Mr. Chairman, there are two or three matters I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister this afternoon, the first of which concerns the architectural, engineering and quantity surveying sections of the department. I know that it is departmental policy to farm out a certain percentage of the work that is required—architectural design, surveying and that sort of thing—and for a certain amount to be done by the department itself. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is in fact economical for the department to do as much work as it is doing at the moment in these sections or whether more use should be made of professional people in private practice. This is obviously a fairly difficult assessment for the hon. Minister to make because not only has he to take into consideration the salaries of the employees concerned, but also office expenses, subsistence allowances, motor transport allowances, and that sort of thing. I should like an assurance from the hon. the Minister that he is certain in his own mind that he is doing the economic thing. I am not suggesting for one moment that if this were not so we should get rid of half of our quantity surveyors or architects or engineers and immediately put them out to private practice. However, I certainly think it is very important for us to assess the position from time to time in order to ensure that what we are doing is the most economical way of doing it. I myself tend to believe that maintaining an establishment, especially at a time when the department is not as busy as it sometimes is—I refer to the period of financial stringency that we are experiencing at the moment—is always an expensive thing to do. When one finds oneself in such a situation it may be better not to have that responsibility and only at time when the workload demands it to employ more people from outside. If this practice is followed it might mean that the department could be run a little more economically. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister is in the position of being able to tell us how the relative costs of these sections compare with the financial aspects of giving work out to private consultants, but I think it is important that attention should be given to this matter.

The second point I want to raise stems from a phrase in the department’s annual report. This phrase occurs on page 11 and it deals with hirings. The first sentence under that paragraph states—

The phrase that I want to deal with is: “Owing to the increase in the requirements of Government departments.” I find it very difficult indeed to understand why, at a time when Government spending is supposed to be cut back, Government departments have increased their requirements. I find this most difficult to understand. When the Government is supposed to be setting an example at a time of financial stringency and cutting back, we find that Government departments are requiring more accommodation. I realized that this is not necessarily the responsibility of this department. It is the Government departments concerned that require this additional accommodation. I am unaware of whether or not the hon. the Minister is able to exercise restraint on such departments at a time when we should be cutting back. This is really a manifestation of what is frequently called creeping bureaucracy—we are building empires all the time as far as the public service is concerned. I think it is vitally important that in a department such as this a very critical eye indeed should be kept on the Government spending that is reflected in the accounts of this department. One would assume if one is cutting back on Government spending that there would be no necessity for an increase in the requirements of Government departments as far as space is concerned. One can understand all other inflationary items such as increases in rental and fuel and electricity costs and also building costs because the prices of building materials have increased. However, when it comes to Government departments needing more space to operate it is a very clear indication indeed that the Government is not exercising the necessary restraint when it comes to financial control.

Finally, I want to refer to an item that does not involve a large amount of money. It appears in Main Division E of the Estimate of Expenditure and is the last item under “Miscellaneous Expenses” on page 35—5 of the estimate before us. This item deals with the removal of squatters. Once again I hasten to assure the hon. the Minister that I realize that the decision to remove squatters is not necessarily the responsibility of his department. The fact of the matter is, however, that it is this department that has to undertake such removals. We know that squatters have been removed by the department in the past. I have gone back through the estimates but nowhere have I been able to find any previous amount reflected, so presumably in the past this has been financed out of savings on other heads. This, of course, is legitimate. Sir, we are not prepared to accept the principle that squatters have to be removed because bitter experience has proved that the Government has carried out the removal of squatters without any regard for the consequences of their actions.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote under discussion. He must not discuss the principle involved in the removal of squatters. If he confines himself to the participation of this department in the removal of squatters he will be in order, but he will not be in order if he discusses the principle involved in this matter.

Mr. Chairman, with respect, may I address you on this? There is an item appearing under this Vote in respect of which we are being asked to approve expenditure amounting to R5 000. I am simply motivating my reasons for moving that this amount be deleted from the estimate. It will be impossible for me to do so unless I can refer to certain basic principles. I should therefore be most grateful if you could modify your ruling to allow me a little latitude to explain very briefly why it is imperative for me to move that this amount be deleted.

The hon. member may proceed but I must warn him that I shall listen very carefully to what he has to say.

I respect your ruling, Sir. My criticism of the department in this regard is that I feel that this work has not always been carried out in the correct manner. We have seen pictures of front-end loaders bulldozing down shacks. Inevitably, all this sort of thing is cruel as far as these unhappy individuals are concerned because these poor unfortunates have no other place to go and the Government makes no suggestions as to what they should do.

May I ask the hon. member a question?

Mr. Chairman, I am very restricted in regard to time but if the hon. member will make his point a little later I shall endeavour to answer his question. At this stage, Sir, I wish to move—

I believe that it is wrong for us to accept the principle of the removal of squatters because from experience we have seen how this has been done in the past. I am not saying that there will never be a case for the removal of squatters because there may certainly well be instances where it will be necessary to remove squatters. One cannot under any Government allow squatting to take place absolutely indiscriminately. We have seen manifestations of this in Britain, for example, and highly unpleasant they were. We are making the specific point that we cannot go along with the removal of squatters by this department because we know from experience how this is carried out and we believe that in the present social circumstances it should not be carried out. That is why we are taking this very strong line of moving that this amount be deleted.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to say something about the Roeland Street Prison building, which falls under this department.

†In 1947 Lawrence Green wrote—

I think he was very wrong when he wrote that in “The Tavern of the Seas” about a building that was a monument to prison reform during the middle of the 19th century. At that time there was revulsion and resistance to prevailing prison conditions and at the time there was a very active debate in The Cape Argus of the period against conditions in the old waterfront prison. Public executions at Gallows Hill were becoming abhorrent to the public and in 1839 Jardine wrote an article in the Cape Literary Gazette entitled “Reflections on witnessing a late execution of two brothers”. He said—

If we read Dr. James Barry’s diaries of the period we see how horrified she was by prison conditions which she also found in the old “Tronk” on the waterfront, a gaol which, at the time, ranked with Dartmoor and Devil’s Island. I quote the following from her diary—

*After the arrival of Jan van Riebeeck lawbreakers were detained in the Castle, but as the settlement at the Cape expanded, it became necessary to build a bigger institution. In 1781 the large Justice Street prison was completed. In 1880 the Colonial Secretary tried to sell it as a result of the unhygienic conditions prevailing there, but he could find no purchasers. The British authorities then reconstructed the building. In 1849 the first plans were drawn up for what is now known as the Roeland Street Prison. It was built on the model of the Pentonville Prison in England, but building was stopped almost immediately after it was started, because it appeared that it would be too small to provide the necessary labour for the building of the new wharf and breakwater. The old Breakwater Prison was then built and demolished again in 1923.

†In 1856 the design of the Roeland Street Gaol was completed and it was erected between 1856 and 1858 under the administration of Sir George Grey as part of the general rebuilding of prisons throughout what was then the Cape Colony. These were prisons that they had inherited from the Dutch after the British occupation in 1806. The original plans were signed by the Colonial Civil Engineer of the time, Mr. George Pilkington (1848 to 1859). The plan was faithfully followed but for the omission of a central tower. In 1888 the west site was developed and the “New Look Hospital” was built. It was built by H. Greaves, the Colonial Architect, best known for building the House of Assembly where we are today.

The Roeland Street Prison was always intended to be an important and imposing building and £16 400, an astronomical sum, in those days, was budgeted for its erection. At the time Sir George Grey wrote in a letter that it would be wrong to—

The main façade was probably built by W. Kohler who also did the façade of the South African Library; in fact, he designed the South African Library itself. We presume this to be so because of the resemblance between the two and because we know that Kohler worked in the Colonial Engineer’s office in the 1850s. Hymen W. Pickard, in his book Grand Parade, puts Roeland Street in the prevailing perspective when he says—

It is interesting to note but for a few tragic losses how complete that list still is today. The first execution at Roeland Street was held in 1923, and the last in 1932. That was the last time that a crowd gathered in Roeland Street to hear the bell toll and to see the black flag run up on the battlements of the old gaol. The last public hangman was one James King, a sailor, who threatened to resign in 1889 because the prisoners kicked his shins to pieces, and it was therefore decreed that in future all prisoners would be hanged in their stockinged feet.

Mr. Chairman, I mentioned these things because Roeland Street is more than a building; it has become the repository of many memories, not only of the Cape but of South Africa. One thinks of the memorable occasion on 26 October 1855 when Edward Horace Montefiore arrived in Cape Town and for 20 days held everybody spellbound. He became the toast of Cape Town; there were banquets and dances and many benefactions followed the visit of this so-called banker from overseas. The ladies were enthralled and the jockeys rode in the Montefiore stakes on the old Common. Within 20 days the friend of 20 years had been arrested for embezzlement and he became one of the first reluctant famous guests at the old, but at that time still incomplete, Roeland Street Gaol.

I understand Gen. Manie Maritz was a prisoner there. There were also the wrongdoers. We recall the third White woman to be hanged for murder, Maria Lee. Wicked though she undoubtedly was, she walked through the cells to her execution, while the prisoners sang “Abide with Me”. She stood on the trapdoor of the old Roeland Street gallows and sang softly “Rus my siel, u God is Koning”. Within a few seconds she had passed on. More recently we had the Lehnberg scissors murder, and she too was held there.

Let us look at the present position: This building which marks the entrance to old Cape Town is now threatened with demolition. The very reform which gave it form, a prison without chains, without footblocks, without treadmills, has overtaken it. The prison that once ranked with Alcatraz for safety has been unable to contain effectively and humanely the prisoners of today. I believe it would be a tragedy to break it down. We cannot afford to remove all the important milestones of the past, lest we lose our way into the future.

Hear, hear!

We must at least attempt to save the façade. This is a compromise which I believe is eminently reasonable and possible, and I make this impassioned plea to the hon. the Minister. I do so, Mr. Chairman, in the knowledge and with the confidence that in the hon. the Minister we have a man of great sensitivity, a man who understands these things, a man who is a respected of valid tradition, as his record shows.

*Mr. Chairman, Roeland Street does not only belong to Cape Town; it has crept into our language, with words like “hardepad”, which according to Die Burger of 3 April 1971, had its origin there. We still hear the “ghommaliedjies” and the “moppies” echoing from the façade of the old Roeland Street. I think of the following—

Mr. Chairman, allow me to say, with the refrain of that “moppie”: “Laat staan sikke dinge, laat staan!”

