) is expected to amount to R1 818,5 million, leaving a surplus of R6,4 million.

Appreciation

In conclusion I wish to extend my sincere appreciation and thanks to the Railway Commissioners, the General Manager and each member of the staff of this vast organization for the loyal and efficient services rendered by them during the year. Thanks to their efforts, it was possible to meet the demands made on our national carrier.

Tabling

I now lay on the Table a Memorandum setting out the estimated results of working for the financial year 1974-’75, and anticipated revenue and expenditure for the year 1975-’76, together with the latest traffic and other statistics.

I also lay on the Table Statements of the Estimated Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1976, and Statements of the Original and Revised Estimates of Revenue and Expenditure for the year ending 31 March 1975.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. the Minister has today announced a surplus which drew, as was to be expected, “oohs” and “ahs” and “hoor, hoors” all around those benches. I wonder, however, whether there will be the same welcome when it is realized that none of this surplus is to be used to help those who have waited anxiously for this moment to hear the Budget. These are the pensioners—whom we debated last year—who have had to live another eight months against spiralling living costs, waiting for the Budget which, traditionally, meets their desperate needs. There may be excepted that small groups were affected by the technical adjustments of their special allowance. Every other pensioner, however, must survive on a 2% increase in a year in which food prices have risen by some 20% and in which the cost of living as a whole has risen by some 14% or 15%, or more. That is the cold, hard fact. Except for some internal adjustments, there is no relief for the staff either, who have done so much to make the results the hon. the Minister could announce possible. To them this Budget will be a disappointment. We shall discuss it at greater length next week. There are, however, a few matters to which I would like to refer immediately.

Firstly, I would like to congratulate the General Manager on the action he took in Mozambique—with the authority and support of the hon. the Minister. I refer to the personal action taken by the General Manager in helping to clear the bottleneck to which the hon. the Minister referred and some of the other steps which, were taken by him during the crisis period and are still being taken. We on this side of the House support the Government fully in its attitude in this respect.

I would now like to refer briefly to the reply we had from the hon. the Minister last year, when we called for a full scale investigation by a commission of inquiry. The Minister told us that his planning was perfect. He said that there were no worries, that no investigation was needed because they had all the answers and the planning. Let us look into this matter. In 1972-’73 the hon. the Minister estimated for a surplus of R7,8 million. In fact, he had a surplus of R32,8 million. Only some six months ago the hon. the Minister came to us with an estimate for a surplus for this year of R3,2 million. He now tells us that he has a surplus of R28,7 million. I am glad that he was at least open enough with the House to admit that the surplus could be materially higher. I suggest that he knows it is going to be materially higher. I suggest that he knows that the high,-rated traffic has not slowed down since October, as was anticipated. He has only taken his figures to December, and the hon. the Minister knows that the surplus is going to be much more. Last year we warned him when he himself said—

Here, in Hansard, is a record of our charge that he had underestimated the income for the year ahead or, rather, the current year as it was then. We told him that he had underestimated and that, therefore, he was unnecessarily loading the Railway user by increasing the tariffs to the extent he had. He said that it would mean ½ cent per person. Now, six months later, I ask him whether he still says it is ½ cent per person or whether this has contributed considerably in spiralling the cost of living. The fact is that there now is a surplus which can go up well into the 30 millions and that after the hon. the Minister had placed a rates burden on the public last year despite our warnings, now he says: “This is perfect planning.” Perfect planning when one looks at the Capital Estimates? On Capital and Betternment the estimates have increased from R250 million in 1972-’73 to R526 million this year, just on harbours, new lines and new works on open lines and rolling stock. This increase came in the course of only four years! However, during the period 1963-’64 to 1972-’73 the estimates increased less than twice, viz. from R126 million to R250 million. In other words, the planning came all in one rush over a period of three years. There was no far-sighted planning. This is no planning when suddenly …

Oh, the same old story as in other years.

Order! The hon. member for Gezina doth protest too much.

I say it is no planning when suddenly out of the blue increases of this order are thrown in. There was first an increase to R420 million and then another increase to R526 million. In other words, the Railways allowed themselves to run down and had then to come with panic measures.

The last point to which I want to refer is harbours. The hon. the Minister was present and we thank the Administration for taking members of the Select Committee to visit Durban harbour. Perhaps it was a softening up, but we appreciate it very much. In any case, it could not soften us that much. We saw many excellent efforts there, many things for which credit is due and will be given in this debate. Some others would make the hair of the hon. member for Waterberg curl—we saw Black men driving cranes and forklifts and all were working together. We congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Administration and we say that South Africa will progress if we make use, in a similar way, of all her labour resources in the best possible way. We shall give the hon. the Minister full support and we shall support him in particular in closing the wage gap between the people who have made it possible to keep the wheels turning.

However, we do not accept that the hon. the Minister’s Budget reveals good planning or that the Minister was unable to foresee his surplus. We shall show in the debate next week why this has not been good planning. The opportunity to do so will come after we had had a chance to study the detailed figures and I therefore move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

The Bill before this House, is, with the exception of clause 10, administrative in nature, rather than containing any really new principles. It is aimed at eliminating shortcomings which have become apparent in the application of the existing legislation.

The position at the moment is that honorary forest officers are restricted, in exercising their powers, to areas set aside as wilderness areas and nature reserves in State forests and to areas in which, the making of fires in the open air is prohibited in terms of section 12 of the Forest Act, 1968. The general view is that honorary forest officers can assist the Department of Forestry in its task of conservation to a far larger extent, especially in view of the fact that State forests will be thrown open to an ever increasing extent for open-air recreation purposes in future. Consequently it is being provided in clause 3 of the Bill that honorary forest officers may exercise their powers in all State forests, as well as in areas to which a prohibition in terms of sections 12 and 13(5)(a) is applicable. Considerable interest has been shown by the youth in obtaining appointments as honorary forest officers and although there is nothing which prevents their appointment, it is nevertheless necessary to provide for the limitation of the powers of minor honorary forest officers. The present procedure for the demarcation of State forest land is, as hon. members will note from section 8(i) of the Forests Act, 1968, a protracted process which is very time consuming. Consequently there is a definite need to simplify this procedure with a view to promoting efficiency and adapting it to changing circumstances. The amendment envisaged in clause 4 of the Bill, seeks to carry this into effect.

The amendment in clause 5 has become necessary in order to render it possible to deal with, rights which the National Transport Commission wishes to have for the construction of national roads through State forests on the same basis as when Government departments, provincial administrations and local authorities wish to have such rights. In this connection I want to make it very clear that regard will always have to be had to the fact that the Department of Forestry has a function of conserving nature in its unspoilt state. Therefore it will be expected that before planning of national roads is tackled on any scale, the Minister of Forestry will have to be consulted and his approval obtained for the routes of such roads where they run through State forests.

The amendments contained in clause 6, merely seek to put it beyond any doubt that those members of the Forestry Council who are in the full-time service of the State, are entitled only to the subsistence expenses allowances prescribed by the Public Service Act and regulations and not to any other allowances.

Practice has shown that the destroying of slash by burning in plantations during certain times of the year presents a real fire hazard. The amendment in clause 7 which makes provision for prohibiting this practice when circumstances may so require, follows representations which have been received in this connection from organized agriculture. We trust that this provision will make a real contribution to the further prevention of uncontrolled fires.

The amendments envisaged in clause 8, simply amounts to a textual improvement so as to facilitate prosecution and conviction in cases of deliberate contraventions of the spirit in which the legislation against the lighting of fires in State forests or private forests and against the burning of veld was drafted. In terms of the present statutory provisions relating to the burning of veld, it is necessary to provide proof that grazing has been damaged by burning in order to prosecute successfully. However, it is not possible in practice to provide such irrefutable proof as it is difficult to determine the extent of damage to pasturage. The proposed amendments should render effective control over the unlawful burning of pasturage possible.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members are surely aware that in terms of regulations made by the State President the Department of Agricultural Technical Services has been responsible up to now for the measures for the prevention and combating of diseases and pests which attack forest trees and timber. The said department is, however, no longer able to render the required inspection services in this connection. The proposed amendments in clause 9 will have the effect that this matter will become the responsibility of the Department of Forestry and will make it possible to provide by regulation that the necessary inspection services may be undertaken on an agency basis by other bodies on behalf of the Department of Forestry.

The Forest Act, 1968, as it stands at the moment, only makes provision for the designation of officials of the Department of Forestry and employees of private forest owners and local authorities as forest officers. However, it is considered necessary that those persons who are authorized by a notice in terms of section 10 of the Act or by regulation in terms of the proposed clause 9 of the Bill, to carry out inspection services on an agency basis for the Department of Forestry, should also be invested with the powers of a forest officer so as to enable them to carry out these services properly. The amendment in clause 1 of the Bill, seeks to carry this into effect.

Mr. Speaker, in view of the ever increasing need for recreation in the open air, especially that of the urban populations, the idea arose during the “Our Green Heritage” campaign that a hiking way be established which will run from the Cedarberg in the Western Cape to the Soutpansberg in the Northern Transvaal, so as to provide healthy recreation to the general public. A hiking way which runs through the beautiful parts of our country can, apart from the fact that it will open up the natural beauty of the country to the general public on an orderly basis, play a significant role in the development of an appreciation for and a feeling of responsibility towards our nature and, arising from this, the combating of pollution and fires with the help of a population educated in the ways of nature. The beneficial effect which the establishment of such a hiking way can have on national fitness and the contribution which it can make to the combating of social evils may most certainly not be under-estimated either.

The Department of Forestry, in the normal provision of open-air recreational facilities in State forests in terms of the stated Government policy in connection with the multi-purpose use of State forest property, has already constructed a hiking way across certain State forests in the Eastern Transvaal. A section of this hiking way was opened to the public during the Green Heritage Campaign and it is already clear that it not only meets a particular need for open-air recreation, but also continues to grow in popularity.

The use of private land will be unavoidable in the realization of the idea of a country-wide hiking way system, because the State forest property does not form one continuous area, but is situated principally in the forestry and water catchment areas of the country. However, the Forest Act, 1968, does not make provision for the expenditure of Government funds on the establishment of open-air recreational facilities on private land, and special provision is necessary for procedures, organizational arrangements, financing measures and control. The relevant part of the Bill makes provision for these.

The insertion of a new chapter in the Forest Act, 1968, as set out in clause 10 of the Bill, is aimed at introducing a unique South African hiking way system.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are going to support the Second Reading of this Bill. We would like to welcome the hon. the Minister back from his trip to Japan, where he has been on a matter of the greatest urgency and importance to the forest industry in South Africa, and particularly to those of us who are interested in the wattle industry. We hope that we will hear later on during the course of this debate that his trip went well and that things have happened there in the way in which he would like them to have happened.

Sir, the provisions of this Bill are not of major importance; there is nothing contentious about them, with the exception of the new chapter which has been introduced dealing with the national hiking way system, and we on this side propose to say a few words about that. I would like to deal briefly with clause 3, the clause which enables certain people to be appointed as forest officers. The Minister dealt briefly with the question of juveniles, schoolchildren or members of youth organizations who may be appointed as honorary forest officers. The clause provides that their powers may be limited. The limitation on an honorary forest officer already is that he shall not have powers of arrest or of search without warrant. I wonder if the hon. the Minister in his reply would perhaps tell us in more detail what further limitations will be placed on members of youth organizations who are appointed as honorary forest officers; whether they will have the power to report offenders and what part it is envisaged that they will be able to play in preserving this heritage for South Africa.

Clause 4 streamlines the procedure for declaring an undemarcated forest to be a demarcated forest, and it is proposed to delete subclause (3), which requires that a copy of such report shall lie in the magistrate’s office with a surveyor’s diagram. Would the Minister confirm that this is merely because no use has been made of these provisions; that in fact all this has been complied with and that in the past where this procedure has been followed, very little use has been made of this by the public at large and it is therefore proposed simply to eliminate it as a step in the streamlining of this process?

In regard to clause 5, the hon. the Minister mentioned the fact that the National Transport Commission had now been included among other public bodies, such as the Railways and the provinces, who have the right to utilize forest areas and other areas for roads or for railways, or for whatever the purpose may be. It includes local authorities. But the Minister of Forestry now has to be notified of any such proposals. We should like to have confirmation of the fact that the late controversy which arose in the Cape Province through the National Transport Commission putting a road through the Wilderness area at Knysna will now be obviated and that the Minister is now taking steps to ensure that the National Transport Commission cannot again in the future take steps which we regard, and many people interested in conservation regard, as being very deleterious to nature conservation in South Africa.

In regard to clause 8, there is one point I should like to raise with the hon. the Minister. There is the question of anyone who drops any burning match on material capable of spontaneous combustion and self-ignition. This is part of the existing Act, but I think it is as well that the Minister should draw to the attention of the public that people who throw litter about, bottles and glass and that kind of thing, which can by reason of focusing the sun’s rays start fires in forest areas and along wilderness trails, are in fact committing an offence. This should be used to reinforce the anti-litter campaign which has been going on for some time and which is going to be of much greater importance when this hiking way system comes into use on a large scale. The clause now brings in the words “by which pasturage is burned down and plant material is burned”. This replaces the words “and damages grazing and vegetation”. I should like to know exactly what the word “pasturage” means. We in our group are not certain whether it means merely natural veld or natural grazing, or whether it could be construed to mean planted pastures like clover pastures. It is a word which is not in common use and we wonder whether it might in fact have a specific application should a case under this clause come before the court.

Then I should like to deal briefly, because there are two other hon. members on our side who will also deal with it, with the hiking way system. I think it is important to realize that this is a milestone in the history of the use, not only of the public land but also of private land, of a private citizen, the ordinary man in the street, particularly the town-dweller who wishes to go out into the country and to wander about in order to commune with nature, to be able, as the hon. the Minister says, to get back to nature in order to get away from the pressures of modern city dwelling, pressures which sociologists tell us contribute a great deal to the evils prevalent in our society. Sir, this poses a tremendous challenge to the Forestry Department and I do not think it is in the public interest to minimize this challenge. It is a fantastic challenge they will have to meet and requires planning at the highest level. It is going to introduce into the farming community, the land-owning community, a totally foreign element, and it is going to impose very severe obligations on the land-owning community which the hon. the Minister has gone a certain distance towards by providing that in the local committees which will deal with each section of the trail, the local land-owners shall be part of that committee. So I do think he has gone a certain way towards meeting that position. But every land-owner who is in a scenic area is interested. May I in passing ask the hon. the Minister whether in his reply he will demarcate to us the area which this system is intended to cover. It obviously will not only be forestry land. It can, I believe, include private land. I have been told that plans are afoot to include certain areas in the Transkei, on the Wild Coast. This is forest land, as I understand it, in the Transkei. This is why I am asking the question. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether in fact his department will have the ability to set up a hiking system of this nature in the Transkei, in KwaZulu or in any other part of South Africa. I am referring to cases where the department will actually control and utilize land on which forests are planted, whether it be on an agency basis through the Governments of those areas or on any other basis.

The problem is simply that we are here dealing with a concept of solitude. The whole idea of the forest and wilderness areas is to encourage those people who live in towns under the pressures of modern life and large populations to get away from other people. This is why I mention the question of planning. One has to start not with the demand, which we know is tremendous, but with the supply. In other words, we have to find out what is available. This is why I have asked the hon. the Minister to tell us how far the provisions of this Bill in fact go. What is going to be available to the teeming masses in the cities who want to get out and make use of this hiking system? Other questions are: What can the environment absorb? How is the public going to be brought there? What controls will there be? I do not think that the Department of Forestry has undertaken a tremendous job. I would imagine that it is going to lead to a large increase in the staff of this department. I think the hon. the Minister should tell us what steps he proposes to take to expand his department. I do not think the department will have any difficulty when it comes to increasing its personnel, because it has been the experience in Natal, in the ca.se of the Parks Board and other organizations, that there is a flood of people who apply to join organizations which deal with this kind of ecological protection.

As regards the question of schools, I should like to know whether the department has yet got around to thinking in terms of leadership schools such as the Wilderness Leadership School which is run in Natal, and whether there will be planned utilization of these areas. I should like to know on what basis this will be done because these are all things that are going to come under the purview of the hon. the Minister’s department. There is going to be pressure on the department from the public who want to be able to use these areas. I think we have to realize that we are today creating a system which is going to be subject to increasing pressure and increasing demand.

I should like to welcome this measure on behalf of this side of the House. I do suggest that the hon. the Minister should consider appointing in his department somebody who will be a public relations officer, or something of that kind, to sell this idea and put it across to the public. Such a person should stress the ideal conditions under which the system should be used, the obligations that members of the public take upon themselves when they go through whatever gates or control areas are established, the fact that they should not litter the countryside or be a nuisance to landowners through whose territory they may pass, and so on. I think that the department has taken a tremendous obligation and load upon itself, and I think that everybody who loves the outdoors in South Africa must welcome the steps being taken in this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the idea of hiking trails just as much as the hon. member for Mooi River did. I think it is a wonderful idea for us to take more advantage of unspoilt nature. The hon. member for Mooi River also referred to the other clauses of the legislation. I do not want to elaborate on those. However, I do want to say something about clause 5 of the Bill. The amendment of section 9 of the principal Act by clause 5 means that the National Transport Commission, too, is recognized as a body which does not have to obtain special permission. When we were discussing legislation in regard to wilderness areas in this House some time ago, the intention was that when wilderness areas and nature reserves had to be passed through, the permission of both Houses of Parliament had to be obtained. In the Committee Stage I shall therefore move an amendment to section 9 of the principal Act, as amended by clause 5.

It is an unfortunate fact that the urbanization of our population as a result of industrial development and economic growth has resulted in a serious disruption of man’s contact with nature. Where formerly man was able to enjoy the wide open spaces and to take pleasure in nature, he has to be content today with the exhaust fumes of motor cars. The urban set-up we have today is causing great frustration among our people. We farmers and people who live in the country find it strange to think that people are so shut up in the cities and consequently experience all kinds of problems. As the hon. member for Mooi River said and as the hon. the Minister said in his Second Reading speech, we have to pay more attention to the way our people spend their free time. The need for this is increasing. The doubtful forms of entertainment one finds in the cities are associated with all kinds of social evils. Under these circumstances we welcome the idea of a hiking trail which will give our people the chance to see unspoilt nature again. In the United States of America, for example, people go out for long periods of time to enjoy nature and are prepared to endure great hardship just for the sake of doing that. A year or so ago the National Parks Board opened the Otter Trail along the Tsitsikamma coast, and hon. members would be surprised to see how enthusiastic people are to go through that gruelling experience. They are prepared to sleep in the veld, to swim across river-mouths and to climb up and down mountains—all just to get out into nature. The hon. the Minister is now going to have a hiking trail built which will be thousands of miles long and which will create endless opportunities for people to enjoy nature. Very strict control will have to be exercised, of course. I think that a property constituted council should exercise control over such a network of trails. A trail of this kind has already been opened in the Eastern Transvaal, and perhaps the hon. the Minister will be able to give us figures regarding the use of that trail, i.e. whether there is a need for it and whether many people apply to make use of it. Experience with the Otter route has shown that the numbers on such a trail have to be strictly limited. People cannot be allowed to make use of it in great numbers without any control being exercised. Our mountains are going to be made accessible by such a system of trails and a large number of people will be able to reach nature, which we are taking great pains to preserve. Therefore it is essential that these trails be very well supervised in order to ensure that nature remains unspoilt. I am thinking in particular of the wilderness areas through which this trail will probably pass as well. We had thought that a wilderness area should really not be opened to the general public but that it should be accessible only to real nature lovers and students of our flora and fauna. So I think we should be careful as far as this is concerned. We should not merely allow the trails to lead through our wilderness area as well, for this could lead to abuse. People who abuse this trail system should be heavily penalized. Overnight quarters will certainly have to be erected and special areas will have to be laid out where fires can be made. It may be necessary to erect shelters as well. Various facilities will have to provided along the trails. In this connection I want to put in an early plea for these facilities and buildings to be carefully adapted to the surroundings so that they may not spoil the natural beauty. I think it is almost unnecessary for me to make this appeal, but I am making it nevertheless, for I think it is absolutely essential that this be kept in mind.

