Mr. Chairman, in the first place I should like to deal briefly with some of the questions put to me and the arguments advanced in the course of this debate.

The hon. member for Gezina asked whether the purchase of books and magazines by teachers could not be calculated as an item of expenditure deductable for tax purposes. As far as I know, no motivated representations have yet been made about this matter to the Department of Inland Revenue. If this is done, the department will consider the matter. However, we shall have to have the matter examined on merit and see whether anything of the kind is possible.

†The hon. member for Constantia raised the question of widows’ pensions being capitalized and included in the dutiable value of an estate. I think that is at 18%. This, of course, does not apply only to a widow’s pension, but in fact to all limited interests, like usufructs, fideicommissums, annuity policies, and so forth. If these limited interests are excluded it could mean that an estate could be so structured as to get the maximum benefits or escape tax altogether. I will concede that if the widow is young and the pension is large, hardship can no doubt result. I will ask the department to have another good look at this, and perhaps we can discuss it again a little later.

The hon. member for Walmer raised the question of the financial rand. He was interested in knowing how much capital had come in since we had made this change. I am afraid I do not have any official figure as yet. It is rather early still. However, as soon as we have something in that regard I shall announce it. The Reserve Bank assures me that capital is coming in, coming in for genuine investment purposes as a result of the change we have made, and one is rather pleased to hear that. The hon. member also asked about the publicity that was being given to the financial rand, particularly abroad. We have done and are doing our best to make this quite clear abroad. The hon. member may know that the Department of Finance issues, every few weeks, a broadsheet called Financial Perspective which is circulated among some 500 institutions abroad, particularly the important financial institutions—banks, brokerage firms, etc.—in many countries. That has been extremely well received. In that way, among others, we have also given the financial rand quite a bit of publicity, publicity that has created a good deal of interest abroad. We have, of course, also made this known to our embassies and in their own way they have also been making this known.

The hon. member asked me a few questions relating to the Information affair. He wanted to know whether adequate time would be granted for the discussion of the final report of the Erasmus Commission. I can assure the hon. member that adequate time will certainly be given. I cannot go into all the detail now. However, he has that assurance. I believe he needs to have no doubt in his mind about that at all. The question of the time given to the various parties is a matter for discussion by the Whips. However, there again I am quite sure that he will find that there will be a very fair allocation of time. Then the hon. member also referred to the question of the publication of evidence. In the first place that is of course a matter for the commission to decide. As far as I am concerned, I have nothing whatever to hide and the commission can publish as much evidence as it sees fit.

I think the last question put by the hon. member was whether the House could have my assurance that all secret funds for secret projects would be audited to the fullest extent by the Auditor-General. It was in fact I personally who saw the need to have that done, in the first place by way of the Act that was passed last year, the Secret Services Accounts Act. Since then we have gone to a good deal of trouble to ensure that the Auditor-General is squarely involved in the auditing of the secret accounts and expenditures.

*The hon. member for Parktown said we should not go too far in shifting the tax burden from the rich to the poor. As far as that is concerned, the hon. member may rest assured. We are not taxing the poor. The dilemma the hon. member is faced with, is the result of the fact that when we introduced the new general sales tax last year—a tax that does enable us to start with a programme of reform of our tax system—that hon. member and his party were very strongly opposed to that tax. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member states that we must not go too far. How far is “too far”? It is on record that some of the hon. member’s colleagues kept asking us to reduce the marginal tax scales. They will now have to decide what they want. As far as the Government is concerned, I can assure the hon. member that we envisage a very fair and reasonable system, a system in terms of which the poor will definitely not suffer. I repeat that our proposals for a broadening of the tax base are not aimed at the poor at all. Capital gain as well as fringe benefits—things we are examining thoroughly at the moment—are not earned or obtained by people in the lower income groups. It is not a question of playing off the poor against the rich. What it is all about, is a balanced tax system the proceeds from which will benefit all sectors in that, on the one hand, it could signify social improvements while not, on the other, affecting hard work and initiative disproportionately.

The hon. member for Worcester referred to the Institute for the Blind and Deaf and appealed to me to help that institute to obtain the necessary capital and funds, if possible also by way of tax concessions. We are very sympathetic towards this institute and other similar institutes. I therefore think that it is necessary for me to refer very briefly to the existing grants in this regard. In the first place there are the salaries, wages, allowances and leave gratuities of all approved staff members. The State already accepts responsibility for that in the form of grants-in-aid. In the second place there is a maintenance grant of a maximum of R270 per annum with regard to every needy pupil who boards in a school hostel, the full transport costs of needy resident pupils and their escorts on their admittance and discharge and travel tickets for two holidays per annum. Then too there is the full transportation cost, from and to the school, for non-resident pupils, including the servicing and repair of school vehicles and licence fees and third party insurance. This also covers the full transportation cost when vehicles bought for the transportation of day scholars are used for the transportation of children on educational trips and for trips to and from hospitals and doctors. Furthermore there is a grant of a maximum of R40 per annum with regard to every needy non-resident pupil who has lunch at the school. There is also the payment in the case of needy children of the following items necessary for the programme of special education for handicapped children: In the first place, medical, dental and paramedical treatment; in the second place, treatment in hospitals and, in the third place, artificial medical aids and apparatus.

I can also mention that 95% of the capital expenditure approved by the Minister of National Education for buildings, including alterations to existing buildings, architect’s fees, etc., the purchasing of premises for buildings and the fencing thereof, fixtures for buildings, interest and payment of loans and rent is covered, provided the school has its share available before the State makes its contribution. Then, too, there is the full cost of aids required for education of a specialized nature provided to meet the needs of aberrant children, as well as general cultural and vocational education. Finally, it also covers 75% of all expenditure approved by the Minister. All this is what is already being done in this regard. I think, nevertheless, that the hon. member made out a strong case, and therefore we shall once again go into this to see what can be done.

I have asked the hon. member for Parktown on various occasions—especially recently—to tell us something about gold. The hon. member is in an exceptional position as far as that is concerned. He is, after all, a director of the largest mining group in South Africa. Since the question of gold has been discussed on the front pages of many of our newspapers recently, I really felt that it would have been a good thing to get his opinion about the future of this vitally important mineral. However, we have not yet heard anything.

I did so during the discussion of the Mines Vote.

They were so busy with their gossiping about the former Department of Information that it was quite impossible for him to speak about gold.

Read in Hansard my speech on the Mining Vote.

I am speaking about this debate.

But surely it was during the Budget debate.

But I raised the matter here after all. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I want him to discuss our gold policy in a financial debate and not in other debates.

But what do you have against the hon. the Minister of Mines? [Interjections.]

Now I myself will have to say something briefly about gold. The hon. member should listen carefully. I think that after I have resumed my seat, there will be a few minutes left for debating this Vote and then the hon. member can perhaps tell us something.

Since I made my budget speech about five weeks ago, an important event has taken place in the gold market I am referring to the decision of the American Treasury to halve its supply of gold at monthly auctions from 1,5 million ounces to 750 000 ounces. Hon. members will remember that the USA Treasury has entered the market since 1975 with limited amounts of gold per auction—about 1,3 million ounces was sold up to April 1978—and thereafter decided to increase the amount from May last year to 300 000 ounces and from December to 1,5 million ounces per month.

If the USA Treasury had kept up the monthly sales of 1,5 million ounces for a full year, it would have been equal to an additional supply equivalent to approximately nine months of South Africa’s total gold production, which of course would have meant that these sales would have increased the total gold supply in 1979 by an additional 25%. This could quite possibly have had a significant influence on the price.

The American Treasury was worried about the major deficit on the USA’s trade balance—or so they professed—to which the considerable net import of gold would have contributed. It also wanted to support the dollar in the international currency markets by way of the gold sales. However, it was clear to me at an early stage that these efforts to offer considerably more gold would not be successful, nor could they be kept up for long. There were two reasons for this. In the first place, the extra currency earned by supplying gold to overseas buyers, or the currency saved by offering gold to USA buyers, would be relatively unimportant compared to the extent of the trade balance problem of the USA. In the second place, the gold market would prove indisputably in the long term that such gold sales from reserves could have a slight, non-recurring and temporary depressive effect on prices, but would achieve no significant success in reducing investors’ appetite for gold or “demonetizing” gold.

The large American gold sales were, in fact, absorbed well by the market, and although the gold price fluctuated as usual, the average price this year was on a considerably higher level than last year.

An interesting fact is that the reason advanced for the halving of the American sales was “the improved conditions on currency markets and because gold apparently no longer creates unstable conditions in the markets.” That was the American explanation.

I believe that this is an incorrect reading of the influence of gold on the currency markets. Gold has always been a stabilizing and not a destabilizing factor on these markets. Has gold not been the basis of the world’s monetary systems throughout the centuries? For centuries it served, through times of prosperity and recession, war and peace, as the ideal medium of exchange, calculating unit and bearer of value. As recently as 1 April this year when the new monetary regulations of the European Monetary Union were introduced, the monetary role of gold was once again confirmed. Member countries of the so-called EMU decided that gold would be an essential reserve component of the union.

In the meantime Canada, like South Africa, decided to make one ounce gold coins available to buyers. The Canadian Minister concerned expressed his confidence that a “very strong” demand for these coins could be expected and that only about 10% of them would be sold to Canadians, while the rest would be exported. At the same time the USA Congress decided that the small American investor should be afforded the opportunity to buy gold from the gold supply of the USA by making available, over a period of five years, two types of American gold medallion of respectively half an ounce and one ounce of gold. It is expected that 750 000 ounces will be marketed in medallions of these types in 1980. As Mr. C. Fred Bergsten, the American Deputy Minister of Finance responsible for International Affairs, put it recently—

South Africa has long been able to meet this demand by marketing Kruger rands. Last year record sales were achieved, and although the sales for this year have up to this stage been lower, I believe that the competition of Canadian and American coins will increase the demand for Kruger rands rather than decrease it If one adds to this a report from the USA last week that one of the largest banking institutions in New York intends introducing a scheme of gold certificates which will enable small and large investors to invest in gold without making arrangements for the safe-keeping of physical gold, it should be clear to everyone that in this respect South Africa has an asset which will many a time be of great value to us on the road ahead. The considerable additional currency earnings from gold have already contributed largely over the past years to the success with which we have been able to resist oil price shocks. I want to forecast that South Africa’s yellow gold will continue to make a substantial contribution to the absorption of the tremendous cost of the import of black gold, namely oil. I believe that if one looks at the situation as a whole, the prospects for gold are really very good.

†Finally, I want to mention just briefly one or two matters connected with Information. I am not going to be long. I just want to refer to the report the Rand Daily Mail published earlier last week under the large headlines: “Mulder levels new charge at Horwood.” That appears on the front page. Inside one finds a great deal more about this. Dr. Mulder attacked me in detail. He even said what the room numbers were where we were supposed to have met, as well as the dates and times concerned. In the course of replying to the discussion on my Vote on Friday, I dealt with a number of these allegations. I gave what are, as far as I am concerned, the absolute facts. But I see that the Rand Daily Mail of Saturday studiously avoided publishing my reply to the charges by Dr. Mulder. The report does deal with the so-called fact that I had said I had not seen the item “To The Point” on the document which Dr. Mulder showed me that evening. I have dealt with that matter. It has a great deal to say about that, trying to ridicule what I said. However, although I replied at some length and in detail on the allegations made against me by Dr. Mulder, I can find nothing about it in this newspaper.

I ask you, Sir: Is that the freedom of the Press we want to see in South Africa? Or is it a gross abuse of Press freedom in one of its worst forms that false allegations against a man are published on the front page whilst, when he denies them and quotes the facts, these are ignored? I draw your attention to that, Sir.

I also want to draw your attention to a big headline in The Argus of Saturday night: “Opposition rejects Horwood denial.” Placed alongside that one reads: “And little support from Government during attack.” Sir, the House is my witness: Fourteen hon. members on this side of the House spoke in the debate. Although I did not have the time to go through the speeches of all of them, I took the trouble to look at my notes on eight of them and in six of them I found that the hon. members, members of this side of the House, went out of their way to support me in no uncertain terms. I have no doubt that, if one were to look at the other six speeches also, one would find that the majority of them did the same. Yet, one reads in this newspaper: “Little support from Government during attack.” I say this is untrue. It is a grossly misleading sub-headline. I want to know why the true facts are not given to the public. This is what I have been up against ever since I was Vice-Chancellor of the University of Natal. [Interjections.] In 1967 a small group of militant students and a still smaller group of staff thought they, as a far-left sort of neo-Marxist group—I have all the information on it—could take over the university. But they could not take over the university, because I was not prepared to allow this. That was when the hostile English Press began this unceasing attack on me, which has abated from time to time but is now again taking place in exactly the same way by misleading reports, material omissions, half-truths and untruths. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that on this same issue, when there were debates in the Other Place as a result of Senator Crook’s motions which were voted down, I challenged Senator Crook on every occasion to go before the Erasmus Commission. He wanted a Select Committee to be appointed. I said there was a judicial commission, and what better vehicle could we have? I challenged him to go to that judicial commission, and what did an editor, Mr. O’Mally, say in three leading articles in The Argus? He referred to the fact that I had refused to agree to the request that a Select Committee be appointed to look into the matter. He never once made mention of the fact that I challenged them to go to the existing judicial commission. So there was a gross misrepresentation published.

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I am not interested in the rabble-rousing cry from the hon. member for Umhlanga. I have already told him that he most certainly will not represent the constituency of Umhlanga in this House again, not while we are in Natal!

Will you personally try to take the seat from me?

Order!

I want to draw attention to the fact that this is the sort of thing one has to contend with from that quarter.

Finally, I have been asked from all sides what possible reason there could have been for Dr. Mulder now, suddenly, out of the blue, six months after he had given evidence before the commission—Dr. Mulder’s evidence as far as The Citizen was concerned, I read in this House, and hon. members had an opportunity to hear what that so-called evidence was—to attack me, quoting allegedly chapter and verse when all sorts of things happened, which I was able to rebut on the facts in the House on Friday. It is an interesting question. In my humble opinion there is no logical answer. I tried to think of any possible logical answer, but I was unable to find one. Therefore I have to think of some other answer. Dr. Mulder did this through—of all the newspapers for him to use!—The Rand Daily Mail. I want to ask the editor of the Rand Daily Mail, Mr. Sparks, who attacks me at every opportunity and does not quote me when I rebut the attacks, whether he went to Dr. Connie Mulder and asked him to make the attack on me which they published last week. Did he go to Dr. Connie Mulder, or did Dr. Mulder approach the newspaper and say: “I want the Rand Daily Mail to launch this attack on Horwood through your columns”? The editor of the Rand Daily Mail can answer that. Let him tell us tomorrow morning precisely what happened.

There has been a good deal of talk about Dr. Rhoodie’s famous album of pictures. Hon. members may recall that when Dr. Rhoodie published an attack on me and others some months ago through the medium of the Rand Daily Mail and other Saan group newspapers, they published certain of the pictures involving Dr. Mulder. I want to ask the editor of the Rand Daily Mail whether he has the album of pictures which Dr. Rhoodie had? Did he obtain it from Dr. Rhoodie; if so, how did he obtain it? Did he buy it? If he bought it, what did he pay for it? This is South African money.

Cannot you go and ask these silly questions somewhere else?

If he says that they do not have the album, do they then have pictures from Dr. Rhoodie which involve Dr. Mulder? If he has, I ask him to publish those pictures.

What do you know about such pictures?

I know more than you know. I want him to publish those pictures and to say how he has obtained them. I want the editor, Mr. Sparks, to tell us. [Interjections.] I can understand the sensitivity of those hon. members. These things are going to come out. There are going to be some interesting developments and the Opposition are also going to have to answer some questions before we have finished.

What about our simple questions?

I want to ask whether the Rand Daily Mail obtained any other information from Dr. Rhoodie, information which they have been using to attack me, the hon. the Prime Minister, the State President and others. How did they obtain it? Did they buy it? If so, what did they pay for it? I want the editor just to answer these simple questions, because I am trying to discover—and many people have talked to me about this—how it has come about that now all of a sudden Dr. Mulder attacks me in detail when he could not answer simple questions put to him by the commission last November. He was then completely lost. He said: “Julie vra my onmoontlike vrae. Ek kan onmoontlik nie antwoord nie.” He said that he did not know. I read it out on Friday. Now, suddenly, chapter and verse are quoted. I want to know whether some of those pictures, some of that information, compromise Dr. Mulder or not. I want to know.

Why do you not come to the point?

Why do you not tell us?

I want to say that it is high time for these things to be made known so that we can clear this whole matter up. No doubt we shall look with some interest at what the Rand Daily Mail will have to say tomorrow.

[Inaudible.]

I am not put off by the likes of the hon. member for Umhlanga. I am going to say exactly what I intend saying and ask exactly the questions I intend asking.

I now want to refer to Senator Crook, who has this obsession and persecution mania where he is making this consistent baseless attack on me.

Who has this persecution mania?

Here I have Senator Crook’s speech.

Where did you get it?

This is his speech.

How did you get it?

It was handed to me.

By whom?

This speech was to have been used by Senator Crook in the Other Place last Thursday. The hon. Senator distributed it in advance. I have a copy of it here. I say this is the most shocking attack on the commission of enquiry that I have yet seen.

Where did you get it?

This is the most shocking attack I have yet seen. I believe—I am not a lawyer—this is a grave contravention of the Commissions Act. The hon. Senator Crook will no doubt have to answer questions in that regard. I now want to say to the hon. member for Durban Point, who has become rather rowdy at the moment, to make absolutely certain that Senator Crook appears before the commission with this document in his hand. It is a fair request I ask him to use his influence to ensure that Senator Crook, who has avoided the commission like the plague and has, under privilege of Parliament, attacked all and sundry, takes this document and goes to give evidence under oath to the commission. That is all I ask. If the hon. member for Durban Point does not succeed in that, perhaps the extremely loud-mouthed hon. member for Umlanga will use his good offices to try to persuade this colleague of his in the Other Place to do so, that loudmouthed hon. member who knows so little about it, but who never stops talking.

You should appear before the Select Committee.

Show me that document.

Ask Senator Crook.

Finally on this matter of Information, may I say that this debate lasted all Friday and this part of today on the Treasury, Finance, Customs and Excise and Inland Revenue votes. Mr. Chairman, you have allowed an extremely wide-ranging debate whereby a great deal of opportunity has been given to the Opposition to talk about Information. I am not finding fault with that, but what I am saying is that while I have been a member of the Cabinet, especially while I have been Minister of Finance, I take full responsibility for everything I have done, and I say again that if anybody on that side of the House thinks I am in the dock, they had better have another very good rethink.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance has made a number of allegations in his speech and I particularly want to focus attention on one of them, namely the inference that it is alleged that a newspaper holds a set of photographs obtained from Dr. Rhoodie, photographs which might or might not compromise Dr. Mulder in some form or another, and that, therefore, Dr. Mulder is giving information to the Rand Daily Mail. That sounds to me like an allegation of extortion, and if it is, it has to be investigated. If it is, it has to be referred to the authorities, and if the hon. the Minister of Finance is in possession of information which relates to photographs which are being used for this purpose, and knows what is involved in them, he is obliged to take them to the nearest attorney-general to deal with it. But he cannot make this allegation in the House and he cannot do this unless he knows it. If he does not know it, then it is a reckless allegation, and then it is something which is even more serious. Therefore as far as we are concerned, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I am a little surprised that he would deal with a matter in this fashion, and I now expect him to come back into the debate and tell us precisely what he is talking about instead of coming with these inferences.

I considered very carefully what the hon. the Minister said. There was one very important matter, because his whole defence to the charges against him rests on it, namely where the hon. the Minister said—

That is what the hon. the Minister calls them, “nefarious secret activities”. I have very carefully considered this allegation, and in the ordinary course I think one would reject such a proposition that a Cabinet colleague, people in the same Cabinet, working together, would conspire to trap another. One would particularly reject such an allegation because, as the hon. the Minister himself has sought to infer, what possible benefit could Dr. Mulder derive if he today drags the hon. the Minister of Finance into his problem, because he and Dr. Rhoodie undoubtedly have the problem. I want to make it quite clear that I hold no brief for Dr. Mulder. On the contrary, we have attacked Dr. Mulder. All we have said is exactly the same as the hon. the Minister is entitled to, Dr. Mulder is also entitled to a fair trial. Neither do we hold any brief for Dr. Rhoodie, and the hon. the Minister of Community Development can shake his head as much as he likes. It was we on this side of the House who exposed Dr. Rhoodie and who exposed Dr. Mulder. It was not he. All that came from him and his colleagues was an endeavour to say that there was nothing wrong and to stop inquiries. Therefore, do not comé and smear now and try to point out that we are seeking to protect people. What we believe is that in exactly the same way that a man who has committed murder is entitled to a fair trial, so are these people entitled to a fair trial, and I defy anybody on that side to contradict this.

Now that the issue has been investigated, we must pay attention to this allegation of a conspiracy, because it is made by the hon. the Minister of Finance of South Africa. One must also in all fairness indicate that Dr. Rhoodie has been involved in some very devious activities in his time, and therefore one must pay attention as to whether or not there can be such a conspiracy. I want to make this quite clear so that the hon. the Minister can understand our attitude in this respect. We certainly do not want to destroy the career of the hon. the Minister of Finance if he is the victim of a conspiracy. That is not our function. I find it surprising that the Minister complains today that people have not reported his answers. The truth is that in regard to the whole case we made against the hon. the Minister, he did not reply on a single iota. He got all worked up about it and made all sorts of allegations, but he never dealt with the facts. If we ignore Dr. Mulder and all his allegations, and also Dr. Rhoodie and all his allegations, the hon. the Minister still faces at least seven charges which he has to answer in this House to his peers and also before the public of South Africa He has not endeavoured to explain, in the first place, that he asked Parliament to vote for increased expenditure on defence, that he asked Parliament to pass the budget, including the Defence Vote, while he knew, on his own admission, that the Defence Vote included money that was to be used secretly by the Department of Information. He told that to the House, and it is therefore not an allegation made by Dr. Mulder. In the second place, he knew that money was being transferred from one vote to another, which is contrary to the provisions of the Exchequer and Audit Act This again has nothing to do with Dr. Mulder or any information that he may have given. In the third place, he knew that when certificates were being given in terms of the provisions of the Defence Special Account Act, they covered amounts that had been transferred to the Department of Information and had not been expended in terms of the provisions of that Act. That is fourthly a fact. But still the hon. the Minister does not answer to it He failed to use his powers in terms of the Defence Special Account Act to ensure that all funds were audited. If he had used the powers granted to him in section 5 of that Act, a lot of these problems would never have occurred. In the fifth place, the most remarkable thing happened on Friday when the hon. the Minister admitted giving incorrect evidence before the Erasmus Commission on the issue of To The Point. According to the documents he gave that evidence on 23 March, and it further appears that he then gave evidence to correct it—that is what he tells us—only after there was further public discussion concerning To The Point.

Tell that to the commission.

The hon. the Minister refuses even at this moment in time to tell us in what respect he gave incorrect evidence…

Why do you not go to the commission?

I have been to the commission a number of times.

Have you?

The hon. the Minister should not put forward that kind of rubbish in order to distract the attention. The hon. the Minister talks rubbish, and does not know the facts. [Interjections.]

Like you?

You have given incorrect evidence before the Erasmus Commission, I have not.

Why do you not go and do it?

Hon. members want me to go and give incorrect evidence. What kind of nonsense are they talking? The truth is you gave incorrect evidence…

Order! The hon. member must address the hon. the Minister as “the hon. the Minister” and not as “you”.

The hon. the Minister has given incorrect evidence, and he has not told us in what respect.

The sixth charge against him is that he has been a party to continue financing To The Point up to the present day without publicly stating—and I challenge him to do so—when he first became aware of the Government’s involvement in To The Point. To The Point advocated a party-political standpoint in South Africa, and there is no difference between supporting To The Point and The Citizen. The hon. the Minister has also failed to respond to challenges in Parliament that we put to him earlier this year, but kept quiet about To The Point until the storm broke around him.

The seventh charge against him is that his initials appear on every page of the letter of 26 April. It appeared next to the amount of R1,3 million that was to be allocated to To The Point. He explained that on both occasions, when he placed his initials there and when he cancelled them, “I took great care to obliterate any items as I turned over the foot of each page precisely so that I should not see anything in the document”. That appears to be prima facie in conflict with the previous statements that the hon. member for Parktown quoted, but to which the hon. the Minister has not replied. It is inconsistent with his previous attitudes in seeking to obtain information, and now when he gets it, he says that he will not look at it. He could have endorsed on the letter that he had not looked at it, but he did not do so. As a student of mercantile law I believe the hon. the Minister learned that when one signs a document, one is presumed to bind oneself to it It does not help to say afterwards that you did not know what you signed. I have heard that explanation rejected in court not once, but dozens of times. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister of Finance has chosen to issue a challenge to me on two things and I wish to raise certain matters with him.

Just answer those challenges.

I shall deal with them. First I want to ask the hon. the Minister a question. On Friday he said that senior members of the NRP had come to him in some distress as a result of the attacks made on him. [Interjections.] I now challenge him publicly, before this House and before South Africa, to name those hon. members. I have the full authority of my caucus to make this challenge to the hon. the Minister, to ask him to name them and to exonerate the hon. the Minister from any confidentiality in regard to those so-called disclosures of distress to him. That is the first challenge: A clear and unequivocal challenge to the hon. the Minister to name the hon. members.

There is also a second challenge. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister chose to quote from the notes of an unmade speech, distributed under embargo until that speech was made. It is a natural rule that if one gives, in advance, the notes of a speech one is about to deliver, it may not be published until one has delivered it. [Interjections.] It is a clear and traditional practice. [Interjections.]

I have challenged the hon. the Minister to show me—not obliterated, but uncovered—the document in his possession. He clearly has notes of a speech which was not delivered, because he, as Leader of the Other Place, led the Senators of the NP out to break the quorum and escape a debate. He admitted guilt by doing that. It was an admission of guilt to walk out and avoid facing the attack set out in that speech. I want to say, so that it is on record in Hansard—even though the hon. the Minister has prevented it from being on record in the Other Place—that in a judgment of the Appeal Court in the case Rex v. Meyers it was found that a person “who had committed a wilful abstention from all sources of information which might lead to suspicion and a sedulous avoidance of all possible avenues to the truth for the express purpose of not having any doubt thrown on what he desires and is determined to, and afterwards does, in a sense believe”.

