Mr. Chairman, for a moment I wish to navigate in safer and calmer waters with the discussion of this Vote. I should like to say a few words about the phasing out of rent control. At this stage the phasing-out process has progressed so far that it affects dwelling units inhabited before January 1955. The announcement which made this possible was made in April 1979. Because the announcement which preceded the 1979 announcement was also made in April, in 1978, certain homeowners have, since 1 April 1980, begun of their own accord to phase out dwellings which came into use in 1950. As far as I know, not much has been done about this offence thus far, and therefore I wish to ask today that the hon. the Minister consider this matter in a very serious light, particularly in the case of people who have unlawfully increased their rent and already collected the increased rent. If the hon. the Minister were to announce the phasing-out of buildings inhabited after 1 January 1950, that would bring us to the critical phase of buildings in a not very good state of repair, and we should also be dealing with people most of whom fall within that category that could only with difficulty acquire or afford other accommodation. Our problem is also that many of them are not difficult to intimidate. We know the types. They are too afraid to go and complain because they are afraid of intimidation. In any event, they are unacquainted with the procedure they have to adopt in order to complain. These people are simply informed by the houseowners that the property is being decontrolled, and they fail to realize that there is a limitation of the annual increase for the first two years. Still less do they realize that if their income falls below a specific limit—I think it is something like R300 for an ordinary family and R540 for a family with children—they still enjoy rent protection in any event as long as they occupy the dwelling in question.

It is towards these people that we have a very major responsibility. That is why I want to ask today whether it could not be set as a requirement that a lessee has to be notified of the protection he enjoys in the same notice which informs him that his dwelling is now being decontrolled. Of course, the utopian situation would be that if people were removed from these often very poor living conditions, we could transfer them to modest yet decent accommodation which they could afford. However, in practice there is not a great deal of accommodation of this nature. In view of the meteoric rise in building costs I believe that the possibility of creating low-cost housing for the subeconomic income group, the people who earn less than R150 per month simply does not exist anymore; not, in any event, at rentals which they can afford. I should like to come back to the issue of the sub-economic income limit of R150 per month, if time permits.

I am not simply making an ordinary plea today on behalf of people who fall within this group: I think this is really a desperate cry for help on their part. We must realize that even today there are whole communities of that nature. For example, in my constituency there is still such a community where the breadwinners of 42% of the community of approximately 4 000 voters earn less than R150 per month.

There is another matter which causes disquiet. Previously, rent board inspectors investigated matters on their own initiative when there was a clear indication that exploitation had taken place. It seems to me that today this is no longer the case. Inspectors—and again this is my impression—only investigate complaints submitted to the rent board, and do not investigate others of their own accord. It makes my blood run cold to think that my impression is probably correct.

In the process of phasing out of rent control, the number of rent boards has also been substantially reduced, while others have been consolidated and the number of members reduced. Accordingly, when I make an urgent plea today for the future retention of rent boards, I do not do so because I am concerned that a few people who serve on rent boards at present will be unemployed. The fact remains—and this I cannot emphasize enough—that the existence of rent boards is still the only protection enjoyed by people in the lower income group—pensioners and so on— against blatant exploitation. The hon. the Minister has warned on previous occasions— he has done so repeatedly—that he would not hesitate to reintroduce rent control at the first signs of exploitation. That is a very praiseworthy statement, as long as we retain the instrument wherewith to implement it.

Apparently there has been something of a relaxation among the rent boards themselves. Here I have in mind one rent board in particular, a rent board in my area which serves a large section of my constituency, where any application by a landlord for a 10% increase is granted without further ado because that is the percentage to which owners of phased-out properties are entitled in the first years.

Then there is another matter I might also refer to briefly. Due to the exceptional attention given in recent times to the accommodation of squatters—and rightly so—the tempo of resettlement from areas where disqualified persons live, for the most part in unfortunate circumstances, has dropped considerably, even though the hon. member for Sea Point tries to prove the contrary as a general statement. If we take a careful look at his speech, we will note that the majority of his statements are general statements based on hearsay. Accordingly now I wish to address myself specifically to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Community Development who, as it happens, knows the part of the world to which I now want to refer very well. The area in question is the Lansdowne area which borders on the so-called Claremont “pocket”, which is also an area with many problems. The area I have in mind is in the vicinity of Searle Street, O’Kiep Street, etc. There the tendency has been in the other direction, with a stream of disqualified persons returning to the area. This stream of people returning to the area is assuming vast proportions, in that up to 22 people per night spend the night in some dwellings. I really think that we must take positive action with regard to this unhealthy situation, and therefore I should be much obliged if the hon. the Deputy Minister would come and visit the area together with me so that between us we can make a plan, particularly since in recent times this area has deteriorated dramatically.

I now wish to come back to the subeconomic income limit of R150 per month for all races. This limit has become totally inadequate and unrealistic in the prevailing circumstances. It is not my aim, in making this statement, to detract from the vast sums being spent on subeconomic housing. The only people who still qualify for this are those families where the breadwinner is an old-age pensioner or a person who receives a disability allowance. The present subeconomic limit of R150 was introduced even before 1975. Since then it has been increased to R200 for Whites, but in 1977 it was again reduced to R150 for all races. This limit has not taken into account the erosion of the value of money since 1975. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to give the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. Chief Whip for the opportunity. I shall not misuse it. The norm of the Department of Community Development that a head of a family ought not to spend more than 25% of his income on housing, is clearly no longer realistic for lower income groups in view of today’s rising prices. The position is today that a tenant living in a State scheme or State-subsidized scheme which was occupied before August 1966, with an income exceeding R150 per month, pays rent calculated at 30 cents for every rand by which his income exceeds R150 until he reaches the maximum rental. This means that a tenant in a scheme such as Epping, for example, who has an income of approximately R234 and sometimes has a big family, pays a little more than R70 per month in rent. However, the rental on dwellings occupied after 1 August 1966 is calculated in accordance with the system of differential rental. In terms of this system, three different categories of rental are calculated for subeconomic dwellings. People with an income of up to R150 per month pay rental calculated on the basis of an interest rate of 1%, which is of course a very heavily subsidized interest rate. People whose income ranges from R150 to R250 per month pay a rental calculated on the basis of an interest rate of 3,5%, and those with an income exceeding R250 per month pay on the basis of an interest rate of 9¼%, if I am not mistaken. To illustrate these percentages, I want to mention the results of the scheme of a Coloured utility company just to indicate the differences in rental. A person with an income of R150 per month pays a rental of R26,98 per month. That is the basic rental, viz. it does not include rates and the cost of services, which amount to a substantial sum. If a person earns between R151 and R250 per month, the rental increases to R49,12 per month, and if he earns more than R250 per month, it increases to R81,99 per month. The difference in income of only R1 per month, resulting in a jump from one scale to another, entails a difference of R22,14 or even R32 per month in rental. In the case of a White scheme I could mention the case where an increase in income of R2,50 per month results in an effective increase in rental of R35 on this differential basis. It is clear from these examples that the increase in interest rates on the basis of which rentals are determined when the subeconomic limit of R150 is exceeded, is very steep. Accordingly I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister once again today to try to determine categories that fall between the interest rates of 1%, 3½% and 9¼%, because there is an enormous difference between the interest rates. If we cannot return to scaled rentals, we must have a better distribution of interest rates. I am aware that this will have major financial implications for the State, but nevertheless I wish to ask that we consider this matter in all seriousness, because it causes hardship and because a small increase in income can have the effect that a man will have a far smaller amount in his pocket after his rental has been adjusted.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply in connection with the matters relating to rent control that have been raised here, particularly those raised by the hon. members for Tygervallei, Sea Point and others. The hon. the Minister will himself reply in regard to the issue of income limits, a matter raised by the hon. member for Tygervallei. The hon. member for Tygervallei also asked what the position was in connection with the further phasing out of rent control. He pointed out that there were certain lessors who had anticipated matters by assuming that a further phasing out would be announced in April this year, since the previous two announcements on the phasing out of rent control had been made in April. These people acted illegally. They had no grounds on which to take this action. It was quite wrong of them to anticipate such a decision on the part of the Minister. Accordingly, all such matters which are brought to our attention will be individually investigated and rectified so that no one will suffer inconvenience or loss as a result of such illegal action. Later in the afternoon I shall announce a phasing out of rent control. [Interjections.] Therefore I shall have more to say about this matter later. I now come to the aspect that tenants, particularly less well-off tenants, are given notice so that they know what rights they enjoy under the Act. I know that there is a degree of ignorance among these people as to the protection they enjoy. This is encountered among tenants too. Attorneys and agents acting on behalf of lessors and tenants often telephone our office to ask what the legal position is. Surely it is elementary that the people should first read the Act. However, the hon. member for Tygervallei made a practical suggestion and I shall see to what extent this might work in practice. However all these things are not always possible in practice. In some cases bodies possessing a large number of dwelling units do in fact draw the attention of their people to their rights in terms of the Act.

As regards rent inspectors and their actions, there has of course never been an obligation on the department or its inspectors to go and look for work. However they play an important role particularly in regard to combating victimization of people, for example by exploitation and blackmail. It is very difficult for the rent inspectors to take action if there are no complaints. Usually they react to complaints received. I assure the hon. member that every complaint received by rent boards and rent inspectors is duly investigated. Particularly in connection with the further phasing out which I shall announce here later, rent boards, the department and rent inspectors will not permit people to be exploited, blackmailed or misused in the process. Of course, such matters have to be brought to our attention. In future inspectors will be given very strict instructions in this connection.

As far as rent boards are concerned I again give the assurance today that we shall not abolish them. Although, due to the phasing out of rent control, there has been a reduction in the activities of rent boards, with the result that we amalgamated certain rent boards and placed others on a temporary basis, we shall not abolish them. We shall retain them, firstly as a watchdog to bring to book people who exploit, intimidate and misuse lessees and, in the second place, to continue to protect the less well-off section of our population who are in any event already protected by rent control. This protection can only be afforded by a rent board.

As far as the Claremont “pocket” is concerned, I am informed by the Department that provision has already been made for alternative housing so that the worst spots can be cleared this year. However I am prepared to go and have a look, and to advise the hon. the Minister in this connection. The ultimate decision will rest with him. However I am prepared to go and take a look at the situation together with the hon. member.

There are still a number of matters that I have to deal with and therefore hon. members will have to exercise a little patience. I should like to react to three points raised by the hon. member for Sea Point, namely the phasing out of rent control, flats sold under sectional title and the construction of flats by the private sector.

As far as the phasing out of rent control is concerned I want to state one point very clearly, because I perceived the reaction of the hon. member for Sea Point when I said that we were going to announce a further phasing-out period. I wish to state that up to now the Opposition has supported us in the gradual phasing out of rent control.

We asked that it should stand over for a year so that we could assess the consequences.

The hon. Opposition has not yet called for that.

We have.

The hon. Opposition has never asked for that. They supported us from the outset. I recognize that they will probably change their attitude in future. They are of course the people who represent the landlords in this House, and the hon. Opposition should just remember that.

The first two phases of the phasing out of rent control went off fairly smoothly without major hardship because they took place against the background of a widespread but modest surplus of rented accommodation in the private sector. The process was also further alleviated by an administrative arrangement in terms whereof the rental would not increase by more than 10% per annum for the first two years after such a notice of phasing out. In general, the lessors cooperated in exemplary fashion and made a contribution in this connection, and I am grateful to them for doing so. Here and there we had to twist someone’s arm in the process, but after all, it did not go off badly. Thus far, because there has been no difficulty, the Opposition has been on our side.

In the third instance there is the built-in protection we provided in these phasing-out periods by affording protection to the less well-off people who qualify under the provisions of the Housing Act of 1966, viz. all those people who, as people without dependants, earn less than R300 per month and those with dependants who earn less than R540 per month. The hon. Minister said that since these amounts were a little out of date he was prepared to have them looked at again with the possibility of an adjustment. This is a built-in measure of protection which helped to alleviate the whole process. Moreover, this took place during a period when the business cycle was not rising very rapidly. Under the specific economic circumstances prevailing then, the interaction between supply and demand saw to it that rentals remained relatively stable. In the meantime, however, the climate has changed somewhat and due to a variety of factors of which the upswing in the economy is the most important, the demand for housing has increased to such an extent that there is no longer any question of a general surplus of living accommodation. Moreover, the sale of flats under sectional title has of course also resulted in a drop in the supply of housing. But I want to say to the hon. member for Sea Point that every person who purchases a flat under sectional title in order to occupy it, vacates other accommodation which then becomes available. If this person does not buy himself a house or dwelling under sectional title, then he will be one of the line of tenants. Therefore it cuts both ways. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, as far as the selling of flats under sectional title is concerned, I can to an extent share the concern of the hon. member for Sea Point. The increasing tendency to convert blocks of flats, and especially old buildings, for sale under sectional title is an aspect that is causing concern. This tendency creates enormous uncertainty amongst tenants, especially in view of the deletion of section 39 of the Act, which makes it possible for the registered owner of a sectional title dwelling which was rent controlled to evict the tenant in order to enable him to occupy the unit personally. It has always been taken for granted that the older block of flats would not be converted in large numbers to sectional title units, because such buildings are generally not suited for this purpose. However, should this unhealthy tendency persist, measures will have to be considered to curb the indiscriminate conversion of blocks of flats to enable the sale of the individual units under sectional title.

The Opposition was right after all.

The Opposition was not right. I must state very clearly that it was absolutely necessary to amend the Sectional Titles Act to remove the discrimination that existed in that a person who purchased a dwelling with the aim of occupying it himself could give the tenant three months’ notice, whereas the purchaser of a flat could not do so. We had to eliminate that discrimination so that a person who purchased a flat for himself also had the right to evict the tenant. [Interjections.] Hon. members must just give me a chance. However, if there is a continuing trend to convert for resale particularly older blocks of flats rented by less well-off people, we shall have to consider either excluding the older blocks of flats from the provisions of the Act up to a certain date, or protecting the less well-off tenants living therein under rent control. We shall see what happens.

The hon. member also raised the question of the building of flats. It is true that to date there has not yet been much reaction to appeals to the private sector to build flats, but surely the hon. member knows that one of the most important factors that contributed towards driving the private sector out of the flat building industry was rent control itself.

It was the cost.

Of course that was so. It was more advantageous for the private sector to invest their money in other enterprises affording better opportunities. Rent controls and all the restrictions introduced by the State resulted in people simply withdrawing from this industry.

Rent control applied only to buildings erected prior to 1966.

The hon. member for Sea Point wants his bread buttered on both sides. On the one hand he reproaches the private sector for not being prepared to build flat units, and on the other he calls on the Government to introduce rent control and impose still more restrictions on these people. How does he expect us to restore confidence? In brief, I want to say to the hon. member that if we further delay, suspend or reverse the phasing-out of rent control, it will result in a general crisis of confidence between the Government and the property industry, while incalculable harm will be done to the future provision of housing in this country. From whatever angle we approach the matter, it remains true that the abolition of rent control on a gradual, orderly basis, with the necessary assurance that control will be exercised over the phasing-out process, is of absolute importance. The State has an obligation to private initiative, to whom we have given the undertaking that we shall phase out rent control. It is in the interest of the State that this be done, since the State cannot on its own build houses for all the people in the country. As far as the provision of dwelling units is concerned we can only restore confidence if we are prepared to abolish these restrictions which people do not want, and remove the sword dangling over their heads.

I should now like to make an announcement. After very careful consideration it has been decided to implement the third step of the process of gradual phasing out of rent control, which was recommended by the Commission of Inquiry into Housing Matters. The first two steps were taken by way of the promulgation of proclamations in April 1978 and April 1979, in terms of which dwellings occupied for the first time during the period 1955-01-01 to 1966-05-31 were exempted from rent control. Dwellings occupied on the dates on which the proclamations were promulgated by tenants qualifying for national housing were, however, not affected by the proclamations.

The third step embraces the publication of a further proclamation in terms of which the provisions of the Rent Control Act will no longer apply to dwellings occupied for the first time during the period 1949-10-21 up to and including 1954-12-31, as is the case at present in respect of most dwellings occupied for the first time after the last-mentioned date. Dwellings include flats, group housing units and all other dwelling units. To ensure that this measure does not have an adverse effect on the existing less well-off tenants of the group housing units now being exempted, those dwellings occupied on the date of the promulgation of the proclamation in question by tenants falling within the income categories as determined in terms of the Housing Act, Act No. 4 of 1966, are excluded from the exemption from rent control. These dwellings remain excluded for as long as they are occupied by the same tenants and as long as the tenants’ incomes do not exceed the limit mentioned by me. This limit is at present R300 per month in the case of single persons without dependants and R540 per month in the case of families.

The recommendation of the Commission that for the first two years rentals may not increase by more than 10% per annum is also applicable to dwellings exempted from rent control under the third step of the process for the phasing out of rent control, although the proclamation makes no mention of this. Any cases that come to light where this condition has not been complied with or where attention is drawn to exploitation at any time even after two years will summarily be made subject to rent control.

It is to be hoped that lessors will heed this warning, particularly now that dwelling units, which were exempted in terms of the first phasing-out step, are no longer subject to the guideline which limits rent increases to 10% per annum for the first two years following exemption. Nevertheless I want to caution lessors of flats falling into this group and all other lessors to act with circumspection and due deliberation and to increase rentals only to the extent necessary to afford them a reasonable return. Lessors who ignore this appeal will have only themselves to blame for the unpleasant consequences which ill-considered action on their part will inevitably bring.

An aspect causing concern is the increasing tendency to convert blocks of flats, particularly old buildings, for sale under the Sectional Titles Act of 1971. This tendency creates enormous uncertainty among tenants, especially in view of the proposed deletion of section 39 of the Act to enable the registered owner of a sectional title dwelling unit which is rent controlled to evict the tenant in order to occupy the unit personally. It has always been taken for granted that the older blocks of flats would not be converted in large numbers into sectional title units, because such buildings are generally not suited to this purpose. However, should this unhealthy tendency persist, measures will have to be considered to curb the indiscriminate conversion of blocks of flats with a view to the sale of individual units.

Finally, I wish to thank all lessors for their co-operation in enabling the phasing out process to operate smoothly thus far. I rely on their continued co-operation. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am indeed sorry to have heard the announcement of the hon. the Deputy Minister in regard to the further phasing out of rent control at this stage. The hon. the Deputy Minister has just dealt with some of the problems brought about by the elimination of rent control together with increased activity in the sectional title property market. These problems were brought to his notice by even some of the hon. members on his side, notably the hon. member for Tygervallei, but in spite of this the tempo at which the elimination of rent control is conducted is now to be kept at the same level. I think this is really not a wise step.

Whatever one’s ideological approach is, either from a free-enterprise point of view or from the opposite point of view, one has to apply one’s mind to and take cognizance of the practical effect of this kind of situation. The hon. the Deputy Minister has conceded that numerous problems are encountered as a result of the present situation. Even some of the protections that are provided in cases where rent control has been eliminated have been made totally useless because of the amendments brought about in the Sectional Titles Act and even by the application of that Act as it stands at the moment. Therefore I really am sorry to have heard about this. I would have thought that in view of the problems we are experiencing, the hon. the Deputy Minister would have gone a little bit more slowly in this regard and that he would have made provision for those people who are inevitably going to suffer as a result of this move.