Mr. Chairman, I shall appreciate it if the hon. member for Orange Grove will pardon me if I only reply to him later on. The very enthusiastic member for Maitland—I almost said for Roeland Street—made so many strong representations to me on this matter before the commencement of the debate, and he has now delivered such a fine speech, that I want to react to his speech immediately by way of the following statement—

1. (1) For a long time now the archive building in Cape Town has not been able to meet requirements and, as long ago as 1970 the Cabinet accepted a recommendation that a new building be constructed in the central city area or as close to it as possible.
2. (2) The use of the existing archive premises was once again considered but this was rejected because it would be virtually impossible and also unacceptable, from an aesthetic point of view, to try to modify the existing building.
3. (3) During June 1973, the Cabinet decided that an interdepartmental committee consisting of the Secretary for Public Works, the Secretary for National Education, the Secretary for Transport and the Secretary for Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure should go into the siting aspect of various projects under consideration in Cape Town, including premises for a new archive building.
4. (4) It became known in the interim that the Roeland Street Prison would be vacated during 1977 and, because both the Director of Archives and the Archives Commission had already, on a previous occasion, accepted the prison site as being suitable for a new archive building, the interdepartmental committee recommended accordingly to the Cabinet and the latter’s approval thereto was obtained in October 1973.
5. (5) As usual, my Department of Public Works consulted the National Monuments Council regarding the demolition of the existing structure on the site and the latter body indicated in February 1974 that the building was regarded as being of particular historical importance and that the façade had considerable historic value but that, taking everything into account, the council had decided not to raise any objection to the proposed demolition.
6. (6) In 1975 the Department of Public Works started with the planning of the new archive building after an extended visit to North America and various European countries to study examples of archive repositories. The sketch plans were completed last year.
7. (7) The intention was to retain the stone boundary wall at the back together with some of the retaining walls and terraces in front and to incorporate certain particular building elements suitably in the project but to demolish all the remaining structures on the site.
8. (8) In consequence of representations that were received from various quarters, particularly from the hon. member for Maitland, for the retention of certain prominent characteristics of the old prison building, I decided that if the retention of the façade in particular could serve the interests of Cape Town and if it was found practicable to incorporate it in the new project, I would not stand in the way of the happiness and pride of Cape Town.
9. (9) It is therefore a pleasure for me to announce that my department has in fact found a method whereby the façade of the old prison building as well as certain boundary walls will be left intact in a modified plan of the project.
10. (10) The new planning makes provision for the retention of the entire façade with walls and gardens fronting on Roeland Street, the retention of the entire boundary wall on the south-east side and part of the existing boundary wall on the north-west side. The present entrance hall will form the entrance to the new building, while the parking area for visitors will be on the north-west or city side. The existing large stone wall and the façade facing Roeland Street will be utilized for an extensive garden lay-out in which the new archive repository will be situated and connected with the new building by a pergola. An indoor garden will also be laid out behind the façade and this will create a particularly restful atmosphere for the archives.
11. (11) Owing to the nature of the existing structures it will not be possible to retain other portions of the old prison and both the Director of Archives and the Department of National Education agree with this view. With the exception of the façade and the walls, everything will therefore have to be demolished. I trust that this new approach will bring great joy to Cape Town and that my department will now be able to proceed apace in providing a need that has been felt for so many years.

That is the end of the statement.

I hope and trust that hon. members of this Committee will realize once again that although my department has sometimes to put up with criticism in regard to the restoration and preservation of old buildings, we are sympathetic when a case is made out to preserve our heritage as far as possible. If other hon. members want to speak on this aspect or on the restoration of other old buildings, I can reply thereto at a later stage.

Mr. Chairman, I feel as little as though I have been thrown in at the deep end this afternoon, but would like to apologize for the fact that the chairman of our group on Public Works is not able to be here today, that is, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. I apologize on his behalf. I wish at the outset to say how refreshing it is for us to hear the words the hon. the Minister has just spoken in respect of the Roeland Street complex. We are very pleased to hear this from him. I am fully aware—I know that he will make further announcements later in the day and it is certainly not for me to pre-empt him in this— that his department is more than conscious of the fact that some of our older buildings, our architectural heritage, must be preserved, and this is becoming increasingly more important as the years go by. We are a young country and we can ill-afford to see some of these very beautiful buildings knocked down indiscriminately just for the sake of our establishing concrete jungles that reach for the sky, as we find on the island of Manhattan in New York.

The hon. member for Maitland made his usual refreshing speech here this afternoon. I thought at one stage that he was making application for membership of the Roeland Street Club, but from his interesting remarks regarding people being hanged in their socks, it seemed to me a little like Custer’s last stand—he was ready to die with his boots on!

I wish to turn immediately to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Orange Grove and say to him that I am sorry that we on these benches cannot support him in this respect because I do not believe that he has motivated his argument sufficiently to warrant support. In his motivation he himself accepted the fact, and said as much, that there is need for squatters to be removed. He said there are many occasions in this world when squatting has to be eliminated; in other words, one has to remove squatters. And that is what this is all about. Look what is happening in New Zealand at the moment. We read about removal of squatters taking place there last week. We cannot support his amendment because all too often there are times that squatters of all colours, shapes, creed and religions have to be removed.

The operative word I believe, Mr. Chairman, is “removed”. I think this is important. They must, if possible, be taken from the place where they are and removed to another locality. How can we prejudge the circumstances in respect of Bellville-South? How can we stand here and prejudge and say: “They are going to move in with bulldozers or front-end loaders or what have you …”

From long and bitter experience.

Long and bitter experience! I want to say to the hon. member for Orange Grove that this is one of his problems. He lives with bitterness. We on these benches hope that it is the experience of what has happened in the past that will ensure that the Government will not make the same mistakes again. This is what we hope for. We like to think that there will be an improvement in the manner in which these people are removed. And, Sir, we cannot see that we can condemn an item of expenditure under this Vote, when the previous removals were done, if I understand the position correctly, under the Vote of the Department of Community Development. Who is responsible? What department is responsible? I recollect that we asked in the House to whom the front-end loaders belonged, and we believe they belonged to the Department of Community Development. Here we are assuming that the hon. the Minister of Public Works is going to do the same thing in Bellville-South. I repeat, I think it is wrong for us to prejudge, and I think we would possibly be doing our country and, in fact, those squatters a disservice, because how do we know the hon. the Minister does not have alternative accommodation for them? Let us hear from the hon. the Minister.

Ask him.

I am asking him, that is exactly what I am doing. And, Sir, we do ask one thing of this hon. Minister. We ask: Please, if people are to be removed at any time by his department, let it be done in a fair, proper and just manner. Please let them be given plenty of notice.

Send a Rolls-Royce.

That is a ridiculous interjection. Let them be given plenty of notice; let the public know well in advance, before we get newspaper sensationalism that blows the thing up out of all proportion, and, in heaven’s name, let us not have these removals done during the winter months in the Cape when it is cold and wet. But, Sir, further than that we cannot support the amendment as it is worded and as it has been motivated. Motivate it a little better and give a sounder background to it, and we might be able to give the amendment somewhat more support.

In what may possibly be termed more lighter vein, I think that in this country of ours we have some very beautiful government buildings. I think that some of the architecture of some of our State edifices, if we can call them that, is quite outstanding. I also think the Public Works Department does an outstanding job of work. There is, however, a tragedy that takes place when the PWD hands over the keys. Once they do this, and the department, whichever one it may be, moves in, we see a pattern emerge in the buildings that are occupied by various State departments. We see the pattern emerge of the little brown-paper notice that is attached to a door reading “Entrance Room 271”, or another one which tells you that Mr. De Jager occupies this office and not Mr. Smith. One gets, what I consider to be bad housekeeping starting to emerge in the various buildings. It may be argued that this is the responsibility of the department concerned. Be that as it may, the maintenance of the building is the responsibility of the Public Works Department, and it is this department that is asked year after year to come along and paint the building.

I do believe that this department must obviously have an inspectorate that goes around and looks at these buildings, and I think that this inspectorate should be asked to report on the housekeeping standards of our public buildings. I do not want to mention specific instances; I do not want to talk about Durban station or about this or that department. Let us take this generally, and I think everyone here this afternoon will agree with what I am saying. More often than not one finds in public buildings a strange conglomerate of signs and nameplates and all sorts of other things on doors, and generally this can look very shabby. I think that this is something that should be looked at very closely because it does not give a good impression and there is no need for it.

Finally, I would like to appeal for priority to be given to police accommodation and police stations. In the times in which we live, I believe—I know that from the memorandum by the Minister of Public Works we can see that there is a tremendous amount of money being spent on police stations and on police accommodation—that we must think in terms of more urgent priorities for the police generally. Sir, we are growing, our dormitory suburbs are growing, and the need for the police station and the policeman on the beat is becoming more and more apparent. The only way in which we can provide this service, is to ensure that the policeman is housed and that the police station is in the locality or area where it is needed. This, I think, presents a major problem in South Africa today.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who preceded me probably raised a deserving cause. As regards his remarks in connection with police housing and police offices as such, they demonstrated to me once again this afternoon that there is a measure of misapprehension about the function of this department. I want to point out that the Department of Public Works is merely the agency department that has to execute certain works for other departments. In other words, in regard to the determination of priorities in respect of police offices, etc.— however sympathetic the hon. the Minister might be in this regard—the Minister can do absolutely nothing about the matter, because the police themselves determine their own priorities. However, I want to leave this matter at that. Quite frankly, I did not intend participating in this debate, because I imagined that this was a place of great restfulness; but this afternoon we had the ridiculous situation that the hon. member for Orange Grove moved an amendment for the omission of a recommended amount of R5 000 to be utilized for the removal of squatters.

Mr. Chairman, if this matter has to be discussed, we are prepared to grant an interview to the hon. member. The difference would be that we should not use such scathing language as the hon. member has used. Sir, to demonstrate to this hon. member how objectionable he is in his attempt to make out what an effective Opposition the PFP is I want to say—I know you will permit me to do so—that we have already had the situation this year where we approved of the Vote of the Department of Community Development. We approved of that Vote without any amendment having been moved by the Official Opposition. If we consider the budget, we notice in the programme description of the Department of Community Development that one of its functions is that of occupational control. I do not want to quote what occupational control is, because I do not want to prolong your ruling unduly, Mr. Chairman. However, the closing sentence reads—

This is one of the basic functions of the Department of Community Development. Consequently, proper provision is being made for that in the 1978-’79 financial year—not for an amount of R5 000 the hon. member is arguing about, but for an amount of R211 430. The hon. member might now say that the principle is not determined by this amount. I would concede that. However, the fact remains that a Vote of a department, the major function of which is the resettlement or removal of squatters, has already been disposed of. During the course of that debate the Official Opposition did not find it necessary to move an amendment that an amount of R211 000 should be eliminated from the budget. What happened this afternoon was that in a debate on a neutral department, the hon. member moved an amendment in an attempt to salvage the tattered image the Official Opposition has been projecting in recent times.

If he is in earnest about this matter and wants to object to the removal of squatters during the debate on this Vote, he is trying to assail the whole principle of the removal of squatters. Why, for argument’s sake, does the hon. member not also, during the debate on this Vote, express an adverse opinion on the military effort of South Africa if he is opposed to that? After all, provision is being made in this budget for financial assistance to the Municipality of Simonstown, to an amount of R325 000, which will be utilized for military installations. In other words, if he were opposed to South Africa’s defence efforts, he would have a perfect right in the debate on this Vote to request that the relevant item be deleted. Surely things are simply not done that way. The fact is that this department is the “guardian” department for others in regard to land tenure. Where there has been unlawful squatting on the land of the Department of Coloured Affairs it was the function of this department in the first place to remove those illegal squatters at the request of that department. If the hon. member wants to be consistent and wants to tell me this afternoon that it is the policy of the Official Opposition that squatters should not be removed, he must say so. Then he must not move an amendment and advance the sanctimonious argument that they should only be removed in particular circumstances. However, he says with great bitterness that he objects to the way in which they are removed. The “bulldozer” idea is a fine one in the mind of that hon. member.

