laid upon the Table:

Mr. W. C. Malan (Paarl) thereupon brought up the Bill.

South African Mutual Life Assurance Society (Private) Amendment Bill [B. 40—’80] (Assembly) read a First Time.

Mr. Chairman, I move the two amendments printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

1. (1) On page 3, in line 13, to omit “16” and to substitute “16(2)”;
2. (2) on page 3, in lines 17 to 20, to omit paragraph (c) and to substitute:
3. (c) The Minister may at any time exempt—

1. (i) any person or category of persons for a specified or unspecified period unconditionally or on such conditions as he may think fit from all the provisions of paragraph (a);
2. (ii) any person on such conditions as he may think fit from the provisions of paragraph (b).

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Deputy Minister has moved the two amendments standing in his name. Consequently I will not move the two amendments standing in my name on the Order Paper, because basically they cover ground almost identical to that covered by the Deputy Ministers. The first amendment moved by the hon. the Deputy Minister is to the effect that the discretion of the Minister is broadened in regard to any consequence to a person renouncing his citizenship. As the Bill is worded at present, the position is that if a person renounces his citizenship, it is an immutable fact that he shall not be entitled to a permanent residence permit and, secondly, may never ever recover South African citizenship. The suggestion I put earlier to the hon. the Deputy Minister was that there could well be deserving cases where this should not apply and that the Minister should therefore retain a discretion in the matter. The hon. the Deputy Minister’s first amendment covers this aspect as the discretion of the hon. the Minister is retained. We will support this amendment, for which we thank the hon. the Deputy Minister. The second amendment relates to the matter I also raised during the Second Reading debate, in terms of which it became clear from the original wording of the Bill that the rights of innocent minors were deleteriously affected by a renunciation of a parent who might well have been in disagreement with the minor at the time. Accordingly, the hon. the Deputy Minister had excluded all except the precise person who has made the renunciation and therefore minors will no longer be affected if this amendment is accepted. We will therefore support the second amendment as well because it covers the situation I dealt with during the Second Reading.

Finally, I did mention during the Second Reading debate that there were one or two other matters I wanted to raise during the Committee Stage, but the hon. the Deputy Minister answered the questions I put to him during the Second Reading debate very well, and I do believe that when one opposes a measure one opposes it hard and when one agrees on a matter, one agrees to it graciously. Therefore we will agree to this measure and will say no more about it.

Amendments agreed to.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

House Resumed:

Bill reported with amendments.

Bill read a Third Time,

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Section 6(2)(a) of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, provides that a sectional plan shall delineate the external surface boundaries of the land to which it relates and the location of the building or buildings in relation thereto. An architect or land surveyor has to accept responsibility for this. Clause 1 of this Bill provides that this task shall be done by or under the supervision of a land surveyor. The professions concerned are of the opinion that a land surveyor, owing to his training, is the most suitable person to determine the location of the boundaries of the land, and the location of buildings in relation to such boundaries. To ensure security of title it is essential that the boundaries of the land be correctly delineated so that the location of the buildings in relation to such boundaries may be determined.

tin terms of section 11(1)(c) of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, a Registrar of Deeds need not register any modification of conditions annexed to a sectional mortgage bond. Section 3(1)(s) of the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, however, compels a Registrar of Deeds to register against any registered mortgage or notarial bond any agreement entered into by the mortgagor and the holder of that bond whereby any terms of that bond have been varied. Clause 2 brings the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, in line with the Deeds Registries Act, 1937, and will help to obviate any feeling that a sectional mortgage bond is an inferior form of security compared with a conventional mortgage bond.

*Section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act, 1971, provides lessees of rent-controlled properties with protection against ejectment when such units are sold. The purchaser cannot take occupation of the dwelling unit if it is subject to the provisions of the Rent Control Act, 1976. The Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters arrived at the conclusion that although there may have been a time when this measure was justified, the commission was unable to recommend, in the light of its recommendations in connection with rent control, that the protection of lessees be retained any longer. The Housing Matters Advisory Committee, established in terms of section 2 of the Co-ordination of Housing Matters Act, 1978, is also in favour of the deletion of section 39(1). The section also has the disadvantage that financial institutions are not prepared to grant mortgage loans to purchasers. In any case, the operation of the section is being nullified in that purchasers of flats are making representations in terms of section 51(g) of the Rent Control Act, 1976, for their flats to be exempted from rent control. Consequently, the section in question is being repealed.

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the introductory speech of the hon. the Minister of Justice, and in so far as clauses 1 and 2 are concerned, we in these benches have no objection to them. Clause 1 puts in a more formal way the prerequisites for registering sectional titles where a property is divided between sections and common property. To include a plan signed by and prepared under the direction of a land surveyor is, we think, entirely appropriate, as is clause 2, which is merely an administrative amendment We take no exception to these two clauses and we will support them also in the Committee Stage.

Having gone so far, I must say that we in the PFP, the official Opposition, take an entirely different approach to clause 3 to that put to the House by the hon. the Minister. In a sense it is a pity that that hon. Minister and not the hon. the Minister of Community Development is responsible for that provision, because it has a direct bearing on rent control and the abolition of rent control. It has a special bearing on that, because many of the problems arising out of the abolition of rent control undertaken by the present Government are being exacerbated by the fact that properties are being sold under sectional title at the same time. We believe that a very serious situation has already arisen. Hon. members on my side of the House, including myself, have made representations to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and have tried to point out to him the seriousness of the situation that is developing and which, in our opinion, is going to be aggravated if this particular provision should become part of the Statute.

Clause 3 deals with section 39 of the principal Act, and it deletes subsection (1). It is important to realize that the relevant Acts, which are the Rents Act of 1950 and the subsequent Rent Control Act of 1976, gave tenants protection in two very special ways. The first of these was that tenants were given protection as far as their rentals were concerned. The rentals were going to have to be determined by a rent board which had to work on a formula in the sense of preconditions laid down in the Rents Act. Secondly it gave to every tenant in a rent-controlled flat or accommodation security of tenure, and not just protection concerning the rental. The Act of 1970, which this clause seeks to amend, was very specific on the point that one could not evict a tenant, provided he paid his rental, if he was living in rent-controlled premises. There was the proviso that, if that accommodation was required for oneself or for one’s family, that condition would fall away. That was common to both the Rents Act of 1970 and the Rent Control Act of 1976. What is important to realize, however, is that, because this clause deals with sectional titles, in other words the carving up of blocks of flats into individual units, this provision that one could evict people if one wanted the accommodation for one’s own purposes, never applied to multi-unit buildings. It did not apply to blocks of flats and, in fact, the Sectional Titles Act of 1971, which this clause now seeks to amend, included the specific provision that if one purchased a flat under sectional title, this did not entitle one to evict the tenants, even if one wanted it for one’s own purposes. That was a very, very specific provision. The Government now wishes to repeal this provision by means of the Bill before us.

This peculiar position relating to multi-unit buildings, such as blocks of flats, was in recognition of the very important role which flats have always played in providing accommodation for people who do not have the capital to own their own homes. There is a big sector of our South African population living in flats because they cannot afford to own their own homes, not having access to the necessary capital. This was reinforced in the 1971 Sectional Titles Act which specifically stated that a person may not be removed even if the premises are required for the lessor’s own purposes. This was reinforced again in the Rent Control Act of 1976, an Act passed by this House only four years ago, when the Government agreed that this provision should be introduced into that Act. So it has been quite clear that where people were living in a block of flats they could not be evicted merely because the particular flat was sold under sectional title to someone else. This clause seeks to nullify that. It in effect provides that if one buys a flat under sectional title one may eject the tenant even if that tenant is deserving of rent control and the flat is at present under rent control. That is the purpose of this particular clause. Every person who has purchased a rent-controlled flat under sectional title has been fully aware of the existing provision. Every person who has purchased a flat has been aware that he could not evict the tenant if the flat was indeed rent-controlled.

One might ask whether it is unfair, whether it creates anomalies? If one purchases a flat under certain conditions, if the Statute says that if the flat is rent-controlled one cannot evict the tenant, then one purchases that flat under those conditions and it does not result in any anomaly. But not to have had the provision the Government now wants to repeal would have destroyed the whole purpose of rent control, because it would have meant that there would have been thousands of needy tenants, tenants who need protection, both as far as their rent is concerned and as far as the security of tenure is concerned. That protection would have gone. We see this Bill in that light. We see it as a removal of that essential protection which was given to people under the Rent Control Act, and concerning which, as I shall point out later, the hon. the Minister has given the assurance that it will continue in certain cases, even after rent control in a more general sense has been lifted.

This Bill, once it is understood by the people of South Africa, is going to send shock waves of concern, despair and insecurity through tens of thousands of people who live, justifiably so, in rent-controlled flats throughout South Africa. It is coming at an acutely sensitive time when people are already reeling under the impact of the partial abolition of rent control. It might be said that it only affects a limited number of people. However, if one looks at the number of people, the number of units, which will be affected in terms of the figures which have been released, one sees that the buildings which are already in the process of being decontrolled number 63 600. Not all of those are flats, but a large proportion of them are flats. The next buildings that are being decontrolled are those premises occupied between 1955 and 1960 and which number 36 700. A further proclamation is expected from the hon. the Minister in April whereby another 44 000 residential units will be decontrolled. In other words, 144 300 units are going to be decontrolled and the hon. the Minister has all along given the assurance that, even if the unit as a whole is decontrolled, the needy people will continue to enjoy some form of protection under the Rent Control Act.

This goes even further because this legislation, if it becomes law, will remove security even from those people who live in flats which were occupied prior to 20 October 1949. Interestingly enough, the hon. the Minister has not got the power to decontrol these flats. He can only decontrol buildings occupied after that date, but he cannot decontrol in terms of regulations premises occupied before 20 October 1949. Yet this Bill seeks to remove this essential element of protection against eviction, should someone acquire a flat under the Sectional Titles Act, from a further 100 000 dwellings in South Africa, many of which happen to be rent-controlled flat units.

In view of the seriousness of the situation and in view of the assurances which have been given by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development and the hon. the Minister of Community Development, I move as an amendment—

1. (1) it constitutes a flagrant breach of faith on the part of the Government with many thousands of tenants who have repeatedly been assured by Government spokesmen that they will continue to have protection under the Rent Control Act; and
2. (2) it will result in insecurity and hardship among many older people, pensioners and others who deserve protection and assistance in respect of their housing.”.

One has to see this measure as part of the overall plan of the Government to remove rent control. Even in its original announcement that it intends removing rent control, the Government identified certain of the problem areas which impinge directly on this clause in the Bill. The Government said that even when it decontrolled accommodation certain tenants in the lower income group required assistance and protection. The Government said assistance and protection would be continued to be given to certain income groups. These are defined as those who are single and who are not in receipt of an income in excess of R300 per month, or married couples or families whose income is not in excess of R540 a month. The Government gave a categozic assurance that in respect of those people rent control and the security of tenure would continue to apply.

Secondly, the hon. the Minister, in order to cushion the impact of increased rental, said that for a period of two years subsequent to his announcement that rent control would be abolished, rentals could not be increased by more than 10% per annum for those two years. It was a recognition by the Government of the problems of transition. But for many people, in fact, this latter protection has been meaningless, because immediately after rent control was lifted the flats which were still subject to a rental limitation of a 10% increase per annum, were immediately placed on the market, have been sold under sectional title and the tenants have been told to leave. So even the protection of a moratorium on rentals for two years by the Minister failed, because when it came to the question of a moratorium on the security of tenure, those individual flats were sold over the heads of the occupants and they were told to leave. A 10% guarantee is meaningless when the flat is being taken from underneath you.

This whole question of the impact of sectional titles and the question of decontrol go hand in hand. It has been aggravated by the fact that very few long-term leases apply to rent controlled property, for the simple reason that the Rents Control Act did not require people to enter into long leases. In terms of rent control they had security of tenure without a lease. The result of this has been that there are hundreds of thousands of people living in apartments who do not have long-term leases, and as a result of the lifting of rent control these flats are immediately being sold from under them. They then have nowhere to go.

Thirdly: As more and more flats are being sold under sectional title, the number of flat units available for ordinary South African citizens to live in on a rented basis, are becoming fewer and fewer. The consequence is that Mr. X or Mrs. Y, evicted from their flats because they are now going to be sold under the sectional title, simply find that alternative accommodation is not available or, if it is available, it is only at rentals which have shot sky-high as a result of these pressures and are beyond the means of the tenants.

Other members on this side of the House, particularly my colleague from Hillbrow, are going to point to the very real hardship which already exists as a result of the interrelationship between the decontrol on the one hand and the increase in the sale of units on the basis of sectional titles on the other hand.

This Bill must be seen as part of the Government’s plan for decontrol. What disturbs us, is that the Government has set out its schedule—annual decontrol in stages and gradual abolition—but this Bill leaps ahead of the Government’s programme for decontrol. In this single measure it is destroying the security of tenure of all the people living in controlled flats today. Once this goes through, no person living in a rent-controlled flat has any security of tenure. If this Bill goes through, it will mean that, once a flat is sold under sectional title, the question of rent control becomes irrelevant and the statutory or protected rights of the tenant fall away immediately. This measure will affect the poor and the needy even more than it will the wealthy, because the wealthy man whose rented flat is sold can go around the comer and pay the market rental for a flat which is not rent-controlled and thus find alternative accommodation. He may also have access to capital so that he can purchase a flat of his own. There are, however, tens if not hundreds of thousands of people who, if they are evicted as a result of this legislation, will simply not be able to find accommodation at prices which they can afford. I am referring to the poorer people, the needy people and the older people. That is the problem with which we are confronted today.