The thought has occurred to me that many of our youth organizations would like to associate themselves with this idea of a trail system. I have wondered whether they would not even be prepared to assist in building such a trail system. I am thinking, for example, of the Veld and Vlei movement, the Voortrekkers, the Land Service Movement and the youth organization of the F.A.K. There are other bodies too, such as mountaineering clubs and even public bodies such as divisional councils and municipalities, which could help. If they could be involved in this scheme, they could do a great deal to help build the trail system quickly and cheaply.

There is another thought I want to raise. My request is that we should look at the existing trails as well. I am very fond of walking myself, and I want to say that persons who are not aware of them would be surprised to know how many trails already exist in the Cape Peninsula. Then there is also the Parks Board, which has already begun to build trails. I have wondered whether there will be proper consultation with these people who have already begun to give effect to this fine idea.

Mr. Speaker, I think that this trail system is a wonderful idea and we support it wholeheartedly.

Mr. Speaker, there are few of us with souls so dead that we cannot enjoy the pleasures of solitary wandering on foot, the challenge of exploring valleys and peaks or the loneliness of our veld. Unfortunately these are so often inaccessible to the ordinary South African because of the roadside fences which prevent the public from enjoying South Africa’s wonderful natural resources of mountain slope, veld and vlei. I often envy the United States their wonderful Pacific Quest Trail or Canada their Great Divide Trail in the Canadian Rockies. This trail crosses something like four national parks and two provincial parks and runs a distance of 3 400 miles. I believe that they envisage joining up these trails to a Continental Divide Trail in the United States. If they do link it up, it would give them a continuous trail of approximately 3 700 miles and will take the hiker right to New Mexico. This long-distance hiking and also horseback routes follow paths that were once trodden by Indian trappers, explorers, surveyors and so forth. We have similar areas here in South Africa where there are footpaths which were used by game and also by the early Bushmen and explorers such as Beutler, Lichtenstein, Burchell and Andrew Smith, who had the wonderful privilege of experiencing nature in South Africa almost as it was created. There are many modern-day people who would also like to enjoy these wonderful privileges. The hon. the Minister of Forestry has now made it possible for South Africans to enjoy this privilege of the solitude of undisturbed nature, nature as it was created. I believe that there are some basic principles which we should have regard to in the execution of this plan of the hon. the Minister and in the regulations which he will proclaim in due course. It should be regarded as a privilege to participate in these walks. It should be regarded as something special to be able to go out into the veld to enjoy these wonderful natural surroundings. It should not be taken for granted. Man should be regarded as an intruder in the domain of nature and, consequently, should disturb the wonderful creations about him as little as possible. I believe that in planning this whole system, one should try to disturb the Creation in the form of nature about one as little as possible.

My experience as a member of the Mountain Club of South Africa and as one who has travelled along the major trails Umfolozi, St. Lucia and the Otter Trail in the Tsitsikamma sea coast national park, has shown me what kind of disturbance man can cause along these trails if he does not adhere to these principles. I believe that these routes should be very carefully planned in their siting and their situation. It is essential that they should go through the right eco-systems, as mentioned by the member for Mooi River, that one should avoid soil which is liable to erosion and that these trails or paths should follow the contours as much as possible. We have seen on the slopes of Table Mountain what the foot of man can do tramping out footpaths, loosening the soil and removing the surface vegetation which can cause nasty scars down and along the sides of mountain slopes. One only has to go up the cableway and to look down to see the kind of erosion which is caused by the feet of mountaineers and by the Indian Thar that occur on the slopes.

I would like to see that this wonderful privilege is also made available to horsemen. The only problem which I see here is that it might increase the risk of erosion on slopes of this nature. Horsemen will provide additional complications, because at the overnight camps grazing and fodder will have to be provided to make it possible for them to use these routes. In spite of this, I believe that in looking at the great tradition of South African horsemanship and at the great interest taken by our youth in the equestrian art, they should be allowed to make use of these trails. But I do believe that no bicycles or motorbikes should be allowed on these trails. In the United States they are allowed on these trails and pedestrians have been run down. It has become very fashionable overseas, in Europe and here in South Africa too, to make use of scramblers to go bundubashing. These popular trail bikes, as they are called in the United States, can be very dangerous. They create a stench in the air and with the noise they make can disturb the whole concept of this wonderful idea proposed by the hon. the Minister.

I also believe that camping sites should be selected very carefully. I do not believe that they should be too close to one another, nor too far apart. If they are too far apart, you get the stragglers who cannot reach the next one in order to spend the night. If, on the other hand, they are too close, we shall have a proliferation of camps of this nature which will remove the challenge of a trail of this nature. I believe most people should be able to walk at least three miles an hour and be able to make about 20 to 25 miles a day. These overnight stops should not be closer to each other than about 20 miles, preferably something like 40 to 50 miles apart in some areas. If it depends on me, I would rather not see any camps of this nature at all. I believe a person should be able to pack his rucksack with his little tent and that he should be able to go from one cooking or camping site to another where only the basic facilities will be provided, basic facilities such as clean running streams or water and an open space where a fire can be made.

Any streicher bearers?

I shall come to that point. I believe that provision should be made for the poor stragglers who cannot reach the next night stop, but I would hate to see any jeep tracks all along these footpaths in order to fetch the stragglers with blisters on their feet, with sprained ankles or something of that nature. I therefore believe that there should be people in charge who will control the numbers who have access to these trails. I believe that the people who go in should be very strictly controlled and selected. It should be open to all races on a very selective basis. In short, it should be confined to hikers who really have the ability to appreciate the surroundings through which they go.

There are certain clauses of the Bill to which I should like to refer. The first one is clause 10 which inserts inter alia a new section 31B. This new section needs some explanation. Subsection (3) provides—

I believe it is essential that notification of the proposed trail should be given to the public and the various interested bodies and societies. The Mountain Club of South Africa, the Ramblers’ Club and other interested people can quite often assist by suggesting better routes because of their experience of specific areas and I think it would quite often be to the advantage of all concerned if such notification could be given in the Press to the public at large.

There is also a provision which refers to the making of fires. I should like to know whether it would be permissible to bring along pressure stoves of the type which is being made use of by the Mountain Club at the moment, or solid fuel or gas stoves for cooking on the way. It often happens that wood is not available and quite often these small stoves which can be carried in a rucksack are much more efficient and safer than other methods of making a fire. I also wish to refer to the proposed section 31E(4) which reads—

This subsection (4) appears to my mind to be rather clumsy. I believe that these hiking ways should be registered immediately against the title deeds of the private owner of a property of this nature. It may be that a person will buy a farm and just look at the lower slopes of the area where the farming operations will be conducted without being at all aware of the fact that there is a hiking way across a section of the farm which he might not be able to get to at the time of buying.

Clause 311 (h) on page 16 of the Bill reads as follows—

It would appear to me from these provisions that no horses will be allowed at all because a horse is an animal for recreational purposes. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what his intentions are in regard to these particular provisions.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister whether hiking will be confined to trails only. In the past certain bodies and clubs have had the privilege of being allowed to enter the forestry areas and to hike wherever they pleased across State land. They were able also to climb mountains and their activities were not limited to specific trails. I can see certain dangers in permitting people to wander through forests, the indigenous forests under the jurisdiction of the Department of Forestry. I believe that the general public should be confined to these trails and should not be permitted to wander off into the bush; they may become lost and if they injure themselves the authorities will not know where to find them. Various problems of that nature might arise. I believe therefore that they should be confined to trails and that they should also have some sort of badge or insignia to indicate that they are hiking along these trails with the permission of the authorities.

There is another aspect I would like to recommend to the hon. the Minister and that is a system of merit awards. I believe that it would encourage the right spirit as far as the use of these trails are concerned if hikers who have completed more than 100 miles of hiking along a trail were presented with a special badge. An additional badge could be awarded for each additional 100 miles covered until such person might in due course qualify for a special 1 000 mile badge. An equivalent distance could also be worked out in kilometres. I believe that this would considerably improve the prestige of this entire system and I would be glad if the hon. the Minister would consider this question of a merit award system.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Mooi River said. We support this legislation gladly. The hon. the Minister returned from Japan recently where he has once again performed a major task for which the whole timber industry in South Africa is very grateful. It is also enjoyable to be able to discuss legislation of this nature in the calm and restful and pleasant atmosphere prevailing here, and this is how it should be when one discusses a matter of this nature.

The hon. member for Benoni stated his case in connection with this legislation in a very pleasant and studious way for which I for one have great appreciation. I think that the provisions included in this legislation, the extension of the powers of honorary forest officers, their appointment and the areas in respect of which they may be appointed, are direct consequences of the Green Heritage Year which we celebrated in this country and for which we owe the hon. the Minister much thanks. It had a remarkable impact. It had an impact on our youth and it filled them with enthusiasm for this matter. Therefore we also welcome this further idea which is supplementary to it, viz. the idea of the hiking way system, to which so many tributes were paid by speakers who spoke before me. I do not want to repeat what they said, except to say that I, too, commend it highly. Sir, I believe that this idea will instill in our youth those high values which are so essential in these times.

Sir, if I may descend from the mountains to the level plains, then I just want to put this point to the hon. the Minister: In the province of Transvaal, parts of every farm are reserved for outspan purposes in terms of the Road Ordinance. In some cases, depending on the size of the farm, these reserved parts take up large areas of the surface. The minimum laid down in respect of each farm—I think that this is still the case today—is a 75th of the original size of the farm, with a total minimum, regardless of the size of the land, of about five morgen. In this way a tremendous amount of public land has been made available to the State and to the public. Some time ago there was the idea that these outspans be cancelled, because of the fact that there is no longer any great need for them in many parts of the Transvaal, but we are grateful to be able to say that this was not done; that all these outspans still exist and that the Administration there is guarding the outspans jealously and is not cancelling them. Therefore I feel, especially where these rights or servitudes, if I may call them that, are registered against the Deeds, that the hon. the Minister may think, in the event of land being required, in terms of using this available surface area which does exist and which may be valuable in some cases, for the purposes of the project, for carrying the project into effect. Sir, I should like to refer to clause 7 which is an addition to section 12 of the principal Act. Section 12 already gives the Minister the power to take the extraordinary and special measures prescribed by that section, i.e. to impose a prohibition on the lighting of fires, etc. That section is being supplemented by clause 7, which also imposes a direct specific prohibition on the burning of slash at such times as the hon. the Minister may determine. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in spite of this measure, which I accept wholeheartedly, and in spite of the other measures for which the Act makes provision and which order the position, there are still shortcomings in my opinion in connection with fires which may be started in a reckless or negligent way. I refer to the fire hazard close to such plantations, in the absence of a prohibition by the Minister, as prescribed in the clause, except perhaps those covered by section 21. In view of that position—and I accept that to some extent effective measures have been taken lately, especially by means of the Forest Act, in terms of which the lighting of fires in this way is combated and controlled to a large extent—I think none the less that the time has perhaps arrived for us to give attention in a more disciplined way to this whole affair, i.e. fire damage, fire hazards and the rules and regulations which are necessary in this connection. Sir, forestry has reached a sophisticated stage in this country. It is tremendously important in the set-up of this country. Fire damage to a plantation is an enormous loss, bearing in mind the fact that it takes 20 years or longer to establish a pine plantation. Sir, can you imagine what damage a fire can cause? In a matter of an hour, the work of 20 years can be destroyed, not only at an enormous loss to the owner, but also at an enormous loss to the country, where, according to every criterion, we may expect a major shortage of timber. Insurance coverage can help the position to an extent, as far as the financial loss is concerned, but it does not give the timber back to us; the damage is done. Therefore I want to recommend that standard regulations be drafted which lay down uniform norms for fire and fire-fighting, regulations which must apply throughout the country and which codify the position completely uniformly, so that our Bantu will also be able to absorb them. Just as they obey the road regulations when they drive cars and know that they must drive on the left-hand side of the road, they must also know precisely what their position is in this connection, what they may do and what they may not do. Sir, my own experience suggests that the Bantu in South Africa, fears fire just as we fear it and that they are very careful in their actions and that many of the destructive fires which are caused, are often the result of ignorance. Therefore I ask this.

I just want to say that we strongly support the measures relating to the burning of pasturage and the destruction of pasturage. I think there can hardly be more adequate legislation for combating this position. We in the Highveld, who have to contend with tremendous fires in good pasturage every year at a time of the year when such pasturage is indispensable to us, realize what damage fires can do. Therefore I welcome every smallest measure in this regard which seeks to safeguard and preserve this position for us.

In conclusion I want to say that sometimes in this connection we have the problem that when prosecuting it is extremely difficult to obtain a conviction as a result of our common law and as the result of legislation which already exists. This applies especially in respect of the Bantu. It is so easy to evade guilt and to deny guilt with a shrug of the shoulders and by saying, “I don’t know,” or “It was my little boy who did it.” In that case there is no liability. I think that perhaps we must think of extending the question of delict and corresponsibility and of defining it more narrowly so that the position may be safeguarded still further.

Mr. Speaker, long after the hon. the Minister and many of those of us who are in the House this afternoon have hiked down their last long trail and have crossed the great divide between life and death, I believe that this Bill, particularly Chapter II, will stand as a monument to the hon. the Minister who has had the imagination and the courage to introduce this measure this afternoon. I think he will recall that some two or three years ago, during the debate on his Vote, the hon. member for Bellville, the hon. member for Benoni and I made a plea for the wilderness areas in our great South African outdoors to be made more readily available to the man in the street. The hon. the Minister at that time indicated that he had his departmental representatives in the United States studying the system of national scenic trails there, and that he would give this matter his attention. Indeed he has been as good as his word and today we see the fruits of those efforts. I think he must have been inspired in his initiative by the fact that we are essentially a Voortrekker nation, that originally our forefathers hiked the long trails through our mountain passes and across our wide open plains with no more than their wagons, their families, their Bibles and their great belief in the Almighty to give them courage in opening up this great country. Then, too, we had Sir Robert Baden-Powell who, through the inspiration he received during the days he spent in Mafe-king, pioneered the Boy Scout movement. This movement was followed later on by the Voortrekker movement. The movement he founded has spread throughout the world. It was a movement designed to put boys on their feet, to teach them to stand on their own and to teach them to get away from the permissiveness of this age and to make the most of the open spaces. I believe too that the story of Jock of the Bushveld, about that great trail through the Bushveld in the imagination of Sir Percy Fitzpatrick, has again been an inspiration to the youth of South Africa. I see in Chapter II of the Bill the creation of a national hiking system stretching some 2 000 miles across our South African mountain and forest scenery. I see it also as an act of creation, an act of inspiration and an act of unification, since it will unify the youth and able-bodied persons of all our provinces from the Cape to the Transvaal borders. It is also an act of conservation, because I believe that in the creation of this national hiking trail, which will not be more than two kilometres in width at any stage, we are opening up our natural resources, our wilderness areas, our mountains, our vleis, our lakes and our rivers. I believe that in doing so we are making a tremendous contribution towards reinforcing the essential character of our young people. We do more by the creation of a national hiking trail in this manner than in any other way to restore the self-respect of our people, to curb permissiveness, to eliminate drug addicts, i.e. people who have lost faith in themselves at an early age. In addition we create a healthy nation. I have been a hiker all my life and I still enjoy a 20-mile walk as one of the pleasantest things in recreation. I think that in our youth all of us here have camped around a camp fire at the end of a day’s climbing, walking, hunting or fishing. If any of us have happy memories of our youth it will be the association with the toil of walking many miles—possibly resulting in blistered feet—of having drunk at mountain streams, of having walked under the oaks or pines and then coming to rest and having your billy-can tea or coffee after which you fall asleep under the stars. It is this intention of the hon. the Minister that we honour and for which we thank him. There have been points in the earlier stages of our history, and I believe that one must give credit to men of the calibre of Mr. Douglas Mitchell, who has been the inspiration behind the wilderness trails which they have in Natal. At the moment we have a wilderness area in the Clanwilliam area and we have a trail in the Tsitsi-kamma forest. I can imagine names that will capture the imagination of all South Africans when it comes to the classification of our trails with trails such as the Drakensberg Trail, the Outeniqua Trail, the Jock-of-the-Bushveld Trail, adventure trails and the Tsitsikamma forest trails. These are names which, I know, will receive publicity and will move many thousands of people into hiking along these trails. To give an indication of just how inspired the youth of America were by the creation of their national scenic trails, I would like to refer briefly, with the permission of the representatives of the office of the United States, to the Appalachian Trail, which runs some 2 000 miles across America, crossing some 14 states. It is reported that 94 individuals are on record as having completed the entire 2 000-mile hiking trail. Many have taken as much as eight years to do the trail. Four of these people were grandmothers, three were grandfathers and three were families with the youngest member, a girl, aged nine. It is reported too that romance invaded the trail last year when a boy and a girl met on the trail and are now married. They refer to the fact that the man who originated the concept is now 95 years of age. Therefore I think we can promise those who have the courage and the inspiration to make use of these trails that one is never too old to walk. One can start walking as soon as you can toddle and you can keep on walking almost into the box!

From this side of the House I want to associate myself with the comments of all speakers who have taken part in this debate. I believe that we have something in this Bill of which South Africa can truly be proud. As other speakers have indicated, there will have to be discipline. I spoke to a member of the office of the Canadian Government only last year about their trail experience in Canada. He, as a South African living in Kalk Bay, gave one note of warning when he asked me: “Have you been up the Kalk Bay mountain walks recently?” He indicated to me that he had taken his young family up there only recently and that he was horrified at the amount of débris—beer cans, milk bottles and paper—which scattered the trail. In the caves which he visited he said the contamination was regrettable. Therefore, not only do I believe that we have an act of dedication here in putting young South Africans back on their feet and giving them an opportunity of getting away from the cities and back to the country of their forefathers, but we must also use the opportunity to instil the concept of discipline. In the mountaineering circles we use the term: “Carry out what you carry in.” Whatever we take in the way of hardware that is not destructible, such as empty cans, etc. must come down the mountain with you. I also want to stress the necessity for trail wardens. I believe that we have the support of the members of the Mountain Club of South Africa, the Scout Association, the Voortrekker Association and the Hikers’ Association. We shall need many honorary wardens in order to see that these trails are not spoilt. As a member who has just spoken said that one match, one act of carelessness, one fire not put out could result in tens of thousands hectare of our most valuable forest land being destroyed. Any irresponsible act of that nature could bring about a public backlash which could make the hon. the Minister wonder whether he had done the right thing. I want to compliment him again on this concept and on the undertakings he has carried out. I believe that many South Africans will be able to find themselves again when these trails are opened up. I trust, too, that this will bring about a closer association between the people from the different provinces who walk the trails, that the people in their various walks of life will get to know one another and that they will feel they are not purely from the Transvaal or from Natal but are a truly South Africans walking these highway trails.

Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself directly with what the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said. We are all aware of the great enthusiasm with which the Minister is taking on and planning to execute this ambitious project. However, it remains true that the real object of this project will only be achieved once we have educated and prepared our public to make the right use of the project. However, it is the case, where we are dealing with a hiking way, we may rest assured that only the true nature lover will make use of these facilities. It will not be possible to go about this hiking way, as happened in the case of all the other recreational facilities, in a way which will make it easier and more modern for the public. I firmly believe that only the true nature lovers will make use of this wonderful opportunity because it demands exertion to walk long distances and carry one’s load. It is also a fact that the true nature lover will not damage nature.

I just want to refer briefly to a problem which may arise in connection with such a hiking way system, a problem which has already arisen on occasion in our country, viz. the provision of suitable and adequate sanitary facilities along such a hiking way. This is actually a rather banal subject to raise here, but I think, nevertheless, that it is of real importance that we look into this matter so that we shall not spoil the beauty of nature, which we want to bring closer to our people.