I charge the hon. the Minister that in terms of the law of South Africa his refusal, his deliberate abstention from obtaining information which was at his disposal, makes him as guilty as if he had participated in that information and knew it. In terms of the law of South Africa, his deliberate abstention makes him equally guilty—this is the law of South Africa as laid down by the Appellate Division of South Africa—as if he had known or possessed that information. His deliberate and wilful refusal to seek information which would have made him an accomplice, is as serious and makes him as guilty as if he had been an accomplice. I say to the hon. the Minister that in terms of the law of South Africa he is equally guilty as though he had that information, because he has admitted in this House that he deliberately and specifically, for the purpose of not knowing, obliterated evidence which was at his disposal. He alleges that he hid it. How he hid it so that he could sign within centimetres of the item To The Point, within millimetres, and not see the item, I do not know. It was a magnificent, a brilliant bit of obliteration. However, accepting his word that he obliterated what was in the document, then he is as guilty as though he had known it He had the document before him. If he was under pressure by Dr. Mulder when he signed that document he was certainly—I want to put this very clearly to the hon. the Minister—not under pressure when he cancelled his signature. He then had all the time in the world to read that document to get to know what it was all about He has here, publicly, before the people of South Africa, admitted that in terms of South African law he deliberately and wilfully abstained from obtaining information available to him. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister asks why we do not give evidence before the Erasmus Commission. The commission is there to consider criminal liability and irregularities concerned with the Information affair. What we are arguing is political responsibility, the political responsibility of the Government and the Cabinet. It is the duty of Parliament, the duty of this House and of the Other Place, to deal with that. That is why, when it comes to political responsibility, we raise it here in this House. This is not evidence of criminal responsibility. That is the task of the Erasmus Commission. It is the task of this Parliament to deal with that hon. Minister’s political responsibility. [Interjections.] It is my contention that upon the evidence before this House, on the evidence before South Africa, the duty of that hon. Minister is to resign from the Cabinet. [Interjections.] It is of course not the first time I have heard this hon. Minister indignant. The first time I heard that hon. Minister indignant was when I, as deputy chairman of the old United Party in Natal, queried press reports that he was about to join the NP. Then he became indignant. He waxed indignant and threatened court action. He said… [Interjections.]

Order! That has nothing to do with this Vote at all.

Mr. Chairman, it has. [Interjections.] I am discussing the hon. the Minister’s fitness to earn the salary which we and the official Opposition have proposed should be deleted or reduced. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister told me…

Order! The hon. member must abide by my ruling.

The hon. the Minister has repeated now that there is a vendetta against him. He uses the same words that he used then, and he quoted the then editor of The Daily News and the present editor of The Argus as the man conducting the vendetta against him. Now he says again there is a vendetta against him. According to the Press and the NP, it subsequently appeared that at the time he made those claims he was already a member of the NP. Does he wonder then why question him? Does he deny it? [Interjections.] Does he deny that, at the time he denied it to me, he was already a member of the NP?

Put that in writing. Will you put that in writing? [Interjections.]

Order! [Interjections.] Order! I wish to point out to the hon. member for Durban Point that the only thing that is at issue here is the hon. the Minister’s administration of the Department of Finance.

Mr. Chairman, I will leave it at that. If the hon. the Minister will answer me, I will be glad.

I now want to put another question to the hon. the Minister. He was Minister of Finance on 26 September last year. He was Minister of Finance when the Cabinet was publicly informed of the Information situation. I want to ask him to tell this House why he withheld from his own caucus, from those hon. members sitting here in this House, information which was vital to the election of a new Prime Minister. Why did he not trust the members of his own caucus?

What do you have to do with it?

Why did he not inform them? Why did he not see to it that his own caucus was informed? He says, and I must accept it, that his hands are clean. If his hands are so clean, and if he could then be part… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have said before, and I say again, that I have absolutely nothing to hide. I shall speak to the particular person of his party I have in mind, the person who spoke to me on this issue and also sent me a note.

You said “members”.

He also sent me a note. It was done more than once. I shall speak to that particular member who sent me two notes on the issue. I do not really know what the hon. member was talking about. He spoke about 26 September when, I must infer, I heard about certain things at a Cabinet meeting. Is that correct?

You were in New York.

Ah, so what is the hon. member saying now?

Were you not informed?

Just a minute. The hon. member said I was at a Cabinet meeting on 26 September. I heard him.

I accept you weren’t…

In actual fact I was in the United States.

Did you know it on the 28th?

I was in the United States on 26 September when that meeting took place.

Did you know on the 28th?

Mr. Chairman… [Interjections.]

Order!

I think that hon. member must withdraw what he said and apologize to me. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw the 26th and substitute the 28th.

So what have I to answer for about the 28th?

Did you know?

I knew less than anybody else, on the 28th, about what had transpired. [Interjections.]

Order!

I knew less than anybody else, and my colleagues can confirm that, one by one. [Interjections.] I have listened to the hon. member for Durban Point, and if I may say so it was, with respect, a pathetic contribution. The hon. member gets up and says I am talking about a vendetta, but what was he doing today? He was simply continuing with that vendetta in the best style possible. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I have listened to both the hon. member for Durban Point and the hon. member for Yeoville, and I want to say that I have absolutely nothing to add to this debate.

Mr. Chairman, it is with some regret that one finds that the hon. the Minister will not answer the charges that have been levelled against him.

Charges by whom? By the people’s court?

If the public therefore draws certain inferences from the fact that he did not answer, he has only himself to blame.

I want to come immediately to the question of the letter of the 26th. This was the subject of my seventh charge against the hon. the Minister. I indicated to him that he had, firstly, made statements that were prima facie in conflict with his previous statements, both in the Other Place and here. Secondly, I pointed out that his statement was inconsistent with previous attitudes in seeking information, which he also claimed, both in the Senate and here, that he had done. He had the opportunity to get that information but did not seize the opportunity. Thirdly, I question how he could have initialled the letter without looking at it. Fourthly, I charge that he had never before, either publicly, in Parliament or in disclosed evidence before the commission, advanced such a contention, the contention that had covered up this document On the contrary, on page 13 of the interim report of the commission the following is stated—

With respect, this finding is in direct conflict with what the hon. the Minister has said. What is equally important, however, is that he did not disclose the fact that the words “To The Point” was, in fact, in the schedule. We had to wait for Dr. Mulder to make that disclosure, and then only did he deal with it. Let us also look at the place where he put his initials in relation to the position of the amount R1,3 million and the words “To The Point”. A photostat copy of the document has been printed in the Press and is there for all to see. I defy anybody to put his initials on such a spot and to cancel them without noticing what is taking place, unless there is some miraculous kind of complete covering up. [Interjections.] Though the hon. the Minister must have known for some time that the Government was financing To The Point, and therefore knew for some time that there was a miscarriage of justice against three newspapers, at least before Dr. Mulder made the item in the schedule public and before the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs referred to the fact that there was this vast sum of money which had been given to To The Point, the hon. the Minister of Finance was absolutely quiet on this miscarriage of justice and said not one single word.

Order!

What is the problem, Sir?

The hon. the Minister said he did not know.

Did not know what?

The hon. member now says the hon. the Minister did know.

Sir, with great respect, the hon. the Minister knew at some time before those two announcements were made that there was public money for To The Point because this year’s budget contains money for To The Point. Therefore, that he said he did not know earlier, has nothing to do with it. In any case, I believe the hon. the Minister has a duty to say when he did first become aware, because he must have been aware in so far as this year’s budget is concerned. I asked him the question which the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs had requested me to ask him, but he would not answer. With great respect, how can you, Sir, therefore tell me what he has said?

He goes one further. He has alleged that he asked Dr. Mulder to allow him to take the document away with him on 26 April. He said that in the Senate on 26 March this year. Therefore it was clear that he had asked for the document to remain in his possession. He is not going to suggest to anybody that he was going to walk around with that document for days holding it covered up so that he could not see it. He had the photostat, sent back to him, in his possession. Is he now suggesting that all the time he had this letter, he made quite sure that nobody could possibly see it? These probabilities require an answer from the hon. the Minister.

I have indicated that there is a well-known legal principle that one is bound by one’s signature. The courts have held that if one choose deliberately not to read what one is signing, one is bound by one’s signature. Caveat subscriptor is the maxim, and the principles of estoppel, with which the hon. the Minister is well aware, clearly apply.

Having allegedly been deceived about the legal necessity to sign and about the number of copies in existence, and not having the original returned to him, there was apparently no complaint by him to the Prime Minister at the time and there was no action by him to obtain the original. Nothing was done by him despite all this deception, of which he must have been aware. He must have been aware of that before the election of the Prime Minister took place. The hon. member for Durban Point has already referred to that.

There is also the portion of the letter of 4 May—the whole of the letter was not read by the hon. the Minister—which does not say that he never looked at the list of projects. On the contrary, that letter says—

He did not say that he did not look at the letter. He did not say that he did not deal with it.

The letter of 26 April refers to the fact that the hon. the Minister was present for about a third of the time at the presentation. It refers to the fact that the schedules were shown to Mr. Pretorius and Mr. Du Plessis. There is, however, no indication that there was a reply which says he denied that these schedules were shown to his officials. If his officials saw them, then they too must have seen the reference to To The Point there, and it would then be very surprising if the hon. the Minister did not know about it.

Again the hon. the Minister well knows that there is a maxim that if one gets a contention advanced in a letter of that kind, there is an obligation on one to deny it and that, if one does not deny it, it is deemed to be admitted. The rule in the Benefic Cycle case is well known to the hon. the Minister, as it ought to be to anybody in that position. Looking at the circumstances surrounding the letter of 26 April, I want to say that, if the hon. the Minister persists in his refusal to deal with these probabilities, he has only himself to blame if the public sit in judgment on him and come to a conclusion which he finds unsatisfactory in the circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, all I have to say is that I have made it perfectly clear what I knew and what I did not know. However, the hon. member for Yeoville has said in the House that he does not believe me.

I have asked you to answer.

I therefore want to tell him that in the future I shall on all occasions apply to him the reservation whether or not to believe anything he says. [Interjections.] I shall do the same in respect of any other member who gets up in the House and says he does not believe that what another member said was the truth.

I called on you to give an explanation.

That is all I have to say.

You will have to do that in respect of the entire party.

Order!

Amendment moved by Dr. Z. J. de Beer put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—24: Basson, J. D. du P.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Noes—112: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, N. F. Treurnicht, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and A. J. Vlok.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. G. S. Bartlett put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—25: Bamford, B. R.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. W. B. Page and W. M. Sutton.

Noes—112: Aronson, T.; Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. R; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, D. H.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, N. F. Treurnicht, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and A. J. Vlok.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment moved by Mr. H. H. Schwarz put and the Committee divided:

Ayes—28: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Boraine, A. L.; Dalling, D. J.; De Beer, Z. J.; De Jong, G.; De Villiers, I. F. A.; Eglin, C. W.; Lorimer, R. J.; Malcomess, D. J. N.; Marais, J. F.; Miller, R. B.; Myburgh, P. A.; Oldfield, G. N.; Page, B. W. B.; Pyper, P. A.; Raw, W. V.; Rossouw, D. H.; Schwarz, H. H.; Slabbert, F. van Z.; Sutton, W. M.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. B. Widman.

Noes—109: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C; Blanché, J. P. I.; Bodenstein, P.; Botha, C. J. van R.; Botha, J. C. G.; Botha, R. F.; Clase, P. J.; Coetsee, H. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cruywagen, W. A.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Greeff, J. W.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heyns, J. H.; Horn, J. W. L.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koomhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Kotzé, W. D.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, F. J. (Brakpan); Le Roux, F. J. (Hercules); Le Roux, Z. P.; Ligthelm, C. J.; Ligthelm, N. W.; Lloyd, J. J.; Louw, E. van der M.; Malan, G. F.; Malan, W. C. (Paarl); Malan, W. C. (Randburg); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Morrison, G. de V.; Muller, S. L.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Palm, P. D.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Schoeman, J. C. B.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Steyn, S. J. M.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Ungerer, J. H. B.; Uys, C; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Merwe, S. W.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Watt, L.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Vuuren, P. Z. J.; Van Wyk, A. C; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Viljoen, P. J. van B.; Visagie, J. H.; Volker, V. A.; Vosloo, W. L.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Wilkens, B. H.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, L. J. Botha, N. F. Treumicht, H. D. K. van der Merwe, J. A. van Tonder and A. J. Vlok.

Amendment negatived.

Votes agreed to.

Vote No. 26.—“Community Development”:

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the publications they supplied us with, namely the information piece as well as the annual report. It will be impossible in the time available to me to do justice to all the various activities of the department and consequently I have to select one or two crucial aspects of the department’s activities and concentrate on them.

It is a well-known fact that land for purposes of residential development is a dwindling commodity in South Africa. This has been publically stated by the Secretary for Community Development himself. It is also a well-known fact that such land as is available for residential development, is divided in terms of the Group Areas Act on a racial basis so that there is land for exclusive White, Coloured, Asian and Black occupation. It is also known that Blacks, Coloureds and Asians have the highest birth-rate and enjoy the highest degree of urban migration at the present time. Therefore it is logical to expect that the greatest pressure for residential land will be from the Black, Coloured and Asian population groups. It is against this background that we must assess the Government’s attempt to meet the housing needs of the South African population. According to the annual report of the Department of Community Development, the housing situation briefly is that for Whites there is a surplus of housing in most of the major metropolitan areas, while for Coloureds there is a shortfall of roughly 57 600 houses and for Indians a shortfall of roughly 40 000. I calculate the 40 000 on the basis that over the next five years, according to the annual report, 8 000 houses per annum will have to be built in order to meet the shortfall. These figures do not take into account the problem of overcrowding. Earlier this session I put this question to the hon. the Minister and he said that they could not calculate the rate or the degree of overcrowding in these areas. Mr. Chairman, these figures make one thing quite clear, i.e. that the provision of housing has the potential of becoming a major issue of conflict if care is not taken. On certain levels the Government seems to be aware of this. Thus, between 1974 and 1978, there has been a shift of almost 50% in Government spending on new houses away from Whites and in favour of other groups. The department also feels fairly confident that it will wipe out the existing backlog by approximately 1985, provided funds are sufficient This may be so, and I do not wish to question the Government’s sincerity in saying that it wishes to achieve this, but until that goal is achieved, the greatest care has to be taken not to harm race relations and to spoil South Africa’s international image. All the good done through spectacular projects is counteracted through hasty, thoughtless and provocative action on the part of the Government I want to refer to a number of incidents in this respect How can anyone justify a situation where 1 500 houses stand empty in a White group areas, while next door, in another group area, children sleep in baths and up to 26 people share a house just because of a lack of accommodation? This kind of thing cannot be justified.

How many houses?

1 500 houses in a White area.

In just one White neighbourhood?

I have the newspaper report here. The hon. member may come and get it so that he can see that I am not sucking these facts out of my thumb. The very clear and obvious separation of White group areas and non-White group areas is in my opinion one of the dilemmas that we are experiencing. Particularly in the case of the non-Whites, the population is too large for these areas, and this results in a scramble for the available land.

†Secondly, if some of these people dare to occupy empty houses in a White group area, they are threatened by court action. The hon. the Minister should know what I am talking about. One should not create a situation where it appears that a man can be made a criminal just because he tries to provide a shelter for his family. If there are laws that have that consequence, I say that they should be changed because they have no justice in them.

Thirdly, there is a surplus of White housing while there is a shortage of land for Coloured housing and also a housing backlog. In the light of this, how can one justify the taking away of land for Coloured housing and turning it into a White group area? I claim that this is the shame of District Six, and it is of no use saying that District Six was a slum. It is important to realize that there is a pressure for land, particularly by the other population groups. In this case the area was deproclaimed and proclaimed as a White group area and the accommodation that was available destroyed. In this case the Government could have started a programme of urban renewal, rather than destroy those houses and make the land available for White residential development, while a surplus in White housing already exists.

If it is, like the department claims—and I believe the department—that the present backlog is an interim phase that will soon be overcome, within the foreseeable future, then surely innovative and interim measures can also be taken, for example temporary permits for people to occupy premises otherwise prohibited to them. I think measures such as these can contribute a great deal towards easing the existing pressure on housing. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to encourage his department to explore ways and means to cope with the so-called interim phase without harming race relations or causing embarrassment to South Africa.

*This is the first matter which I want to refer to briefly.

In the second place it clear from the report that the department rather disapproves of self-help housing schemes, particularly in the low-cost housing areas. In this respect I am referring specifically to pages 11, 12 and 13 of the department’s annual report. The argument goes that self-help schemes are in fact enjoying quite a lot of attention at the moment and that it is very dangerous not to approach the matter with caution, etc. The department goes on to say in its report that the Government can provide low-cost housing which people can afford, even if they are relatively poor. In this regard I refer to paragraph 5 on page 13 of the report which reads as follows—

I should like to react to these statements by calling them a formal argument It is not an argument which has regard for the circumstances in which the majority of the Coloured population find themselves. It is formal in the sense that it does not take into consideration the average size of a family in a household where the breadwinner earns R64 per month. The average size of the family could have a tremendous effect on the amount of money which can be spent on rent. For example, it does not take into account the distance from the dwelling-place to the place of employment either. This distance determines the monthly expenditure on transport, for example. It does not take into account the general level of unemployment either. For that reason we do not believe that we shall solve the problem by a formal argument of this kind and by stating that because houses could be made available at R4 500, it is possible in principle for somebody who earns R64 per month to put 25% of this salary aside for housing.

The question is how many people are unemployed, what is their housing situation and what can we do to find a solution to their housing needs. It is in this sphere that the possibility of alternative forms of self-help schemes should be considered. I am not the only one to call for this. The National Building Institute is also calling for it. In two of their documents which appeared recently, viz. “The Kanyamazane Project” and a paper read by Mr. Finlayson entitled “The Role of Community Involvement in Low Income Housing” the fact is emphasized that in South Africa in particular, different forms of self-help schemes should be considered. The reason they say so, is clearly illustrated at the beginning of “The Kanyamazane Project”. I quote—

In other words, Government resources. If we consider that in this area of the low-cost housing it has been calculated that from now until the year 2000, approximately 80% of expenditure on housing will be spent in this field, we can form some idea of the tremendous task that awaits us as regards provision of housing in the year 2000. Particularly in the light of the success which these people have had with this project, they point out the most important benefit of self-help schemes. I quote—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to react at length now to the speech made by the hon. member for Rondebosch although he raised two matters to which I do want to refer. The first is the lack of housing, which could be a cause of conflict I agree with the hon. member that this could cause conflict under certain circumstances. I shall come back to this at a later stage.

However, I want to tell the hon. member that I do not think that the provision of housing is the sole responsibility of the Government. This will be shown in the course of this debate. The hon. member discussed the approximately 1 500 White units which would supposedly not be occupied. As a scientist he was trained in the very discipline which deals with a phenomenon which has existed over the past few years, viz. that Whites, owing to the high cost of living and to the lengthening of the period of compulsory military service, have to a certain extent and contrary to expectations begun to live together. Children have returned to their parents, parents stay longer with their children, etc. Those factors have to a certain extent caused the provision of housing for Whites to have anticipated the need. The Government certainly cannot be charged with being up to date with something for a change. Usually the Government is criticized for things with which it is not up to date. I think that it is really a wonderful achievement that we are up to date in this area.

Thirdly, I have been informed that the Department is able to provide low cost housing, for which the tenant need only pay R12,70 per month. If we were to calculate this on the basis of 25% of his salary for house rent, this means that he should earn a minimum salary of approximately R48 or R50 per month. Even a man who merely does gardening, can surely earn this if he wants to work. We must after all pay heed to that too.

I also want to congratulate the department on this series of publications which they have made available to us. There is the annual report, even the confidential report in connection with the investigation into Sea Point and Green Point, this Focus on the Department of Community Development, and a brochure on the tour of 26 February. I also want to thank them for that tour which we were able to join. I think it was very instructive. It was well organized and again left one with an impression of the fine and positive work being done by the department. Then there is still the statistics dossier as well. All these documents look attractive and are crammed full with information. They testify to the department’s achievements and goals, and when one has read through them, one really knows something about the work of this department.

I believe this department has something to advertise, something with which to boast. The department has accomplished fine achievements. I am not going to quote many figures. When, however, I analyse the figures contained in these documents, I reach the conclusion that approximately 12,5% of the Whites of South Africa live in houses built with State funds. They also indicate that at the moment there is an overall surplus of accommodation for Whites. With regard to the non-Whites, too, we have a very fine picture before us. When I do this calculation, it would appear that more than 33% of the Coloureds and Indians are living in houses constructed with State funds. This is a wonderful achievement.

Therefore, whatever hon. members of the Opposition may say with regard to the Government’s activities, I believe that this department and South Africa can pat themselves on the back, as far as the provision of housing accommodation is concerned. The same applies to the NP. Few of these houses were provided under another régime than that of the NP. Last year alone 39 000 dwelling units were provided at a cost of R229 million; an average of 107 dwelling units per day. Of those only 2 640 were for Whites. The rest were all provided for non-Whites.

This terrible Government, a government which is supposedly such a bully, which can do nothing right, which is not humane, which has no compassion for the lesser-privileged either, can point to these things as its achievements. These are the achievements of the Government and this department. I believe we can say that this department has done its duty in this regard. In fact the department estimates that the entire backlog, including the backlog with regard to overcrowding—something about which the hon. member for Rondebosch constantly puts questions—is a problem which can be solved within three years. If conditions deteriorate and less money is made available to the department, it will take five years to overcome this problem. Of course, this includes the squatter problem as well. During the last three years 10 500 squatters have been resettled.

These achievements of the department are based on experience, research, co-operation from local authorities and the private sector, but particularly on the determination of the Government to provide each family with a decent home; a determination which rests on our Christian awareness but also on humanity and goodwill.

I want to ask the enemies of the NP to perceive these things for a change and tell the world and the non-Whites of South Africa about them. South Africa is a world leader in the field of low cost housing, and there is praise and appreciation for what is being done. For that reason I really hope that this department will have the necessary funds at its disposal to carry out its programme and to eliminate this backlog soon. In fact, this is the policy of the Government, and the Government’s policy of residential segregation depends on this, for as long as there is a backlog with regard to housing for non-Whites and an oversupply in the field for housing for Whites, pressure will develop and there will be mounting pressure for us to accede to the demands that non-Whites be allowed to move into those available dwelling units.

One of my hon. colleagues will discuss this specific subject At this stage I just want to ask the hon. the Minister to take ruthless action against offenders in this regard. Whatever the world may say, the Government has an unambiguous mandate from its voters to implement the policy of residential segregation. Lack of action is regarded as a weakness, and weakness provokes conflict, that conflict which the hon. member for Rondebosch discussed. For that reason it is essential that action be taken against offenders on this level.

My, but you are really being forceful today.

I have another reason for wanting this. We are living in a time of considerable unemployment and a high cost of living. It is being said that the Department of Housing is an unproductive department. That is not true. Last year the department received an additional R250 million for its task. In that way 60 000 heads of families were gainfully employed. With every R100 million for low cost housing employment can be provided for 25 000 people. On an average of five per family this means that 125 000 persons could derive benefit from this. The import component for low cost housing is virtually nil, while the social benefits are legion.

There is also the question of happy workers, etc., which I do not want to elaborate on now. The important point is, however, that housing affects every person every day of his life, from the cradle to the grave. Compare this with the cry that certain facilities, for example theatres, should be thrown open to all. If one considers what an outcry has been raised on this matter, one sometimes wonders whether people have not lost their sense of values, because how many people are really involved in the throwing open of facilities to all, while every individual is involved in the provision of housing? Housing is what matters most, and not permits and the throwing open or sharing of facilities.

Since 1964 community development and housing have been combined under one department, and since then there has been tremendous progress. From 1974 in particular there have been many more additional advantages, viz. squatter control, community facilities, the co-ordinating of housing matters and State housing. One department covers the whole housing situation, except for the proclamation of group areas which at present falls under the Department of Planning, but which, in my opinion, should really fall under the jurisdiction of this department, too. I hope the efforts of the hon. the Prime Minister to streamline the Public Service, will bring about a change here so that it will also be possible to include the proclamation of group areas under this department, where I think it belongs.

I see in an article in the S.A. Digest of 27 April this year, an article taken from The Star, that the Urban Foundation is making certain claims. I should be pleased if the hon. the Minister could give us some information on this organization. This organization claims that it negotiated R500 000 from the Cape Chamber of Commerce for a scheme for Coloured housing, a scheme for 190 houses in Belhar, and a further R850 000 from the Peninsula Community Association for a further 180 houses in Belhar, as well as a further loan of R225 000 for Coloured housing in the Peninsula. That is a total of R1 575 000.

Order! I am afraid that the hon. member’s time has expired.

Mr. Chairman, I am rising merely to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

I thank the hon. member. In the S.A. Stigtingsnuus of April this year, there is another article on the Urban Foundation’s achievements. Mention is made, inter alia, of a national programme of 135 projects which has been launched at a cost of R7,7 million. I do not know whether this is in respect of the provision of housing, too. The article is a little vague in this regard. Then there is also the claim that it acted as catalyst in the allocation of local and overseas financial aid for the financing of five important housing projects. I should like to know to which projects reference is being made. I was under the impression that the Urban Foundation did not co-operate with the Department of Community Development in the past. Can I accept, however, that there is good cooperation at present and that they are in fact helping to meet our growing needs?

I also read in the statement of the Minister of Plural Relations on the future of the people of Crossroads—i.e. the re-settlement of a section of them in a new Black town—that the Urban Foundation will be asked to be involved in the planning and the development of the new town. Do these people have experience in the provision of low-cost housing and what authority do they have? I am asking this because this project in Belhar—and they claim that they channelled the money for this—does not seem to me to be a very great success if I am to believe the recent report in The Argus that there is considerable dissatisfaction about the quality of the buildings constructed there, although this was in actual fact high cost housing and not low cost housing.

I should also like to know from the hon. the Minister the facts concerning the Shelter project of the Urban Foundation at Valhalla Park. I understand that they built houses at a cost of R2 800 per unit, while the Department of Community Development built perhaps even better houses at Valhalla Park for R1 900 per unit I want to ask whether the Urban Foundation is really making a contribution or whether these are not perhaps mere unfounded claims that this organization is making. I am asking this because it has been proven time and again that the Department of Community Development is the best authority when it comes to the provision of low cost housing. They are experienced; it is their daily task. In the year 1 October 1977 to 30 September 1978, 4 400 squatter huts were demolished and the people resettled. Depending on their income they can hire those units for as little as R12,71 per month. I doubt that this can be beaten by any other organization. The department’s experience has led it, inter alia, to oppose temporary emergency camps and site-and-service schemes. The department rejects this as a possible solution in contrast to the plea made by the hon. member for Rondebosch. I think he is an advocate of such solutions and I think the Urban Foundation agrees with the hon. member for Rondebosch. I think they are also advocates of such solutions. In this regard it is probably also desirable to depend rather on recognized experience than on unfounded claims.

I therefore want the department to advertise its activities and achievements. It should advertise far more than it does. It should give greater publicity to its achievements in the field of low and high cost housing provision. It should ensure that the Urban Foundation takes cognizance of this, too. If there is a communication gap between the department and the Department of Plural Relations and Development, this should also be rectified so that the latter department can also get the record.

On a previous occasion in this House I made the plea that the department should take the initiative in providing accommodation for single non-White servants within their specific towns. The hon. the Minister said at that stage that the policy made provision for that and that applications would be considered. I want to ask the department to take the lead in this matter, to take the initiative and not to wait till it is pulled or pushed, because if I now examine the situation in Green Point and Sea Point on the basis of the report we have available, it seems to me that the Cape Town city council took a very rash decision on the report. They said that the Fouché Committee’s investigation was superficial and incomplete. This seems to me to be a superficial decision. Surely they will find the same evidence. I cannot see how they could, with an objective investigation, find evidence other than that contained in the report They will be compelled to arrive at the same conclusions.