What is the alternative? Evidently he expects that because it is the Department of Public Works, they must go there with claw hammers and dismantle those squatter shanties one nail at a time and then remove them.

Alternative arrangements must be made.

It is not the function of this hon. Minister to make alternative arrangements for illegal squatters. The hon. member and his party act throughout all debates as the champions of people in unlawful occupation, and then expect that they should be resettled. Mr. Chairman, you will not allow me to point out the downright stupidity of this hon. member to him. We can treat this amendment with the contempt it deserves, because it is really not worth the paper on which it is written, for the hon. member omitted to come forward with an amendment during the debate on the relevant Vote. If he has such a sacred principle about the resettlement of squatters, he must not wake up towards the end of the session and come forward with an amendment to a Vote of a department where something like that is entirely irrelevant.

Mr. Chairman, I think I must react immediately to the remarks made by the hon. member for Tygervallei. He is trying to run away from the responsibility of his party’s Government. There is no way at all—I want this clearly understood and I wish to put it on record—that our party will vote money for the removal of squatters when we have before us the example of how this has been done in the past by this department. I would like here to correct the hon. member for Umhlanga who seems to be totally unaware of whose responsibility it is when the removal of squatters takes place. Perhaps he is not the chairman of his group in his party.

Can you tell me? Who is responsible?

It is quite obvious that the responsibility lies with the Department of Public Works or I would not be raising it here. The removal of squatters is carried out by the Department of Public Works.

Why did you not raise it under Community Development?

As the hon. member knows we have discussed and debated the whole squatter problem.

Why did you not move an amendment then?

The hon. member also knows that it is couched in the most extraordinarily secretive terms, because it is known that the mention of the word “squatters” will get the reaction it deserves from this side.

I mentioned the amount.

The hon. member mentioned the amount, but his phraseology certainly had nothing to do with squatters on the surface.

May I ask the hon. member who has the prime responsibility for the removal of squatters? Is it the hon. the Minister of Public Works or the hon. the Minister of Community Development or the hon. the Minister of Coloured Relations? Whose responsibility is it?

The answer is that the actual physical removal of the squatters is done by the Department of Public Works. We are not prepared to support the voting of any money at all for the removal of squatters because we know from long and bitter experience that the methods used in this removal are totally unacceptable. They are cruel, and certainly we in these benches on this side of the Committee are not prepared to support the spending of this money.

I find the reaction of this party on my left a most extraordinary one, Sir. I think that this decision of theirs is not to support the amendment is one they will live to regret.

[Inaudible.]

I said nothing of the sort. I said that the principle of squatter removal, if I may be allowed to correct the interjection, is an acceptable one in that no government in its right mind will accept a situation where squatters unlawfully take over premises …

Let him argue against himself; he is arguing his case away.

… which are not theirs. But, Sir, a particular situation exists in South Africa today, and that is a situation where you have thousands and thousands of people without housing, with no place to go.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to the Vote under consideration.

Well, Sir, I find it very difficult to debate something of this nature …

Order! I am allowing a certain amount of latitude, but hon. members must not go too far in discussing the principle of the removal of squatters.

Very well, Sir. I think then at this stage I had better just confine myself to saying—and I am repeating myself—that my party will not vote for the inclusion in this estimate of any amount of money for the removal of squatters, because, Sir, we know from bitter experience what this entails.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, argued with himself and I shall therefore be able to proceed with my speech.

The position is that I have had the privilege of serving on the Select Committee on this department, and I want to say here this afternoon that this department is really an exceptional department. When I say that, Mr. Chairman, I do so for three reasons. In the first place, it is because this department deals with uncommon disciplines such as those of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. In the second place I say this because this department really performs excellent work— work that, for posterity, will always be evidence of the skill, the proficiency and the perception of our people. Last, but not the least, I say so because this department has not only a brilliant Minister and a brilliant Deputy Minister, but also a brilliant Secretary and a group of very excellent officers.

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I come to two matters I should like to refer to briefly this afternoon. In the first place I want to refer to the very meaningful way in which the R172 million voted for capital works is divided up into categories. To indicate these categories, and without boring you with figures, I want to use round figures and merely furnish the percentages. In the first place we find that R58,2 million or 33,84% has been voted for military installations and without discussing the principle involved, I think it is self-evident that in the dangerous times in which we live, this should at all times really be the first priority.

In the second place, R38,3 million or 22¼% has been utilized for building works pertaining to educational institutions. These are building works for the educational institutions of our Coloured, Indian and Black population groups and this once again confirms the fact that in regard to these population groups we endeavour at all times to supply them with the necessary facilities.

The third category I want to refer to is that of prisons. Here, an amount of R17⅓ million or 10,11% has been voted for the modernizing of existing prisons or for the replacement of existing prisons and for the accommodation of prison staff. It is important that we should just point out here today that this department—and I think hon. members on the opposite side should listen now—is concerned with the accommodation of the officers of this department, while the Department of Community Development is responsible for the accommodation of officers of other departments.

The fourth category I want to mention is that of health, because there, too, an amount of R10,9 million or 6⅓% has been voted for building works in connection with the establishment and modernizing of institutions pertaining to the health of our people. Under this amount, an important amount has been allocated to institutions concerned with psychiatric illnesses and infectious diseases.

Then there is also an amount of almost R12 million or 7%—one of the previous speakers also referred to this—that will be utilized for the establishment of police accommodation and regional courts. Amounts voted for these purposes are actually money that is very, very well spent, because I believe everybody accepts that our police have an immense task to perform—as a previous hon. member has also said. If funds are therefore applied to ensure that they will work under pleasant conditions, then we are doing the right thing.

The sixth category I want to refer to, is research. Under this category, R6 500 000 or 3,8% of the total has been voted. This research covers a wide spectrum, for example land, irrigation, virology, veterinary science, meteorology, and so on. Sir, we have an immense task to accomplish in Africa, also as far as research is concerned, and if we can consistently succeed in supplying our scientists with the necessary laboratories and so forth, then I believe we are performing our task in Africa so much better.

The last category I want to mention, is the amount of R28⅔ million. This amount, which is equivalent to 16,6%, is earmarked for the departments whose building works do not fall under the first six categories I mentioned. Sir, if you consider the seven categories I have mentioned, then I think we can all say with gratification that the available capital of R172 million for building works has really been divided up into meaningful categories.

That brings me to the second matter I want to raise here this afternoon, namely our building industry in general. The building industry in South Africa has been through a difficult period—this is general knowledge— but in the Eastern Cape, that is to say, in Port Elizabeth and its hinterland, the building industry has perhaps been more adversely affected than in other areas in South Africa, because our greatest single industry, namely the motor industry, has been very seriously affected there by the recession. The problems this industry encountered have also spread to the other industries and therefore also to the building industry in Port Elizabeth and its hinterland. In view of the fact that in the Eastern Cape, the building industry is a very important provider of employment for our people, we are particularly grateful that this department has voted such a large amount of capital for building works there. I want to refer to this briefly, Sir. In this budget there is for example the amount of R53 921 000 that has been voted for building works that have already been given out on tender or that will go out on tender before the end of this year. Secondly, building works to the amount of R34 575 000 have been programmed for execution during the period 1978 to 1983. Thirdly, if all circumstances remain normal, an amount of R6 246 000 is being envisaged for military installations in the Eastern Cape during the period 1978 to 1984. If we add up these three amounts, we obtain a grand total of R94 742 000. I venture to state that this will provide a tremendous boost to the building industry in Port Elizabeth and its hinterland and that our building industry, which was a flourishing industry in the past, will soon return to its great boom period of the past.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise a matter of general interest to the entire country, but which is perhaps more pertinent to Natal. I am referring to the utilization of the professional services of architects, quantity surveyors and engineers in Government projects and projects of semi-government corporations. At the outset I want to welcome the trend that is apparent from this report by the department. I refer to page 4, where it is stated under the head “Architectural Services” that there was an increase in the incidence and value of services completed by private architects, whereas there was a decrease in the incidence and value of services completed by departmental architects. The overall increase was 58%. Under the head “Quantity surveying services” on page 8, it appears that estimates dealt with by private quantity surveyors already amount to one-third (or R322 million) of the amount dealt with by departmental quantity surveyors, namely R982 million. That is the total for the first section. The compilation of quantity surveys was done almost exclusively by private quantity surveyors, and final accounts, too, were handled mainly by private quantity surveyors. I sincerely welcome this trend. I also want to express the hope that it will gain ground in Natal. Natal is a province with a great future. It is a province with an abundance of factors that can induce growth. I just want to quote a few figures from a pamphlet on the province. The figures are not the very latest; the very latest figures are unfortunately not yet available. During a five-year period from 1962 to 1967, building plans in the Durban and Pietermaritzburg areas alone increased by 31,3%, as against 23% for the rest of South Africa. Over the same five-year period, expenditure by provincial authorities in Natal increased by 67% as against 58%, 46% and 39% for the Transvaal, the Cape Province and the Orange Free State respectively.

I have figures here relating to the growth of the Durban harbour and to shipbuilding in Natal, and so forth. However, I think it is sufficient merely to say here that our province has an outstanding potential and has shown in the past that it has the ability to grow very fast. May I just add that we are fortunate in the sense that the economic growth of our province is not limited to the urban area of Durban or to the Durban/Pinetown/ Pietermaritzburg complex, but that we also have major growth points at Newcastle, Ladysmith and at the Richards Bay-Empangeni area, the result of this has been that in recent years there has been a tendency, particularly among the younger professional people of the three categories I have referred to, to settle in Natal. Natal is a province that holds out a promise to the young professional man who wants to have a part in the physical and economic growth of this province. Apart from that, we have also had the phenomenon that many established firms in other provinces have opened branch offices in Natal—often with junior partners. The problem has often arisen that these young professional men in Natal have had difficulty in getting established in Natal. In view of the fact that until such time as they have established themselves in these professions, they are mainly dependent upon the public sector for work, they have often found that the local and provincial authorities of Natal are initially reluctant to make use of new professional services and prefer to make use of the old, trusted professional advisers and contractors whom they know. The fact is that it is a great discouragement to these young professional people when they find, after having established themselves in Natal, that a project or projects at their doorstep is undertaken by firms of architects, engineers or quantity surveyors established in Pretoria, Johannesburg or Cape Town. In particular, it is a great source of frustration to a professional man who has specifically specialized in a particular direction, such as hospital design, or engineers who concentrate on reclamation—that is to say, people who have made a profound study of a particular subject. To such people, it is extremely frustrating if they have to find that this work is being done on instructions from offices in other provinces.

Mr. Chairman, I realize that problems exist in regard to the use of local architects, engineers and quantity surveyors. I appreciate that the devil one knows is often more attractive than the devil one does not know.

We realize that liaison closer to the head office of the department is often easier, and we also realize that young men often make expensive mistakes. However, it is also true that we need the services of these people. In a developing province like Natal, we urgently need their services and their contributions to the development of the province. I therefore request that the Government should specifically concentrate on perpetuating this trend, namely to make use of private professional firms and persons. I also request that the department should make a survey of professional people who specialize in particular directions and that they should, if necessary, involve the younger ones in consortiums with the more experienced professional people. Furthermore, I request that if larger works are perhaps too extensive to be undertaken by younger architects, engineers and quantity surveyors, the department should consider decentralizing its smaller works in particular.