With these few words I want to thank the hon. the Minister as well for this real monument which he is going to build in South Africa. A famous historian, when he wanted to explain the development of the various human races, suggested that it was the people from the mountains who could see far into the distance and therefore opened up new horizons for mankind in other fields of life, while the people from the plains who obviously could not see far ahead, could not see far ahead in the other fields of life either. By means of this wonderful project we are going to bring the people from the cities and the people from the plains back to the mountains so that they too can see the beautiful horizons of our country.

Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to state the attitude of the members on these benches. We will give our support to this Bill. The new chapter which brings about the national hiking way system is an admirable and a most imaginative one, and we give it our full support. It is not my intention to emulate the lyrical phraseology of the hon. members for Cape Town, Gardens, Benoni and Barberton—I think it has all been said already. However, there are a few questions I would like to ask the hon. the Minister.

With reference to section 5, the Forest Act of 1968 requires that before any servitude or other right is granted in respect of a State forest, the approval of both the Senate and the House of Assembly is necessary. The exceptions to the list on the grounds of public purposes are local authorities, the Post Offices and the S.A. Railways and Harbours. To these are now added the National Transport Commission. I am very much concerned that the disrespect shown in respect of the Knysna forest could be repeated in regard to other forest areas, in which case it will no longer be necessary, if this Bill goes through, for the matter to be referred to Parliament. I believe that it should be referred to Parliament, because in cases of this nature it is very important indeed that Parliament should be the final arbiter.

The only other comment I wish to make is with reference to the second chapter, the chapter on the national hiking way system, particularly section 31(H) which deals with the setting up of a fund that will control moneys appropriated from public revenue and from other sources. Could I suggest to the hon. the Minister that he will put a little pressure on the Minister of Finance and to encourage him to recognize the fund as a recipient of bequests which will be wholly deductible for estate duty purposes. In many other countries, notably the United States of America, this is done. In fact, they go further and have decided that funds of this nature are also deductible for income tax purposes. I would suggest to the hon. the Minister that he might be able to put pressure on the hon. the Minister of Finance in this respect for an admirable plan like the national hiking way system. I do not think that it is necessary for me to say anything more, but I would just like to say to the hon. the Minister that we support him with this Bill. It is a very fine Bill indeed. We hope that the national hiking way system will turn out as well as we all hope it will.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank members on both sides of the House for their support of this Bill. I think that you will agree with me, Sir, that the Bill has fired the imagination of everybody today. I think that it is very important for us to know that not only the members in this House but, I believe, also everybody in South Africa welcome this Bill especially on account of one particular part of the Bill.

Before I proceed to say something about the more interesting part of the Bill. I would like to refer to the observations made by the different members who have spoken today.

*The hon. member for Mooi River made a remark—I just want to deal with this first—in connection with that part which has to do with youths. You will remember, Sir, that this part of the legislation makes provision for restrictions being imposed on youths who are appointed as honorary forest officers. It has become essential to make provision for this in these terms. It was the idea to bestow on as many people as possible in South Africa who are interested in nature the honour of appointment as honorary forest officers. If a person is an honorary forest officer, he has certain privileges, but these do not go as far as the hon. member thinks. For example, they may not arrest a man. They may forbid people to enter a certain area. They may lay charges against a person or instruct certain people to do certain things or not to do them. They may also forbid people to light fires or tell them to remove themselves. It is this sort of control which one wants. You can understand what the intention of this is. When we decided to open up the mountain areas in South Africa, by establishing wilderness areas as we did or by the creation of hiking trails, it became clear that thousands of people would take up hiking. It will be impossible for us to keep absolute control over such a long distance. Then the idea was raised that the best way to do this would be to give people, even if they would run into thousands, a certain status in terms of the Act and to make them honorary forest officers. If this happens, we shall have an automatic sort of control. The imaginations of so many young people have been fired and it is the very intention to include in this project youth organizations, such as the Voortrekkers, Boy Scouts, Girl Guides and others, who have already accepted this. The hon. member knows that we have already made such young people honorary forest officers, but perhaps such a person is only 12 years old. The only thing we want to do now if the person’s age is too low, is to leave the matter at the discretion of the department so that a decision may be taken as to what restrictions are to apply. I cannot say now what we want to do. The only thing I am saying is that the department must be afforded the opportunity, if the young people are really too young, of imposing certain restrictions. That is all that is intended. We want this power in order to be afforded the opportunity of being able to intervene so that the department may exercise its discretion.

Various hon. members also referred to the clause providing what bodies are to consult the Minister if they want to act in a forest area. The existing legislation already includes a list of the names of bodies, such as the Post Office, the Railways, the Provincial Administrations, etc. Now we are adding the name of another body. When the principal Act was passed at the time, the National Transport Commission was not yet in existence. The Provincial Administrations still built the roads. Since then the building of roads has been taken over by the National Transport Commission, but in terms of the provisions of the Act only the provincial administrations may consult the Minister and receive the necessary permission while the National Transport Commission cannot do so. The name of the National Transport Commission has now been added to the names of all the other bodies.

The intention of the legislation is simply that no matter how important other Government departments are and no matter how essential the tasks are which they perform, they may not go through a forest without obtaining the permission of the Minister of Forestry. In the course of the debate reference was made to what happened at Knysna. Fortunately it so happened in the case of the Knysna Forest that the Department of Forestry could come to an agreement in time with the bodies concerned that the route be changed in a way which eventually satisfied the department that the road would not run through the areas through which we did not want it to run. One can imagine what could have happened if that road were to have run through the beautiful forests of Knysna and those giant trees were to have been removed. That would have caused a great deal of trouble in South Africa. We then succeeded in planning the road in such a way that it runs through “fynbos” or dry bushes without causing major damage, something about which we feel very sensitive. I am convinced that the Minister of Forestry will always have to exercise great care in future so as not to allow a single body, no matter which one, to cut a road through a forest reserve purely for the sake of the convenience thereof. Many of these forest reserves are regarded in South Africa as more than just forest reserves; they become shrines as happened in the case of the Knysna Forest for example. To my mind the control we now have is reasonably good.

I should like to say on this occasion that not only the State but also every person in the country must regard our natural heritage as so important that we must be prepared to allow the State to pay more for a road around a forest rather than less for a road through that forest. The fact that we protect the Knysna Forest, means that several million rand more will have to be paid to build a road around the forest following a route which suits the Department of Forestry. After all, is it not in the interests of South Africa that we spend a few million rand extra instead of having the road run through the forest? Of course it is.

We agree.

That is the whole aim: We must have protective measures.

†The hon. member also asked me what the word “pastures” means. A pasture means an area that is not a forest. It also means any area being used as a pasture. I do not think I could be any more definite about it.

Is it limited to planted pastures?

No, not necessarily.

*The hon. member for Ermelo also raised a few matters to which I should like to reply. The hon. member referred to out-spans and broached a very important matter here. One does not always think of these. In the province of Transvaal there are a multitude of these places which were created and which are available. The hon. member made a contribution. I think it will be worth while to follow up what the hon. member suggested. There are many of these old outspans and I think that we must look at how we can use them to the best advantage. The hon. member also referred to slash. I think he meant to ask me a question. The position is that in South Africa we have no end of trouble in ensuring that forest and veld fires can be controlled in all circumstances. It is virtually an impossible task. There are cases where trains run through dry areas during the dry seasons of the year. The hot ash from the train may set the grass on fire. It is virtually impossible to control something like that. One does one’s best and if one has done so, there is still the possibility that such fires will break out again. We have tried from time to time to narrow down the possibilities. Some time ago we issued directives in which it was stipulated that a man was obliged to see not only to his own interests, but also to those of his neighbours. What happens in this regard is the following: Those are some of our farmers who farm with trees. When they fell trees the branches are cut off and pushed into piles and set alight. Then it is said that this is not an ordinary veld fire, but that it is a controlled fire. The farmer says he is burning down the trees on his own farm. However, if the wind begins to blow, such a fire can spread easily. The only thing that we are doing is to say that for these purposes the Minister may intervene and impose a restriction as well. He may stipulate that there will be certain times of the year in which one may not burn one’s slash. I have to tell the House that I am not sure whether it may not be necessary for us to come forward with, a new adjustment as soon as next year because other problems which we cannot think of now, may have become apparent in the meantime. I want to tell hon. members that it is virtually an impossible task to eliminate this hazard in an arid country such as South Africa in view of the winds which blow and the dryness of the climate. This is especially so because our people are not generally inspired with the necessary consideration for our veld and our nature. The position is very difficult, but we hope that we shall be successful, especially in the areas of which the hon. member for Mooi River made mention, in achieving even better control.

The hon. member for Ermelo also suggested that we should motivate our people to act in a more disciplined way. I want to tell the hon. member that I gladly heed what he said. If he can give me or the department any hint as to how we may obtain more co-operation in connection with the control of fires, we should very much like to hear it. It is one of our biggest problems. If we can succeed in bringing about such, a disciplined way of life in this country that we do not need this sort of legislation, it will be a very happy day for all of us. I want to say that much of our legislation in necessary because our people cannot live a life of self-discipline. I think what is called for here is an educational task. It affects young and old. Any hint which the hon. member for Ermelo can give us in this connection, however, will be greatly appreciated.

I want to say thank you very much to the hon. member for Barberton for the ideas which he expressed here. The hon. member for Orange Grove also gave the support of his side of this House to this Bill.

†The hon. member indicated that he would like to know whether we could get the Minister of Finance to support the idea of allowing these funds to be deductible for income tax purposes. Sir, I would not venture to say what the hon. the Minister of Finance would say about this suggestion, but I will certainly put it to him.

*Sir, I just want to say a few words about the idea of a hiking way, about which everyone actually became enthusiastic today. I think that we have made progress in connection with this idea, but instead of following up all the remarks made by hon. members here, I think that I should rather tell the House what the hiking way is, what it is going to be like and what its aim is. Sir, what we are doing by means of this legislation, is to try to embody an ideal which has existed for so many people for so many years in this country; to try to do here what other countries have done with great success; actually to give effect to requests which, have come over the years from so many sides, viz. to open up our forest areas, the attractive parts of South Africa, and make them accessible to our people. Unfortunately we kept the attractive parts of South Africa unaccessible to our people in the past. It was not possible for them to visit those parts. The Department of Forestry, as hon. members know, has control over those forest areas and one needed a permit to go there. In any case, one did not really want to allow people there, because one was afraid that if one allowed people into the attractive parts, they would burn these down, and apart from that, one does not have roads everywhere. One of the ideas was to open up the areas by means of a hiking way running across our whole fatherland from top to bottom, and then to invite our people to see the attractive parts of South Africa while they walk and live on that hiking way. It is not a new idea; it exists overseas as well, and the hon. member for Benoni also referred to it. We sent people overseas to see how things are organized there. We hope that the length of the hiking way will be 3 500 km on completion, and the intention is to have it run from a point in the Soutpansberg at Vivo, then down the Soutpansberg, along the high Dart of South Africa, around the Transkei, past the southern part of the Cape Province to Drakenstein, and then up the Drakenstein Mountains to high up in the Cedarberg. When this hiking way is completed and people can walk on it, and get housing, water, and firewood in all weather conditions and can have a roof over their heads, with separate sleeping facilities for single men and women, in other words, a hiking way with amenities which will eliminate social problems, then we shall have reached a happy stage. The various points must be within reasonable distance of each other, so that a normal healthy person can walk from one point to the next. All that we are trying to do is to construct such, a hiking way. The question was asked here as to whether we would allow stoves, etc., there. I do not think that will be necessary. We hope to have the necessary facilities available, such as a camp fire, waiting for one when one reaches one’s destination. Of course it must be a hiking way which has proper entrances. The question has been asked here as to whether one will be allowed to walk off the hiking way. The answer is “Yes”, but we hope to have specific approaches so that one can go in at a certain point and come out at a certain point. If one wanders off that hiking way, then one is wandering off into a forest where you are not entitled to be; in other words, then you are trespassing. I think that hon. members should take a walk sometimes on that part of the hiking way which has been completed. It is very beautiful. There are signs all along the hiking way of what one may expect around every corner and turn. There are signs. For example, up at Sabi the signs are in the form of small white footprints. If one keeps one’s eyes open, one sees a small footprint on a tree which indicates in which direction one must walk, whether one must go up a slope or around a bend. Thus the intention is to plan this hiking way so that it will be available for people, but so that not everyone who wants to go will be able to go, and people will have to book. I might also say that the bookings are already so heavy that this hiking way is already fully booked for the following two years. We should be able to satisfy thousands more applications if we only had the space. As far as the financing thereof is concerned, the intention is that we make the facilities available from private funds. We do not want the State to build everything. We also want people to make contributions themselves. I might just say that I asked four eminent people who are associated with the forestry industry whether they would not be prepared to build such an overnight hut, and all four immediately said that all we need do is send the plans to them and they will finance it. The one we are using as a model at the moment makes provision for the social circumstances which. I have just told you about. We hope not to make them too big. We hope to have them about 15 to 20 km apart and we hope to be able to have control over whatever happens there. The type of people which we get there must be the sort of people whom we want there. We do not want vagrants there and we do not want undisciplined people there. Thus we should like to try to get the right people in the future through control measures which we have there. Now the question is who will undertake the supervision. It will be supervised by the Department of Forestry as part of its normal duties. When the day comes, as one of the hon. members has said, that so many of them have already been completed that we must give further attention to the matter, we shall come to Parliament to ask for the necessary money to supplement it, but for the present this is not necessary. For the present the Department of Forestry will be able to undertake it with its normal organization. I hope it becomes so big and I hope it fires the imagination to such an extent that this Parliament will take great pleasure in deciding to allocate special funds. But for the present is is still in a simple form. In reply to the question as to how far we have progressed, I want to tell members that we are trying to finish at different points. We are trying to get co-operation. I can say here that two universities, inter alia the University of Port Elizabeth, have asked whether the universities cannot help to build it with its students in the vacations. That is what we would like to have; we want everyone to take part. Youth organizations and church organizations and other organizations have already shown interest and some schools have also shown interest. Once it has grown, we shall see how it develops further But with the co-operation which we are getting, we can make a great deal of progress. Plus-minus 200 km have been completed in the Eastern Transvaal, and I hope that it will still be possible to open the part which is situated in my own constituency, i.e. the Zoutpansberg part, this year. The part here in the Southern Cape and Western Cape are also being worked' on. If we link up the hiking ways like a jigsaw puzzle and complete them, we shall have made great progress in a few years. But when it is finished—we do not know what it will eventually look like, because it might also have turn-offs to the attractive parts, and might also go through homelands—we hope that we shall then be able to negotiate so that there can be liaison. But these parts are not yet completed. The whole thing is still at its initial stages and you must leave it in the hands of the department. As we are faced with problems, we shall solve them. That is the legislation which is now before us. Thank you very much for supporting it.

Motion agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when the debate was adjourned yesterday I had dealt with clause 1 and the effect the proposed changes of the definition of “reasonable rental” would have on rentals and tenants. I intend to take that matter no further, but to turn to those features of the Bill which deal with malpractices and which give protection to tenants.

I want to say at the outset that for very many tenants there is a four-bladed sword hanging over their heads. The four things that concern them most—and I am talking now about the tenants in the poorer categories, the pensioners and other people of limited means—not necessarily in order of importance, but the four issues which concern them, are, firstly, the fear of the demolition of their building, buildings that have to go. Secondly, there is the fear of reconstruction and the conversion of their building for other purposes, such, as holiday flats. Thirdly, there is the current evil, that of the minority of unscrupulous sellers who take over a building and then sell the flats and try to evict the tenants. Fourthly, there is the normal ever-escalating rental problem.

Let us look at the first two, viz. the question of demolition and the question of reconstruction. I believe that there is no solution to this in cases where there is a need to demolish a derelict building or where it is necessary to so do up a building that it in fact involves major building work. In those cases the only solution is to provide alternative housing. But, Mr. Speaker, there is something else that happens in regard to these buildings. There are owners who deliberately let buildings run down. Deliberately, year after year, they spend nothing on repairs, maintenance or painting, until the building, by design, becomes derelict. When a tenant leaves, they refuse to let the flat, so that eventually you have less than half the flats occupied. Service is withdrawn, and the rent is reduced to cater for this. Eventually the building reaches the stage where the owners can apply—by that time often quite justifiably —for permission to demolish, because the building is then so run down and in such a state of disrepair that it justifies demolition. This applies also in many cases of reconstruction. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister, in view of the fact that the allowance for maintenance is to be increased to 2½%, that where an owner receives this 2½% in respect of maintenance, and it can be shown on an application for a rent increase by that owner that that 2½% has not been spent, not only should the rentals be reduced by 2½%, but some other sanction should also be considered. Mr. Speaker, if they are so anxious to demolish buildings, perhaps the department could even consider taking over some of these buildings. Some of them, which are structurally absolutely sound, could at very little cost be brought back to a habitable state. I take the case of one building, Ambassadors, in Pine Street in my constituency. First a demolition permit was granted in respect of this building, and then a reconstruction permit, and at small cost this building has now been done up and let as offices. The building itself was structurally sound. Where misuse is made of either demolition or reconstruction permits, I believe that there should be a sanction. I say again that it would cost the department very much less to buy such a building and do it up for letting, than it would cost to build some of the flats which are being built by the department today.

I have dealt with two of the problems encountered in this regard, viz. demolition and reconstruction, and I now come to the question of rental increases. Here I believe the Bill will help because I know of cases where tenants are faced with increases six or seven times a year. There is, for example, an annual increase in respect of rates, an increase in respect of water charges, and perhaps two increases a year as a result of wage increases. In addition there may be two or three applications for increases based on increases in bond interest or on valuations. I have a case here where seven applications for an increase were made in respect of one building during the period of one year. I believe this Bill will cater for this. What is a problem is that nearly all these applications are retrospective. In the case of rates in Durban, these are often retrospective for a period of eight or ten months because the rates are only adjusted later in the year although they are effective from 1 March, to 28 February the following year. It is not till late in the year that the amount is known. So, when the tenant gets the increment it is back-dated and he has to pay retrospectively. The same applies to many of the other increases. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he sees to it that if this new formula goes through increments should be approved from the date of granting by the Rent Board instead of from the date of application. I ask this because there will be such a flood of applications that Rent Boards will be unable to handle them. The result will be that all grants will be retrospective at least for the period of six months which is allowable. As the hon. the Minister knows there are cases where this period of six months has in fact been exceeded.

Then I want to come to the fourth category I mentioned, namely that of the seller who wants to evict tenants. I thank the hon. the Minister for the co-operation in regard to the strengthening of the intimidation clause in this Bill. He will know of the many occasions on which I dealt with him. His Department in Durban will also know of the dozens of occasions on which I have brought problems to them. I should like to express publicly my appreciation to the department in Durban—I refer not only to the head, but also to the other members of the staff—who are extremely sympathetic and helpful whenever I go to them with a problem. The hon. the Minister has exhibited the same approach.

This is a good Government, Vause.

Yes, it may well be. When we are dealing with matters of this kind, we receive sound support. This we appreciate, and I am prepared to express my appreciation for it in public.