The trouble is, however, that although they know what the problem is, they refuse to admit it They refuse to act because that would be unpopular. They would prejudice certain business friends of theirs and this would prejudice the PFP, because the PFP is in the majority in the Cape Town City Council. Therefore I can quite imagine why they refused to act and are satisfied rather to wear blinkers as far as the problems in this regard are concerned.

The Council has known what has been happening since 1972. The taxpayers have repeatedly made representations and asked for action, but they have done so to no avail. There were letters to the newspapers. They are now being insulting to the committee in their decision, a respected committee that has respected members. Among others high officials of the council itself were members of the committee.

I find the report to the point and very practical; the conclusions logical and the recommendations practicable. It was seen as a godsend by the people of those areas. Those people told us that the PFP were not speaking on their behalf; they want the recommendations to be implemented. Consequently I ask the hon. the Minister to implement the recommendations and seriously to consider the possibility of establishing the servants of those areas in their own towns; exceptions should only be allowed on the basis of permits.

I want this to be the beginning of a general pattern throughout our country, viz. that servants will also work fixed hours and for the rest of the time will stay in their own communities in order to be able to live their own lives to the full and to help in the development of those communities. I believe that this will be a powerful incentive for those communities; this will be new life-blood for those people’s communities. I think it is an injustice to non-White servants to keep them employed day and night and to shackle them for the rest of their lives to a social structure in which they feel unwelcome and in which they are not allowed to make any contribution of importance, except that of their good labour. I am sure that no White Prog will be satisfied to live and work under such circumstances, but that party begrudges other people what they claim for themselves; but yet they are base enough to keep on pointing a finger at us and to accuse us of inhuman conduct.

Order! The hon. member must not use the word “base” in that sense.

Sir, I withdraw it. I want to refer briefly to the budget itself. Under the heading “official quarters” there are two items in particular which draw my attention. The first is “acquisition and erection of residential accommodation” involving an amount of R43,6 million which virtually means a 100% increase. Of that amount R37 million will be used for the Defence Force. The other is “hiring of residential accommodation” involving an amount of R8,3 million which represents a 20% increase. A considerable portion of this contribution is for utilization in respect of the Defence Force and the police. Indirectly this department is, therefore, making a positive contribution to the greater safety of this country.

On the total budget there is an increase of R53 million which we are very pleased about This represents an increase of 16,7%, which makes provision for the inflation rate. Therefore, more money is being made physically available to this department This is a very good thing, particularly if one takes into account the priorities to which we have to give our attention. I think that this affords the department a positive opportunity to ensure internal peace and quiet by providing housing. This is an investment in the peaceful future of South Africa. Good housing and community development are the first two steps on the path of self-determination. In a future new dispensation this is a primary starting point for Coloureds and Indians.

There is a last idea which I should like to express with regard to our squatter problem. I am pleased about one small item in particular in the annual report of the department, viz. the item which points out the great progress which has been made in the cleaning up of squatter camps and the resettlement of squatters. I am particularly pleased that 46 local authorities requested co-operation in respect of the implementation of section 3C of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, as amended in 1977. All the indications are that the local authorities want this Act and also want to utilize it.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for False Bay raised a number of matters dealing with housing and the achievements of the department He also touched on the work and file report of the so-called Fouché Committee which examined the so-called “wantoestande in die Groenpunt- en Seepuntgebied”. I should like to say a few words about that. Before doing so, I should like to thank the Whips of the party to my left for making it possible for me to speak at this stage, as they and the hon. the Minister are aware that I have to fly to Johannesburg in a short while.

The report of the Fouché Committee is, I think, another contribution towards the total debate on and analysis of the problems that exist in the Green Point and Sea Point area. I do not, however, accept that, in itself, it is complete, rounded and necessarily provides all file short-term or long-term answers. I think it makes a contribution. However, I think the problem goes beyond the report of the committee into and relates to a much wider field, a field that is closer to the one that was discussed when we debated the private member’s motion of the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens earlier this session.

The committee consisted of respected and honourable civil servants. However, it consisted of public servants only. Naturally, public servants would tend to examine the problem against the background of the implementation of Government policy. It is not easy for civil servants to criticize the Government or Government policy. Can you imagine, Sir, what would have happened if this work had been undertaken by an independent like Prof. Wiehahn who examined Government policy in the field of labour? There were no representatives of the Green and Sea Point communities and there were no sociologists, criminologists or town or regional planners on that committee. Furthermore, there were no community leaders, who have been playing a constructive role in trying to remedy the conditions, and there were no representatives of the Coloured or Black communities on that committee. It was therefore essentially an in-house committee of people representing the various governmental authorities. I am, frankly, disappointed—although I realize there was a time factor involved—at the approach of the committee in its gathering of evidence on which to make its assessment. It held three meetings and it relied heavily on complaints received in the past the 1976 interdepartmental committee, letters to the newspapers, speeches at protest meetings and representations from the ratepayers’ association. I believe this gives one a picture of complaint and it will identify which popular or unpopular issues are to the fore in the minds of people. But I wonder whether this is a detailed and comprehensive analysis of people who are not only complaining—and some of these people have legitimate complaints—but who also are trying to work towards relieving the situation which exists in that area. There was no invitation to the public to make representations to the commission and there is no evidence that any representations were received from members of the so-called non-White—the Black and Coloured—communities affected by it.

Thirdly, another problem is the mandate that was given to the commission. The mandate given to the commission by the hon. the Minister actually starts with a conclusion. The findings were implicit in the mandate. It was a racially orientated mandate that said that the commission must examine the conditions which have arisen as a result of the “oorstroming van Nieblankes”. In other words, the commission was already bound to a conclusion before it had actually made its examination. Of course, in South Africa, against the background of the South African situation, the problem does have racial overtones. But to make the race issue the generalization is to miss the point, because this is a social and class problem and not essentially a race problem. To suggest that the way to deal with this problem is to make Sea Point unattractive for occupational residence by Blacks or Coloured people, is not the way to solve the problem. It is in terms of the mandate an understandable conclusion, but in terms of the total problem I believe the Fouché Committee should have gone further in its recommendations than it did.

I now come to the points I believe are missing from the report. I do not blame the committee. The mandate was, after all, specific and limited. The question is whether this was analysed as part of a Cape Peninsula problem, because what one sees in Sea Point is a manifestation of a regional problem in the Cape Peninsula. While tough, and even distasteful measures, might reduce some of the problems in the Green and Sea Point area, unless the problem is solved on a Peninsulawide basis it is merely going to erupt in another part of the Peninsula. So, there was an insufficient analysis of the problem as a regional one. Secondly, the problem of providing community bases accessible to the Black and Brown people to live and work legally in Sea Point was not considered. I raised this already in an earlier debate. The destruction of District Six and the removal of the community bases of the working class Coloured people to the Cape Flats, mean that even in terms of the committee’s findings 8 000 people are going to be removed from their normal community base, a place where they have had access to their families, their schools, their churches and their clubs. They will be removed and they will be isolated, competing for social Lebensraum with the employer class within that same territory. The problem of finding a community base for the people who have been separated from their natural community base by the Group Areas Act is a problem to which I believe a future committee will have to direct its attention.

Thirdly, in an earlier debate the hon. the Minister agreed that he believed that the town-planning scheme for Sea Point should be investigated. It should be investigated to what extent bad town planning is part of the cause of this problem. I believe this is something to which the Committee should also have paid attention. Fourthly, there is reference to amenities for so-called non-Whites elsewhere. I believe the accent should have fallen on a massive upgrading of the quality of life in the townships and a master-plan for providing amenities on a regional basis throughout the Cape Peninsula. I believe this is a cardinal issue. When there are 1 million people living on the Cape Flats—as there will be in 15 years from now—we will have to do something dramatic to provide additional amenities, especially at seaside resorts, if we do not want to have overcrowding in the existing ones. When we have provided those additional amenities there will be no need to talk of closing Sunset Beach. It is of course overcrowded because of the lack of amenities which exist at the moment. If the amenity problem can be tackled on a regional basis, then it will not be necessary to contemplate taking what I consider to be a disgraceful step, and that is to close Sunset Beach for the Coloured people. Fifthly, in the report of the committee there is no reference to what should be done, even in the present circumstances, to improve supervision and crime control.

Where do they recommend the closing of Sunset Beach?

They recommend the closing of Sunset Beach when additional facilities have been provided. But I say that would not be necessary if the additional facilities were provided.

I do not have time to deal with all these issues. There is also the question of the complete closing down of liquor outlets. Alcoholism and the abuse of alcohol are problems, but is the complete prohibition on one racial group to all access to liquor going to work when another racial group in the same area has total and unlimited access to liquor? Are we then going to have the problem of shebeens and black marketeering? This is a practical problem which we believe has to be faced.

Then there is the question of better supervision of servants’ quarters. I do not believe this need be linked to either the pass laws or the Group Areas Act. It can be done directly through the municipal regulations and it can be a requirement that the local authority itself should do something positive and direct about it.

The committee has now brought out a report and a standing committee has been set up. What I am anxious to see is the maximum amount of constructive cooperation between all the people involved. Having said that, I do not necessarily accept all the details and the findings of the Fouché Committee. It can well have erred in certain respects. I believe it has, but what is important is to try to get the co-operation of the people to improve those conditions. I think that in particular the city council of Cape Town has an important role to play. The first request that they should nominate a representative made it quite clear that there would be no discussion on the proposals and no review. It was merely a question of how it could be implemented. Some of these may well be offensive to the city council. Certain of them are offensive to me. I believe that there is a good case, once the city council has completed its investigation, for making the findings available to the Fouché Committee and in the new circumstances following the investigation to see whether the city council can become involved. I genuinely believe that the people want to improve conditions. I believe they can be improved by good social reform, by seeing to it that there is housing, by providing amenities and by seeing to it that there is proper policing. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to let whatever is done be a credit to the Government and the community and not to allow it to carry a stigma of race. That is unnecessary. It can be done without that.

Mr. Chairman, you will pardon me if I do not reply to all the problems in Sea Point which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition raised. I think the hon. the Minister would like to do it himself. I only want to say that I cannot understand why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition ran away from the policy of the PFP today, for inherently it is, after all, the policy of the PFP that those people may live in that area. I think it is generally accepted that if they could acquire houses and flats for those people in that area, they would want those people to live there. I wonder why the hon. the Leader of the Opposition does not defend that policy of theirs.

I say that it should not be done on a racial basis.

We say—it is the policy of the NP—that Sea Point has been declared a White area for all practical purposes and that only those people who may legally reside in the back-yards of their places of employment will be allowed to be there. If the hon. the Leader of the Opposition says that he has never received complaints from his own voters, he is living in a fool’s paradise. I have been living in that area since I became a member of Parliament in 1966 and I have never before come across the conditions I find there now. Those conditions started to arise only after the hon. the Leader of the Opposition became the representative for that constituency. Everyone sees it like that All the people tell one that Master Eglin told them that they were allowed to live there and to make use of the beaches there. We get the feeling that the PFP are the people who tell those people what to do and tell them that they may make just as much use of those facilities as the Whites. I do not think that they should now try to get away from that matter. It is proof to the world of what conditions in South Africa will be like if the curse befalls South Africa that the PFP should one day come into power in South Africa. Therefore this will serve as a foretaste for the people who vote for them, of what they will have and what they will have to put up with if the PFP should one day come into power. Heaven forbid that that should ever happen. I shall fight with everything I have to prevent it from ever happening in South Africa.

It has always been a pleasant task for us to discuss the activities of this department and its Minister. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for False Bay said, viz. that we want to congratulate them on these informative documents they presented to us, viz. the excellent annual report—it is full of information and it really is a pleasure to read—as well as the other documents. I think that anyone who reads these documents without prejudice, can only be grateful to the department and the Government for what they are doing for proper housing and for establishing and developing proper community development here in South Africa. Those who criticize it, are only those people who do so with a motive of intentional propaganda.

We are also grateful to read in the introduction to this report of the R250 million which has been made available for the housing of Black people in South Africa. This is a large amount and we already see what economic effect that expenditure has, because it is already stimulating the economy.

In the chaotic world in which we live today, building a community is of the utmost importance. Therefore I am grateful to see an integral philosophy in the policy document Fokus of the Department of Community Development, which, to my mind, is absolutely essential and beneficial to building a healthy community. In this regard, I refer to section 9 of that document. It is unnecessary for me to read it all, but I should like to single out a few points which are mentioned in it.

It is absolutely essential, when a complete community is being created, that provision must be made for community facilities. We welcome the lead this department is taking by establishing a committee to make recommendations on such facilities. We appreciate the country-wide survey which was made to determine the need. We are aware of the fact that there still is a major shortage of sports and community facilities in our beautiful, sunny South Africa, facilities such as swimming pools, sports fields, tennis courts, etc., with the necessary pavilions, changing rooms and playing areas, to say nothing of the great need for proper and beautiful golf courses for those people for whom provision has not yet been made and, to involve the more aged amongst us, for bowling greens. There is a great need for the building of structures such as recreation halls, with kitchen, sports and cinema facilities, stages and changing rooms; as well as structures in which clinics, libraries, committee rooms and administrative offices are available.

The fact that local authorities have to satisfy certain requirements, as stipulated in the housing code, when they apply for advances, is welcomed by all. According to these provisions, new schemes will only be approved if provision is made for building these community facilities. Certain amounts are added to the purchase price or the rent a buyer or a tenant pays, and these people therefore pay for the facilities which are available to them. Therefore it is not a social service with which they are provided free of charge.

One goes into raptures over the achievements of this department in this field over the past three years. We are told that an amount of R37,6 million was approved in the three-year period from 1975 to 1978 for providing community facilities. The 1975 legislation provides that the building of community facilities is the task of the Department of Community Development. Of this R37,6 million, R12 million was earmarked for sport complexes and R25,6 million for the construction of community halls and other buildings. I can state that there is the sincerest co-operation between local authorities and this department, and we welcome it. By making provision for these facilities, we shall build a healthy nation, and therefore a philosophy such as this one is universally welcomed.

In the few minutes I still have at my disposal, I should like to refer to a local matter with regard to my constituency. It is, in my opinion, the smartest constituency in the country and in this regard I particularly want to refer to the project which is known as “Edenvale Extension No. 2”. Last year, the hon. the Minister promised us that a start would be made on the establishment of its infrastructure. I am happy to be able to announce today that the splendid infrastructure for that area has been neatly completed. Furthermore, we are also pleased to be able to say that the lights are burning there, the water is running, the streets are tarred and even the kerbing has been completed. It looks beautiful. All we are waiting for now, is for the first sod to be turned on the site of the first house to be built there. Therefore everything is ready and we are waiting to reap the benefits. We should like to hear from the hon. the Minister how far the planning has progressed in this regard.

While I am dealing with this, I should also like to ask: Let the necessary community facilities also form a part of it.

Mr. Chairman, if one were to have been able to indicate South Africa’s problems on a priority list, I could imagine the housing problem and the problem with regard to the provision of housing occupying a very high position on that priority list. To my mind, it would in certain respects occupy an even higher position on this list than that occupied by political problems. Housing—and all it implies—forms the basis of an improved quality of life, and improved standard of living, which, in their turn, for the basis of an acceptable and negotiable political dispensation in South Africa. For this reason I am of the opinion that in a debate such as this one, one should not allow the opportunity to pass without referring to a few of the achievements of the department in recent years.

Since the department was given its present form in 1964, it has, up to this day, been doing specifically what its name implies, and that is to plan, to build and to create order. When we look back over the past few years, and in particular over the year covered by the department’s latest report, I should like to draw the attention of the Committee to one outstanding characteristic of the department: That is the fact that the importance of the activities of this department should not be measured against the physical provision of housing alone. In fact, I believe the department has a major responsibility not to discount the problem concerning housing in the sense that the problems will be solved as soon as the housing backlog has been eliminated. There is one characteristic which stands out. In its housing programme the department is creating the infrastructure for an orderly and stable South Africa. The department is engaged in an imaginative building programme in order to achieve a special ideal, and that is the ideal of a house-owning, self-sufficient democracy. Moreover, it should be perfectly clear to the Committee that housing deserves to be, and, indeed, is regarded as a high social priority in the budget and by the Government.

When it was decided in November 1977 to stimulate the economy moderately, the general bank rate was not lowered. It was decided, however, to channel R250 million to the provision of low-cost housing. This is a specific indication of the priority given to housing by the Government. The result of this is not only the stimulation of the building sector, but also the ability to realize within a period of eight years the ideal of eliminating the housing backlog totalling approximately 200 000 family units.

We can consider a few of the achievements of the department Since the establishment of the National Housing Fund in 1923 up to the end of 1978, R1 653 million was made available for housing. This is a considerable amount of money. 760 000 dwelling units were built; of which 50% was for the Black people outside the homelands. Therefore, during this period of approximately 50 years, an amount of R800 million was spent from the Housing Fund on the provision of Black housing.

There is a housing backlog and there is no point in our arguing about that: It is a reality and it is a fact It is the ideal, however, to eliminate the backlog, to keep abreast the natural increase and to reduce overcrowded conditions within a period of eight years. In order to be able to do so, 21 000 dwelling units have to be built per annum. This is a tremendous challenge, one which the department has accepted. During the past calendar year R195 million was spent on the completion of 39 dwelling units, while 60 000 units were in the construction stage. This is a fine achievement.

If time permits me to do so, I should like to refer to the imaginative project of Mitchell’s Plain, where 9 000 units were built and on which an amount of R300 million was spent over a period of four years. A community has been established there with its own character and its own community facilities. It is a fine and imaginative project.

I should like to make it clear to the Committee that the results which have been achieved are remarkable in themselves. The circumstances under which the results have been achieved, however, make them phenomenal. When I talk about these circumstances, I am referring specifically to population explosion circumstances and the question of urbanization which have created unparalleled slum conditions in developing countries in Africa and in certain Latin-American States. Under these circumstances the department has managed to provide for the natural increase and to reduce the housing backlog.

South Africa is experiencing an unparalleled increase in population. I am just going to mention the figures in brief. By the year 2020 we shall have a population of approximately 80 million. I am mentioning these figures to emphasize the fact that more houses will have to be built in the next 30 years than were built in the previous 300 years. What is the department doing in this regard? The department has accepted this challenge as well, and it is planned to spend R1 045 000 per day on housing in the next three years—and the hon. member for Durban Point will definitely believe me when I say this—in order to build 191 dwelling units every day. This means that one house will be delivered every 2,5 minutes of the day during the next three years. This is indeed a remarkable achievement, unprecedented in Africa and, in my opinion, unequalled in the rest of the world.

When one takes a further look at the activities of the department, one may also add the fact that, in the Western Cape alone, as many as 10 226 squatters’ shanties have been cleared away and that alternative accommodation has been made available to 15 000 families. Add to this the resettlement of families in terms of the Group Areas Act, and we have a more complete picture of the task and the achievements of the Department of Community Development.

Finally, I want to point out that all of us are justifiably proud of the achievements of the Republic of South Africa in the economic and technological fields, in the fields of commerce and industry. The achievements of the Republic of South Africa in these fields, give us a place in the front ranks of the comity of nations. Achievements in the field of housing fall into the same category and may be mentioned in the same breath.

Mr. Chairman, when the hon. member for Bellville speaks about the creation of a self-sufficient democracy of home-owners, he may rest assured that in that respect he will enjoy the support of the NRP. The hon. member went on to mention a large number of comprehensive problems. I shall refer to certain of those problems in the course of my speech.

In the first place, I also want to take this opportunity to thank the department and its officials for the tour we were able to undertake through the Cape Peninsula recently. During that tour certain projects were shown to us, projects being undertaken either by the department itself or by other institutions, for instance the Cape Town City council, with money being provided by the department. We learnt much from that. We are grateful for it.

One thing, however, which is beyond all doubt when one looks at these projects, is that when sufficient funds are available, the State can in fact meet its obligations towards the various population groups in the country. I am specifically referring to the State’s fulfilment of its duty. It is not my aim to play politics, but sometimes when one listens to hon. members on the other side, one gets the impression that the things which are happening are only being done with the help of the money of the NP. Surely this is not true. The Government is only doing its duty, and in order to do so it is also using the money of the taxpayers. If one has that type of approach to this problem, I believe that we can make real progress.

†I now want to refer particularly to a problem which is also mentioned in the annual report of the department. That is, of course, a problem to which the hon. member for Rondebosch also referred. It is the problem of the trespassing of disqualified persons in residential areas set aside for Whites. In its report the department makes mention of the fact that the number of such trespassings and convictions on charges of trespassing are increasing. No mention is made, however, of any particular area. Nevertheless, we are all well aware of this particular problem. In Johannesburg, for instance, publicity is given to how this problem manifests itself in Hillbrow, for example. However, I do not want to discuss in detail the merits of any particular area. I should rather prefer to discuss this problem in its broad context.

I hope the hon. the Minister realizes that this type of situation does not arise from a desire of having a confrontation with the State. [Interjections.] No, I do not think that is the case.

Of course it is a demonstration of such a desire.

No, I do not believe it is. Let me just complete what I am saying. What is happening is caused, purely and simply, by economic factors, by the process of urban development and by the general demographical set-up in South Africa. Flat buildings which are completely empty, or virtually empty, are eventually occupied by people who are, in terms of the present legislation, regarded as disqualified persons, and they are prosecuted as such. [Interjections.] Hon. members ask: “Wie sê so?”

*I should like to quote from an article in Beeld. I am not accepting Beeld as a great authority, but in an article by Tom Vosloo on 24 April the following is said, inter alia—

Then he says the following—

†I might also add that one of the reasons why this happens is the fact that due to a long period of forced removal, the non-White people have naturally settled further and further away from their sources of work and from the main business centres, regardless of the latest developments in their own areas.

That is not true.

People say it is not true, but it is a fact.

What about Epping 2 and Epping 3?

But they all get further and further away from the main centres. Why do hon. members think they come into town and do business here? This influx is natural, and this phenomenon that has taken place can therefore have been expected to take place. Before the hon. the Minister accuses me of wanting to re-establish slum areas in urban centres, let me immediately tell him that this is not what I have in mind. I know that when people have lodged pleas for the relaxation of restrictions, or for the resettlement of people in areas such as District Six, the hon. the Minister has come forward with the argument—or at least some people have—that this would lead to slum conditions. Resettlement does not, however, necessarily occur in areas where there is a process of decay, or areas where there is a likelihood of deterioration merely as the result of premises being occupied by people of other race groups, provided they can settle there legally. If they continue to settle there illegally, however, one has the situation of landlords exploiting people. Therefore the people moving into those areas settle many more families in flats and then, of course, one has decay taking place. What I want the hon. the Minister to realize is that provision must be made to accommodate these people. Areas must be found in which, on a residential basis, these people can be settled, even in terms of the Group Areas Act which is the province, of course, of a different Minister. If areas can be found, nearer the city centre, for settlement by non-Whites, the problem can be overcome. The hon. the Minister should realize that if this does not happen there will be a process of continual evictions and prosecutions. Eventually this will lead to the demolition of buildings which could have been used to meet the housing needs of certain sections of the population. All that will happen then is that the problem will manifest itself in new areas. That is my point, and that is why I am raising the issue with the hon. the Minister now. I am quite convinced that if the hon. the Minister’s department would seriously apply its mind at this point in time it would find that it already has in its possession, in the major centres, land that could be used for this particular purpose. Therefore I should like to call upon the hon. the Minister’s department to start an official investigation into this. Sooner or later we shall have to realize that it does not help to continue putting people into and providing accommodation on the peripheries of our urban development areas.

I should now like to turn to another matter. I was very pleased and delighted to notice in the report that the first year of the lifting of rent control in its first phase did not produce any case of exploitation by landlords. I must say that I would have been very surprised had we had exploitation at such an early stage since we have the position that for the first period of two years there is a built-in 10% increase allowed as a normal increase in the case of buildings which priorly have been subject to rent control. While one does see a number of empty flats at this stage, I am inclined to agree that they fall mainly either in the category of flats situate in undesirable areas or in the category of expensive flats. I base this remark on a newspaper report in which it is alleged that the particular newspaper has conducted such a survey. I doubt whether this phenomenon can at this stage be attributed entirely to the lifting of rent control. There are other contributing factors as well, such as the enormous drop in immigration to South Africa. I naturally share the hope that we shall reach the stage where the predictions of those who firmly believe that the lifting of rent control will eventually result in the availability of flats in all price categories will become true.

The problem which I want to raise concerns the means test. Attention should be given to the automatic adjustment of the means test in the case of those who find themselves in the lower income groups and who shall continue to enjoy rent control benefits. We all know that when the hon. the Minister announced the phasing out of rent control, he also announced certain concessions to those people who fall within certain income groups. He referred particularly to unmarried people with an income of less than R300 per month and married people with an income of less than R540 per month. He said that as long as they kept on occupying the flats in which they lived at a certain date, they would continue enjoying the advantages of rent control. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central will pardon me if I do not react to his speech. I noticed that the hon. the Minister was listening to him attentively and I take it that the hon. the Minister will certainly furnish him with a suitable reply to his speech.

I should like to say something about housing, and in particular the housing of non-Whites. The non-Whites own contribution to housing is not very great; it is far lower than that of the Whites. The vast majority of dwellings for non-Whites are subsidized out of State funds. I should like to point out that during the five years from 1973 to 1977, only 14% of the houses for Whites were provided by the Department of Community Development, while 86% were provided by the private sector. During that period the Department of Community Development provided 82% of the houses for Coloureds, while the private sector provided 18%. The Department of Community Development provided 63% of the houses for Asiatics, while the private sector provided 37% over the same period. As far as Blacks are concerned, 91% of their houses were provided by the Department of Community Development and only 9% by the private sector from 1973 to 1977. Over the past five years a total of 140 778 dwellings were provided from departmental funds. Of these, 50% were built for Coloureds, 8% for Asiatics and 27% for Blacks—a total, therefore, of 85% for non-Whites—in contrast to only 15% for Whites. The non-White’s dependence on the State to provide his housing requirements, can be attributed mainly to socio-economic causes. In this regard reference may be made to aspects such as their level of development and education, poverty and a lack of entrepreneurship. Because the non-White’s own contribution to housing is largely dictated by socio-economic factors, autonomy in the field of housing cannot be achieved overnight, although this should remain the ultimate aim. The realization of greater autonomy in the field of housing will chiefly be dictated by the success achieved in other fields, for instance education, in respect of which family planning, from a housing point of view, is important. Other aspects to which attention may be given, are the encouragement of homeownership and the motivation of would be purchasers to save purposefully. That is what I wished to say about the non-White’s own contribution.

I should like to go on to say something about the employer’s responsibility in respect of housing for non-Whites. On 9 October 1974, the then Minister of Community Development, Mr. A. H. du Plessis, expressed himself as being strongly in favour of responsibility for proper housing resting primarily on the head of the family. He said that that was elementary. Since positive action is now being taken by the Government and the private sector to narrow the wage gap, the head of the family in the case of non-Whites, is now, to my mind, better able to accept this responsibility, and the State should gradually accept less and less responsibility in this respect. If this does not happen and the non-White continues to agitate for the provision of housing by the State, we run the risk of becoming a socialist State. The Minister furthermore said that it was also the duty of the employer to be of assistance in the provision of housing for the people working for him. Only in the third instance do the authorities, i.e. the local authorities and the department, take action.