Mr. Chairman, my intention to say something this afternoon about the matter of the preservation, care and maintenance of historic or other memorable buildings in South Africa, have been strengthened by the speeches made by the hon. member for Maitland and by the hon. member for Umhlanga; but above all, by the statement the hon. the Minister has just made in regard to one specific building that is of great historical significance not only to Cape Town—as the hon. members have rightly said—but in fact to the country as a whole and from the point of both the sociological and the legal history of South Africa. I gain the impression that the ministry of Public Works is going to be involved to an increasing extent and is in fact in the process of being involved in this important matter of the preservation and protection of memorable buildings. This has already happened as regards Church Square in Pretoria, and here we have just had an example from the hon. the Minister as regards the Roeland Street Prison. There is the matter of the Rondebosch Police Station, which is also receiving the attention of this department. Consequently I want to deliver a plea this afternoon for the department and the hon. the Minister to continue with their good work and to play more and more of a leading role in respect of the preservation of buildings, and in this respect I am referring particularly to Government buildings, because, as you know, Mr. Chairman, Government buildings do not fall under the National Monuments Council’s except by way of exception.

Section 5 of the Act specifically provides that a Government building, Government property or goods belonging to the State may not provisionally be declared national monuments. Although the Simon Van der Stel Foundation, Historic Homes of South Africa Limited and the Historic Monuments Council exist, the result has always been over the years that there has not been a specific body or authority that could concentrate on determining what Government property should be preserved or where the lines should be drawn in regard to demolitions and related matters. This is a very complicated matter and I prefer to express sympathy with the hon. the Minister rather than to address requests to him in regard to specific matters.

Had Roeland Street Prison been sold to the private sector by the Government, the hon. the Minister would have lost his authority over the matter altogether. If the Historic Monuments Council had not taken immediate action, the building might have been demolished within a matter of months. This happened in the case of other buildings. We have already had the experience of important buildings belonging to the State and not falling within the sphere of national monuments, having been sold as the result of which the Government lost its authority over them whereupon the building were subsequently demolished. In other cases, we have the very difficult position of an important building becoming dilapidated when the value of properties in its vicinity slumps. Nobody takes any further interest in that building and ultimately it goes to ruin. If, on the other hand, the value of properties increases in the vicinity of such a building, the building eventually has to make place for a more economical and functional building. For that reason, the preservation of buildings is a very important and extremely difficult task.

I want to make a polite inquiry this afternoon whether the Department of Public Works cannot keep a register in which the most important buildings of architectural or historic interest can be recorded. No one can expect more of the department than to keep the register.

Do you mean in connection with Government buildings only, or other buildings as well?

Only Government buildings, i.e. buildings falling directly under the jurisdiction of the hon. the Minister. It can be noted in the register from whom representations have been received—whether from the hon. member for Maitland, or from myself, or from the hon. member for Umhlanga—so that when some development takes place in connection with that building— improvements, modifications, sale, leasing, or whatever, and even demolition—the hon. the Minister or his department will immediately be able to say that the building concerned has specific qualities. Either he or his department can say that particular sentiments exist in regard to the building and that account must be taken of these. That is all I should like to say in this regard.

I should like to refer to Church Square in Pretoria. We already had a discussion of this matter when the hon. the Minister introduced a Bill in the House. I do not want to say much in this regard. With all due respect, it would be unwise in my view if this Committee were to express opinions on the merits of the matter. However, I should appreciate it very much—as would other people who have an interest in the matter—if the hon. the Minister would make an announcement as soon as possible on the constitution of the Church Square Committee and give some indication of when this committee will commence its activities. As I said at the time, this is a matter which affects many other bodies and persons. The sooner we can obtain clarity and certainty in this regard, the better.

The Department of Public Works made mistakes in the past. I do not want to quote recent instances, because then hon. members—and perhaps the hon. the chairman too—might perhaps accuse me of wishing to disturb the peaceful atmosphere prevailing in this Committee.

That is very wise.

I want to quote two cases to indicate that mistakes can be made because of the failure to give proper attention to a matter in advance. The first one is easily understandable. In 1903 the Rissik Street Post Office in Johannesburg was given a fourth floor although the original architect, Sytze Wierda, never intended there to be a fourth floor. Today, although the building is going to be preserved, we are faced by the serious problem as to whether that extra floor should be demolished and the original design restored. This happened long ago, but there is a more recent example.

In the ’twenties, the Department of Public Works decided that an addition was to be made to the Palace of Justice in Pretoria—I cannot call it anything but an addition— giving a building of three floors, an addition consisting of four floors. The result of that would be that the floors would be on different levels, marring the excellent rear elevation of the Palace of Justice. I understand—and I hope this is true—that the Government is giving serious attention to rectifying this mistake.

I quote these two instances for the simple reason of illustrating my contention that in keeping a register of this kind, the department would in a manner of speaking actually have its finger on the pulse of all Government buildings which may be or become important, and of pointing out that in the past, mistakes were made because proper attention had not been given to the matter in good time.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take the opportunity to associate myself to a certain extent with what the hon. member for Johannesburg North said in his speech about the preservation of old buildings.

In the first place I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the quality of the annual report on the functions of the department that was submitted to us. The report bears witness of the widely divergent task of this department. As the hon. member for Newton Park pointed out earlier on, it is a task which is being done in a wonderful way. Not only do I congratulate the department on the annual report, which testifies to profound study, but I also want to congratulate the department on the beautiful coat-of-arms it has received. It is the motto on that coat-of-arms that is significant to me. The motto is “The issue or event proves the act” and it is one of the finest mottoes a Government department could have. It is a motto which not only inspires, but could inspire every official of the department.

Not only do I want to mention the construction and financing of new buildings, but I want to mention in particular the planning, control, financing and restoration of historical buildings. A number of these monuments came into existence over the years and bear testimony to the love and great appreciation the department has for those wonderful treasures of our past. In this regard I should like to refer specifically to the completed restoration work and commissioning of the first debating chamber of the Republic of the Orange Free State in Bloemfontein. The result is the product of close co-operation between two Government departments. To me it is wonderful that the Department of National Education, together with the Department of Public Works, undertook the restoration of this fine old building in Bloemfontein. The sympathetic approach with which the department considers requests for preservation is commendable. The restoration of the first debating chamber in Bloemfontein is a striking example of this.

The original building of the first small debating chamber was built in 1849 at a cost of R900. It was meant to serve as a school for the children of the residents of Bloemfontein. Initially it had 28 pupils, and this figure increased after three months to 60. The building was not only to serve as a school building for the residents of Bloemfontein, because in 1849 the first service of the Dutch Reformed Church was held there. The first minister of the parish was the reverend Mr. Andrew Murray who was ordained as minister there in May 1849 by his father. Services were held in this building until 1852, when a new church building was inaugurated. However, the building not only served as a school and a church, because the Legislative Assembly of the Orange River Sovereignty held session there from 1849 onwards. Even matters pertaining to the municipal status of Bloemfontein were dealt with in the first debating chamber. Important matters of constitutional importance were dealt with in this simple little hall, i.e. the abolition of the British Sovereignty and the subsequent founders’ meeting of the Republic of the Orange Free State in 1854, something to which the walls, beams and roof can testify.

After the signing of the Bloemfontein convention in 1854 greater dramas were enacted in this little building. It became the seat of the House of Assembly and the Executive Council of the Republic of the Orange Free State and served as Government offices. The first two presidents of the Republic of the Orange Free State, i.e. Presidents Hoffman and Boshof, were installed in office in this little building. After his episode with Moshesh and the barrel of gun-powder President Hoffman stayed for only nine months in his office and then had to resign. Stormy episodes with regard to the relations with the Cape Colony, Transvaal and Moshesh were enacted here.

In lighter vein I should like to refer here to a dinner which took place in that little hall on the eve of the establishment of a republic. A great dinner was held there and a certain Mr. Ford made a humorous speech on this occasion. He suggested that Mr. Piet Moolman, a very fat person, should demonstrate his dancing prowess on the tables on which the dinner had just been held. It is said that Mr. Moolman, in spite of his bulk, demonstrated his dancing skill beautifully to those present amongst all the glasses on the table. Another important dinner was that held on 10 March 1854 in honour of Moshesh, chief of the Basuto, and his three sons. This dinner can be regarded as the first formal meeting between White and Black round a dinner table north of the Orange River. The subject was boundary problems, relations and the keeping of the peace between the Republic of the Orange Free State and the home of the Basuto.

The culture-conscious residents of Bloemfontein gave expression to the yearning for culture when they made representations for a museum in Bloemfontein. This was under the leadership of the then Chief Justice of the Orange Free State, Chief Justice F. W. Reitz. Although the founders meeting was held on 20 July 1877 in the town hall of Bloemfontein, the decision was taken shortly afterwards that the first debating chamber was to become the museum building. It is interesting to note that the first contributions for preservation in this museum consisted of insects, the skin of a tiger, the skin of a cat, birds’ eggs and shortly afterwards a meteorite which fell in the vicinity of Kroonstad and was donated by President J. A. Brand. Other accommodation was found for the museum later on, but after 62 years the debating chamber once again became part of the museum in Bloemfontein.

This simple little building played an important role in the lives of our forefathers, but today it has a message for us as well, a message of strength and simplicity, of efficiency in its own function. It is buildings such as this which are being restored and preserved, one after the other, for which we want to convey our deepest thanks and appreciation to the department on this occasion. May there always be for them the opportunity, funds, the idealism to carry on with that fine motto: “The issue or event proves the acts.”

Mr. Chairman, much has been said this afternoon about the preservation of old buildings. I think about three or four speakers have now referred to this, and I would also like to commend to the hon. the Minister the suggestion made by the hon. member for Johannesburg North that there should be a register of buildings. I would suggest that this register should include every government building. I am sure somewhere in the files of the department there is a register of every building. I am sure such a register exists.

May I put a question to the hon. member? Is the hon. member aware of the fact that such a register is being kept by the Rand Afrikaans University?

I am pleased that the hon. member has informed this Committee that the Rand Afrikaans University is doing this. I think it is a good thing. But I do believe that the hon. Minister’s department should have such a register for his use. What I have to say today concerns the State’s property holdings. If one studies this budget one finds that for the coming year something like R176 million will be spent on the construction of new buildings and no doubt other government departments will be putting out additional buildings to tender. The point I am trying to make is that each year the State requires a large number of buildings which cost an enormous amount of money. I would like to suggest to the hon. the Minister that consideration be given to having a qualified group analyse the exact worth of this asset which the State has with a view to adjusting the investment in such a way that the State may benefit from it.

I am aware from page 4 of the report that as a result of the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts for 1976, the department has set up a Central Accommodation Committee which, I believe, has as its function the examination of the needs of the various departmental users of State buildings. I am sure this involves the acquiring of sites and the actual provision of the new buildings. One sees in the report too that resort is had to the leasing of buildings rather than the construction or purchase of buildings. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether in these times of great capital shortage …

At 15h53, proceedings suspended until 16h04 to enable members to attend a division.