I am really delighted that this matter has been brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member who spoke before me. There has been a boom in sectional title development. It is a boom, however, which is taking place at the expense of rent-paying tenants. There is very little development in the sense, as one would have hoped, that new flats are being built. There is a great surge though, in converting existing blocks of flats, occupied by tenants, into sectional title units for purposes of selling, and the hon. the Minister also indicated that. This means that the present situation is proving itself not to be conducive to the establishment of more housing by the private sector. It is rather creating opportunities for flat owners and speculators to make huge profits at the expense of people who need low priced accommodation, and need it desperately.

It means that blocks of flats erected at a time when building costs were much lower, and which could therefore be let at a reasonable profit to the owners, but still within the means of tenants living on a fixed income, are now being put up for sale at exorbitant prices, to the advantage only of speculators. This happens in respect of blocks of flats, some of which are even still under rent control. It does happen more often though in respect of blocks of flats that have recently been decontrolled. It often makes a mockery of the 10% limitation on rent increases imposed by the Government for the first two years after decontrol. When the Sectional Titles Amendment Act comes into effect, in April 1981, this situation can only become worse, infinitely worse. The latest strategy, which is a particularly worrying one—it has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Sea Point—is that flat tenants are intimidated into buying the flats in which they live by being given three weeks’ notice within which they have to decide and obtain finance for the purpose of buying. I believe that both the South African Property Owners’ Associations should take cognizance of this and bring the matter to the attention of their members, as well as exert pressure on them in order to dissuade them from continuing with this deplorable practice. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister should also give their urgent attention to this matter and make urgent plans to provide low cost housing for those people who are going to suffer as a result of this action. I believe a serious and urgent investigation is necessary in this case.

One does not like to dwell on this sort of subject, but I am compelled to believe that what has been said here this afternoon by the hon. the Deputy Minister, and even by other hon. members opposite, is a vindication of warnings uttered by hon. members on this side of the House. It has proven that warnings issued by hon. members on this side of the House have not been in vain, that such warnings have in fact been uttered in the interests of tenants occupying flats at this moment.

*When the hon. the Deputy Minister refers to what he calls a crisis of confidence between the private sector and the Government, we do sympathize with him. However, there is now a serious crisis of confidence between flat tenants and the Government, as a result of the way in which these things are taking place, the way in which sectional title development is being implemented and rent control eliminated. Consequently, I am requesting the hon. the Minister’s serious attention in this regard, and I must express my displeasure at the fact that in spite of the problems that have now clearly arisen, the elimination of rent control is still being proceeded with at the same rate at this stage.

But you say it is going to be even worse next year.

I have very little doubt about that.

It is going badly this year, but next year, you say, it is going to be even worse.

Unless something is done about the matter. That is not to say that the fact that it could be worse means that we should simply continue on the present course. It is within the capability of the Government—with all due respect—to improve this situation and to solve the problems. However, it has to be done before even more problems are created as a result of the further elimination of rent control.

Another matter I should like to refer to, is the question of the position of the inhabitants of the Bloemhof flat complex, on the downtown side of District Six. This complex was recently expropriated by the department and the tenants of those flats will have to move out in the near future and settle elsewhere in the Peninsula. This legal step in connection with the expropriation of the Bloemhof flats, tolls the death-knell for Bloemhof s Coloured community of approximately 500 families who live no more than four blocks from here. They now have to prepare themselves to go the way of the other inhabitants of District Six, away from the area which they have inhabited for years, the area where the vast majority of them are employed, away from their friends, and in a way that makes a mockery of the assurance which the hon. the Minister gave in 1978, namely that these people would be resettled as a community. What distinguishes the Bloemhof flats from the other dwellings or buildings in District Six, however, is that these buildings are built solidly and well. There is no question that these buildings are suitable for occupation, and indeed the department confirms this standpoint of mine by its statement that the flats are merely going to be improved slightly for further occupation. So the community of Bloemhof is being uprooted, not because the flats are in a dilapidated condition, not because there is a danger of disease, not on account of crime in the community, and not for any of the reasons which flowed so glibly off the tongues of NP speakers to justify the action of the Government in District Six, but purely because in terms of the Group Areas Act and the implementation, these of this area and its land is too good for Coloureds to live in.

The Government’s plans for the people of Bloemhof expose the NP’s excuses for its conduct and handling of District Six as a fraud, and prove more effectively than any other argument could do, that it is the result of racial self-interest and nothing else. The people of Bloemhof are not well-to-do. Bloemhof is a sub-economic scheme for which one only qualifies if one earns less than R150 per month. The rental for these flats varies from R34 to R23 per month, and people in this income group could find themselves in a situation of financial hardship due to being compelled to make use of transport to get to their places of employment. At the current bus and train fares, those people are very likely to find that in future they will have to spend just as much on transport as they are now having to spend on housing. It is generally accepted that the recent Coloured school boycott was not merely the result of objections and grievances about education, but also indeed the result of grievances about inequality over a wide field. This action against the Bloemhof community amounts to racial discrimination of the worst degree and against the background of the present conditions in South Africa, the hon. the Minister, the entire Government, and South Africa, cannot afford to play games with the peace and stability that prevails in the Western Cape at this stage.

Mr. Chairman, I should very much like to congratulate the hon. the Minister, the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Secretary of Community Development on the excellent annual report we received recently. I think it is a fine piece of work, and if there is anybody who doubts whether enough is being done for the housing of all the various population groups in our country, they would do well to study this report, to be convinced that enough is certainly being done with the funds that are available every year.

I wish to single out a few matters in this report to bring them to the notice of hon. members. In the first place I wish to say that housing is the barometer of progress. In the second place, the funds used for housing are rather an investment than an expenditure. In the foreseeable future, that is to say, four or five years from now, the State will have to be prepared to invest liberally in low-cost housing in order to counter slums and large-scale squatter conditions, particularly with regard to Coloureds and Indians. Housing, as it is viewed by the department, does not merely mean a roof over one’s head, but also the provision of the necessary facilities that normally form part of a residential area. The prospects of eliminating the housing backlog within a reasonable time provided sufficient funds are voted, have never been as favourable as they are at present. All the funds that have come available for low-cost housing during the past five years, that is to say by means of parliamentary appropriation, repaid capital and an additional R200 million, have been fully utilized, as is proved by the increase in the number of dwellings. Notwithstanding the fact that there has been such an increase, the staff of the department has increased by only ½% over a period of five years.

Looking at the provision of housing, we see that during the year under review the Government spent a record amount of R351 million and that 43 245 units were completed, while 78 000 more were in the process of being built. Comparative figures for the various periods in respect of the several population groups, are supplied in a comparative table on page 10 of the report. I wish to quote the following from this table: For the year from 1 October 1978 to 30 September 1979, 3 630 dwelling units were provided for Whites at an amount of R77,3 million, or R21 300 per unit; 20 794 dwelling units were supplied for Coloureds at R163,35 million, or R7 856 per unit; 6 268 dwelling units were supplied for Asians at R59 341 000, or R8 768 per unit; 12 553 dwelling units were supplied for Blacks, at R50 574 000, or an average of R4 029 per unit. The average amount per unit for the entire population was R8 107. Approximately 22% of the amount of R351 million was utilized in respect of White housing. In view of the fact that there has been a decline in the demand for housing among Whites, this must be regarded as a thoroughly representative amount. In view of the fact that there is now again an upward trend in the demand for housing for Whites, we must expect that in future more will be spent on White housing, as is envisaged in the report. This applies particularly in respect of flats.

As far as Coloureds are concerned, it appears from the report that in order to provide the requirements arising from the natural growth of the Coloured population, it will be necessary to build approximately 12 500 dwelling units for Coloureds in the Republic every year. During the past two years, 39 500 dwellings were erected by the department and local authorities jointly, or an average of 19 750 units per annum. There is no doubt that with the necessary funds to maintain the rate of supply, the backlog in respect of Coloured housing will have been wiped out by 1985.

In respect of Indians, the annual rate of the provision of housing is 6 500 units. During the past year, 6 268 units were provided; a figure, therefore, which was close to the target. Provided the private sector makes a contribution, it is possible to accomplish the joint target of 8 000 units for a single year. The prospects for the future are consequently favourable in this respect as well.

In view of the foregoing, it is gratifying that that the hon. the Minister of Finance announced the following in his budget speech. I quote (Hansard 1980, col. 3538)—

We often hear the reproach that sufficient good owner-builder plots are not made available for Coloureds and Indians. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether this is so and what the position is in this regard. Does the department receive inquiries in this regard, and what is being done in connection with the matter? We should very much like to know.

The department has now also made a start with the provision of housing for Blacks. It is interesting to note from the report that 12 553 dwelling units for Blacks were completed during the year under review. This is the highest number of dwelling units that has yet been financed and built out of funds from the National Housing Fund within a single year. According to the report of the Inter-departmental Committee on the Financing of Black Housing, 1978, a survey has shown that there was a backlog of 110 000 dwelling units for Blacks in the Republic at the time of the survey. Without taking natural growth into account, 11 000 family units will have to be built every year in order to wipe out the backlog within ten years. The Department of Community Development has set itself the target of financing 17 000 dwelling units from the National Housing Fund every year and is making an urgent plea to the Administration Boards to come forward with the necessary schemes to enable the department to programme its funding requirements for the financing of Black housing properly.

The policy with regard to the financing of Black housing from National Housing funds was changed during the year on the recommendation of the inter-departmental committee so as to place Blacks on an equal footing with Whites, Coloureds and Indians, because it has been decided that new housing for Blacks will in future be provided in accordance with the same income limits, corresponding rates of interest, standards and cost limits applicable to other population groups, and that community facilities, including the beautification of properties, should also be provided. Under such a dispensation it should be possible in future to establish a Mitchell’s Plain for Blacks, according to the report.

From this follows the gratifying announcement by the hon. the Minister of Finance in his budget speech (Hansard, 1980, col. 3530)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the many thanks that have been expressed for what the Department of Community Development, has done via the State, for all population groups of our country. I wanted to talk about the determining of rentals, but this subject has already been discussed. Therefore, I just want to ask that since an investigation is now under way to establish a more realistic determining of rentals for the subeconomic group, the department should get a move on, because there are few people who earn only R150 per month these days. Even we in the House already earn more than that. [Interjections.] This is for people who are still active. I want to say thank you very much for what is being done with regard to old-age homes for elderly people, children’s homes, schools of correction, crèches, and homes for mentally retarded people, blind people and unmarried mothers.

I want to raise my hat to welfare organizations who show the initiative for building such institutions. The State does provide the funds, it is true, but the drive and enterprise must come from the local bodies. I am now thinking of a body which is very dear to me, viz. the ACVV. This is a women’s organization in Cape Town of which I am also a member. There is nothing wrong with me … [Interjections.] … but from a child I have been involved in this organization through street collections, bazaars, functions, etc., in which my mother participated at the time, and my wife does at present. Then they even made me a member of that association too.

At the moment, the ACVV has homes for elderly people to the value of R20 million, where accommodation is provided for almost 6 000 elderly people in the Cape. This is a very praiseworthy attempt, because despite the fact that it is a good thing for family members to look after elderly people and keep them at home for as long as possible, it is not always possible to do so. Some of these old people can become very difficult.

In actual fact, it is the elderly man who requires the most care. It is strange that one finds so few old men. Most men depart this world at a very early age. It seems to me as if the women are tougher than the men. It is true that almost 80% of the homes for elderly people make provision for elderly ladies only. For instance, there is the case of a place near Cape Town where there are about 4 000 widows and spinsters. Many of them are still quite all right. [Interjections.] However, there are practically no elderly men and the few that there are, are not much good at all. [Interjections.]

I want to make a request of the welfare organizations: Look after the elderly men too, when new institutions are built for elderly people. My grandmother said: “An old man is just like a pot plant. If one does not put him in the sun for a while every day and give him a bit of water, he simply dies”. [Interjections.] This is what the ACVV do. [Interjections.] They are making a very praiseworthy attempt now. This fine association, with its equally fine members, has many widely distributed old-age homes and functions here in the Peninsula at the moment. Thanks to the Department of Community Development, they are going to build a beautiful complex in Zonnebloem— District Six, as the official Opposition call it. Everyone is going to be accommodated here. They are going to care for people from the cradle to the grave. There will be a crèche for toddlers, a centre for social work, a hostel for young people and an old-age home for elderly people. Thus it is possible that within a while we will simply go there from here, particularly that crowd in the corner. It is just a pity it is so far from the graveyard.

These ACVV women have not allowed themselves to be scared off by agitators and inciters and Progs. Some other enterprises got cold feet with regard to District Six, but not our women of the ACVV. They are just waiting for the green light from the Department of Welfare now, to begin building a complex which will be a credit to Cape Town.

At the moment there is a great need for care for the aged people in the Coloured community. I want to ask the Coloured people to come forward and take the initiative in creating such facilities. If a group of women from the Cape could create so much there, I am very sure that if the Coloured people were serious about helping the aged, it could be done too.

I want to conclude by saying that the activities of the Department of Community Development have increased by a few hundred per cent over the past few years. If we look at the figures for 1965, we see that R28 million was spent. In 1980 the amount will be R420 million. I cannot work out the percentage, but it is a tremendous amount. Over the same period, the staff of the Department of Community Development has increased by only 0,5%. This shows what can be done.

That is productivity.

On behalf of the women and this Parliament I pay tribute to this fine department, to the hon. the Minister and to the Director-General and his staff.

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to talk about the ACVV, but I should like to inquire whether the hon. member for Worcester is not still a member of the Kinderkrans as well. [Interjections.]

I should like to start where I left off yesterday when I was dealing with District Six and the possibility of an open area there.

†When my time expired, I was quoting from a statement on page 24 of the brochure dealing with District Six, where it states clearly that it is the policy not to develop residential areas that are open to all population groups and that that has given rise to the declaration of the planned area. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that we in the NRP have a system where, through the application of local option, the development of mixed residential areas is made possible. No matter how much the Government is trying to run away from that possibility, sooner or later, in the interests of South Africa, they will have to devise a system which will make the same possible in order to overcome the sort of difficulties which we face at the present moment.

I should now like to deal with the matter of rent control. I do not want to describe the further announcement as another shock, because some of us have been expecting it for some time. I do not want to use emotive words, but if one looks at it in its chronological order, one will find that in the phasing out of rent control we have had a number of broken promises. Originally we had what the hon. the Minister called “die ingeboude beskerming”, a built-in protection. But let us just look at the 10% increase that was supposed to be allowed for the first two years after the lifting of rent control. In 1978 the hon. the Minister was very emphatic about this when he said (Hansard, column 5919)—

Then the following very specific statement—

Note the specific emphasis “limited to 10%”. Compare this with what is stated on page 1 of the report of the Secretary of the Department of Community Development where he says—

What was absolutely forbidden now becomes a “general guideline” and a recommendation. And what does the hon. the Minister say now? He said—

I want to say to the hon. the Minister that when one is dealing with some of these landlords, one must know what it means to change from a prohibition to a “general guideline” and then to a “ons stem saam dit sal nie gebeur nie”. This is not the way to deal with this sort of situation. [Interjections.]

That is very funny.

There are several ways of getting past it.

Secondly, I want to deal with the out and out broken promise regarding the sectional title situation. Before the Sectional Title Bill was passed, exemptions were mainly granted by special proclamation. There is a third category, namely the income limit protection, which applies only in those situations where rent control has been lifted in terms of phasing out proclamation. For instance, proclamation 83 of 1978 lifted rent control, but the people who fell within the income limit, continued to enjoy protection. However, I had a case which I took up with the hon. the Minister in October last year and which has not yet been resolved. There has been on-going correspondence. Only this morning I had a letter to the effect that the matter was still receiving attention. In this specific case, involving a particular block of flats in Durban, rent control was phased out in April 1978. However, those people who took occupation of flats after 1 January 1960 still enjoy the protection of rent control. There were some tenants in that building who lived in flats occupied before January 1959. The hon. the Minister and his department did not wait for them to be phased out by another general proclamation, but did it in October 1978 by special proclamation. Because that was done by special proclamation, those people did not enjoy the protection of “hierdie ingeboude beskerming”. If the hon. the Minister and his department had waited another six months for the second phasing out, those people would have enjoyed that protection. When I took the matter up with the hon. the Minister he replied that it would appear that “you have been misinformed”. He said the only reason why the tenants who in terms of their income category qualified for rent control protection, could not enjoy that protection, was that they could not provide the necessary documentary evidence that their income fell within the prescribed limits. Therefore their appeals to the agents could not be acceded to. However, the actual position was that the agents never even considered those applications, because they said that the tenants did not qualify. I quote from the sort of letter the agents sent—

This is the block of flats I am referring to. The letter reads further—

Then the hon. the Minister still says that it is funny. I do not think this sort of thing is funny. One cannot phase out rent control and then make speeches telling people not to worry because there is an built-in protection. The position is that one can get round that.

There will always be exceptional cases.

That is the problem. The hon. the Minister now says we must go on to the third phase of the phasing out of rent control. How many exceptions are there going to be? [Interjections.] Why could the department not grasp the situation straight away? That is why I want to say to the hon. the Minister that a serious problem will develop and that sooner or later he will find that he will have to take some action again.

That is one exceptional case.

Since 1966 flats were built without there being the protection, or the fear, of rent control, because after 1966 there was no rent control. If all those arguments the hon. the Deputy Minister has advanced are valid, it means that there would have been no danger of people not going ahead since 1966 in building flats. In his statement he virtually repeated some of the arguments we advanced earlier this year in the debate on the Sectional Titles Bill and the amendments to it. Perhaps I can suggest to him that an investigation should be instituted to see whether the provision concerning sectional titles cannot be made applicable only to very recently built buildings, such as those that have been built since 1970. One must lay down some sort of guideline in that respect. We cannot just go on in the way we are at the moment. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a suitable time for me to reply to some of the matters that have been raised so far.

The hon. member for Sea Point, who is the chief spokesman on the Opposition side, is not here at the moment. I have risen a little earlier than I had intended. Therefore I am sure he will be here shortly, but meanwhile I shall proceed with my reply.

I am glad to be able to say that I cannot criticize the hon. member for Sea Point, as I have often done in the past, on the contents of his speech. This time he obviously did his homework. The facts he furnished were correct, except for one, and that one was not very important. Therefore I listened to him with great attention, and I shall try to reply to him in the same spirit in which he raised certain matters here. I can only express the hope that his speech was not just a flash in the pan and that this hon. member, as well as other hon. members on that side of the House, will henceforth invariably check their facts before making any allegations in this House.

The hon. member was concerned about what he described as the shortage of land at Lenasia, in fact, on the whole of the Witwatersrand. He also pointed out that the amounts that have to be paid for stands are exceptionally high. Other hon. members have adopted the same standpoint. I shall point out later, in reply to the speech of another hon. member, that the prices paid at Lenasia, where private transactions take place, are normal and compare favourably with the prices paid in a place such as Johannesburg itself. I shall also point out that the Indians housed in Lenasia by my department are still making exceptional bargains.