I want to go further and say that in this Bill we see the Government reneging on its specific undertaking, given time and time again to the less affluent members of our community, namely the pensioners, the aged and individuals with incomes of less than R300 per month or families with incomes of less than R540 per month. The Government has repeatedly stated that for these people a form of protection will continue. I have before me a statement made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he first announced decontrol in 1978. He said—

That is a statement made by the hon. the Minister and presented to this House. He also made subsequent statements. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development at a Cape NP congress in Sea Point only last year said the following on a resolution to stop decontrol—

Yet this provision applies to everyone. This new measure will mean that “gegoede en minder gegoede mense” will all be in exactly the same position. They will no longer have the security of tenure which applied when the Act was in operation. Sapoa, the S.A. Property Owners’ Association, has for many years lobbied for the removal of rent control. One can argue the pros and cons of rent control in a more general sense, but I believe that there are certain things on which there should be agreement. There are certain categories of people who deserve the protection of the State. There are certain categories of people who have to be helped with their housing. There are certain categories of people who are economically weak and who must be protected from exploitation by the economically strong. These truths run through this matter as a silver thread. Sapoa, in considering the Minister’s proposals, said the following—

Sir, there is no longer going to be any cushioning. From the moment this Bill becomes law, every tenant, be he needy or be he affluent, in rent-controlled premises will be hit and will be subject to summary eviction.

Let us look at the realities of what exists. What has happened as a result of the partial removal of rent control over the past 18 months? Let us look at the position which obtains today in our cities and which is going to be aggravated as a result of this particular clause. The fact is that there is a whole generation of people in South Africa, many of them older people and less well-to-do people, who live in older tenement or flat buildings in our cities under the protection of the Rent Control Act. That is the reality of the situation we find today, and yet in one fell swoop the protection they have had for 30 years is going to be taken away from them, and this is not just casual protection, protection that just happened by accident. This particular protection of flat dwellers was written into the original Rents Act and into the Sectional Titles Act, into the very clause the hon. the Minister is now asking us to repeal. It was written into the Rent Control Act of 1976, was the subject of a statement by the hon. the Minister in this House and also the subject of statements and assurances by the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development. I therefore ask this Government, for one moment, to understand the plight in which these people find themselves in the flatlands of South Africa today. When a person receives a notice to quit in terms of the Group Areas Act, the Government says it will always see to it that alternative accommodation is offered to them. When they receive a notice to quit however, because this rent control provision will no longer apply, they have nowhere to go at a price they can afford. That is the reality of the position that exists.

I speak from experience when I say that many older tenants are living in constant fear of a registered letter saying that they must quit. They are living in fear of a knock at the door by the estate agent requesting to be allowed to bring somebody in because that person anticipates buying the particular flat. The old tenant then says: Well, you can bring them in, but I am protected because I am a needy person whose income is less than R540, and the Minister has assured me that I have the guarantee of my tenure in terms of rent control. From the moment this Bill goes through, none of those helpless people, those poor people, those people who, at the moment, I can tell you are desperate, is going to have any protection whatsoever. If this provision goes through Mr. X can come to buy that flat and the tenant will have to leave, irrespective of any guarantees that have been given.

I believe that this House should think about this matter with its heart. I have a thick file of correspondence from people who have been living in flats for 20, 30 or 40 years, people of 60 years, 70 and even 80 years of age. Mr. X, for example, lived in a flat for 42 years. Now, 75 years of age, he has a pension of R308. When this Bill goes through, he can be evicted summarily from his flat because someone else may have bought it. I also think of someone who lives in a flat for which there has just been an application for a rent increase of just on 100%. That shock was bad enough. The increase was not granted. When this provision goes through, however, that tenant can be evicted. Even if she could pay R300, she would be evicted because the property has been bought by somebody else. I believe that there is an acute human problem.

I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not here because I have been in touch with him and have received replies indicating that he was referring this matter to the National Housing Commission.

It is not a matter that should be treated lightly. Let me give an instance dating back three years. In regard to a block of flats in my constituency there was an application for decontrol so that the flats could be sold to other individuals in terms of the Sectional Titles Act. This matter was referred to the hon. the Minister. I want to quote the lengths of the periods of occupation of the flats and the ages of the people concerned. Mr. X, tenant for 19 years, age 65; Mr. Y, tenant for 19 years, age 69; Mr. Z, tenant for 33 years, age 80; Mrs. Z, tenant for 28 years, age 80; Mrs. X, tenant for 43 years, age 65; Mrs. X, tenancy not known, age 75; Mr. Y, tenant for 22 years, age 84, etc. Hon. members can go through these and correct me. When there was an application for decontrol, so that the flats could be sold under sectional title, the hon. the Minister turned it down. He was not prepared to see people, who had occupied properties for 20, 30 or 40 years and who were over the age of 75 or 80 years, finding themselves the victims of eviction because someone else was powerful enough or rich enough to buy a particular flat from them.

I ask the hon. the Minister to think of this from his heart. He should go into the flatland, not in the main front of Sea Point, but into the smaller apartments behind it. He should go to Green Point, to Hillbrow or to any other place, and he will see there older people who have cared for their flats. They may only be tenants, but they have been there for maybe 30 or 40 years. They have maintained their flats, furnished them, improved them. To them that flat has become a home where they feel secure, because they have had security of tenure. They have become part of the community around them, and that community provides them with companionship and gives them a sense of belonging.

We should think of these people. I plead with the hon. the Minister and the Government to think of these people. I shudder to think of what is going to happen to the sense of security of these tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of people once this measure goes through. Already, in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, every time a notice appears in the paper that a certain block of flats has been sold, the people rush to see how long it will be before that block of flats is carved up under sectional titles and the tenants evicted. Every time they see an advertisement they become afraid and worried. Every time there is an application for rent increases, it reinforces the view that sooner or later they are going to be evicted because they do not have security under the Sectional Titles Act.

I want to put it to the hon. the Minister, because I believe that he is a concerned Minister and a concerned citizen, to consider seriously the withdrawal of this measure. I am not really interested in what technical advice he received from a Government committee or Commission. That was three or four years’ ago. What has happened since then is that the situation has deteriorated. The situation has deteriorated and there is fear and insecurity among the occupants of the older blocks of flats who are generally older people, frail people, lonely people, people struggling to make ends meet. Very often the occupants of these older blocks of flats are people looking after an invalid father or mother or other relative. These people are already living in fear. They live in fear of eviction. However, the one thing they did have was an undertaking from the Government.

I accept it was a solemn undertaking. That undertaking was very solemn. It was an undertaking to this House, an undertaking to the tenants of South Africa that if they were in need, if they qualified for assistance under the Housing Act, if their income was below R540, the protection and security which they had under rent control would continue in respect of the flat in which they lived for as long as they cared to live there. That was an undertaking, I should hope, which was given in good faith by the Government.

If this Bill goes through, I am convinced it is going to aggravate the housing situation in the densely-populated urban areas of South Africa. Even if the argument is correct—which I do not necessarily accept—that if this Bill goes through investors will begin to build new blocks of flats, we should realize that rent control is not applicable to any block of flats erected since 1966. The number of the blocks of flats that have been built in Sea Point during the last three to five years can be counted on three fingers. One does not even need all fingers of one hand to count them. Only one block was built for renting. The others were built to be sold under sectional titles. Therefore, rent control has in fact not been the obstacle which it was said to be to the development of new blocks of flats. The obstacle has rather been a lack of incentive coupled with the high building costs, and also the problem of complying with municipal by-laws, as well as the problems of finance charges. There has been no encouragement given by the Government allowing property investors who provide accommodation for the middle and lower income groups to write off some of their profits, nor do they receive allowances enabling them to reduce their taxation in order to encourage them to build accommodation for the lower income groups. This is the problem. I believe the Government is creating a disgraceful sense of insecurity and fear, almost panic, on the part of many older people. The Government is doing that while failing to put forward any positive measure in order to see to it that there is more accommodation available.

I want hon. members to accept what I say as coming from someone who has been trying to understand this problem. I put it to this House that there are tens of thousands of people who literally dread receiving registered post. They are scared to open registered letters because it may be a notice to quit, a notice to quit not to make available accommodation for another person in the area, but to provide a holiday pad of some up-country businessman. Some tenants even have to vacate their flats in order to make it available to some foreign company as an executive house where guests in South Africa can be entertained. Very often such a block of flats is being sold at a very handsome profit, not by the original owner who had to bear the heat and the burden of the restrictions of rent control for 5, 10, 15 or 20 years, but…

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether indigent tenants live in that kind of flat?

Sir, I think the hon. the Minister must realize that there are many people who are not indigent in the sense that they have no money. There are people who live on a Government pension of R98 or on a fixed income. There are also the aged.

I am referring to the type of flat…

Sir, the hon. the Minister must realize that the “in” thing at the moment is to buy up old blocks of flats, refurbish them and turn them into executive pads. This is what is being done all over. This is one aspect of the impact of sectional title. It is to take old blocks of flats, rejuvenate them and turn them into executive pads. I am not complaining about the upgrading of flats, but I am concerned about what is happening to the tenants. What is one going to do with the retired lady schoolteacher who has been living there for 30 years, who is looking after a sick sister and who is getting a pension of R308? This all comes about because Mr. X wants to make a quick buck by carving up and selling off an old block of flats. He can do so even if such tenants have nowhere to go. I believe there comes a time when Parliament, a nation and a government must look at problems in human terms. This is not an argument between capitalism and socialism. It is not an argument about respective philosophies behind rent control. It is a situation of dire straits of many, many people living in the older blocks of flats in the urban areas in this country.

Mr. Speaker, this measure indicates that the Government is deserting these people. Until this Bill was published, I used to issue statements and documents and I gave advice to the people of my constituency to the effect that, provided they were in need and had an income below a certain level, the Government, while it might do a lot of other things that were wrong, would not desert them. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that by this measure the Government is deserting the less affluent people of South Africa. The Government is leaving these people, above all others, in the lurch. So, Mr. Speaker, I ask the House and the hon. the Minister just to consider for a moment the anguish, the fear and the insecurity of these people who have been promised that as far as they are concerned rent control will continue and who are now going to find themselves in the position where, when this Bill becomes law, the security they had and which we believe they are entitled to have as senior citizens of this country will be taken away from them. For these reasons we in these benches reject the Bill in terms of the motion I have read to the House.

Mr. Speaker, I shall deal with the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point when discussing clause 3 of the Bill. First of all I just want to make a few remarks on clauses 1 and 2.

The reason for the amendment contained in clause 1 is obvious. Perhaps it was an oversight on the part of the legislator in 1971 that provision was made that a plan of this nature could also be prepared by an architect. The plan to which reference is made here, however, is of such a nature that it must apparently be prepared by a land-surveyor and a land-surveyor alone, and not by an architect. I am also told that the Association of Architects accepts the position and has no objection to a measure which seems to be aimed at them or takes professional work away from them. They admit that it is simply not their line. Consequently one can really regard this amendment as a rectification of a provision placed on the Statute Book in 1971. It simply would not make sense to reserve work for a particular profession if it is of such a nature that they are neither equipped nor trained for it.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, the only reason why the provision in question was originally inserted into the Act was that it sought to alleviate the work load of the Deeds Offices. Since the Deeds Offices now see their way clear to taking on the additional work load, as the hon. the Minister indicated, it is obvious that the proposed amendment will be introduced. When the principal Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1971, it was probably worded in that way not because it was regarded as desirable that the powers should not exist, but simply because it would impose an additional work load—at that stage it was probably regarded as too much work— on the officers of the Deeds Offices. Consequently I believe that this, too, will be widely accepted and welcomed.

With regard to clause 3, the hon. the Minister has already pointed out that it gives effect to recommendations of the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters as contained in the so-called Fouché report. It was the commission’s considered recommendation and I believe it is appropriate for the Government to take cognizance of such a considered recommendation and, if at all possible, to give effect to it. The commission gave two points of motivation in particular for their recommendation and finding.

I believe that the motivation of anomaly in particular carries a lot of weight. When in 1971 Parliament saw fit to invest the possession of an apartment with all the rights attached to ownership, we should have realized that it could not be a permanent position that one could have two categories of ownership here in the sense that one grants greater ownership rights in respect of an ordinary dwelling house than in respect of a unit under the Sectional Titles Act. We should have realized that such a provision could not be permanent; it would be of a temporary nature and sooner or later we would have to do the logical in making the two rights equal in every respect. At the moment this is practically the only difference I am aware of between the two forms of ownership, viz. that the purchaser of a sectional title unit, unlike the purchaser of an ordinary dwelling house, is not entitled to give notice to the tenant. I shall have more to say about this matter at a later stage.

The second motivation by the Fouché Commission concerns the question of financing. I quote from paragraph 121—

This is a very topical matter. One of the problems about which we shall be hearing increasingly this afternoon, concerns the availability of flats. There is a shortage of flats because flats are simply not being built. The general feeling is that there should be new stimuli for the construction of new blocks of flats. It is a fact that building societies simply are not interested in financing such transactions by way of mortgage loans, owing to the problem that an owner is not entitled to give his tenant notice.

Quite apart from the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Fouché Commission, I also want to draw this House’s attention to the fact that another commission has made findings along the same lines. I am referring to the fourth interim report of the Commission of Inquiry into the Development Schemes Bill, which has already been tabled. This commission, too, was concerned about the problems relating to the one we are dealing with here today. The commission identified what they call an important need, viz. the need for a compulsory procedure in accordance with which occupation rights can be converted into ownership in terms of a share block scheme. The commission went on to put it more strongly as follows—

We did not say that we were going to have the tenants evicted.

The hon. member can advance his argument later. The commission made certain recommendations in order to achieve this objective. However, the point I want to make—and the hon. member for Walmer can react to this if he wishes to—is that there is something analogous to the problem we have here. Everyone is seeking stimuli for the development of flats. Recently there was another statement by a spokesman of the South African Property Owners’ Association—Sapoa—in which he also called for measures in this regard. I shall come back to this aspect at a later stage. In my opinion the commission adopted a standpoint and drew conclusions which point the same way as the aim of the legislation before this House. I think one could construe the recommendations of the commission as justifying the repeal of section 39(1) of the principal Act.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether the commission ever considered section 39 and whether the commission ever decided that this legislation should be introduced?

It was not within the scope of the terms of reference of the commission to make such a recommendation. My argument is that there are two commissions that are essentially struggling with the same problem and making recommendations along the same lines. I believe that if one analyses this logically, that is what it amounts to.

I think there is no doubt that section 39(1) has always been an inhibiting factor in respect of the problem with which the Fouché Commission dealt and to a certain extent also with the problems with which the Commission of Inquiry into the Development Schemes Bill dealt. For that reason my conclusion is that the latter commission also indirectly supports the findings and recommendations of the Fouché Commission now being implemented in this legislation.