Just before business was suspended because of the division I was saying that although there was a tremendous capital shortage at the present time in South Africa, no doubt various Government departments required certain accommodation. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether his department is considering alternative ways of providing this accommodation other than by the construction of new buildings. I am aware that the department does hire buildings for other departments. All this is in the annual report. However, I should like to ask whether there has been an increase in this activity due to the shortage of capital or whether consideration has been given to purchasing existing buildings for use by Government departments at this time when there is a great surplus of available accommodation in the private sector. I am quite sure that accommodation could be hired or purchased by the Government for possibly less than it would cost to construct a new building.

To this end I should like to suggest that the Central Accommodation Committee which has been set up could possibly have its functions expanded so as to cover this type of activity. Earlier on there was reference to a building register and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible for this committee to review this register of buildings periodically and have up to date data on State property assets, the value thereof, how these are utilized and how effective that accommodation is as far as the department that is occupying it, is concerned. I should also like to suggest that consideration be given to having this committee also consider the possibility of rationalizing the Government’s property assets. One may find that there is an extremely valuable site in the centre of a business district in a city which is owned and occupied by the Government but where possibly the accommodation is not as suitable as one may desire, and that by selling this building the Government will actually gain. This happened in the case of the old magistrates’ courts building in Durban. The old magistrates’ courts building was right in the heart of town. They have now moved a little further out of town to brand new buildings which offer far better accommodation. The State could realize some of its capital by disposing of some of its properties that are very valuable as sites but in respect of the accommodation offered are not so suitable or valuable. I feel that this committee would have to take into consideration what the hon. member for Johannesburg North has said viz. that if a historical building is involved then, of course, it should be retained by the State.

The third function I should like to suggest that this committee could perform is to consider the sale of surplus buildings, surplus land or property owned by the State. I am aware, for instance, that the roads department has surplus property. I know the Railways have surplus property; this has come up on the Railways Select Committee. And if the State owns land that is not required and which it is not using, possibly it could dispose of that property to the private sector and by so doing recover some of the capital which is so urgently required at the moment and which is in such short supply.

I should like to move on to the cost of new buildings. If one studies the annual report one will find, as I have already mentioned, that this is of the order of two or three hundred millions of rand each year. When one studies Figure 1 on page 5 of the report, one finds from the graph that appears there that there has been a considerable escalation in cost of the individual buildings or services that have been erected or provided. In fact, there is an increase from R596 000 on average in 1972-’73 to R1 400 000’ in 1976-’77. There are various reasons for this. The first one, of course, could be that the average size of the project is larger than it was four or five years ago. Of course, there is the valid excuse that this is due to inflation. However, I should like to suggest that there is possibly a third reason and that is that the quality of the project has risen over the years. I am quite sure we have all noticed that in recent times many new Government buildings have gone up and I think we must also agree that many of them are extremely luxurious as far as the accommodation and the building itself are concerned. We see many marble walls today in certain Government buildings. In Durban there is a certain State-owned building which has been lined on the outside with imported mosaic tiles. It is not just these public buildings to which this sort of thing applies. Some of them like Megawatt House which is the headquarters of Escom which is a State corporation—it may not fall under this particular hon. Minister—cost R30 million. The question I should like to ask is: Is this really wise at this time when South Africa is so short of capital?

We also find this sort of thing in respect of our schools. During the past year or so the member of the provincial council in my constituency and myself attended the opening of a beautiful new school in my constituency. We are extremely proud of it but he did say to all the parents assembled there that maybe we should reconsider what we are putting into our schools; maybe they are too luxurious; I feel that maybe we should come down to more functional buildings for schools especially in the light of a study of this budget. One will see there the tremendous amount of money that has now been allocated to Coloured and Indian schools.

Who is in charge of the Natal Administration?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to finish this point. Here the MPC who is now the MEC in charge of education—I should like to put this to the hon. member who has just interrupted me— gave warning to his own constituents last year that in the light of the needs of Coloureds, Black and White schooling this sort of thing could not possibly continue. It will be very difficult for us to justify this extremely high standard that we find in our own schools when we are now experiencing tremendous pressure from other groups for school buildings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to refer at any length to what the hon. member for Amanzimtoti had to say, except to say that I do not think that we should try to create the impression that we should change over completely to austere building methods.

It is all very well to say that many of our buildings give the impression of being very luxurious with marble covered walls and that sort of thing. I think that if one considers the lifetime of a building of this nature, the original cost of this sort of building is offset by the reduced maintenance costs incurred over the years. This is one of the difficult things that one has to decide when one has to erect a building.

I do not think that the Megawatt Building to which the hon. member referred is relevant to this discussion. I just want to tell him that I think we were given these facts in the Assembly. The expenditure in that regard per square metre was very much lower than the expenditure in respect of many other buildings of that size. I do not think that money was wasted in that regard.

I want to refer to the work that we are doing here today in this Committee. I am grateful to have been chairman of the Select Committee that made a very thorough and penetrative study of the activities of this department. I think we made history. I think it was the first occasion in the history of this Parliament of the Republic on which this sort of thing was done. One was always under the impression that this was a very dry department and that there was not much going on here. I think, however, that those of us who served on that Select Committee found it very instructive indeed to deal in depth with the activities of this department. I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the department because they gave us very instructive information that can assist us to a very large extent in keeping a critical eye on the activities of this department.

As we are dealing with the activities of this department I should like to ask the hon. the Minister today whether arrangements cannot be made to enable us to obtain the annual report of the department at an earlier stage. I know that there are circumstances of a financial nature that militate against this report being made available sooner. Would it not be possible, for example, for the annual report to cover a calendar year, from 1 January to 31 December? I do not know whether this is possible but I think it would be better if we could have an annual report covering the period 1 January to 31 December. After all, why should the activities covered in an annual report have to coincide with the financial year, namely, 1 March to 28 February? I do not know why that should be necessary. Perhaps this report could cover a calendar year so that we could have it available when we meet here. One would then be able to review the activities of this department far more effectively than is the case at present. The report that has just appeared is already a year old.

I should like to mention another matter that is of particular interest to me. In this report and particularly in the memorandum that has been submitted to us, we find a very good picture of what is being done for our Coloured groups, the Coloureds and the Asiatics in this country, in respect of then-education facilities. We find that a total amount of R21 963 000 will be spent this year on the erection of schools, including the construction of primary and secondary schools for Coloureds in the Republic. This is certainly a large amount that is going to be spent in respect of those people. Many of these schools are already under construction. However, I think the world should take note of this fact, as should the Opposition. I am surprised that they are so quiet today in regard to this matter and that they have not expressed a word of gratitude and appreciation to the Government for what is being done for these people. At the present moment there are 76 primary and secondary schools for Coloureds under construction in the Republic. A start is being made on 49 new schools this year under the new services that are shown. This means that altogether 125 schools are already under construction or are in the pipeline to be started during this year. This is an achievement on the part of this Government and it is also an achievement on the part of this department in that it is able to cope with such a large building programme.

The picture that is painted as far as the Indians are concerned is just as rosy. An amount of R11 193 000 is being appropriated for spending in the coming year. Sir, this amount covers 45 schools that are already under construction and 22 new schools that will be started during the course of this year. This means that there are 67 schools that are being erected for the Indian population in South Africa at the present time. As I have said, this is a rosy picture and it is something that must be noted. I hope that the hon. member for Orange Grove will stand up here to express his deep gratitude. I hope that we will also have the thanks and appreciation of these population groups in respect of what is being done for them.

There are so many positive things that are being done in South Africa today but, really, these matters are not given the publicity due to them. People are concerned about negative things and negativism runs riot. All they talk about are those things that we are always hearing about but we never hear anything about these wonderful and positive steps that are being taken for these people.

Although it is not indicated here, I wish to express my thanks and appreciation for what is going to be done in my own constituency in respect of the erection of a police station there. I understand from the department that it has been included in the five year programme and that it has reached the planning stage. There was an objection in regard to the road that was supposed to run through there under the road scheme but I can tell the department and the hon. the Minister that we have solved that problem and that we can now give the hon. the Minister and the department the green light and tell them to proceed with the planning. It is said that it will take two years to plan this police station. Owing to the scarcity of work prevailing among architects today I think that if we were to appoint a firm of architects and tell them that they had to complete the work within a few months, they would roll up their sleeves and complete the work within that time. That police station would not then appear on this programme but I would be able to see it in reality in my constituency, Edenvale. All I ask is that this matter be expedited.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to raise another matter, one that is of great interest to me. On page 12 of the annual report I notice that unfortunately no funds could be made available during the particular financial year for the purchase of works of art for Government buildings. We in this country go out of our way to activate our school-going youth to become art conscious. They can attend art classes at both primary and high school. Wonderful art schools have been erected in the country and are subsidised by the State. We train the artists with the assistance of taxpayers’ money and so there are many artists in our country today. Therefore, just as work is created for the mason, the carpenter and so forth, so I think should we assure the artists in our country of a future, the people who have to enrich the minds of all of us by the design of fine articles with which we can beautify our homes, by voting a certain amount of money for them annually. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to associate myself with two of the points made by the hon. member for Edenvale. The first point he raised dealt with the possibility that, in order to save money, we may possibly erect stereotyped buildings that will be uninteresting and that will become unattractive over the course of time. He also said that one has to accept the fact that buildings, particularly school buildings, are erected with the idea of remaining serviceable for years, and that one should therefore not try to save too much on building materials as this will eventually result in the erection of an unattractive building that will not enhance the community at all. I agree with that idea because in my opinion one must not be shortsighted and try to save money by building something which one eventually finds unattractive.

The second point raised by the hon. member was the building of schools for Coloureds and Asians and I want to say immediately that we on this side are of course very pleased that schools are being built for these population groups. At the same time, however, I also want to say that we in this party do not regard these schools as buildings that we are erecting for other people, almost as though we are doing them a favour. We regard these population groups as forming an integral part of South Africa and, where they need schools, the State has to try to provide those schools for them. It is therefore in that spirit that we express our appreciation for the numbers of schools that are being constructed.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I did not actually want to become involved in a debate on this question. I just wanted to put my point of view. My attitude is simply that the impression is often created—and I shall be pleased if I am wrong in my understanding of it—that facilities such, as schools for Coloureds, Blacks or Asiatics are regarded as a present or a gift to them. [Interjections.] If I am wrong in my understanding of this I am prepared to say that I am sorry, that I have been under a misapprehension and that I am very pleased that this is not the spirit in which these facilities are being provided. I am sure one could not be more honest and sincere than that.

That is a shameful remark.

Mr. Chairman, I really wanted to speak about another subject and I wanted to confine myself to Government buildings that are being erected and the liaison between the department and local authorities when such buildings are planned and erected. One of the biggest problems in our cities today would appear to me to be the fact that the central city area is often inclined to die after five o’clock in the evening. The crowds of people working in the central city area depart for the suburbs and after five o’clock in the evening the city becomes a quiet and often dangerous place. This situation is created to a large extent by the erection of gigantic business premises in which no people live. I want therefore to put it to the hon. the Minister that when his department designs and erects buildings at the behest of other Government departments it must try to include dwelling units in such buildings for people who will be able to live in the city day and night. In this way they will give new life to the city and ensure that it is also safer at night.