In order to enable the White employers of Coloured and Indian employees to fulfil their responsibilities in this regard, two schemes have been established. The first is the longterm leasing scheme. Employers may negotiate with the local authorities concerned to obtain sites for the erection of housing for their employees. These sites are made available to employers for a 30 year term of lease, so that they may erect there with their own capital units which they can let to their employees. After the expiration of the term of lease which can be extended under certain circumstances, the units concerned become the property of the local authority.

Then there is the home ownership scheme. Let me point out the most important characteristics of this scheme and the conditions for participation in this scheme. The local authority makes the necessary land available to the employee at cost price in order to enable the latter to erect housing for his employees. At least 25% of the total cost of this project is contributed by the employer. Where the balance of the development costs is advanced by building societies, the employer provides the necessary guarantees and security. The final cost of the houses and the monthly payments are subject to the approval of the Department of Community Development. Monthly payments should not exceed 25% of the income of the purchaser, i.e. the employee. Individual properties are transferred directly from the local authority to the various purchasers. Employees should not be placed under any particular obligation towards employers as a result of the benefits which the employers receive under the scheme. The scheme, which was established in 1965 to enable employers to obtain land on a long-term lease basis in areas in which under the Group Areas Act, 1966, they are disqualified persons, and to provide houses for their low-paid Coloured and Indian employees thereon, have produced approximately 300 dwelling units since its inception. In contrast, projects consisting of approximately 600 housing units have been launched under the home ownership scheme since the inception of that scheme in 1975. Although the contributions of the employers in this regard are highly appreciated, their joint effort, as indicated by the figures mentioned, has only been a drop in the ocean. Where employers cannot carry the financial burden with regard to participation in one of the above-mentioned two schemes, they really should consider helping their employees to purchase building sites or to save enough money for a deposit on their own homes. Provision has also been made for financial aid to farmers in the provision of accommodation for farm labourers, while employers who employ large numbers of Blacks, can provide housing for their employees. These two matters, mentioned for the sake of completeness, fall, however, under the Departments of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure and Plural Relations and Development respectively.

In the third place I wish to say something about the contribution of utility companies to the housing of employees. There are several registered utility companies which are not profit-orientated. They are established with the aid of the Department of Community Development and the Urban Housing League to provide low-cost housing and community facilities. With the help of the private sector, employers, building societies and welfare organizations—including the Urban Foundation—funds are mobilized for this purpose as well. In 1977 the present hon. Minister of Community Development informed the House that Pinelands was established through the agency of an utility company. It is very illuminating and interesting to note that Pinelands was established in this way.

Finally, I should like to say that these utility companies regard home ownership as a very important aspect. I have therefore tried to indicate that housing for non-Whites can be provided by themselves, the State, employers and utility companies.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maraisburg will pardon me if I do not take the aspects he has raised any further. I should like to convey my gratitude to the hon. the Minister and furthermore make a request to him.

† I want to refer to a recent statement by the hon. the Minister about illegal occupation, by certain race groups in Johannesburg, of certain dwellings—particularly blocks of flats—where they are regarded as disqualified persons in terms of the Group Areas Act. Wide publicity has been given to the evictions which took place only after eviction orders had been granted by the courts. I think the publicity given was false publicity of an undesirable land, attempting to create an atmosphere of sympathy for people who had, in fact, broken the law. I think therefore, that certain points should be emphasized. Firstly, in every single case of an eviction order having been granted by the court, it was only granted after very exhaustive examination of the case concerned. Secondly, there was a considerable lapse of time between the issuing of an eviction order and its implementation by the department so as to allow the guilty parties an adequate opportunity to find alternative accommodation. There was no inhumane implementation of these court orders by the department There was, in fact, consideration for those who had forcibly broken the law. Those eviction orders were not granted against people who had no accommodation either. They were issued against people who had vacated previous accommodation in other areas and who purposely moved into accommodation in classified areas where they had no right to be. They had therefore forcibly broken the law. It is unfortunate that certain media in Johannesburg attempted to create the impression that these people were hard done by and had received no sympathy from the department at all. This is not the case. They were not people who had no other accommodation. They had left their previous accommodation and had illegally moved into blocks of flats in areas which they knew very well they were not allowed to be in. I therefore want to express my thanks to the hon. the Minister for the warning he has issued in that statement to the owners and landlords who permit this illegal occupation of these premises in Johannesburg, mostly, as I have said, in the case of blocks of flats. I am grateful—as I know other inhabitants are—for the warning by the hon. the Minister that severe action would be taken against persons who illegally let their premises to racial groups which have no right to occupy them. I thank the hon. the Minister for that. Having thanked the hon. the Minister, I should like him to consider favourably another aspect I discussed with him on a previous occasion.

The report states very clearly on page vi that—

This must be its main objective—

I do not know whether I am quite correct in describing the group of people I am going to refer to as a population group, but I think that on the basis of the facts as we see them today, one can well say that it does fall within the purview of the hon. the Minister’s department to provide adequate housing for a particular population group, namely our senior citizens. It is estimated that by the year 2000 this population group in our community will consist of nearly 0,25 million senior citizens. This population group is, even in the age group 70 to 75 years—I want to prognosticate that in future this will be the new retirement age—growing at a rate of over 30 000 persons per annum. I do not want to quote a large number of figures. In 1976, however, the total number of persons in that age group was already in excess of 35 000. According to other information at my disposal, 55% of these senior citizens live in rooms or flats. The hon. the Minister, together with his departmental officials, went overseas and investigated certain aspects of housing there. I should particularly like to refer the hon. the Minister to page vii of the report where there is a description of a new approach of housing for population groups overseas, particularly for certain classes of people. I quote—

In other words, the opinion has grown that these old buildings could be used for other purposes and that it was more economical to refurbish them than to knock them down. As a result of this, certain amendments were made to the Act. I think I have now adequately indicated that the hon. the Minister has convinced himself and his department that the refurbishing of these old buildings in our metropolitan areas is certainly a far more economical proposition than the erection of entirely new buildings. I therefore want to make a request to the hon. the Minister. In our metropolitan areas, particularly in the central business district of Johannesburg which I represent in my constituency, there are high-rise buildings which for some reason or other have been condemned by the municipality of Johannesburg. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow can confirm this. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in the light of these new trends he investigated overseas, his department could not give consideration to the creation of group dwellings which could be occupied at a low rental. These buildings could be refurbished in such a way as to allow the creation of one-roomed or two-roomed flats which could be made available to the elderly citizens who so desperately seek adequate housing at a very low rental. This is a new concept overseas, a concept which the hon. the Minister endorsed on his visit, and I should like to suggest that this is an aspect of his department’s policy. His officials not only look at population groups, but they also look at the housing needs of particular sections of population groups. There is certainly no single sector of the population in our country more concerned with its housing than our elderly and senior citizens who have reached a stage where it is essential, because they are on pension—35 000 at the present moment with low income levels—to look for adequate and suitable housing in the right community atmosphere on a group-dwelling basis where they can share common and community interests at a low rental. I therefore respectfully put it to the hon. the Minister that his department give some consideration to these buildings which do exist, particularly, as I say, in Johannesburg, and undoubtedly in other of our metropolitan areas as well, to see what can be done to make them available as low rental units for our elderly citizens.

Mr. Chairman, it is not very often that I find myself in almost complete agreement with the hon. member for Von Brandis. However, this afternoon I find myself agreeing very largely with what he has to say. I think there is a great deal of sense in refurbishing older buildings because, after all, the older people have become used to those older types of buildings. They feel more at home in the type of building that many of them have lived in for the greater part of their lives, as opposed to the newer buildings with their newer methods of construction. I believe that there are many buildings in our country which lend themselves to the refurbishment about which the hon. member for Von Brandis spoke. In that regard I believe we can support his please wholeheartedly and, in fact, we do so.

I should like to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister this afternoon in connection with the saga, if I may call it that, of Cato Manor in Durban. I think it is an issue with which the hon. the Minister is fully conversant. I think one could refer to it as the great unfinished symphony in the Durban area. What I should like the hon. the Minister to do, is to take up his conductor’s baton, get together with the rest of the orchestra and see if he cannot finish this symphony and bring about a solution which is going to be in the best interests of all the people concerned. Although a certain number of the decisions in this connection will overlap with those of the Department of Planning—and it is inevitable that there will be this overlapping—it is the hon. the Minister of Community Development to whom we should address our pleas because, as was pointed out to me in the discussion on the Vote of the Department of Planning last year in the Senate Chamber, the ultimate arrangements and plans for the internal development of Cato Manor will be the responsibility of this Minister and this department.

It is because of this, and because I realize that he will be taking those decisions subsequent to the decisions of the Minister of Planning and his department, that I wish to raise the matter here and to share a few thoughts with the hon. the Minister. Last year I did receive support from the then hon. Minister of Planning who expressed sympathy with the suggestion I made at that time and indicated to me that I should, at the right opportunity, raise the matter once again with the hon. the Minister of Community Development I should like to quote briefly, from the Hansard of that debate, the reply of the hon. the Minister because I think it commends my case even further to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I quote from Hansard, Standing Committee 1—’78, col. 122, where the hon. the Minister of Planning states—

The suggestions I had mooted were fairly simple ones, and I do hope I shall have a sympathetic hearing from the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

The uncertainty surrounding Cato Manor has been dragging on for a long, long time, and it does not only affect the group or the groups to whom land will ultimately be given in Cato Manor—that is only one of the decisions that will have to be taken—but it is also affecting the communities that border on Cato Manor and the “added areas”. I think the hon. the Minister knows what I am referring to when I refer to the “added areas” to the north of Cato Manor, those areas to the north of the N-3 highway. Those areas were not originally part of the farm Cato Manor, and they are broadly referred to, by people involved in this matter, as the “added areas”. Surrounding Cato Manor and the “added areas”, are a number of stable communities. There is a paralysis of development and of the improvement of homes in those suburbs, because people are unsure and unaware of, and unhappy about, the possible future development of the Cato Manor area and the “added areas”. I believe that a lot of that unhappiness and uncertainty could be eliminated to the general satisfaction of the surrounding population if certain relatively simple criteria could be met.

The first of those criteria is the green belt to which reference was made in the Hansard from which I quoted. At present the area is one of pleasant, rolling countryside which would lend itself to the provision of a green belt on the periphery, surrounding the area within which new development could take place. In the surrounding areas of Cato Manor there are certain very efficient and, in some cases, fairly new road networks. Access to the area is therefore possible from most directions. I believe that the internal road network has also been developed to a certain degree, but obviously more will have to be done in this regard. I believe that many of the doubts and the worries in the minds of the local people would be removed if the hon. the Minister could indicate to us that it is his intention, or that he would favourably regard a suggestion, that the development there, regardless of the race or races to which Cato Manor is given, will be done on the basis of its being a top-class development. I believe that most people in the surrounding areas would be happy if the plot sizes were to be reasonable, the density of the population were to be reasonably low and the development were to be what we could call top-class development with adequate roads.

I do not believe that it is beyond the capabilities of the hon. the Minister to indicate to us that he has a certain sympathy for these proposals. I believe it is an area of land which is such that at maximum high density development and at maximum high density housing, one could not house a large community in any event. I therefore believe it would be quite a practical solution to make it a low density area.

I further believe that a lot of the people who live in that area would be encouraged by this and that those of them who had to sell their homes because of transfers, would find it easier to do so. The hon. the Minister knows that I have had to refer cases and queries in this regard to him recently, cases of people who are finding that they have to take a drop of R10 000 in the prices of their houses, when they wish to sell, because of the uncertainty in that area. I believe that if the hon. the Minister could stand up today and tell us that his intentions are—whatever is decided regarding the planning of Cato Manor—to make it a high-class, low-density housing area with adequate access roads, the doubts and the worries in the minds of the communities surrounding that area would be lessened.

I should also like to seek the assistance of the hon. the Minister when there are discussions between him and other Ministers who will obviously be taking a decision on the future of the community in Sherwood. This all ties up and is a complex situation. The future of the community at Sherwood is inextricably tied up with whatever decisions are made about Cato Manor. I believe it would be in the best interests of all concerned if the hon. the Minister could indicate clearly that he wishes, as far as his plans are concerned, to leave that community as it is and to give it the chance to grow to the west of its land. To this side there is undeveloped land which could lend itself very well to an extension of Sherwood so that it could become a viable community and could qualify for such amenities as a post office, a shopping centre, a swimming-pool and all the features that make a community and help keep it together to give the area a character. It is a small community of approximately 1 700 people at the moment, but I believe that given a chance, it could grow into a very nice suburb of Durban. I believe that it would be a very great shame if, as part of the overall plan, which is being considered in that area, any attention were given to the uprooting of that community. I am not pleading for it because it is a White community. The hon. the Minister and other hon. Ministers will know that I have spoken out against the moving of any people on purely ideological grounds. I believe that that community is stable and law-abiding, some of those people have lived there for 25 years and have effected tremendous improvements to their homes. I really believe that it would be a most retrogressive step to remove and so uproot that community and to change the character of that area. I direct that plea to the hon. the Minister.

Mr. Speaker, I shall not react to the speech of the hon. member for Berea, because, for the most part, he raised local problems. I know that the hon. the Minister will reply to him in detail.

In the first place I want to thank the department for this beautiful, well-compiled and well-conceived annual report. It contains many excellent data. I do not want to bother hon. members with everything written there. We sincerely thank them for it.

The Department of Community Development is probably one of the most important departments in our whole government system. It has a great responsibility and always has to keep its ear to the ground. I want to thank the hon. the Minister. Since he became Minister of Community Development, we can only praise him. We thank him for that and realize that as Minister of Community Development he has to do everything possible to overcome this major problem. Furthermore, I want to thank the hon. the Minister and his department for the fact that I have always been able to approach them with pleasure if something had to be done in my constituency. In the budget for 1977-’78 I received more than my share of funds which the department makes available every year.

Today I want to speak about resettlement and the clearance of slum areas. Both these matters are of a some that emotional nature. I said initially that the Department of Community Development was an important department. They have to try to make provision for the inhabitants of all areas, whether they are White, Coloureds, Indians or Blacks, to enable everyone to have a home where possible. This is not always easy. If one has a roof over one’s head, one can already feel privileged.

A while ago I said that this department works with matters which are fraught with emotion. People get emotional when they hear that people have to be resettled, because this is always accompanied by inconvenience, difficulty and sorrow. I saw what the newspapers have been writing about Crossroads recently. I also know that this matter rests with the hon. the Minister of Plural Relations and Development. However, the hon. Minister of Community Development and his Department have to provide accommodation. This is not easy. We are grateful in the knowledge that in future we will in fact be able to provide accommodation for those people. It is difficult, however, because after the Second World War there was an enormous influx of non-Whites to the cities. Whites, too, flocked to the cities. This created problems. In certain places it created chaos. I have experience of the circumstances in which this department finds itself, experience which dates back to the ’forties. I know, for example, what was done on the Witwatersrand. I know what problems arose when Sophiatown had to be cleared. Sophia-town was where Triomf is today. I know which problems existed then. I also know about the problems surrounding the establishment of the Alexandra Township, as well as the problems in the enormous squatter camps between Benoni and Brakpan. In that area the Apex squatter camp was cleared in those years and everyone who lived there was resettled. All of this turned out well, and therefore I will not burden hon. members today with the details of the thousands and thousands of houses built there and the thousands of houses which will be built in the future. The testimonial for this department already exists. It is indisputable that all these things have, in fact, been done. Everything this department has already done cost hundreds of millions of rands. In future it will also cost thousands of millions of rands to house and resettle everyone who requires it in the way everyone wants to see it done.

As I have said, this is fraught with enormous problems. This department does not get compliments every day for what it does. However, if the Opposition would cooperate and be grateful for what is being done, the department’s task would also be a considerably easier one. But what happens now? If the department builds 1 000 houses this year, the Opposition asks why 10 000 houses were not built, and why people have to be resettled, why squatter areas have to be cleared and why slum areas, for example in District Six, have to be cleared. All of us know the emotions accompanying the clearance of District Six. I believe, of course, that if the economic recession had not prevented it, the funds would have been available and far more progress would have been made with the development of District Six than is the case at present. However, District Six could not remain in the condition in which we knew it. Surely it was correct to flatten the whole area. Nor do I care to whom the Government is going to allocate that area. It does not matter whether it will be to Whites or non-Whites. But what I should like to see there, however, is a decent and modern suburb of Cape Town. Together with all the problems of food supply and the provision of housing, we cannot but realize that we in this country are privileged to have a department such as this, a department of dedicated people, people who do their work quietly. We do not talk about the work they do every day. As a matter of fact, the work they do, is not always popular.

When suitable land can be found in future—and this will probably happen, although it will be fraught with difficulties—I should therefore like to see places such as Crossroads disappearing as was the case with the old Sophiatown, an area where the beautiful suburb of Triomf is situated today. I should like to see the squatters of Crossroads resettled in places such as Diepkloof and Meadowlands and other modern resettlement townships. I should like to see these things happen before I—and I do not believe that it will be much longer—leave this Parliament and make way for a younger man. [Interjections.] Therefore I should like to wish this department everything of the best with the hard work it does every day.

Mr. Chairman, in the very first place I should like to tell the hon. member for Stilfontein that I listened with great appreciation to his very positive speech which testified to knowledge, insight and a great deal of experience. I want to assure him that we shall not allow him to take his leave of us so readily. I believe that he will still be able to take his place in this hon. House for many years to come.

Today we can look back with great joy on the course the department has followed over the past 15 years. When the late Dr. Verwoerd established the department 15 years ago, he set three great ideals for this department and for South Africa in general. If one reviews everything, one is really dumbfounded by what has already been achieved in the field of housing in South Africa.

We set as our first ideal the proper provision of housing to our people. We also set as an ideal the development of all our national groups into proper and sound communities. Furthermore, we also set as our ideal the elimination, by means of urban renewal and slum clearance, of all conditions hampering this development. We are dumbfounded when, on this day in 1979, we take cognizance of what has already happened in the field of housing. I think we may rightly say that to a large extent all our Whites have been provided with houses, that most of our Coloureds and Asians have been provided with houses, too, and that, with single exceptions, all those exasperating and seething slums have been cleared. We can say that all our cities and towns in South Africa have undergone a transformation. But what is more, however, is that we are continuing to build on these fine achievements at this fine rate.

I do not think I could illustrate it any better than by referring to the achievements over the past five years. Just think of the more than 140 000 dwelling units built in this country at the enormous amount of R847 million over a period of five years. Consequently I think it is appropriate for us on this occasion to pay tribute to the hon. the Minister and his department for the continued achievements in this important field of our State structure.

But this department and this hon. Minister were not satisfied that we should live from bread alone in this field. For that reason the department said to itself that in order to achieve the highest ideal of the department and of South Africa in this field, we should do more than build beautiful and suitable dwellings. It set two other very important requirements.

The first requirement was laid at the door of our local authorities. Although they have assisted us tremendously over the years, it was required of them to ensure that our residential areas be made attractive by means of laying out gardens and adding the finishing touches to premises, even before delivery of the schemes.

The second requirement set, brings me to the concept of community facilities. I think this is very interesting, because it is peculiar to this department. We merely have to note the real modus operandi of the department in the establishment of community facilities. The way in which they rightly set about this was to lay down in the first place that investigations be instituted in order to identify the needs of our various communities for community facilities. Surely it is obvious, in this multinational fatherland of ours, that these needs will vary from community to community. They could, however, identify the needs. Today we know that such needs consist of two facets. On the one hand there are recreational facilities, for example swimming pools, sportsfields, tennis courts, cloakrooms and playgrounds. As regards playgrounds, I think that we could address an appeal on this occasion to all involved in housing of our people. This facet, which is really the most inexpensive, is also in actual fact the most essential in our cities. It should never happen again that we tell one another that during holidays and on public holidays when they do not attend school, the small children have to play some game in the streets, because of a lack of simple playgrounds. One wants to appeal seriously to all involved in the provision of housing in South Africa to make provision in their planning for the laying out of playgrounds. Where we are dealing with existing residential areas, the local authorities must ensure that there, too, space is found for the essential playgrounds for our children.

The second facet of this important item community facilities, consists of building structures such as the usual recreation halls, cinema facilities, clinics, libraries, administrative offices and committee rooms. But the department went even further and added a special section to our very important housing code. Often we in South Africa forget that the housing code of this department is really unique in the Western world. In that special section the following very important provision is contained—

The department also took a third step, because they do not believe in doing things on an ad hoc basis. They also established a standards committee so as to have building and development take place according to specific standards.

The department was faced with this very important problem: What about the existing residential areas? What about the existing schemes? How would these essential community facilities be established for them? Then the department decided that special sources of finance would be created for financing such facilities. Those special sources of finance could also be of assistance in the new schemes. The first of these special sources of finance is the 1% levy on the sale of dwellings constructed with moneys from the National Housing Fund. In the second place, provision was made for the utilization of surplus rentals for this purpose. In the third place provision was made for surpluses in the Rent Loss Reserve Fund to be utilized for this purpose as well, after the retention of one year’s contributions. In addition provision was made for the utilization for this purpose of profits from the sale of fixed property purchased with moneys from the National Housing Fund.

Therefore, the correct channels, the correct modi operandi, were introduced for the establishment of community facilities which play such a tremendously important role in enabling us to achieve our ideal at the time of the establishment of the department. Now we are able to look back on what we have achieved over the past two or three years, because we stated this only two or three years ago. It was impossible for us to start with this before that time, because the department first had to determine its priorities in the correct order, and for that reason provision had to be made prior to that time principally for the building of dwelling units and yet more dwelling units. Now that all these things have been established, we are able to look back and say that we have made tremendous progress. During the financial year which has just ended, 130 applications were granted at the vast sum of R16 million. Up to now the total is R33 million. I have no doubt in my own mind that by means of the utilization of community facilities we shall be able to achieve one of our greatest ideals, and that is to ensure the development of all our population groups into healthy communities.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Newton Park, like the hon. member for Stilfontein, dealt with what they thought to be the positive and more constructive side of the activities of the hon. the Minister’s department. During the course of their remarks they were fulsome in their praise for the hon. the Minister, but it may come as a no surprise if I do not follow them in their thoughts on that subject.

I want to deal briefly with the function of the department and the picture or image which it has amongst large sections of the people of South Africa. The department occupies a vital and very important part in the lives of many thousands of South Africans. It is a department which has considerable power in the lives of people. It regulates where they should live, it regulates where they should work, it controls in many respects and regulates their social life, their economic life and many people would see this department as being almost all powerful in so far as their daily existence, business existence and social existence is concerned. It is true that from the positive side it concerns itself with the building of housing, with housing and development, but it is equally true that on the negative side in the housing field it is concerned with removals of people from which hardships flow.

In many ways it is really a “department of permits”, because many people in the course of their lives find it necessary for one reason or another to go to the hon. the Minister’s department to obtain a permit to do one thing or another. Because of the racial situation which exists in South Africa, the department often operates in the very centre of sensitive racial situations between our peoples. In these circumstances I think it is vitally important that, even within the terms of Government policy, the department should be seen to act with some compassion, some understanding in regard to human feelings. That, I believe, is vital in the interests of good race relations in South Africa.

I want to deal with a particular incident, an incident in which, unfortunately, the hon. the Minister was personally involved and which occurred last year in Westville, Natal. The Westville municipality is a local authority area which has a very proud record of cooperation and understanding between the fairly small Indian community which falls within its boundaries and the White local authority. There is a local advisory committee which tries to represent the interests of the Westville Indian community. There is very good liaison between the municipality and the local advisory committee, and the spirit that exists between those two communities living within the same municipal area is a very good one indeed. Joint meetings are often held and a member of the local advisory committee actually sits in on Westville town council meetings. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that that is really a very happy situation, where intelligent, successful and loyal Indian South Africans can try to work together with their fellow White South Africans in local affairs.

However, last year—I think it was in July—the Mayoress of Westville decided to hold a ball in aid of the Southern Cross Fund, the Border Fund. Invitations were issued to a wide cross-section of people in the community, including members of the local Indian advisory committee, to attend this function. The hon. the Minister was the guest of honour on that occasion. He was present and I was present The tickets cost, I think, R50 each and, as I have said, it was for the benefit of the Southern Cross Fund. The invitations having been issued, the Mayoress applied to the hon. the Minister’s department for a permit to allow these loyal South Africans to attend the function. Many of them had indicated that they wanted to contribute because they were as concerned as anybody else about the security of South Africa. They wanted to contribute and they were prepared to attend the function. What happened, Sir? A permit was applied for and, in the first instance, an outright refusal was received. It was stated that they would not be permitted to attend the function. The people concerned then went back to the department and said: “In view of the nature of the function and the cause for which it is being held, a good cause which should be subscribed to by all South Africans, please reconsider the matter.” What reply did they then get? The reply of the Minister’s department was to the effect that these good, loyal, intelligent Indian South Africans would be allowed to attend the function provided they did not dance. I wonder if the hon. the Minister felt as I did that evening when I arrived at the hall and was given this news by a newsman who was waiting outside. I felt thoroughly ashamed to be a White South African. I wonder what the hon. the Minister felt. There he was, not only as Minister of Community Development but also as Minister of Indian Affairs, attending a function in the local authority area as a guest of honour while the very people he is supposed to represent had been snubbed and insulted in this manner. I wonder what the hon. the Minister felt about it. Is he proud of this sort of situation? This is what occurs when you have the sort of society that is ruled by permits, as the South African society so frequently is. I believe it was thoroughly disgraceful. We often boast of the fact that there are members of the Indian community who are prepared to serve in our armed forces. The Indians in the S.A. Navy and elsewhere are not discriminated against in the Services. However, even when they want to contribute to a Fund for the servicemen of South Africa, they are not good enough in the first instance to be admitted or, if they are told that they can be admitted, they are told “you dare not dance if you do come”. The end result was, of course, that these people did not come to the function; nor did they pay heed to the special appeal by the Mayoress on that occasion. This is a single incident, but I think it is vitally important when one considers the impact it has on loyal, decent South Africans. I believe the hon. the Minister should indicate what his own attitude is on that sort of situation. Does he intend to allow this sort of situation to recur? If so, it can only do harm to good race relations in this country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments. He discussed a certain local matter and I believe the hon. the Minister will give him a proper reply. However, he also said that the department should act with “some compassion and human feelings”. I have had many negotiations with the Department of Community Development and I can give the hon. member the assurance that during my negotiations with either the hon. the Minister or the officialdom here or on a regional basis, I have found that the negotiations have always been accompanied by “some compassion and human feelings”.

I agree with the hon. member that the members of the Indian community in South Africa are loyal South Africans. They are loyal for they realize and are grateful for what the Department of Community Development is doing for them. The hon. member has only to ask those people.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member is beginning to kick up a fuss. However, he should come to the Vaal Triangle and meet the Indian community there; then I shall show him what loyalty is and what patriotism the Indian community has for South Africa. The Indian is grateful for that which the hon. the Minister and his department is doing for them. The Department of Community Development is not throwing any member of the Indian community to the wolves.