I want to go on to make a few remarks about the argument advanced by the hon. member for Sea Point. I think one could say that his argument was not aimed at clause 3 of the Bill, nor so much at the repeal of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act. The hon. member’s argument was aimed at the phasing out of rent control. His speech would have been much more appropriate if the debate had concerned the principle of the phasing out of rent control. If this were the case, the hon. member would perhaps have had an argument. He blew the matter up out of all proportion.

You would like the old people to be kicked out.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville is again advancing his argument of “taxing the poor”. Last year the hon. member made the same noises when he said: “The Government is taxing the poor.” The hon. member for Sea Point, of all people, as a member of the PFP, of all parties, spoke of “deserting the less affluent of the community”. If this were ever true, it is still inappropriate coming from hon. members of that party. In reply to the hon. member’s argument I want to say—and I say so in all seriousness—that it may be true—and it probably is true—that certain people are going to be prejudiced by this measure. [Interjections.] We need not hesitate to deny it. Obviously this is true. But this still does not give the hon. member the right to accuse the Minister and the Secretary of deceiving the community when giving that assurance at that stage. The hon. member argued that the hon. the Minister had misled the public with the assurance he had given at that stage that they would be protected.

Did he do so?

I say that if there are people being prejudiced or threatened, they are being prejudiced by the phasing out of rent control and certainly not to any noteworthy extent by the repeal of this provision. The hon. member tried to create the impression that if this provision were repealed, thousands of people would be affected by it. But only a small percentage will be affected by it Only tenants living in blocks of flats that can be converted into sectional title flats, can be affected by this. It is not a large percentage that will be affected. A larger group will be hit by the phasing out of rent control. I wish the hon. member had furnished statistics of the number of people that will be affected by this Bill. It will only be a small percentage. Hon. members seem to be surprised by my saying that there will in fact be people who will be prejudiced by this measure. That is surely understandable. But now the question arises as to whether those hundred or few hundred cases justify the withholding of this very necessary measure. Rent control is not a normal process in this country. Rent control was a product of war conditions, i.e. abnormal conditions. We are trying to move away from that to a condition of normality. We have been engaged in this for a very long time now. The fact that we still have a form of rent control more than 30 years after the introduction of rent control, which was initially meant as a war measure, indicates how much sympathy the Government has had for the person who could not obtain a house of his own. The protection that the Minister and the Secretary of Community Development promised and to which the hon. member referred, will not disappear after the acceptance of this Bill. They will continue to keep that promise. To the extent to which it remains valid, it will not be changed by this Bill.

It is not my function today to say what the solution is to the problem the hon. member pointed out. We admit that there is a problem. However, on the other hand we have the problem that this particular part of the economy is becoming stagnant. The Sapoa people are the people of the party of the hon. member for Sea Point. It is Sapoa which has for years now advocated the abolition of rent control as well as measures of this nature. Why does he not give his own people a reply in this regard? It is interesting to note—this does not concern this Bill directly—that a great deal of thought is being given to a solution of the problem we are dealing with, viz. the shortage of flats. The fact of the matter is that flats are not being built, and the people in the property industry are concerned about this. The retention of section 39 of the Sectional Titles Act is certainly not the answer to that problem. Another solution will have to be found to that problem. A spokesman of Sapoa made this remark a few days ago—

This is probably true. This is a topical question. After we have done what is fair, just and logical—what we are doing here today—and we find that we are faced with a problem, we can give attention and thought to that matter. It merely depends on the scope of the problem. Then one can examine whether there really is a problem, and seek remedies for it. Mr. Hofmeyr of Sapoa says he has a plan. He says—

This is Mr. Hofmeyr’s proposal, that having done what is just, logical and, to my mind, inevitable, we can again give attention to this problem. I say it is inevitable, as I once again want to state that we must not treat the two differently as far as ownership is concerned. In 1971 we arrived at the watershed when we granted the possession of flats the full status of ownership. My argument is that we have held out for a long time. We have protected the people for a long time now, but in the long term we can no longer protect them. The logic of the situation compels us to do the right thing and to afford these two forms of ownership exactly the same status and meaning in every respect. For that reason it is a pleasure for me to support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, we in these benches shall support this Bill as far as clauses 1 and 2 are concerned.

In reaction to the speech of the hon. member for Algoa, I must say it was very interesting to see that he is prepared to concede that there are people who can be very, very seriously affected by the repeal of section 39 of the principal Act. He said it could perhaps be 100 or 200 people, but that did not seem to concern him particularly. But I think it should concern him because if people anywhere have been put in a situation by a government, particularly by this Government in South Africa, then they have the right to believe that that Government will not go back on what it has promised them in the past, and that when they go into a situation where they know they have certain legislation which will protect their rights, I believe they should not have those rights taken away from them. When one is in the sort of situation in which we in the opposition benches are, where we, so to speak, get the second bite at the cherry of a particular Bill that comes to the House, one has to prepare oneself accordingly and try to work out the position that will be taken up by the official Opposition. I must congratulate the hon. member for Sea Point on what was one of the most eloquent cases that I have heard him put in this House. [Interjections.] He had, in this instance, a very good case to put, and he certainly put it extremely well. One could see, looking across the floor of the House, that it was a case which, I believe, made a big impact on the hon. the Minister of Justice, who, without doubt, is an extremely fair man and who, I am sure, will give this matter very, very serious consideration.

Having said that, however, one must also realize that, apart from the side of the coin that was presented by the hon. member for Sea Point, there is, indeed, another side to that same coin. In my view, the repeal of this particular subsection boils down to the old argument of “What do you believe to be most important: Do you believe social welfare should override all considerations of a free enterprise economy? Do you believe that it is the responsibility of the private individual—and this is what this particular Bill boils down to—to subsidize accommodation for that portion of the community that is less able to support itself?” I do not believe that it is the responsibility of that private individual.

I think that, without a shadow of a doubt, that is not the case. It is the responsibility of the State, who collect money in terms of taxes from the more affluent, and one hopes that they will use those taxes wisely in providing for the less fortunate people who are unable to meet means tests or who live on Government pensions and who cannot afford to buy the sort of things the more affluent members can afford to buy.

I think that one has to try and strike a balance between social welfare and a free enterprise system. I believe that in Britain they have carried this situation far too far. If one looks at the rental situation in Britain, one sees that the landlord of any property is put in a virtually impossible situation. The tenant has so much protection from the State that the landlord virtually has no rights left whatsoever. This extends so far that, in fact, it prevented premises being made available for lease which otherwise would have been made available. I know of a case of a friend of mine who owns a number of cottages in a small village. At one stage he renovated them so that he could lease them as accommodation for people in the area. When he became aware of the onerous laws protecting the tenant, he decided to let them only as holiday cottages so that he would have a turnover of people and there would be nobody living in those houses who could put him in the situation that he could never evict them, even if he wished to. Therefore, one has to find some sort of balance when considering legislation of this nature. There is, of course, the other side of the coin.

The hon. member for Sea Point pointed out that the sort of people who were in this situation were predominantly people who had not been able to afford to buy houses for themselves. They did not have the means and they could not afford to buy a house in which they could perhaps live in in their old age; or, perhaps, they had spent their money foolishly and were not in a position to be able to afford to own a house. I believe the Sectional Titles Act of 1971 has in itself done a lot to overcome that situation, because in a lot of cases the amount of money that people have to expend in order to buy a flat is far smaller. They can, in other words, with the expenditure of a far smaller sum of money, put themselves in a situation where what is happening to them now can never happen again. They can under sectional title buy a flat which could be theirs for the rest of their lives. They could save and pay off the bond during their working lives so that they would eventually arrive at a situation where they could live out their retirement on a pension, perhaps a small pension, without having to bother about rentals.

I agree.

The hon. the Deputy Minister must let me complete my argument. I am trying to make out a case for the other side of the coin, because I believe it is a case that should be put. I believe it is an important case and that the whole Sectional Titles Act is a great improvement. It is going to benefit those very people who are in the situation they are in today of “lesees” and of people who have not been able to buy a place that was their very own, not being able to afford to have that roof over their heads of which they could say: “This is totally mine and I owe nobody any rental. ”

They can do it without this Bill.

I appreciate that. The hon. member for Sea Point said that these people live in fear of that registered letter. Well, this is a way of overcoming that fear. I believe it is something that has to be looked at. It is a means of enabling these people to save for their future, their retirement and their old age. As such it is extremely important.

Now we have the two sides of this coin to weigh up. There is the side of the person who lives in one of these flats right now and who, because of this legislation, can be kicked out by somebody who buys that flat to live in it himself or to have his father or child in it. The other side is the desirability of sectional title as a whole and of people being able to buy this type of unit for their old age. Without any shadow of doubt the situation has, however, been complicated by the fact that the Government of this country had made certain statements and had provided, through its legislation, protection for the people who live in these flats. They went into these flats in the full knowledge that they could not be evicted provided they could pay their rental and that their rental would be controlled. It gave them security and it was a security which was given to them by the Government of this country. Considering both sides of the coin, there can be no doubt that it would be a retrogressive step for this Government to undo the good that was done by its predecessors, to now remove the umbrella from over these poor people’s heads and to put them into a situation where they, as the hon. member for Sea Point said, can be evicted and will have tremendous difficulty in finding equivalent accommodation at an equivalent price. No matter what arguments come from the benches on the other side, hon. members opposite cannot deny that, if this particular clause goes through a large number of people—I do not know whether it is 100, 200 or 1 000, because I do not think the figures exist that will enable us to prove the volume of people involved—are going to be adversely affected, people who relied on legislation of this Government and this House and who will see that legislation disappearing and consequently their whole way of life and virtually everything they possess altered for the worse. I do not believe that this Government would want to put itself in that situation. I do not believe that they can seriously think that they would be doing themselves or anybody else any good whatsoever were they to remove this protection from these tenants.

Having said that, I think one must look further to try to decide whether there is in fact any sort of compromise solution. I think there could perhaps be a compromise solution.

After all, I do not believe that this system, giving the sort of protection it does, should be continued in perpetuity. I believe it is the responsibility of the State to provide the sub-economic accommodation that the needy require. I do not believe it is the responsibility of the private individual. I believe that that responsibility must not be taken away from the Government. It is their responsibility. I believe that the hon. the Minister of Community Development has to see to it that there is the right sort of accommodation available for these people. One cannot, however, escape the fact that rights are being taken away from tenants who currently have those rights.

I believe a compromise could be found whereby those who are in the particular flats concerned and who went into those flats under the firm conviction that they could not be evicted, could be left there. What happens to future tenants who move into those flats? If they move into those flats with the knowledge that they can be evicted should those flats or their particular flat be sold under sectional title, I believe the difficulty is overcome. It is the case of those people who move into flats knowing one thing and who then have another situation thrust upon them which, I believe, is the onerous one. Consequently, we in these benches shall support the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for East London North and I thank him for the support he has given to the amendment.

In passing let me say, as the hon. member for Sea Point has done, that we have no difficulty with clauses 1 and 2 which are merely procedural matters. The purpose of clause 1 is to delineate the external surface boundaries of the land in relation to the building, which is a deeds office requirement Secondly, it concerns the modification of conditions attached to a bond connected with sectional titles to bring it into line with the deeds registry. There is no problem with that at all.

The hon. member for Sea Point has dealt very eloquently and very adequately, if I may say so, with clause 3, the amendment to section 39. The amendment looks innocuous enough because it merely provides for the deletion of section 39(1) of the Act Section 39(1) of Act 66 of 1971 provides—

So we have to look at section 21(1)(c) of Act No. 43 of 1950, which was repealed by the Rent Control Act of 1976. It still applies, however. Section 21(1) provides—

There are then certain exceptions, one of which is—

1. (c) That the premises are reasonably required by the lessor for his personal occupation or that of his parent or child … and the lessee has after the date of commencement of this Act been given three months’ notice in writing to vacate the premises …

That exception is taken away, which means that the person acquiring sectional title cannot use section 21(1)(c) and therefore cannot obtain the objective required.

It is interesting to note that, with the conclusion having been reached here that the owner cannot evict a statutory tenant even if he wishes to occupy the premises himself or to place his parents or child in it, Sapoa have the temerity to send out a report, stating with regard to this section that the proposed correction of this unjust anomaly is to be welcomed. I think this is disgusting and a disgrace. I want to underline and support fully the case put by the hon. member for Sea Point. The problems which the hon. member faces in Sea Point are applicable to Cape Town, Hillbrow, Yeoville, Johannesburg, Parktown and other areas. They are no doubt also applicable to Durban, East London, Port Elizabeth and all the cities where there are flat complexes. There are thousands of people—the hon. member for Sea Point spoke of 144 000 people—who would be affected by this legislation whereby the protection given to lessees as far as sectional title is concerned, is taken away. I shall deal, in a moment, with the problems facing individuals. However, I am convinced that this problem should not only be considered in terms of the Sectional Titles Act, but also in terms of the hardships created and the promises made by the Government. These hardships are being experienced by thousands of tenants throughout South Africa who are being affected by the process of the phasing out of rent control. That being so, I believe it is necessary to remind hon. members of the statements made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development when he announced, on 6 April 1978, that rent control was going to be phased out. That was an announcement he made in this House and backed by Government proclamation No. 83 of 1978, also dated 6 April 1978. What the hon. Minister said about the situation has been set out by Sapoa as well. In this statement the hon. the Minister of Community Development said firstly that dwellings occupied on or after 1 July 1976 had never been subject to rent control. This is very important and I shall refer to it again in a moment.

The hon. the Minister said further that dwellings first occupied between 1 January 1960 and 30 June 1966 would also be affected by the proclamation of 6 April 1978 in that the two-year period restricting rent increases in terms of these dwellings to 10% per annum would expire in April 1980. He then also mentioned the protection given in terms of the community development scheme to people occupying dwellings falling into this particular category. It was also stated that as from 1 May 1980 onwards landlords would not be bound by the 10% guidelines. This is also important, and I shall refer to it again later.