†In this respect I want to refer to a certain firm, the chairman of which has said that he had no time for tenant gang leaders or politicians who interest themselves in the affairs of his firm. In October 1974 he said: “We are in it to make money. We do not feel ashamed to make money. We like to make money”. He went on to say: “The United Party M.P. for Point had investigated complaints by his tenants in Courtleigh Heights in Durban until he realized he was making a fool of himself and then shut up”. Seeing that this gentleman had chosen to go to the Press I decided that I was entitled to reply to him. I considered whether it was fair but having thought of the nervous break-downs and the vicious exploitation of elderly women—many of them elderly widows—and the use of what I can describe as nothing more nor less than S.S.-type tactics, always when there are no witnesses, I decided' it justifies public exposure. I am referring to South African Property Portfolio Managers and those who act for them in Durban. Over a period of time they have followed the usual tactics of intimidating people and sending them letters notifying them that they are to be evicted and following it up with a summons. The elderly pensioner and the average person never contests that sort of warning. So building after building were emptied. I just want to put this gentleman right, by saying that I have not dropped this matter. I want to pay tribute to one tenant who had the guts to fight his case on principle right through to appeal and who won his case. I want to tell SAPPM that not only did I not drop it, but that I have been deeply involved in Courtleigh Heights, in Windover and in Marine Plaza and that 80% of the sworn affidavits which were submitted to the department were obtained by my introduction following my taking the regional representative, accompanied by other officials, to see the tenants personally. Furthermore, I want to tell him that I have obtained evidence over a period of a year which will form the basis of a prosecution. So, far from having dropped the matter, just the opposite is the case. I think people ought to, know that this Parliament is concerned with the welfare of the masses, particularly of those who cannot protect themselves. Therefore I want to raise another matter concerning the same firm, Property Portfolio Managers. According to Property News of 28 February, i.e. last week, it was found that in the building Wendover where these tactics have been followed and where we were able with the co-operation of the department to save a number of tenants, those who fell for buying flats now find that instead of paying a rent-controlled rental of R46 per month, the shares they bought are forcing them to pay R145 or R146 per month for the identical flat while only R10 of that amount is capital repayment. In other words, those owners are making an additional R90 per month out of the very same flat which, when rent controlled, was let for R46 per month. Now, people who bought want to sell their flats but they find that SAPPM is not interested in reselling them. Once they have sold the flats, that is it; and because they have a monopoly on the building, other estate agents cannot assist the tenants. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider introducing some form of protection for tenants who are “sold” flats by buying block shares and who find, themselves completely stymied when they want to sell those shares. I cannot refer to other cases involving SAPPM because these are under investigation by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs or are before the cousts. I have been able to pick out only those which are not sub judice. I hope the other cases will soon become so. I do feel that the case of Wendover in particular is an example of the kind of situation where we as legislature should try to protect people who have been “taken for a ride” and should try to find some way of protecting those people who have bought flats on a share basis. There are many examples I could quote—I have a whole file on this one instance alone. It is enough to make one want to cry to think that human beings can do this sort of thing. Nevertheless, one gets people like that, and that is why I believe it is our task as public representatives to do all that is in our power to prevent them from getting away with it.

I welcome the “no petty ejectment clause”, a measure for which I have striven for a long time. I also welcome the fact that ejectment from garages is excluded because this is always the first step towards victimization. I want to ask the hon. the Minister, now that he is linking the garages to the flats, to consider providing that those who have already been evicted from their garages, should be allowed to resume tenancy of them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point has probably reflected on the earlier part of his speech which he made yesterday because today he has taken a much more constructive and positive line on what is a serious social problem. However, there were aspects of his speech yesterday which made it quite clear that the hon. member was prepared to play a shallow party political game with something that is a serious problem affecting a significant number of underprivileged people in the South African community. I refer particularly to his reference to hon. members in these benches. I refer to phrases of his such as “They do not give a tinker’s damn for the tenants”. After all, the hon. member is fully aware that the hon. member for Houghton made a speech which was significantly related to the problem of the tenant. That was the tenor of her speech.

I accept that.

Similarly, the hon. member for Johannesburg North dealt with the harassment of the tenants by the various landlords whom he described as “unscrupulous” landlords.

But he said we must remove rent control.

The hon. member referred, even as the hon. member for Green Point did, to the inadequacy of the present system. The hon. member for Green Point said we should start getting rid of this form of rent control and that we must start giving incentives, such as tax rebates. He said that we must start giving reductions for depreciation, and that we should start pegging interest rates or making extra money available once the interest rate reaches 8.5%. The hon. member was making it quite clear that the present form of control as far as the financing was concerned, was hopelessly inadequate. [Interjections.] We will show that his amendments reflect exactly that. Secondly the hon. member for Durban Point, in a most emotional outburst playing to the tenants’ gallery, says that he wants to talk with the deepest sincerity, because it is a matter which touches thousands of people very deeply. He says: “This is a Bill for which many thousands have waited and for which literally hundreds have prayed.” The hon. member says with “tremendous sincerity” that this is a Bill for which many thousands have waited and many hundreds have prayed but even then he is going to vote against the Bill. He is going to vote against the Bill in terms of the amendment which was moved by his colleague, the hon. member for Green Point.

Were you here when I said that?

I have got your notes here. You said “with the deepest of sinceriy” that thousands have waited and hundreds have prayed …

Read the next paragraph.

Nevertheless this hon. member is going to vote against the Bill in terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point which in terms is very similar to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton. So much for this “deepest sincerity” with which he speaks when, indeed, he is going to vote against the Bill which he says that the tenants have prayed for in their thousands.

You know that you are absolutely twisting what I have said.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may the hon. member for Durban Point say that the hon. member for Sea Point is deliberately twisting what he has said?

The hon. member must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The fact is that I have quoted from his speech. That speech stands. As far as the hon. member for Green Point is concerned, may I say that I believe that he displayed a very constructive and positive approach to the whole matter. In the main one agrees with the approach taken by this hon. gentleman. He was not trying to play party politics or trying to score petty debating points off the hon. the Minister or against political opponents, but acted constructively and positively. The hon. member for Durban Point should not try to undo the good work which was done by the hon. member for Green Point.

The hon. member for Green Point made one comment vis-à-vis hon. members on this side of the House saying that we are in favour of “subsidies for pensioners and things of that sort”. May I say to the hon. member that nowhere has any one asked for specific hand-out subsidies. They referred to it in exactly the same way as he referred in his speech to the fact that the Government is already subsidizing interest rates. When we talk about subsidizing rentals, we are not talking about hand-outs for individuals, but of various forms of tax rebates, concessions or incentives, all of which come out of the public purse. To the extent that it comes out of the public purse it is a subsidy for rentals; it is not a hand-out to an individual. When you go and live in a National Housing Scheme house, you do not accept a hand-out by way of a subsidy; the housing is subsidized in order to bridge the gap between the income of the individual and the rental or the cost of the house.

I want to deal with one or two comments which were made by the hon. Minister in the course of his speech. I must say that he is still indebted to this House to explain why the Johannes Commission’s report has not been presented to this House or not been made available to members of this House. It is a point which in fact is the first leg of the amendment made by the hon. member for Houghton. Here was a commission consisting of important and significant people in the building industry and in the sphere of general social problems, but the hon. the Minister locks up his report and does not make it available to us. He is aware that the terms of reference of the commission went beyond the provisions of the Bill and there are therefore aspects which were considered by the Johannes Commission but which have not been incorporated in the Bill. The very many organizations—tenants’ organizations, owners’ associations, trade unions, the Association of Architects and the Association of Quantity Surveyors—who co-operated with the Johannes Commission now find that the work which they did, the evidence which they presented has not been made public for the general use of the public or of Parliament. I believe the hon. the Minister owes it to this House to explain why he is not prepared to make that evidence available.

There were certain details which the hon. the Minister used in his arguments which I believe are significantly unsubstantiated and unconvincing.

*I want to refer particularly to two paragraphs in the hon. the Minister’s speech. In the first paragraph he deals with the new maintenance grant, the increase thereof in the sense that whilst this was previously based on 2% of a certain amount, it will in future be based on 2.5%. The hon. the Minister said—

However this amount is calculated at 2% of the value of the building, but in terms of the determination of value, the value itself is also increased, especially in terms of the new determination of value. If it is true that there is an increase in maintenance costs, then this is also based on a percentage of the increased value the Rent Board may attach to the building. Therefore, we must consider the fact that the increase in the value of the basic building keeps pace with the increase in repair costs. Furthermore, it appears as though 0,5% is only a small percentage, but an increase of 0,5%—i.e. from 2% to 2,5% —is in fact an increase of 25% of the amount which is at present allowed. This is an increase of 25% on a value of the building which will in any case be increased in course of time. When one bears in mind that this increase of 0,5% is based on the value of the building as a whole, one will find that it amounts to an increase of no less than approximately 6% in the rental which the tenant has to pay for the flat. Therefore, the mere increase of 2% to 2,5% results in an increase of 6% and, in addition, this percentage increase is based on a value which is increasing all the time. We can find no justification for this, although the hon. the Minister was quite right when he said that there had been an increase in costs. We agree that there is an increase in costs but there is also an increase in the value of the building on which the percentage is based.

In the second place, there are the arguments which the hon. the Minister advanced to justify the system in terms of which the replacement cost of a building may be used as a basis and not the actual building costs. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister in all kindness that the reasons he advanced, are to my mind not at all convincing. He said—

However, the Rent Boards have the right to demand any book, document or information from people, and they are obliged to furnish the desired information. Therefore it cannot be advanced as a reason that people are not willing to furnish information. In any case, the Rent Board is in the same position as a court. It can issue an order to obtain the information. Therefore this is no valid reason for amending the present Act.

The hon. the Minister also said that the costs of erection differ from one place to another and he said, furthermore that an expensive building could be erected in a remote or undesirable residential area, or vice versa, a far cheaper building could be erected in a very expensive neighbourhood. Surely the same argument holds good as far as the replacement costs are concerned. Replacement costs or the costs of erection is in no way related to the place where the building is situated. If it is true that there are problems in determining the original costs of erection, there is also a problem to determine the replacement costs of any building. Once again this is no argument. Perhaps the hon. the Minister merely wanted to change it, but then he should have furnished us with the reasons for doing so. The reasons he has furnished us, are not at all applicable to the particular problem he is faced with.

†The third point is that he said that a new element of certainty and uniformity will be brought into the matter because quantity surveyors are going to be used to make a valuation on the basis of the cost of replacement. It may well be that the quantity surveyor is the correct person to do this if this is the system that is going to be applied. However because all the buildings to which he refers were built before 1966 the cost of erection has in fact already been determined. The cost of erection is no longer an uncertain factor. It has already been determined for the past 12 years. Therefore, he is removing one certain element which the Rent Board has to take into account and introducing a new uncertain element. Whatever argument may be in favour of this, one thing he cannot argue to this House is that he is removing an area of uncertainty and introducing a new area of uniformity. In fact, what he is doing in this clause, is virtually to duplicate paragraph (b) which refers to the municipal or other divisional valuation. The municipal or other divisional valuation, at least in respect of the Cape Province—I think it applies to the other provinces as well—says that the valuation of buildings shall be the estimated cost of erection at the time of valuation—this means the replacement costs—less such allowances which may be considered due on account of structural depreciation. Therefore, what the hon. the Minister is doing is removing the original paragraph (a) and replacing it by a new paragraph (a) which in a sense duplicates paragraph (b). I really do not understand on the basis of the very flimsy argument which the hon. the Minister has advanced why this procedure is necessary.

When I look at the Bill as a whole I must say to the hon. the Minister that he has come to this House with a very messy piece of legislation. When I look at this Bill—there was almost a suggestion from the hon. the Minister that what I am going to say is correct—it would seem as if he has come to this House with a compromise which is not going to please anybody. This Bill reflects the attitude of the Government to the provision of housing for the middle and lower income groups of people in the cities. If it has any policy at all, it is no more than a compromise. It is quite clear that the Government has no positive approach, it has no positive policy and it is not prepared to accept responsibility for ensuring that there is sufficient accommodation at reasonable rentals for the lower and middle income groups in the cities. The hon. the Minister is using the Rents Act which was designed for a different purpose as a substitute for a policy. He is relying entirely on negative and restrictive measures instead of having positive measures and a positive attitude towards the provision of additional accommodation. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister. Does he accept responsibility for providing accommodation for the lower and middle income groups in the cities? Does he accept this to be the responsibility of the Government? Does he accept that? There is no policy. He does not accept the responsibility. He passes the buck to other people. There is a problem which accompanies the growth of our cities, an important social problem which accompanies urbanization. In any society which is caught up in urbanization, one of the major problems is the older people. These are the insecure people, the people who have retired and become caught up in a spiralling cost of living. There is an increase in this group both because of longevity and social conditions in South Africa. Because of this there are more older people, pensioners, widows and widowers, who are living on pensions and fixed incomes in the cities. This Government has really not made a study of this problem. The hon. the Minister must realize that there are more people living in the cities who have no families with whom they can live in their old age. More and more people live in flats and apartments and whereas they could go to the “kleinhoewe” before or to the subburbs and live with their families, the very nature of the urban city community makes it not so easy to accommodate older people in the family circle. Yet these older people want to be in a familiar environment. They have grown up in a certain part of the city and they want to live and retire in that part of the city. There is a very strong desire on the part of older people to get that security, the security of an environment to which they are accustomed. Therefore one has to think of housing these people not in new townships, not on the outskirts of the city, but in an environment to which they have become accustomed and in which they can have this sense of security which is so important to older people. There is no overall shortage of residential accommodation for White people in South Africa. If one takes the South African situation in toto, there is no shortage of accommodation. But there is a hopeless imbalance in the kind of accommodation which is available, and the Rents Act, as it has been applied by the Minister and is going to be applied when this Bill goes through, will aggravate the situation. It will make it less and less attractive for the private sector to invest money in the provision of accommodation of a less expensive kind in the urban areas of South Africa. This is the situation, and I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when be replies to this debate he must tell us that this Government accepts its responsibility, that the Government says it will find this accommodation, that they will adopt positive measures and that they will not just pass the buck to the landlord or to the Rent Boards, but that they will do something positive.

Now I should just like to indicate how little is being done in regard to the provision of this kind of accommodation. In a question I put to the hon. the Minister last year I asked how many beds were being made available for older people in the city of Cape Town, in the Cape Peninsula. He indicated that there were no State-owned beds available, but there were subsidized beds available to various organizations to the total number of 1 384 for the Peninsula with a White population of ½ million, and that he was adding to these beds at the rate of 92 per annum. This is the total contribution he is making in the form of subsidized accommodation for people in their old age, and yet the evidence of a survey done in the area of Sea Point and Green Point, a very densely populated area, is that something like 23% of the people there are retired people. Provision for accommodation beds for which the Government is responsible is limited in the whole of the Cape Peninsula to approximately 92 per annum. Sir, the hon. the Minister does accept a measure of responsibility in certain other areas. National Housing does provide accommodation, but it tends to provide it where the cost of land and services is fairly low, in the peri-urban areas or on the fringes of the city, while it does not provide accommodation, certainly not in the Cape Peninsula, in the heartland areas of the city, where people have lived and would like to continue to live.

Now, I would just like to put this to the hon. the Minister. Leaving aside the question of the cost of accommodation, which is part of the reason for having the Rents Act to what extent is the Rents Act assisting in actually providing accommodation? To what extent is it assisting or not assisting? First of all, the Rents Act only applies to properties built before November 1966, and therefore there is a declining number of rent-controlled flats. So, in fact, rent control is not providing any additional accommodation for the older or retired people. Indeed, the amount of accommodation under the Rents Act is declining from year to year. It is making no positive contribution to the provision of additional accommodation. Secondly, because of the uncertainty which there is both in the field of rents and of controls, of whether the date is going to be brought nearer to the present, the Rents Act causes a lack of incentive to investors to invest in this type of property. That is a major minus factor. That is the second point.

The third one is that this Government’s policies are adding to the cost of building. I think the hon. the Minister must realize that the building cost index each year is running ahead of the cost-of-living index. Why is this so? It is because of the restrictions placed on the use of labour. Job reservation, the pass laws—all of these things—are having the effect of increasing the cost of building ahead of the cost of living, and a very important item in each person’s monthly budget is being made more and more expensive directly as the result of Government policies. Thirdly, even when flats are rent-controlled, there are no flats which are specifically earmarked for those people who require protection. There is nothing in the Rents Act or in the way in which the Rents Act is applied which gives specific protection to those people who require it. All it says is that blocks of flats are rent-controlled, but the Minister does not seem to mind whether they are occupied by millionaires or by poor people. [Interjections.] He just says he is not going to do anything about it. Now we have the situation where he argues that people need protection, and yet he is not prepared to differentiate between those people who really do need protection and those who do not. And when the measure fails, when there is not sufficient accommodation, when costs have spiralled out of all recognition, he dumps the burden of his responsibility in the laps of the property owners. All he can do is to fall back on the property owner and say: “You carry the can because the Government is either unwilling or unable to do so.”

So, the Rents Act, as it has been applied, has not given the protection which citizens deserving protection should be given. I mention the figures which he gave me in the House last year when I asked him how many applications had there been for rent increases in the constituency of Sea Point. He replied that there had been 313. I asked how many had been approved and he said 302. I asked what the average increase was in one year from 1 July 1973 to 30 June 1974 and he said it was 38%. That was under the Rents Act as it is now, and it is going to be no better under this amending Bill. It will be no better at all. The hon. the Minister has admitted that the protection given to people in rent-controlled flats has been diluted by 38% in the course of one year. That is the effect of the Rents Act as he has applied it, and nothing that he has included in this measure is going to improve that situation. A person who has been occupying a flat at a rental of R40 a month suddenly finds an increase of R15 in one year, as the hon. member for Green Point indicated, this completely gobbles up whatever increase there has been in old age or social pensions. Sir, I think it can be anticipated that the combined effect of the redefinition of the term “reasonable rental”, plus the redefinition of “value”, plus the increased depreciation allowance, will push up rentals by another 20%. The total impact of this Bill, if passed by this House, will be to have the effect of increasing rentals by 20%. Thereafter it will escalate as the cost of building escalates. So it gives no protection. It is in fact a measure which not only will push up rentals, but one which gives no incentives to the acceleration of the provision of accommodation for people of the lower income groups.

Sir, positive suggestions have been made. The hon. member for Green Point made a number of them. But, surely, the hon. the Minister, in any case in respect of houses which did not cost more than R20 000— in other words, for young people who cannot afford to pay more or older people who need assistance—is prepared to subsidize the interest on bonds, once it reaches the figure of 8½%. Sir, he pegs the interest at 8½% where he recognizes that there is an economic and a social need to do so. I believe the hon. the Minister must find some means of doing the same thing in respect of rent-controlled apartments which are being occupied by deserving cases. That is tremendously important. It is just not good enough to say he is going to peg the interest, or the rental calculation on an interest assessed at 8½%, because he knows that many bonds are at a figure considerably in excess of 8½%. So, what he is saying is that the difference between the 8½% which he now allows and the bond interest rate of 11%, 12% or even 13%, must be borne by the landlord. We say that that difference must be borne by the Government. It is a matter of national concern. It is a social problem which concerns the whole community. The problem should, therefore, not be left in the lap of an individual landlord.

We ask the hon. the Minister to find some means of bridging the gap between the rental which the older, retired person can pay and the reasonable return to which the property owner is entitled. That would be the approach which we believe this Government should adopt and which should have been adopted in this measure if it is to deserve the support of this House and if it is to provide a valuable contribution to the solution of this very vexed social problem.