That is not the function of my Department.

Mr. Chairman, I am actually asking the hon. the Minister for a favour, namely, whether he cannot put forward this idea as a possibility. Earlier today mention was made of older buildings that we would like to preserve. There may perhaps have been a stage when this too was not specifically the function of a department. However, in the times in which we live it is necessary to attend to these matters and, in view of the fact that we can exceed the limits to this extent, I ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to discuss these ideas and ascertain whether attention cannot be given to them. I do not intend them as an accusation against anyone but simply as ideas that I wish to express in an effort to assist in the establishment of a central city area where people can live 24 hours a day. That is the one point that I want to make.

I also want to raise another point in regard to these same premises. Even where a new business centre or a building is erected it also often happens that the business undertakings in the vicinity of such a building are prejudiced to some extent by the erection of that large, new centre because there are no business premises available in the centre which will attract the public to do their shopping or whatever the case may be. I realize that it is not the function of the department to erect buildings for sub-letting to the private sector, and I understand that it may perhaps be a matter that can create problems. However, perhaps the hon. the Minister can also reply to me in this regard. To illustrate what I mean, I want to mention the new Reserve Bank building.

Could consideration not have been given at the time to making certain business premises available at street level in that building?

And what about digging a tunnel?

Yes, I see immediately that this can cause problems but I just want to bring the idea to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It is of course not only banks that we are discussing here but other buildings as well. I understand that a brand new complex is to be erected in Plein Street immediately behind this building. I do not know what it will look like. However, I want to suggest that if it is not too late, the ground floor be made lively and interesting for the people of Cape Town. At the same time I want to suggest that flats be made available to young people on the top three, four or five storeys—I do not know how high the building is going to be—so that they can live in the city and by so doing make the city a lively area for 24 hours of the day.

What about Hillbrow?

No, not a Hillbrow but a combination of the best we can do with the knowledge at our disposal. We can do this in co-operation with the numbers of new young architects with brilliant new ideas who are entering the market, and I believe that we can in fact bring something to fruition. Mr. Chairman, even if we only look at Cape Town or any of the other large cities in the world we realize that the belief has now taken root among the city fathers that the city is a place for people. It is not simply a place where people work for from 8 to 12 hours per day and then leave in their cars to go to the suburbs. This results in the city bleeding to death. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not think I should reply to what the hon. member has said because it is fairly easy for one to become enmeshed in something. He makes me think this afternoon of the owl in the graveyard who apologized for hooting because he had nothing to do with the graves. He has no interest in regard to what was inside them. I think therefore that I should leave the hon. member’s arguments at that.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister today to give serious attention to the purchase of paintings in these times in which we are living. This holds good particularly for the present when the younger painters and sculptors are experiencing problems. I want to ask that this matter be investigated. If we utilize an amount of R10 000 per annum for this purpose it will amount to 0,007% of the R200 million that is spent annually. There are works by people like Adolf Jentsch and Welz. There are also many others that are freely available by people like Coetzee who creates good works of art. I want to ask that this matter be investigated.

I actually want to speak today about the ladies of the National Party Parliamentary Wives’ Club. We have to pay tribute to them when we consider the work that these ladies have done over the past while. The wonderful Rheesig dwelling has been preserved for future generations through the actions of the ladies of the National Party Wives’ Club of this Parliament. In 1958 they wrote a letter to the then Prime Minister. They asked him in a friendly way to make a policy statement immediately to the effect that the Government was extremely sympathetically disposed towards the preservation of our heritage and wanted to give every encouragement to all persons and bodies making it their aim to preserve and maintain our national monuments. This was done as early as in 1958. Secondly, they asked that a special committee be appointed to draw up a detailed list of all the buildings that ought to be preserved. One of these wonderful buildings was and is the wonderful dwelling of Rheesig. They said to the Prime Minister: We beg our Prime Minister to prevent Rheesig, a typical old Dutch house of the eighteenth century, from being demolished. The importance of this house is emphasized in the works of Pearce, Trotter, Fairbridge, Biermann and others. At the time ex-Senator Van Zyl had an option on that house and the only way out was for the Government to buy the house.

As we all know the late Dr. Verwoerd was a better statesman than he was a businessman. After due consideration he said that it had to have a purpose and value because the department could not simply purchase that house for preservation purposes. These women then said to the department: Very well, buy it then for use as a Minister’s residence. One of the most beautiful dwellings in the city and of our time has thus remained preserved because of the unselfish work and zeal of these people. The then Prime Minister told them that it would be too expensive to purchase the house and to restore it. An amount of £18 000 would have to be spent on one section alone. The total cost of obtaining that building was to have amounted to £36 000. The Prime Minister then told those ladies that there were many persons and bodies who would probably give attention to the matter. These ladies then took up the matter. The Prime Minister then urged these ladies to approach the Old Mutual, Sanlam and other businesses in regard to this matter. These women then immediately began to publicize the matter among the businessmen. Sanlam, Santam, Bonuskor and, I think, Federate Volksbeleggings, purchased that building and, at a later stage, presented it to the Government. It is being well looked after today and is occupied by the present Minister of Public Works and his wife, Mrs. Schlebusch. One feels that it redounds to the credit of this country when one enters a building such as this and sees its furnishings or even looks at the building itself.

The important work that these women do is to attend to the affairs of this Parliament positively on a daily basis. Every Monday morning they place a flower arrangement in the office of the hon. the Prime Minister. Before a Minister’s Vote is discussed he receives a bouquet of flowers in his office. Pen sketches by Honiball that were presented to the ladies have been donated to Parliament to be hung in the lounges. They are in the ladies’ lounges in the Senate and in the House of Assembly. An excellent idea that these ladies had was that they wanted to arrange a festival for the late Dr. Verwoerd on 8 September 1966. As we all know, that festival became a funeral. However, when they were faced with this fact and realized that they could no longer have a celebration, they were not caught napping.

Order! The hon. member must please come back to the Vote under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, you will realize immediately what I am driving at. These ladies used the money that they had collected for the festival to buy a bronze bust which now stands in the Gallery Hall of the Senate. I want to urge hon. members to look at the inscription at the base of that bust. I want hon. members to note that the name of this National Party Wives’ Club of Parliament is engraved on that bust. The hon. member for Johannesburg North is one of the members who approved of the sculptor who made that bust at the time. It is an excellent and well executed bust which will remain part of our heritage in Parliament unlike the flowers at that festival which in due course would have died. That has been given to us and is preserved by the Department of Public Works as part of the heritage of our nation.

There are also many other minor matters to which the Wives’ Club has given its attention. In this connection I want to refer to the ringing of the bells in the auditorium of the H. F. Verwoerd Building. When a speaker was speaking, it was greatly disturbing when the bells rang for a division in the House of Assembly. Mrs. Kintie Malan then suggested that different coloured lights be installed there instead of the bells. When a division is to take place in the Senate the lights change to red and when a division is to take place in the House of Assembly the lights change to green. The Wives’ Club occupies itself with practical matters of this nature. I think that we in this Committee should pay tribute and express our thanks to the club for what it means to Parliament.

Mr. Chairman, I hope the hon. member for Langlaagte will pardon me if I do not follow his line of thought because I want to amplify briefly the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

I do not think that my colleague was asking for austerity buildings. I think that his plea was along the lines of more functional buildings, buildings with perhaps fewer of the trappings which cost so much and which do not really have any effect on the productivity of the people working in those buildings. I think if one looks briefly at the example set by a country near us such as Rhodesia one sees how they make the very best use of the buildings that are available to them. They do not have a fetish for expensive and glamorous buildings for their workers. We wish to ask the hon. the Minister to bear this in mind. He administers a capital budget of about R650 million and I think savings along these lines could account for a fair amount of money.

Why must we be saving? We are a rich country.

The point I am trying to make is that the savings could well be used in other ways. If one can save money that is not being used absolutely essentially I think it will be a good thing. I want to make the point that we do not want austerity, but a little more functionalism. [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, I do not want to get involved in an argument about this, because I wish to talk about another subject this afternoon, viz. the question of gardens and horticulture referred to in the annual report of the department.

I am very pleased to see that the amount voted for gardens in the Estimate of Expenditure under Item K on page 35—8 has been almost doubled and is now R418 000. I think this is a good thing. We live in a society that is moving so fast and in cities that have become, in many respects, concrete jungles that many of us tend to lose part of our soul in that we do not have gardens where we can relax and unwind and see some of the beauty that surrounds us. I think it is very important that we realize that here we have a department which is looking after 570 ha, employing nearly 1 800 staff and giving us some of these things to nourish the soul, as it were. I think this work that is being done by the department is excellent. When one looks at some of the statistics in the annual report and sees that after fulfilling its own needs, it is able to supply nearly 75 000 plants of one kind or another, one realizes that this is an outstanding achievement and we are very pleased that this is being done. On page 12 of the report under the heading “Horticulture” we find the following statement—

I think this is an absolutely first class idea and I wish to make what may perhaps be an unusual suggestion. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether perhaps a little more stock cannot become redundant, because I have an idea which I think he might put into practice. I would like to see more of these charitable institutions get these redundant stocks of flowers and plants, because it means a lot in their lives. I also wonder whether more redundant stock could not be channelled in a certain direction which I should like to mention to the hon. the Minister.

I recall that in one of the big cities in America many years ago there was in the city centre a high-rising residential block. It was like a rabbit-warren and the children turned to crime because there were no parks. The neighbours never spoke to each other and barricaded themselves inside their flats. The area turned to crime and the whole tone of the area declined. Then someone had the idea of putting up little window boxes with flowers and painting these brightly. This was in a drab grey block and everybody thought this person was crazy. But he persisted with his idea and very shortly his neighbours came and told him that it looked very nice and asked him whether they could do the same. He consented to make them little flower boxes and everybody in the block eventually ended up with flower boxes and little potplants.

This caused an absolute transformation in this area in that the people got to know their neighbours, the crime rate dropped and everything changed for the better. In a way one could say that these plants were feeding the souls of the people and bringing back into their lives some of the colour and the beauty which they missed by being in a city centre. In fact, this area of the city, which had become totally neglected and an area to keep away from because of the crime rate, eventually became a part which visitors to the city wanted to see because of the transformation that had been wrought, inexpensively, by people putting out a few flower boxes and brightening up their buildings. If the hon. the Minister could make a few thousand more boxes of flowering plants and shrubs redundant for this purpose one can just imagine the impact something like this could have in some of the older areas of our cities, the drab areas where there are poor pensioners and people who cannot get out and go for long walks. I do not believe that it would be expensive but it would be a talking point and a congregating point for people. It would bring them out of their shells, as it were, and give them a new vista in their lives. It is a small thing and perhaps an unusual thing to raise in a debate like this, but I believe that we should be looking at things like this. It is not just the dry things that we should consider—looking at the votes and worrying about a little money here or there. It is the innermost needs of people that are important and I believe that things such as this should occupy some of our thoughts. I would like the hon. the Minister to give his attention to schemes like this which could very easily and inexpensively be assisted by this horticultural section of the department.