Furthermore a proclamation was issued in April 1979 affecting dwellings first occupied between 1 January 1955 and 31 December 1959. In terms of this proclamation the two-year rent increase limitation to 10% per annum would expire in April 1981. In connection with dwellings first occupied between 20 October 1949 and 31 December 1954 it was said that the hon. the Minister was expected to issue the next proclamation in April this year so that the two-year phasing out period would end in April 1982. I believe it is in the light of this proclamation that we can expect the entire situation to be exacerbated. That is going to be the result of the amending legislation with which we are dealing here today, legislation to remove the protection afforded by section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act.

Finally, in connection with dwellings first occupied before 20 October 1949, it was stated that the hon. the Minister did not have the power to phase these out by proclamation, that requiring an Act of Parliament which was expected to be passed in 1981. About this we shall obviously still have quite a lot to say.

In order to elucidate the matter even further I should like to quote from a Press statement issued by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, also on 6 April 1978 at 12 o’clock, in which he said—

I hope the hon. member for Algoa will take note of this fact in regard to those tenants who are less affluent, because an hon. Cabinet Minister and the rest of the Government made certain commitments in respect of these very tenants. Then the hon. the Minister of Community Development went on to say—

Also in the same Press statement the hon. the Minister of Community Development said—

So, the sword of Damocles was still hanging over the heads of all these tenants, and the circumspection of which the hon. the Minister spoke at the time is a circumspection which we in this House, by reason of this amending legislation, are focusing on the difficulties facing these people. The hon. the Minister of Community Development then went on to say—

Well, this has not come about at all. At the same time the PFP, reacting to this statement, also issued a statement. In the latter statement, also dated 6 April 1978, the PFP had the following to say—

We do not believe that it is in the public interest for the Rents Act to be tampered with on a piecemeal basis. The Government has a duty to bring to Parliament legislation that will ensure that the negative features of the Rents Act are eliminated so that property developers are encouraged to provide more residential accommodation without essential safeguards for tenants being threatened.

So what happens if this is carried out in terms of section 39(1)? It has been estimated that in Johannesburg alone 19% of the flats are subject to rent control and that 80% of the people occupying them are pensioners.

But so many flats are vacant in Johannesburg.

According to The Star of 16 February 1980—let me quote the following headline in answer to the hon. the Deputy Minister—

So what are the Coloureds moving into?

The Coloureds do not have anywhere to go. They simply have nowhere to go. That is another problem the Government has to face.

Into broken-down buildings.

I quote further—

What about those pensioners who cannot afford it and do not have anywhere to go? What is going to happen to them?

A disgrace!

The property owners of course present the point of view of Sapoa, the Property Owners’ Association, and do not take into consideration the point of view of the Tenants’ Association and the tenants who may have to suffer in terms of this. So I say, with great respect, that I believe that the Fouché Commission was unduly influenced by the Property Owners’ Association in the case it put forward because the Property Owners’ Association says, for example, in arguments it raised in favour of this, that the payment of rent is structured in such a manner that numerous people who do not need protection, receive it, while deserving cases are left unprotected. People who live in rent-controlled flats are entitled to protection. In England, for example—and I know that a different system pertains there—even a millionaire is entitled to go to a local authority and obtain an apartment erected by that local authority. It is said that rent control discourages the erection of new housing units for rental, but we know from their own statement that they made—

1966.

Yes, I think that is a mistake. It should be 1966. If that is the case, all the people who were entitled to build—and 14 years have elapsed since then—have had ample opportunity to erect apartments and to charge whatever rent they like. So how can the Rent Control Act have deterred these people from continuing to build? It is said that people should be housed adequately elsewhere. This is, however, not so. People living in areas they are used to—e.g. elderly people, widows or divorcees—are familiar with the environment, and the security afforded them by such areas is terribly important to them.

In the debate in this House both sides of the House fully agreed that the people should have security of tenure, should live in their own area and should not be shopped out to some community development scheme miles away from the place where they used to live or, if they work, from their place of work. It was agreed that they should remain in the areas where they had been living. The funny thing is that at the time that the announcement was made by the hon. the Minister, I had a letter from a rent consultant in Johannesburg, a man who is very conversant with the flat position in the city, and in a way he was very much in favour of rent control coming into effect, but he expressed certain reservations and said there should be an increase of 10% to 15% allowed to the landlords. That letter, which I have in my file, dates back to 19 January 1978. I have recently, however, received a letter from the same gentleman, a letter dated 13 February 1980. He says the following—

Sapoa’s report refers to a 20% annual increase in building costs. The letter goes on to say—

I feel there could be a solution, which I shall discuss in a moment. The letter writer goes on to say—

He encloses the article which appeared in The Star on 11 February under the heading “Rents may rise 60% as control is dropped.” That is the fear. The letter writer mentioned a rent increase of 35% to 40%. The newspaper conducted a survey and came to the conclusion that it would rise to 60%.

I now want to refer to one or two cases of hardship. The hon. members for Sea Point and Yeoville and many other hon. members have received letters from people who have explained that they were subjected to rent increases of 10% in two successive months and that it is now proposed to put up their rents in April to astronomical amounts. They give examples of how this has been done. A copy of a letter, the original of which was addressed to the hon. the Minister of Community Development, was sent to me. It is dated as recently as 16 February 1980. This letter was written by Muriel Preller, chairwoman of the Johannesburg Housewives’ League. She states that she served on the Rent Control Board in Johannesburg for a number of years. With reference to the proposed amendments to the Sectional Titles Act and the Rents Act she says the following—

She says that she is well aware of the pressure which is being brought to bear by Sapoa and she points out that young men, returning from military service, who wish to set up home will be frustrated when they find that they can no longer afford the rent for apartments. She goes on to say—

That is precisely the situation: It is a sorry state of affairs. She goes on to say—

This is typical of the type of complaints which have been mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Algoa has asked what the alternative is. As far as an alternative is concerned, the hon. member for Yeoville and I went to see the hon. the Minister of Community Development and we proposed a possible solution to him. The solution is contained in correspondence and in representations that have been made. It is a partial solution in one sense in that it provides that the Department of Community Development can, firstly, purchase blocks of apartments or, secondly, acquire the right to occupy those apartments by means of a head lease, thus acquiring the right to let or sublet, as the case may be, those apartments. They may thus control the limit of the rentals. They can thus grant to people accommodation, with security of tenure, in areas such as Sea Point, Hillbrow, Yeoville or anywhere else where those people are used to living, and where they are well-acquainted with the environment. I actually went to the trouble, where a rent consultant was prepared to do the survey, to undertake a survey on two buildings, one for purchase and one for a head lease at a very nominal rental of R50 per flat in a block consisting of 60 flats. Having gone into the matter and having submitted my findings, what do I find? The hon. the Minister wrote to me on 14 June 1979 and said—

We do not argue about that. Furthermore he said—

“I do not think the position will deteriorate?” He went on to say—

This is far off the mark and far removed from the situation we are facing today; and the possible solutions given are being turned down.

The hon. member for Algoa refers to the Fourie Commission to which I, too, referred and the hon. the Minister in his speech today also said—

When did they come to that decision? Did they come to that decision at the time or have they come to that decision now? Whatever the case may be, their timing is completely out The hon. member for Algoa has referred to the land development schemes. I too, like that hon. member, happened to be a member of the commission and I do not recall that we wanted, at any stage, to phase out section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act I do recall, however, our discussing the matter that share-block schemes should be converted to sectional titles as soon as possible. Therefore I do not agree with that hon. member.

Then, as far as the hon. member for East London North is concerned, he said that there is another side to the coin. That is quite correct. There is another side to the coin and we are not unmindful of the other side of the coin. He spoke about the free enterprise system. Of course we stand for the free enterprise system, but what do we mean by “free enterprise”? Does legislation not already exist to control what is called the free enterprise system? In terms of a hire purchase agreement can one pay whatever deposit one wants to? Can one pay whatever interest one likes? Can one lend money at any interest rate one likes? Of course there are restrictions all over with regard to the free enterprise system. Why should we then be afraid as far as this is concerned?

The hon. member also said that the owner should be entitled to an adequate return. The Rents Act does provide for an 8% return on the property itself. It is negotiable, however. If it can be established that 8% is not an adequate return, it is a negotiable factor, but we must remember one other factor: The 8% return granted on land and improvements, as laid down by the present Rents Act itself, is based on the value of the building according to the latest municipal valuation. Many buildings were purchased in 1925, 1926, 1930 and 1940 and to what extent has the value of those buildings increased since then? Their value has increased by several hundred per cent over and above the actual valuation and the owners are therefore not getting 8% on what they paid 30 or 40 years ago for those rent-controlled buildings. They are getting 8% of the present, modern valuation, based on the latest municipal valuation. Let us by all means find a balance. We do not want to be unreasonable. Let us find a balance whereby we can protect the tenant and also whereby the owners of the buildings can receive a reasonable return. We are not against that. By all means let us try to find such a solution. However, the PFP has given serious consideration to the actual crisis facing the thousands of tenants in South Africa today by reason of the proposed deletion of section 39(1), by reason of their loss of protection in respect of sectional title, by reason of the phasing in of the rent control from 1 April 1980 for a further five-year period and by reason of the removal of the 10% limit on rent increases now that the two-year period has expired, a fact which will result in rent increases of from 35% to 60%. On behalf of the PFP I appeal to the Government, to the hon. the Minister who is introducing this Bill, to grant a moratorium of one year and to freeze the entire situation concerning the Rent Control Act and as contemplated in the proclamation that has been issued. We feel it is justified in the interests of good government, in the interest of legislation, in the interest of our right to protect the people and in the interest of those people who require that protection, that a moratorium of one year be declared. The Rent Control Act should be frozen for one year. Therefore we appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with the repeal of section 39(1).

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow with great interest and, frankly, I cannot see why he became so very excited. If one listens to what he and the hon. member for Sea Point have said and one knows what the factual situation is, one begins to ask oneself why these people are becoming so hysterical about a matter which is not particularly contentious and which will not have an enormous impact at all. Let us look at the worst that can happen. Since hon. members, also hon. members on that side of the House, have argued compellingly that it is not the private individual’s function to subsidize individual owners, they must realize that should the situation arise, the State must surely provide housing for people who are genuinely needy and will qualify for it. Should the “crisis” occur—to use the dramatic word of the hon. member for Hillbrow—the Government will simply acquire or build as many blocks of flats as are necessary in order to meet that particular situation. The current factual situation is such that in Durban alone there are 300 vacant flats.

At what price?

In Albow Gardens, for example, in Koeberg Road in my constituency, the flat rent is I think between R65 and R70 per month, but yet three or four blocks are standing empty. In Epping Garden Village there are 90 empty houses.

Who wants to live in your constituency anyway?

In Johannesburg, in Claremont, there are empty blocks of flats. Hon. members conjure up a lot of ghosts. What amuses me is to read in the newspapers that the courts in Johannesburg have been busy paying attention to the fact that there are people of colour—I do not want to drag colour into this debate—who want to move into White areas while the owners of blocks of flats claim that they cannot let those flats to any Whites. There is an over-supply of flats. Must these flats be left empty or should they rather be let to these poor, homeless people of colour?

What is the truth? The fact of the matter is that the kind of flats we are talking about—this Bill will remedy the situation—will not be the kind of flats which are usually sold under sectional title. The impact of this Bill will be minimal. It merely corrects an unfair situation, a situation that affects a few unfortunate people. What must happen now? Must the unsuspecting small man who buys the individual flat from the wealthy flat owner and then finds that he cannot get the tenant out, bear the burden of subsidizing that tenant? Must the burden be shifted from the shoulders of the owner of the block? That is a lot of nonsense.

What line of business are you in?

I am a director of six companies, ranging from insurance right through to housing and printing, etc.

Mr. Speaker, on a point…

The fact of the matter is …

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order I should like to have your ruling on the question put by one hon. member to another hon. member in regard to the occupation of the hon. member for Maitland who is addressing the House at present. The question implies that the views of the hon. member for Maitland are influenced by his occupation in a specific direction. [Interjections.]

Order! I do not consider that a point of order. The hon. member for Maitland may proceed.

Why does the hon. member for Hillbrow make such a mountain out of a mole-hill after the hon. member for Sea Point has waxed lyrical on the subject? One can probably find the answer in the newspapers of the past few weeks. If one is in touch with Peninsula politics, as I am because I live here, and one reads those newspapers, one finds that the hon. member for Sea Point is under enormous pressure from his electorate. The hon. member for Sea Point is fighting for his political life. It was published the other day in the newspapers that the chairman of a ratepayers’ association—I think it was a Mr. J. Rabinowitz—said during the course of a meeting in the constituency of the hon. member for Sea Point that there is no point in going to their MP or MPC because they have no contact at all with what is going on. I think that is the reason for the histrionics we have heard here today in respect of what is an innocent, fairly unimportant Bill which will have very little impact It simply normalizes and regularizes a situation where the factual position is that for people who are genuinely needy there is an oversupply of flats at present as I have indicated.

Furthermore, for hon. members to pose as spokesmen for the old, the infirm, the needy and the pensioners, does not wash. Practically half of my constituency consists …

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

No. … of State housing, Utility Company housing and various facilities for people who are needy. Those facilities are constantly being upgraded, and I am very happy to say it.

The Bill does not only remove anomalies, but it also protects the small man who buys what is usually referred to as low-cost housing—i.e. a flat—and wants to take occupation thereof. As the hon. member for Algoa has said in pursuance of recommendations of the Fouché Commission: One finds that the building society movement discriminates against that kind of acquisition. Why does it discriminate? The building society movement says—this is common knowledge—that unless rent control is lifted or the tenant leaves, building societies will not give a mortgage bond. The building societies are loath to grant a mortgage bond to the purchaser if he cannot get a vacant flat for the simple reason that they are not confident that the rent is sufficient to cover the repayment on the bond. They are cognizant of the fact that the purchaser then also has to pay rent for alternative housing simultaneously.

The Bill is simply normalizing the situation. I think it is good to normalize the situation. The whole question of owning flats has an unhappy history. We went through a period of block-share systems and so on with 400, 500 or even up to 600 page deeds of sale. We also had insolvencies. All these factors resulted, when it came to buying a flat, in people harbouring a fear of owning a flat. It is true that they were not well informed and therefore believed that owning a flat brought with it enormous problems. That, of course, does not happen under the Sectional Titles Act.