The hon. member for Sea Point attacked the brochure we published to show the other side of the picture in connection with District Six, and went so far as to say that some of the statements in it were lies. He also said, referring to my statement, that he could not believe that we could build a brick house with a tiled roof for R1 990.

I said I should like to see it.

I now wish to invite him formally—and I hope he will soon accept my invitation—to go with me to Valhalla Park and to inspect the houses there. Then, however, if I have told the truth, the hon. member must publicly admit that he was wrong in not wanting to believe without having seen.

I just want to see what the house is like.

The hon. member said he first wanted to see it.

He said the hon. the Minister would not fit in there.

Yes, he said I would not fit in there, and so on. However, if the hon. member goes to have a look and stands corrected, I hope that he will have the courtesy to admit it in public.

The hon. member also complained that when we talk about the new houses that are being built, the department and I usually neglect to point out that these new houses do not mean any increase in the total number of dwelling units that are available, because so many of them are resettlement cases in terms of the Group Areas Act. I have so often asked hon. members on the other side please to realize, please to try to get it into their heads, that those who are resettled in terms of the Group Areas Act would in any case have been resettled in terms of other laws. I have also given the figures and said that between 95% and 97% of the people moved in terms of the Group Areas Act would have had to be moved in terms of other laws, such as the Slums Act and the Urban Renewal Act. This is so. This is the reason why more non-Whites than Whites are involved. We find the slum conditions in South Africa among the non-Whites. The slum dwellers in South Africa have been non-Whites. This is unfortunate; it should never have been so, but it is so. The Whites have generally been fairly well housed. Some of them will also have to be moved, but not in such large numbers. I find it almost impossible to bring that simple fact home to hon. members opposite. I cannot understand it. I think it suits them not to believe it. It suits them to create grievances. It suits them to create grievances where there should be no grievances. Artificially, and by keeping silent about certain facts, it suits them to create these erroneous impressions. It is a pity that this should be so, but one cannot get away from it.

The hon. member also devoted considerable time to District Six. His arguments were the same as the ones they have advanced repeatedly. Those arguments—with all due respect—remain just as invalid.

District Six has hitherto cost this department and the State R30 million. This is what it is costing to remove what used to be a blot on the fair face of Cape Town. The State has done this. It is costing the City Council nothing. What one could expect is perhaps a little gratitude. Not only that, but the nature of District Six would have changed in any case, even if we had not acted. It would have changed because of the building of the Eastern Boulevard through that area, a road which divides District Six into three parts, which has made a large part of it completely uninhabitable and which has changed its entire character. However, we have spent R30 million on clearing up an area which used to be filthy and squalid.

Therefore I agree with the hon. member when he says that that pamphlet we published does not always reflect the true conditions which prevailed. It is because the pamphlet was written years after the worst mess in District Six had already been cleaned up. [Interjections.] Now the hon. member for Sea Point sits there laughing. Just wait a minute. I have had occasion in this House to read contemporary articles from The Argus and The Cape Times insisting on District Six being cleared up. I do not want to cover the same ground again. I have read a reliable article by a reliable journalist such as Eric Rosenthal in this House, in which he told us how the filth—I cannot call that filth by its proper name here—ran down the steep streets of District Six in rivulets, so bad that one could not stand the stench. Those were the conditions in District Six. However, one no longer sees those conditions there. Those conditions have been cleared up and removed by the State. [Interjections.]

I now want to ask my hon. friends opposite a question. If hon. members opposite do not want to answer, I shall understand it. However, I just want them to reflect on this. This whole question has been going on since the ’sixties. At that time there was never any agitation against it. On the contrary, we were encouraged by some English newspapers to act. This project has been going on for the past 15 years, I suppose. Why is it that we have only been having this agitation in the past two or three years?

Cheap politics.

I shall tell hon. members why. No, it is not only cheap politics. It is cheap politics too, yes, but why has that cheap politics started only recently? I shall tell hon. members why. Until we began to clean up District Six, no one could make out a case for the preservation of District Six, because the evidence against such a case would have been the filth in District Six itself. [Interjections.] Surely this is a fact; if not, they must tell me why there was never any complaint about District Six …

But you are casting a terrible reflection on the Coloured people. [Interjections.]

Order!

We moved 40 000 people out of District Six and there was no complaint. There was not a word of criticism. However, when the squalor was no longer visible, they suddenly came along with all these reproaches, all these complaints and all these outrageous allegations of injustice and of callousness on our part. This is what we are being accused of. Why were they silent for 15 years, while 40 000 people were being moved? Now they are coming along with all these untrue stories, because the evidence is no longer visible, thanks to the action of the State.

They have only recently developed a guilty conscience.

The hon. member for Durban Central would do well to listen, because this applies equally to him.

The technikon will be built in District Six. Nothing can be done about this any more. District Six is a suitable site and it will be an asset to Cape Town.

There was no consultation.

The people who are to be served by the technikon will be served in the best possible way. I have considered all the alternative places that were offered with an open mind, but not one of them is suitable. We shall proceed to build the technikon there, and the hon. member for Sea Point may carry on as much as he likes. The same will happen in this case as has happened in many things the department has embarked upon: Once it is an accomplished fact, nothing is heard about it from anyone any more, because then they see that the department was right and they were wrong.

In the end they even boast about it.

I still remember the hue and cry that was raised a year or two ago about Fawley Terrace. I expected that the hon. member for Green Point would refer to this in the course of the debate, but we have not heard a word about it, because Fawley Terrace is now a credit to the Department of Community Development because it has become a fact. Therefore no more predictions about its future can be made by prophets of doom. We were told at the time how ugly and wrong it would be. Fawley Terrace is being developed in a visible way, and from all quarters appreciation is being expressed for the improvement to the appearance of Cape Town which has resulted from it. With this I have completed what I wanted to say to the hon. member for Sea Point about the question of District Six.

He also complained about the Oriental Plaza and wanted to know, among other things, how many of the premises there had already been let. He also said that it had not been built in a suitable area because there would not be many customers in the vicinity. A month ago, all but four of the shops at the Oriental Plaza near District Six had been let. The only reason why the remaining four had not yet been allocated was that so many applications had been received that we still had to consider to whom they should be granted. The rental is exceptionally low and I have already furnished the exact amounts in reply to a question. There is going to be a waiting list. Now I also want to be a prophet. I have some experience of this, because I still remember how we got the same kind of criticism that I am now getting from the hon. member for Sea Point when the Oriental Plaza in Johannesburg was built. I remember how I was taken to the Supreme Court two or three times in an attempt to prevent us from proceeding with that plaza because it was allegedly such a cruel thing that we were doing. According to the critics, that plaza was also being built at a place which was not suitable, but in practice it has become the greatest success story in the commercial life of Johannesburg. The people there never stop saying how grateful they are. They even apologize to me for having taken me to court at the time. They have now formed two associations and they employ the most expensive attorneys in Johannesburg to negotiate with us. They would like to buy those shops, because they are afraid of ever losing them. What is more, in two cases—I know there are more to come—I have already been approached for permission for them to open branch shops in the Oriental Plaza near District Six. Surely this is history.

These are facts. However, there are always the prophets of doom, the people who are always foreseeing things which do not yet exist, with all kinds of wild predictions of failure and misery. Every time, however, the facts prove that the Department of Community Development was right and they were wrong. However, they refuse to learn. God willing, I shall prove again in a year or two that the plaza here in Cape Town has been a success and that the hon. member for Sea Point has been just as stupid as the hon. member for Yeoville, who came to complain to me about the Oriental Plaza in Johannesburg.

In two years’ time he will no longer be here.

The hon. member for Sea Point then went off on a different tack and said that we would never be able to supply the capital in South Africa to accommodate all the poor people here. In this connection he referred to several countries in Africa and mentioned examples, such as Lusaka, and said how blessed and how lovely …

Now you are exaggerating again, as usual.

I beg your pardon. I do not want to exaggerate. He mentioned Lusaka as an example of where controlled squatting has succeeded. Is he serious? Does he want his city, Cape Town, to develop like Lusaka?

I was not talking about controlled squatting. I was talking about self-help schemes.

How often does the PFP change its policy, then? The last time they spoke about these things, it was controlled squatting; this time it is low-cost housing. The then Leader of the Opposition repeatedly pleaded for controlled squatting. Whether it be low-cost housing or controlled squatting, is it the ideal of the hon. member for Sea Point that Cape Town should look like Lusaka? [Interjections.] He has been there. I do not believe it is his ideal, but he actually has the pure, unadulterated temerity to reproach us for not implementing the policy of Lusaka in South Africa.

The squatting will not take place in Sea Point. It will be where I live.

I believe—and as long as the hon. the Prime Minister uses me for this task, I shall fight for this—that we must give all the people of South Africa who need housing the housing which is worthy of them and of South Africa. We shall try to give them housing which is in accordance with their human dignity. The PFP may clamour for us to lower our standards, to allow squalid conditions, such as those in Lusaka, but we shall proceed to the best of our ability, with the help of the Almighty, to do what is right and what is in the best interests of all the people of South Africa, and I have reason to believe that we shall succeed, for we are a blessed country. Providence has favoured South Africa, more perhaps than we deserve, with the means of doing great things in the future. Because of the Government’s policy of uplifting the underprivileged in South Africa, there are gratifying signs today that the birth rate among the less affluent is declining dramatically, that the projections we have made for the future will have to be substantially amended, and that the almost inhuman task we were willing to embark upon, because we believe in a life of human dignity for the people of South Africa, will become easier and will prove to be smaller than we expected when we took up this challenge. I wonder whether I may ask: Will the hon. members of the PFP not please behave like South Africans? Will they not please show some love and respect for South Africa? [Interjections.] Will they not please stop regarding the problems of South Africa only as opportunities for sniffing around like scavengers sniffing through a dustbin? Will they not sometimes speak out and encourage the Government? We probably do things that are wrong. Attack us for that, but a little bit of encouragement and appreciation from their side for the positive things which the Government does will make them more credible and will ensure them more respect on the part of the people. But everything we do is misrepresented. Our well-planned projects are condemned before they have been implemented. If something is successful, we never get an apology. Then there is only silence, as if it had never happened.

The question of rent control which the hon. member mentioned was very effectively dealt with by the hon. the Deputy Minister. There is just one more thing I want to say.

Broken promises.

Broken promises? The Government has never said that it would prevent anyone from disposing of his property if he is a willing seller and he can find a willing buyer. The Government has adopted the standpoint that no individual will be forced to pay welfare subsidies to others. I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. the Deputy Minister and to say that if anything goes wrong, we shall give special attention to it and take drastic steps to avoid injustice and suffering.

What are the facts? Here in Cape Town, hundreds of flats are standing empty, cheap flats.

Where?

In many places in Cape Town, especially in the northern suburbs.

Where?

In Parow Park, 134 are standing empty.

You were going to sell them to the Army.

I shall do so if it is necessary. They have been to let for a long time, but there has not been any demand for them. Albow Gardens is another example. In Johannesburg, flats are standing empty, to such an extent that even members of the Opposition are criticizing us for not allowing non-Whites to move into the empty flats. Pretoria is the only place where there are problems, and there we are waiting for private entrepreneurs to build flats for the people of Pretoria. If they do not do so within a reasonable period, we shall have to undertake it ourselves, as we did in Schubart Park.

Why are they creating this problem before it has actually arisen? When they are really being serious, they do not say that there are people who are sleeping in the veld. No. They say the people have no security any more.

It is so.

That is the biggest complaint. They cannot prove that there really has been any hardship. It is only the feeling of security which the people no longer have. That may be.

Did you listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister?

People who live in flats or in houses which are being let in terms of the Rent Act and in respect of which the rent protection is being phased out, remain protected if they earn less than R300 if they are single, and less than R540 if they are married. That was my undertaking, and I stand by it. However, I refuse to give the undertaking that when a person sells his property, the new buyer should then be obliged to subsidize people by providing them with cheap housing. It may have nothing to do with the value and the price of the house. What I do undertake—and I have undertaken it before—is that if there are cases of hardship and these are brought to our attention, we shall go out of our way to help the people concerned.

I am fully confident that we shall be able to help them. With the authority of my department and with the knowledge I have of all the regional offices, I just want to say that with the possible exception of Pretoria, there is not a single city in South Africa where the demand for rented premises has risen abnormally since rent control was phased out. If the hon. member for Sea Point can come to me and say that there are a hundred, a thousand or two thousand people on the streets who are looking for housing, who have no accommodation and who find themselves in unwholesome circumstances, then I shall listen to him. However, the problem only exists in his desire to create grievances where there is no reason for grievances. It is the same pattern which we keep finding among the hon. members on the other side.

He can ’phone too. He likes to ’phone.

You are kicking the poor people out.

I am replying to the hon. member for Sea Point. If he does not want me to reply to him, he must tell me to.

The hon. member next to you made an interjection referring to me.

Very well, but the hon. member asked me certain questions and I am replying to them.

The hon. member also complained that the rental that was being paid in the schemes of municipalities financed by us, as well in our own schemes, was sometimes too high. I believe he was thinking in particular of the rapid increase in rental when it comes to the switch from R150 to R250 and again to R450. This is a complaint which really worries me. The National Housing Commission is examining this matter with a view to amending the rentals and even finding a new formula, if possible.

The hon. member also said, in respect of rent control, that he regretted the fact that elderly people might be inconvenienced. However, he must bear in mind that in 1979, my department alone made R25 million available for beautiful old-age homes. Does the hon. member not want to give me credit for that? Does he not want to agree that the Department of Community Development made the finances available for an exceptionally beautiful and expensive old-age home in Sea Point?

Yes.

At last the hon. member has given me credit. He could not in all fairness refuse it, for he is personally acquainted with the matter and he has been there himself. We are looking after our people in every possible field. While I am on the subject, I want to thank the hon. member for Worcester for his contribution and especially for the tribute he paid to the ACVV.

They are one of my most important partners in the provision of welfare housing in South Africa. I am very proud to cooperate with ladies such as those who belong to the Cape Province ACVV. I am also very proud to be associated with other organizations, their sister societies and companies such as the one which built the old-age home in Sea Point. The ACVV has a special place in my heart, because they are so keen and enthusiastic. They sacrifice a great deal for the underprivileged. Of the R100 million which my department has already spent on welfare housing, no less than R13 million was channelled through the Cape Town ACVV. There are many other bodies that are helping and many more bodies yet which can help. The ACVV is an example to all South Africa of what can be achieved by an organization which concentrates on relieving the distress of other people, if it wishes to co-operate with the Government and to make use of the remarkable facilities we make available to such organizations.

There is one other point I want to take up with the hon. member for Sea Point. I do not want to quarrel with him, but to speak to him in all friendliness. I want the hon. member to help me, because he and his party represent the rich people of South Africa. [Interjections.] If they do not represent the rich people of South Africa, they do represent the wealthy people of South Africa as far as their representation goes. I want to ask the hon. member to use his influence among employers to pay wages in South Africa which will enable people to make a decent living. The Department of Community Development was involved in the building of a number of houses near a group of factories here in the Western Cape. We found, and it was sidely publicized in newspapers, that the tenants in these houses did not pay their rent to the extent that one would have expected. Because my department always wants to check the facts before any action is taken, we made a survey of the wages paid by the big factories here in a part of the Western Cape to their employees. The department discovered that approximately 1 300 men and 1 000 women were employed in the factories. Of the 1 300 male employees, 1 100 fell in the income group of R100 to R300 a month. The statistical median of the survey showed that about 70% of these people had an income of R250 a month and under. The greatest number, 516 of the 1 300, had an income of between R100 and R150 a month.

As far as the women are concerned, the picture is the same. Almost half had an income of R100 to R150 a month. The income of 555 was less than R100 a month. These figures refer to people who work in factories, not domestic servants who work for clothing and food.

Are these Black or Brown people?

Brown people.

Mr. Chairman, may I just ask the hon. the Minister whether he would like some assistance? If the hon. the Minister can identify under which industrial council and under which wage determination these people are employed, we shall certainly take the matter up.

I am willing to give the hon. member this information on a confidential basis. I am not prepared to give it here in this House. He will appreciate that.

*It is essential that we give some attention to this.

It is exploitation.

No, I am not saying it is exploitation; I think it is only that people do not realize the problems that exist among the underprivileged. Perhaps we should encourage our own friends, our acquaintances and our own partners to make an effort and to do more for the underprivileged people of South Africa.

†The hon. member for Durban Central followed the same line as the hon. member for Sea Point on the question of District Six and Pageview. I have already dealt with District Six. With regard to Pageview, the hon. member spoke about the destruction of a whole community, about 5 000 people who had been shifted. I want to tell my hon. friend that experts on this sort of thing are satisfied that Pageview could at the utmost house about 800 people—1 000 people at a stretch—suitably according to modern standards. Yet 5 000 people lived on 6,75 ha of land in Pageview. I think I must just mention that figure. It normally requires 125 acres of land to house 5 000 people decently. But here we had 5 000 people trying to five—and they tried very hard, and I respect them for the way in which they maintained their standards—on 6,75 ha of land instead of 125 acres. Does the hon. member need much imagination to think what the situation was there when one considers that much of that area was also occupied by shops? Almost every basement and almost every ground floor of that area was occupied by shops, scores of shops.

I am not pleading for a return to that.

One must also consider that the children could hardly risk going outside into the street because the traffic was so considerable that it was extremely dangerous.

I made the point that I am not pleading for a return to those conditions. That is not the issue at stake.

But the hon. member is pleading for the return of the people to Pageview.

To develop it as an Indian area.

The hon. member pleaded that those people should be allowed to settle and to remain in Pageview.

I pleaded that Indians can be allowed to settle in Pageview as an integral area of an adjacent …

Wait a minute. At least that hon. member is far in advance of my hon. friends of the PFP. When they talk about District Six, they say that the people of District Six should go back. Earlier this session the hon. member for Pinelands said that all 50 000 should go back to District Six. The hon. member for Durban Central, however, is wiser. He must be wiser because he associated with me for some time! However, the hon. member for Durban Central says that the Indians should be allowed to go back there. I made the point a few days ago in this House that one requires a minimum of five acres for one school. Now, if only one high school is provided for the Indians of Pageview, there will only be 1,75 ha left and that will probably in any case be needed for streets and parks. Then there would be no room for any Indians at all. But the hon. member has an answer for that too. He said that I must take adjacent areas. Is that not so?

There are adjacent areas where they have facilities.

But there are no adjacent Indian areas.

But there are areas where there are Indian schools.