Finally, Sir, there is the question of the insecurity which exists under the present system of decontrol. This arises firstly from the absence of any laid-down procedure. There is no procedure laid down for decontrol; it is in the Minister’s discretion; there is no fixed pattern, no form of procedure, laid down. The Minister sends out an inspector. One asks oneself: What are his qualifications; what is the nature of his report? When he knocks on the door, is he looking at the flat and the building; is he looking at the tenant, or is he looking at the landlord? I want to tell the hon. the Minister that whatever his intentions may be, a knock on the door or a notice in the post-box that a rent inspector has been around, drives terror into the hearts of the older tenants in those buildings. I can tell him that they immediately have a sense of complete loss of their security. I am pleased that on occasions the Minister has refused applications for decontrol, and I am very pleased that in the course of the last week, in the case of a block with which Mr. Mouton is associated, Clarensville, he has turned down an application for the removal of rent control. But this was done only after tremendous friction because a number of people had been enticed into buying flats on the basis that there was going to be an application for rent control; they want rent control lifted, and on the other hand a number of other people have fought for rent control to be maintained because of the feeling of insecurity should control be lifted. Sir, within that block of flats, a tremendous social tension has developed as a result of the provisions of this Act. The other block of flats, of which the hon. the Minister may be aware, is Albenor. In that block there are nine people who are specifically affected by any application for the lifting of rent control. The youngest of these nine people is 65 years and the oldest is 84. The average age of these people in that rent-controlled block is 73. The period of their tenancy ranges from a minimum of 19 years to a maximum of 33, giving an average tenancy of 25 years. Sir, when old people suddenly find that they might have no roof over their heads, that they have no right of appeal, that there is no procedure under which they can put their arguments not he Minister and that they just have to live on his good grace, I want to tell him that this has a demoralizing effect on them. The time has come, if he is going to continue with the system of control, to see that there is a procedure under which proper notice is given to tenants; under which they will have an opportunity to lodge a formal objection and under which there will be a public hearing. It is not good enough to have this done behind closed doors without the knowledge of the tenants. Secondly, I think it is essential that the Minister should lay down guidelines for decontrol. He has repeatedly said that it is in his discretion. I believe the time has come to state quite clearly what the conditions are under which he would consider decontrol. It is not good enough, because of the insecurity which surrounds decontrol, to leave it solely to his discretion. Finally, I think it is absolutely essential that he should give an assurance to the public that even if he were to decontrol blocks, he will take into account the existing tenants and the length of their previous tenancy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Sea Point referred to various matters, in general and in particular. He made various points on which I am sure the hon. the Minister will reply to him, but the basic argument he advanced here was that “this is a messy piece of legislation; taken as a whole, it is a compromise which will not please anybody.” Sir, what the hon. member ought to do is congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that in this delicate situation he has achieved the situation in which not only one side is satisfied. It is in fact the major objective of this legislation to reach a compromise, but on such a basis that it will not necessarily satisfy only the lessor or only the lessee. In my opinion the hon. the Minister should be congratulated on having achieved this delicate balance. Sir, that hon. member ought really to be very grateful for this legislation, because he is being provided for in this way in respect of the time when he will have to go and look for work again after this Parliament is over and he has lost his seat.

I want to come back to the hon. member for Durban Point. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is in favour of rent control, or whether he is in favour of its being abolished, as he accused the Progressive Party of being.

Of course it must stay.

Sir, I should like to refer the hon. member to the debate that took place on 18 October 1966. At the time of that discussion the hon. member for Green Point said the following (Hansard, vol. 18, col. 4619)—

On the same occasion the hon. member for Durban Point had the following to say (Hansard, vol. 18, col. 4621)—

There you have it, Sir. That party takes it amiss of the Progressive Party for being in favour of the abolition of rent control, but in 1966 they were saying that rent control should be done away with. That is how the United Party runs with the hare and hunts with the hounds. That is why the hon. member for Yeoville left them. It is as a result of that double talk that he left that house.

So you have a past too, Vause [Interjections.]

Now the United Party is singing an entirely different tune.

What is that reference?

I quoted from the Hansard of 18 October 1966. The quotation from the hon. member for Green Point is to be found in column 4619 and that of the hon. member for Durban Point in col. 4621. Sir, that is why the United Party should really thank the hon. the Minister for coming up with this legislation, because it once again affords the United Party an ideal opportunity to run with the hare and hunt with the hounds and to be ambiguous. One hon. speaker opposite has a great deal to say about this Bill being of no benefit to the lessor, while another hon. speaker maintains that it is of no benefit to the lessee.

Mr. Speaker, I have already made mention of the fact that the Minister should actually be congratulated on the fact that he has struck a balance that does not really satisfy the lessor or the lessee entirely. If he had only satisfied one of them this legislation could not have been successful. But that that party wants to criticize the National Party about this legislation is really amazing, if one bears in mind that before 1950 they had tried to handle this delicate matter by means of inadequate and half-baked war measures. As in so many branches of our society. In 1950 the Nationalist Government had to face this whole question of rent and rent control as well as that of rent exploitation. Sir, they need not call our motives into question in regard to this situation in which the lessee find themselves. This party is a party that has always stood for the poor man … [Interjections.] Sir, the fact that those hon. members are reacting so vociferously only goes to show how I hit the nail on the head.

Sir, I want to raise a further point. The reason why the balance between the lessor and the lessee must be handled very delicately is the fact that the lessor must always be encouraged to invest in property development. It is so easy for the owner of immovable property to sell it instead of hiring it. It is so easy for him to ask no deposit on it, to have the purchaser pay tax such as rates and other municipal levies, to have him pay a high interest rate, to have the purchaser pay in respect of all the obligations for which the lessor is responsible in the normal course and when, after a long period, the purchaser finds that he is unable to pay the increased purchase price, to cancel the contract of sale. All he does then, is make the premises available to a new purchaser. It is exploitation of that kind that must be avoided at all costs and that must also be borne in mind in determining the value of the property, as well as determining reasonable rent.

The hon. member for Green Point spoke about incentives that must be held out to the lessor to encourage him to invest more extensively in rented properties. The hon. member for Mossel Bay has already advanced the opposing argument that incentives or fiscal encouragement of this kind would place yet another burden on the taxpayer. To contend here, as the hon. member for Walmer contended yesterday, that the encouragement this would give property developers to invest more money in property development would, in its turn, cause the State to collect more tax, is really only a castle in the air. He cannot substantiate that. It is pure wishful thinking.

But of course, because surely every company pays tax.

I am talking about incentives. Does the hon. member for Green Point know—and I should be obliged if he would pay a little attention to what I have to say to him— that …

We are listening to the way in which you twist our words. [Interjection.]

Mr. Speaker, I object to the hon. member for Durban Point stating that I twisted his words, because I quoted what he said.

Order! The hon. member for Durban Point must withdraw that statement. He may not say that the hon. member twisted his words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it. I do say that he misrepresented my words.

Mr. Speaker, I quoted the hon. member’s exact words and consequently I do not know how that could be a misrepresentation. In any event he can reply to that on a later occasion.

The hon. member for Green Point states that there should be incentives encouragements, for the investor. I want to mention a few incentives that already exist. The lessor can deduct the municipal rates on a property for income tax purposes, but he collects them from the lessee. In the second place the collection fees he has to pay are taken into account in determining reasonable rent. The premiums on policies which he pays are also taken into account in determining reasonable rent. The caretaker’s wages are also taken into account. Similarly, all these fees which he, in fact, receives from the lessee, he deducts for income tax purposes. All these deductions, therefore, are incentives. The lessor is entitled to deduct 2½% for maintenance, but every cent spent on maintenance and collected from the lessee can also be deducted for income tax purposes. The interest he pays on his mortgage is deductable for tax purposes as are the written-off rent and fees in respect of summonses. What more encouragement must there be for the lessor to invest in immovable property. We must always bear in mind that we are not going to benefit one type of entrepreneur more than another.

Hon. Speakers on the other side of the House accuse this Government of being responsible for the housing shortage. What are the facts? The hon. member for Sea Point said just now that in fact there is no housing shortage. I just briefly want to quote a few figures to hon. members. From the period I August 1920 to 31 March 1948, R54 million—I am giving a round figure—was spent on 22 301 dwelling units in South Africa. From 1 April 1948 to 31 December 1972, R406 million was spent on 78 000 units. The hon. member for Sea Point has already said that there is no housing emergency in South Africa. What is more, hon. members need only think of the money spent on incentives and subsidies. In the report in Die Vaderland of 2 December 1974 the following appeared under the heading “R38 million has been approved for scheme houses throughout the country.” (translation)—

Is this a Government that does not see to or accept responsibility for housing schemes? I also have in mind the announcements made last year by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, viz. those concerning loading and deloading and the rationalization or equalization of rents. The amounts paid to Government officials in mortgage loans amounted to a total sum of R29 million while over the past few years R9 million has been spent on housing loans for the general public. Amounts such as this are not spent by a Government which stands aloof from the needs and aspirations of our people. I wish I could take the hon. member for Sea Point with me to Brakpan, to Boksburg and to the East Rand so that he could see what the Government is doing there in respect of housing. The hon. member comes from a smart area and represents a smart area and does not know what is being done about housing. He clearly does not know what is being done about economic and sub-economic housing. He clearly does not know that one can get a three-bedroomed house for a deposit of R200. The payments for such a three-bedroomed house vary between R77 and R84 per month and the interest rate on the loan is 8¾% per annum. At the beginning of October, 1974, the first 20 purchasers moved into Minnebron. 129 houses have already been completed. The rate of construction is 30 per month. By the end of November 1975, as many as 329 dwelling houses will have been delivered. This is the picture that is unfolding in every constituency in this country. And that does not even include sub-economic and B and C Schemes, in terms of which the Government provides the most wonderful incentives for the construction and maintenance of dwelling units of this kind and other additional facilities to the inhabitants.

What about the old single people?

I am talking about the old single people. The hon. member must only listen.

*United Party speakers have also said that the interests of the lessees have not been sufficiently considered. Is this not a wonderful and praiseworthy state of affairs which has been created for the benefit of the lessees, that houses are entrusted to lessees for an indeterminate period without them having to pay a cent for them and that they can only be evicted from their dwellings in certain limited circumstances.

What if he is unable to pay?

He has not paid for it; that is quite right. The lessee has not paid the capital spent on that place.

But what happens if the lessee is unable to pay the rent?

He does pay the rent but he doesn’t pay a cent of capital. He is given the assurance that he may live in that place all his life, as long as he pays the rent. A great deal of fuss has been made about the fact that the mortgage interest that is paid may no longer be taken into account. In fact, this is an encouragement to the lessor to pay off his mortgage more rapidly, negotiate new loans and ensure that there will be more money in circulation for expenditure on other projects. Furthermore, the lessee is not burdened with the murderous interest rates which the lessor is obliged to pay when he requests a reinstatement of his loan.

It would pay members of the Opposition to go and have another brief look at the debate conducted in this Parliament in terms of the half-hour adjournment rule in 1973 which was requested by the hon. member for Hillbrow. The most important representations made to the Government in that debate have been included in this Bill. I have in mind clause 2, for example, which provides that the construction of a garage or the provision of furniture does not change the identity of the premises. Then, too, there is the proposed section 21(4) contained in clause 12, as well as the fact that cleaning services are terminated, something to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred, and the fact that post has to be collected on the fifth floor and that old people have to climb the steps because the lifts do not work. All these problems are very thoroughtly dealt with in clause 12.

At this point I want to interrupt myself and fully associate myself with the idea suggested by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Tygervallei, namely that the lessees should be informed of their rights under the Rents Act. A campaign should be launched to inform lessees of their rights. For example, there is one important right the lessee has which very few members of the general public know about, namely that a lessor cannot make use of his rights under the Rents Act unless he is the registered owner of property. In other words, if he has purchased the property but has not wet received transfer, he is, for example, unable to make use of his rights to evict a lessee if he requires the dwelling for his own use. I also want to refer to the original section 21(4) that will now become section 21(5) in terms of clause 12. In it, reference is made to the offence committed by the lessor if he is guilty of vexatious conduct with the object of depriving the lessee of the peaceful enjoyment of the dwelling or causing him to vacate the property. In terms of the existing Act, a lessor is only guilty of an offence if he does these things with the aim of depriving the lessee of the peaceful use of the premises. To a large extent this provision is ineffective. All the lessee need now prove in terms of the Bill is that he has in fact been deprived of his peaceful enjoyment. The lessor is then guilty of an offence, and instead of a fine of R400, the fine that may be imposed has now been raised to R1 000. Is this not an enormous benefit in favour of the lessee? Consequently, the argument raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, that other methods must be found to oblige the lessor to maintain the flat and not to let it fall into disrepair, falls away.

I now want to refer to clause 8. The provisions of this clause indicate the superficiality of the statement made by the hon. member for Walmer the other day—

Surely that is not true. Where the Rent Board has come to a decision, the lessor may not make a fresh application for a full year.

What about increases in the rates and insurance premiums?

That is an automatic adjustment. But are rates increased every two months, and is insurance increased every two months? Surely the hon. member is talking nonsense.

I stay in a flat myself, so I know what I am talking about.

The hon. member is trying to state a case here which he has not considered. These things are not tampered with every two months. Then, too, there are the provisions of the proposed new section 21(2). As long as the lessee pays his rent and is not guilty of any petty offences, he may not be evicted.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before the House adjourned I was rounding off the subject that I had been discussing namely that this Bill incorporates exceptional benefits for the lessee. In conclusion I just want to make this one remark. It strikes one as strange that the Opposition—actually, that includes the Progressive Party—did not oppose the principal Act when it was still a Bill.

That is untrue.

They accepted the Bill in principle. The United Party did not oppose the Bill of 1950. Does the hon. member for Durban Point contest that?

No, that is quite correct.

But that is a quarter of a century ago.

We were not here then.

The Progressive Party was then still a part of the United Party and as such they supported the Bill. [Interjections.]

Order!

That was the position in 1950. When we came up with an amendment to the Rents Act in 1966, the United Party supported that, too.

Which month?

October 1966, if the hon. member wants to know the month.

Mr. G. W. MILLS. Which day?

At the time the United Party supported the Bill. Basically this Bill incorporates the same principle. Why, then, are they opposing the legislation now? I want to give two reasons. There are in fact two reasons for this and I want to conclude with them.

Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Mr. Speaker, my time is up; I am sorry but I am unable to reply to a question now. [Interjections.] The basic principles of this Bill are the same as those of the principal Act. The reason they are opposing this Bill is the fact that they are looking over their left shoulders at the four hon. members who are sitting over there on the other side, and the seven hon. members who are sitting there as members of the Progressive Party. That is the one reason why they have shown a change of front. The second reason they have shown a change of front is the fact that the hon. the Minister has hit the bull’s eye.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Brakpan has tried to justify the support of this Bill at the Second Reading but in his efforts to do so he has been led astray to a certain extent by first of all believing that the Bill is not going to bring about an increase in rentals of rent-controlled properties. In addition to that he quoted the hon. member for Green Point, what he said in October 1966 when the Act was amended to extend the control to certain properties with effect from 31 May 1966. The House then dealt with amending legislation.

It included a different principle.

It included a completely different principle, as the hon. member for Durban Point has indicated. When the hon. member for Brakpan quoted the hon. member for Geren Point, he conveniently left out the opening paragraphs of the speech of the hon. member. In Hansard (Vol. 18, 1966, col. 4614) the hon. member for Green Point dealt with the Government’s attitude towards rent control and said—

He then quoted from the speech of the hon. member for Durban Point. Here again the very first remarks of the member for Durban Point which appear in column 4621 and were made on 14 October were—

Apologize.

Those were the circumstances in 1966. What the hon. member for Brakpan was obviously trying to indicate was that there was a difference of opinion expressed by the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Green Point in that amending legislation of 1966 as compared with the speeches that were made in the course of the debate on this particular Bill.

It is obvious that many members on the Government side have completely failed to deal with the whole problem which will arise with the passing of this legislation. I am referring to the effect of this legislation which is that many people will be called upon to pay a further increase in rental for their rent-controlled properties. Clause 1 clearly indicates the meaning of reasonable rent, the value that is taken into account and the formula that is to be applied— 8½% on the value of land and buildings. We on this side of the House believe that these and the additional provision providing for replacement value of property will result in a considerable increase in the rents which are to be determined by the rent boards in terms of the legislation which is now to be passed by this House.

One must bear in mind the severe financial hardship that is going to be experienced by many of these people who are living in rent-controlled properties. Members opposite should have tried to justify this legislation in support of the hon. the Minister when he introduced the Bill. When introducing the Bill the hon. the Minister did not indicate to the House what the financial implications would be as far as the tenants were concerned. He said that they were endeavouring to find a balance between the tenants and the landlords—a reasonable return to the landlord as well as a degree of protection for the tenant. As far as we can ascertain there is no doubt about it that the passing of this legislation will create a situation in which substantial hardship will be experienced by many people who are living in rent-controlled properties. If we look at the position as it exists today, we find that there are various steps which can be taken by the Government in assisting those people who really require assistance. There are cases where people occupy rent-controlled property and whose financial means far exceed those of people who, perhaps, have a greater need. I believe that the Government should give serious consideration to find ways and means of instituting a scheme by means of which a person’s financial means will be taken into account in respect of the occupation of rent-controlled property. Although I am opposed to a means test as such, I feel that, in the present circumstances, this might perhaps be the only avenue open to the Government by means of which they can ensure that those persons who require protection indeed receive that protection in terms of the Rents Act.

The persons who are going to suffer will in many instances most probably be people already suffering because of the spiralling cost of living by having to contend with tremendous increases in the cost of food and clothing. Accommodation is, after all, one of the necessities of life. In many cases these people are going to be faced with an untenable situation. I would like to mention some of the situations which prevail—the hon. the Minister is aware of these situations as I have brought them to his attention in the past in this House as well as by correspondence—in which there are people notably widows, who are just managing to exist at the present time. I have one particular case which I would like to mention to the House to show how the increases as granted by rent boards affect people. Many of these increases are, of course, the result of revaluations which have taken place by various local authorities as well as adjustments which have taken place in regard to interest rates etc. I have a case here which I would like to quote to the House as I believe it is ger mane to the whole question of the passing of this Bill. A person living in a rent-controlled flat, the widow of a railway pensioner, was paying R40-71 per month in September 1972. This rental was increased on several occasions and in September 1974 this person was paying R59-66 per month, an increase of some R19 per month. As I have said, this person is the widow of a railway pensioner and she has to live on R72 per month. If she pays a rental of nearly R60 per month it leaves her with R12 per month for food, clothing and the other necessities of life including electricity and a telephone which she must have because of failing health. The hon. member for Green Point indicated during his speech, if this legislation is passed as it stands, what effect this will have on certain rentals on the basis of the formula contained in clause 1 of the Bill. It is quite likely that this particular person I have mentioned will soon have nothing to live on and that the whole of her income as the widow of a Railway pensioner will simply go for rent. This is going to place a great responsibility on the shoulders of other organizations that are trying to assist these people. The hon. the Minister as Minister of Community Development does make available certain funds at a sub-economic rate of interest to welfare organizations, utility companies and others to provide accommodation at homes for the aged. In the particular case that I have mentioned I know that this person has been waiting for over two years to obtain such accommodation. The hon. the Minister of Community Development himself believes—I have heard him quoted in the past in this regard—that the aged folk, the old people of South Africa, should remain in the community as long as possible. Here, however, we are creating a situation where many of these people, instead of being able to remain in the community in their own little corner of the world, will be compelled by force of circumstances to seek accommodation sometimes many miles away from their home environment, from their friends and from their relations. This will place a tremendous burden on the shoulders of welfare organizations. It is true that we cannot expect landlords to assume the role of a welfare organization and to become a welfare society. It is the responsibility of a Government to come to the assistance of these people who are faced with these severe financial difficulties. I believe that it is essential for the Government to give urgent attention to the question of making adequate provision for these people. We on this side of the House have suggested over and over again that when any housing schemes are envisaged either by local authorities or by the Department of Community Development steps should be taken to ensure that a proportion of the available accommodation should be made available to old folk and those people who cannot fend for themselves. If this were done one could perhaps then consider the repeal of the Rents Act and the abolition of rent control. Under existing circumstances, however, where the Government have failed to provide accommodation for many of these people, it is not even possible to contemplate the abolition of rent control especially when one considers the consequences of such action.

Another aspect of this legislation which produces a great deal of hardship is in regard to the making of rent determinations with retrospective effect. In this regard I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister that if this legislation is passed the review of rentals as provided for, particularly in clause 1 of the Bill, should not provide for increased rent determinations with retrospective effect. I believe that the increase in rental of itself causes hardship and creates a great deal of anxiety and trepidation for the future on the part of those people who occupy rent-controlled premises. In dealing with this question of determining rentals with retrospective effect this Bill fails to give protection to the tenant. In this regard I should like to mention a case which will indicate how an increase of rental with retrospective effect can almost be disastrous and indeed is disastrous for many of these people who are struggling to live on a small income with costs spiralling as they are today The particular case that I want to quote is that of a widow who receives a pension from private sources. Her pension is about R120 per month. Let us take the question of the rental she pays in respect of a rent-controlled property. In July 1973 she was paying R66-21 per month. This rental was increased steadily on three occasions until September 1974 when it was increased to R87-09 per month. This however, is the rub. This latest determination was made in February of this year with retrospective effect to 1 September 1974. The result of this was that this widow had to pay five months’ arrear rental at R20-05 per month, a total of R100-25, plus the new increased rental of R87-09 for the month of February, which means that she had to make a single payment of R187-34 in one month.