We are experiencing a real problem with Indians in the Vaal Triangle, but because we are prepared to meet them round a conference table and to listen to their problems in the presence of regional representatives of the department, there is appreciation for their needs. I am very closely involved with the Indian community in the Vaal Triangle. I regard them as my friends and my door is wide open to them. During all my years in politics I have never heard a negative or discordant note from the Indian community in the Vaal Triangle. The hon. members who are making such a commotion should really come and have a look so that I can introduce them to the loyal Indian of South Africa. I am not speaking of the few who only create problems and are seeking confrontation. However, I do not intend elaborating on this subject any further.

I should like to devote my speech to home-ownership. Probably one of the most important paragraphs in this very fine annual report by the Secretary of Community Development, is the following—

In a recent speech which he made in Verwoerdburg, the hon. the Minister made a very important statement associating himself with this view, when he said—

It is the Government’s aim to encourage and promote home-ownership for all population groups. I do not think there is any need for the Government to stand back. Hon. members need only page through the report—I do not wish to take up the time of the House with statistics—to see the framework which the department has already created to make home-ownership possible. One only has to look at the amendment of the Housing Act of 1966, the concessions with regard to transfer duties, the adaptation of differentiated interest rates by building societies, the improvement of the State-aided home-ownership savings scheme and the State subsidies on housing loans which have been granted to private individuals by building societies and other financial institutions.

These are positive steps in the right direction, for the Government realizes that it is the desire of every man and woman in South Africa to be the owner of his own home one day. I believe it is the sincere intention of the Government to bring this about. The evidence can be quoted from this report to show that this is the sincere desire.

We should, however, remember that home-ownership also brings practical problems. I believe that State action is necessary at the moment to keep the cost of private homes as low as possible. This has become absolutely essential. I should like to level a reproach at certain Whites and say that we have reached the stage where people are depriving their families in certain respects in order to afford houses which are beyond their means. People can no longer afford this in the times in which we are living—this is a world-wide phenomenon—and I think the time is past that a house must have two or three bathrooms, a living room, a television room, a nursery and a workroom. The world community cannot afford it. I think there are many of our people who have to realize this and who have to come down to earth. The so-called “living up to the standard of the Joneses” is something of the past. If they cannot do that, they blame the Government for it and say that it is due to the economic and financial climate which the Government is creating. It is not the Government’s fault. It is the duty of everyone in South Africa to realize that he must live within his means. I shall furnish the reason for this.

The prices of land have already risen beyond the level at which the man in the street can afford it. I now wish to predict that there are further price rises ahead. The value of land is not going to rise. The time has come when our people must be satisfied with small pieces of land. Another factor is the labour problems which are being experienced. The days of large estates are past. It is a fine ideal if one can afford it, but can South Africa afford it? I do not wish to refer to individuals in this House. If one has the means to do it, it is all very well, for it is his democratic right. However, we read in the newspapers that people boast of houses costing between R400 000 and R500 000. It is one’s democratic right to build such a house, but is one then not doing something to the economy of South Africa? Can one not manage with a smaller house that is not so expensive? Is it necessary to have five or six bathrooms in a house?

We should also look at the construction of a house itself. The State controls many prices of important building materials. Investigation is, however, necessary to take a look at the standardization of building regulations, building materials and less luxurious items such as floors, roofs and walls. Is it necessary to use five, six or seven shield carpets to cover the walls of a house? Where do we in South Africa wish to go to? I think many of our people have to come down to earth and realize what is happening.

The Government’s Housing Policy Board is at this stage giving attention—I am grateful to see this—to aspects such as the availability and maximum utilization of building land, the simplification and standardization of services and the determination of realistic plot sizes to keep the prices of homes as low as possible. I am grateful that this has been confirmed in official documents of the department which indicate that the Government is at present paying attention to this. Many people in South Africa buy houses which are too luxurious and too expensive. However, the individual is the culprit.

I should now like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. The Co-ordination of Housing Matters Act of 1978 created the machinery for the proper elimination of bottlenecks and the formulation of a housing policy on a national basis. Care should be taken at all times to see to it that this Act is properly implemented by everyone. I believe that local authorities should render a great service in this regard. Particularly as far as township development is concerned, I believe the way in which we are establishing towns at the moment should be simplified and that the establishment of towns should be made easier. There is a lot of red tape. I now wish to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister—I believe that his department will take a look at this—that the establishment and development of towns be simplified, for I believe that the prices of plots will, in this manner, reach a level which will be to everyone’s advantage and in so doing home ownership in South Africa will be promoted.

Finally it seems to be necessary to consider the possibility that endowment contributions of township developers are no longer a requirement for State, provincial and local purposes in certain respects. In some cases these endowment contributions have contributed up to 20% of the town area and the expenditure had, of course, to be loaded against the prices of a plot. I feel that this is unsound and should also be investigated. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to react to the hon. member for Overvaal. I agree entirely with what he said. I think he put his case very well. However, I want to say something about urban decay and urban renewal, with particular reference to the situation in this part of the country, because we have seen the unfortunate consequences of allowing urban decay to become too advanced. We have seen what happens when decay becomes absolute, when decay becomes so deep-seated and irreversible that the only solution is ultimately the bulldozer. If one compares Cape Town with Johannesburg, and the populations for which the ratepayers of Cape Town and Johannesburg have a responsibility, the figures are interesting. For example, in Cape Town there are 882 439 people, and if one subtracts the number of Black people one finds that the municipality of Cape Town is responsible for 779 690 people. Johannesburg, excluding Blacks, has some 618 180 people. Therefore the municipality of Johannesburg is responsible for fewer people than the municipality of Cape Town. Yet it is interesting to see that the rates income in Johannesburg is R4 296 million per year, whereas in Cape Town it is R2 313 million per year. That tells a story. It shows us why we have so much decay in the central parts of Cape Town.

Did you say that the rates for Johannesburg are R4 296 million per year?

Yes, R4 296 million per year.

Not the rates?

I am sorry, the rateable value. If one looks at the huge dependent population of Cape Town one sees that much needs doing. In that regard I should like to say at once that we must thank the hon. the Minister and the department for the contribution, made directly and indirectly, to the welfare of the people of Cape Town, and not only for the contribution made and for the facilities provided, but also for the skill in doing so and for the sensitivity and understanding which the department shows.

In terms of the Community Development Act, No. 3 of 1966, assistance can be given to decaying urban areas that require to be rehabilitated. At this point I therefore want to make a strong plea on behalf of the people of Maitland. At one time Maitland was one of Cape Town’s best residential areas, one of the premier residential areas, but it is now suffering from advanced decay. It consists largely of terraced and semi-detached houses, most of which are described by the city council as being in fair or fair to poor condition. My plea to the hon. the Minister is not only to designate the area, but to use his good offices to get going, in Maitland, a total action in conjunction with the other Government departments, and the local and provincial authorities, to reverse the tide of events in Maitland.

I must pause here for a brief moment to say that the relationship between this department and the local authorities, both here and in other parts of the country, is very good. I am sure that if one were to get a positive impetus of renewal going in Maitland, the normal market and social forces would become self-sustaining. An area such as Maitland has good schools, a library, a town-hall, good shops, a sports club with several fields and facilities, a scouting movement, fine churches of many denominations, two railway stations on the suburban line, an excellent bus service and good solid Victorian architecture which, if restored, would make a great contribution to the architectural heritage of Cape Town. It is necessary, however, that we rescue this area from the jaws of despair. The area needs to be designated by the Minister, in terms of the provisions of the Community Development Act, as an area requiring financial assistance. All possible steps must be taken to encourage property owners, particularly the home-owners, to renovate and rehabilitate their properties through the loan schemes that are available in terms of the provisions of the Community Development Act I must appeal to the hon. the Minister, however, to see whether the interest rate cannot be lowered. An interest rate of 10% on money, borrowed for the redevelopment and renovation of this kind of property, is high.

I said that a total strategy needs to be employed and encouraged in respect of this designated area, and I believe the following actions need to be taken. All the normal restoration and maintenance work, on Government and public buildings in the area, which may be envisaged in the future, should take place now. I say that in respect of buildings of the provincial authorities, schools, municipal buildings and other public buildings such as the post office, the police station, etc. This could lead to an accelerating impetus of renewal in that community. I further believe that the department should, in its co-ordination with the local authority, encourage it to engage upon an ambitious tree-planting and landscaping action in the area. There should be a clamp-down on obnoxious and undesirable activities, and other manifestations such as the coal dust which blows over from the huge dumps of the railway station, the smells that come from the abattoir and from the milling company. These aspects should be investigated. As part of a total action I believe that the Railways should be encouraged to undertake a major restoration programme on their houses in that community, especially those which badly need restoration.

I further believe that the squalid conditions at Maitland Garden Village, which also falls under this department, should be ended as soon as possible, and that the people should be rehoused elsewhere in decent houses with a proper social infrastructure. I can further suggest that decent houses for the middle-income group be built on the site where they have less attractive houses at present. This site has a wonderful view of the mountain and of the Black River. It is, in fact, hallowed land because it is where the Free Burghers first tilled the soil of Africa for agricultural purposes.

As part of the total effort I believe that the municipality should also rationalize the zoning of the area and put a speedy end to non-conforming activities that take place there. I am thinking of the great piles of junk that can be seen on some of the empty sites all over the place. I further believe that the department should encourage the building society movement to advance money, on request, for mortgage bonds for people living in this designated area. Certain building society movements avoid such areas and will not invest in them. I believe that when an area is designated we should encourage the building society movements to make a contribution to that area as well.

On the designation of Maitland, I believe the municipality should consider giving a rates rebate to the residents who apply for assistance in terms of the provisions of the Community Development Act. People should be encourage to apply for assistance, and it should be regarded as a positive incentive to do so. The local authority can perhaps, as it is empowered to do so, give a rates rebate, for say a period of five years, should a person make an application for a loan, having spent say in excess of R4 000 on restoration or maintenance work.

I believe that utility companies such as the Citizens’ Housing League should be encouraged to make whatever contribution they feel they can make in terms of the area that has been designated. I also think that a concerted effort should be made by the Chamber of Commerce and the Chamber of Industries to bring the Traders’ Association and the factory owners together so that they can be asked to give their properties a facelift during such a period of upliftment. The secret of the whole upliftment process is that there should be co-ordination between all the State departments, the local authorities and the provincial authorities, a positive impetus that can be sensed by the market so that the normal market forces can take over. That is the process we have seen in other parts of Cape Town which have been less depressed and yet have been uplifted purely by the normal market process. However, we must get that impetus going to attract interest in the area. The co-ordination should not be difficult, because everybody would benefit [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland will excuse me if I do not react to his problems and recommendations in regard to Maitland. I am sure the hon. the Minister will deal with those aspects adequately.

At the outset I wish to point out, as hon. members have done previously, that the two reports of the hon. the Minister are very good indeed. “Focus” and the report by the Secretary are that good that they should be recommended to other hon. Ministers. I believe other hon. Ministers could follow in his footsteps and offer this House as much information, data and figures as the Secretary for Community Development has done in his report. We congratulate him on this.

The statistics that are supplied in these reports not only deal with the past and the present, but also give us the thinking and the philosophy of the departments for the future. I think that this is something that is lacking in many departments. They merely present an historical perspective of what has happened during the past year or the past 10 years. I think the hon. the Minister has tried to give us an insight into what his problems are and how he will be trying to solve them in the future. I believe that this is something that other hon. Ministers could certainly emulate, adopt and apply.

The message in this report is very clear. The message is, as I see it, that if hon. members in this House allocate sufficient funds to his department, it is willing and able to do exactly what it claims it can. I think that is the intention of this report. It paints the picture very clearly. He puts it to us that we, as legislators, must give him sufficient money to do the job, and I am positive that the Department of Community Development, if given sufficient funds, would be able to do just that. I am particularly impressed with one paragraph of the report, namely the last paragraph of the initial introduction by the Secretary. I quote from page viii—

The Secretary goes on to discuss the centres of France, namely Parly II and La Defense, which are excellent examples to use. I think we can learn from this, as is clearly outlined, that we must not make the same mistakes they have made in La Defense in Paris. However, the Parly II scheme, which started with the provision of town and business centres right in the initial stages, is something we need to learn from. I think that what cities like Soweto and other major cities outside our areas failed to recognize is that one does not only build houses but also a community. I believe that the hon. the Minister and his department have twigged on to this. I think that the first community centre in Mitchell’s Plain, which is now having its trial run, is excellent I think that we must not try to build a whole city centre at one go, but give attention to smaller centres here and there, as is being done. This is, in fact, to be very highly recommended. I think that if they keep on this track, they will create communities that are self-contained centres so that people do not have to travel to a city which is 20 miles away, but can live and work in their own areas. I think this is the avenue to the future.

I should now like to deal with the idea of landscaping and beautification. I think this is something the hon. the Minister should pay particular attention to. We have tried to plant trees in these townships, but they are so often knocked down. It becomes clear when one looks at the barrack-like townships one sees on the outskirts of our cities. This effect is due to the fact that there are no trees. The green is just not there. That is owing to the fact that they are inevitably chopped down by the kids wanting to use the wood to make fires. What I am suggesting is that big trees should be planted. It is not necessary to plant a tree in front of each and every house. Only the odd tree should be planted, but it should be a huge tree. The same funds used to plant 40 or 50 small trees can be sufficient for the planting of two or three huge trees, trees that will not be able to be chopped down or damaged by the local population. I think something like this would create a pride among the local inhabitants. The same applies to the design of these townships. The barracks type of townships are something that will have to disappear. I believe the design of each dwelling needs to be seriously considered. The idea of multiple housing in an attempt to bring down costs can be very simply handled by using not more than about five plans, and then multiples of these plans with different façades, different roof structures, etc., and setting the dwellings back at different distances from the street. In this way one can create a type of environment quite different from the typical barracks townships which we see in our cities.

I also believe we require decent colour consultants. When I look at some of the ridiculous colour schemes employed, I cannot believe it can be the department that is responsible. It must be some young draftsman who must be responsible for choosing colours for those homes. I believe one should find good colour consultants to recommend decent colour combinations to make those townships more livable.

I wanted to discuss White and Indian and Coloured housing. However, I believe I will have to steer clear of those areas. Instead, I want to present to the House a set of statistics relating to Black housing and to the way in which this department has to allocate funds to the various communities in South Africa. I prepared a set of figures which I would like to hand to the hon. the Minister and his department These figures I took from the data and statistics given by his own department I think this is a rather remarkable set of statistics.

I should like to read to the House what the various population groups received in the form of monetary aid and the number of houses as it relates to the number of people.

If we take a look at the White population, it appears that 33% of the total population belongs to this group. Of the total number of houses built since 1970 the White group received 17%, and 32% of the total fund allocation between 1972 and 1977. However, the Coloured population, which only represents 18% of the total population, received 47% of the total number of houses built since 1970 and 49% of the total fund allocation between 1972 and 1977. The Asians, on the other hand, comprising only 6% of the total population, received 9% of the total number of houses built since 1970, and 13% of the total fund allocation between 1972 and 1977. Then we come to the issue of housing for the Blacks. Taken from the department’s own figures it appears that 44% of the total population is Black. This population group, however, received only 27% of the total number of houses built since 1970, and only 6,5% of the total fund allocation between 1972 and 1977. What worries me is that we are not considering the real issues which are at stake. That is the tremendous shortage in housing for Blacks. We allocate them only a very small percentage of the total funds available. I am not asking the hon. the Minister to reduce the amounts of money allocated to Coloureds and Asians. This is not what I am advocating. I am saying that the Black housing is totally inadequate to meet the requirements. We have heard figures indicating that there is a shortage of as much as 400 000 houses in the White areas. I believe the figure is closer to 200 000. The amount of money set aside by the department does not even come close to meeting these requirements. I should like to quote what the hon. the Minister has had to say with regard to housing for Blacks—

That would require R275 million. However, in the budget only R39 million is provided for Blacks for the period 1978-’81. It does not gel that, while it is indicated in the report that R275 million is required, only R39 million is available for the next three years. If the hon. the Minister looks at these statistics, he will realize that there is a crying need for funds for Black housing in this country. We need to do something about it I believe it is our duty to make it clear to everybody in the House that more funds must be provided. I believe we are on that track right now and that, if the hon. the Minister will look at the statistics, he will agree with us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to respond to the argument advanced by the hon. member. I should like to associate myself with the thinking of the hon. member for Maitland, who discussed the urgent need for renewal in our older urban areas. We are able to state with gratitude that a great interest has developed in the historic houses of South Africa in recent years. One can also mention with gratitude that a great deal has already been done by certain bodies and individuals to bring his historic treasure of South Africa to our attention and actively to undertake the task of restoration. I may mention the name of Dr. Anton Rupert, who has undoubtedly done pioneering work in this connection. When one looks at Cape Town today or at some of our older towns such as Stellenbosch, Tulbagh, Swellendam or Graaff-Reinet, it is striking that the old houses which at one stage were in a dilapidated condition have been repaired, so that there are splendid historic houses to be seen there today which we are proud of, and we are grateful to those who undertook the restoration. However, we must bear in mind that this restoration is very expensive and that when no donations are made by outside bodies such as Historic Houses of South Africa, it is very difficult for the private owner to restore and maintain such a house properly—it is not only a question of restoration, but also of the maintenance costs, which are also very high. I should like to bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister and to ask that the department should give special attention to it. I think that an area such as District Six also deserves special attention. The idea has been expressed that even when this area is rezoned and replanned, we may consider restoring some of the old Cape houses there and preserving them for posterity. I have no particulars in this connection, but I hope the hon. the Minister and his department will give attention to this.

It has also appeared that a good many of these houses are still being handled by the rent boards in the various areas and that they do not always show the necessary consideration towards the owners with regard to the cost of restoration and the rents which must subsequently be laid down. A case has come to my attention, for example, where, after the owner of such an historic house had spent an amount of approximately R15 000 on it, the rent board concerned granted an increase of R30 a month in the rental, without having inquired as to the expenses incurred. This means that the owners of such houses received no encouragement if this is the way in which we deal with those owners. The cost of maintaining those houses is very high and they require special attention. Therefore I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider this matter. I know that the matter has received his attention before and I am sure that he is very sympathetic towards this whole matter. However, I ask him to give serious attention to ensuring that the rent boards are properly informed and encouraged—instructed, if necessary—to make a proper study of the cost of such restorations. Personally, I think that when a particular building bears the plaque of the Historic Monuments Commission, it goes without saying that that building should be exempt from rent control. In my opinion, it serves no purpose for that building still to be subjected to rent control. I am not talking about just any little house or building which has no historic value, but about houses declared to be historic monuments by the National Monuments Commission.

I suggest that this line of action be considered in order to encourage the owners, not only to repair and restore these buildings, but to maintain them properly. Proper maintenance of the buildings is just as important as restoration. Usually those buildings are not built of very good bricks. The whole structure requires special attention and special measures for its preservation. Therefore I want to express the hope that the hon. the Minister will give his attention to this matter. I want to emphasize that we have great appreciation for the bodies and persons that have gone to great trouble in recent years to open our eyes, as it were, to our historic houses, and have performed very fine restoration work. Some of our architects have specially concentrated on this and have done a great deal of research to acquaint themselves with this matter, and are constantly doing good work in this connection in co-operation with the owners. We must give them the necessary encouragement and, where possible, the necessary support to be able to continue with this good work.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate moment to reply to the very interesting discussion we have had so far and to make a few general remarks about what has happened up to now. This will breathe new life into the rest of the discussion. I think we have seen Parliament at its best today. We have had a discussion of the very highest standard, in which everyone participated with a sense of responsibility and with a sense of appreciation for the achievements of people who are devoted to their task of promoting the interests of all the population groups in South Africa.

I have the feeling that hon. members on both sides of the House who participated in the discussion realized that we were faced here with an enormous problem and that it closely concerned the happiness and the quality of life of all the people in South Africa, that for historic reasons there is a great backlog in some fields which has to be made up, and that everyone shares the responsibility which rests upon the department in the first place to make up this backlog. I am very grateful for the fact that there is real appreciation for this and that in some cases it is openly admitted by members of the Opposition. In other cases, they struggled a little to express their appreciation, but it does appear that there is appreciation for the work done by the Department of Community Development, the local authorities, the utility companies and the welfare organizations with which we cooperate. I am very glad about that and I greatly appreciate it. It has been a pleasure to listen to the discussion.

I have an important announcement to make, but before I do so, I should like to give attention to the speech made by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. In particular, I wish to thank him for the high standard he maintained in his contribution to the discussion. I also want to thank him for the statistics he sent me, the statistics on which he based his arguments. It did much to enable me to grasp his point at once. He expressed concern about the fact that, as it seemed to him, less attention was being given to the needs of our Black people than to the needs of the Whites, Coloureds and Indians. This may be true for the period covered by his figures, but I just want to remind him of the fact that since the National Housing Commission has been actively engaged in housing our people, 385 000 houses for Blacks have been financed by that body. In the ’sixties, especially, great efforts were made to provide Black housing. After the war we had terrible problems, especially on the Witwatersrand, where we were faced with shanty towns and other deplorable conditions as far as the housing of Blacks was concerned. In the ’sixties, that backward position was wiped out. More than 100 000 houses for Blacks were built during that period. More than 20 000 houses were built each year, and this in a period after the war when difficult adjustments had to be made. It was truly a great achievement. After that the tempo dropped a little—perhaps a little too much—but the Department of Co-operation and Development is giving attention to this matter at the moment My department will cooperate very closely with that department to make up the backlog.

I just want to say that the Black Housing Board, under the chairmanship of the chairman of the National Housing Commission, has hitherto met all the housing needs of the administration boards. We have been able to give them all the money they asked for. Up to now, something of a backlog of 8 000 houses has been built up, but we are fully confident that we shall be able to meet those needs during the present financial year. We are therefore aware of the problem raised by the hon. member and we should very much like to tackle it with the same energy and enthusiasm as the housing of the other three population groups.

I now want to make an official announcement which hon. members may find interesting. As hon. members know, the Government recently decided to finance housing for Blacks at the same interest rates and according to the same standards as those applicable to other race groups. Arising from this, Black housing can therefore also be subsidized at an interest rate of 1%. Hon. members will remember that in the past, all Black housing was provided on an economic basis. Now Blacks will also enjoy the privilege of subeconomic interest rates on loans. In pursuance of this, the Department of Community Development and the Department of Co-operation and Development have agreed that the Housing Council for Blacks will disappear and that the Department of Community Development will handle applications for Black housing through the National Housing Commission after a need has been certified by the Department of Cooperation and Development, but according to the expert standards, etc., of the Department of Community Development. This will enable us to streamline the procedures. Although the Department of Community Development will handle applications for Black housing, its financing and the application of standards, there will be the closest co-ordination between the Department of Community Development and the Department of Cooperation and Development. We are convinced that Black housing will benefit considerably by this new arrangement, and for that reason I am glad that the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South raised the matter. I think the announcement I have made and the explanation I have given will answer his problem.

The hon. member for Rondebosch introduced the discussion with an interesting speech. Of course, he immediately made certain statements from which it appeared what a difference there is between the approach of the party which he represents to the problem of housing in South Africa and that of the party which I have the honour of representing. He said, for example, that we should do more to encourage self-help lowcost housing, that people should be encouraged to knock together some kind of shelter themselves, that we should recognize and control this and that this would be a solution to the problem. He and I have often discussed this matter, and I want to concede that there are countries of the world, especially in the Third World, where this is inevitable and has to be done. I have seen it in South America, Europe and Asia, but it is terrible to see what the results have been. I have not seen it in Africa, but I have read of cities where more than 80% of the population are squatters and live in the most deplorable circumstances. I do not think I would have the heart to say that we in South Africa should consider tolerating such circumstances and conditions in this country as well. We may be a member of the Third World in some respects, but we are a privileged member. We have the means, the abilities and the opportunities which many other countries lack, and it would be short-sighted and extremely selfish of us not to accept our duty towards the communities of South Africa and to ensure that all the people of South Africa are decently and properly housed. In any event, we have already tried something of this nature. I had an opportunity earlier this session to accompany members of all parties when we went to look at Elsie’s River here in the Cape. Elsie’s River is the very place where we have done this. We gave these people right of ownership in their own area and told them: House yourselves at low cost; we shall provide the services, and many things besides. We experimented.

But what was the result? The greatest mess I have ever seen in South Africa, something which every South African had to be ashamed of. Now we have to clear up Elsie’s River together with the Cape Divisional Council. A scheme which would have cost us R10 million to R20 million if we had gone about it the right way from the start now costs us R80 million, R80 million to rectify the mistake made in the past. Then my hon. friend, for whom I have great esteem in many respects, actually sees fit to propose again today that we should not only repeat file mistake of Elsie’s River, but should make it a permanent part of the housing life of South Africa.

All this is untrue.

I now tell him with great patience and in all friendliness that he can talk as much as he likes, that he can quote experts, but he and I will not agree about this. As long as this Government, and specifically the Minister of Finance, make the funds available to the Department of Community Development to act contrary to his unfortunate requests, we shall continue to act contrary to them, and he and I will have to agree to differ about the matter. I simply cannot accede to his request.

We realize that there are cases where people have to be helped to do something on a very low level to get a roof over their heads. There are indigent people, people with a problem bigger than he and I can realize. And we are doing something for them as well. In the Cape Peninsula, we are doing more than just experimenting. At Valhalla Park and at Mitchell’s Plain itself we are building pilot schemes for core houses which cost only R1 900 to build. It is almost R1 000 cheaper than the houses of the Urban Foundation, to which a member has referred. For R1 900, we build a core house which can easily be added on to and improved. We realize the need and we want to meet it where it is inevitable, but really, we are far from happy. We are not satisfied that this is the solution and only the most desperate need is forcing us to adopt this method. It can never become a part of the pattern of housing in South Africa, but can only take place in highly exceptional situations.

Business suspended at 18h30 and resumed at 20h00.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, when the House adjourned for dinner, I was talking to the hon. member for Rondebosch about squatting. We had agreed to differ in our attitude to squatting. In spite of the hon. member’s pessimism in the past, I believe that I can tell him very confidently tonight that we are overcoming this problem. I want to mention that we were able to demolish 8 570 squatter’s shacks in Cape Town between October 1975 and September last year because suitable alternative housing could be found for the inhabitants of those shacks. At the moment, only 15 500 of these shacks remain. We are demolishing them at the rate of about 5 000 a year, and I believe that within the foreseeable future, there will be no squatter problem left in the Cape Peninsula at all.

If the hon. member would look at the annual report of the Secretary to my department, he would see that similar progress is also being made in the other urban areas of South Africa. I should like to devote a few minutes to a discussion of the progress which is being made with housing in South Africa in general and to give a projection of the department’s intentions and chances in the light of the objectives we have set ourselves up to 1981. From the ordinary funds which the department receives from the Treasury, we expect R600 million over this period. As far as additional funds are concerned, such as bank moneys which are still being spent by us, we expect R161,6 million. This means that we shall have enough money to have 20 000 houses built for Whites during that period; 51 362 for the Coloureds; 10 400 for the Asians; and about 18 000 for our Black people. From the additional funds, we shall be able to build about another 17 500 houses for Coloureds, 6 824 for Asians and 22 727 for Blacks. The total number of houses which we shall be able to build for all population groups, therefore, is 146 722. This is an enormous number, and it is almost incredible that a country with the means and the population of South Africa can make such progress in this field.