Mr. Chairman, I want to confine myself to Government buildings this afternoon, and I want to address a special word of thanks to the department of the hon. the Minister for the beautiful, modem and useful building which has just been erected, completed and put into commission in East London, in which the courts of law and their offices in particular are presently accommodated. I want to assure the Minister that the erection of a fine Government building in East London will always be a symbol of the confidence this Government has in that area and that it is appreciated by the people there.

I am very well aware of the quality of the work done by the department in constantly providing the buildings required for administrative purposes. Particularly encouraging is the fact that old buildings are not summarily demolished and that the department does ascertain whether these old buildings can be preserved and whether they can be adapted and renovated in order to meet the needs of the various departments. This realistic approach on the part of the department means that the State is in fact making a constructive contribution to the preservation of those historical buildings which can be classified as national monuments. In this way it is protecting our cultural heritage which we are preserving for posterity. From the nature of the case, however, it is not always possible to retain and preserve a building merely because it is old, and it has to make room for structures which are required to meet the constantly increasing administrative obligations. Old buildings which have no artistic value and which do not form part of our architectural heritage are particularly suitable for being replaced and making room for better and more functional buildings.

Financial needs, which are a chronic feature of our time, and the attendant high cost of construction often force the State to adopt a large measure of standardization in the design of buildings in order to combat the situation. Since standardization is aimed mainly at utilizing the interior space of a building, no fault can be found with this. Standardization of the façades of the Government buildings, on the other hand, cannot always be justified. There is almost no town in South Africa where there is not a Government building, which, together with the town hall and municipal buildings, forms the focal point in that area. In addition, many new buildings are planned and erected every year to replace or supplement existing buildings. Although I have expressed my support for the preservation of buildings of historical value, we must never forget that the buildings we put up today form the stones of the history of tomorrow, and these are the walls which posterity will have to evaluate.

It is generally accepted that we are living in the most dynamic and interesting period of human history. It is for this reason that I want to make a serious appeal to the hon. the Minister that his department should try to capture our way of life and character in the concrete structures of the State, so that they may be preserved for the future. The cultural and artistic values of our era must find expression in Government buildings; they must portray the era which we live in and which we are proud of, so that it may be preserved for posterity. In many cases, our glorious past has found artistic expression in our Government buildings, but the contemporary history which we are making every day does not always receive the recognition it deserves. It will be a pity if later generations, in studying our phase in history, have to come to the conclusion that as far as our Government buildings were concerned, we were purely materialistic. Although every nation has a character of its own at a given point in time, which runs like a golden thread right through its country, it is also true that every region or area has its own interpretation of that culture and then gives expression to this character in the buildings which are erected in the area concerned.

If all these aspects are kept in mind in designing Government buildings, it will put a stop to any form of stereotyped designs and it will create variety without detracting from the general norms for optimum utilization of the buildings. The part played in the community by the Government building must never be underestimated. When a Government building can be erected near a central business area, it should not be in conflict with the character of the area, but should harmonize with it. As against this, it sometimes happens that land cannot be obtained near a central area, and the State is compelled to purchase land in a more outlying and sometimes poorer area adjoining the central area. In that case, the Government building becomes the magnet which attracts the renewal and development of the immediate vicinity, and the Government building is the pace-setter for the character and status of the future development in that area. Then, in particular, great attention must be given to the design of Government buildings. The new life which is breathed into such an area, where the State takes the initiative, is unbelievable, and the people responsible for the design of Government buildings must not shrink from this challenge.

Accordingly, it is gratifying that in modem Government buildings, durable building materials are used, which obviously require very little maintenance and which at the same time prolong the life and the practical utilization of the building.

In the light of the energy crisis we are experiencing, I think it is also essential that special attention should be given to the conservation of energy in designing Government buildings. In my opinion, more provision ought to be made for natural light in the offices, so that their occupants need not rely on electric power for lighting. Furthermore, great attention should be given to the possibility of solar heating systems, which could mean a further saving on electricity consumption. Once again, the Government building can take the lead in this field and meet the challenges of our times.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. member for Orange Grove. In the first place he asked whether it was economical for the department to do its own professional work.

The department, of course, also employs professional architects, engineers and quantity surveyors; in other words, all the disciplines connected with the professional work of the building trade. It is essential for us to employ these people because we must, to a certain extent, do our own work, such as the routine work, and we also need these people to check the vast amount of work done by private professional people for us. I want to point out immediately, though, that most of the work done by our professional staff is in the line of type drawings and industrialized buildings and does not relate to the work of private architects. In this connection I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member to page 4 of the Secretary’s report, under the heading “Architectural Services”. There he will see that as far as the department’s own architects are concerned they were only responsible for the following:

Conventional and prefabricated buildings, etc., to an amount of roughly R8½ million; schools for Coloureds (industrialized building methods), to an amount of nearly R25 million; schools for Indians (industrialized building methods), nearly R1 million; schools for Namas (industrialized building methods). (Services in South West Africa), to an amount of R1 276 000.

This bears out my contention that our own professional people do type drawings to a large extent, and in addition both heavy and light industrialized planning. As far as our own architects are concerned, the hon. member must bear in mind that the Public Service Commission awards bursaries annually, and when the students have completed their studies we are obliged to take in some of those bursary students. I can say, and I say it with a great amount of pride, that the department is an excellent practical training school for these students once they have obtained their degrees. It is, of course, impossible to compare the cost of the departmental professional staff with that of private consultants. But with the assistance given to private consultants and the involvement of departmental staff in all projects carried out by private consultants, it is generally accepted that it is more economical to use departmental staff than to appoint private consultants. In spite of this finding—I could possibly bear this out by quoting figures; I shall probably refer to this later on—we give a large proportion of our work to private disciplines.

*The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the expansion of Government departments. This is really not a matter which falls under Public Works. The hon. member should have discussed this matter with me under the Public Service Commission Vote. I dealt with this matter under the Public Service Commission Vote and I can only say by the way, before you rule me out of order, Mr. Chairman, that I myself set the example this year as the Minister concerned by amalgamating the Departments of the Interior and of Immigration, and as chairman charged with the Public Service Commission, I shall go on trying to bring about more rationalization in this connection. But I do not want to take the matter any further than that.

The hon. member produced an amendment to the item of R5 000 for the removal of squatters. The hon. member raised this matter with me under another Vote last year. I then replied to him and I now reply again by saying that it has been agreed between my department, the Department of Plural Relations and Development and the Department of Community Development that the Department of Plural Relations and Development will see to the removal of Black people squatting on State-owned land and that the Department of Community Development will see to the removal of Coloured people squatting on State land. All my department has to do with the whole matter is to help effect this removal by means of its machinery and labour. All they are using in the line of large machinery is a mechanical fork-lift. They do not use it for flattening everything, but simply for lifting these squatters’ huts. The matter is being handled in the most humane manner possible. The sheets of corrugated iron and the building materials are collected; they are stored and the people can go and fetch it there. Furthermore, as we know, in spite of the fact that the law has been changed in this respect, and that we need not give notice, notice is nevertheless given. In other words, Mr. Chairman, I think that in this respect and under these circumstances, we are acting with the greatest possible compassion, and there can be no complaint about the behaviour of my department.

Then the hon. member for Umhlanga complained about the unnecessary signs and boards which are put up on Government buildings. The renovation of buildings takes place in rotation according to a five-year programme. In terms of this system, every building is due for renovation every five years. During the past few years, however, the programme has fallen behind because of limited funds. Additional funds have now been made available for the purpose, however, and it is trusted that the backlog will be made up within the foreseeable future. In the process of renovation and maintenance, a look will certainly be taken, amongst other things, at the signs and boards which are an eyesore and an attempts will be made to keep the buildings as clean and attractive as possible in the future.

As regards the replacement of existing buildings or the erection of additional buildings for the police, R11,9 million or 7% of the capital budget is being appropriated for this purpose this year. The order of preference of the projects is determined by the Commissioner of Police, and unfortunately my department cannot determine the priorities in this respect, but we are doing a great deal in this connection.

I thank the hon. member for Tygervallei for his support in connection with the removal of squatters. As far as the hon. member for Newton Park is concerned, I want to thank him very sincerely for the thanks he expressed to myself, my Deputy Minister and the staff. I also thank him for the splendid exposition of the meaningful way in which my department allocates the R172 million it has available for the various projects.

Then I come to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for Umlazi and which is an important one. He requested that work be given to young architects. I want to say in the first place that in a certain respect, of course, as far as the allocation of work is concerned, the Department of Public Works acts quite contrary to the line of thinking of prominent architects. I am referring here to a report in The Cape Times of 6 May 1978, concerning what was said by Mr. Glen Gallagher, President of the South African Institute of Architects. The report reads as follows—

He goes on to say—

In other words, he proceeds from the premise that the Department of Public Works, too, should select only the most experienced and the best architects. Let me immediately reassure the hon. member for Umlazi in this connection. It is not the intention of the Department of Public Works to follow that policy. It will always be our intention to allocate work on a regional basis and on a rotation basis. In other words, all things being equal—there are reasons why exceptions could be made; I do not want to take up too much of the Committee’s time—the construction work in Durban will be given to Durban architects on a rotation basis. I can assure hon. members that there is no one in this Committee who is more concerned than I about the scarcity of work among all the disciplines concerned with the building industry. As a professional man I am certainly concerned. I am constantly having interviews with the people. I always try to get the best deal for them. As hon. members know, we have succeeded in attaining a considerable amount of extra money from the Treasury for the coming financial year in order to make more work available.

However, this department simply does not have the volume of work available to employ all the persons in the professional disciplines at the same time. With an estimated expenditure of approximately R200 million in 1978, the department will handle about 24% of the total Government spending on non-residential building, or 14% of the total investment in this type of building. However, the department’s expenditure is only approximately 8% of the total investment of R2 600 million in the building industry as a whole, i.e. all types of buildings. But in spite of the fact that our share is only 8% of the total investment in the building industry, I want to draw hon. members’ attention to the following example in respect of architects. There are 2 018 architects registered with the South African Council for Architects, with approximately 840 practices; of these, about all practices are presently doing work for my department in consortium, sometimes with planning or supervision of construction as a part of their original planning commission. During the 1977-’78 financial year, R4,8 million was paid to private architects, as against an amount of approximately R5 million during the previous financial year. Hon. members can therefore see that we try, in our allocation of work as well as our method of the rotation of work, we try as far as possible to favour architects and other disciplines in the private sector as well.

We go further, and I say this specifically in respect of the young professional consultants. We go so far, where a big job is too much for a particular firm, and in many cases a young firm, as to say to a group of small firms: “Form a consortium so that we can give you the work.” We do not proceed from the point of view that we must necessarily give such a job to a multi-disciplinary or a large enterprise.

The hon. member for Johannesburg North once again discussed a matter which is his favourite subject and on which he is certainly very well informed, i.e. the question of the restoration, and so forth, of old buildings. He asked me a specific question in connection with the incorrect addition that has been made to the back of the Palace of Justice in Pretoria. The answer is as follows: It is the intention of the department to restore the Palace of Justice to its original form. The study in this connection by a private architect has already been completed and accepted by my department. Documentation for the service is now being drafted, and the intention is to commence the performance of the service as soon as alternative accommodation is available in the Department of Justice.