Disgraceful!

This is the effect of making an increase in rental payable with retrospective effect. I feel, therefore, that the hon. the Minister should give an undertaking that the maximum period will not be six months when increases are granted with retrospective effect.

Sir, another difficulty that arises for these people who occupy a flat in a rent-controlled block is that the sale of that block of flats invariably leads to the sale of individual flats. You find that many people who have been tenants in that block for 30 or 40 years do not wish to buy the flat and, indeed, have not got the financial resources to purchase the flat. The result is that they are continually harassed by the owners in an endeavour to eject them. I notice that clause 12 of this Bill contains a provision which limits the grounds for ejectment. In terms of the proposed new section 21 (1) (f), an ejectment order may be obtained on the ground that the premises are reasonably required for the purpose of, inter alia, repairs, restoration or conversion, for which the vacation of such premises is essential. In a later clause it is provided that the ejectment order shall operate for a period of three months or such period as is determined by the Rent Board. I hope the hon. the Minister will see to it that this provision is not used as a ground for ejectment by an owner who wishes to get rid of tenants in a rent-controlled flat simply so that he can sell the flat at a considerable profit. Sir, recently I saw some figures in regard to a rent-controlled block which was sold for R100 000. The 20 flats were immediately put up for sale and various was and means were then used to obtain the ejectment of the tenants. These flats were sold for an average of R10 500 per flat, so the new owner made a profit of approximately 100%. One can see that there are enormous profits to be made by those people who are able to purchase a block of flats and who are then able to use various ways and means to remove from the flats. Those tenants who are not prepared to buy the flats occupied by them.

Unscrupulous ways.

As the hon. member for Durban Point says, unscrupulous ways are sometimes used. That is why it is pleasing to note that provision has been made for an increase in the penalties in terms of clause 12. At the same time one hopes that the Minister will see to it that the new provision with regard to the vacation of premises for the purpose of restoration and conversion is not abused so as to obtain the early ejectment of people living in rent-controlled premises.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House believe that this piece of legislation does not solve the existing problem and that it does not really bring about a balance between the landlord and the tenant. We have not had an opportunity, of course, of seeing the report of the Johannes Committee; only the hon. the Minister is aware of the committee’s recommendations. It would appear that this legislation is not going to achieve the aims that we would like to see it achieve, and that is why I have great pleasure in supporting the amendment which has been moved by the hon. member for Green Point and which clearly indicates the grounds on which we reject this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Rents Act, just to refresh the memory of the hon. member for Brakpan, is part of legislation that commenced in the year 1920 in the aftermath of World War I. Then during World War II a number of additional war measures were introduced to deal with the question of rent control, and subsequently the whole of the legislation was consolidated in the 1950 Act with which we are dealing at the moment. So I think he must realize that the question of rent control has been in existence for a number of years due to some important reasons. The first Bill was passed because in the aftermath of the war the tremendous shortage of housing created a very ugly situation where people were being exploited so badly that it was essential to provide some relief for them. So over a period of time, due to the fact that the shortage of housing was not completely overcome, it was necessary to retain some measure which would assist people who needed this form of assistance. This is really the whole problem that faces us today. As far as the figure given by the hon. member for Brakpan, the R407 million that has been spent since 1948, is concerned that figure is of course very much, greater than in the previous comparable period because of the increasing costs, increasing population, the tremendous immigration into the country, the non-Whites who have streamed into the country and have had to be housed, the complete industrial revolution in South Africa …

Consider the number of units.

Even the number of units does not in any way measure up to comparative standards which I have seen in other countries with a population quite comparable to our population. Now, I am not going to lay the entire blame at the feet of the Nationalist Party, but I want to say that the whole approach by the Government has been wrong. First of all, we must take into account that this Bill should be examined against the background of certain occurrences over the past few years.

May I ask a question?

No. These manifested themselves in some harsh action by landlords in order to improve rentals and in order to take advantage of the shortage of housing. The State was faced with this difficulty and there was a tremendous outcry, both in respect of people who were harassed by landlords in order to obtain possession of buildings, to improve them and to obtain fresh rentals that were very much higher than were allowed at that time, and also in respect of people, as has been pointed out, who had been affected because buildings had been purchased and re-sold on the sectional title principle. The owners wanted the tenants ejected. Against the background of all this it became necessary for the Government to heed the outcry and so it appointed a commission. The extraordinary thing is, however, that whilst we are told by the hon. the Minister that he is faced with a very delicate balance which he has to maintain between landlord and tenant, he does not give any details and refuses in fact to disclose a report in which every person in the country is interested. This is a report which has no particular political significance, which is not tainted by any question concerning the security of the country and which has none of the delicate features which require secrecy on the part of the Government. Yet the Government persists in neither tabling nor giving details of the contents of the Johannes Committee’s report. I think the hon. the Minister has committed a fatal error in not taking the House and the country into his confidence in regard to something which concerns everyone.

Now, Sir, let us look at the picture as we see it for the future. Not only is the shortage of housing still persisting and possibly even being more accentuated because of the inflationary difficulties in which we find ourselves and the problems of how far money will go today as compared with what it could achieve in years past, but we are also fully aware that over the next 20-odd years we will require as many houses as have been built since the year when this country was discovered, and it was discovered over 300 years ago. In other words, we will have to pack into approximately 30 years as much housing, if we are to accommodate the community, as we provided over the past 300 years, and yet we do not get sound approach to this whole question of rent and accommodation of people from the point of view of the shortage of housing. No, the Government through, its speakers boast that it has struck a delicate balance between landlord and tenant and says it has achieved a great deal for those people who need this help and assistance. I say that the approach is entirely wrong. Let us take the question of rentals and housing in other countries. Britain is a very good example. For years the question of whether there should be a Rent Control Act or not was a controversial matter. Surely a product that has to be sold should normally meet the economic conditions of supply and demand. There should be, as was mooted some years back in Britain, a free market. People felt that if that free market existed, the rentals would find their own level because the law of supply and demand would be operating. But unfortunately, Sir, we had to deal with a certain group of people who require protection. A great deal has already been said about this people in this category. There are, for example, the social pensioners, the civil pensioners, those in the lower income group and those in the lower middle income group. Just as we subsidize these people with regard to bread, for instance, to the extent of many millions of rand in this country—I think bread alone absorbs about R40 million in subsidies in order to keep the price at a reasonable level—so housing or accommodation, which is probably the most vital need of a community, should be subsidized for those people who cannot afford it. We are not dealing with people in the higher income groups who can fend for themselves. Rent control was established deliberately to avoid the exploitation of those people who normally would require some assistance. The State, through fiscal means—a detailed discussion has already taken place in this regard during the course of this debate—could subsidize housing just as easily as it subsidizes other commodities which are vital to the existence of a community. Therefore I cannot understand the reticence of the State in dealing with this problem. Instead they do exactly what they accuse this side of doing; they employ political red herrings and say that they are the guardians of the poor. That, Sir, I think is a lot of nonsense.

At one time the hon. the Minister was known as the Minister of Housing. We then had the establishment of a Department of Community Development which deals not only with housing, but with many other facets of the life of this country, some of which are desirable and some of which, in our opinion, are somewhat undesirable. Nevertheless, that department was established, and in terms of this Bill the hon. the Minister will no longer be known as the Minister of Housing. I believe—and I say this with the utmost conviction—that the time has arrived in this country for a Minister of Housing to be appointed. He should be concerned solely with the question of housing. He should have a whole department dealing only with housing, because it is the solution to the housing shortage alone that will solve the problem of rent control. At the moment the Department of Community Development is composed of different sections, and the Minister of Community Development does not deal only with housing. I think it is very important that there should be a Minister who should concentrate on this matter alone.

Let me now deal with the Bill itself. What has this Bill done? Admittedly it has certain features which are going to be helpful to the tenant. It was necessary; it was the least the Government could have extracted from the Johannes Commission to try to protect the tenant against the unscrupulous conduct of people who make life very uncomfortable for tenants, and who in fact make life almost impossible for tenants by persuading and compelling them to leave their premises. We know that. Therefore it is not surprising that these few features were introduced, because that was the purpose of the commission; that was the whole of the outcry. But at the same time the hon. the Minister felt that in order to encourage private enterprise he should do something to meet the entrepreneur, the person who could build homes. But the entrepreneur who is going to build homes for people who need them badly cannot do so on an economic basis under present-day conditions. If there is no subsidy or no hidden relief from taxation, both so far as the entrepreneur and the tenant are concerned, so as to enable the entrepreneur to receive a reasonable return, then it will be impossible for the private developer to provide housing for pensioners, civil or social, and people in the lower and middle income groups. It will be absolutely impossible. Therefore it is absolutely essential that this form of special protection should be introduced. The Minister tries to bring it about by what he calls a delicate balance and his delicate balance is this: He increases the return to a flat rate of 8½% both in respect of land and buildings and gives as his reason that a man should get a return on his whole investment. The reasoning is fair, but the whole question of the establishment of a reasonable rental by the boards is purely arbitrary and there is no scientific approach at all in this matter. It is a purely arbitrary basis and it will always be so as long as you do not ensure that the developer has a reasonable return on his money and that the tenant who needs assistance receives it from the State by means of some or other fiscal measure as has been pointed out by other hon. members.

The hon. the Minister goes further and establishes a new definition for the term “value”. He incorporates a formula of valuation whereby the Rent Board has to take into account the replacement value of a property subject to a certain depreciation in order to arrive at what it calls a reasonable rental value. I say that even businessmen—I have spoken to a couple this evening—think that it is laughable to replace any building today which was built ten, 15 or 20 years ago. To build such a building today will cost four or five times as much as it cost then. If one takes into account that it costs anything from R15 to R20 per square foot to erect a decent house today, one can realize what it costs to put up a reasonable block of flats with all the reasonable modern amenities. Therefore if one takes into account the formula of replacement value which is to be assessed by a quantity surveyor who at least has some technical training, then I fully agree, though for different reasons, than a previous speaker, that rentals will jump by at least 20% to 25 %. I do not think that there is the slightest doubt whatsoever that that will be the case. Since reading the draft of this Bill last year I have told many of my friends that the time has arrived where people who are able to acquire any form of accommodation at a reasonable cost, should acquire it in order to avoid paying rentals under the conditions of this Bill which is now before us.

That is absolute nonsense!

Therefore there is no reason to boast about this Bill. One can only accept gratefully on behalf of the tenant the few clauses which afford relief from harassment by landlords. One can appreciate that and one can appreciate the fact that a rental determination can only take place once per annum. One can appreciate these little crumbs which are falling from the table in order to assist these harassed people, but one cannot appreciate the rest of the Bill, which, far from creating a delicate balance, merely perpetuates the whose arbitrary approach in this matter. While I know the difficulty of the hon. the Minister’s task, I suggest that the hon. the Minister should have approached this from an entirely different point of view. He should have afforded the immediate relief that was necessary and then he should have sought a new form of planning which will ensure that the housing shortage will be caught up with to the greatest possible extent within the next ten, 15 or 20 years. It is necessary to plan now because one cannot plan for housing ad hoc as one goes along from year to year. One must plan now and one must plan for the future, otherwise we shall face much more serious difficulties in regard to housing than we are facing at present. What does the amendment do? Speakers on this side of the House have said that they accept what is good, but that they want to know whether it is the solution. For that reason our amendment says that we do not want this Bill, not because we do not want the good things in it, but because we say that it does not bring relief. That is what people want. The amendment says that the weakness of the Bill is that it links rentals to the constantly escalating costs of replacement, and it is a most dangerous thing to do to forge such a link. It imposes an ever-increasing financial burden on tenants who cannot cope with the present rising cost of living. We ask that an entirely new approach should be made to this matter. We would not mind if the Bill were withdrawn today if the hon. the Minister would have the courage to place his report on the Table and come with an entirely new approach to the whole subject. Let him give relief from the unlawful or semi-unlawful action that is being taken by landlords and let him at the same time ensure that tenants do not suffer unnecessarily from the burden of the inflationary circumstances of today.

In conclusion I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that, irrespective of what he has done in this Bill, it still does not meet the rising cost of maintenance and repairs or the rising rates in this country. He need only go to the City of Johannesburg to learn what has happened to the rateable value of the city as a result of the tremendous overheads and constantly increasing costs. The rateable value of the city has in fact increased by a considerable number of millions of rand. The cost of municipal services has also increased all over the country. It is very important that these factors should be taken into account. These problems cannot be resolved by this particular Bill. Unless the Government takes some steps in this direction, we shall vote against this Bill for the reasons we have stated.

Mr. Speaker, I shall try, as far as I am able, to reply to all fundamental arguments which were advanced by the opposite side of the House. Even if it takes a considerable time, I shall nevertheless try to do so. Initially I want to express my appreciation for the support which I received from this side of the House, and also for the calibre of that support. I felt that I had a considerable measure of sympathy for hon. members on this side of the House …

Why?

… because they had to confine themselves to the facts of this Bill which is before this House. They could not play the game which is being played on the opposite side, and that it is a game I shall demonstrate with chapter and verse. Even if I have not finished before 10 o’clock tonight, it will be done. Certain statements were made and let me say at once that it was the hon. member for Green Point who started this, and that other hon. members took up where he left off. This is something I am quite happy about. The hon. member said that I had not succeeded in satisfying either of the two parties, i.e. the lessors or the lessees. He said that for that reason this Bill was a failure. Mr. Speaker, we are undoubtedly dealing with conflicting interests here. I would have been an unhappy man tonight if I had had to admit, in defending this Bill, either that the lessors were saying that they were happy with this measure and that they welcomed it, or that the lessees were saying that they welcomed it. That would have meant that one side or the other would have been wronged. When one has conflicting interests, it is not humanly possible to introduce a measure here which would be welcomed by both lessor and lessee as being the absolutely correct one.

That is right.

Although the hon. members on the opposite side refuse to discuss the penetrating and comprehensive measures which are being adopted in the Bill, I want to bring them back to these measures.

Who refused?

They refused to discuss it. They merely touched on these measures. The only speaker in the Opposition benches who in any way tried to make a penetrating speech, was the hon. member for Johannesburg North He tried to analyse the penetrating measures in the Bill, but in general the hon. members on that side refused to discuss the matter on its merits. They only referred to it fleetingly, and condemned it without carefully analysing the merits of the reasons for condemning it. If they had done that, they would have had to start taking sides either with the lessor or the lessee, and they did not want to make that choice. They then tried to butter up to both, and moved an amendment which offers another solution: The State has to pay; the State has to satisfy the lessor, and ensure that he receives a reasonable income on his capital, and at the same time satisfy the lessee by bringing the payment of rent within his means. To make that possible, the hon. member for Green Point says—and he was followed in this by other hon. members— that incentives must be found, and those incentives must be such that it will be moonshine and roses for the lessor as well as the lessee. I shall deal with those incentives; I shall come to them in due course. However, the hon. members avoided the crux of the Bill.

The crux of this Bill does not concern what is being done in respect of housing today, or what ought to be done in respect of housing tomorrow or next year. It concerns dwelling units occupied prior to 1 June 1966, and what is being done today in regard to housing has little, and then only indirectly, to do with the measure which I submitted to this House. To a large extent the hon. members brushed aside the measures which are being proposed in this Bill to try to strike a reasonable balance between the lessor and the lessee. That was only a side-issue in their speeches. It was a side-issue in the speech of the hon. member for Green Point, for example, who acted as main speaker. He began by telling me how I should have prepared my Second Reading speech. He knows very well—just as well as I do, if not better—what is envisaged with a Second Reading speech and how it is prepared. After he had devoted a good part of his speech to telling me what I should have said about what is being done today and what should be done tomorrow, he elaborated on his incentives, incentives for the construction of new dwelling units, in other words, they do not affect those dwelling units which have been in existence since before 1966. [Interjections.] When the hon. member was speaking, I showed him that courtesy which I now expect from him as well. It was for the most part reproaches concerning what was allegedly not being done today, but I shall come back to this later on. There are some of the hon. members on the opposite side who are as aware of this as I am, but they were as silent as the grave on this point. I want to tell the hon. members— to link up with the argument about what is being done today—that there might be things they are not aware of, things which my department and I are trying to do and trying to achieve behind the scenes. I could mention such examples to the hon. members, there is the National Building Research Institute which does not fall under my department but under the department of my colleague on my left here. The work which this institute is doing is very closely connected with the construction work my departments are doing. With the knowledge and concurrence of my colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment and of Statistics, I went to the Cabinet and asked for more money for the National Building Research Institute, so that we could try to establish cheaper housing and so that methods could be investigated of establishing cheaper housing in this country. In view of this situation which has been mentioned, and which is the truth, namely that by the end of the century as many houses as exist at present will have had to be built, I went to the Cabinet and the necessary funds were obtained. No one referred to the work of the Niemand Commission or to the recommendations which have and which are still being laboriously brought home by my department to the local and provincial authorities. Are they not aware that I arranged a private discussion last year with the representatives of the Association of Building Societies to try to find ways and means of establishing cheaper housing? Are they not aware that continuous liaison between my department and the Association of Building Societies is being built up as a result of those discussions in order to work in this direction? Are they not aware of the research which is still being carried out in both my departments to make the establishment of cheaper, more effective building methods possible? Not one of the far-reaching measures were properly thrashed out by the hon. members of the Opposition or properly analysed in depth; not one.

The hon. member for Boksburg was correct when he stated, immediately after the hon. member for Green Point had resumed his seat, that they hunted with the hounds and ran with the hare. At that stage it was already clear what the hon. gentlemen were doing, immediately after I had heard his speech. What made it clearer to me was the fact that circulars had been sent out to members of Parliament. I also received them. I received many representations. Here I have one in my hand. I want to tell these people—the Tenants Association—that they have my sympathy. They know it. They know that I conducted personal interviews with certain of them to encourage them to establish such an association so that they would have a body which, perhaps upon payment of a reasonable fee, could provide lessees with the necessary advice and guidance. They would then have a body which would guard their interests as well. I should like to quote the closing paragraph of the circular sent out by this association (translation)—

Those hon. gentlemen received this circular. They read it and took it to heart. I am not reproaching these people for having done this, but I do want to tell them that legislation which is based on that principle is rotten legislation. Apparently hon. members opposite took this to heart. I did not take it to heart, and what is more, the hon. members opposite took it so much to heart that they let the cat out of the bag. The hon. member for Walmer rose to his feet and warned the hon. member for Boksburg that he has many flat-dwelling voters in his constituency, and that they would settle their scores with him. The hon. member for Durban Point also took it so much to heart that he also let the cat out of the bag when he addressed the same warning to hon. members on this side of the House. [Interjection.] No, that is wrong. In a measure such as this it is fundamentally wrong to ask where the interests of either the minority or the majority of the voters lie. That is what hon. members opposite did.

For how many years did we not fight for the lessee?

Mr. Speaker, I want to come now to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Green Point. I would like us to examine this amendment intensively. I shall discuss the amendment moved by the hon. member for Houghton when I deal with her speech at a later on stage. In any event, her amendment is not going to be supported by the official Opposition. I think that is clear, judging by the karate chops exchanged here between the two oppositions. The hon. member for Green Point moved as follows—

What about the landlords? Has he forgotten them? Do those people not also exist? Do those people not also have rights? Do those people not also need the protection of this highest authority in the country? Why is nothing said about them? The hon. member continued in his amendment—

I want to discuss replacement cost. Are rents not constantly escalating at present?

[Inaudible.]

But at present building costs are constantly escalating, and if they continue to escalate in future as they are at present, would this then be attributable only to replacement cost? What is the cause of this constant escalation about which the hon. members complained to such an extent? The escalation is attributable to precisely the same reasons we are experiencing escalating prices in all other spheres. Although one has price control, the prices of price-controlled commodities are escalating all the time. Sir, in this world of escalating costs the hon. members expect my department and I to devise a formula in terms of which there will be no escalation.