Large amounts sometimes serve only to confuse. If we reduce these to terms which we can all understand, I want to say that it means that during the three-year period, we shall build 26 houses for Whites every day at a cost of R¼ million. For Coloureds, 90 units will be built every day, at a cost of R½% million. For Asians, 23 units will be built every day, at a daily cost of R165 000, and for our Blacks, 53 units will be built every day, and about R116 000 will be spent on them daily. This amounts to a total of more than R1 million which will be spent every day on the construction of approximately 190 houses a day. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Bellville pointed out that this means that one dwelling unit will be completed every 2½ minutes on a working day. This also means an expenditure of R2 200 per minute of every working day. I just wanted to bring home to hon. members in a concrete way why I say that we have reason to be proud of our achievements in connection with housing.

I have with me the most recent statistics made available to me by my department. These statistics really bring us up to date. The previous figures covered the period up to September 1978. The figures I have before me now furnish the information up to and including February this year. According to this, it appears that the Department of Community Development, and the local authorities financed by it, together built 2 642 houses for Whites, 23 406 for Coloureds, 3 637 for Asians and 9 500 for Blacks in 1978. This amounts to a total of 39 184. What is interesting is that in addition to this, 97 753 houses belong to schemes in respect of which commitments have already been entered into, i.e. schemes which are already under contract, as well as those for which the contracts are shortly to be concluded. Then there are another 23 762 houses in respect of which funds have not yet been allocated so that tenders could be called for. All these houses will be under construction by December 1979. Forty thousand houses are being completed this year, while 103 515 houses are under construction this year. I mention these figures because I think we should also know that the work is being embarked upon with a will to succeed which is unprecedented in the history of South Africa. No other country with a similar population composition and with the means of South Africa could equal this.

The hon. member for Rondebosch specifically asked what the housing shortage for Coloureds was and what the chances were of making up the backlog. I want to tell the hon. member that the estimated shortage is now 45 900 houses and that according to a good estimate, the natural increase during the four years will be 48 000. The estimated provision for the next four years will be 23 000 houses a year. The total number will therefore be 92 000 for the four years. This means that within four years, we shall not only make up the backlog, but also keep page with the provision of houses required by reason of the increase. Therefore the shortage will be wiped out within four or five years, provided that sufficient funds are made available. I am optimistic that unless something unexpected happens, we shall succeed in this. I may just say that my department calculates that if we can receive R100 million more than our expected allocation within the next few years, the housing shortage with regard to Whites, Coloureds and Indians will be wiped out completely within five years, and that with regard to Blacks perhaps within eight years.

The hon. member also inquired about Indian housing in Durban, where he believes there are special problems. I concede that There is an estimated shortage of 11 800 houses, while we are expecting an increase of 2 000 a year. This means that within the next five years, we have to provide a total of 21 800 houses. On average, 4 500 houses are provided every year. We consequently foresee that we shall be able to provide 22 500 houses within the next five years. This means that within five years, we shall build more houses than are needed for the natural increase and for making up the backlog. I think that we should like to expedite it in both cases, and I hope that we may receive good news in the course of the year from the people who have to make it financially possible for us to achieve these targets. However, I think hon. members will be glad to know that we have made a start and that good progress is being made.

†The hon. member for Sea Point apologized to me that he had to leave by air this afternoon, and that he would be grateful if I would reply to…

Is he going to America?

Perhaps he is looking for a telephone! [Interjections.] In his speech he merely repeated the comments he made on Sea Point in February 1979 when we discussed a private member’s motion on the situation there. He complained again, as he did on that occasion, that we did not see it as a problem of the whole of the Peninsula, but only as a very local problem. He complained further about the fact that there was no community base for the Coloureds in Cape Town, that town planning was ignored, and he also did not like the idea of prohibiting the supply of alcohol only to one particular community. He also spoke about the need for a more intimate participation by the Cape Town city council in this matter.

I want to state immediately that the Fouché Committee, the work it did and the report it produced, was not something that happened suddenly. It was the result of mounting pressure by the public of Sea Point on the authorities, on the municipality of Cape Town, on the provincial authorities and on the Department of Community Development, for some action to be taken in order to alleviate the most unsavoury conditions that were developing in that suburb. The Fouché Committee was not appointed out of the blue. It was the second committee appointed to look into this matter during the past ten years. Therefore it is wrong to assume that it came out of the blue, as some act of provocation on the part of the Government and of the public against the town council. On the contrary. It was the result of continued, sustained pressure of informed public opinion in Sea Point that something should be done about the situation there.

It is interesting that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was very critical of the findings of this Committee, although not nearly as critical as certain members of the Cape Town city council. Yet an analysis of the report and of the speech made by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition on 23 February 1979, shows that most of the suggestions he made for the improvement of the situation in Sea Point actually form part of the recommendations contained in the Fouché Committee’s report I will give an example. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition proposed—and all this can be found, if hon. members want to check up on me, in Hansard, cols. 1210-11, of 23 February this year—an improvement in the quality of life in Black and Brown residential areas, especially in respect of housing, community life, services, facilities, etc. Meanwhile the Fouché Committee recommended, in para. 14.7 of its report, the development of beach facilities for our Coloured people throughout the Peninsula In paragraph 12.7 of the report we find the recommendation that recreational facilities in the areas occupied by the Coloured people should be extended and the development of such facilities be expedited and that even regional sport facilities should be created throughout the Cape Peninsula. All this seems to me to be very much in accord with the thinking of the hon. Leader of the Opposition.

He spoke about the need for a community base for our Coloured people in the Cape Peninsula. I invited hon. members to accompany me to Mitchell’s Plain, but the last time the Leader of the Opposition did not turn up. I invite him again to come with me to Mitchell’s Plain to see what we are doing there to give the Coloured people their own community base in the Cape Peninsula. [Interjections.]

How far is it from Mitchell’s Plain to Sea Point?

It does not matter. It is not far at all. Once the train service is introduced they will be within 25 minutes of Cape Town. There are thousands of other people who do not live that near. Moreover, they have seven miles of the most beautiful stretch of beach adjacent to Mitchell’s Plain. That also will be developed.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition spoke about town planning and about the fact that there was not a proper demarcation line between trading areas and residential areas in Sea Point. The Fouché Committee referred to this specifically because of the problems created by the existence of an off-course totalisator right in the heart of the residential area, as well as the problem of liquor outlets in the residential area. All this was seen and mentioned by the Fouché Committee.

On 23 February this year, the hon. the Leader of the Opposition made a big show about the need for police protection. The Fouché Committee attended to that as well. They got the S.A. Police to confer with them as a committee and it was agreed that the S.A. Police and the municipal beach police would have to supervise the beaches, especially Sunset Beach, more closely. They also agreed that, once a more efficient local ordinance is enforced, as recommended by the Fouché Committee, the police will supply a larger force to administer that ordinance in those areas, especially in Sea Point and other affected areas. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition also asked for better supervision by owners of their servants’ quarters. In para. 15.13, subparas. (1) to (4), the Fouché Committee also recommended this and prepared a draft ordinance placing this duty particularly and specifically on the owners of properties. It was suggested by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that vagrants should be given shelter and that the vagrancy problem should be eliminated if possible. This was dealt with in paragraphs 12.5, 12.6 and 13.5 of the committee’s report. In fact, it is something that crops up throughout the report. Even the idea of having special rehabilitation centres to which these people could be committed is advocated by the committee. Then he asked for a master-plan for community facilities for the Cape Peninsula as a whole. This is exactly what the Fouché Committee recommended in para. 12.6. He also said that greater financial assistance should be made available. Quite recently the Administration of the Cape Province was given R3 million extra by the Treasury to develop beach facilities alone in the whole of the Cape Peninsula. It is, therefore, quite clear to me that, in so far as the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in his speech in February had concrete and positive suggestions to make, he was traversing the same ground the Fouché Committee traversed in its recommendations which are now being implemented.

The Cape Town municipality now say they were not consulted. They now want to appoint their own committee, thereby delaying action for another eight weeks while their committee traverses the same ground that the Fouché Committee and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition have already traversed. This to me seems quite unnecessary. I do not want to be unduly critical of the Cape Town municipality, but for 10 years now they have been hearing complaints and receiving appeals and requests for action to be taken. Yet, they never thought of instituting an inquiry. But now that the Government and the province have been forced to take action, they suddenly realize they must have their own investigation. They say they have to do so because they say they were not properly represented on the Fouché Committee. However, their two most senior officials with their knowledge took part in these discussions and signed the unanimous report. The City Engineer and the Town Clerk of Cape Town were members of the Fouché Committee. The municipality was therefore adequately represented. Had they wanted councillors on the committee, they could have asked for that They were, however, happy and agreed that their two most senior officials should be members. All I can say is that it is obvious—I think for ideological reasons and also for the reason that they want to give their electorate the impression that they are doing something, although rather late—that they now want to frustrate the positive consequences flowing from the work of the Fouché Committee in the direction of alleviating the stress on the people of Sea Point. I am very sorry, but we cannot delay the implementation of the important measures recommended by the Fouché Committee because of the attitude of the city council. To be fair, however, let me say that, if they complete their report before the implementation of the recommendations of the Fouché Committee has been completed, we will gladly look at their report and discuss it with them. If it contains good suggestions, we shall look at them, even if the Fouché Committee’s recommendations have already been implemented. Perhaps we could implement their suggestions as well. We cannot, however, delay these measures; we cannot sit back while the city council is trying to save face for its neglect of the past.

Who was responsible for District Six?

I do not see what that has to do with Sea Point

It has quite a lot to do with the whole Peninsula situation. It certainly was not the city council.

I do not see the relevance of that but I wish the hon. member well with whatever he has in mind. [Interjections.]

*In a very striking speech, the hon. member for Edenvale spoke in a very constructive way about the philosophy of the department. I want to thank him for that He specifically pointed out that it is our principal task not only to house people, but also to create viable and happy communities in the process, in which people can live happily and achieve the highest degree of self-realization of which each one is capable within his own community and among his own people.

He specifically asked when a start would be made with the provision of certain houses in Edenvale itself. Of course, he knows that there are great plans for Edenvale, especially in the field of economic housing. I am glad to be able to tell him that the new township which the Department of Community Development wants to develop there in consultation with the municipality provides for 343 special residential stands and four group housing stands on which approximately 750 residential units can be built. Provision is also being made for creches, stands for religious purposes, primary schools and old-age homes, a business centre and a community centre. In addition, the Community Development Board has approved a scheme of 77 dwelling units at an estimated cost of almost R2 million, and tenders are now being asked for the scheme, because the services are now available. We hope that the contracts will be concluded within the next week or two and that building operations can then commence. When someone makes such a good, constructive speech as the hon. member for Edenvale, I am always glad to be able to thank him with such concrete proofs of my goodwill.

In the course of the very good analysis of the department’s work, the hon. member for False Bay said something which sounded like music to my ears. He said he hoped the department would always be given sufficient funds to be able to continue its activities. In this connection I think that there is unanimity among us, and among all the parties represented in this House.

He asked me specifically about the role played by the Urban Foundation and the wide publicity enjoyed by the Foundation. I wish the foundation all the publicity it can get, because I believe that its members are good people and they could do good work. However, I think I should tell them that if they really wish to improve the quality of life of the people in our scheme townships, they should not try to compete with the Department of Community Development and the Government in the field we had already entered, i.e. the provision of low-cost housing. They will not be able to do that on such a scale that it will make a real contribution to the solution of the problem or will be able to compare with the work done by the State. I say this for one simple reason—there are others as well—and that is that the interest rates on the money they need are too high for them to be able to provide in the needs of the sub-economic and low income groups in South Africa. If they would apply their talents and funds in fields where there is a need for assistance to be rendered by the private sector, I should be very grateful.

I may mention at once that there are many of the older schemes in which, because of the force of circumstances at the time, the emphasis fell mainly on the provision of houses and community facilities consequently lagged behind. We feel that at the moment, those townships are not model townships, and there is much that can be done to improve the facilities in the townships and the quality of life of the inhabitants. Soweto is perhaps the most striking example of this. There the Foundation can really do something to supplement the efforts of the State.

If attention is not distracted from the provision of housing and the creation of communities, which is our primary task, we shall be grateful to the Foundation and say that they are now doing something valuable in supplementing the efforts of the State and that they do not find themselves in futile competition with the State’s activities in this sphere.

The hon. member also spoke about the housing of single domestic servants. The department is already financing such quarters for unmarried domestic servants in the Black residential areas in the form of hostels, youth centres and so forth. I just want to tell him that we shall always be willing to consider applications received from municipalities in other areas as well. We should like to cooperate where a need exists and where the need is determined by the people who are best qualified to evaluate it, i.e. the local authorities. They only have to apply to the department. Then we shall gladly give attention to their needs.

He also asked me about making up the housing backlog. I think he heard me when I said in reply to the hon. member for Rondebosch that this would be done within five years in the case of the Coloureds and Indians and that it may take a little longer in the case of the Blacks, provided that we get the money. We may be able to do even better if we can get that extra R100 million to which I referred.

†The hon. member for Durban Central asked that people should not be placed too far out from the central business districts of the big cities, but that they should be placed within reasonable distance from the cities. That is a fair request and that is what we try to do. But the hon. member must appreciate that in South Africa the land near the centre of the cities is either already occupied by other communities or else, as in the case of District Six, is of such a high value that, once the slum conditions have been cleared up, one cannot rehouse people in need of low cost housing in those areas. In the old days District Six was only viable as a Coloured residential area because it was a slum and because up to 10 people were living in one room and up to 40 or 50 in one house. They were being exploited by racketeers. If one wants to house people in decent circumstances, one can only house the very wealthy on expensive land or let that land develop naturally, as has been the case in Braamfontein in Johannesburg for example, into an office and business area.

The hon. member also spoke to me about rent control in a very sympathetic and understanding way, which I appreciate. I must say that our experience with the phasing out of the first groups of rent-controlled dwellings has been most fortunate. We have received hardly any complaints about exploitation. As a matter of fact the whole process went so smoothly that a week or two ago I could announce the second phase. It is generally accepted by the Press and all the people concerned that it is right and natural that it should be done. If the property owners act as responsibly as they have acted in this matter up to now, I hope that we shall be able to complete this operation and rid South Africa of rent control completely within the next year or two with a minimum of repercussions and without any undue hardship upon the people affected. I want to reiterate what I have said before, and that is if I find that people are being exploited as the result of the removal of rent control, I shall without hesitation impose rent control again in those instances. I think that people should indeed be reminded of the fact that under the Rent Control Act—contrary to what I have read in some newspapers the Rent Control Act is not going to be repealed—I have the power in a case of proven exploitation, to impose rent control on individual buildings, even in respect of buildings which have quite recently been constructed, and I shall not hesitate to do it if it is necessary for the protection of tenants.

The hon. member for Von Brandis spoke at length and with appreciation about the problem of the penetration of disqualified persons into group areas where they are not supposed to be, and about the action taken by the department in that connection. Let me say at once that the hon. member for Rondebosch, for example, has adopted a very simplistic attitude by saying that if there are vacant houses in White group areas one cannot justify denying the occupation of those houses by disqualified people whose own group areas experience a shortage of housing. If one looks at this only for the moment and if one’s consideration is today and tonight only, one can argue like that, but when one has a responsibility for the continued maintenance of good relations among the communities, the complicated societies, of South Africa, one cannot adopt a completely ad hoc attitude to these matters.

One has to take a longer-term view. There are empty flats in certain areas of Johannesburg such as Hillbrow. I accept that immediately, but the reasons for that situation are temporary ones. It is partly due to the economic recession, partly due to the decline in immigration and, to a large extent, due to the fact that young men now have to give two years of their lives in service and in defence of South Africa and therefore have to postpone acquiring their own separate housing establishments until they can reestablish themselves in civilian life. Those are all reasons for the surplus in Hillbrow, but it is a temporary surplus. For some years now no new flats have been built, and when the normal demand returns, those flats will be urgently needed to give shelter to the qualified people. If unrestricted occupation of those areas by disqualified people is allowed, however, one would have to put the disqualified people out to make place for the people who have a first right of occupation. The result must inevitably be resentment on the part of the people concerned, not only against the Government—something I am used to—but resentment against the qualified group. Racial stresses and strains would develop and that is what I want to avoid, and what the Government, I know, expects me to avoid at all costs is the creation of racial tension in South Africa as a result of the mismanagement of the housing problem of South Africa.

The people who make this accommodation available are mostly supporters of the Opposition, and I therefore want to ask hon. members opposite to appeal to them not to be so short-sighted as to create, for the sake of rent at the end of the month, a situation which they will rue in days to come and which all South Africans may regret very deeply when the chickens come home to roost. We have evidence that this is not spontaneous, as has been suggested today, on the part of some of the Coloureds, Indian and Black people concerned. We have clear evidence that there is a measure of organization behind this and, what is more, we also have very clear evidence that the rights of people to appeal to the courts of South Africa—as in past instances with the squatters here in the Cape Peninsula—are being abused in order to delay unduly the restoration of an orderly situation in those suburbs. I find it strange that people who tell me that they are poor can afford both a senior and a junior advocate to defend their cases in the lower courts of Johannesburg. Those advocates are paid. They do not work for charity, and I know that the people concerned, the people in whose names the cases are conducted, cannot afford to pay those lawyers.

You are not scared of the lawyers, are you?

I am not scared of the lawyers. However, I must issue a word of warning. If this abuse of the due processes of law continues, I shall have to take action legislatively as I have had to do in the case of the squatters. I do not want to do it, but I think a fair warning on my part is necessary.

Can you please explain the abuse?

Let me give an example. A man is clearly breaking the statutory law. It is clear and there can be no argument about it. He is then asked to obey the law and yet goes to court and finds all sorts of subsidiary reasons to postpone the case. He then goes on appeal knowing full well that he has lost, since there are precedents in the immediate past to show that he cannot win, but he continues to go to court on an organized basis, financed by outsiders and not by himself, in order to frustrate the due application of law. That I say is an abuse of the due processes of law. I say it is an abuse, and the Government will have to act if this continues. [Interjections.]

The hon. member for Von Brandis also spoke to me very movingly—and I do appreciate it—about the housing of our senior citizens. I want to say at once that this is a matter which is close to the hearts of all of us in this Committee. I am glad to be able to say that we are aware of it and we are doing what we can to bring good and proper housing to our old people as fast as we can. We are dependent, for much of our action in this matter, on the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions.

That department determines the need and encourages the institutions concerned, such as charitable organizations and utility companies, to come to us to seek approval for funds. For record purposes I should like to tell the hon. member—I think it is very important to know this—that during the past 58 years, from 1920 to the end of December 1978, 354 homes for the White aged were built at a cost of R93 million, homes giving accommodation to 26 000 elderly people. For our Coloured people 23 homes of this kind were built, over the same period and at a cost of R3 million, to accommodate approximately 2 000 people. It is interesting to note that in the 1979-’80 financial year R23,5 million has been granted for the housing of the White aged and R1 million for Coloureds. In other words a quarter of the total expenditure over 58 years is being equalled in one year. That is an indication of how urgent we regard this problem to be and how keen we are to cooperate, and I can only express my gratefulness to the hon. member for Von Brandis for drawing the House’s attention to this need, thereby giving me the opportunity of mentioning these facts.

I may also say that utility companies or welfare organizations can apply for the purchase of buildings that can be effectively transformed for the housing of the aged. These institutions will be assisted financially out of the National Housing Fund. Such applications must be directed through the relevant local authority which will have to guarantee the loan before the application is submitted to the National Building Commission. The facilities are there, however, and we are eager to assist all those concerned with such projects as fast as we can.

*The hon. member for Maraisburg referred in very striking terms, inter alia, to the contribution made by non-Whites to the acquisition of their own housing. At the moment, of course, this is a very small contribution compared to the contribution made by the Whites, but this is inevitable, because the non-Whites are relatively poor compared with the White community and they simply cannot make a contribution comparable to that of the Whites. In my opinion, the Whites should be grateful for being able to render assistance in this connection. It is interesting to note that the position is constantly improving. As we succeed in raising the standard of living of the non-Whites, more and more of them are qualifying for high-cost housing, and the contributions they make are increasing accordingly. I do not think this will be a very rapid process, but eventually we shall find that as a result of Government policy and as a result of the insight of our entrepreneurs, our non-Whites will be able to contribute on an equal footing with the Whites to their own housing.

†The hon. member for Berea, who has apologized for his absence this evening, referred to Cato Manor. Much of what he had to say does not concern my department directly…

But the other department said he should raise the matter with your department

I am not running away from it at all. Much of what he had to say does not, however, concern me directly, because the implementation of group areas becomes my responsibility only after another department has finished its identification of the relevant group areas.

In regard to Cato Manor I should like to say that its use as a White areas was planned by a State planning committee in co-operation with the Durban Corporation, and the work on this has been completed. If now, as a result of new investigations, the group area character of Cato Manor is to change, replanning will have to be done, possibly again by a State planning committee in co-operation with the Durban city council. I want to assure the hon. member for Berea that the representations he made will be borne in mind by that committee and that it is our intention, depending on the areas that might be returned to the Indian community, to make it, as he referred to it, a “top-level” residential area for Indians. This area will in no way derogate from the value or the prestige of existing White residential areas in the vicinity. We shall indeed take great care that developments near White areas are of such a nature as to enhance rather than demean the quality of the White residential areas.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has just said that the land will be returned to the Indian community. Is it the intention that Cato Manor will only be used by the Indians, or is there a possibility that Coloureds or of the other race groups could also settle there?

I am sorry, but that is a matter entirely for the Department of Planning. I have no jurisdiction in that whatsoever. That concerns the determination of the group areas, and it is not my function to determine that. Only after the Department of Planning has finished its work, do I come into the picture and do the work.

*The hon. member for Stilfontein spoke about the resettlement of people and devoted some time to District Six. This enables me to say something about the development and planning of District Six. District Six used to be one of the most unsightly areas in South Africa. People lived there in great misery. There was over-population and crime on an unprecedented scale. It was really a blot upon the fair face of Cape Town. A Government committee was appointed on 8 June 1964 to investigate the undesirable conditions in that area. It was found that although 94% of the property in the area was occupied by Coloureds, the situation with regard to the ownership of property was quite different Whites owned 55,4% of the land. Only 25% of the land was owned by Coloureds, less than 20% by Indians and 0,1% by other communities. On the recommendation of the committee, an urban renewal scheme was then launched. This scheme has come a long way. Replanning and slum clearance have taken place. The replanning of the area has been completed and approximately R25 million has already been spent on clearance work, the acquisition of properties and replanning. 7 700 Coloured and almost 400 Indian families have already been resettled and the slums they inhabited have been demolished. 2 006 Coloured families and 114 Indian families still have to be resettled. 600 of these Coloured families live in the Bloemhof flat complex alone. Progress is being made with the redevelopment, and services in the first development phase are presently being installed by the Cape Town City Council at a cost of R2,3 million. A number of departmental building projects are under way. Fawley Terrace, the flats along De Waal Road, are now empty because they are being worked on. They are being renovated on a large scale. There are 94 dwelling units in all, which are being renovated at a cost of R1,4 million. The tender has been accepted and the site has already been handed over to the contractor.

An Indian business centre is under construction at a cost of R1,2 million, and 25% of this project has been completed. A pilot scheme consisting of 20 group housing units is under construction at a cost of R700 000. Consultants are working on the planning of this scheme and it is expected that tenders will be called for this year. We hope that the work will be completed by October 1980. Twenty-five dwelling units are being built for the South African Police at a cost of R850 000. It is hoped that these will be completed by April 1981. Fifty dwelling units for families of the Department of Defence are being built at a cost of R1 600 000. The final working drawings are expected any moment and tenders will probably be called for in October 1979 for completion by September 1981.

The Bloemhof flats will be renovated as soon as the approximately 600 Coloured families have been resettled. Alternative accommodation for these people enjoys high priority. The following stands in District Six have been sold: three stands for State housing at a cost of R156 000; two garage stands for almost R57 000; one stand for an old-age home to the Afrikaanse Christelike Vrouevereniging at R20 000; and one building site to a private party at R1 000. It is clear, therefore, that District Six is already coming to life. The difficult initial work has been almost completed and we shall soon see a new picture develop in this important part of Cape Town.

I want to express a word of special thanks to the hon. member for Newton Park for his motivated appreciation of the work done by the Department of Community Development. When I meet him again in private, I shall convey to him my equally motivated thanks for the very valuable and constructive speech he made here.

†I wish I could say the same about the speech made by the hon. member for Musgrave. I thought he was of the intelligentsia of the PFP. When he stood up I thought I was going to get a fine philosophic approach to the problem of housing and a well-reasoned criticism of the approach of the Government, with constructive suggestions as well. However, what did I get? What I had from the hon. member was the magnification of one particular incident concerning permit control into a major matter. He complained about a case in which the municipality of Westville, near Durban, asked for a permit to have a mixed dance, and the Department of Community Development refused to grant it. He thought that as Minister of Indian Affairs I should have been severely embarrassed, and wanted to know whether it would happen again. Let there be no misunderstanding. It is against the policy of the Government to permit public mixed dancing in South Africa.

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

I am not ashamed of myself. That is our policy, and I believe it is in the interest of all the communities concerned. We think also it is in the interests of good order in South Africa. We think it is in the interest of good race relations in South Africa.

So you are proud of that?

I am sorry, Sir, but that is the policy of the Government. I want to make it clear that should further applications be received while I am the Minister of Community Development and while I stand under the instructions of the Government, permits will be refused. [Interjections.] The hon. member wanted to know whether this would happen again and what I intended doing to prevent it from happening again. I will tell him what he and I can do to prevent it from happening again. I have now made this very clear, categorical and unmistakable statement about Government policy, i.e. we will not permit mixed dancing in public. What people do in their private homes is their own affair, but in public we will not permit it. If we want to avoid embarrassment—as there was perhaps in the case of Westville—the public should take note of the fact that it is contrary to Government policy and that mixed public dancing will not be permitted. They should therefore not create situations and should not approach the department with applications for mixed public dancing while they know in advance it will be refused. That may cause embarrassment and they will then be the direct cause of that because they will be acting contrary to an inescapable fact in the life of South Africa. That is that the Government is against mixed public dancing. [Interjections.]

Order!

I also think it is very interesting that the hon. member for Musgrave, as intelligent as he is, should fasten onto this one little incident only in order to see what maximum embarrassment he can cause the people concerned. [Interjections.] I think one is entitled to expect from a leading personality in the PFP more responsibility, more insight, more tact and more understanding. [Interjections.]

*Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Overvaal, in a very interesting speech, spoke about the virtues of house-ownership. He knows, of course, that the Government and the department fully agree with him on that. He spoke about the need to lower the extravagant standards of housing to a more realistic level. In this, too, he has the support of the Department of Community Development.

Then the hon. member asked that the establishment of townships should be expedited and that problems which cause delays in the establishment of new townships should be eliminated as soon as possible. I happen to know that the new Co-ordinating Housing Committee, which was established in terms of an Act which we passed here last year, has already considered these matters and that it is shortly to approach the newly established Housing Policy Committee with recommendations for dealing, successfully, it is hoped, with both matters referred to by the hon. member.