One of the Indian schools that was mentioned here is unfit to be called a school. It was an excellent school in the days of Paul Kruger, but is not good for a school anymore. It has no playgrounds, to begin with. Let us be serious. Does the hon. member for Durban Central honestly want to suggest that because Indians live in the most squalid circumstances in Pageview, I should now rehouse a similar number of Indians in that part of Johannesburg where land is so expensive that, naturally, the area is becoming totally depopulated? People can no longer afford to live in that area, not even in old houses. I have just had the privilege of seeing the registration of voters for central Johannesburg, including that area In the five constituencies in the heart of Johannesburg, there are now just enough people left for three constituencies. It means that approximately 30 000 people have moved out of that area because it is too expensive and because it is not a happy situation to be living in. However, my hon. friend now wants me to virtually tell Indians to live there, although it is an unsuitable area for residential development. It is an unpopular area. Of course I admit that they want to stay there, but that is because of the propaganda that is being made in that area and because they do not appreciate the future that awaits them in better circumstances. After all, these people, with great respect—and the Indian community knows how very highly I respect them—have been used to living in squalor. They come from an overpopulated subcontinent. They came to South Africa as labourers and became shopkeepers mostly and lived in little lean-to’s behind their shops in the most unhappy circumstances, or they lived in the utterly unhappy circumstances of Pageview. Now they are being offered a new life. My job is to offer them a new life in accordance with the standards of South Africa, not with the standards of slums of the years gone by. My hon. friend now makes signs. I am not arguing with the hon. member. I have been very patient.

I have been trying to educate the educationalist, but that is one of the most difficult jobs there is. I would beg the hon. member to speak up in the interests of the people. That is a fine thing to do. He should, however, speak up with the full knowledge of the facts and in the true interests of the people, not in the interests of certain propagandists who want to suck poison out of every difficult situation in South Africa. The hon. member for Durban Central also says that the people of District Six and Pageview were not given a second chance. The people of Pageview never owned their properties. They were allowed to build on land belonging to the municipality. We are compensating them for that. They never owned the land on which their properties were situated. The hon. member said that the people of Pageview and District Six never had a second chance. I dealt with Pageview quite recently and pointed out that the Indian community of Johannesburg could look forward to an end to their housing shortage in about two years’ time, a feat which a few years ago seemed utterly impossible. We are now committed to build 11 000 houses in that area, although only 4 000 houses are required for the natural population increase over the next two years. The other 7 000 houses are for accommodating the approximately 28 000 people on the waiting-list.

There are also additional buildings still in the planning stage and to which we are not yet committed. This means that in about two years the Indian people of Johannesburg will experience no more housing shortages. Is that not something remarkable? That is why I can offer a new, happy and decent life in dwellings fit for human beings also to the slum dwellers of Pageview. They have a second chance. In the last few years the people of District Six have been given land adjacent to the central area of Cape Town. They have been given more land than they ever had in District Six. In this regard I am referring to the whole of Salt River, part of Woodstock and the prospect of more land in Woodstock being added to it. I do not think the hon. member has been aware of that.

[Inaudible.]

However, the point is that after proper consideration of town-planning principles, social principles and economic principles, we came to an objective conclusion that District Six as a residential area was not suitable for the type of people who lived there before. For that reason we changed the character of District Six. It is to some extent going to serve as a residential area for the people who can afford it or the people whose housing is going to be subsidized, but which can never be suitable for the people who have lived there before in conditions of utmost squalor. The people who lived there before were mostly sub-tenants. Very few of the people who owned District Six lived there. They let rooms there to non-Whites at £5 or £10 per room, which in today’s terms is about R100 per room. The tenants were compelled to sub-let these rooms. Many of those rooms were occupied by 10 or 11 people in one room. It was unthinkable. With the best will in the world one cannot restore such a community. One has to house them decently, as they have been housed and as they are being housed by this Government.

I want to say that as District Six nears completion and as the work progresses, we shall hear less and less criticism, and eventually there will be complete silence about District Six, as there is silence about the Oriental Plaza in Johannesburg today, because it will stand there as a monument to the vision of the Government and a permanent condemnation of the short-sightedness and the deliberate bigotedness of the Opposition.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, not now. The hon. member can ask a question later.

†The hon. member for Durban Central also spoke about the general guideline of 10% that we laid down in respect of rent control. He said that first I gave a firm undertaking and afterwards laid it down as a general guideline. My firm undertaking stands and is being implemented. We are regarding that general guideline as a firm administrative rule. For many reasons it cannot be included in the proclamation. However, that is the policy of the department, and we apply it regularly and continuously.

The hon. member spoke about a block of flats where there were two sets of tenants who occupied it at different times and said that one set of tenants was subject to rent control whereas the other one was not. We investigated that very thoroughly. However, if we place it under rent control, the landlord will have the right to increase the rent by the normal 10%. As it is, the landlord increased the rent by only 8%. So it was not relevant whether he was put under rent control or not. If he had gone to the rents board, he would probably have received permission to increase the rent by more. This is a point we must appreciate. The 10% limit on rent increases that is now imposed after a building has been exempted from rent control is, in view of inflation and rising costs and rates, in most cases a better protection for the tenants than the Rents Act would be. If they had gone to the rents board, they would in most cases have been granted an increase of more than 10%.

Would the hon. the Minister deal, not with the 10% increase, but with the income limit protection in respect of this block of flats? This is why the tenants want rent control, i.e. for the income limit protection, which is for longer than two years.

I am dealing with the 10% guideline.

I then spoke about the income limit protection in respect of that particular block of flats.

If anyone falling within the protection of the income limit is being victimized, the hon. member must please bring the specific case to my attention.

I have written to the department.

I assure the hon. member that we are not going to allow people to be victimized.

The hon. member also spoke about the tremendously high cost of land for the Indian people. The highest figure I have heard was R13 500 for stands west of Johannesburg and which was the subject of a statement I made yesterday. R13 500 for a stand is not much. I have here a list of prices for Pretoria and Johannesburg taken from one issue of the Sunday Express. The prices vary from R12 000 to R21 250 for a single stand, whereas in places like Lenasia, where people can buy fine stands and where people fall within high income groups, we have sold stands from R4 800 to R7 280, and the most expensive from R5 500 to R9 700. That is my reply to the hon. members for Durban Central and Sea Point. [Interjections.] If there is a great shortage of land for Indians, then one would expect higher prices than Europeans pay, but the facts show that there is not a shortage. [Interjections.]

*The hon. member for False Bay raised quite a few interesting points. I want to thank him for his positive contribution in which he put this matter in perspective again. I want to give him some of the most important information which he asked for. In reply to his question about Rusthof in his constituency, I want to say that the housing scheme there has been delayed because we are waiting for the extension of the Coloured group area. The extension was proclaimed on 10 August 1979, and we are now working on 125 economic dwellings and 605 sub-economic dwellings which have already been approved. Professional fees for the planning of the services and housing schemes have been approved, and funds have also been allocated for professional fees for more houses for the 1980-’81 financial year. We are still waiting for a detailed scheme for 300 dwellings. At Macassar there is an existing scheme for 1 388 sub-economic dwelling units and 655 economic dwelling units. There are another two approved schemes for 194 sub-economic units and 17 economic units. The hon. member also referred to higher rentals. I have already told other hon. members that the matter is being investigated with a view to improving the conditions.

I want to convey my sincere thanks to the hon. member for Stilfontein. He really made a constructive speech which I found very gratifying. He asked whether we would not build an old-age home at Stilfontein. We should like to help, and if the Stilfontein municipality, or bodies such as the women’s federation or the Red Cross, would take the initiative and obtain approval from the Department of Welfare and Pensions and would then come to us, we would go to a great deal of trouble to make the capital available immediately. However, the initiative cannot proceed from my department, but has to come from the local authority or from a private organization involved in this matter.

†The hon. member for Walmer raised a number of interesting questions concerning building societies, as well as the bank loan which he wants us to renegotiate so that we won’t have to repay capital immediately. He also spoke about the pilot scheme in South End, Port Elizabeth. The hon. member delivered such an interesting speech. Parts of it require careful consideration. I have asked the department to obtain a copy of his Hansard, which we shall study in detail to see how we can react. We are interested in what he said, and I shall let the hon. member know what our final reaction is. The points he mentioned are too important for snap answers.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte asked me a question about the position in Crown Gardens. We should like to go on selling properties in Crown Gardens. Therefore we have now appointed consultants to investigate what we can do in terms of the Sectional Titles Act to sell even more properties there. However, there are particularly complicated subdivisions which have to be made. In any event, everything is proceeding as rapidly as possible. The hon. member may be sure that the policy is a firm one and that we should like to sell those properties.

The hon. member for Tygervallei inquired about the rentals for sub-economic housing schemes, especially those in Epping Garden City. I have already said that we are revising the formula. As soon as we know what we can do, when the investigation by the National Housing Committee has been completed, we shall see how it can be applied in specific cases. However, the hon. member should not be too sure that we shall considerably reduce the rentals in Epping Garden City.

That was not what I asked for.

Now I cannot understand it. I shall find out later who it was.

Now I want to come briefly to the hon. member for Green Point. He discussed rent control, among other things. I have already replied to that, however. He also spoke about the Bloemhof flat complex in Zonnenbloem. He immediately distinguished that flat complex as a unit of good quality, not to be compared with the sorry buildings we have spoken about. In other words, the hon. member concedes that the other buildings are very bad and that Bloemhof is an exception. So we are making progress with this hon. member as well. However, I want to point out to the hon. member that the allegations that we are concerned with an established community in Bloemhof Flats is not true. Those flats are known for being inhabited by a population on the move. They are people who are always moving in and out. Eighteen months ago, one of the Cape Town newspapers—I shall show the hon. member the cutting—made a survey among the inhabitants of Bloemhof, and found to their surprise that the great majority of those people would like to move. They do not want to stay there, because they are getting too lonely there. The place is too isolated for them.

The newspaper only spoke to about five or 10 people.

No, it was a good random sample and it was done in a scientific way. However, if the hon. member wishes to allege that The Cape Times and The Argus—I am not sure which one it was—was lying, it is his affair. Then he must quarrel with that newspaper. In this case, however, I believe the newspaper.

Now only the hon. member for Jeppe remains. I want to say that I am sorry he is not here at the moment. He sent me a note saying that he had to leave. Actually I should like to have a very serious talk with this hon. member. He made a serious complaint against the department here, saying that we are too slow and that we are not imaginative enough in clearing up the slum conditions in his constituency. I am sorry to have to say that the hon. member’s remarks do not quite correspond with the facts. I immediately concede that the urban renewal project in Jeppe, Fairview and Troyeville, in the hon. member’s constituency, is taking a long time to implement. However, we must realize that this is an extremely difficult and a very large area. This is a matter with enormous financial and other implications.

In order to put the whole situation in perspective, I should just like to bring the facts to the attention of this House. This urban renewal process is divided into four phases. Phase 1 to phase 3 have already been completed. The first part was a National Housing Commission scheme, consisting of 169 dwelling units. This was carried out by the Johannesburg City Council and is already fully occupied. It cost R1,5 million. Phase 2 was a Community Development Board scheme, consisting of 128 flats. It was carried out by the board and is also fully occupied already. It cost about R2 million. Phase 3 consists of 18 dwelling units, which have been modernized and rehabilitated by the city council, with the funds of and in co-operation with my department, and also involved improvements to roads, services, parks, etc. It cost R400 000. Phase 4, which we are working on now, will be left to private development, and apart from the residential development, provision will also be made for other aspects such as business enterprises and service industries. Before real development can begin, however, my department has to buy another 80 properties at approximately R1 million, we have to clear up slum buildings, achieve consolidation and amend town planning schemes. The process of acquisition has had to be delayed because of a shortage of funds, but was recently resumed. Vacant residential and industrial stands available for immediate redevelopment are presently being identified and will be given to consulting marketing agents for sale. The City Council is conducting a survey of all units that can be kept and rehabilitated in terms of the new plans, with a view to assisting the owners. The whole process of the renewal of the area has been accelerated since last year, especially the clearance of shabby buildings which have been let up to now. A Government committee which gives attention on a quarterly basis to Jeppe, among other places, is to meet again on 29 May and will then give special attention to the area again. 581 properties have already been acquired at a cost of approximately R6½ million. The regional representative of my department gave the hon. member for Jeppe a full verbal and written account about two weeks ago of the progress made in connection with resettlement and demolition. He informed me that the hon. member for Jeppe seemed to be quite satisfied with the progress report he received. If the hon. member considers that no fewer than 315 dwelling units have already been provided in Jeppe and that approximately R10 800 000 has been spent on the projects and the acquisition of properties there, it will be clear to him how great the task is and how much has already been achieved. He is a member whose constituency will derive particular benefits from the activities of the Department of Community Development. Therefore I think he painted a most unfair picture in his speech. Consequently I believe it is in the interests of my department, and of the truth, to set the record straight.

Mr. Chairman, a new dimension has been given the activities of the department, viz. the provision of housing to the urban Black population. I wish to discuss these new responsibilities of this department from a specific angle.

Two of South Africa’s major challenges are the constitutional structuring of minorities and, in the second place, the social structuring of minorities within the context of a First and Third World economy. It is in these very fields of social arrangement that the Department of Community Development can boast of achievements unprecedented in Africa. During the past five years an amount of R1 000 million has been spent on national housing, and 155 000 dwellings have been built. There is a great deal of talk about the distribution of wealth in South Africa. I wish to make the unqualified statement this afternoon that the amount of R800 million spent on housing for people of colour in South Africa, for the Coloureds, the Asiatics and the Blacks, is in essence nothing less than a mighty exercise in the distribution of wealth in South Africa. Apart from the expenditure on national housing, there is a deeper philosophy underlying this bold programme of action. This is not a philosophy in terms of which millions of dollars are poured into a bottomless pit, but a philosophy of assistance to people of colour to enable them to help themselves, because matters did not come to a halt with the provision of 155 000 dwelling units. Coupled with the national housing project and the community development project, there are also still various other community factors such as the improvement in the standard of living, a reduction of the crime rate, an enhancement of security and a reduction in the number of children.

This new responsibility of the department is, at the same time, its greatest challenge. Its greatest challenge lies in the provision of housing for the urban Black population. According to the latest figures, there is a shortage of 110 000 dwelling units. When this aspect of housing is considered, the irony of the matter is that by the time the backlog of 110 000 units has been wiped out, the same number of dwelling units has again to be provided to make provision for the natural growth among the Black population. This is a major task, perhaps the greatest task in the history of South Africa, since so many other factors are tied up with home ownership, and specifically with home ownership for the urban Black man. Factors such as a stable labour force and an improvement in standards of living are tied up with that. Another factor is the normalization of relations among the various peoples. Home ownership as such is a basis, not only for an orderly society, but also for an orderly government. There are certain fields in which the public sector and the private sector can co-operate to great mutual advantage. The most important is what I would call a partnership for the provision of urban Black housing.

In order to state the problem in perspective, I wish to point out that between now and the year 2000, employment opportunities will have to be created for 8 million people. There is not only the question of employment opportunities, but also aspects such as housing, community development, schools, recreational facilities, and hospitals. So within 20 years, living space has to be created for 8 million people and this is a task which we cannot evaluate in its full magnitude this afternoon. I wish to make the unqualified statement that we are on the eve of a social revolution. The private sector will have to be involved in the provision of housing, and this will have to be done in a special way. A programme of action will have to be put into operation in terms of which the private sector will be entitled to negotiate for certain tax concessions in respect of the provision of housing. What would in effect be happening here, would be that instead of the Department of Community Development being subsidized to provide housing, the subsidy would be transferred to the private sector in the form of tax concessions as a quid pro quo for the provision of Black housing and to complement the ambitious exercise of the Department of Community Development.

I am so profoundly aware of the magnitude of this task that I request the hon. the Minister this afternoon to take the initiative and set an example by working out a housing strategy in association with manpower in the private sector to meet the housing requirements of the ’eighties. A committee similar to that of Manpower 2000 should be appointed. This proposed project committee would have to take certain cardinal decisions of which I should just like to single out a few.

In the first place, the proposed project committee would have to give serious consideration to the position of the Black man who is in the urban areas unlawfully. I wish to state emphatically that the unlawful employment of Black labour is directly responsible for the fact that the private sector is so uninvolved in the provision of housing for its employees. This afternoon I wish to put a question specifically to the employers of the Peninsula, because I know that there are approximately 80 000 unlawfully employed Black workers in the Peninsula. In putting this question to employers in the Peninsula, I also wish to ask every other employer in South Africa: “Where does your employee live?” Is he properly accommodated? How does he stand as regards medical and pension benefits? The Government will contribute its share in this respect, but there has to be a change of attitude on the part of employers towards Black employees. Employers should regard their employees not merely as labourers but also as human beings, and should also make provision for their housing, medical benefits and pension benefits. I wish to repeat that it is essential that we should reach finality without delay on the position of the Black man who is in the prescribed areas unlawfully.

A second matter which such a proposed project committee should consider, is the value of home ownership, also the value of home ownership in the Western Cape, because the only basis for a healthy community development, self-respect and respect for the property of others, is symbolized in the possession by a person of a home of his own, and by fixed employment. Labour at a decent wage and ownership of a home, are the minimum conditions for healthy community development in all the provinces of South Africa.

In the third place, this committee would also have to consider what department should and would accept final responsibility for the provision of Black housing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise to afford the hon. member an opportunity to continue his speech.

I thank the hon. Chief Whip for the opportunity of continuing my speech. I shall conclude by repeating that the proposed project committee for housing 80 on the initiative of the hon. the Minister should not only consider the position in regard to the current unlawful presence of Black people in the prescribed areas, and not only make an evaluation of the value of home ownership as a basis for healthy community development and regulation, but that there should also be finality in connection with this vast project in regard to the provision of, as I have been informed, 1,6 million Black family dwellings in the urban areas between now and the year 2 000, with regard to the question of which department should be ultimately responsible for the provision of Black housing. The present position is that the Department of Co-operation and Development determines the need for Black housing in the urban areas and that the Department of Community Development is responsible for the standards and also for the execution of the project.

The question of shared control in such an important matter affecting the lives of millions, cannot continue indefinitely, and it is essential to obtain finality as soon as possible on the question of who should ultimately be responsible for the provision of housing. Direct channels should be created from the determination of needs to the execution of the project, without it being necessary to work through other channels.

I have dealt with the new responsibilities of the Department of Community Development. New responsibilities bring new prospects, prospects that will have to be actualized, not only in the interests of a stable economy, a stable labour force, healthy community development or orderly government, but also in the interests of the White man of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Bellville has referred to two important aspects, namely home-ownership and the attitude of employers towards the housing of their employees. I could not agree with him more, because all of us know that home-ownership creates responsible citizens in this country. There are far too many employers who, when they close the doors of their factories or business undertakings in the afternoon, do not even know where their employees go or where they spend the night. I fully agree with him.

While the hon. the Minister was trying very hard this afternoon to explain to the official Opposition in particular, the nature of the problems with which the department is faced as far as housing and the slum areas are concerned, the thought entered my mind that it was a pity that the hon. members of the official Opposition had not first undergone an apprenticeship in local government.

Like who, for example?

Like several hon. members here.

We have plenty of experience in this party; more than you will ever have.

Only when an hon. member has become acquainted with housing conditions in his own area, and when he has been involved in the solution of those problems, only then does he know what he is talking about.

Yes, lots of people have served in city councils.

It is no use the hon. member for Sea Point travelling to and fro along De Waal Drive and then trying to pretend that he knows what conditions were like in District Six 15 years ago.

He cannot even keep Sea Point clean.

It is time hon. members took cognizance of the problems and then, in all fairness, to get their priorities straight. If there is one department that makes an active contribution towards an improvement in the standard of living …

Your priorities …

I wonder whether the grouser could not stop making a noise next to me here. He has been grousing all day.