One has the other anomaly that often one has a particular kind of attached cottage or house in respect of which one has an alternative, namely whether to subdivide it under the normal subdivisional arrangement or to subdivide it under sectional title. One has this alternative and one can then choose which method to employ. Is it not unfair that there should be a bias against sectional titles because, under particular circumstances, it could be that an onerous burden is being put upon that house which would also devolve upon the owner of the property. That depresses the value of the dwelling because it cannot be marketed. I am rather serious about this, because if one takes the factual situation in a place such as Sea Point, anybody who has studied community development at all and who has any insight at all, anybody who has studied the history of the development and of the rise and decline of Cape Town, will know that there are certain parts of Cape Town, such as Woodstock, which at one time was one of the most fashionable places to live in. Today it is not one of the most fashionable places. The fact of the matter is that there are certain parts of Cape Town which are still regarded as good residential areas when all the red lights are blinking, in the sense that the areas are moving into the situation where slum conditions can exist and in some cases already exist, and once that kind of thing gathers momentum, there is no way in which one can stop it. All that finally happens, is the sort of tragedy we have seen, for example, in parts of Cape Town that finally had to go to the bulldozer because there was no other alternative. Sectional title is an absolutely vital tool in the amoury for preventing increasing possible slum conditions. The hon. member for Sea Point and the hon. member for Hillbrow will agree that one can by driving past a block of flats, almost tell whether it has been sold under sectional title or whether it is privately owned, just by looking at the quality and the state of the maintenance of the building, because it is so that the owners attempt to improve their possessions. Far from that being onerous, it is a very good thing for society, because the fact of the matter is that if a man is enabled to buy a flat or is encouraged to buy a flat and become a home-owner by buying a flat or an attached house or property under sectional title, he does then fix his rental for life, give or take a slight fluctuation on the bond rate if he is borrowing money. He does fix his rental, and this protects him later. I think the hon. member for East London North also made this point. I did not quite understand why the hon. member for East London North argued against the Bill, because, having said that he was against it, he then advanced many compelling arguments why he should support it.

I want to say, just in closing, that people who require assistance can find assistance. There are properties available. This measure is one which protects the small man rather than the so-called “fat cat”, as has been inferred by the hon. member for Sea Point. I should like to leave one appeal with the hon. the Minister, an appeal which he could perhaps carry over to the hon. the Minister of Community Development or to the Deputy Minister, and that is that I do believe that where people move from housing in which they have lived all of their lives, as happens in the case of old age homes, we should try to locate them, as far as possible, where they require and qualify for assistance, in the areas from which they come. I should like to leave this appeal, that should flat-owners be affected by this measure—and I do not think that that would be the case but as far as it is possible—the department should either acquire land or buildings in or near the area in which they live, so that they can be resettled in State housing in the same climate which they are used to.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Maitland referred in passing to Woodstock, and as an old Capetonian I want to tell him that there is a saying that all the good stock come from Woodstock. He also said there were many vacant flats in his constituency, but this position, of course, varies from constituency to constituency. In some constituencies one finds a shortage and in others an oversupply of flats, and I do not think one can generalize about the matter. The hon. member put one side of the case, but I believe that one must look at both sides, so I shall try to look at the matter objectively.

Clauses 1 and 2 of the Bill contain merely technical amendments and I do not think that anyone has any objections to them. There is therefore no point in dealing with them. The deletion of section 39(1), provided for in clause 3, I think will make life very much easier for the developer of a sectional title scheme. This is an important factor, I believe, because it will encourage developers and maybe the building of many new flats. It is essential that everything possible be done to stimulate flat-building in this particular climate at the present time. The one thing we cannot afford is a shortage of flats. This is the one side of the case.

The other side of the case is that there are tenants who live in rent-controlled flats who are losing the protected position they have always enjoyed. Some tenants have spent an enormous amount of money on curtaining, carpeting and furnishing, and for them the loss of security of tenure would be an enormous hardship, more especially if they cannot afford to replace the furnishing, the curtaining and the carpeting. Many of these people are in the twilight of their lives. As the hon. the Minister is surely aware, there is a commission on sectional titles sitting at the moment. They are going very deeply into the question of sectional titles, and I sincerely believe that this particular legislation should be referred to that commission so that it can examine it before it is passed by this House. I believe that the commission would have the opportunity of considering, in depth, the matters raised in this legislation. A lot of evidence has been led in regard to this matter, and I believe that they can deal properly with the matter. So I do not believe we should rush this particular legislation through. In passing I want to say that I know that this legislation emanates from another commission. As the hon. the Minister knows the Development Schemes Commission has now been sitting for quite some time, having sat after the commission the hon. the Minister referred to earlier on. I believe that this is a matter that probably belongs within the ambit of the commission that is sitting at the moment.

This measure will, in no uncertain terms, encourage private enterprise, and from that point of view the hon. the Minister cannot be faulted. Unfortunately the people who will be hit the hardest will mostly be the have-nots, and one will have to consider the different positions of private enterprise and the people I have referred to as the have-nots. The Government has a duty and obligation to promote the development of flats, and there are other incentives that can be given in this regard, e.g. tax concessions to development companies, bigger depreciation allowances and subsidies to tenants in certain income groups. I believe that these concessions would assist in eventually doing away with rent control and would not adversely affect people whom the Government, I am sure, does not wish to affect adversely, as it is doing with this particular legislation. I believe that these and other incentives could achieve the same goal as this legislation. The Development Schemes Commission has had evidence of share-block schemes laid before it, as well as on sectional title development, and I believe the Commission could come to a very quick decision in regard to this particular matter.

Building costs are so high at present that investors are obviously finding it more economical to buy the older blocks of flats and to renovate them rather than to build new flats. With the deletion of section 39(1) it is obvious that investors will, with the renovation of flats, go for sectional title schemes, and it stands to reason that any tenant who can afford to buy will be placed in a position to buy, but that those tenants who cannot afford to buy will be placed in a most invidious position. Some of the tenants are aged people who live on fixed incomes that do not meet the standards laid down by the lending institutions in South Africa, because lending institutions lay down certain minimum levels of income. So some aged people with fixed incomes, one finds, do not qualify for loans from such lending institutions.

So even if they wanted to buy they would not be in a position to buy. I think this is an aspect which the Government could fruitfully investigate, because it may well be that the tenant has a certain amount of capital and wants to buy, but because of the restrictions imposed by the lending institutions, they are not able to grant him a loan to effect the particular purchase. I should therefore like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have this aspect investigated.

I should like to make it clear that we recognize the fact that the Government has spent thousands of millions of rands on subeconomic housing and old-age homes. There is no doubt, nor any argument, about that.

Thousands of millions of rands?

Thousands of millions of rands, that is quite correct. That is on old-age and subeconomic homes throughout South Africa. The occupants of those homes which have been built, whether they be flats, houses or old-age homes, are not affected by this legislation because none of those units are going to be turned into sectional title units. We are referring to a different category. We are referring to flats erected by private enterprise. Therefore the expenditure of the Government over the past years has not assisted the tenants of flats erected by private enterprise. I believe section 39 deals with the category of persons who can perhaps hardly afford to live in the flats they occupy, but many of them, mainly for financial reasons, are not able to buy the flat when it is sold by sectional title.

I believe there is no point in having a commission if it is not consulted. I heard what the hon. member for Algoa said, and I believe he will concede that we were never consulted about this particular legislation. I feel it only fair that the matter be referred to us and that we get an opportunity of considering this particular piece of legislation. In the circumstances we shall oppose this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I think the wrong Minister is in the dock in this debate because, to some extent, I regard the hon. the Minister of Justice as an innocent who has been landed with this “hot potato”. He is the Minister of Justice, not the Minister of Community Development, the Minister of Social Welfare or even the Minister of Finance, yet. It therefore seems to me that we are really dealing with the wrong man. The only reason we are dealing with him is, I think, because by some kind of legislative accident this particular provision finds itself in the sectional titles legislation. I find it a little surprising that while the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development is here and has been somewhat vociferous in his interjections, which I always enjoy, the hon. the Minister of Community Development himself is noteworthy by his absence.

Very strange.

He is on the platteland.

I saw him here at lunch time. He knew that this legislation was on the Order Paper. It concerns him and is fundamental to him, but he has not taken the trouble to be present in the House. He leaves the “hot potato” to the hon. the Minister of Justice, who is completely innocent in this matter. [Interjections.]

The issue here is not merely the repeal of one aspect of the particular legislation. It goes much further, as has become apparent during the course of this debate. Let me refer to the hon. member for Algoa who is quite a senior and experienced member in Government. He held a senior office in the province, where he was very concerned with property. The argument is advanced by him, and advanced in a similar harsh fashion by the hon. member for Maitland, that there are going to be hundreds of people affected by this legislation, but it does not matter. It is the progress of society which must move on. The hundreds have to be thrown away.

That is the fundamental difference between hon. members sitting in these benches and hon. members sitting on the Government side. This is a party that cares, a party that cares for individuals, a party that is concerned about individuals. I challenge the hon. member for Algoa, the hon. member for Maitland and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development to come into this debate and to tell me that there are only some hundreds of people affected by this. I challenge the hon. the Deputy Minister because he knows better. He knows that there are thousands and thousands of people affected by this. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Sea Point was attacked for looking after his constituency. What is wrong with that? I say unashamedly that there are hundreds of people in my constituency who are affected by this. That is why I stand up here today to speak for them. There are also hundreds of people in other constituencies, including the constituency of Cape Town Gardens, represented by an hon. member of the NP, and also the constituency of Maitland and many others; constituencies whose hon. representatives should have the guts to stand up here in defence of those hundreds of people who are being adversely affected by this measure.

I want to put another matter to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development, and I should like him to respond to this. The hon. the Prime Minister committed himself, at the Carlton conference, to the concept of capitalism and free enterprise. However, what does that mean for the ordinary man? What does it mean for the worker? What does it mean for the man in the low income group? What does it mean for the pensioner? The first manifestation that we have of this new vision is that there are hundreds of people who are standing with their backs against a wall and who are going to lose their accommodation. Is that the type of society that we are going to have? Is this the new society that we are going to have? Is this what it is all about? In 1948 the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development belonged to a political party that had completely different concepts. He was then the spokesman for the worker. He was then the man who stood up for the underprivileged. He was the man who stood up for the pensioner. He was the man who was prepared to fight against big capital. [Interjections.] He was the man who opposed the Hoggenheimers of South Africa. [Interjections.] Look at them there. The 30 years have brought them all into Hoggenheimers fold, even the hon. member for Stilfontein. They have all changed, and the working man is no longer the subject of the protection of the NP. That is what has happened as a result of 30 years in office. Thirty years in office has turned them into a bunch of fat cats, has turned them into a bunch of individuals who no longer care and who callously—in the words of the hon. member for Algoa; they will never be allowed to forget it—state that hundreds of people may be thrown out but it does not matter; the march of the NP must go on. [Interjections.] That is the new policy of the NP. That is what it is all about in this new society.

However, let us be a little bit more specific. If, as hon. members opposite have said, we have cases in which the Rents Act needs to be applied again, it can in fact be done. I see the hon. the Deputy Minister shakes his head in agreement. I want to put it to him that it can of course be done. However, two things arise. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to get up and tell the House in how many cases he has actually reapplied the Rents Act. In how many cases has he actually reapplied the Rents Act? Secondly, is it not true that it does not matter whether he reapplies the Rents Act in this kind of situation created by the Sectional Titles Act, because if the dwelling unit is in fact required for the accommodation of the new purchaser it is utterly immaterial whether the Rents Act were to apply or not. Is that not correct? If that is the situation, we really have a social problem. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister say it is not so?

No, I say I cannot tell you off the cuff.

He cannot tell me off the cuff.

I do not concede anything you say because you are not serious.

I am absolutely serious and I am very concerned. [Interjections.] I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a third question. Does he consider that a man who earns R541 a month, is married and has four children, should be taken out of the indigent category?

Well, that is in terms of the Act as it stands at the moment.

That is right. That is why I have asked him that question. Does he agree with that? I say that because I challenge anyone in the House to say that a man, whatever constituency he may be living in, who earns R541 a month and who has four children and a wife cannot be classified as indigent and is not, in fact, battling to survive. That is what makes this whole policy, which the NP has put forward in regard to the protection of the ordinary man, a farce. It is a farce and it is illogical. It has no logical basis to it whatsoever.

Let me, however, come to a further point. There are two issues involved when it comes to the question of the protection of tenants. The first is the amount of the rent and the second is the security of tenure. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows—and the hon. the Minister of Justice must forgive me for also addressing him because these are really matters that concern him—that when it comes to the question of removing control, the first thing that happens when the rent goes up is that if the tenants give trouble they are given notice and are told to vacate. I think the hon. member for Walmer made a very valid point. It is all very well to say that people must go and look for other accommodation. It is all very well to tell people to go and look for accommodation of a lower standard within the limits of their income. What, however, about the cost of moving? What about such costs to people who, on the assurances given by this Government, feel secure in their tenure but who now, when they cannot afford it, have to move out? What about those who have improved their flats, in which they had thought they were going to live forever, whether it be improvements such as the laying of carpets, the purchase of curtaining, the construction of built-in cupboards or whatever else they may have done in those flats? Those may be regarded as small issues, but to people who do not have the means they are real issues. I therefore ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to deal with this when he enters the debate, because this is fundamental. Ejectment also means that one has to find accommodation that is available and is within one’s means. Now I have always understood—and let me be corrected if I am wrong—that one should not spend more than 25% of one’s income on rental. That is the rule that building societies apply, at least that is how I have always understood it. What I want to know is where a man earning R541 per month, R550 a month or even R560 a month can find accommodation for say R125 per month or even R150 per month for himself, his wife and four children? Where does he find that accommodation, because I should like to know where such accommodation can be found? I ask this because there are, in fact, hundreds of people looking for that kind of accommodation. I say it is not available within the limits of what should, in fact, be spent on rent.