†The hon. member for Maitland spoke about urban decay and about problems in Maitland itself. I do not want to give a lot of figures in this regard. Let me just say that as far as Cape Town and the Cape Peninsula are concerned, this department has gone to extreme lengths to assist Cape Town with urban renewal projects and to do away with unsightly areas. District Six, of which I have just spoken, is an example of this. There are many other examples I could give. The creation of Mitchell’s Plain at the cost of hundreds of millions of rands makes possible the rehousing of people who have to make way to enable urban decay in the city to be combated. I do not think that any other city in South Africa is as well treated in this respect as Cape Town.

The hon. member also spoke specifically about certain parts of Maitland. I want to tell him that the Department of Community Development through the Community Development Board is at present looking at further renewal schemes to be tackled. I can give him the undertaking that his request about Maitland will be specifically referred to the department for special attention when they determine their priorities for the immediate future. I can also tell him that we hope to clear up Maitland Garden Village by 1980-’81 at the latest. That will receive immediate attention. I hope that that satisfies him.

Then I come to the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South. We have already discussed his interesting speech and I have made an announcement about Black housing. He also said some very apt things about the landscaping and beautification of townships in South Africa. The Secretary for Community Development and I undertook a trip to Europe last year and we were struck by the emphasis placed there on beautification and landscaping in respect of the development of new townships. We learned a lot and what we learned there, we are applying imaginatively, I think, to new schemes in South Africa too.

The hon. member mentioned specifically the problem of trees. The trees planted in most of our new townships have an average life of 24 hours. The hon. member suggested we plant adult trees. That is a possibility we shall look into. We have, however, found two other schemes that give good results. The one is to plant the trees in the gardens of the residents. The residents then develop a pride in those trees and look after them so that their chances of survival become much better than 70% to 80%. In some areas we also undertake to name the tree after the nearest resident. We undertake, furthermore, that when the tree is full grown, a little plaque will be put onto it carrying the name of the house owner alongside whose property the tree grows. That means that we have a watchdog looking after the tree. This is giving good results. We shall in every possible way continue with our policy of beautifying the townships and of planting trees. I think that an essential for civilized living is the beauty, shade and general attractiveness of trees in an urban area.

*Last, but certainly not least, there is the speech of the hon. member for Piketberg. It was a very interesting and valuable speech about historic houses in South Africa One of the finest things one comes across, especially in Western Cape, is the work done by the towns to preserve their old houses. Tulbagh is the classic example of this, of course. They had an earthquake which left them wide awake in this respect. The hon. member referred to other towns as well. I want to add Montagu. I was greatly impressed by what is being done there. Then there is Stellenbosch, which sets an example to the entire Western Cape, and Swellendam, which is doing splendid work—that is also where the Steyns come from. I agree with the hon. member that this is one of the things we have to encourage. The Department of Community Development is very careful, in implementing urban renewal projects, to protect the old houses wherever possible. If they have to make way for development which is needed, we try in any case to retain the façades of the houses, although we may build something behind them which will not be used as a house in the first place. The hon. member also spoke about the question of rent control of historic houses. I shall give attention to the proposals he made. However, I may tell him that when a house is more than a 100 years old and certain work is done to restore it, exemption from rent control is virtually automatic. In any event, we shall give attention to his proposals.

With this I think, I have covered the subjects raised by hon. members who participated in the debate. If I have neglected to reply to an hon. member, I apologize for that. If he will draw my attention to it, I shall reply to him at a later stage. I want to end the way I began by expressing my thanks and appreciation—I am now excluding the case of the hon. member for Musgrave—for the fact that we have been able to conduct this debate on such an exceptionally high and constructive level.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister has, as usual, replied eloquently to matters raised by various hon. members. Naturally I do not have the time at my disposal to react to all the matters the hon. the Minister dealt with. The hon. the Minister made an announcement on housing for Blacks. Throughout my speech I shall be referring to the aspect of Black housing. The hon. the Minister also furnished figures of what the position will be until 1981. As I understood the hon. the Minister—and I trust I have understood him correctly—the department will be able to build more houses, and the only limitation to the building programme is the money the department requires for the purpose. In the course of my speech I shall endeavour to indicate how I feel the hon. the Minister could obtain more money.

†I want to deal with one other matter raised by the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of Sea Point I live in Sea Point so I feel I can speak with some personal knowledge. There is no doubt that the situation in Sea Point is absolutely shocking and that steps must be taken, as a matter of urgency, to alleviate or to rectify the present situation. I think the hon. the Minister of Agriculture will agree with me because he also lives in Sea Point.

They have a stupid MP there.

There we are in agreement but the voters of Sea Point will have an opportunity to rectify that at the next election.

In the first place, the department must be complimented on the very detailed report it has published. Secondly the Secretary and the officials of the department are most helpful, at all times, and offer us tremendous assistance when we make representations to them. We appreciate the fact that they give us detailed explanations when we ask for explanations on various matters. The way I read the report, the department has made enormous strides, together with other bodies, to ensure that there is virtually no housing shortage for Whites. In fact, in some places there are even surpluses. In relation to Coloured and Indian housing it would seem there is a backlog that can be wiped out in the space of three to four years if sufficient funds are made available to the department. In regard to Black housing, there is no estimate in the report of how long it will take to wipe out the backlog, but I understood the hon. the Minister to say tonight that if sufficient funds were made available it would take approximately eight years to wipe out this backlog. The elimination of the backlog is therefore solely dependent on extra funds being made available. It is equally obvious that the finance must either come from internal or external sources.

During the course of the debate on the Vote of the Department of Plural Relations and Development, we made certain suggestions in regard to converting and selling existing State-owned houses to the tenants or other prospective purchasers. I am not going to go into this in great detail, but the basis would be that if the house and the transfer and bond costs came to say R4 200, and the building society was prepared to grant a bond of R3 000, there would be an outstanding balance of R1 200. If the prospective buyer could raise a deposit of R400, there would be a balance of R800 owing. If the Government gave the building society a guarantee for R800, the building society could increase the bond from R3 000 to R3 800. The Government could in turn take a security—a second bond—on the house for R800, and the effect of this would be that the Government would be paid out the full purchase price and full proceeds of the bond of R3 800 and would have an outstanding guarantee of R800 to the building society. As the bond is reduced, and the property increases in value over a period of years, the Government could make representations to the building society to have their guarantee of R800 diminished.

Is this not the same speech you made this afternoon?

No, the hon. leader of the Opposition was not listening as usual. [Interjections.] Or should I say the leader of the second smallest Opposition party in this House was not listening. If the Government and the building societies came to an agreement to do this on a large scale, the effect would be, firstly, that it would release hundreds of millions of rands already invested in housing by the Government; and, secondly, that the money could be recycled continuously to ensure sufficient housing funds. Furthermore, the building societies, although they are at present flush with funds, would obviously require assistance in regard to obtaining further funds from the public. In that regard they would obviously require concessions from the hon. the Minister of Finance. In that way they could grant all the bonds that were required. With all the hundreds of millions of rands that have been recycled into the economy, it would be an enormous boost to the building industry and would also provide employment for thousands of people. What is more important, is that we shall be creating a nation of homeowners as opposed to a nation of lessees, such as the bulk of the people are at present. I think it is in the interests of the country to create a nation of home-owners.

On page 27 of the report it is mentioned that more than R300 million was this past year spent on and invested in housing by the department. We are convinced that if the department could have three times that amount, say R900 million, they could eliminate the backlog of housing for all races over a relatively short period. The only problem is, as the hon. the Minister has said, the ceiling that exists in relation to finance. If that ceiling were removed and he obtained the finance he needed, then obviously the backlog could be eliminated far sooner. The other source of income would obviously be large loans from overseas. We believe that South Africa could make it easier for friendly overseas lenders, so that by lending money to us they would not attract the usual criticism. We believe the projected loans should be for projects like housing for members of the other race groups, viz. the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians. We would make it easier for the overseas lenders if we borrowed for specific projects for other races. The effect would be that the overseas lenders would be helping to improve the quality of life of the other race groups in South Africa and would thus be free from the normal criticism they receive when they make loans to South Africa. We should like the hon. the Minister and his department to canvass this matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance and his department I may mention that when we raised the matter with the hon. the Minister of Finance in another debate, he seemed to be interested in the concept That is why I believe it is a matter the hon. the Minister could fruitfully canvass with the hon. the Minister of Finance. If the hon. the Minister’s department could succeed in raising the required finance, they would create an upsurge in the sector of the economy that needs it most.

I now want to deal with another matter. I believe that Southend in Port Elizabeth has to some extent got off the ground. The Red Cross in the Eastern Cape are planning a massive scheme in South End, a development that will be most beneficial. It will attract people from far beyond the borders of the Eastern Cape. The Department of Community Development has been of tremendous assistance and has at all times shown a helpful attitude in regard to this scheme. The Red Cross has made an enormous contribution towards housing and community facilities in the Port Elizabeth area and in the Eastern Cape as a whole. The development by private individuals of a group housing scheme known as Moresby Landing in South End has stimulated interest in that particular area. I want to say that I was disappointed to read in the report that the pilot scheme envisaged by the Department of Community Development will not be proceeded with. It is obvious that it will not be proceeded with because of the fact that the department wants to stimulate private enterprise to undertake the development of South End. That makes sense, but if the department sees that it is not going as fast as they would like it to go, I believe they should step in again and give the necessary assistance. The one problem we have in Port Elizabeth is that the municipality has not been receiving income from rates, because, as we know, the buildings in South End have been demolished many years ago.

In Fairview, Port Elizabeth, we also find that there has been a delay in the development and, again, the Port Elizabeth municipality has not received the necessary rates. In fact, in addition to that, as the hon. the Minister knows, the Government does not pay full rates on Government buildings in Port Elizabeth and the result is that the Port Elizabeth municipality had to levy… [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am merely rising to give the hon. member an opportunity of finishing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Whip for giving me that opportunity. As I was saying, the problem is that the Port Elizabeth municipality has had to overburden the home-owners and rate payers of Port Elizabeth by increasing the rates very severely in order to make up the shortfall in income they should have received from Government sources and from all the buildings that have been demolished over the last years. We know that the Browne Committee is investigating matters in regard to the shortage of finance of local authorities and we urge that that report should be made available as soon as possible. In the meantime I think the hon. the Minister must help us a little bit in Port Elizabeth. Last year he did assist us. In fact the hon. the Minister will remember that last year during the same debate he told us that Port Elizabeth was receiving just over R18 million out of the additional R165 million. In addition to that, we were getting R2 million out of the normal budget. Therefore, we were getting something over R20 million towards housing. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the position in Port Elizabeth is the same as it was before. We have an enormous backlog of housing and we need the money as urgently as we did last year. I sincerely hope that, in addition to the normal funds that he allocates to Port Elizabeth, he will allocate to us from the additional funds he must have left…

You place favouritism too high.

It is not a case of favouritism; it is a case of the needy and the greedy, and we are the needy. There are other members who are greedy, but we in Port Elizabeth are the needy. I was alarmed to read in the newspapers that the hon. the Minister of Public Works is only allocating less than 1% of the funds of his department to Port Elizabeth. Somebody has to rectify the situation and we are relying upon the hon. the Minister of Community Development to do so.

I also wish to point out to the hon. the Minister that there is another reason why he should assist us. We are not a city with border concessions. We do not have Sasols, Escoms or Iscors.

You have the sea.

We have the sea and we have the SAP, and between the sea and the SAP we shall come by in Port Elizabeth. However, on a more serious note, I want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are the Cinderella city. We appreciate the additional assistance he gave us last year and I hope that he will give us some indication during this debate what additional assistance we in Port Elizabeth can expect in the forthcoming year. There is a desperate need for and an enormous backlog in housing, not for the White race group, but for the other race groups. We therefore make an appeal to the hon. the Minister and his department to ensure that we receive a special allocation this year to assist us.

Mr. Chairman, I shall not dwell on the official Opposition for long this evening. I merely wish to make a brief reference to them. To me they seem to be so sick and despondent after the result of the British election that there are only three of them in their benches tonight I think they are going to look really miserable after Wednesday.

I wish to avail myself of the opportunity of congratulating the hon. the Minister and his staff on the optimism and perseverance they have displayed in making headway against one of the most crucial problems of this country, namely family housing. I admire the courage and perseverance of the Department of Community Development and its staff. If one looks at the immense population explosion today, particularly among the non-White population, one sometimes does not feel all that optimistic, but somewhat pessimistic about the matter.

I wish to quote from the Port Elizabeth English-Language daily to indicate to what extent the non-White population is increasing. In the E.P. Herald, an English-language daily in Port Elizabeth, the following headline appeared “Livingstone Hospital: 32 tons of babies a year.” This Port Elizabeth daily is referring to the fact that babies are being born by the ton in Port Elizabeth. [Interjections.] I quote further from the report—

I am quoting these figures to indicate to the House what an immense increase there has been in the non-White population in this area. In view of these birth statistics one cannot help being pessimistic, notwithstanding the optimism being displayed by the hon. the Minister and his staff with regard to adequate housing. The paper further reports that this is the highest number of births that has ever taken place in a single hospital in the Republic.

Order! The hon. member must make those babies grow up, or else they will not fall under this Vote. [Interjections.]

These people all have to be provided with housing, and we should do well to keep in mind that the figures do not include those babies that are born at home, in squatter camps and among the bush-dwellers. Obviously we must congratulate the hon. the Minister on the achievement of his department in its endeavours to provide our people with housing.

However, tonight I wish to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to a report that appeared in another newspaper, Die Oosterlig. Die Oosterlig is the Afrikaans daily for that area, and the following leading article recently appeared in it I wish to dwell briefly on this report tonight, because it is exclusively in the interests of this constituency that I am raising this matter. I quote—

I wish to emphasize the words “lower income group”.

I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that I am in full agreement with the article written by the editor of Die Oosterlig. I am acquainted with Holland Park. This township consists of 336 houses, and it is one of the oldest housing schemes undertaken by the city council. This scheme was undertaken in 1931 and completed in 1935. It consists of 176 two-bedroomed houses built at a cost of R410 each between 1931 and 1935, and also of 160 three-bedroomed houses completed at a cost of R610 each. The present rental for a 3-bed-roomed house is R16,12 per month. I just wish to point out that these houses are solidly built and that there is no reason why a road should now be constructed through the area. After all, a freeway was completed recently and this relieves the pressure. Once Diaz Road has been completed, an alternative road can be constructed that would eliminate the need for the road to run through this residential area. Now we are building a road through that excellent residential area. We are going to disrupt the whole heart and soul of that residential area with the noise of motor vehicles. [Interjections.]

I wish to tell the hon. the Minister that Holland Park is now being neglected. Let me state frankly that there is a fund in existence established and built up with contributions from those housing schemes of Holland Park, Ferguson, and Kensington in my constituency—a fund of more than Rl,5 million. That money is now being utilized to build houses for Coloureds. The Whites who live there and who belong to the sub-economic group because they are underprivileged, are now being neglected by the city council. I wish to tell the hon. the Minister today that the people who live there are fine people. They might not be very wealthy, and perhaps do not possess so very much in earthly possessions, but they are patriots and they love their fatherland. When they were still healthy, they kept the factories going. The widows of many of the men who worked in the factories, are still living there. They and their children are being maintained by the State since their breadwinners have fallen away. There are also people who are medically unfit to work. Those 336 houses in Port Elizabeth are housing those with a low income. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North is a friendly man who represents a friendly city. We have heard tonight about the large numbers of children there, and also of the large numbers of houses that are there as well as those that have to be built.

That brings me to my subject, namely that of community development. Why is community development so dominant in our thoughts this evening? This takes us back to 1 April 1964, when the Department of Community Development appeared on the horizon in the RSA. We can perhaps transfer our thoughts to an occasion that occurred 10 years later, in 1974, when a symposium on low-cost housing was held in Montreal, Canada.

The RSA was honoured there with a paper read on the quality of our low-cost housing, and particularly on the very low building costs here. It was on that occasion that inquiries about the achievements of the department were received from 11 different countries. That is how South Africa, through the Department of Community Development, has provided leadership. Among the countries that made inquiries were the USA, Canada, West Germany, Iraq and Nigeria. They had been impressed by our efforts.

It is perhaps also interesting to note that in a report published in 1974, a certain Professor Cohen of Australia, a world authority in the field of low-cost housing, wrote, inter alia, as follows to the UN—

That is how high this department is rated. When we take another look at these reports, it appears that a similar report was also submitted to the UN in 1974. In this report it was stated that in the year 2000 provision would have to be made for housing for 6 000 million people. Of those 6 000 million people, 3 000 million will be living in cities. It was also stated that by the year 2000, up to 1 400 million new houses would be required. That means an average of 47 million new houses every year. It was also stated that the world was not able to supply houses at that rate, and that the world could not afford to build houses at that rate. It was stated, moreover, that the world was not able to supply housing of good quality at that rate. Two-thirds of the population of the world are living in towns and cities, and there is no blueprint of accommodation plans for them.

Hon. members can therefore appreciate why we are delighted tonight by what the hon. the Minister and his department have accomplished in South Africa up to now. It is understandable that we should be ecstatic when discussing the Department of Community Development. Through this department South Africa has accomplished something that benefits all her population groups, and she can also give a lead in this field as I have in fact quoted here earlier. South Africa is able to furnish guidance to the rest of Africa, to Asia and to the whole world, particularly in the field of community development.

I am aware of certain poor conditions that exist I am also aware of the things the hon. the Minister has pointed out in regard to the process of the systematic elimination of rent control. In Rosettenville, my constituency, where rent control is still operative, it is essential that matters should be attended to. From time to time rent control boards have to hear of rent increases. In and out of season people talk of things that simply continue to become more expensive. I realize that this is the case. I know that Mr. Oberholzer, chairman of the Johannesburg management committee, stated recently: “We are taxing our people out of Johannesburg.”

Matters there have now reached the stage where rent control boards constantly have to be taking preventive measures because in the long run flat dwellers simply cannot make ends meet. As representative of the Rosettenville constituency, I am convinced that the time has now come for some real action in regard to this matter. I am establishing committees among the flat-dwellers of Rosettenville. I intend drafting memoranda. The exploitation that is still prevalent among certain flat owners, is something that we certainly cannot tolerate any longer. It is the under-privileged people who suffer time and again. Action will have to be taken concerning outrageous cases such as these. I will take action there in cooperation with the Department of Community Development. All those applications for increases in rent, will simply have to stop. The rising costs will have to be shared by all in some way, but they definitely cannot be borne by the flat-dwellers alone. If necessary we shall also engage the assistance of the Press in this regard. It is in times of housing scarcity that the possession of a house of one’s own or a flat of one’s own is particularly appreciated.

How great is the value of a house if one has known family life and one has to do without it as a result of the lack of a home. It is in one’s home, one’s flat, one’s house where one feels secure again. It is there where one can find rest with one’s family. It is there where one can become oneself. It is only when one has a home of one’s own, such as those provided by the Department of Community Development, that one is able to develop a sense of security. If one is the owner, one knows that one will not have to move again the very next day. Consequently, one can live in security and in safety. What safeguards does one have, however, when one lacks the means, when one sees how one’s threadbare jacket or dress is wearing away, when one no longer has a roof over one’s head or when the roof starts giving in, when the pouring rain, the howling storm and the driving hail rip off the roof and smash the windows to smithereens, so that the wrecked home also typifies the wretchedness of the fragile and hungry being who cannot brave the storms of life?

I wish to mention a case I encountered over the week-end. It concerns a widow who receives a pension of R90 per month. Her present rental of R75 has been increased to more than R100. Formerly, therefore, she had only R15 left to live on. I also wish to state that houses built in 1903 are still being let at R100 and more per month. Is it not these matters that we have to tackle? In suburbs such as Rosettenville, flats are no longer being built. All this is in connection with the south, the west and the east of Johannesburg—we are not as privileged as the north, where people can afford to live in luxury flats. This problem has to be attended to. It is the landlords of these old blocks of flats against whom action should be taken.

Why are the flats in the centre of Johannesburg going empty? The landlords are no longer giving them the necessary attention. They are becoming slums. In view of the present fuel shortage and the lack of transport facilities, I believe that people will again be attracted to the centre of Johannesburg, provided the flats there are renovated. Then the owners will again be able to let the flats and the tenants will ultimately know that this is a matter about which we are genuinely concerned. These days the owners of flats are not prepared to renovate the flats to that extent What is more, there is already a shortage of flats, since no more flats are being built.

We know that the hon. the Minister has phased out rent control in respect of dwellings erected during the period 1 January 1960 to 31 May 1966. In the second phase he phased out rent control in respect of dwellings erected during the period 1 January 1955 to 31 December 1959. I request that houses and flats erected before 1950 be regarded as a delicate matter and that rent control in respect thereof be implemented with great circumspection.

We know that the approval of the Rent Board has to be obtained for rent increases where the married breadwinner has an income of R540 per month and when the unmarried person earns R300 per month. We know that is the case. However, we request the Minister to retain the rent boards for as long as possible so that they can serve to protect those people and so that these people will not be unscrupulously exploited. I am so pleased that the hon. the Minister has stated tonight that he is not going to allow people to be exploited any longer, but that he is going to apply the brakes.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Rosettenville on his speech. I fully agree with him. The problems he has are also the problems which we have. The hon. member should come and sit with us on this side of the House and fight with us. I know that he has problems with his own MPC, but he will have no problems with us. As far as the memorandum is concerned, we shall help him to compile it.

†I also want to deal with the problem of high-rise developments and flat complexes in which people living in the urban areas are housed. I want to refer specifically to the aged, the pensioners and the needy. I also want to refer to the phasing out of rent control as announced by the hon. the Minister. The hon. the Minister has said he will not tolerate exploitation. That is fine. Will he, however, tolerate hardship or will he lend a sympathetic ear to cases of hardship? In the first instance, I want to refer to cases where the landlords did not introduce increases of 10% last year but now want to introduce increases of 20% to cover last year as well as this year. Will he allow them to do that? It is going to create hardship. Secondly, the people who can claim exemption because they qualify for national housing, have found that their landlords have taken them to the rent boards and that the rent boards have not only granted increases in respect of them but have in fact granted higher increases than the 10% increase the landlords would have applied. Furthermore there are cases of two applications for rent increases having been granted in one year.

I want to deal with hardships—the hon. the Minister knows I have always put my cards on the table—and to illustrate these hardships I want to quote extracts from letters I have received from people in Hillbrow and surrounding areas. I am not going to mention the names of these letter-writers in the House as it would not be fair to do so, but I am prepared to make the letters available to the hon. the Minister. One such letter came from a widow whose only income is a pension of R88. She says—

This lady must have been a nurse because she also asked the Government to see to it that nurses over the age of 65 can find jobs. She goes on to say—

Can you believe it! In two years she has not been able to buy new clothes! A further letter states that nine widows, are all living on their pensions in a block consisting of 12 flats. They are not able, or too afraid, to attend rent board meetings in case they get notices to vacate their accommodation. The hon. the Minister must bear in mind that these people are afraid of victimization. They are afraid they will be given notice. I also want to quote from a letter I received from a couple living in Hillbrow. The gentleman concerned is 72 years old and suffers from emphysema. His wife is 68 years old. They have lived in the same flat in Hillbrow for 22 years. Their rent has been increased by R30 in the past two years and they are now paying R120 per month. The letter says—

Another letter states—

Another letter-writer states in conclusion that—

These are typical examples of the letters I have received. What is the solution to this problem? Will the hon. the Minister say that he can provide them with economic or sub-economic housing? That is not the answer because people cannot be taken out of their environment. The hon. the Minister of Health and the hon. members for Von Brandis and Maitland have all agreed that security in the environment is the most important aspect. These people must be kept in their environment and therefore it would not be fair to remove them from Hillbrow to areas such as Claremont, which is miles away, or even to Jeppe which will take them out of their environment and remove their feeling of security.

I want to submit five steps which I think the hon. the Minister should consider in order to solve this problem. Firstly, I think he can consider trying to get the local authorities to purchase a block of flats in the area where these people live. Supply them with funds from the Department of Community Development and let the flats to these people on an economic or sub-economic basis. Secondly, where they do not purchase the building outright, they could by way of head leases lease the entire building for up to ten years and then sub-let it to various tenants on an economic or sub-economic basis. Thirdly, local authorities should be encouraged to make vacant sites which they have in their areas—and I know there is one in Hillbrow—available to private enterprise, giving them a bond for the erection of a nursery, a library and flats and also for providing parking accommodation. This will enable them to let these premises at economic or sub-economic rentals. Fourthly, I think those people who cannot be given accommodation should be given a subsidy to assist them in paying their rent. A qualification that they must have lived in the same flat for say ten years can be laid down. Fifthly, I think the hon. the Minister should come to the assistance of those people who are single, and there are many, many widows, widowers and divorcees who live in big complexes in places like Yeoville—the hon. member for Yeoville will bear me out—and Hillbrow. I think the limit of R300 should be raised to R400 to afford them protection. I welcome, from an economic point of view, the provision of R540 and the stipulation excluding children. I think that is a very wise step and should be done.

What will happen in three years’ time when rent control has been phased out completely? What will happen, since there has been very little building activity over the years, when the supply starts lagging behind the demand and the tables are turned? What is going to be done about the rentals which are then going to be imposed upon these people by the landlords who will be increasing their rentals because the demand has outstripped the supply? We must do away with the misconception that the landlords have been subsidizing the tenants. I do not think they have, considering that they are receiving a return of 8,5% on their improvements, and this return is subject to reassessment after every new municipal valuation. We must remember that some of these buildings are 25 or 30 years old and were bought at a cost of one-third of the present-day value on which the landlords are receiving a return of 8,5%. They are therefore receiving a return of 30% or 40% on the cost of the buildings when they acquired them. I think this position deserves the very careful attention of the hon. the Minister.

The hon. the Minister has said that we should build houses for higher income groups. In this regard I want to refer to page 7 of the report, which is actually a very good report, and I compliment the hon. the Minister on it. However, can we afford to build such houses before we have wiped out the backlog in Coloured and Indian housing and the slum conditions in which the Coloureds and Indians live? About 18 000 houses have been built for Coloureds, but there is still a backlog of about 57 000 houses. For the Indians we shall have to build something like 8 000 houses per year.

I want to refer to some of the slums in particular. I want to deal with the situation in Lenasia, which is overcrowded. Thomsville is one such slum area where living conditions are unhygienic and unhealthy, people having to use common toilet facilities and water taps. I think this is a situation we cannot tolerate. The same conditions apply to the Coloured township of Racecourse, where there are 300 to 500 slums. I do not think we should allow these conditions to remain as they are. I therefore want to appeal to the hon. the Minister to invite me, other hon. members and officials of the department to make a tour of inspection with him, during the recess, of Racecourse township and Thomsville in Lenasia in order to see for ourselves what is happening there.

What makes you think I do not know what is going on?