You do it all the time to me. Now you are getting a bit of your own coin.

The Department of Community Development is pre-eminently a department that makes an active contribution towards the improvement of the standard of living of all races, not only of Whites. The works of this department stand like monuments throughout the country. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to devote much time to explaining to the official Opposition the nature of the work his department is doing. He should merely take them on a tour through the country and show them the monuments of his department. We wish to express our thanks, not only to the hon. the Minister and his department, but also to the local authorities that have co-operated so wholeheartedly in the past to solve the problems in their own communities. This reminds me of the saying by the late Gen. Smuts. He said: “The dogs bark; but the caravan moves on.” I therefore wish to say to the hon. the Minister: “Let the yappers yap; you carry on; your department is on the right road.

One can only realize the extent of the work of upliftment performed by the department if one has seen the shanties of the past and one now sees the excellent schemes where the former slum-dwellers are accommodated now. Coming from Port Elizabeth as I do, I had occasion to see South End at its very worst. It was not only Coloureds who lived there. There were Indians and Blacks and there were also Whites in that area. Then the hon. member for Green Point took exception this afternoon to what the hon. the Minister said and described it as an outrageous reflection on the Coloured population. No, when the hon. the Minister talks about slum conditions, particularly in District Six, and we could also include South End, he is not talking about the Coloureds only. He is stating a fact. It is not a reflection; it is a fact, and all races were involved.

So you make it White to make it clean? [Interjections.]

I should rather not say how we are going to get the hon. member white. [Interjections.]

Where these people have been removed from these areas to better housing elsewhere, we can already observe the changes in the quality of those people. Their children, in particular, are now growing up in decent conditions and they are developing a sense of pride and a will to make progress. Their children no longer just want to play in the street, in the filth and the gutters; they now want something better. Hence the fact that in the Coloured and Indian areas in Port Elizabeth today, there are private dwellings comparable with the best in the White residential areas in that city.

An improved standard of living has been created as a result of the far-sightedness of this department with its urban renewal programme in areas where poverty and misery reigned supreme, not to mention the high incidence of crime there. It is therefore beyond my comprehension how there can still be people who, under the guise of humanitarianism, could try to gloss over this inferior housing and slum conditions. It looks like petty politicking to me.

So often we hear of equal rights for all races. This department has, during the past year—and I think this has already been referred to—taken a major step in this direction with regard to the decision to place the financing of Black housing in urban areas on the same basis as housing for Whites and Indians. Where is the gratitude of those people who are forever criticizing? Why do we not also hear from them that this is a step in the right direction? This has been a far-reaching step, and particularly in view of the financial situation, it is a step that is going to impose still greater financial burdens on the department at a time when the department is already under great pressure to meet its obligations. Since the housing requirements have already shifted from the Whites to the Coloureds and will shift gradually to the Blacks as the backlog in the case of Coloured housing is eliminated, one can take it that large amounts of money are going to be required. Increased building costs and the demand for better housing, particularly for ownership schemes, will impose an even heavier burden on the department. We are pleased that the hon. the Minister has already referred to the fact that it is his intention to see to it that quality should be the primary requirement.

That brings me to a very important point, and that is the question—the hon. member for False Bay has also referred to this— whether the amount that has been appropriated under this Vote, is going to be sufficient for the financing of the schemes already in the planning stage in addition to providing for new schemes with which a start has to be made. I am asking this because the department has already made a lot of progress in its efforts to wipe out the backlog in the housing requirements for all races. There are factors involved, however, such as the natural demand for additional housing, the steadily increasing demand for funds by local authorities for approved schemes and for schemes which local authorities still have to launch, and the increased need for assistance to welfare organizations.

The hon. member for Worcester has broken a lance for the ACVV. I agree with him, but there are many other similar organizations doing excellent work. I wish to mention by the way that the Algoa Bay Council for the Aged made a request to the hon. the Minister and to the Department of Social Welfare last year. They have received assistance, and they are doing excellent work with the money they have received.

Then, too, there is still the essential provision of community facilities, particularly in Coloured areas, something that requires large sums of money. However, I am just worried that a shortage of funds could thwart the housing programme and that the backlog could ultimately get out of hand again. A point must be reached in future at which the backlog will be wiped out. That would be the stage where home-ownership would be the rule and rented housing the exception.

The hon. the Minister has also expressed himself strongly in respect of home-ownership and in this respect we agree with him. It should be the ideal, so that the children of all races may grow up with the realization that they should themselves make provision for their own housing.

I wish to conclude by asking what is being done to sell more economic houses to the occupants. In this respect I should like to associate myself with the plea which the hon. member for Walmer made yesterday, because these two things go hand in hand. I wish to inquire whether it is possible to facilitate matters for people, also without a large deposit, and by spreading bond repayments over a longer term in reasonable instalments. I have in mind in particular various extensions in the Coloured area of Port Elizabeth. There are excellent extensions in that area. I think it would be a good idea if we could try to persuade some of the occupants of those homes to become owners so that they themselves can effect improvements and so that it may inculcate a sense of pride in them. If the co-operation of building societies could be obtained, the department could obtain a more rapid repayment of its capital and then apply it in other directions for other approved schemes. I hope it will be possible to do something about this matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have no fault to find with the speech by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central. On the contrary, I can agree with him to a large extent.

I wish to discuss a local matter which is really trying my patience. I want to say at once that it has nothing to do with the hon. the Minister, his department or the Government as such, and that as far as the development of Suiderberg in my constituency is concerned, I can attest to receiving only the finest co-operation from the officials of the Department of Community Development and the hon. the Minister. I do not think there is any doubt that the Department of Community Development is performing a tremendous task in this country. Their achievements in recent times are unequalled in history. I wish to make it clear to them here and now that it is not a question of criticism of the department.

I just have a problem in connection with the development of Suiderberg, a fine area in Pretoria. It will probably be remembered that I have been discussing the development of Suiderberg in the debates on this vote for years. It is an area which was to have been utilized for White housing after the Black people who had lived there had been resettled. The resettlement of the Black people was completed a full 12 years ago, and for 12 years I have been struggling to have Suiderberg developed. In the course of those two years I have conducted various discussions with the department, the provincial authorities and the city council involved in this matter. I want to repeat that I have had the finest co-operation from the department and even from the city council.

A normal delay with regard to urban development, urban planning and township development, a delay which is human and which we are all acquainted with is bad enough, but unnecessary delay results in unnecessary and escalating costs, in the sense that land prices are constantly appreciating and the construction of building is becoming more and more expensive. Then the situation arises which we are faced with, namely that for 12 years nothing has been done about the planning of a road which is to run through Suiderberg.

This specific area, Suiderberg, was set aside for the development of housing for the middle income group, the economic income group and the sub-economic income group. One can imagine how building costs and the price of land have increased in 12 years— and someone has to pay for that—and I therefore hesitate to say that those people must pay for it because other people have not made an effort to complete their work in good time. I simply refuse to believe that it is not possible to decide where a road is or is not to be constructed in the course of 10 to 12 years.

I could elaborate on how this delay is causing inconvenience and refer to price escalation and so on, but the fact remains that in future the department, as the department responsible for community development, will have to take far more stringent action, whether doing so bedevils relationships or not, and will have to look into delays, including those caused by other bodies, which result in such things happening.

I repeat that someone will have to pay for this. The people who have to pay for this are people who do not have the resources which many others have. This is unnecessary, and I would meet anyone at any time in connection with this matter. I call upon the hon. the Minister today to see to it that if that side of the matter has been disposed of something be done to see to it that Suiderberg develops.

When we look at the newspaper headlines—they all concern Pretoria—we see that the following type of headline appears almost every day: “New township plots up to R27 000”; “Baie erwe nodig vir Pretoria se groei”. There is a long article which appeared in one of the newspapers in which Mr. Hennie Roos of the Pretoria City Engineer’s Department refers to the matter. I do not have the time to quote it now; hon. members can go and read it themselves. Other headlines are: “Huispryse Ruk Pretoria Erger as Elders.” In these circumstances we are sitting with land for which the infrastructure has already been provided or is very close, but simply nothing is done. I want to refer to something else. The development of Pretoria is totally distorted. I want to stress this.

Your politics are distorted.

Suiderberg is situated about 6 to 8 km from Church Square, whereas other areas situated between 17 and 24 km from Church Square in other directions are being developed. Why can development not also take place to the west of Pretoria? I shall not be able to understand these things. Perhaps I was a little negative. However, it is not in my nature to be impatient, drastic or negative about matters. I do not believe anyone can take it amiss of me if I become like this after struggling for 12 years to achieve something, to no effect. I hope that it will be possible for Suiderberg to be developed shortly. It would be a very fine suburb. I thank the department in advance.

Mr. Chairman, I listened with great interest to the problems of the hon. member for Hercules. I think we all hope and believe that they will be solved shortly.

When we discuss the activities, milestones, results, problems and challenges of the Department of Community Development, it is always necessary to bear in mind the mandate given to this department when it was founded. At the time we set three ideals. In the first place, housing had to be provided to all our population groups; in the second place, all our population groups had to develop in healthy communities; and in the third place, we had to eliminate those things which hindered development.

Sixteen years ago, when this department was established, there were really titanic problems that enjoyed our attention then and still do today. Peoples’ memories fade. We sometimes do not remember important things for very long. We forget about Dassiekraal, South End, Cato Manor, Sophiatown and Windermere. Perhaps we can acknowledge that these people who have forgotten them, are in the right, because a new development is taking place throughout South Africa. One could almost say that a new South Africa has arisen in these areas where previously, seething misery prevailed. Where Sophiatown used to be, there stands today a new and modern township. Windermere, too, has been replaced by a fine new town. In this way we could go from town to town and from city to city and, with one’s hand on one’s heart, attest to the fact that a new South Africa is arising everywhere. We could perhaps also ask how this occurred. What steps did we take? Is it possible that such an enormous task could have been performed within such a short period? The reply is “Yes”. This was possible because the Government created powerful instruments for and through the Department of Community Development and set them in operation. I just wish to refer to a few of them.

In the first instance, the job of modernizing the housing legislation that was on our Statute Book at the time was tackled, and the necessary new measures were introduced to eliminate shortcomings in the legislation. In the process, monuments were constructed which were unique of their kind in the world, because they served as the guidelines and the basis for the establishment of all our future housing efforts. In the second place, the well-known and important National Housing Commission was established, with its Housing Fund which today stands at R1,368 million, and which is supplemented annually by parliamentary appropriation and by capital repaid by borrowers.

As is generally known, this capital is not used to supplement the State coffers, but is used for the purposes of housing. That is why the hon. the Prime Minister, as is generally known, was able to say that what we have here is in fact a revolving fund. This revolving fund is unique of its kind in the world and is the pride of our vast housing effort in South Africa.

However, we went further and, in the third place, created the Development Board with its Development Fund. Today the Fund stands at R412 million. However, we did not stop there, either. We went even further. However, those were the basic things. We also obtained the intensive co-operation of local authorities. It is also generally known that in the early years there were local authorities that were somewhat unwilling, that did not want to give their co-operation. However, today we can attest to the fact that through perseverance and patience, the department and the hon. the Minister today have virtually 100% co-operation from all our local authorities. The intensive cooperation between the Department of Community Development and the local authorities is illustrated today by monuments in the form of fine housing projects which it was possible to bring into being through this fine co-operation.

However, the department has also succeeded in building up the brilliant staff which probably could not be equalled by any other department in the word. By means of these few things that I have mentioned, which constitute only a few of the important instruments established, our housing effort has gained momentum and it is possible to expedite the task of housing. This is impressively illustrated by the fact that over the past five years, no fewer than 159 000 units have been built for the enormous sum of R1 085 million. Now we can again ask how this is possible. How is it possible for this mighty task to be achieved in such a short period by a relatively small country with a relatively small economy? It was possible because the Government and the Department of Community Development have at all times been spurred on by the knowledge that housing represents the primary need of every person and therefore also constitutes the basic foundation of the stability, the security, the progress and contentment of every nation.

True to the founding ideal of this department, 16 years ago, it has been realized that man cannot live by bread alone. Therefore, good and suitable houses alone are not sufficient. Good and suitable houses per se are not sufficient. Accordingly the department nowadays sets three requirements. In the first place, our local authorities, that have played such a tremendous role in solving our housing problem, must also see to it in completing housing projects that the premises are beautified and finished off. Secondly, provision has to be made for the provision of community facilities. One could state here today that a tremendous task has already been performed at this stage, because applications for community facilities amounting to R411A million have already been approved. Although this task only really began to gain momentum as from 1974, we are making tremendous progress in this regard. However, we should perhaps not have succeeded in realizing our founding ideal if the department had not been farsighted enough to decide that the provision of housing on the one hand, and the provision of community facilities on the other, as important components in our housing effort, were not sufficient if the department did not also make provision in our large towns for commercial centres. The best example of this is Mitchell’s Plain, with a proposed R50 million project which will, for example, provide for a hotel, a chain store, a medical centre and a recreation complex. Quite probably the same example will also be followed at Atlantis, Phoenix, etc. I do not think any of us has the slightest doubt that the department possesses the will, the skills, the ability and, above all, the equipment to solve our housing problem in such a way over the next five years that after that period we shall be able to continue with normal provision, if the Treasury and the private sector, like two partners, hand in hand, provide the department with the necessary funds.

Mr. Chairman, I agree with the hon. member for Newton Park that housing is one of the most important aspects of the work of the Department of Community Development. I also agree that positive things have been done by the department in building houses. I wonder, however, if the hon. member has studied the report issued by the department. If he had studied what the report says about housing, he would have seen that Coloured housing has a backlog of 50 000 houses that have to be built, that Black housing has a backlog of 110 000, a backlog which is going to take 10 years to wipe out, and that Indian housing has a backlog of 8 000. How are we going to solve this problem unless the department undertakes a mass scheme to take up the slack and eliminate the backlog, as was done in England, France and Germany after the war. During the war their cities were bombed flat, and after the war they had mass housing programmes involving the construction of 500 000 units. That is how to tackle a backlog. In terms of the report there is not only a backlog. On page 11 of the report mention is made of the fact that the department could have built 39 000 houses, but these houses could not be built because there was not enough money. Is that tackling the problem realistically?

Today I am flabbergasted, worried and very, very concerned. I want to convey the worry and concern of thousands of flat-dwellers in South Africa today at the fact that there is going to be a third phase in the phasing out of rent control by proclamation.

I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with the further proclamation to phase out the rent control provisions. In the past few months I have spoken to hundreds of flat dwellers in South Africa and particularly in the Johannesburg area. I have first-hand information of how they feel about the phasing out of rent control, of their concern at the fact that they do not have security, of their fear that they will be ejected and that the building in which they live will become subject to sectional title, of their fear that they will not be able to afford to purchase similar accommodation when the axe falls upon them. There are elderly people who have brought up their children and have reached their ’seventies and who say: “Why must I now buy a flat? Where must I go? Why must I leave the area where I have been brought up?” It does not matter whether it concerns Hillbrow, Rosebank, Durban or anywhere else. Those are the problems that flat dwellers are now facing.

The hon. the Minister must be aware of what was said by hon. members in the House at the time when we discussed the sectional title provisions. Were it not for amendments moved by me from this side of the House to have the particular provision suspended for a further year until April 1981, the axe would have fallen upon many people, and further difficulties would have arisen for all the people who would have faced eviction and having to look for other accommodation. That is the position. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that a petition has been circulated in the Witwatersrand area and elsewhere, a petition which states—

I can tell hon. members that from a telephone call two days ago I learnt that so far 9 400 people have signed that petition. That means that 9 400 people are appealing to the hon. the Minister not to proceed with that proclamation.

As a result of the debate on the sectional title provisions and appeals made during that debate and also a letter I wrote to the hon. the Minister—he kindly acknowledged it and said he would go into the matter—a reassessment of the position was to be made. No doubt nobody will argue that there have been considerable changes since Proclamation 83 appeared in March 1978. One has only to try to get accommodation in a flat in any city in South Africa to realize the difficulties and to realize that there has been a change in the availability of flats in South Africa today.

At the time when Proclamation 83 appeared, the hon. the Minister said in the House (Hansard, 28 April 1978, col. 5919)—

I must say that the needs that have developed and the changes that have taken place do not at this stage warrant the further phasing out of control. As a result, I take it that the hon. the Minister and his department have conducted an investigation. I have heard the hon. the Minister make certain statements today, but I have not heard him announce today: “I was kind enough not to make the announcement on 1 April”—he was indeed kind enough not to have done that and to have delayed at least till today as far as that is concerned—“and as the result of an investigation I have had made, I have now found the following situation with regard to rented accommodation in South Africa, and because of that and because of the following facts and figures, the further phasing out of rent control, as it applies to the five-year period from 1949 to 1955, will be implemented.” I expected the hon. the Minister to make such an announcement today. At the present time there are still 80 240 units in South Africa under control. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister how many of those units will be decontrolled if he proceeds with the third phase he has announced here today, because further people are then going to be affected.

In respect of the fact that rent control is to be phased out, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to bear in mind that we are not only concerned with rent control, but that the benefits of the protection the Rents Act gives tenants is, as it were, being phased out as well. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that if, for example, during a shortage of accommodation a couple who have a child approaches a landlord for accommodation and he says that he is not willing to provide the accommodation because they have a child because he does not want them to disturb the other tenants, the couple have lost the protection that was afforded to them in terms of section 43 of the Rents Act.

If, for example, there is a rent increase because furniture has been placed in a flat, the tenant has lost the protection that was afforded to him in terms of section 38 of the Rents Act. If there had to be a further shortage in accommodation and we had to resort to the phase that existed when rent control was introduced and accommodation was short, a landlord may say to a prospective tenant that he wants goodwill, and thousands of rands will be exchanged for goodwill, because of a shortage of accommodation and people will have to pay goodwill in order to get accommodation. Is the hon. the Minister in favour of this sort of situation? He is also phasing out this protection, given in terms of section 37 of the Rents Act. It will now disappear as well. Furthermore, if a landlord harasses a tenant, if the tenant is a nuisance to the landlord and the landlord takes away services such as the cleaning of the flat, the tenant no longer has the protection afforded by section 33 of the Rents Act. What is he to do then? If a landlord decides to demolish an entire building, he does not have to go to the courts anymore to satisfy them that it is in the public interest to do so, because the protection afforded by section 29 of the Rents Act will be lost. If, during a shortage of accommodation where people are queuing to obtain accommodation, a tenant does not pay his rent on exactly the first day of the month, when it is due, the landlord can eject him on the second day of the month and the court has no right to grant equity in an application of that nature. The tenant will be ejected because he has lost the protection afforded by section 28 of the Rents Act. That is what will happen. Is that what the hon. the Minister wants? Does he want to take this protection away from the tenants of South Africa? The hon. the Deputy Minister said today that the official Opposition supported the original phasing out of rent control. We did not. I have here the statement made by the official Opposition on 6 April 1978. This statement said—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow will pardon me if I do not follow up on his arguments. He discussed a subject to which other speakers on this side of the House will give him a properly motivated reply. It is a contentious matter, consequently I believe that the hon. the Minister will also furnish him with a proper reply.