Then we get the argument of the hon. member for Maitland who must, I think, be the spokesman for Sapoa here today because it almost seems as if what he said comes out of the Sapoa memorandum. The same applies to the hon. member for Algoa.

[Inaudible.]

The argument is that it is not the landlord’s obligation to provide social welfare for the tenants. Am I right? Those were the words used, or words to that effect. Is it so, however? Let us just test the situation that has existed.

In terms of the Rents Act, the return one gets is not on one’s original investment, as one does when one invests money. If one invests in a mortgage bond, and the interest is fixed for a period of time, that is the interest one is going to get and one also gets one’s capital back at the end of the period. If, however, one has a return in terms of the rents legislation, that return goes up all the time, because not only does it cover the expenses, which is quite proper, but the property is also revalued from time to time, and in terms of the latest provisions of the Rents Act the valuation is now based on replacement value less depreciation.

So that most of the increases—this happens when many of the tenants in my constituency receive notices of increases—are not increases which will give the owner an increase of 8½% on his original investment, but a return of 8½% on an investment which has had a capital appreciation over a very long period. Therefore, what he is really doing is that he is providing social welfare.

I want to put a further question. Again I want either the hon. the Deputy Minister or the hon. the Minister of Justice to deal with it. We have legislation which was supported by all sides of the House. I am referring to the Limitation and Disclosure of Finance Charges Act. Before that we had a Usury Act. In terms of that legislation one lends money and one is entitled to get a certain interest or finance charges, and the law limits the maximum amount which one may recover. Everybody in this House supported it. Where were the champions of free enterprise then, the champions who said: You must in fact allow the free-market mechanisms to operate; you must allow people to bargain for whatever interest rates they can get or for whatever they can get out of people? Those champions of free enterprise were very quiet then.

I want to submit a very simple proposition: Is there a difference between lending money and lending the use of an asset? Is there not a case to be made out, in both instances, for the maximum return to be obtained on them in a society which has a social conscience? The usury legislation is social-conscience legislation which goes back to the old days of Roman Dutch Law. Furthermore, there have been controls in respect of rent since time immemorial, because the exploitation has in many cases been just as bad as exploitation through money. It may be that an argument can be advanced that in an inflationary age the present limits may not be enough. It may be that those limits of return need adjustment. The fact that there should be a maximum limit in respect of what can be recovered for the use of property, a limit based upon the same principle that obtains in the case of the use of money, is an argument to which I think there is no answer.

The other unfortunate thing which was done in this debate was that the hon. member for Maitland introduced the question of colour into our discussions. I think that was unfortunate, and unfortunate for the hon. the Deputy Minister also, because that is a very delicate subject as the hon. the Deputy Minister knows. He also knows that the situation in respect of those apartments into which certain people of colour move has changed completely with the change in the economic position over the last two years. The accommodation into which people of colour are moving—I know what I am talking about because I know where they are and what is involved—is in the main accommodation which I do not think those people should be moving into because of the state of that accommodation. The state of that accommodation is such that White people do not want to stay in that type of accommodation. If the hon. the Deputy Minister wants to come with me for example to Doornfontein in Johannesburg in my constituency, I shall take him around to accommodation in which I believe no human being should be staying. People are staying there because there simply is no other accommodation for them. I am prepared to take him there and to show him that accommodation. I am prepared to show him what is going on and what the problems are. I want to say with great respect that to introduce an element of colour into this debate …

But you want them to remain in District Six.

Why should they not be there? My people who are living in the Transvaal cannot come to live in District Six. What nonsense is the hon. the Deputy Minister talking! District Six is a separate issue.

I say it is a tragedy that in this day and age in South Africa people have to move into some of the accommodation into which people are moving because there is no roof above their heads. That is something which does not lie in the responsibility of this party; the responsibility lies quite clearly across the floor.

There are many examples of where protection is being given in this kind of case. I want to quote one example of which I am aware. In the USA in certain of the states there is a law that if one wishes to convert an existing property which is let out, to sectional title, one can only do so if a fixed percentage of the tenants who are living in that accommodation at that moment are prepared to buy it at the prices specified.

If that percentage does not buy it, the landlord cannot convert it because then it is regarded as being desirable to keep that accommodation in that particular form. That is a form of protection which I think the hon. the Deputy Minister might well consider when the time arrives.

There is another matter which I consider to be very important and that is the reason why the legislation on sectional titles was introduced. The hon. member for Maitland, quite correctly, said that it was introduced in order to encourage new building and new activity. The hon. member for Algoa said that we were in an economic morass at the time. Well, we have emerged from that to some extent but the question has already been asked: What has actually been built for letting since 1966? What has been done, done with a great cry? I have the memorandum from Sapoa with me which says that they do not want control because, when one can charge what one likes, people are going to build. They have not done it. What is now the situation? Instead of now using the legislation on sectional titles merely to build new accommodation which can be sold off instead of being let so that there are no problems with tenants, what is now happening is that existing accommodation in which people are living and have been accommodated for many years, is being converted to sectional title. To my mind, that is not a question of creating new accommodation. All that is being done is that the people who own the property are now being given an opportunity of making more money. That is the sole purpose of this legislation. The social consequence of this is that some people are going to make more money. Not one single flat, building, apartment or room will be built as a result of the repeal of this provision. What will happen is that some people will now be without accommodation and that those who own the properties will be able to make more money. I have nothing against people making more money, but the State has a social responsibility to people, and this social responsibility is of such a nature that one cannot put these people out into the street when no proper alternative accommodation is available at the prices they can afford and of the nature they require. That is the simple issue. I can give example after example from my own constituency of people who are terrified of what is going to happen to them. An example was given to me the other day of a man who was shown around one of the buildings in my constituency which was being offered him for sale on a sectional title basis. This Bill was then already public knowledge. He was shown the building and he saw the people who were living there and he told the agent who was showing him around: “I will not be able to sleep at night if I put these people out into the street.” Will the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister or hon. members of the NP be able to sleep at night if they put these people out into the street? [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon the hon. member for Yeoville, clever as he may be at times, was once again his distasteful self. I am referring specifically to the attack which he launched on the absent hon. the Minister of Community Development. I think it was completely uncalled-for and out of place. When we analyse all his noise, melodrama and harsh words, what do we find? What was the essence of his arguments? I should like to start immediately with the last argument he advanced. He said this legislation would only be instrumental in helping some individuals to make money. I wish to repudiate that argument here and now. On the contrary, the result of the legislation before the House at present, is that an individual who could not afford a house before, is now being granted the privilege of buying his own flat. This will mean that individuals, particularly in Johannesburg and Pretoria where there is a great demand, will be granted the privilege of buying their own accommodation in a block of units, instead of buying a single house. What is more, it will afford the individual, just like the investor, the opportunity to make his capital profit on the flat unit. I think that if we do not accept this proposed legislation, encourage sectional titles and afford the man in the street the opportunity to enjoy security by buying his flat and making full use of a sectional title, we are depriving the public at large, whose cause he purports to be championing, of the right to make a capital profit out of that sectional title privilege which is being granted to him under this Bill. For that reason I cannot agree with that argument.

I should now like to take a further look at the arguments advanced by the hon. member. We should ask ourselves who are the people who will in fact be affected by this. I want to put it clearly that I have sympathy with the people who will be affected by this. There will certainly be people who will be affected by this. I have the greatest sympathy with those people who have attained an advanced age and who want to spend their last days quietly in those places to which they are accustomed.

What is the real reason for this? That argument was actually emphasized by the hon. member for Yeoville. He asked: “What has been done and what buildings have been built since the ’sixties?”. Surely that is precisely the reason why this Bill should be approved today, for one of the reasons why buildings were not erected … [Interjections.] I cannot hear if everyone is making a noise at the same time. If one member wishes to put a question, however, I shall gladly try to reply to it. No building was erected, precisely because this impediment has always been in force. Because this impediment is still embodied in the Act, the system of sectional titles has not yet been carried through to its logical consequence. In order to do this, it is necessary to introduce legislation of this nature. We can always ask ourselves what is the true reason why the Opposition is fighting this Bill, and not the question of an individual living unit. What is in fact the fundamental difference between an independent unit and a unit in a complex? Surely there is no difference between them? If legislation applies to one, surely it must also apply equally to the others.

I also wish to object in the strongest possible terms to the argument advanced by the hon. member for Yeoville with regard to the speech by the hon. member for Maitland, because he reproached him for purportedly having dragged in the colour question here. The hon. member for Maitland did not in any way drag in the colour element here. The hon. member for Maitland said that a number of flats in Johannesburg were empty and that Coloureds were pouring into the White areas because there was no White demand for those units. This is the argument which the hon. member for Maitland advanced, in contrast to the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville that the hon. member for Maitland dragged in the colour element here. I think he should be ashamed of himself for having actually tried to advance this type of argument, which has no place in a debate of this nature. However, let us be honest about this. The speech by the hon. member for Yeoville did not actually concern this Bill. It was a practice run for him with a view to his private member’s motion which he will be introducing in the future. That is why he made this practice run this afternoon. It was purely political opportunism.

If the hon. member for Yeoville would just listen to me for a moment, I should like to put a question to him.

†He said that a return on capital investment is given on replacement value. Did I understand him correctly or not?

Less depreciation.

Less depreciation. The hon. member for Hillbrow said in his speech that a return on land and buildings is fixed at 8% on present municipal valuation. Which of the two arguments must I accept? There is a vast difference between them.

Look at the Act.

If, then, I accept the argument of the hon. member for Yeoville, I must also accept that he does not agree with the hon. member for Hillbrow. This is, of course, understandable. If I have to accept the argument of the hon. member for Hillbrow, i.e. that 8% must be given on buildings and land, based on municipal valuation, then hon. members will surely agree with me that municipal valuation, in the first place, is usually based on five years or, at the longest, ten years after the date. This in itself proves that the owner does not receive a reasonable return on his investment. Therefore this once again proves that it is as a result of that that no new buildings were erected. One can argue as one likes—it is as plain as a pikestaff that there is something wrong somewhere and therefore, as hon. members on the other side conceded, no further buildings have been erected lately and a sufficient number of flats is no longer being built.

I do not wish to argue about the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, but I want to mention certain facts about the Cape Town complex which I am better acquainted with. In the hon. Deputy Minister’s constituency, for instance, there is a block of flats built by the municipality of Parow. It consists of 552 flats and was built with the help of government loans. Up to the middle of last year, only half of those 552 flats could be let. Therefore, to date, they have been forced to accept anyone. My experience is that in my constituency, as in those of other hon. members, innumerable flats are unoccupied. If one looks at the morning and afternoon newspapers, one will find that there are unoccupied flats in these areas for which tenants simply cannot be found.

At what rental?

The question of rental is interesting, for if one takes Parow for an example—I have just been referring to it—one will notice that although Parow is not out to make any profit—it is, after all, a local authority—and merely requires a normal, realistic return on the capital investment, they do not have 50% occupancy. If, however, I had quoted an example of a private individual, then the hon. member could have asked me; “At what rental?”. Parow, however, is an ideal example of the type of occupancy there is in spite of the lower rentals charged.

There is another problem which bothers me. In many of these old blocks of flats there are large units which are in fact relatively speaking larger than those in blocks being built at present. At the time some of these flats were rented by families with children. As time went by, the children grew up and left the flats. Now one finds that only two people live in a flat with 2, 3 or 4 bedrooms which, apart from that, are desperately needed in view of the housing shortage we have in some areas. Because one can find such cases, however sympathetic one feels about it, one has to be realistic and practical.

Several hon. members have already discussed the fact that flats become dilapidated and investments drop due to the meagre return on capital investment. Therefore I shall not discuss this further.

Another argument also used by the hon. member for Yeoville, is that certain flats were built some time ago for, say, an amount of R100 000. In the meantime the value of the block of flats, according to the municipal valuation, has increased to, let us say, R200 000 and therefore he says that because one now receives 8% interest on it, this constitutes a huge return. Surely this is neither true nor correct. I am asking the hon. member whether, if he invested in gold 10 or 20 years ago, he would today calculate his return on the basis of his capital investment at that time or whether he would do so according to the current valuation to assess what his capital investment and the return he would get on it. Surely this is also the case with any commercial investment. One does not base one’s investment on the original capital sum which one received. It is brought up to date, and in accordance with that one estimates one’s return and if one sees that one is not getting a reasonable economic return, one switches to other investments. Therefore we have the practical situation that investment in flats is not profitable at present, and that is why it is no longer being done. Before legislation such as this is placed on the Statute Book so that a realistic situation can once again be achieved, we shall not have any further investment in flats. I therefore welcome this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I think I should start by reading out a list of what I call the strange case of the silent members in this debate. I do not know where the hon. member for Von Brandis is. I wonder whether he is going to speak. Will he tell us what he has against the aged and the poor people in his constituency? [Interjections.] Do the hon. members for Pretoria Central and Sunnyside not have people in their constituencies who will be the victims of this measure? Would the hon. members for Cape Town Gardens, Jeppe, Newton Park, Langlaagte, Port Elizabeth North, Benoni, Bloemfontein West, Bellville and virtually every other urban area not have to do with victims of this legislation? The Government has made the solemn promise in the past that it would look after the interests of those people. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for Von Brandis is now back in the House and I hope that he will speak in this debate. The hon. member for Vasco has told us that by opposing this legislation, we are depriving thousands of people of the privilege of buying their own flat. At the same time, however, he says there are thousands of empty flats. If there are so many empty flats, surely prospective buyers can buy those flats. There are empty flats in all the blocks of flats built after 1966. There are people who are not protected by the means test and who are living in flats where rent control has been lifted. Therefore that argument simply does not hold water. The real question is why a step is being taken here which is not going to contribute to the erection of new blocks of flats or buildings. It will in fact make it possible for people who wish to make money through sectional titles, to be able to make money from existing buildings instead of erecting new buildings. Therefore it is completely counterproductive. That is the argument which the hon. member used. When one looks at this type of legislation, one sometimes feels like asking what has happened to make a government introduce this type of legislation. Surely it means that something is happening. The answer is obvious. The Government, however, is the last to realize this, for they are moving so far away from the man in the street that they no longer know him. To be honest: There was a time when the NP was in touch with the trials and tribulations of the people. However, that was many years ago and those days are now past. That is why we are now getting this type of legislation.