Is the hon. the Minister not aware of the fact that building costs are rising at a faster rate than the cost of living?

Sir, I acknowledge that the hon. member is right when he says that the rise in building costs during the past year was 20%, but half of that increase was attributable to more de luxe building methods; that was the finding of the Bureau of Economic Research at Stellenbosch. In other words, the remainder was in the region of 12%. Is the hon. member aware that the prices of other articles which fall under price control are rising more rapidly as a result of circumstances over which my department and I have no control in any event? Then the hon. member states in (b) that the Bill will impose ever-increasing financial burdens upon tenants who are already unable to cope with the rising cost of living. However, Sir, my department and I are expected to practise magic and to achieve what no one else in South Africa or in the world can succeed in doing; we are expected to keep the tariffs constant. Then the hon. gentleman says that the Bill—

With all due respect, Sir—I intend no reflection on the Chair—the hon. member is referring here to the Housing Act and not the Rents Act.

The two go together.

Yes, that is correct; there is a connection, but what the hon. member is contemplating here cannot be classed with the Rents Act; it must be classed with the Housing Act.

[Inaudible.]

I shall look into that.

Order! The hon. member for Green Point still has the Committee Stage and the Third Reading debate to state his views.

I will use those opportunities, Sir.

Sir, I should like to see the hon. member making use of those opportunities. The hon. member stated that the Bill—

Sir, these buildings which will be constructed, will not be rent controlled. In other words, they will have nothing to do with this measure. In other words, this problem I am saddled with in respect of dwellings built prior to 1966 still remains unchanged. These measures of his will, to have any significance, cost many millions of rand. If the hon. the Minister of Finance finds that the national economy and the economic tendencies make it possible, I would prefer to say to the Minister of Finance: “If you can spare that money, rather give it to me, and I shall build houses with it on a non-profitmaking basis.” My department is able to apply every cent we get, every cent the national economy can afford, for housing. I would say that he should rather give it to me than give it to other people who operate on a profit making basis, for my department buildings on a non-profit making basis. But the hon. member for Green Point forgets about the measures which have already been adopted. There is, for example, the house ownership scheme which is subsidized above 8½%, and there is the interest subsidy. Then there is the scheme of my department in co-operation with the building societies; there is the housing for public servants to bring great relief in the private sector and elsewhere, and there are the housing schemes, at all the millions of rand which have been mentioned here which my department is undertaking. Now I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point—he could simply give me an indication—whether he is in favour of the extension of rent control to all rented dwelling units.

Mr. Speaker said I must not make any interjections.

The Speaker did not, however, debar the hon. member for Durban Point from doing so. Would the hon. member for Durban Point like to see rent control being made applicable to all rented units?

Only where there is abuse.

And how are these incentives going to be applied by my department if it does not have the control to ensure that the benefits of those incentives are passed on to the lessee? How is one going to apply it?

May I ask a question?

I am asking a question now. Can any hon. member on the opposite side try to explain how one is going to apply it to ensure that these incentives and tax relief, and so on, will be passed on to the lessee? No, none of them have stated how they would apply it. It could only be applied if there is control. It could only be applied if there is rent control in accordance with the process by means of which rent control is being exercised today. Sir, this could only mean that rent control would have to apply throughout, i.e. to every building which is still to be constructed and in regard to which people want to make use of those incentives. If the hon. member says “no” I should like to know how this could be done, for as long as there are escalating costs there will be rent increases, and when those rent increases are applied, it will have to be ensured that the lessors do not take the benefits of the incentives for themselves. There is only one way of doing that, and that is rent control over all premises, in other words, application will have to be made to the Rent Board for all dwelling units. And now I want to tell hon. members on the opposite side something: Give the lessor, the owner, a choice between incentives with rent control, and no rent control, but without incentives. There is no doubt in my mind about what they would prefer. That, Sir, is what this amendment is worth. With reference to the allegations which were made and which are implied in this amendment, I want to quote from a memorandum submitted by the Rent Control Board. This is what they said, and this is also what is being done in practice.

What does the Johannes Committee have to say about that?

The hon. member shall have that as well. I am quoting from the memorandum—

Allow me to say at the same time—and we shall dwell on this at a later stage—that certain of these measures are going to give rise to rent increases. Other measures will counteract rent increases; we are going to dwell on each of these. Random tests were carried out. There is, for example, the case of a block of flats in Johannesburg. It is clear that the mortgage interest and the size of the bond is going to play a decisive part. At present this building with its land is at present valued at R273 000. There is a mortgage of R32 000 at 9% on it. Under the new dispensation of 8½% and the elimination of the mortgage interest, this person will obtain an increased income from his property. In fact, he receives an additional income of R3 964. But then this property of his is no longer valued at the amount which I mentioned; it appreciates further and is valued at R305 000.

What is the income on the increased value?

The additional income on the increased value is R3 964.

How many flats are there?

I do not know how many flats there are. Here is another example. This property has a mortgage of R22 000 at 11¼%. This is a property which is at present valued—land plus buildings— at approximately R63 000. The mortgage is relatively light, but the value of the property is not very high either. A new value of R85 000 is being placed on the property. Now this person earns an additional R6-66 per annum. But I want to continue …

They say figures cannot lie.

The figures were worked out by the Rent Control Board. These are people who know more or less what they are talking about. The value of this building, plus the value of the land, is R99 000, and it has a mortgage of R51 000 at an interest rate of 10½%. A value of R134 606 is now placed on this building, but in spite of that the lessor will earn R1 626 less than the amount he is earning at present.

Vause, do you want to know how many flats there are? [Interjections.]

I have another example here of another block of flats which is situated in Durban. This is an interesting case for this block of flats carries a mortgage interest of 10,17% on a mortgage loan of R481 186. The value of the building is at present calculated at R704 000. The rent board will, after the commencement of this legislation, place a value of R1 185 000 on the building. Nevertheless the lessor will earn an amount of R2 139 less than he is receiving at present. I want to mention another case in which a smaller property is involved. This aspect relates to the mortgage interest which I am still going to discuss. The mortgage on this specific building is R69 543, and the mortgage interest rate 11¼%. However, the present valuation is in the region of R41 000. We see, therefore, that the mortgage is far higher than the valuation of the building. If the legislation which is at present before us is implemented, it would mean that a valuation of R105 000 will be placed on the building. In spite of this the lessor will earn R1 175 less per annum, which means that he will lose on his present income.

Is the new valuation calculated in terms of the new formula?

Yes. In other words, the situation will be that the rent will indisputably increase where the lessor does not have a mortgage on the building and the property, or where the mortgage is very small. In a situation where the mortgage was obtained to circumvent the Rents Act, the rents will decrease, that is, if this estimate of mine is correct. We shall, in other words, have an adjustment.

Before I come to the other measures, I want to try to be as objective as it is possible for me to be to the lessor and to the lessee. I am not either of the two. For all practical purposes I am neither a lessor nor a lessee. First I want to consider the position of the lessor. We must be honest and say that the position of the lessor is one of discrimination. I have a document in my hand which was drawn up by a Cape Town attorney.

Lionel Murray?

No. I do not want to mention the name of the gentleman because I have not requested his permission to do so. In any event, I do not want to say anything unfavourable about him. This person advocates the total abolition of rent control, and I must say that it is difficult to refute his arguments. I do not want to quote too extensively from this document, but I shall quote the following example—

So the argument of this gentleman continues. I want to say that when one tries to place oneself objectively in the position of the lessor, it is difficult to refute these arguments. Let us assume that A has constructed a block of flats for himself which was occupied on 31 March 1966, while B constructed an identical block of flats which was occupied on 1 June 1966. If A wants to sell his block of flats today he must, because the stigma of falling under rent control attaches to his block of flats, drop several thousand rand in comparison with B’s block of flats which was occupied a day later. Because A’s block of flats is under rent control he is pegged down by the rent control measures. For that reason I am not trying to conceal the fact that we are dealing here with discrimination among people practising precisely the same industry. When one admits that one has a situation of discrimination among people practising the same industry since one has to adopt that discriminatory measure in the national interest, one accepts that one has to try to restrict that discrimination to the minimum, and this we are to a certain extent trying to do. If those people say that it is not their task to subsidize less affluent people, people of the lower income groups, they have every right to do so. I cannot argue against that, and none of the hon. members opposite can do so either. When that person says that he also wants to take his capital appreciation in exactly the same way as any other person who has invested in immovable property—in land, in a farm or in whatever it may be—for the sake of capital appreciation, can I argue against that? Every other person who does not fall into this category can take his capital appreciation as it comes. Can I now, on good grounds, argue against that?

Mr. Speaker, does the hon. the Minister mean appreciation in comparison with the original purchase price, or in comparison with a speculative purchase price which bears no relation to the original purchase price?

I mean capital appreciation in the normal sense of the word, because money depreciates.

In comparison with the original, actual value? It makes a very big difference.

The other person takes his capital appreciation, and this person says that he is also entitled to do so. I have made it very clear to hon. members that I first want to place myself objectively in the position of the lessor. To be able to form an opinion on these measures, I had to place myself in this position. However, there is another matter as well in this regard to which I want to refer.

The people who fall under rent control are made out to be ogres. These people, owing to the fact that they fall under rent control, are held out to be ogres by hon. members opposite—not by all—and by the Press and other organs. I concede that there may perhaps be unpleasant exceptions, but I cannot be the judge of that; there are courts that have to decide. That is what such institutions are for. However, a stigma is beginning to attach to these people because they fall under rent control. The person who does not fall under rent control is in fact able to do those things which the other person wants to do, but cannot do because he falls under rent control. No stigma consequently attaches to that person; he is not given out to be an ogre, although he is doing precisely the same thing for which the person who does fall under rent control is given out to be an ogre. That is the truth; it is the case.

Let us consider the position of the lessee. To what is the lessee justifiably entitled? In the first place he can with justification claim that he is entitled to receive a reasonable value for the money he is paying. In other words, he wants to pay a reasonable rent. In the second place he can say that he wants to live there with his family under happy living conditions. These are all things which this Bill is trying to achieve. The lessee says: “I pay my rent and I want to live there under happy living conditions with my family.” In the third place he has the right to see what the quality of the amenities are which he can afford, and then to seek such amenities. The lessee must accept that a person with an income of R400 per month cannot expect, for example, to go and live in a flat which consists of four bedrooms, a study, two bathrooms, etc. Such a person must accept that he must look for something which is within his means, and for which he will pay a reasonable rent.

What I am therefore seeking in this Bill, is fairness to both sides. Before I come to the essential matters, there are the questions asked by hon. members on the Opposite side of this House in regard to the Johannes Committee. I have already explained, on at least three occasions in this hon. House, why I am not going to table the report of the Johannes Committee. It is stated in the terms of reference of the committee which the hon. member quoted. The committee was appointed by my predecessor to report to him. This type of committee is appointed year in and year out by various Ministers in various departments. At one stage it was even being argued that it was a commission of inquiry. There is no question that it was not a commission of inquiry.

Recently I appointed the Louis Fouché Committee in which I have involved various persons in an investigation of community facilities. That was in 1973. That committee has published a report. I rose in this House and stated what my findings were as a result of that report. However, these were mainly community facilities for non-Whites. No one asked me to table that report.

Who were the members of that commission?

Are you referring to the Fouché Committee?

Yes.

I caused the fact that I had appointed the Fouché Committee to be published in the Press. The chairman of that committee was Mr. Louis Fouché, the then Deputy Secretary of my department. The chief of building services of my department also served on that committee, as well as the four directors of local authorities in the four provinces. There were other persons as well, whose names I can no longer remember.

The Johannes Committee was appointed on the same basis, i.e. people were appointed on the basis of their special knowledge. Members of municipal associations not falling under the Public Service also served on the Fouché Committee. There were also people from outside the Public Service. No one was interested in asking me for its report. In this way all Ministers appoint committees to go into matters where something may be at fault, and where there is something which may be rectified. A Minister appoints such a committee for his own purposes. That is what was done here. I have already told hon. members on the opposite side of the House that, according to my information, the people who gave evidence before the Johannes Committee were under the impression that their evidence was confidential. In its report the Johannes Committee consequently referred to the fact that a Mr. So-and-so had given evidence. It is clear from the report that the committee never intended to write its report in such a way that it would be made available for publication. At the time, when hon. members first began to nag me about the report of the Johannes Committee, I told them that they would have the results of the findings of the Johannes Committee in front of them, after which they would be able to form their own opinions. Apparently they have already formed their own opinions, and rejected it. Even if there was only one person who gave evidence before the Johannes Committee and who was justifiably under the impression that that evidence was confidential and intended for the eyes of the Minister only, I will, for the sake of that one person, refrain from tabling that report.

Will the hon. the Minister tell us whether the report cannot be tabled without necessarily tabling the evidence.

It is all in one. Representations in this regard have been made. These are our considerations.

I now want to discuss the recommendations.

Your explanation is a very poor one.

I do not care whether I make a good impression on that hon. member or not.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Certainly.

Is the hon. the Minister aware that his predecessor, who was the person responsible for appointing the Johannes Committee, undertook to table the committee’s report immediately it was available? If he will consult Hansard of 17 May 1972 (col. 7343) he will be able to ascertain this for himself.

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of that. I was informed by my department that the committee was under the impression that their report was to be regarded as confidential. That was the information I was given, and I am standing by it.

Ask for an adjournment.

Instead of the 7½% which the investor is now earning, 8½% is now being proposed. The Johannes Committee was divided on this point. The majority recommended 8½% as a fair income rate, and the minority recommended 9%. Does the hon. member for Green Point want to tell me that 84% is too high?

This is too exciting; you must let us have a little peep every now and again!

Does the hon. member for Green Point want to tell me that 8½% is too high? Does the hon. member want to tell me that 8½% on a person’s capital value is too high?

On the replacement value, yes.

It is therefore too high. What about the person who does not fall under control? He has to take what he can get. Does the hon. member want to tell me that 8½% is too high while one can today, in respect of a safe investment, get 10% for financial institution?

That is constant.

Does the hon. member want to tell me that 8½% is too high, while businessmen throughout the country, under price control, are allowed a profit margin of more than 8½%? We have now received the answer from the hon. member for Green Point, that 8½% income on one’s capital is too high. We must accept that this is the general consensus among the members of his party. Does the Progressive Party agree that 8½% is too high? The figure of 8½% was not simply picked out at random. It was a considered recommendation of the Johannes Committee and was based on average interest rates over the past number of years.

The second point is in regard to intrinsic value. They say replacement value less depreciation. Does the hon. member want to tell me that it is an unreasonable concession that a person should be entitled to the intrinsic value of his property? Do hon. members opposite want to tell me that it is too much, and that too much is being conceded in that regard? I am not getting an answer.

They complained about uncontrolled flats which will also be taken into consideration now. This is another recommendation of the Johannes Committee. Intrinsic value is also a recommendation of the Johannes Committee. That uncontrolled flats should also be taken into consideration is another recommendation of the Johannes Committee with a view to giving Rent Boards and the Rent Control Board a better insight into the situation when arriving at a reasonable rent. Do hon. members opposite want to tell me that it is a faulty criterion? A moment ago I took A and B as examples where, in the determination of A’s rent income no consideration may be given to B because B’s flat was occupied a day later. Is that unreasonable? Can you see, Mr. Speaker, why hon. members opposite brushed aside this matter so lightly?

There is also the question of the non-consideration of mortgage interest. If someone had advanced the argument that this was unreasonable it would have been a little difficult to find a counter argument. I only have this one argument, and it is on the grounds of this argument that the provision was inserted in the Bill. This is also a recommendation of the Johannes Committee. All these aspects which I have mentioned, were recommendations of the Johannes Committee and comprise the far-reaching provisions in the Bill. The non-consideration of mortgage interest became necessary because the door would otherwise have been left wide open to a circumvention of the Rents Act. If I had had a quarter of a million rand with which to construct a block of flats, it would have been possible for me to lend that quarter of a million rand to a corporate body which was also under my control. That corporate body would then have constructed the block of flats and I would have said that they had to pay me 12% interest. In other words, I would have been paying myself 12% interest. To avoid this situation we decided that we would not allow it. Property owners are now complaining about this. They say that they want to receive 12% interest. I want to tell those people that they should take into consideration that owing to the fact that mortgage interest is not allowed, this 8½% has to be adjusted to mortgage interest. At the moment they want to receive 12%, next year perhaps 9%, and the year after perhaps 6%. In other words, must I cause mortgage interest to fluctuate every year? I shall have to make an adjustment in the Act. If they are not satisfied when they are receiving 12% they will not be satisfied when they are receiving 5% or 6% either. For that reason the principle is being adopted here that we shall try to determine a reasonable average percentage. That reasonable average percentage has been determined at 8½%. I said this in my Second Reading speech.

In general hon. members put questions to me in regard to the deproclamation of controlled premises, and also in regard to the proclamation of uncontrolled premises. If it were possible to lay down a precise formula which could be applied throughout, I would have written it into the Act rather than to have had this discretion which I now have to use. I would have stated that under certain circumstances a building would be regarded as having been exempted from rent control. Then the lessee would have been at liberty to go and complain and say that the building does not comply with the conditions in question. The Johannes Committee went into this; they investigated the matter, but did not arrive at a definite recommendation. The closest they could get to it, was to consider the question of luxury. The closest the committee could get to the question of luxury, was that they were unable to formulate it, and they recommended that it should be left to the discretion of the Minister. For the sake of the people who apply for deproclamation I want to indicate what I take no notice of and what makes no impression on me. Sir, it makes no impression on me if I receive a stack of photographs of wonderful interiors, beautifully furnished, and with wall-to-wall carpeting if my inspectors then report to me after an inspection that the wall-to-wall carpeting was laid by the lessee and that the beautiful furniture standing there belongs to the lessee. It makes no impression on me when I receive representations of that nature. Sir, it makes no impression on me if I am told that the people occupying the twenty flats, or whatever the number of flats in the block may be, are all rich people, for those rich people will probably have to vacate those flats one day, and if the determined rent is then within the means of a person from the lower income group, then it will be possible to make that flat available to that person. I am therefore saying, for the information of those people, that they cannot make any impression on me by telling me that the occupants of the flats are all rich people, and that they do not require the protection of the Rents Act. Sir, I consider the luxury of the flats, and linked to this is the rent determined by the rent board. Those two items inevitably go together. If I find that the rent determined by the rent board is such that the person who can afford that rent must, from the nature of the case, be a person who does not need the protection of the Rents Act, what criterion do I use then? I have a criterion which has been worked out scientifically, and that is the standards laid down by my department for people to qualify for economic housing provided by my department. Those standards are revised from time to time. If a person applies for deproclamation of a certain block of flats, and I find that there are flats in that block the rent of which for a two-roomed flat is R140 per month and less for bachelor flats, then my standpoint is that those flats are within the means, if he cannot find anything else, of a person who would qualify with my department for an economic house which is for sale or to rent. That applicant then has no chance of having his block of flats deproclaimed. Sir, there are other aspects as well which I take into consideration. If it appears that all the flats in a block, as in Durban, for example, are for all practical purposes rented as holiday flats, then I am no longer interested in that block of flats; then I shall deproclaim it. If I were to accept the argument that the tenants are all rich people as being a valid one, then it would mean that I would be encouraging flat owners to try to fill their blocks of flats with rich people and then come to me and say that they are all occupied by rich people who do not require the protection of the Rents Act. I think owners ought to understand that this is a reasonable approach. The proclamation of uncontrolled flats very seldom takes place. Quite frequently there are applications for proclamation of business premises, and that is usually where the difficulty arises. I very seldom receive applications from the lessees of flats. At the moment I cannot recall one such application. It has been the experience of my department and my own personal experience that where the possibility of exploitation exists, or where there are any indications of this, that owner irons out his difficulties with the lessee and reaches an agreement, in other words, the matter is settled; but not always, and for that reason I sometimes proclaim that building. But what has been the experience in most cases is that they reach an agreement. Then I also have the problem that in the case of proclamation exploitation has to be clearly demonstrated. In regard to proclamation my department has its inspectors who institute investigations and make reports. The chairman of the Rent Board submits his report, it comes to my department, and the experts in my department examine it and make their submission to me and on the basis of those particulars I arrive at a decision. Sir, in this regard I can mention other cases where deproclamation frequently occurs, very frequently. It is a matter of principle that in the case of buildings in regard to which it is possible to submit reasonable proof that that building is more than 100 years old and has been restored to its original form, as far as can be established by an architect and accompanied by a certificate from an architect, and that more money has been spent on that restoration than the original purchase price of that building amounted to, then I deproclaim it without any further considerations, i.e. if it is a deserving case. In the case of a building which is declared to be a historical monument by the National Monument Council, such cases are given very sympathetic consideration. I cannot grant unconditional exemption, for there may be cases where rent control is still necessary, but such cases are given very sympathetic consideration. Sir, with this I have dealt with the criticism in general, and I want to conclude this part of my survey by saying that apart from the fact that I elicited the clear standpoint from the hon. member for Green Point that 8½% is too high, I have not received any clear comment on these far-reaching measures which I have summarized one by one. I did not receive any clear comment on them, except perhaps from the hon. member for Walmer who said that 8½% was a little too low.