In the first instance I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister and the Department of Community Development on the opening of Ennerdale, a city in the making. I believe Ennerdale will still become a model city in the Republic of South Africa. If one looks at the infrastructure that has already and is being created there, one cannot help feeling that interested parties from abroad should pay a visit to this area and this city to see what South Africa is able to achieve. At the opening of Ennerdale on 9 April, the State President said that it was a development process which depicted the development of South Africa. Inter alia, he also said the following—

This is in truth the purpose of this department. When the Opposition attack the department and the hon. Minister so persistently on slum areas and housing, I do not think that they realize the extent of the task and the responsibility resting on the department’s shoulders. With all due modesty, before the Opposition kick up even more of a fuss, and they have begun to do so this afternoon, I should like to refer to the statements of two well-known sociologists. I believe that members of the Opposition, and the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in particular, would have heard of the sociologists Frieden and Nash and their book Shaping an Urban Future. They said the following, and I hope the Opposition will give consideration, and serious consideration at that, to these words—

I hope that they will examine those words.

When referring to community development, we must realize that the economy does play a part in this process, but not always a decisive one. Experience in countries such as America and Russia indicates that the role of the economy and economists in aid for development programmes has been of lesser importance and that traditional development theories have been practically worthless in their actual implementation. This was the tragic lesson which both America and Russia learnt in a post-war struggle to gain the upper hand in the sphere of the development of the Third World, viz. that money alone cannot buy development. That is why we can be proud of what the Department of Community Development has achieved and what it is envisaging for the future.

Thus the emphasis must not be placed so much on development aid, i.e. on the doling out of money and material goods. The emphasis should rather fall on aid to development and on self-help, i.e. helping people in an underdeveloped area to help themselves and to keep on doing so, even after the development process has stopped.

Israel achieved spectacular success with this approach to the development of the Arabs on the western bank of the Jordan after the 1967 war and up to the end of 1970—over a period of three years! I believe that South Africa has already exceeded this incredible example. This success has demonstrated that only when the individual has become part of the whole programme and the objective of development is it possible to obtain his co-operation, and only then can development take place.

When one rises to speak in this debate one realizes that the economic and social development of a community cannot take place in a vacuum. The community is confined to a locality. Economic and social development can only evolve in a place where an effective physical infrastructure exists for that development. That is why it is our objective to consider the improvement of living conditions, the creation of an environment which is conducive to the improvement of the quality of life of that community, the provision of proper housing and attendant community amenities and the laying of a foundation for economic activities.

Let us be dedicated to doing what we do well and correctly. Let us be co-builders of a future in which the aims and aspirations of our various communities can be satisfied and in which they will have a mutual respect and trust for one another. But in that process we must be prepared to speak to one another; yes, to differ with one another as well, if necessary. But our common point of departure must be to communicate and not to confront. Sound relations cannot be developed from one side only; they must come from both sides.

That is why I believe that the hon. the Minister issued a particularly important Press statement on free trading areas. I think it is important that one should quote a few extracts from what the hon. the Minister said—

Consequently one can also use the annual report as evidence. I do not want to quote any further examples, but a very positive and clear guideline for the future is, in my opinion, stated on page 35 with regard to free trade areas. One must now be very practical. Where an infrastructure such as an Ennerdale, an Atlantis or a Mitchell’s Plain has not been created, one must ask oneself where the Coloured or Indian dealer is to establish himself. Consequently I am asking the hon. the Minister today, when he attends to this matter during the recess, to give careful attention to this matter.

We must realize that the Indian and the Coloured people have become an inseparable part of the economy. I state unequivocally here today that I am an advocate of open trade areas for the Indians and Coloureds, provided they are able to comply with those requirements, and an infrastructure has not been created for them in their own areas, as has been done in the places which I have already mentioned. Let us examine what is happening in practice at present. I am referring to trade practices and not to residential areas. I do not want the opposition to misinterpret what I am saying. The Indian and the Coloured people are being exploited today by the Whites, in this respect that they are being compelled to turn to white cities where they do not have an infrastructure. There they have to operate according to the so-called “nominee” system, in order to achieve economic viability. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we are accustomed to the fact that the hon. member for Overvaal prepares his speeches thoroughly and delivers them here in a very enthusiastic way. That is why he always has a positive contribution to make, as he did once again in this House this afternoon. I want to congratulate him on that. Now I want to single out a few points in this debate.

I want to use the time which has been granted to me to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on two monuments which have arisen here in our part of the world, as a result of their activities, and consequently I should like to discuss Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis. In connection with Mitchell’s Plain I should like to quote a few remarks made by visitors, which were recently communicated to me by the Cape Town City Council. A professor from the USA, who specializes in international politics and relations, said for example—

Sir Donald Logan, Foreign Office Information Officer and international diplomat said—

A professor from Germany said—

What to me was one of the finest comments, was that of an MP from the United Kingdom, who said—

I believe this summarizes all the fine things that have been done there. That is why it is a particular privilege to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the development in Mitchell’s Plain.

I just wish to draw a few comparisons now to show how Mitchell’s Plain compares with other countries according to international standards. It is interesting to note that the planning of Mitchell’s Plain makes provision for approximately 17 houses per hectare. The size of the plots there is approximately 120 sq. metre to 200 sq. metre with 6 to 12 metre frontages. The size of the houses varies between 44 sq. metres and 103 sq. metres. If one were to examine the cost aspect, one would see that the present costs vary from a minimum of approximately R8 000 to a maximum of R15 000. Against this it is interesting to examine the English “new town” system. In Milton Keynes, for example, there are 12 housing units per ha, while in other residential areas, such as Redditch, there are approximately 22 or 23 per hectare. However, if one examines the cost aspect, one sees that comparable dwelling units in Redditch cost between £8 000 and £15 000 as far back as 1973. As far as the sizes of dwelling units are concerned, it is interesting to see that the size of our housing units are just a little larger than those of the English new town system.

It is interesting to draw comparisons with other countries. In the Netherlands, for example, the cost of a similar house amounts to plus/minus R40 000. In France one finds a completely different situation I think the only country which could be compared to ours, with our system and our fundamental desire that the individual should be bound to the soil, is England. The European countries have, of course, tried to accommodate as many people on as little land as possible owing to the population density, and as a result of that they are, of course, experiencing a considerable number of sociological problems. Unfortunately I have been informed that the Netherlands, one of the first countries to make a start with this kind of development, has already found that the sociological problems arising out of such development are grave and becoming graver.

For those reasons I think that Mitchell’s Plain is one of the finest monuments we have here. It has also come to my attention that the municipal division of the Civil Engineering Institution of Civil Engineers of S.A. recommended Mitchell’s Plain as being “the most outstanding civil engineering achievement of 1979”. I should now like to put a question to the hon. member for Green Point, a former city councillor of Cape Town, and since he has already spoken in this debate and may not be afforded another opportunity of participating in it, he need merely reply “yes” or “no” to my question as to whether he does not want to join me in telling the Institution of Civil Engineers that they could never go wrong in giving these people this award.

I believe he and I will agree that this is one of the most meritorious cases we had in 1979. I now want to ask him whether he agrees with me.

[Inaudible.]

I am grateful that the hon. member for Green Point agrees with me on this matter. I think this is the first time that I have heard any expression of gratitude for the department from that side of this House.

Next I want to say something about Atlantis. At present there are 3 092 families living in Atlantis. In all, 3 331 houses have already been completed there, while 566 are under construction. A total of 3 552 people work in Atlantis. I do not want to refer to Atlantis as a place where industries can be established or as a place which is the most successful growth point in South Africa, but as living space, as a new city which is being created, and in which every house in the centre of this future city will offer a view of the sea. It is one of the finest cities we shall ever find in South Africa. I should also like to discuss all the modern services such as tarred roads, stormwater drainage, electricity, water, underground telephone cables and telephone connections for every house. Here, I believe, we shall find a new culture, a new auxiliary city as a sister city near Cape Town. It will be a city with its own culture, its own rythm, its own art. I believe that these two cities will complement each other in future, will nourish each other and cooperate with each other to strengthen South Africa.

I should like to take this opportunity of pointing out that the average community age of Atlantis is only 38 years—one of the lowest in the whole of South Africa. At the same time the average crime figure is one of the lowest in the whole of the Cape Peninsula. The community administration, which is functioning there at present, has already collected more than R7 000 for their first nursery school. Even now they are collecting money for a second nursery school. These members who are assisting in that effort there, belong to different political parties. However, in spite of political differences, they are co-operating with one another to make Atlantis one of the most outstanding cities in the region. That is why I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to avail himself of the outstanding opportunities which Mitchell’s Plain and Atlantis are affording the department to educate the people living there from the very beginning, and also to involve them in the local government, since we are already feeling the lack of people in our Coloured community in managerial posts and in the posts of officials. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Vasco will understand that, in the short time available to me, I shall have to direct my comments more particularly to the hon. the Minister and to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

I want to state right at the outset that I am disappointed with the hon. the Minister’s reaction to my comments on self-help housing. I do not suggest that they are perfect, but nor should the hon. the Minister suggest that either he or his department is perfect in the field of techniques for new housing. While I used the one illustration from Lusaka, I can also refer to Lima, in Peru, where other similar illustrations can be found. If the hon. the Minister does not like that, I could refer him to the Hall Estate, at Mataffin, near Nelspruit. There he will see almost a complete community settled in adequate houses, and with adequate schools, all built on a self-help basis, thanks to the good relationship between the management of the company and the unskilled labour that was available. Here is an example of self-help, where there is control but where the labour and the effort of the individual who is going to occupy that house are used to add to the asset provided by the State.

Furthermore, we shall be pleased to hear from the hon. the Minister—confidentially, if he so wishes—in which industries those low wages are being paid. We shall certainly do what we can to change the situation. The hon. the Minister should of course also realize that wages are related to levels of skill and to levels of education, and that one has to take all the relevant factors into account. All we are saying is that given the low wages—whatever the reason for that may be—an increasing burden is starting to bear down on the people in the lower income groups as far as housing is concerned. I do not reproach the Department of Community Development for that factor. It is a general socio-economic phenomenon with which the hon. the Minister and the department will have to grapple, because they will have to accept some of the consequences of this situation.

What is gratifying though, is to sense that although neither the hon. the Minister nor the hon. the Deputy Minister is willing to admit that the PFP was correct, they are beginning in their own way to admit that we were in fact correct when we opposed the amending of the Sectional Titles Act. We only have to read what the hon. the Minister says. He says it was never considered, never thought of, that old apartments would be converted on a large scale for sectional titles. We told him it was going to happen. He knows it is happening. He knows it is happening in my own constituency. I am pleased to see the Secretary for Community development state in his annual report—

So, we find the hon. the Minister supporting us on this side of the House, and we also find the Secretary of the department casting doubt on whether a system which the Government introduced is entirely appropriate.

The hon. the Minister is aware that no new flats are being built in the cities of South Africa for the income group to which we are referring. That has not happened since he announced the abolition of rent control by stages over two years ago. He is aware of this. He is also aware that the number of units available for letting is reducing as sectional titles move in. Although he has not totally conceded to our requests to change the law, he has admitted that he was wrong. [Interjections.] Next year he might have to change the Rent Control Act to get rid of all rent control prior to 1949. He cannot do that by proclamation; he can only do that by changing the Act. We call on him, before he comes to Parliament with that, to reconsider sectional titles and to see that in respect of older blocks of flats there is a limitation on sectional titles and the eviction of people. I have no objection to somebody who lives in a flat asking to buy it and then converting it to sectional title. But it is a fundamentally different thing when a tenant who is not able and does not want to purchase is forced into purchasing because of the risk of eviction. We expect the hon. the Minister to reconsider this, and we hope he will introduce legislation in the next session of Parliament to see that the older tenants in the older blocks of flats are not victimized.

There is a particular block of flats in Sea Point of which the hon. the Minister has personal knowledge. There is a block of flats in Sea Point which was bought by last year, not a supporter of my party, but by a supporter of the hon. the Minister’s party. A flurry of tension ran through the tenants in that block of flats because a few days afterwards, after the hon. the Minister had come to watch Western Province play Northern Transvaal at rugby on 29 September, he visited one of the flats at 7 o’clock that Saturday-evening. He said he had come to see that flat, and he gave a strange reason— which he can explain to the House—why he left the President Hotel at 7 p.m. on a Saturday-night to go and look at a particular flat in a block bought …

No. That statement is wrong.

The hon. the Minister can explain it, but he is aware that from that moment onwards the people in that block of flats were terrified because they believed that their block of flats was going to be subject to the lifting of rent control and sold under sectional title. Well, this is exactly what has happened. The hon. the Minister knows that the residents of Prince Edward Residences have received letters from the agent of a new property developer who has said that they are going to sell the flats and the tenants have 15 days to decide whether they are going to purchase one or not. They have to give access to architects and other people who want to come into the flats. If they did not do so, the agent was going to apply for the tenants’ eviction. That is as close to flouting the law of rent control, viz. that landlords shall not harrass tenants, as one can come.

The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister says that they “met arends-oë sal kyk en sorg dat niemand uitgebuit word nie”. If somebody is “uitgebuit” how is one going to protect them? If, under the amendment to the Section Titles Act, a person is exploited and is told that he must buy or get out how, is he going to be protected? The hon. the Minister says that he will come back afterwards and re-impose rent control if necessary. It cannot be done, because the one protection has been removed from the law over which the hon. the Minister has no discretion. I do not have time to read his statement. He knows that he told the people in 1978 that protection for certain classes of people will continue and that an undertaking was given that they would continue to enjoy protection. The hon. the Minister has in fact taken that protection away. He says he will re-impose it and prevent exploitation. But I ask him to tell us before this debate ends how he is going to do it in respect of the older blocks of flats where there are old people in this income group who are now facing eviction unless they buy the flats themselves?

The next point I want to touch on is with reference to a situation which is developing in Hout Bay, which is part of my constituency and where there have been reports recently, which I have investigated, of the breaking down of certain squatter shacks by the Divisional Council there. This is done because the Divisional Council is the agent of the Government in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act. The hon. the Minister gave us an assurance in this House that the Government would not break down squatter shacks until it provided alternative accommodation. He said they would not drive people out of the homes they were living in …

Those that are marked or numbered.

It has nothing to do with marking. It is a question of the people being there. In Princess Street in Hout Bay 20 shacks have been demolished. Those shacks have been there for a long time. The last one was built in 1972, so they have been there for at least eight years. Some of them have been there much longer. They are occupied by Coloured people. The hon. the Minister can shake his head, but I repeat that they are occupied by Coloured people, two thirds of whom are on the Divisional Council’s books as having applied for accommodation. They have been on the application list for some years. In other words, they have been resident there, the Divisional Council has known about it and they have already applied to the Divisional Council for alternative accommodation. Without providing them with alternative accommodation, however, the Divisional Council is demolishing those shacks. If the hon. the Minister finds that this is correct will he give the necessary instructions to the Divisional Council? If there are people occupying shacks erected prior to the implementation of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, and if those people are on the council’s books waiting for accommodation, will he make sure that no shacks are destroyed until the alternative accommodation has been provided? That was the undertaking the hon. the Minister gave, and I think we must accept that it was given in an honourable spirit and that it was not the Government’s intention to demolish old shacks, in which people had been living, until alternative accommodation was provided for the people concerned.

In the short time left to me I should like to deal with a completely different matter. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am not going to reply to what the hon. member for Sea Point said. I believe the hon. the Minister will furnish a fitting reply to what he said. However, when the hon. member levels accusations at the hon. the Minister, he contradicts himself time and again. On previous occasions he kept on inviting the hon. the Minister to investigate what was happening in his constituency. Now that the hon. the Minister has been there, the hon. member alleges that the hon. the Minister went there “for a strange reason”. They simply do not give him a chance to investigate matters when he is engaged in his work. However, I am going to leave the matter at that. If there is a little time left at the end of my speech, I shall deal with this matter again, but I believe the hon. the Minister will furnish a satisfactory reply to this matter.

†I once read a story about a little Coloured boy who was asked to give a definition of an ideal home. He replied that an ideal home is a place that his mother loves to take care of, that his father likes to work for and that they like to be in.

*On each occasion that I have had dealings with this department, that story comes to mind. In the foreword of the annual report the Secretary of Community Development points out that the total expenditure on housing, financed from the National Housing Fund, should not be seen as ordinary Government spending, but rather as an investment which is repaid with interest, and that it should in particular be appreciated as an investment in sound human relations, since it ensures order and peace wherever it is made. I completely agree with that view of the Secretary. It creates harmony in the life of our nation.

As my knowledge and experience of the activities of this department are to an extent confined to those things which the department has achieved in my constituency, in both the White and the Coloured sections, I want to confine myself to that subject in these late hours of the afternoon. I am doing so because, on account of my experience, I wish to bring certain matters to the attention of the hon. the Minister, matters which I believe are going to be important to him and to his department. I am very grateful that a Government Committee has been appointed to take care of the development of Reiger Park, at present the largest Coloured town on the East Rand. Up to the present there has been exceptionally good co-operation between the White inhabitants of Boksburg and the inhabitants of Reiger Park, but there are elements that are threatening to disturb that harmony, and the chief cause is the financial burden the Town Council has had to bear up to now in order to be able to accommodate the majority of the Coloureds on the East Rand.

In view of the problems the local authorities are experiencing in making ends meet with their limited financial resources, the addition of approximately 22 000 Coloureds to the number of inhabitants of the town is creating greater problems than those for which they would normally have to budget. The deficit on the current account in respect of the Coloureds has already reached the R1 million level and may be increased by a further R½ million this year. The pockets of the White rate payers alone can no longer maintain the normal harmony that used to prevaile there. Consequently I ask the department to give urgent consideration to the emergency situation which is developing in that area. I believe that Reiger Park must be expanded, that its borders must extend further, for housing is a serious bottleneck in its development. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to exert pressure on the Government Committee to submit urgent recommendation so that his department can set to work to help those people.

The building of orderly communities during the next ten years will definitely constitute an important part of our total strategy against the forces that are threatening the welfare of our country.

It is important that our future planning should be of such a nature that the execution of our projects should entail a minimum of costs. The provision of White housing, for example, will be minimal in comparison with that of the other population groups. A factor which could play a part in White housing, is that the birth rate of the White population will not be as high as that of other peoples. Over recent years the trend has developed for White pensioners, once they have retired, to give up their houses and occupy flats or communal houses. This is sensible, and I think it is something which should be encouraged. Unfortunately one finds this trend occurring only among pensioners in the upper income brackets at this stage. This trend means that houses which were occupied by these persons while they had their children with them are being vacated and occupied by the next generation with children. So if we can concentrate on this type of dwelling for pensioners in the lower income brackets as well during the next few years, I venture to predict that many more existing houses will become available for young couples with children. This will mean that fewer new residential areas with expensive infrastructures will have to be made available by local authorities. The group of pensioners to which I referred, finds it difficult to pay higher rates and maintenance costs from their pensions. We shall thus be doing them and the young married couples a favour by concentrating more on providing housing for pensioners in the lower income brackets.