†I think the Nationalist Party has quite clearly forgotten what it is like to be poor. Too many of its members, especially those who find themselves in seats of power, find success too easy to come by. They are born virtually with golden spoons in their mouths. For many of them the way to get to the top in life was to join the Broederbond and—hey presto! Because of this they have become completely isolated and a privileged and secluded group …

Callous.

Yes, callous …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “callous”.

I have never heard before that the word is unparliamentary.

The hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Mr. Speaker.

The fact remains that we have here a selected, privileged group who is totally removed from the man in the street. The question that must be asked in this respect is—it is the only conclusion I can arrive at—why does the NP hate the poor?

That is nonsense.

It is not nonsense. I will prove that they hate the poor. Now, these people must go somewhere, but where? [Interjections.] Hon. members say it is rubbish, but it is not the action of Opposition party members that has resulted in this sort of thing. The only people that can possibly be victims of this can only be the poor and the elderly. This Government needs a vigilant Opposition at all times because of the ease with which it breaks promises. I have seen many promises broken in the 10 years I have been in this House. Thus we have had promises about Port St. Johns and many other matters and have seen these solemn promises by Ministers and Prime Ministers broken. Only a few years ago all the Opposition parties supported the move to phase out rent control. Why did the Government get the full support of the Opposition to go ahead with this plan? The only reason why it enjoyed the support of all political parties in this matter was as a result of a certain pledge, a promise, viz. that no person falling into a certain income group would become a victim of the phasing out of rent control. Because of that promise, people and political parties were prepared to give the phasing out of rent control a try. The hon. member for Sea Point was quite right when he spoke about how old people live in fear. I do not believe hon. members opposite have any idea of the fear that exists in the minds of elderly people.

You are exaggerating.

The hon. member says I am exaggerating, but they do not receive the telephone calls and the letters …

We also receive letters.

If hon. members are receiving these letters and are aware of the problem, I honestly believe that their attitude today is a callous attitude. I would still be able to understand it if they say that they are unaware of the problem, but when a whole chorus of them say that they are receiving letters and that they therefore know of the problem, and this is the way they try to solve the problem, they should be ashamed of themselves. If this is the attitude of hon. members opposite, I believe we can expect to get more of this type of legislation in future. Let us look at the type of person who will be most affected by this legislation. It will obviously be the elderly and the poor.

Why?

Why? Because this legislation is aimed at putting them out. Where are you going to put them? The tragedy is that a large percentage of these people is some of the most loyal servants of the State, e.g. ex-civil servants, people who have retired 10 to 15 years ago. I know of a case in my own constituency where, if this legislation was passed, he would be out of his flat tomorrow. He was a senior Inspector of Schools in Natal. He is now 85 and has been graced with good health. His pension is today totally inadequate, and he is unable to cope with the situation. He would be a victim of this type of legislation. It is those people, their own people, who the Government acts against. They are civil servants, and it is not going to be only teachers or ex-school principals. There is a large group of people who will fall into this particular category. Therefore we have no option but to oppose this and to vote for the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Sea Point.

Really, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Central, as well as other opposition speakers, would have us believe that the Opposition has the sole right to protect the poor and the aged. Surely this is not true. Surely the Government has a fine record when it comes to the protection of these people. In fact, they emphasized in their arguments some of the very measures which the Government took in order to protect these people. Amongst other things they said that people who occupy flats that are being sold under sectional title were given the assurance that they would be protected. These are people with an income of less than R540 per month. This is the precautionary measure that the Government has taken in order to protect these people from exploitation, or whatever. If these people are going to find themselves in a position where their lease is terminated as a result of this legislation, there are always the measures that have been taken in order to make provision for them to obtain accommodation with public funds through the Department of Community Development and through the local authority. Surely, then, this does not mean that we are casting these people to the wolves, or turfing them out into the streets. They still have the protection of the Government via the Department of Community Development.

A few anomalies became evident today. An aged person, a poor person—in fact, any person—who rents a house, can be given three months’ notice that the house is being sold and that the owner is coming to live there himself, even if he has a lease. The Opposition is not concerned about those people who live in rented houses, even if they are pensioners. They are only concerned about those people who are occupying sectional title flats. Why is the Opposition discriminating? They are always accusing us of discrimination, but they are discriminating against a pensioner and other persons who rent houses, but not against a person who rents a flat that is being sold under sectional title. [Interjections.] What is the difference? Surely there can be no greater inconsistency than this.

Order! The running commentary must cease now.

What is the difference in principle between the person who rents a house and receives notice when the owner wants to come and live there and the person who rents a flat and then receives notice from the owner that he wants to come and live in it? Surely there is no difference in principle. Surely there is no difference at all. However, something else came to light here. At the time, the Opposition supported the legislation in connection with the systematic elimination of rent control. Now, however, they are blowing hot and cold. Now that the effect of the application of that Act is becoming clear, there is vehement opposition to it. I ask once again what real difference there is. What does one tell the owner of a sectional title flat? Why may he not go and live in that flat himself, when he has to give a lessee notice to vacate it, whereas, if he had bought a house, he could have given the lessee notice to vacate it, regardless of whether he is a pensioner or not? Surely one does not have an answer for that owner. Does the Opposition now want…

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

No, I am not answering any questions now. [Interjections.] Do hon. members of the Opposition now want the Government to have a dual set of answers for owners, depending on whether they are house owners or flat owners?

But what is the difference between a shareholder and the holder of a sectional title?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban Point is just trying to confuse me. [Interjections.]

Order!

The Opposition tried to make a good deal of propaganda out of their claim that aged people and poor people are now going to be the victims of this measure. However, I want them to tell me whether there are any statistics on the income groups that will be involved in the application of this legislation. What kind of people live in flats that are sold under sectional title? Hon. members of the Opposition cannot simply formulate a general complaint implying that the poor and the aged are being thrown to the wolves unless they provide statistics to prove that these categories of people are in fact living in these particular blocks of flats that are being sold in terms of the Sectional Titles’ Act. In my constituency there are also several blocks of flats that fall under this scheme. However, I am not all that certain that there are poor people living there. Many of them are in fact pensioners. That is true. But that they are poor people is not necessarily true.

Then the argument is also being raised that no new accommodation has been built since 1966—I think the hon. member for Yeoville said this. However, what is the reason for this? There are various reasons. The building trade experienced a slump; so did the economy of the country. Therefore it was simply not a good way of investing or spending money. [Interjections.] Besides …

Order! The hon. member for Green Point has asked for a turn to speak. However, he is already having a lot to say from his bench.

The other reason why there was no large-scale expenditure on accommodation and flat building in recent years, is because there is not a great housing shortage for Whites. In most places in South Africa, there is no housing shortage for Whites at all. In fact, there is a surplus.

There are houses standing empty in Epping.

The hon. member for Tygervallei says there are houses standing empty in Epping. [Interjections.] I think there are sub-economic houses in Parow that are unoccupied. I think it was last year that mention was made here in the House of the fact that there were unoccupied dwellings for Whites in Hillbrow as well. This in turn gives rise to other problems. It is a situation that has arisen due to the timeous, proper provision for the need of the Whites on the part of the Government. However, now we are being blamed for making proper provision in good time.

As far as I am concerned, the amendment under discussion is merely a consequential one. We cannot carry on with a set of double standards, standards for those who have houses, and who then have certain rights, and standards which deprive those who own flats of those very rights. Everyone is entitled to the same rights. I believe that the government is acting quite correctly in complying with those demands by means of the legislation under discussion.

Mr. Speaker, the impression that one gets now is that the hon. member for False Bay is trying to deny that any problem will arise at all as a result of this amendment, should it become law. [Interjections.]

Order!

This is the impression that the hon. member for False Bay is trying to create. I want to put it to him that he will admit his mistake in public yet. He will admit his mistake in public, when we bring him the files on hundreds of problems that will arise when this legislation is put into effect. [Interjections.] In any event, I hope the hon. the Minister will react to this in due course. [Interjections.]

Order!

At one stage, in reaction to what the hon. member for Yeoville had said, the hon. member for Vasco said that one of the reasons why this amending Bill was being introduced, was that no new blocks of flats have been erected since 1966. However, in saying that, the hon. member is displaying a complete lack of understanding and ignorance in regard to what is being envisaged with this amending Bill, because this amending Bill has nothing on earth to do with new or potentially new blocks of flats. It solely concerns old flats that may still be subject to rent control at this stage. The hon. member for False Bay went on to say that hon. members on this side are now discriminating against the person who owns a house and the person who owns a sectional title unit in the form of a flat. However, what did hon. members on that side of the House do when the original legislation was placed on the Statute Book? Were they not discriminating then? [Interjections.] Surely they were discriminating. Of course! They created this distinction. The Government created this distinction, not hon. members on this side of the House. I do not want to allege that we had all the wisdom in the world at that stage and could foresee problems, but now we see certain problems which arose as a result of the existing legislation, and as a result of that experience we can foresee that this amendment is going to create other problems, and that is why we are trying to avoid this by opposing this amending Bill and asking the Government to do away with this amendment that they want to make. Moreover, the hon. member for False Bay said that the fact that not many new flats have been built since 1966, as alleged by the hon. member for Yeoville, was due amongst other things to the fact that our economy was experiencing a slump. This is true. There have been slumps in the economy, but there has also been one of the highest peaks in the South African economy since 1966, and he knows it. I am referring to the early ’seventies. That is why the failure to build new flats cannot be ascribed to a poor economic climate. The hon. member for Algoa said that the argument of the hon. member for Sea Point would serve very well as an argument in favour of the maintenance of rent control. I think that one should just try and get some perspective in that regard, rectify the matter and simply give a brief indication of what the standpoint of this side of the House is.

Apart from the merits of rent control as such, hon. members on this side of the House are opposed to the excessive speeding up of the removal of rent control, which will be brought about by this amendment. In this regard we have been supported thus far at least by the lip service of the hon. the Minister for Community Development and other hon. members on that side of the House by way of their assurances, and in my opinion the assurance that the hon. the Minister of Community gave, was a considerable one, an assurance of considerable value which assured to a large extent that the consequences of the removal of rent control would not be drastic and that it would be put into effect slowly enough to absorb any wronged parties in other existing housing by accommodating them in housing that was within their reach financially and which they could afford. The removal of section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act, however, cuts right through the assurances that were given before. We must have no doubt about that. I think one must try to investigate it with a clear mind.

The protection afforded by the hon. the Minister concerning eviction from flats is now being drastically undermined, because the tenant of a flat purchased as a sectional title unit, now loses his protection against eviction. It must be borne in mind that this portion of the protection is being removed: the protection against eviction. Since this is the case, it also affects the other form of protection granted by the legislation, and this is the protection against an increase in rental. The owner of a sectional title flat will surely not hesitate for a moment to evict a tenant if the Rent Board does not grant him an increase in rental for the flat concerned. The control of the determination of rental is therefore being affected in this way too, and affected very drastically.

The hon. member for Algoa went on to speak about the unwillingness on the part of building societies to finance the purchase of sectional title units. He also referred to the stagnation of the economy. Here it is a question of priorities. I concede that it may have some effect. At the moment the property market is perhaps not as good as it could be and there may be a marginal improvement if the Bill is piloted through the House. But surely our first priority should be to see to the housing of the citizens of South Africa and only after that should we consider the interests of someone who wants to make a potential profit through an estate agency or through building, buying or selling flats.

The hon. member for Algoa also mentioned the Commission of Inquiry into Development Schemes and the standpoint taken by the commission that the right of occupation of flat-dwellers must be transformed into right of ownership wherever possible. The commission also favoured the standpoint that such conversion be encouraged as far as possible. We have sympathy with this; of course we agree that this should be done as far as possible. However, we are dealing here with the situation where the occupation of one person stands to be destroyed by right of ownership being granted to someone else. In actual fact I should not say right of ownership, because this already exists. What is really being given to the other person, the owner of the flat, is an additional right.

The hon. member for Maitland said that we were dealing here with legislation that may protect the “small man”. In all honesty: I cannot see how on earth the small man can be protected by the legislation. Who is being protected or favoured in the first instance, or at least stands to be favoured? It is the speculator, the property hawker, if I may call him that, who does not make a contribution by providing new housing by building, but buys old blocks of flats, adds a few coats of paint and then sells them as sectional title units for enormous sums of money.

Let us just take a brief look at the position of someone who wants to buy a sectional title unit. Anyone who wants to buy such a unit enters the transaction with his eyes open. This has been the case since the Act came into operation, and it is still so today. Such a person knows what his rights are. The amendment that is at issue now, concerns a provision that has been on the Statute Book since 1966, and anyone who wants to purchase a sectional title unit, knows that he does not have the right to evict the tenant of that unit if he buys that unit. If the potential purchaser feels unhappy about the fact that there is a tenant in the unit and that he cannot evict him, surely he does not have to buy it. He may buy a sectional title unit elsewhere.

Surely there are other units of this kind available. There are other flats, and new flats are always being built. Surely it is a well-known fact that more flats are being built with a view to putting them on the market as sectional title units than with a view to being rented. The only person who may suffer harm, or stands to suffer harm, is the person who wants to make a lot of money quickly by buying old units with a view to transforming them into more modern units and then putting them on the market as sectional title units for those who have the money or can get hold of the capital to purchase and live in such sectional title units.

I do not have the slightest doubt that with the situation as it is and with the problems that are emerging as a result of the proposed legislation, it would really be a foolish step to continue with the proposed legislation and in doing so create another problem at the very least I do not have the slightest hesitation in supporting the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, I was not intending to get involved in this debate. I was so sure that the two main Opposition parties would support this Bill that I frankly did not do my homework on this measure. I was quite sure that they would support the Bill because in the past they have time and again supported the Government when it came to the abolition of rent control. Now we have an amendment before the House rejecting this measure. The reason why the Opposition parties are rejecting this measure is, according to the amendment, and I quote: “Because it constitutes a flagrant breach of faith on the part of the Government with many thousands of tenants who have repeatedly been assured by Government spokesman that they will continue to have protection under the Rent Control Act.” During the last two sessions of Parliament all the Opposition parties were unanimous in supporting the abolition of rent control, but here we have a situation which makes it very clear that we are dealing with the free-enterprise system, and all parties in this House believe in and endorse the free-enterprise system. For them now to say they reject free-enterprise and do not support this Bill…

You should have listened to the hon. member for East London North.