But I explained that.

Oh, the hon. member explained. Sir, I then want to continue and see what remains of the speech made by the hon. member for Green Point. I have dealt with the report of the committee, not to the hon. member’s satisfaction, but to my own satisfaction, for I am satisfied that I have acted correctly in this respect. He said that these measures could only lead to increased rents. I indicated that this need not necessarily be the case. He said that it could lead to increased rents because 8½% is too high. Sir, I have another question I want to ask him. If 8½% is too high, does he see his way clear to my allowing this provision on the removal of mortgage interest to remain in the legislation; does he see his way clear to my doing this if 8½% is too high? He mentioned the matter of the number of dwelling units which we will have to provide by the year 2000. He said that as many as already existed would have to be provided. Sir, my department cannot do this alone; no department or government in the world can be solely responsible for this. For that purpose there has to be initiative on the part of the private sector; for that reason one must not come forward with legislation which one has to admit in one’s own mind is Draconian legislation; that is why I am trying to act in a reasonable manner in this regard. This Rents Act and its application does in fact have a residual effect on people who are building today because they are afraid—they told me this—to invest their capital in dwelling units and blocks of flats. They are afraid that rent control will be made applicable to them. As far as I am concerned, I have no intention of extending rent control any further, except in those cases where exploitation is proved. In such cases I shall not hesitate to make rent control applicable. What I would prefer to see is that we gradually get rid of rent control. On that point I agree with the hon. member who suggested that. I would prefer to see that we do that, and to that end we should try to encourage construction projects and the provision of dwelling units in the private sector by not laying down measures which deter people. To that end the State should on its part do what may reasonably be expected of it to do. What may be expected of my department, Sir? Just this, that we should build as many dwelling units per annum as the Appropriation, which is dependent on the economic situation in the country allows. We can do nothing more, and this is being done. Those incentives which are necessary to encourage people to build their own houses are there. I have already mentioned them.

The hon. member had a long story to relate about the increase in rents, but he said that we should also ensure that those who invest money in dwelling units receive a reasonable return. Both sides must be satisfied, but how that has to be done, the hon. member did not say.

The hon. member for Green Point, as well as other hon. members, think it is impossible to determine replacement value. This relates to the question of quantity surveyors. The hon. member expressed doubts as to whether I would get this matter disposed of. According to the experience of my department sworn appraisals differ by up to 800%. The expert opinion is that the valuations of quantity surveyors can differ by up to 10%, but that the average difference should not be more than 5%. Now it is being asked: Where will all the quantity surveyors come from? But the submission of a calculation by a quantity surveyor is not compulsory. In fact, the rent board is not even compelled to consider it. How can it be compulsory? If the hon. member were to glance at the Act he would see that the rent board may take any or all of the following factors into consideration: The purchase value, municipal valuation, sworn appraisal, building society valuation, rents of controlled premises. The Rent Board has a complete discretion.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 25.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

I should like to thank you for the opportunity afforded me to bring important events to the notice of this hon. House. I refer to the riots that occurred over the weekend at the colliery near Glencoe in Natal, in which more than 30 of our Black workers lost their lives. This incident is, of course, an extremely important and serious one and I just want to mention in passing that to the best of my knowledge it is the 13th incident of this nature that has occurred so far. Up to now about 106 Bantu mine-workers have been killed in these incidents. I also want to mention that the atmosphere is extremely tense at the moment and that the possibility of further outbreaks cannot be ignored. I think that this is a matter which we need to consider with the greatest possible sense of responsibility and sense of duty.

Right at the outset I want to say that I am not going to summarily attach blame to anyone without further ado and consequently I am not going to launch an attack on the mine authorities. We know that the various mining groups in our country are diligently seeking a solution to this extremely difficult problem. We know that at the moment there is no-one in authority who knows what the primary causes of that riot were. We have a kind of situation that is extremely tense. It is like a pot that is about to boil. We know that the first bubble is going to appear, but we do not know exactly where it is going to appear. This is the major problem which we and the industries are facing. Recently, on one of the occasions when rioting was taking place, one of our senior police officers said the following, and I quote his words from one of our newspapers—

If we had known what had given rise to the situation, we could have taken precautionary measures, but this is precisely my argument, viz. that we do not know what gave rise to it. In a certain sense this situation is not a new one because, after all, we have been having riots of this nature for years. However, there is a new dimension in the sense that there is a fury, a cruelty and a passion that has never been known before and that causes us concern.

Are you sure of that?

It seems to me as if we have hon. members in this House who really do not know what is at stake, but let us pass over that for the moment. What is very clear, is that what we have here is a situation that must be nipped in the bud without delay. If we do not do so, we shall regret it, because the repercussions, the consequences of an incident of this kind go far beyond the immediate effect of the recent incident.

I just want to refer to certain consequences. In the first place, there is the loss of life which is tragic. In this instance more than 30 people lost their lives. In a country such as ours, this must necessarily bedevil race relations. An incident such as the one to which I am referring must, of course, immediately affect production at this mine. We know that the Xhosas are already saying that they want to return home and we know, too, that the Basutos involved in the incident wanted to go home. What is going to happen at this mine? Production will more or less have to come to a standstill. We know that on a previous occasion we were told that production had not really dropped, but it is easy to explain this. All the mine authorities did in these circumstances was to take workers from the refining section and transfer them to the ore production section. However this is a temporary measure and something that can only be done over a short period. If one were to try to do this over a long period, one would have to pay heavily for it. Situations of this kind give rise to a lack of confidence in our industry. It impairs the confidence of our investors. This is already being reflected in the share market, which is much lower than it should be today. It places a damper on the inflow of risk capital. What is more, in a country like South Africa, it damages our image in the eyes of people overseas. Particularly here, where a great deal is being made of detente, something we all support, it is clear that it is events of precisely this nature that can be exploited by the outside world and can hamper our efforts to make that contact with African countries. I think of nothing more likely to hamper these efforts.

I know that according to the rules of the House I am not allowed to refer to previous debates. Consequently I shall not be allowed to do so on this occasion either, but I should just like to tell the hon. the Minister that we greatly appreciate the fact that after these events, he announced that he had ordered an investigation that would be undertaken by an inter-departmental committee. On a former occasion he did not want to hear about anything of the kind and said that it was unnecessary and that the Chamber of Mines also regarded it as unnecessary because, according to them, it would not be in South Africa’s interests. Clearly the hon. the Minister has learned fast and we are pleased that he has ordered this investigation.

I also just want to say that an inter-departmental committee such as the one that has been appointed by the hon. the Minister, can in fact make a contribution. We do not dispute that. To begin with, such a committee would probably be able to tell us why the Police took so long to act in this particular instance. Our information is that they had to wait for reinforcements and that consequently it took some time before they were in a position to act. However there is a great deal more to this matter than that. In my opinion, an inter-departmental committee of this kind would be restricted, because in the nature of the matter they are part of the system and, politically speaking, compromised. What is more, we are dealing here with human emotions; we want to know why these people acted in this way; we want an analysis in depth of the psychological factors that gave rise to it, of the motivation for it and of the inter-group relationships. I have the greatest respect for Government officials, but with the best will in the world they simply do not possess those special abilities. We must have people with a sound knowledge of this situation, and they must not all be Whites. We are dealing with non-Whites here, and consequently we must also appoint Black people to assist in this investigation. If we do it in this way, then we shall be able to achieve something; otherwise we shall merely deal with the symptoms and not the underlying causes of this ailment and it would be extremely dangerous to adopt that approach.

There is yet another important factor that will have to be gone into. It is clear that these riots do not just develop spontaneously. It would appear that there is a pattern. Beyond our borders it is obvious that South Africa is extremely vulnerable and that labour unrest in our industries could paralyse us. I am not one of those who sees a communist behind every bush, but it has come to my knowledge that a year or two ago, the communists circulated a document overseas in which it was clearly indicated that the Government’s policy of ethnic grouping made South Africa extremely vulnerable and that this was something that they could in fact exploit. I know no-one of any authority or any insight in this country who will confirm at this stage that interference from abroad has not been a precipitating factor. We of the United Party have been saying year after year that we are opposed to ethnic grouping. On every occasion we have indicated … [Interjections.]

Order! The time for this debate is very limited and hon. members must therefore confine themselves to making a minimum of interjections.

On innumerable occasions we indicated that it was these ethnic differences that had to be bridged in our industry. No one can dispute that it is the very aim of Government policy to bring these ethnic differences to the fore. It is the very aim of Government policy to stimulate group identity artificially. In these circumstances and with this emphasis on group identity, it happens that when someone stabs someone else in the back in a dark alley, rumours start flying and the next minute one is faced with war. That is precisely what has happened here. I want to contend that an opportunity existed here for a few professional instigators—the Government is always talking about instigators and agitators—to come from outside and cause South Africa maximum embarrassment at virtually no cost.

There is a final factor to which I want to refer. It seems to me as if the Government’s machinery to deal with situations of this kind does not measure up to the requirements either. There are too many different Ministries involved and it seems to me that there are too many fingers in the pie, as the English say, but that at the same time that there are too many gaps, hiatuses that cannot be bridged. We know that the Ministry of Labour is involved in situations of this kind. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of Labour is not with us, because the hon. the Minister of Labour is inclined to regard himself as the Minister in charge of White workers and in the nature of the matter, he neglects the other elements of our labour force. At the same time, the hon. the Minister feels that he is limited to those aspects of labour relating to the Industrial Conciliation Act. In the second place we have the Ministry of Mines which is involved here, but which appears to feel that its work is limited to the Mines and Works Act. In the third place we have the Ministry of Bantu Administration and Development which is also involved as far as outside groups and particularly migrant labourers are concerned. Consequently it seems to me that this machinery must be completely overhauled and that the hon. the Prime Minister must revise it. I want to suggest by way of a motion that he place the Minister of Labour in control of all these matters.

I shall conclude with the following: It appears to me that all the machinery having a bearing on these matters must be revised. It seems to me that there will have to be an exhaustive analysis in depth capable of indicating to us precisely what the causes are that have given rise to these events. In the final instance, as I said on a previous occasion, it appears to me that a labour secretariat for Southern Africa will have to be established in which all the various bodies and even overseas governments may be involved, because if we do that, there is a possibility that we could retrieve something from the situation. If we do not do this, we shall be heading for major difficulties.

Mr. Speaker, anyone who wants to deal with this problem and who understands something of the gravity of its importance must weigh every single word for two reasons alone. In the first instance once again we have been the witnesses of a horrifying spectacle of people taking each other’s lives, destroying property and destroying virtually themselves. Secondly, no one can ever exaggerate the importance of the mining industry to South Africa as a whole in general and in particular to its economy. It may well be argued that faction fights take place regularly in South Africa. It may well be argued that there has been a great deal of violence over decades in the history of the mining industry and that of course is true. However, no one can dispute the fact that we have seen here an escalation of violence, of death, of injury and of destruction which should surely strike fear into the hearts of everyone of us. The heavy dependence on foreign labour by our mining industry has resulted, I believe, in our mines becoming virtual battlefields over which it really has little or no control. I believe that the call for an inquiry which goes beyond an interdepartmental inquiry is a valid one, is a very necessary one, in fact, is an overdue one. Whilst one appreciates the fact that the hon. the Minister of Mines has indicated that he has called for this interdepartmental inquiry, we believe that this simply does not go far enough and does not meet the situation. This does not mean that this is a vote of no confidence in the mining industry itself, nor does it mean that it is a vote of no confidence in the Government departments themselves. However, it does mean that the situation is so complex, so fraught with potential violence and destruction, that it simply must be brought to a halt once and for all. Because the situation is so difficult and complex it means that we have to get the finest and best people possible in this land to investigate it. As the hon. member for Hillbrow has indicated, we must get a cross-section of people who will not be merely on management side or Government side or worker side, but will be representative of all these groups who are involved. Anyone can see that the implications of what is taking place on our mines today stretch far beyond the individual mine, reach out far beyond our land, go not only into our homelands, but beyond and into neighbouring territories, creating what could be a very serious international situation. We need a group of people who can look at this with fresh eyes and who will look at every single aspect of this. It is true that individual mines have over the last few years taken a fairly exhaustive look at some of the reasons for violence which is taking place on those mines. It is also true that the Chamber of Mines has done its part, but the stark, sombre truth is that we do not really know today, tonight, the real root causes of the problem. We speculate, we guess and discuss, but we do not really know. Because we do not know the causes, we do not know how to prevent further outbreaks of violence and death. We need the best possible group of people to do this as a matter of absolute urgency. Violence and death in our mining industry must be stopped and must be stopped now.

Mr. Speaker, in the very limited time available to me I want to endorse most strongly the arguments raised by the members for Hillbrow and Pinelands. We find it appalling that a situation fraught with so much danger and with such grave implications for the country should be treated with such apparent complacency and with such apparent disregard for the real dangers which lurk behind the events that have taken place. It is a fact of life in South Africa that we live in a precarious situation. We seek detente and a relaxed relationship with the rest of Africa. We seek a situation in which we may look forward to an era of peace. Here we have been given clear evidence of a lurking danger, a potential which can disturb our industrial, economic and social relations within this country as well as our external relations beyond it. It is a matter of the utmost importance and significance to us all.

It is very easy to advance theories as to what is happening. It is our belief—it may be true or it may not be true—that the accentuation of ethnic differences in this country to a point that borders on total exaggeration may in fact be the cause of the kind of frictions that arise wherever people of various races are brought together in a single industrial situation. Surely this is a logical conclusion. Nevertheless, I would admit that one may well be wrong. Hon. members on that side of the House advance the other theory that where friction is likely to rise between people of different ethnic origins, it is best to keep them apart. However, the facts of life in South Africa are going to bring our various peoples together in ever-increasing numbers in ever-increasing industrial situations. One way or another we shall have to find a solution in our increasing industrial society to this problem of differences which are accentuated on the one hand and minimized on the other. We have to look hard at this thing and we do not believe that the hon. the Minister’s reaction in appointing an interdepartmental committee is the answer. [Time expired.]

Mr. Speaker, this matter we are discussing this evening is an extremely grave one and I welcome the opportunity of discussing it in a snap debate. We must be very clear on one thing and that is that this side of the House regards the situation that has developed at Northfield in a very serious light. Nor must there be the slightest doubt about the fact that we are deeply shocked and deeply disappointed about what has happened there. We are all the more shocked and disappointed in view of the real, earnest and assiduous efforts that have been made for months by all interested bodies involved, with the aim of preventing occurrences of this nature. Many sacrifices have been made to prevent this kind of thing. For example, the salaries and wages of Bantu at the mines were increased by more than 100%. A great many other things have also been done, but in spite of all this we had these unfortunate events at Northfield a few days ago.

Although we welcome this discussion, you, Mr. Speaker, will allow me to say that this is most decidedly not a matter to be exploited for political gain and that it is most decidedly not necessary to exploit the matter across the floor of this House and over the dead bodies of people—people of our country, South Africa, whose death grieves us deeply—for political gain, and to link the matter to petty political gain. [Interjection.] It is unnecessary and I do not think it behoves the hon. the Opposition and the hon. member for Hillbrow to do this in this way. However I want to let that suffice, because we are dealing here with a serious matter and we do not want to approach the matter in that way. Because we are in earnest about this, when these most recent events occurred we went to see what had happened and held consultation as to the best plan of action. It would definitely not be best to appoint a commission to investigate the overall labour situation in South Africa with special reference to the labour requirements of the mining industry. For how long would such a commission sit? It would take months, if we were lucky, and possibly even years.

Labour has nothing to do with it.

After all, there is hardly any direct relationship between labour and what we are discussing. When we were investigating this matter with a view to finding out what was happening and preventing any repetition of it, we quite honestly found that we had to nominate a body that was fully representative, a body that would be able to act fast and could provide us with an effective answer to what we wanted to know as soon as possible. Hon. members will all agree, and the whole country will agree, that we are unable to find out the true cause of these events. The hon. member quoted what the officer of the CID said. Because we view the matter in such a serious light we immediately took the step of appointing an interdepartmental committee to ascertain the basic causes of the riots at the mines and to recommend preventative steps. It gives me great pleasure to say that that committee was nominated immediately. It will be under the chairmanship of the senior magistrate of Durban, of the Department of Justice, Mr. L. L. A. McKay. The members of the committee will be Mr. N. Orsmond, the senior deputy government Mining Engineer of the Department of Mines; Mr. Phil Gray, the Deputy Secretary of Bantu Labour from the Department of Bantu Administration and Development; Mr. E. Venter of the Inspectorate Department, Johannesburg, from the Department of Labour; a senior man with legal knowledge from the Department of Foreign Affairs whose name we shall announce tomorrow; and Maj.-Gen. C. P. Pretorius, Divisional Commissioner, Natal division, from the South African Police. The secretary of this committee will be Mr. W. P. Duncan, the Under-Secretary of the Department of Mines. The committee’s short and concise commission is to investigate the causes of the riots and to recommend measures to prevent further riots and it is our request that if at all possible, the committee should bring out a report in regard to this matter within two months at the latest.

If we look at this whole matter, we shall see what occurred at Northfield—which is what this debate is about. I immediately asked for a report and received the following report (translation)—

Order! Is the hon. the Minister prepared to reply to a question?

It is just that my time is very limited, Sir.

Will that report be tabled?

This committee will have the fullest right to acquire information from other bodies and to operate on as broad and general a basis as possible in order to determine the causes as quickly as possible. After that report has been submitted we, the Cabinet, will peruse it and decide whether or not it will be in the interests of the country to table it. [Interjections.] We need not dispute the matter, because there are very delicate matters at stake here and it is quite possible that it will really be contrary to the country’s interest to table that report. However, I shall undertake to give it to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition for perusal in any event whatever may be stated in it, so that he himself can have a look at it. [Interjections.] I have received the following report (translation)—

Those are the facts at our disposal and at this juncture I might just inform hon. members that the Security Police immediately ordered an investigation into the whole matter. General Mining, to whom this mine belongs, have already appointed a commission within the group to investigate the riots and to gather information in view of the committee announced by the Minister of Mines. The spokesman of General Mining states that his group is already in possession of considerable information with regard to the basic causes of the riots and is preparing good information for the committee. I can therefore give the House the absolute assurance that everything conceivable is being done to prevent a repetition of the riots. We have the co-operation of all the bodies concerned, of the Chamber of Mines, of General Mining and of everyone who is involved in this matter.

I want to tell the House that as far as the Northfield mine is concerned, everything is under control at the moment. According to the report received this evening just before this debate opened, it appears that peace has been restored at Western Deep Levels and that the position is under control. At Hlobane in Natal the position is still fluid at the moment, but all conceivable precautionary measures are being taken to prevent a repetition.

I want to make use of this occasion to express my sincere thanks and appreciation to the South African Police for the extremely responsible and able way in which they acted under very difficult circumstances.