There is another reason for making this suggestion. There are a considerable number of suburbs in some of our older urban areas which still date from the period before the two world wars. These suburbs usually have large plots which could easily be subdivided and on which as many as eight duster houses could be built. Allow me to illustrate this with an example. In Boksburg North, a suburb which was established before the First World War, there are approximately 50 such plots plus a large number of unutilized State-owned, provincial-owned and other plots. If these plots are developed into such a scheme, they could provide accommodation for approximately 400 pensioners. This would therefore mean that approximately 400 houses in Boksburg and the East Rand would become available to young married couples. Furthermore, this would mean that children could utilize the existing schools in that vicinity so that the State would not have to provide new schools in new urban areas. The number of pupils in the school in this area has recently decreased to such an extent that a bus service has had to be introduced to convey children from Delmore to Boksburg North over a distance of approximately seven kilometres. Previously all the pupils in those schools lived within walking distance of those schools.

In order to curb inflation we shall have to plan in a more effective and co-ordinated way in future. Government departments and town councils will have to plan together. That is why I believe that this department together with the Planning Division will have to conduct an in-depth inquiry into unutilized State-owned, provincial-owned and city plots, as well as under-utilized plots, and that we shall have to devise schemes to encourage town councils to re-examine older suburbs in depth. This would entail innumerable benefits for the State, local authorities and our people. The reason why private developers do not build new houses in these old areas is simply of an economic nature. Consequently we cannot expect them to invest in old residential areas in future, and for that reason we shall find that young married couples will be compelled to settle in new areas. This will mean that, from their honeymoon days onwards, they will be trapped by expensive house loans, high rates, high school funds, etc. They will have a constant struggle until they are old to make a go of things. Local authorities throughout our country still allow light industries to be established in older residential areas as well. I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister and ask him and his department to eradicate that approach, otherwise we shall never see the end of annual reports such as the one we have before us, in which our Georgetowns, Doringfonteins and Jeppes are described. Urban renewal must begin before the schools, churches and playing parks are empty. On page 13 of the annual report it is mentioned that the task of the local authorities is to submit recommendations to the department on housing requirements in cities and towns. Guidelines are laid down which have to be followed by local authorities in order to obtain financial assistance from the department. I want to venture the opinion that local authorities do not have the manpower to carry out such surveys. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Boksburg on the sound comments he made in his speech. However, he will forgive me if I do not follow him in his line of argument as I want to raise some other points with the hon. the Minister.

At the outset I would like to make a few points in connection with the booklet entitled District Six—the Other Side of the Coin, which was issued by the hon. the Minister’s department a few days ago. In all honesty, I think one must ask from the point of view of the Coloured population whether there was ever another side of the coin for them, because it would appear very much as if it was a case that heads the Government wins and tails the Coloured community loses. The hon. the Minister raised an interesting point when he replied earlier to some of the hon. members who had spoken in the debate. He made the point that the department had spent R30 million, as I understood him to say, in acquiring control of the land area of District Six.

Not only for that.

The hon. the Minister did mention a global amount of R30 million, but whether it is R25 million or R30 million …

R30 million.

… it is a fairly significant amount of money. I do not think that anyone who participated in this debate pleaded for the conditions that pertained in District Six should be restored and allowed to continue. I do not think that anyone was of the opinion that the slum conditions there should be allowed to continue. In that respect there was a certain amount of motivation in looking for another way of dealing with things. But I cannot help thinking that if some of that R30 million, or whatever the figure was, has been ploughed into providing essential services for that area, and if the health regulations pertaining to the Cape Town municipal area had been more strongly enforced to prevent some of the appalling conditions which led to the state the area was in, and if other regulations in terms of the Slums Act had been strictly enforced, a far more equitable situation could have been reached from the point of view of the Coloured people that were involved in District Six. If money had been made available to them, by way of loans or grants—whether it came from the Community Development Board through the local municipality or in whatever other form—to rehabilitate those dwellings in District Six which were sound enough to be rehabilitated, I believe that we would never have reached the situation which we have seen over a period of years with an on-going debate and a bitterness, frustration and hostility amongst the Coloured community because of the symbolism of all that District Six has come to mean to them. I leave that thought with the hon. the Minister because I believe it is worthy of consideration. I raise this matter also because I notice that in the report of the department there is a very welcome train of thought which is looking clearly—the way I read the report—at putting more emphasis on the question of rehabilitation, identifying problem areas before they become completely run down and applying funds in such a way that one can apply the old adage, viz. that a stitch in time saves nine. I therefore want to say how much we in the NRP welcome that kind of thing. It is a thought, but one wonders to what extent the present shortage of housing experienced by Coloureds, Indians and Blacks in South Africa is the result of the fact that they were living in areas which degenerated over a period of time and that it was found necessary to go for ultimate urban renewal in the sense that one had to buy them out, raze everything to the ground and start again. It is an extremely costly business, as the hon. the Minister’s report makes quite clear, and as one can read between the lines, particularly in a country where skilled manpower is at a premium and where development costs and capital costs are not always easily come by. I therefore want to say that to my way of thinking and to our way of thinking it is far more desirable to apply that stitch in time, to spend more reasonable and increasing amounts of money on the rehabilitation of areas, without going to the extreme of letting them degenerate completely, buying the people out, resettling them elsewhere, with all the drama and trauma that this involves, particularly when it is people of colour who feel that they are possibly being discriminated against in the move. Whether they are going to conditions that are better or worse is irrelevant to them because they feel that they have been moved because they are people of colour.

I want to emphasize once more that the process of rehabilitation, before one resorted to such drastic steps, would have solved an enormous amount of the problems with which we are faced today. I shall leave it at that. I would merely like to add that one can look at an area like Newlands where some of the most delightful cottages in the whole of the Peninsula are presently occupied by Whites. When one sees the photographs of past years, one notices that those are clearly cottages which were in an extremely run-down condition. They were owned by Coloureds who were not in a position to afford renovations. The unfortunate thing is that those cottages were bought up by White investors. I agree they spent a fair amount of money on doing them up, but it was then seen that Whites were moved into those cottages. This was the injustice of the system. It was the Coloureds and the Indians who were moved. One can also refer to such an area as Cato Manor where the Indians were bought out because the conditions under which they lived were not suitable. It always seems to them that they have received the thin edge of the wedge. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that this is an aspect which is worthy of a great deal of consideration. Far more attention must be given to the question of the rehabilitation of areas, and assistance must be given to communities, even if some of these communities are not totally viable, as the hon. the Minister points out, and there is insufficient land for recreation and for new schools and this sort of thing. I think those are side-issues. If one could rehabilitate an area, if one could leave the people who are living there and make their lives more pleasant and meaningful, through whatever process one uses through the department, one would be following the right avenue, an avenue which should be followed very much more in the future.

Then I should briefly like to raise with the hon. the Minister once more the question of the development of Cato Manor, which falls in my constituency. I know that proclamation is due very soon in terms of which a portion of land will be returned to Indians for occupation. I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister, as I have made before, for the area to become a high-class, low-density area. I know that there has been pressure on the hon. the Minister and the department to make it a high-density area, but I should like to point out that that will not be in keeping with the suburbs surrounding Cato Manor. High-density development would place an enormous burden on the road systems leading to Cato Manor, and I believe that any attempt to make high-density housing available in Cato Manor to the Indian people would be met with a great deal of resistance, because that is an area which lends itself to high-class, low-density development, particularly in view of the access roads which are generally occupied by people of other race groups who are worried that the roads through their suburbs are going to be used as major access roads, if the intention is to make Cato Manor a high-density area. I shall leave it at that. I think that I have previously made that point to the hon. the Minister in this House, and that was, of course, at the stage when the planning of Cato Manor had not been finalized. I realize that it is on record, but I should like to place on record once again the fact that people of the suburbs surrounding Cato Manor are quite happy with the decision that the Indian community will be returned there, but they would like to see that the development is in line with the suburbs that surround the area at present. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give us some indication of his thinking in that regard this evening.

Mr. Chairman, I do not disagree with many of the things that the hon. member for Berea just said. He mentioned the suburb of Newlands and indicated that this was the kind of thing that could be done, and that the Coloured people could have remained there and could have done that themselves. I think, however, that that is incorrect, because the people who lived there were very poor. Four or five families lived in every house. If one were to have restored those properties—and the cost was astronomical; I have intimate knowledge of it—which of those four or five families would one have had to move? One would still have had to move out 80% of the population, because the density was so colossal that if one had restored the individual houses, they could not have rehoused that population. That is the first factor.

The second factor was that about 80% of those properties were owned by Indians, and I speak under correction. They were, in fact, owned by two Indians. So one could again ask what principle was involved. I should respectfully like to submit that the fact that it was rezoned allowed the normal market forces to work, at no cost to the taxpayer, so that that area could be upgraded to the level of the surrounding area.

However, I was intrigued during this debate to find out for myself what the difference was in the attitude towards this department by that side of the House, the PFP, and this side of the House. I looked very carefully at the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point who spoke at the commencement of this debate and asked for the privilege of the half hour. One very interesting fact emerged. The prime function of this department is to create houses and community life, but not once during that half-hour speech did the hon. member for Sea Point use the word “home”. He used the words “accommodation units”, “categories of citizens”, “tenants”, “flat units”, “new units”, “shacks”, “alternative accommodation” and so on, but not once did he use the word “home”, and only once in his two speeches did he use the word “family”. It struck me that that is what runs through to the heart of this debate. In speech after speech hon. members on this side of the House have spoken of the need to create proper community facilities for families in homes in South Africa. Everyone knows the song “Home, sweet home”. What does that hon. member want people to sing? Does he want them to sing “Site and service plots, sweet site and service plots” or “Accommodation unit, sweet accommodation unit”? We are busy trying to create homes for people in South Africa, and it is a difficult and enormously complex task. I do not think anybody on this side of the House would argue that the department has not made mistakes, that it is not difficult to move tens of thousands of people—of course it is difficult—or that some hurt is not caused in the process, because of course it is caused. One can look back at the achievements of this department. Almost every hon. member on this side of the House has in this debate spoken of the achievements of the department as monuments of compassion in action. So often hon. members on that side of the House, who look through rose-coloured spectacles, lecture to us as if they are high priests of compassion, but if there is a demonstration of functional compassion, it is in the work of this department at this time in our history.

I now want to refer to the matter of the existing stock of houses in South Africa. The hon. member for Berea touched upon this vital subject. It seems to me that because of the rapid industrialization and urbanization that is taking place, because of the exponential population growth and because of the cost of creating housing, it is of the utmost importance that we stretch the life of our existing stock of houses as much as we can, because our stock of houses is the one great asset, perhaps the greatest physical asset, this nation has. We are unfortunately experiencing urban decay at a rate and on a scale that is alarming. I think the departmental report of 1972 identified, ranked and defined the problem extremely well. However, there are areas in the inner city that are decaying. I should like to mention a few factors contributing to this process so that we can attempt to do something about the problem.

The first factor I want to mention is that in areas which are in a state of decay, according to the surveys I have seen, never are more than 20% of the houses owned by individual owners. In Maitland in the Cape the figure is 19%.

The second factor I want to mention is that occupants in rented houses seldom wish to improve their dwellings, basically for fear of increase in rentals. I know from experience that rentals have, in fact, been increased after people spent their own money on improving a particular property.

The third factor I want to mention is creeping, non-conforming uses, particularly industrial use. It is a fact that a 10-ton truck and little children playing in the street do not meld or go together. The increasing industrialization, often non-conforming in certain areas, has been like a cancer in many of the communities in the inner cities.

There is a fourth factor about which I cannot say very much, except that the rates burden on the individual house owner is such that it is forcing many people from their homes. All I should like to say in this regard is that I look forward to the report of the Browne Commission. Maitland has been designated by the hon. the Minister as area in need of community development. I should like to thank him and the department very much, but I should like to say that if we are going to go to the heart of the problem, we are going to have to encourage home ownership in those designated areas. It cannot be done on a sufficient scale to turn the tide of urban decay, unless we reduce the current interest rates in designated areas. I appeal to the hon. the Minister to appeal to the hon. the Minister of Finance for a contribution in terms of lower interest rates so that we can reduce the interest rates to about 5% or 6% on houses which are going to be improved in designated areas. Attractive loans in respect of designated areas—to deserving applicants, of course—will provide an impetus which the normal market forces, which the hon. member for Berea also referred to, will then carry forward. That is not a subsidy. I know that the Treasury is against subsidies. I am not talking about subsidies but about a contribution towards urban renewal which in the long term will be an investment for the State.

We have heard so much about District Six in debates in this Parliament. In the final analysis the collapse of District Six can be ascribed to the failure of a 17th century town to respond to the post-war industrial boom. It was not the fault of the Government, but a reality which the Government had to face at the end. The low-interest loans which I have spoken about, should be made available to deserving people in designated areas on one condition, viz. that the local authority in that area should also do its share. It could freeze rates for five years, it must certainly implement its regulations and bylaws and it should force owners who can afford to up-grade their houses to do so. The local authorities do have certain powers. Co-operation in terms of financial support should not be given to a municipality unless it makes a contribution itself as well. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Maitland is really splitting hairs and dealing in semantics. The hon. member for Sea Point made himself very clear. I think everybody in this House knows exactly what he means by self-help housing schemes and the need for housing. Unless this Government initiates a mass housing project, we shall never make up the backlog.

The hon. member for Maitland also referred to District Six in relation to urban renewal. I shall deal with urban renewal generally a little later in my speech. The hon. member had the effrontery to talk about a compassionate department. It is the same department which moves thousands of people from one area to another, which chases people out of the city to a place 36 miles away and which makes people get up at 4 o’clock in the morning to get to work on time and results in people who work in the evening getting home at 3 o’clock in the morning and having to go back at 5 o’clock, as happens in Lenasia. Is that what the hon. member calls compassion? I do not think he understand the meaning of the word. What about the 80 900 flat dwellers of South Africa who are facing the threat of a further proclamation for the phasing out of rent control? Is that what the hon. member calls compassion? I have been shown no compassion by that department. Despite all the applications, appeals and letters to the department on my part and my appeals to the hon. the Minister, I have had no satisfaction. I share the sentiments of the hon. member for Jeppe. Why, when he asked for information so as to report back to his constituency in February, did he only get the information today, 14 May? I do not share the view of the hon. member for Stilfontein. Whatever I have asked of the department, I have not received. Representations to the hon. the Minister have met with a negative response. Not a single request in all these years has been acceded to by the department or by the hon. the Minister. That is what the hon. member calls compassion.

I want to continue on from my previous speech where I was dealing with the hon. the compassionate Deputy Minister and his announcement of this afternoon. I was dealing with a point he made with reference to the Opposition. He said we initially supported the phasing of rent control.

Mr. Chairman, in taking up the same point of view that we expressed here in 1978, I should like to place on record that we do not believe it is in the public interest for the Rents Act to be tampered with on a piecemeal basis. The Government has a duty to submit to Parliament legislation which will ensure that the negative influences of the Rents Act are eliminated so that property developers can be encouraged to provide more residential accommodation without the essential safeguards for tenants being threatened. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister will take note of this.

Referring to the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech earlier today, there are a few matters I should like to discuss with him at this stage. Firstly, with regard to the limits of R300 and R540, my plea of course is for a stay of execution, and not to proceed with this proclamation. But if and when the Government do decide to go ahead with proclamation should it not be coupled with an increase of the R300 and R540 limits, similarly in a proclamation at a simultaneous time? That is the first point.

Secondly, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that should attention be drawn to exploitation at any time he was prepared to take the necessary steps. Does the hon. the Deputy Minister not know then that most people are afraid of complaining when they are being exploited for fear that they might be evicted by their landlord. Therefore, they continue to suffer in silence. Then the hon. the Deputy Minister says that it is no longer he who appeals to the lessors that they must use the guidelines of the 10%. I should like to tell the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister about a public meeting I convened in Rosebank, Johannesburg. That meeting was attended by many people, including representatives of Sapoa. Among the Sapoa executives present was also Mr. Nigel Mandy and all his directors. We held a free discussion. Everybody was allowed to put questions and to reply to questions, questions on the pros and cons of the phasing out of rent control. Obviously at that meeting Sapoa was outvoted by the tenants who put their point of view. I said to Mr. Mandy, on behalf of Sapoa: “You give guidelines to all your landlords. What if one of your landlords raises his rent by 600%? What will you or what can you do then?” He said there was nothing he could do about it. [Interjections.] Of course, there is nothing Sapoa can do about it. They are not prepared to do anything about it. As long as the landlord wishes to increase his rentals, he does so, and no one can stop him.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister also said we should treat this with great circumspection. Is that the same circumspection with which he announced the phasing out of rent control? When increasing rentals, he said, consideration should be given to the question of a reasonable return. If there was no rent board, who then was going to decide what a reasonable return was? Is it the landlord? Of course, it is the landlord. What is to the landlord a reasonable return is an amount which enables him to afford overseas trips, to live in luxury, which he believes he is entitled to, etc. Those are his norms he applies when he has to decide on what is a reasonable return. That is also his standard of what a reasonable rental is. In establishing what his standard should be he does not take the tenants into account at all. Therefore, who determines what a reasonable rental is? What will the consequences of such a situation be? Is the hon. the Minister going to reintroduce rent control? Should he reintroduce rent control, what would happen to the rentals that have already been increased by between 100% and 200%? The hon. the Minister cannot take that away from the landlords, can he? They have increased their rentals and no one can take the increases away from them.

Then the hon. the Deputy Minister also referred to sectional titles. He expressed a great degree of sympathy with us in our raising the question of the extension of the period before the Sectional Titles Act will take effect. The hon. the Deputy Minister said the indiscriminate conversion of blocks of flats should be curbed. In all seriousness, what can the hon. the Deputy Minister do about the provisions of the Sectional Titles Act once the Rents Act has been repealed and once section 39(1) of the Sectional Titles Act is no longer operative? What can he do? [Interjections.] The hon. the Deputy Minister cannot deprive people of their sectional titles. He cannot stop people from converting blocks of flats into sectional title units. He simple cannot stop that. Therefore, I have to state with great respect that we are being left with a situation which gives rise to a lot of danger.

I should like to deal with the lot of hundreds of thousands of people who are living in desperate circumstances. My plea to the hon. the Deputy Minister is one of a stay of execution. I should like to appeal to him to refer this whole matter to the Commission of Inquiry on Development Schemes, which is sitting at the moment. I believe that the Fouché Commission is functus officio, and therefore evidence regarding the pros and cons of this whole matter should be taken by this commission because it is a commission that can take evidence and make recommendations. I do not believe this is a departmental matter any longer. I believe the commission can consider the question of a head lease and the question of acquiring buildings, something I have explained to the hon. the Deputy Minister earlier. He already knows about it.

It can be done in Hillbrow. I have given an answer to the problem of building in Hillbrow. What has the hon. the Minister got against Hillbrow? Is it correct, as stated in the report, that Hillbrow is a shame to South Africa? Is that why the hon. the Minister does not want a head-lease? Is that why the hon. the Minister does not want to acquire a building in Hillbrow? Is it a shame to South Africa? I submit, with great respect, that it is not a shame to South Africa. That is, I think, an insult to the thousands of people living in Hillbrow. It is not a shame to South Africa. Prostitution exists everywhere, in Jeppe and all the other cities in the world.