I am afraid that I certainly cannot go along with the Opposition parties on this issue.

Are you now representing the landlords?

Mr. Speaker, I am not representing the landlords. I am in the fortunate position of not having to make bleeding heart statements, as we have heard this afternoon from a number of Opposition spokesmen. The hon. member for Yeoville made an impassioned plea on behalf of the poor tenants who are supposedly now going to be thrown out.

That is right.

That is not the case at all. I am looking at this Bill entirely from the point of view of whether it is for the betterment of South Africa as a whole. I have no axe to grind. I am looking at this measure objectively, and I believe it is an improvement and will increase the incentive for people to own homes and will act as an incentive for builders to build more flats. It is as simple as that. [Interjections.]

Explain to us how old buildings will be affected.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Yeoville asks how old buildings will be affected. If these old buildings are sold, it means that those people involved in building would be able to re-utilize that money and invest it in new buildings. It is as simple as that.

There is no shortage of money. The country is awash with money.

I was deeply involved in the building industry, so I know what I am talking about. These hon. gentlemen are supposedly pleading, by way of bleeding heart statements, in support of flat tenants.

Why have they not built any flats since 1966?

Order!

Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the hon. members do not understand the implications throughout the building spectrum. If they were to stymie any form of advancement under sectional title, they would stymie the entire building programme in South Africa. It is on that basis that I have to support this Bill. I certainly will be supporting the Government in this instance, mainly because I believe the Government is right and not because it is going to affect a certain number of tenants, as some of these gentlemen aver. They have made impassioned pleas on behalf of these flat tenants. I agree that these people need assistance, but that is not the duty of the property developer. If a person buys shares and they increase in value, he has the right to sell them. Here we have a case where a person’s property had increased in value, and he has the right to sell. I do not believe we have the right to stop an individual property developer or property owner from selling his property under sectional title.

He can still sell it.

With these few words, I want to say that I support the Bill as it stands.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to compliment the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South on adopting what is obviously a logical position, a position which is based on very considerable experience in the construction industry and in development in general.

I represent a constituency in which more than half of the voters live in flats. In fact, a very considerable part of my constituency is a high-density residential area. I want to say that there is no question about it that the phasing out of rent control has created problems in my constituency. I am very conscious of these problems. However, I want to say that I regard the Opposition’s attitude in this debate as nothing short of political hypocrisy. I have had problems brought to my attention by persons living in flats who feel the squeeze as a result of fixed incomes, inflation, rising costs and all the rest. I have investigated these problems and have invariably found that the owners of those flats are corporations or in most instances in which individuals own those flats, they are persons who do not live in my constituency, but in Constantia, Sea Point and other places like that. If one draws a conclusion as to their political inclinations, one finds that they are usually members of the official Opposition. [Interjections.] This particular attitude which the Opposition is adopting, with all its suggestions that hon. members on this side of the House represent the landlords, is so much nonsense. It is simple political hypocrisy. However, more than that, it is political hypocrisy on another ground in the sense that that political party is supposed to be the party par excellence of private enterprise in our country. They suggest that we are not concerned about the persons who will unquestionably be affected—in situations like this it is true that inevitably people will be affected—but the fact is that we are concerned in the sense that the measure which we are adopting will most directly contribute to the creation of accommodation, which that particular political party …

How?

I shall tell the hon. member for Groote Schuur how. That political party will admit that, first of all, the creation of accommodation for society in general should be the primary responsibility of the private sector. They will concede that. In the second place, it is a fact that sectional title is an encouragement to the private sector to invest in flats and apartment houses.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, buildings too.

We are talking about old buildings.

That is also in the Act. Because those hon. members see an opportunity of gaining slight political advantage out of this, they have turned around on their principles, both with respect to their commitment to private enterprise …

You are talking rubbish.

I am not talking rubbish. I am talking the absolute truth. That is exactly why that hon. member is responding like that.

Come to Hillbrow.

They are being hypocritical.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens permitted to describe those hon. members who have spoken from these benches as being hypocritical?

Order! I have been considering the word “hypocrisy”, “skynheiligheid” in Afrikaans. He has been accusing hon. members of political hypocrisy. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw those words and substitute them …

Order! The hon. member must now continue his speech.

I am continuing my speech, Mr. Speaker. The fact is that those hon. members over there have been completely politically inconsistent, because in the first place they are committed to private enterprise. [Interjections.] They recognized the value in this respect of the contribution to building which private enterprise should make. In the second place, they are being politically inconsistent in this respect that they are turning against the interests of many of their own supporters, because the landlords in most of the metropolitan areas of this country are the supporters of that party. In that respect they are therefore totally inconsistent.

I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister, someone who has a sense of responsibility in this respect, that the question of the phasing out of rent control which has been introduced into this discussion does raise problems and it ought to be a matter of some concern to the Government.

What are they doing about it?

Order!

It ought to be a matter of concern to the Government. But with respect to the Opposition’s claim that the Opposition is the only political party which is concerned about the position of the pensioner, the older people and the poorer people, that is so much nonsense. With them it is simply a case of party-political propaganda.

Mr. Speaker, permit me in the first place to say at once that the hon. member for Sea Point made such an emotional speech here, a speech aimed deliberately at deriving political advantage from this matter, that I really cannot take very serious notice of his representations. This also applies to most other members of the Opposition. But I shall exclude certain hon. members, for instance, the hon. member for East London North, the hon. member for Walmer and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg South, because they did their best to play a balanced role in these discussions.

I want to return at once to the speech of the hon. member for Yeoville. The hon. member has once again engaged in a futile exercise to try to exploit the Carlton conference by saying that the hon. the Prime Minister and the NP have formed an alliance with large capital to the detriment of the ordinary man. But what are the true facts? The true facts are that at an early stage of the Carlton conference no less a person than that leading industrialist, Dr. Anton Rupert, delivered an outstanding address, the theme of which was that in America the small-scale employer provided work for millions more people than the large-scale employers like General Motors and others. This became the central theme of the Carlton conference and the main result of the Carlton conference was the efforts made on the part of the Government, and those others who were also involved in this, to find ways and means to enable the small-scale employer and the medium-scale employer to provide work for hundreds of thousands more workers.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. the Minister why the representatives of the workers of South Africa were not asked to be present at the Carlton conference?

The answer is very simple. The Government was dealing there with employers and people who were capitally strong with the aim of providing those people he is referring to with work. On other levels there is constant discussion with the people the hon. member has referred to.

Has he not heard of the Manpower Commission?

The Manpower Commission has just been constituted and it is doing extremely efficient work.

†The hon. members for Yeoville and Hillbrow made some stinging remarks about Sapoa. I should like to tell these hon. members that one of their most trusted publications, the Financial Mail, and Sapoa have made some rather stinging remarks as well. I am referring to the Financial Mail of 14 April 1978. As far as the dismantling of rent control is concerned, the Financial Mail states the following—

Then, under the heading “Odd bedfellows”, it states—

Then comes the crux of their attack—

*In other words, the point here is that when a commission investigates this matter in a responsible fashion, people do not come forward to give evidence, but if there is political advantage to be obtained from it, every opportunity is grasped to do so.

I have already said that the hon. member for Walmer made a responsible and balanced speech here. I listened carefully to his request, but I regret that I cannot comply with his request to refer this matter to the commission of which he spoke. But I do want to give a few facts. Quite a few members on this side of the House—and I thank them all for their good contributions—referred to differentiation, something which creates an intolerable situation, of course, and I want to spell this out again by quoting from the report of the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters. The commission says very expressly on page 70, in paragraph 121—

That is a sort of dualism and differentiation which is intolerable, and I want readily to admit that I am in the difficult position today of having to debate the merits of this matter when it does not fall under my department and I am, as it were, acting here as the agent of another department. But I served on the original Select Committee which produced the Sectional Titles Act. I am still sorry today that we accepted the expression “sectional title” at the time and not the internationally used word “condominium”, a word which is understandable and more descriptive. But what was the main objective of the Sectional Titles Act? Was the main objective of this Act to make flats and housing units available for lease, or was the main aim simply to enable people to obtain deeds to their own living units on a sectional title basis? It was very definitely aimed at enabling people to obtain transfer of flats and living units which are part of a greater whole. Even though I say this against my own Government, I want to admit immediately that we waited too long with this. A country like the Argentine, which in many other respects of development is far behind South Africa, has progressed much further through its sectional titles legislation in making flats and living units available to people. That is one of the reasons why I believe that the Argentine will never become a communistic country because at an early stage it made effective provision whereby a large proportion of its population are able to obtain title to their own living units. At the same time this fact is today an effective buffer against the high inflation rate that prevails in that country. When one has specifically put an Act on the Statute Book to give people title rights to their property, one must in all fairness, particularly because that benefit already operates in respect of ordinary accommodation—the main aim of the Act—after years of waiting and exercising patience, implement it at some time or other and give people who purchase under sectional title possession of their property. I asked the department concerned what the position is and I have been told that they are of the opinion that very few flats will be affected by this. They went on to say—

That is what the relevant department says. The department is further of the opinion that we are only concerned here with legalizing the de facto position because what has happened recently is that apparently in these transactions the department has in each case lifted rent control. We are therefore only legalizing a de facto position, the position which has in any event existed up to now.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Does the hon. the Minister mean that the department has deliberately exempted flats or living units from rent control before they have been sold to make it easier to get the lessess out?

The hon. member is not putting what I said in the correct light. Only after the sale are individual flats exempted from control. It has been suggested that the Government is going to put poor widows, poor pensioners and others on the streets. As far as that is concerned the Government has a proud record, and it will continue to maintain that record. To tell the truth, it will even improve it. What about the old-age homes it is erecting; what about the sub-economic housing it is providing; and what about economic housing from the National Housing Fund? The figures increase annually. In other words, hon. members on the other side are the last ones to accuse this side of the House of not looking after those people.

Surely there is also another side to the story. After all, it is not just a question of poor people being given notice to leave their flats. There is also the question of certain people who are short of finance and want to obtain flats. The hindrance now contained in the Act prevents them doing that in many instances, in that building societies and other financial institutions because of this hindrance in the Act are not prepared to finance these people. I want to make the statement that many middle-class people, and even poor people, are being prevented from achieving their ideal of becoming property-owners just because of these obstacles. So the arguments cut both ways.

I want once again to thank all the members who took part in the debate and without reservation I ask everybody on this side of the House and everybody who feels so inclined to vote for the Second Reading.

Question put: That all the words after “That” stand part of the Question,

Upon which the House divided:

Ayes—115: Badenhorst, P. J.; Ballot, G. C.; Blanché, J. P. L; Botha, P. W.; Botha, S. P.; Clase, P. J.; Coetzer, H. S.; Conradie, F. D.; Cronje, P.; Cuyler, W. J.; De Beer, S. J.; De Jager, A. M. van A.; De Jong, G.; De Klerk, F. W.; Delport, W. H.; De Villiers, J. D.; De Wet, M. W.; Du Plessis, B. J.; Du Plessis, G. C.; Du Plessis, P. T. C.; Durr, K. D.; Durrant, R. B.; Du Toit, J. P.; Geldenhuys, A.; Geldenhuys, B. L.; Geldenhuys, G. T.; Grobler, J. P.; Hartzenberg, F.; Hayward, S. A. S.; Hefer, W. J.; Henning, J. M.; Herman, F.; Heunis, J. C.; Heyns, J. H.; Hugo, P. B. B.; Janson, J.; Janson, T. N. H.; Jordaan, J. H.; Koornhof, P. G. J.; Kotzé, G. J.; Kotzé, S. F.; Langley, T.; Le Grange, L.; Le Roux, E.; 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); Marais, J. S.; Marais, P. S.; Mentz, J. H. W.; Meyer, R. P.; Morrison, G. de V.; Munnik, L. A. P. A.; Myburgh, G. B.; Nel, D. J. L.; Niemann, J. J.; Nothnagel, A. E.; Olckers, R. de V.; Poggenpoel, D. J.; Potgieter, S. P.; Pretorius, N. J.; Rabie, J.; Raubenheimer, A. J.; Rencken, C. R. E.; Rossouw, W. J. C.; Schlebusch, A. L.; Schoeman, H.; Scholtz, E. M.; Schutte, D. P. A.; Scott, D. B.; Simkin, C. H. W.; Smit, H. H.; Snyman, W. J.; Steyn, D. W.; Swanepoel, K. D.; Swiegers, J. G.; Tempel, H. J.; Terblanche, G. P. D.; Theunissen, L. M.; Uys, C.; Van Breda, A.; Van den Berg, J. C.; Van der Merwe, J. H.; Van der Spuy, S. J. H.; Van der Walt, A. T.; Van der Walt, H. J. D.; Van der Watt, L.; Van der Westhuyzen, J. J. N.; Van Eeden, D. S.; Van Heerden, R. F.; Van Niekerk, S. G. J.; Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Mossel Bay); Van Rensburg, H. M. J. (Rosettenville); Van Vuuren, J. J. M. J.; Van Wyk, A. C.; Van Zyl, J. G.; Van Zyl, J. J. B.; Veldman, M. H.; Venter, A. A.; Visagie, J. H.; Wentzel, J. J. G.; Wessels, L.; Worrall, D. J.

Tellers: J. T. Albertyn, J. H. Hoon, H. D. K. van der Merwe, W. L. van der Merwe, P. J. van B. Viljoen and A. J. Vlok.

Noes—23: Aronson, T.; Basson, J. D. du P.; Eglin, C. W.; Goodall, B. B.; 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.; Suzman, H.; Swart, R. A. F.; Van der Merwe, S. S.; Widman, A. B.; Wiley, J. W. E.; Wood, N. B.

Tellers: B. R. Bamford and A. L. Boraine.

Question affirmed and amendment dropped.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Agreed to.