The hon. member is under a false impression as regards the question of the preservation of Government buildings and the part played by the Department of Public Works and the National Monuments Council. The National Monuments Council has the same responsibility for the preservation of Government buildings as for the preservation of private buildings. The only proviso is that the declaration of a Government building is subject to my approval. My department receives applications from this council from time to time for Government buildings to be declared historical monuments, and many Government buildings have in fact been declared historical monuments. I can assure the hon. member that my department and I feel very strongly about the preservation of historical buildings and that such buildings will only be demolished if there is no other alternative, or if their preservation would actually be contrary to the national interest as far as economic or other considerations are concerned.

I can, and in fact I shortly shall, mention a few other interesting examples where we are engaged in conservation work at the moment.

The hon. member spoke of a special register. The department will investigate such an idea. It could be a good idea, but its practical use will first have to be examined. At the moment, the position is in any case that the six regional offices have a register of all Government buildings in their respective areas. The whole question will be investigated again in view of the debate we have had here, and we shall see what we can do about it.

As far as Church Square is concerned, I can only make the following statement. The hon. member asked for it. The Church Square, Pretoria, Development Amendment Act, 1978, was recently promulgated. I hereby announce that the following persons have been appointed to the Church Square Committee in terms of section 2A of the Act:

Mr. S. F. Marais, Deputy Secretary, Works Division, of the Department of Public Works is the chairman. He is a sitting member.

Mr. P. Delport, town clerk of Pretoria, replaces Mr. S. F. Kingsley, who has retired on pension.

Mr. C. W. van Niekerk, Director of Architectural Services, Department of Public Works. He replaces Mr. W. J. Parker, who has retired on pension.

Mr. H. L. Smit, Director of Buildings, Department of Posts and Telecommunications, a sitting member.

Mr. P. W. du Plessis, Director of Works, Transvaal Provincial Administration, sitting member.

Dr. I. Z. Engelbrecht, Director of Cultural Affairs, Department of National Education, who replaces Dr. W. K. H. Du Plessis, who has retired on pension.

Mr. W. F. Visagie, an official in the Department of Planning and the Environment, is a sitting member.

Then the following members are being appointed for a term of three years: Mr. L. la Grange and Mr. C. J. Swart, two practising architects in Pretoria, who have been nominated by the S.A. Council for Architects; the former is a sitting member and the latter is replacing Mr. T. J. Louw, who did not stand again; Mr. R. A. F. Smith, a representative of the Metropolitan Transport Advisory Board, who has been appointed for Pretoria in terms of section 13 of the Urban Transport Act, 1977, and is replacing the representative of the Metropolitan Planning Committee, which no longer exists; Mr. D. C. I. Conradie, a representative of the Property Owners’ Association of South Africa, who is a member of the national council of the Property Owners’ Association of South Africa and also serves on the Pretoria-SAPOA-Church Square subcommittee. From the nature of his position as general manager of the Iscor pension fund, he has a direct interest in considerable property investments in the central area of Pretoria. The latter two members are being appointed because of their expert knowledge of the development of Church Square and its environs.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member for Somerset East for the very interesting speech he made about the restoration of the first debating chamber in Bloemfontein. As he rightly pointed out to hon. members, the Freestaters are not always so prim; even in the old days they sometimes had fun and enjoyed themselves. But as I said a short while ago, I do want to point other valuable work we are now doing in respect of restoration. At the moment we are still working on the old Presidency in Bloemfontein to restore it to its appearance in the years between 1890 and 1900. We have already spent R233 000 on the project, but it is estimated that it will cost about R600 000 upon completion. However, I also want to point out to hon. members that we are doing an enormous job on the Castle in Cape Town at the moment. Work to the value of R48 000 has already been completed, including the repointing of the stone walls and repairs to the clock tower. Other work is also being planned, such as the waterproofing of the water-furrows and bastions. A tender for R359 940 was accepted in January 1978 for the work on the eastern part, i.e. on the station side, and the contract period for this is 18 months. The estimated cost for the work on the other parts is R240 000. A third part involves restoration of the outer walls, the estimated cost of which is R738 000. The provisional tender date for this part is February 1979, and the expected contract period is 18 months. Then there is a fourth part, the general repair and restoration of the inside of the Castle.

The estimated cost of this is R320 000, the provisional tender date is August 1980 and the expected contract period is 17 months. The total estimated cost of the whole project is therefore R1 706 000. From this hon. members can see that we give serious attention to the restoration and preservation of these old buildings and that we are still hard at work on it.

I want to thank the hon. member for Edenvale for referring with appreciation to the new committee which has been appointed to take a closer look at my department’s activities. I also want to congratulate him on the way in which he as chairman handles the committee. He asked whether the department could not publish a report every calendar year in respect of a calendar year. The department has already investigated the possibility of drafting the annual report for a calendar year. However, the problem is that the accounting of the department’s finances is done for a full financial year, and it is not possible to calculate the expenditure and other activities involved for part of a financial year. It must be pointed out that final expenditure for a particular financial year only becomes available round about May or June of the following financial year, and only then can the drafting of the annual report commence.

Mr. Chairman, I shall refer to the acquisition of paintings later in my speech.

I now come to a few questions put to me by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti.

†My replies to the questions put by the hon. members are briefly as follows: Firstly, the department had a register of all Government buildings with full details of cost of original completion, etc. but it proved of little practical value and was abolished. We have the municipal valuation of Government buildings on which the subsidies are calculated, and this serves the purpose. But as I have said previously, we will look into the matter of the other register referred to and we will look into this matter once again as well.

Secondly, my department is qualified to assess the value of State buildings and a special qualified group is therefore not necessary. The department is continually buying buildings where it is a practical proposition and more economical than to erect, or where a building is immediately required and a building to meet the purposes is available for sale. We have Accommodation Committees in regional offices as well as in head office. We are continually assessing the usability of Government buildings for specific purposes. If a building is no longer suitable for one department, it is made available for other departments. It is, however, very seldom possible to dispose of any Government buildings to the private sector as most of these buildings are specially designed for a purpose and could seldom be used for private purposes. The disposal of sites is the function of the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure.

As far as escalation of costs is concerned, we must admit that there has been an escalation of costs over the years, but if a study is made of the department’s five year programme and the increase in the number of services on the department’s programme, then the increase as shown in Figure 1 on page 5 of the report is not due purely to escalation of costs but mainly to the increase in the number of projects to be executed by the department. The tenders accepted over the past two years prove this, namely, for the year 1976-’77, 473 tenders were accepted at a total of R108,3 million and for the year 1977-’78, 640 tenders at a total cost of R136,1 million.

*Mr. Chairman, certain hon. members, including the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, referred to expensive decorations to buildings. I want to point out that we very definitely try at all times to apply a balanced policy in this respect. We begin by ensuring that the buildings are functional. In the second place, depending on the location of the building, we add neither more or less decoration. If we want to put up a building in the city centre, where there are already attractive and durable buildings belonging to the local authority, we cannot possibly erect buildings which would compare unfavourably with those buildings, only to be reproached for having spoilt the environment with unattractive buildings which do not harmonize with the rest. I indicated last year how we were going to reduce the cost of the new Plein Street building by millions of rands by better planning, for example, and by limiting the luxury features inside the building without detracting from the effectiveness and appearance of the building.

The hon. member for Wynberg raised a matter to which I am sympathetically disposed, but unfortunately I cannot do anything about it. He asked whether we could not try to attract young people to the city centre by building dwelling units there. As far as the State is concerned, this is exclusively the task of the Department of Community Development and does not fall in my sphere at all. As far as shopping space in Government buildings is concerned, I want to draw the hon. member’s attention to the fact that in the proposed new Plein Street building, there are going to be six shops on the street level. However, this is not our policy, but the concession was specially made after consultations with the City Council. The criticism was expressed that we were demolishing a block of buildings and that the whole area would be killed if we did not create shopping space as well. As far as this particular building is concerned, we are complying with the hon. member’s demands. I want to emphasize again that it is not the policy to do this in all cases; it depends on circumstances.

I want to thank the hon. member for Langlaagte for having commenced the work done by the Women’s Club in respect of Government buildings. I think they will appreciate reading that in Hansard. I may just add that I have come to know the hon. member well. He is quite a ladies’ man, and I honestly think he had ulterior motives in making his speech. I do not think he was entirely innocent.

Year after year, an appeal is made to the department to buy paintings. Nothing would have given me greater pleasure if my department had been specifically instructed to buy paintings on a large scale. Unfortunately, my department has a very limited commission. I am speaking under correction, but I think the Department of National Education has more funds which can be used for this purpose and they can therefore do more in this connection. My department is only responsible for purchasing paintings for foreign missions and for the residences of the Prime Minister and the State President. I do not know whether hon. members are aware of this, but Ministers must buy their own paintings for their homes. Within the limited scope that my department has, however, I may point out that we are buying quite a number of paintings these days. In this way we have bought works by Frans Oerder, Pierneef, Maud Sumner, W. H. Coetzer, Volschenk and May Hillhouse. In addition, we are still buying paintings for the State President’s residences, because paintings can no longer be provided on loan to those residences by the various art galleries. I want to point out specifically that we go out of our way to buy paintings by young painters for foreign missions.

†Then, Mr. Chairman, I wish to thank the hon. member for Berea for his appreciative words about our horticultural section. He made a plea to me to make more flowers and plants redundant but I wish to point out that if I go on with that process, the Auditor-General may make me redundant too.

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for East London City expressed his appreciation for the department’s activities and referred in particular to what the department had done in his constituency. He raised the interesting point that the department should ensure that buildings are representative of their specific era. The next time he goes to Pretoria, it would be a good idea for him to have a look at the magistrate’s office in Pretoria North. Reference is made to the building on page 6 of our annual report. An architect in the Department of Public Works, Mrs. Lehndorf, designed this beautiful building. When he has seen this attractive building, he will agree with me that in this case we have done what he is now asking for.

As far as energy conservation is concerned, I want to point out to the hon. member that the CSIR is engaged in intensive experimentation. We shall most certainly use all the results of their experiments in planning our buildings.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask whether I have left out any hon. member? If not, I want to ask hon. members to bear with me for a further ten minutes. I realize that I am now going against the will of the hon. Whip behind me, but I shall try to be brief. If I do not have enough time to complete my statement, I shall stop. However, this it is important for me to say something in this connection, because this is a matter which hon. members have been raising in debates in this House for two years. It concerns the cyclical fluctuations in the building industry. I have now come to the stage where I can make a fairly final statement on the matter. On the other hand, however, it seems that I do not have the full co-operation of the hon. Whip behind me, and I therefore want to ask whether hon. members will be satisfied and the Opposition will not accuse me of contempt for this Committee if I sit down and issue a Press statement on the matter.

Yes.

Thank you very much, Sir, I appreciate that. This is an important matter, and I promised that I would see this year what measure of finality I could achieve in this connection. My department has taken the matter as far as possible. I shall therefore issue a full Press statement in this connection.

I want to conclude by expressing my sincere thanks to hon. members for their interest in this department and for their pleasant co-operation, and I am referring here to hon. members on both sides. I want to convey my sincere thanks to the head of my department and his parliamentary staff, his head office staff, his regional representatives and regional staff, for the excellent work they have done over the past year and for the pleasant co-operation I have had from them.