If the hon. the Minister knows it well, I do not think he should tolerate or allow this to go on. I think funds must be obtained for the removal of these slums so that the near unhygienic conditions can be wiped out as soon as possible. I do not think we can tolerate this situation at all. Coloureds have been moved to Western Townships, which used to be called Western Native Township in the old days and which is situated opposite Sophiatown. It was never contemplated that they would live there for ever. The movement of the people from one area to another while their own township is being rebuilt can be likened to the domino principle. For how long will people still have to live there as they have lived for so many years? Can we tolerate the situation any longer? I appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something about it.

Mr. Chairman, at the outset of the speech by the hon. member for Hillbrow, things went fairly well. I almost started to think that it will not be necessary for me to scold him once again as I had to do during the discussion of another Vote. At the end of his speech, however, he said that he could not tolerate certain things and that we should not tolerate them either. Does the hon. member realize what the Government, the department and local authorities are doing already? I should now like to ask him from which department’s budget we should take money to add to the budget of this department The budget for the Department of Community Development for 1979-’80 is R53 million higher than for 1978-’79. R27 million of this R53 million is being used for housing, and the rest for community development I do not blame him for bringing certain matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister, but when he starts kicking up a row about it, I am not quite so happy about it.

I should like to associate myself with many of the hon. members who addressed words of praise to the department and the hon. the Minister. I think they really deserved it, for apart from the fact that the money is being spent well and correctly, this is a department in which one encounters good teamwork between the Ministry and the officials of the department. This indicates to us that they are enthusiastic and take their work seriously. This is why they are doing so well.

Home ownership is the pride of every person, and this is as it should be. People should not allow a house in which they are living, to deteriorate; instead they should take care to look after, preserve and protect that treasure. Because this is so, we should try to keep the cost of housing as low as possible in all respects. The cost of housing can be kept lower, and in this regard I wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Overvaal, who said that the procedure being adopted with regard to township development is far too lengthy. I am also pleased about the announcement by the hon. the Minister in this regard. We hope that in the new dispensation, cognizance will be taken of the fact that delay is unnecessary in many cases. This causes the price of land to rise continually due to the fact that interest is being paid over many years and the capital outlay is without return; i.e. it is capital which earns no interest and is unproductive. Someone has to pay for this and eventually it is the home owner who has to pay for it. Then there is the question of the increase in the price of building material, rising prices in general, and so on. This does not mean that there should be enormous leaps, nor does it mean that one township should be founded here and another a few miles further. That is not the intention. We believe and hope that the problem will be solved in the future.

I wish to discuss another aspect as far as housing is concerned, i.e. the question of the land conservation. This may be a very contentious subject which I am going to discuss now. Making land available and the utilization of land are of the utmost importance in the supply and provision of housing and also as far as the cost of housing is concerned. I am not going to discuss the principle whether it is right or wrong. Neither do I wish to discuss certain churches and denominations, for I do not wish to try and influence people’s religious convictions. I simply want to look at certain facts with regard to cemeteries. When one considers the population explosion and the expansion of our cities, the question arises whether the time has not come for us as a country and as a nation to take another look at this matter of burial or otherwise, and also at the method of burial. There are several ways to try and conserve land. One possibility is burial in an upright position, so that more than one can be buried in one grave, as long as certain Opposition members are not buried in the same grave, for then there will be problems. Other possibilities are exhumation and reburial and then also cremation. Therefore there is a choice of ways to conserve more land which could have been readily available for housing.

I obtained statistics from the divisional council of the Cape, for which I am very grateful. There is a growing tendency for cremation to replace burial. In 1970 there were 1 409 cremations as against 8 748 burials, which means that in 13,9% of the cases, disposal of human remains was done by crematoriums. In 1978 there were 2 072 cremations as against 6 721 burials, i.e. 23,5%. Look at the area of cemeteries here in the Cape Peninsula alone, we find that the land set aside for this purpose amounts to 304 ha. I do not contend that we should have no cemeteries at all, but I do wish to say that that land could have been used to build 16 homes of 1 500 m2 each, 508 homes of 1 000 m2 each, 1 795 of 700 m2 each, 2 097 homes of 600 m2 each, and 2 380 homes of 450 m2 each.

To emphasize the high cost of land, I just wish to refer to the 80 ha recently bought by the divisional council at Richmond for R283 000. The development cost of a new cemetery is estimated at R36 700 per ha at present prices. This includes roads, parking facilities, footpaths, toilets, draining, sewerage, etc. The area in a cemetery which can actually be used for burials, is only 50%. The remainder of the area is taken up by roads, parking facilities, etc. The maintenance of a cemetery amounts to approximately R800 000 per annum. The cost with regard to the administration of a cemetery is R3 000 per annum per ha. This indicates how one could save by rather using the land for housing purposes. In this manner one can also save money which could rather be used for housing purposes.

A crematorium pays its own costs. The expenditure for a crematorium is R40 000 per annum, while the revenue amounts to a total of approximately R95 000, of which half, R47 500, is credited to the trust account. At the moment there are 10 crematoriums in South Africa, the first of which was erected in Cape Town in 1934.

If we take statistics from abroad into account, we see that the tendency to have people cremated is growing as the availability of land diminishes, particularly in countries where land is not so plentiful. In Australia, 44% of all people who die are cremated, in England 65%; in Japan 88%; in New Zealand, 46%; in Sweden, 48%; and in Denmark, 51%. At one crematorium in Cape Town, 25% of all Whites and non-Whites who die, are cremated, while 50% of these are from the White population group.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for “Scotland” today made an important speech on cemeteries. I wonder whether all the people who are buried there have the same sentiments as he.

†Most of them would not take all these wonderful development schemes lying down, and they would say that all these proposed new roads would have to be developed over their dead bodies, before they would pay any attention to it.

The hon. the Minister kindly replied to several issues raised by this side of the House, and I now want to react to some of his replies. In the first place I should like to welcome on behalf of the NRP his announcement concerning Black housing. It is quite apparent to us that the hon. the Minister is moving in the direction of establishing a Ministery of Housing. We only want to remind him that only last year the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South pleaded for the establishment of such a portfolio.

I also wish to react immediately to the statement he made in regard to the encroachment of disqualified people on the centres of towns. I think the hon. the Minister missed the point in this respect, because when he replied to a question in this regard, he immediately wanted to know if we realized what would happen in areas such as District Six for instance. He said that they would merely develop into slum areas, and that up to 10 people will be living in the same flat. This is not what we want. What are we pleading for? If the hon. the Minister had a little bit of imagination and vision he would understand. Why can a residential area not be established with certain restrictions to ensure that that area develops into a residential area of high-value houses, in other words a high-class residential area. This is what we want. We do not want a recurrence of slum conditions.

The hon. the Minister also referred to the speech of the hon. member for Berea. I think that the hon. the Minister must concede the point that the speech the hon. member made tonight was the exact speech he made last year during the debate on the Vote of the Department of Planning. He has quoted to the hon. the Minister how he was then advised to make that speech during the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Community Development However, the hon. the Minister now says that most of what he said really falls within the ambit of the Department of Planning. This is most frustrating.

In the meantime a year has passed.

That does not matter.

*A year has passed, but the NP still does not know what is happening.

†They do not know who is Arthur and who is Martha This is one of the main reasons why we are looking forward to a rationalization of State departments. It is quite frustrating if exactly the same speech by the hon. member for Berea results in the same replies from two different Ministers.

It was a very poor speech.

No, it was a very good speech. I agree with what the hon. the Minister said about rent control. However, he did not reply to the main thrust of my plea. In his announcement last year, the hon. the Minister said that people in certain income groups, namely unmarried people in the R300 income group and married people in the R540 income group would continue to enjoy the privileges of rent control, even after the phasing out period. I pleaded for an annual adjustment in the level of the means test I did not, however, get any response from the hon. the Minister.

I want to say to him that the very fact that he did make this concession is really an admission, on his part, that these people do require a certain type of special treatment. I have said that because of ad hoc improvements in pensions people may just suddenly find themselves above that level, but they are then left, for several years, with the same pensions whilst money goes on depreciating in value. Tremendous tensions and anxieties are also building up in married couples who are just over this limit of R300, but well below the level of R540. They are very worried. If one of them should pass away, what will happen to the remaining spouse? They are worrying about the fact that that person would then automatically be disqualified because he or she would be above the level of R300. My plea to the hon. the Minister is to make some announcement in order to bring these people some hope and relieve their anxiety.

I should also like to speak about the permit system. We all know that the Government cannot maintain this rigid apartheid system in South Africa without the permit system. On the other hand, the relaxation of the permit system is the one way in which to advance towards a normal society. I must admit that we have made a lot of progress since the verkramptes lost the battle of the Nico Malan theatre. Yet, sad to say, the Department of Community Development is still rather irrational in some of its actions. There are still many unnecessary delays in dealing with applications. In this respect I should like to raise only three or four points.

Firstly, when a permit is considered in an area such as Durban, for instance, I think the norm that should apply at all times, whether one allows a mixed audience, separately seated, or a mixed audience with integrating seating, is what is acceptable to the people of Durban. There is the argument—and I do not want to hear such arguments—about the reaction of our visitors from across the Drakensberg. Some of them happen to be less enlightened than the normal people of Durban. However, the people who count are not the visitors to Durban who also use our facilities. It is the people who have to live in Durban who have to explain to the other race groups that they are also members of that community. Therefore I believe the prerequisite should be what is acceptable to the people of Durban. That should be regarded as the norm when an application for a permit is being considered.

I also want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister for the granting of open permits to sport stadiums such as Old Kingsmead, New Kingsmead and King’s Park. I believe they should be granted open permits to allow integrated audiences. This should be done in order to obviate the necessity of applying and reapplying for such permits every time they are needed. In fact, the Department of Community Development is fully aware of what facilities are available at each one of those stadiums. At Old Kingsmead, for instance, a stadium which has an open permit for cricket matches, enough experience of this type of practice has already been gained over a couple of seasons. Therefore, it sounds utterly ridiculous to expect that reapplication for a permit should be made when an event, for example a display of Zulu dancing, is compelled, by force of circumstances, to change its venue to, say Old Kingsmead. Such reapplication has to be made in spite of the fact that an open permit for mixed spectators at cricket matches does apply. I regard this as a needless exercise and an absolute waste of time. It creates unnecessary delays, which in turn can give rise to a controversy regarding the whole question of the issue of permits, something which is already the cause of friction among the various population groups within the country, and which also does damage to South Africa’s image abroad.

Let us take again the example of Durban. Durban is a city frequented by scores of tourists, many of whom come from overseas. Now, where we already have a situation in which certain hotels are being regarded as international hotels, which means that they do not have to apply for permits in order to admit non-White visitors, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot consider the introduction of a similar system in respect of certain sport stadiums such as Old Kingsmead, New Kingsmead and King’s Park. At all three these stadiums the existing facilities are quite adequate for such a venture regardless of the type of gathering held there. Furthermore, I submit that decisions of this nature should be left in the hands of the local authorities, the owners of the premises in question or the sport controlling bodies concerned. They are the people whose right it should be to take their own decisions in matters of this nature.

A lot has been said lately and many pleas have been heard from all quarters in connection with the question of less intervention by the Government in particular areas. I believe that this is one specific area in which the hon. the Minister and his department will do themselves a favour, will do a service to South Africa, if they should decide to keep a low profile and to withdraw themselves gradually from the scene. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban Central devoted the greater part of his second speech to complaints about replies given by the hon. the Minister to questions he asked in his first speech. Therefore it is unnecessary for me to react to his speech further.

As far as the question of the permit control is concerned, there is only a minor difference of degree between the approach of the hon. member for Durban Central and that of hon. members of the official Opposition, as is the case with regard to the question of integration. It is only a difference of degree. The hon. member for Durban Central is perhaps a little more reasonable in his approach than the hon. member for Musgrave, who also discussed the same matter earlier on.

We must realize, of course, that the issue of control of permits is one of the somewhat thankless tasks which the hon. the Minister and his department have to perform. I therefore wish to associate myself with the hon. member for Overvaal and say that I can attest to exactly the opposite of what was argued by the hon. member for Musgrave when he maintained that the department carried out this task in a hardhearted way. Experience has taught me that exactly the opposite is true. My experience is that there is reason to be grateful and appreciative of the way in which the department deals with this very difficult task. It is really done in any outstanding way. It is a task which requires exceptional wisdom and tact. These, then, are two characteristics which in this case are displayed to a high degree by the department.

A very good illustration of the way in which the department operates in this field is to be found in the case of our smallest population group for which the department is responsible in the administration and implementation of the Group Areas Act. I am now referring to the Chinese. In Port Elizabeth their cause is one of some importance to us because there is a substantial concentration of Chinese in that city and because at present it is also the only centre which still has a declared group area for Chinese. The mere fact that one hears particularly little about this population group nowadays in contrast to what was the case years ago, is significant in itself. One hears still less about problems relating to accommodation of Chinese, another matter for which this department is responsible. I believe that this fact alone speaks volumes for the wisdom and success with which the department carried out this thorny task.

The Chinese are a small population group. According to the 1970 sensus there are only 7 991 Chinese in South Africa. There are a few relatively large concentrations of them in the country, for example in Johannesburg, where 3 798 of them are living, whereas 1 408 live in Port Elizabeth and 539 live in Pretoria. This means that the remaining 2 246 Chinese are distributed across the rest of the country. Although they are small in number, one must realize that in order to accommodate them—a task which the department has to perform—is by no means an easy task, that problems can very easily crop up in this regard and that although it is perhaps a pity, one can even sometimes encounter ticklish situations in this regard. So far the position is that the housing and accommodation of this population group is effected by way of permit control. This applies to both business and living accommodation. At present the Chinese population group has only one declared group area in South Africa. Formerly other group areas were declared for them, but at present only that one remains.

Therefore it is now the responsibility of the Department of Community Development to regulate this matter for the Chinese population group by way of permit control. Interesting statistics relating to permits granted to them are, briefly, as follows. Up to 1978, 677 residential permits were granted in Johannesburg, 107 of which were issued only in that specific year. The number of residential permits also including right of ownership was 654, of which 104 were granted in 1978. The number of permits granted for business purposes was 204, of which 48 were granted in 1978 alone.

Between 1976 and 1978 12 residential permits and 14 permits for land tenure were granted. In 1978 alone, four residential permits and three permits for land tenure were issued in Port Elizabeth, while the number of permits for business purposes reached the fairly high figure of 39. Of these, eight were issued in 1978 alone. I should just point out that there is a degree of duplication in these figures. This is due to the fact that in most cases, two permits are issued, one for residence and one for possession, with regard to the same property.

We appreciate the way in which the department has gone about considering applications for permits. The position now, however, is that as long as it is the policy of the Government to deal with this matter in the present way we must take note of the fact that we in Port Elizabeth actually have an unusual situation on our hands. Indeed, it is a unique situation. This is particularly the case in my constituency in Port Elizabeth. I gain the impression that one of the points of departure adopted by the department, a very wise one, in considering applications for residential permits, is to guard against any tendency among members of this group to form colonies, and to discourage it as far as possible. What is so outstanding about the way in which the department operates is that the minimum of coercion is applied in the implementation of the Group Areas Act and that they strive to achieve the maximum co-operation, the maximum of persuasion and tactful influence. This, then, is why we find that there are very few problems. This is an exceptionally wise approach. We want to ask that to the extent that it is or may be necessary in Port Elizabeth to grant permits for residential occupation, the same principle will apply there too.

However, I have been given a mandate and an instruction from my constituency to make a specific request to the hon. the Minister in regard to the position there. We find that where applications are made for permits for occupation in the White residential areas, the important argument which is advanced is that there is no longer sufficient space in declared group areas. We believe that the department ought to find out whether this is in fact the case. If it is indeed the case that sufficient accommodation within the declared group area is no longer available, it is the request of that community that consideration be given in the first place to making more building plots available, because sufficient land is available for that purpose. I can tell the hon. the Minister that there definitely is still land available in the group area.

I should like to suggest that the department do everything in its power to encourage the owners—the land is already in Chinese hands—and if necessary to assist in making further plots available, because they have a tendency to want to live close to each other. Therefore, while the land is available, it is in my opinion appropriate and logical that the solution be sought along those lines in the first place, in order to prevent possible problems. The problem is merely that the people are saying that there is no accommodation for them and that consequently they have to be accommodated elsewhere.

Moreover, it is my experience that this is a reasonably well-to-do community. I carried out a random test of seven cases which came to my attention recently in regard to the question of permits. If I remember correctly, the income of these people varied between R416 per month and as much as R1 233 per month. Therefore these people are sufficiently well-to-do, and if the plots become available they will be in a position to build there themselves or to have houses built in accordance with their own taste and choice. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate time for me to reply to the further contributions to the debate. Before I start with that, I want to say that in my previous speech, I accidentally omitted to refer specifically to the interesting and very competent speech the hon. member for Bellville made in support of the work of the Department of Community Development. He gave a striking exposition of the achievements of the department. He spoke of these achievements with pride and we all share that pride with him. He spoke with appreciation of the spirit in which the Department of Community Development does its work. For his insight in this regard I want to thank him. He asked what progress had been made with the elimination of the housing backlog. I have already dealt with that. I want to say in summary that we hope to eliminate the backlog with regard to housing for Coloureds and Indians in five years’ time and that for Blacks in eight years’ time. The backlog with regard to Whites has been eliminated. I want to add that provided the funds are available and we can be sure of R100 million over and above the amount that has been allocated to the department for the next three years, we shall reach our goal.

The hon. member for Walmer spoke specifically about housing for the Blacks. I think he will find it interesting to know why in the past a distinction was made between housing for Blacks and for Whites, a distinction which we have finally eliminated with the announcement I made today. The reasons for that were that in the past provision was not made for all population groups on the same basis because the income of Blacks in comparison with that of other population groups was very low. For that reason houses of a particularly low standard and much cheaper houses than those of the other population groups had to be built for the Blacks because we could use cheap Black labour on a large scale there. Those reasons, however, fell away as a result of sound historical considerations and owing to the development in our country. The income of our Black people in the cities is improving to an increasing extent and is beginning to compare favourably with those of other non-White groups. It is interesting to note that 36% of our Blacks in cities are at the moment earning more than R150 per month, and therefore lease to qualify for sub-economic houses. Therefore is also an increasing percentage of them who earn more than the economic limit of R540 per month. For that reason the distinction we made in the past is no longer applicable. Because of the progress the Black people are making the provision of a lower standard of housing for Black people led to resistance on their part. They did not like it and started to complain about it. Therefore it became necessary to take the circumstances in consideration and to give them what they deserved. Whereas all houses for Black people were built at an interest rate of 9¼% in the past, in future they pay an interest rate of 1% for houses in the sub-economic group, those of them who earn between R151 and R250 per month, pay 3½%, and those who earn more than R250 per month, pay an interest rate of 9¼%. Different standards will no longer apply to Black people, as they did in the past. They will be on a par with the standards of all other population groups and will be determined by the paying ability of the breadwinner. In the past subsidizing was largely unnecessary for the reasons I have mentioned, i.e. the lower standard and the low price of houses.

Now the same differences in the State rate and the appropriate rates which apply to Whites, Coloureds and Indians will also be applicable to Blacks. Community facilities which in the past were not financed out of the National Housing Fund, but in other ways, e.g. from the profits on sorghum beer, will in future be financed out of the National Housing Fund on the same basis as for the other population groups. I think the hon. member will agree with me that this will be a very important step forward and will rejoice with me that we were able to achieve this.

The hon. member went on to make a few very interesting suggestions as to how we can speed up housing for Blacks and promote home ownership. He suggested that we should help the building societies to participate to a greater extent in the provision of housing. The building societies are welcome to do that. During the past few months we made arrangements with them in terms of which they will also be able to act as juristic persons in the group areas where they would otherwise have been unqualified persons, in order to finance housing. However, this applies only to the economic group. I do not think the building societies are the proper organizations to act on the lower economic and subeconomic level. We do not like subsidizing private institutions to render services. Where there has to be subsidizing, we prefer to do it through local authorities, charitable organizations and other public bodies. I think the building societies have their own part to play. As regards the suggestion of the hon. member, i.e. that we should use foreign loans, I want to say that although it is not possible in the case of long-term loans—because the interest rates are too high—we can in fact use short-term loans of three, four or five years, because the interest rates on those loans are reasonable and they have a quick turnover. The department is always on the look-out for such opportunities. In the light of the hon. member’s speech we shall see whether we cannot achieve something in the years which lie ahead. Perhaps we shall be able to make good that deficit of R100 million in this way.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North pleaded in a very eloquent way for the householders in his constituency who are in danger of losing their houses because these are in the way of important road developments in that area. He thinks it is unnecessary. I do not know whether he is interested in Stuart Township and Kensington, because he spoke primarily about Holland Park. Therefore I shall not refer to the first two because their circumstances are somewhat different than those of Holland Park. However, I want to tell him that as far as Holland Park is concerned, he can accept my assurance that those people will not be forced to leave their homes. The land on which those 52 houses are situated, is required for the diversion of Harrow Road, but this diversion is not planned for the immediate future. We are not going to request his voters to leave their houses to make way for a road. As they move out of their houses, leave the area or die in the natural course of events, however, we shall take over the houses as soon as they become available. It might take years before all those houses are empty. He may therefore tell those people that they can sleep peacefully in the knowledge that they will be able to occupy those houses for as long as they want to.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow made a very interesting speech about rent control and also had certain suggestions to make about low cost housing. I want to say to him that I cross swords with him when he wants to impose—that is what his arguments mean—the duty upon the individual landlord to be responsible for social welfare work among people who are not so fortunate as to have large incomes. It is not the function of the private entrepreneur to do that. I have as much sympathy as the hon. member for Hillbrow for people who have difficulty in meeting their rentals. I have indicated before that when it becomes economically impossible for people to occupy flats because of justified increased in rents, they will have to find alternative accommodation. That is a law that applies to all of us. My department is at the disposal of people like that to assist them in finding alternative housing.

He referred to increases approved by rent boards as creating a hardship. I agree, but what must the rent boards do? They must act under the law, the purpose of which is to protect the tenant against exploitation, but also to assure a fair income to the landlord. When a landlord’s taxes and maintenance and service costs go up, he should surely be entitled to recover them. Why should he be penalized to support people who have a claim on State facilities, but certainly not on individual entrepreneurs? I should like the hon. member for Hillbrow to know that there are many cases in which not only the tenant is a pensioner, but also the landlord, who is dependent upon these rentals. He has a just claim to maintain his standard of living and to cope with ever-rising costs.

I know which one I would choose.

The hon. member made, as I have said, several pleas. I shall look at all of them. He rattled them off rather fast I shall look at them and consider those which have merit, but I cannot accept the principle that in effect we must re-institute rent control in order to protect people. He made a very interesting point, and that is that some of these protected tenants, as I call them, the people with incomes falling within the sub-economic and lower economic groups, now find that the rent boards put up their rentals by more than the 10% we permit. It just shows how effective we have been in the method of decontrolling flats in order to protect the interests of the people. The rent boards do not grant rent increases which are not justified; they grant them because of increased costs to the landlord or to enable him to receive a decent return on his investment.

The hon. member spoke about the situation in Lenasia and particularly in Thomsville. I should like the hon. member to know that he is a little after the Lord Mayor’s show, because what he has been asking for and the point which he identifies has already been identified by the department and, especially during this last year, we have taken urgent steps to meet the situation that he describes. Thomsville is a bad area, and we have already spent R250 000 there. We are spending more money now to improve it But I cannot eliminate it The people who live in Thomsville pay a rental of only R1,60 per month. Unfortunately there are still people who are so poor that we need an area like Thomsville to give them some shelter. I want to assure the hon. member that we are improving Thomsville continuously and are trying to maintain standards, but I cannot eliminate it completely, because I shall then not have any occupation of that cheap type to give to people who cannot exist without it.

As a result of the situation which the hon. member has described, I want to tell him something about our programme for Coloureds in Johannesburg. The city council of Johannesburg has 1 927 houses under construction at the moment. Waiting on funds are 233 houses and another 2 710 are planned. All those total 4 870. By 1979 1 151 of these were completed in 1979. The department itself has under construction 916 houses and 745 nearing completion as far as planning is concerned, giving a total of 1 661, of which 471 were completed by 1979. The total between the city council and the department is therefore 6 531 homes, of which 1 622 were completed by 1979. This means that we are overtaking the backlog faster than I anticipated a year ago.

Does that include Ennerdale?

Yes. By 1979 we completed 226 houses for Indians and by 1980 we shall have completed 2 398 houses. We have just given out tenders for another 1 000 houses, and we shall be building another 2 000 houses during 1979. In 1980 we expect to deliver 2 400 completed houses, and thereafter we shall continue building at a minimum rate of 1 000 houses per year. This means that the whole problem with regard to housing for Indians and Coloureds in Johannesburg will be solved within the foreseeable future.

*The hon. member for Rosettenville made a very good speech. He was very worried about his own people. He said that he would establish committees himself and wished to obtain information, and the department will welcome this and co-operate fully with him to protect the interests of his voters. I want to thank him for and congratulate him on the initiative he displayed.

To the hon. member for Hercules, who spoke about land conservation and who was particularly worried about the land occupied by cemeteries, I just want to say that this is a very delicate matter. Religious and pious considerations are involved here, and as a layman I do not want to pass judgment on this matter. He convinced me tonight, however, that throughout the civilized world there is an understanding for the necessity of finding another way of laying one’s loved ones who have died to rest. There is progress, and it seems to me as if it is mainly a matter of education. It is also a matter of guidance which should come from our churches. I do not think it is for the State to exercise any form of coercion or pressure on people in this regard.

The hon. member for Durban Central asked that we should adjust the means test as far as rent control was concerned. We are already doing that In fact, we have just adjusted the means test for married people. It was R400 per annum for a family without children. Recently it was increased to R540 per annum, without regard to the number of children these people have. The means test for unmarried people is now R300. I can merely say that we will always examine the means test, and when it becomes necessary, we shall adjust it. However, I cannot commit myself to an annual adjustment. Administratively this would be impossible.

The hon. member for Durban Central spoke about the permit system and said that it was necessary “because we apply rigid apartheid”.

To get out of it

The truth is that the object of the permit system is just the opposite. It makes administrative relaxation possible to avoid rigidity. However, I want to tell the hon. member that the Government is presently investigating the whole matter of the application for permits. Bearing in mind the experience we have had with international hotels, theaters, etc., I think in the near future the hon. member will hear of interesting adjustments that are going to be made in the system of application for permits. However, I want to emphasize that the Department of Community Development and I believe that the permit system is essential for good Government in South Africa under the present dispensation. I will certainly oppose any attempt to do away with the system entirely in matters concerning the Group Areas Act. However, relaxation and avoidance perhaps of ad hoc decision-making in these matters will be kept in mind and are, in fact, being investigated.

*The hon. member for Algoa presented very interesting data to us with regard to one of the most orderly and respected communities in South Africa, i.e. the Chinese. I am glad that the hon. member did this and I think that the tribute he paid to them, was well deserved. He said that the group areas for the Chinese in Port Elizabeth is now becoming too small. I can only say to the hon. member that we are developing a new township in that group area. It will not be a group area. It is a township. This will, however, give the Chinese the opportunity to obtain land there, near to their existing area. I believe that the problem can be solved in this way.

I want to thank all hon. members who participated in the debate, for a very interesting discussion.

Vote agreed to.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.