It is the oldest profession.

There is a final point I want to make about rent control. Is there some sort of rapport between the landlords and the department, because why do I read in the Sunday Express of 11 May that the Government is likely to press ahead with its plan to phase out rent control? Where did that newspaper get that information only last Sunday?

Who are they?

I am referring to page 27 of the Sunday Express of 11 May. The article goes even further.

I accept no responsibility for the Sunday Express.

Well, listen to this—

Another McHenry?

I quote further—

Is this how announcements are made?

Was that on the telephone?

I appeal with all my heart, with all my earnestness, with all my seriousness … [Time expired.]

And with compassion.

And with your telephone.

Mr. Chairman, I merely rise so as to afford the hon. member an opportunity to complete his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member. I only want to make one final appeal, in coolness, in calmness and in all seriousness on behalf of the thousands of tenants who feel strongly about this, and I know they feel strongly because 9 400 of them signed a petition asking for compassion. They asked the hon. the Minister not to proceed with these measures and to give them the protection they deserve.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Hillbrow argued in a way that was typical of the HNP this evening. He started off on the wrong foot when he said that the department was a department without compassion. He then built the rest of his old story on that incorrect premise. This is typical of the HNP. He can find out for himself. That is how their minds work.

This evening I should like to say a few words about housing as the tap-root of a total socio-economic strategy. The president of the World Bank, Mr. Robert McNamara, gave an extremely pessimistic view of the world’s future last year when he said that the tremendous population growth in the world would create innumerable problems in connection with the provision of food, housing, employment opportunities and energy. In many respects South Africa stands in the midst of this pessimistic projection. If we analyse South Africa’s position carefully we see that South Africa is in actual fact in the midst of the most pessimistic picture of the Third World, at least as far as our population growth and the problem of the provision of employment opportunities for those people are concerned. Thanks to Providence we are, however, in a better position as regards the provision of food and energy. [Interjections.]

Order!

That is why I want to make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister this evening for increased Government spending on Black housing in South Africa. If one mentions this as a governmental priority, there are at once people who say: “But what about this thing and what about that thing?” I believe that a great deal has been done in regard to the provision of Black housing. The question here is not what one wants to take away and from where, but what we in South Africa can achieve by according higher priority to Government spending on Black housing. The hon. the Minister of Finance said this year that an amount was being set aside for the infrastructure of the Black residential areas. We know that the Government has made great efforts in this regard in the past. The hon. the Minister also said that we should expect spending on housing to drop somewhat on the road ahead and that the private sector would have to play a greater part in the provision of housing. I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that I am convinced that, when it comes to Black housing, the private sector is in many respects rather restricted. When we speak of the private sector, we are referring to employers who have to provide housing, as well as to the Black people themselves. As far as the employers themselves are concerned, there is a very grave problem. Many of the employers are not capable of providing housing. We must take this into account.

The hon. the Minister quoted figures today to indicate how low the wages were that were being paid at certain places. I want to say that if this is true of the Western Cape, it is equally true of Pretoria and Johannesburg. The fact of the matter is that the wage structure is very low in many places. This is not because the employers want to pay people so little, but simply because they are often not in a position to pay more. Consequently I want to make the point that the employers’ means are far more limited than we think and that this should be taken into account when we ask them to do more in connection with housing.

Then we come to the Black people themselves. The part they play in this matter has not yet been investigated in depth. The chief director of the West Rand Administration Board said recently that according to estimates approximately 63% of the people in Soweto were capable of paying for their own housing. That leaves a further 37%, and in many of the other cities the position was even more problematical. From whatever angle we examine the future of Black housing—and figures have already been quoted to point out the tremendous challenge in this regard—we arrive at the unavoidable reality that the State will have to have a greater interest in the provision of housing, that the State will have to take upon itself a greater share of the planning with regard to the provision of housing. We are going to run into difficulties on the road ahead if we look only to the private sector and the Black man himself.

A vast number of problems stem from the Black housing position. I want to point out just a few of them. They create problems in Black/White relationships. There is no doubt about that. Each one of us who represents an urban constituency knows what conflict is already building up between White and Black in the cities at the moment as a result of overcrowding in the Black residential areas and of Black people who do not have housing and amenities. There is no doubt that we shall have to give very serious consideration to the improvement of relationships by providing better housing and amenities. This also creates poor interrelationships between Blacks. If one notes the incidence of crime in the Black residential areas, of overcrowding and all the social evils, for example intimidation, which stem from this, one realizes that one will have to give more attention to housing as a basis for socio-economic upliftment. We can also examine the problems this creates between the State and the Black people. There is also tremendous room for improvement there. A great number of the Black people who are burdened by these circumstances wrongly hold the State and the Government responsible for that dilemma in which they find themselves. Large numbers of our Whites blame the Government for the problems which arise from this situation. That is why, with a view to the improvement of relationships in a number of spheres, I believe that the Government should give greater attention to the expenditure on the provision of Black housing. There is no doubt about that. If one looks at Port Elizabeth, Pretoria, Cape Town or Johannesburg, for example, one sees that conditions prevail in those cities which we shall simply be unable to deal with in future. I want to say—and perhaps this is a dangerous thing to say— that if the Black residential areas have to remain poor appendages of the White cities, I foresee that in the course of time the demand and the pressure for mixed residential areas in South Africa will become ever greater. I say that proper housing for the various non-White peoples is a fundamental guarantee to us as Whites on the road ahead that our own residential areas will not become mixed residential areas or grey zones, for as long as poor housing conditions exist for the non-Whites, there will be pressure and demands on the part of these people to be allowed to come and live in our residential areas. If we want to look after our own interests and want to create harmony between peoples, we must consequently accord higher priority to Government spending on housing.

What can we gain in the economic sphere if we spend more money on Black housing in South Africa? We can stimulate the economy and growth by spending more money on Black housing in South Africa. If we spend R1 million on roads in South Africa, we create 90 man-years in that way. In other words, 90 people can work for one whole year as a result of the expenditure of R1 million on roads. If on the other hand we spend R1 million on housing, 250 people can work for one whole year owing to such an expenditure. I have no doubt that spending on housing is labour intensive. We need not import foreign goods. We can deal with the matter internally.

There is no reason in the economic sphere why we cannot spend money on housing. A house is a place where one lives and on which one spends money. One needs all kinds of things for one’s house. The larger and better one’s house is, the more money one spends. Therefore, we also need housing from the point of view of future consumer spending.

Seen from a demographic point of view, I have no doubt that if we are not prepared to spend more money on Black housing, through Government channels, we shall be unable to halt the population explosion among the Black peoples in South Africa. As long as we are saddled with the tremendous population increase, our hands will be tied in the sphere of the provision of educational services, in the sphere of the combating of crime and in the sphere of progress and growth in South Africa. Consequently the house is the foundation of a total socio-economic development. I want to advocate that we should spend more on housing. I am convinced that although we may invest a vast sum of money in the short term, South Africa cannot lose in the long term when seen from the economic and educational point of view and from the point of view of social structures as well as that of interpersonal relationships. We can only gain by greater Government spending on housing. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to express my gratitude towards the hon. the Minister and the department for what they have done over the years and in recent times with regard to housing for the voters in my constituency. It is true that 377 dwelling units were made available in my constituency up to the end of March 1978. It is also true that if one looks at recent Press reports, one comes to the conclusion that the policy of the department is future-orientated. I want to quote from a report that appeared in Hoofstad on Friday, 9 May 1980—

The report goes on—

Those of us in Pretoria who are acquainted with this, know that in my constituency in particular, where it has assumed serious proportions, the accommodation of elderly people is a knotty problem. At the four existing old-age homes there are waiting lists of more than 400 each. Therefore, it is pleasing to see that by the intervention and assistance of the department, the S.A. Vrouefederasie will succeed to a large extent in bringing tremendous relief with regard to this need within the foreseeable future. I should also like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the S.A. Vrouefederasie and their committee on the initiative which they took, and I wish them every success in dealing with this project.

Now I should like to come to a few aspects to which the hon. the Minister referred in his statement on the development of townships yesterday. Under the present dispensation, I believe that the development of townships is quite a nightmare for anyone who ventures into this sphere. A vast number of organizations and bodies have had a say in some way or other in the way in which townships have been developed. I believe that the measures that the hon. the Minister announced yesterday, will in fact contribute towards relieving this process, because I can give the assurance that every delay in the procedure which the township developer must follow, incurs extra costs which must later be recovered from the buyers of erven in the township. If one looks at the position of the township developer, one must bear in mind that the local authority within the area in which this township must be proclaimed, will ultimately have a township within its area— it will be transferred to the local authority— which will be fully provided with an infrastructure, i.e. all the necessary facilities are there, and that town or city council immediately receives a source of income from the activities of the township developer. That is why, in the first instance, I want to ask the hon. the Minister not to be too hard on the developer of townships as such, but on the other hand I also want to ask for the already existing rules and regulations that control the activities of the township developer, to be implemented strictly in order to keep the unsavoury element out of this enterprise.

I want to conclude by recommending to the hon. the Minister that he and the department should give serious attention to the idea that one body should control and administer all the activities and disciplines with regard to the development of townships so that unnecessary delays will not occur, and also so that no unnecessary cost escalations will arise which could only be to the detriment of the general public.

Mr. Chairman, we have now come to the end of more than six hours of discussion of the Department of Community Development and I should very much like to express my appreciation to hon. members on both sides of the House for the level at which the discussion was conducted. As I said earlier today, there were also occasions when I was very critical of hon. members opposite, because they rushed into a situation which they knew nothing about and made wild allegations without checking the facts. I cannot accuse them of that this evening, except with regard to one very important area to which I shall refer later, concerning phasing out of rent control. But in general, it was the kind of debate which increases one’s respect for Parliament and causes one to appreciate having an opportunity to debate against men worthy of one’s steel.

I should now like to react briefly to the points raised by various members. The hon. member for Bellville and the hon. member for Innesdal both displayed eloquence and insight when they discussed the problem of Black housing in South Africa, and the need for us to act promptly and imginatively in dealing with the major problem of Black housing. I should very much have like to say more about this, but my difficulty is that from 1 April this year my department is only charged with the provision of the funds for Black housing. Determining the need remains the responsibility of the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development. I just wish to say that I am very grateful that my Department and I can now operate in partnership with the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development and his department. I have a feeling that these two departments, with their insight, experience and compassion, will tackle this problem in an imaginative way and that together we shall accomplish things which will be of great benefit to South Africa.

My good friend the hon. member for Hercules spoke with some emotion about his problems relating to the township development in Suiderberg. I want to say at once that he has my sympathy in that regard. In my opinion his complaints are well-founded, because I myself have in the past raised the matter with the former Administrator of the Transvaal. We have the problem that the planning of the Roads Department of the Transvaal resulted in township development being delayed for very long periods, not only in the case of Suiderberg but in many other cases as well. If a township development is delayed for 12 years because clarity cannot be obtained about the future roads programme, then that is unfair towards the entrepreneur and towards people who need houses in South Africa. This causes costs to rise and is undesirable in every respect. However, I am very pleased to be able to say that owing to the machinery created last year by way of the amendment of the Housing Act and the establishment of the Housing Advisory Board and a Housing Policy Board under my chairmanship, the situation is now improving. We have had the opportunity to discuss the matter seriously with the Roads Department of the Transvaal. The advisory board discussed it for four hours one afternoon, and as a result the situation is improving rapidly. Particularly as far as Suiderberg is concerned, it is a pleasure for me to be able to say that the matter is now progressing rapidly. The problems there have been solved. The laying out of the town virtually has been completed and the planning of the services virtually settled. An application for a loan amounting to R1,5 million is being prepared by the City Council for submission to the Community Development Board and I am pleased to be able to say to the hon. member that the Community Development Board has unobtrusively set that money aside so that it will be available when the application is submitted. We expect that tenders may be called for by September this year and that the formal township establishment will be final by the end of this year. Suiderberg will then be established rapidly and will consist of 1 160 valuable plots which will be developed in three phases. I am pleased that my hon. friend raised the matter, but I am still more pleased to be able to give him this good and reassuring news. I hope he will convey it to those involved.

I want to convey a word of sincere thanks to the hon. member for Newton Park for his positive contribution to this debate. He assisted us in acquiring an insight into the work of this department and realising what has been done in this regard due to the dedication of its officials and the zeal with which Government policy is implemented with a view to ensuring that as many people as possible are properly accommodated in surroundings worthy of them and in their own communities where they can develop to the highest level of which they are capable.

†The hon. member for Hillbrow spoke twice since I last spoke. I want to answer him in two sections too. The aspect of the phasing out of rent control is an aspect which I want to keep until later as so many members spoke about it. The hon. member for Hillbrow complained that 39 000 houses that were to be built last year, could not be built. I want to tell him that that is a half-truth and that he told it here I think in ignorance. It is true that 39 000 dwelling units in schemes which were waiting on the allocation of funds had not yet been started by 30 September last year, that is by the end of the period which is covered by our actual report. However, since that date we have allocated millions of rand for these schemes, and up to March of this year the 39 000 have already been reduced to 21 000, as 18 000 have been financed. We expect that the balance will be financed before the end of the year.

I may say that our building programme last year provided for 100 000 dwelling units, of which about one-third—more than 30 000—were completed during the year. The rest are under construction. I think the hon. member will in all fairness agree with me …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister whether he is aware of the second paragraph on page 11 of the report? I merely quoted from that.

Yes, but the point is that that only covers the year up to 30 September, but we did not stop allocating funds at that date. I hope this makes the hon. member happy again.

The hon. member then spoke at length about rent control and the Sectional Titles Act. I shall deal with that within a few minutes.

*The hon. member for Overvaal really did us a favour this afternoon with his scientific discussion of the evil of slums and their clearance. He, too, emphasized—and I was pleased to hear it—the fact that we must build prosperous, decent communities and not simply houses and towns. He also discussed the need for the central city districts to be opened to all races for use as business areas. I am pleased to be able to tell him that we are at present dealing with this. He heard my statement. At the moment we cannot open up these areas unconditionally. We are opening up these areas under section 19 of the Group Areas Act, and that means that what he and the Riekert Commission want, will be realized in practise. I think that when we get together again next year he will be grateful to hear of the progress that we shall have made in the interim.

The hon. member for Vasco really made an illuminating speech which afforded us food for thought concerning the progress in Mitchell’s Plain. I wish to thank him sincerely for his appreciation of what is happening there.

The hon. member for Sea Point told me that he could not be here this evening. I am very sorry about that, but I understand his problem. He discussed self-help housing. He must not think that I am entirely opposed to self-help housing, but I do not regard it as the only solution. My department and I regard it as a supplementary solution to the housing problems in South Africa. We are doing a great deal to encourage self-help housing. We are even allowing people with houses in subeconomic schemes to improve and extend their houses. We are encouraging people to purchase plots and build their own houses. 20% of every new town in South Africa managed by the Department of Community Development is set aside for people in the self-help group. Therefore this really is our policy. I do not want him to think that we are opposed to it in principle. What we are opposed to is when the self-help idea finds expression in the establishment of squatter towns where unsavoury, unpleasant and unacceptable conditions prevail. We shall continue to differ on that score, and the hon. members of the PFP can get as angry with the Government as they wish, but we are not in favour of squatter camps, even if they are called controlled squatter camps.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to the unutilized state properties and plots in the centre of towns, particularly in the central district of Boksburg. He and I have discussed this matter before and I tried to explain the position to him. However, my problem is that the majority of those plots owned by the State are controlled by the Department of Agricultural Credit and Land Tenure. That section of the department’s operations will fall under the department of Community Development from 1 June. At that stage we shall take another look at the issue of the unutilized plots in Boksburg. The hon. member and I can then discuss the matter again and plan together to see whether we can improve the situation. I appreciate his concern about the fact that the central area of almost all our towns on the Witwatersrand are slowly emptying; some people even say they are dying.

†The hon. member for Berea struck a new note when he spoke about District Six. He suddenly seemed to realize that one could not put all the people who lived there before back under the old conditions. He made a big point of it that we should have tried to rehabilitate the area, especially buildings to make them fit for human habitation again. That is an interesting suggestion. We have done that in many areas. We are doing it at an expense of something like R90 million in Elsies River in Cape Town, where we are rebuilding a whole controlled squatters camp to undo the errors of the past when we fell for the sort of line the PFP if propagating today. If one drives along De Waal Drive one can see it being done along Fawley Terrace. There is nothing that we have against rehabilitation in principle. But in practice it was not possible in District Six. I want my hon. friend to please accept that. It was thoroughly investigated and was found to be impossible. Do not take my word.

In about 1965 we appointed a committee of experts of the Department of Community Development which included representatives from the city council, including the well-known city engineer Dr. Morris. We also had two sets of townplanning experts seconded. The University of Cape Town was represented, which is certainly not going to further the Government’s policy if they can help it. The situation was investigated, almost from house to house. With that committee and the information it gained, we came to the conclusion, on their advice, that District Six could not be rehabilitated, but should be rebuilt from the ground up. It was so decayed, overcrowded, the services were so antiquated and inadequate and the area so filthy that all one could do was to raze it to the ground and start over again. Do not accept my word for it. Go back in history; get hold of the report of that State committee and look at the report of the University of Cape Town and the feelings of Dr. Morris. Accept the truth, the hard facts of the situation, that District Six, filthy slum as it was, could not be rehabilitated and had to be razed to the ground and one had to start de novo with new services, amenities and street. Everything had to be done all over again.

And new colour inhabitants.

Why must it be occupied by a group of another colour?

Please be quiet. Another thing I want to beg of responsible members, like the NRP members, is that they must not fall for the trash that they read in certain newspapers about a “happy and vibrant” community that lived in District Six. They were in actual fact the most miserable, unhappy and hounded community imaginable. They had no amenities, no privileges and none of the civilized aspects of life to call their own. Any Government in power which allowed District Six to continue, and continue to deteriorate, would have been irresponsible and would have shown itself utterly incapable of human feeling. [Interjections.] I shall never apologize for the fact that we decided to raze and rebuild District Six completely, as I shall not apologize for doing the same thing in Page-view. [Interjections.]

Does the hon. member for Groote Schuur want to ask a question?

No, Sir. I only wanted to make an interjection.

The hon. member for Berea made a good speech. I appreciate his attitude. He did not try to catch flies or score points and was not irrelevant. He sincerely sought information and tried to give advice, which I appreciate very much. I have replied to his question regarding rehabilitation.

He also spoke about Cato Manor. He says the Indians do not want high density housing in Cato Manor and that they want it as a sort of élite suburb. I have been aware of that all along, as was the hon. the Prime Minister, who has taken a very keen interest in this matter throughout. We have appointed a committee consisting of my department, the city council and the Indians. We are putting our heads together and are together planning the future of Cato Manor. Our Indian people will have a full opportunity for stating their case, and they can be assured of being heard with sympathy. I am certainly not going to give a guarantee that an area as vast as Cato Manor is going to be an élite area throughout. It may also be necessary to look after the middle-income groups in an area like that. That will, however, be done through deliberations, responsible deliberations at a responsible level, by a committee representative of all concerned.

The hon. member for Maitland spoke, as one would expect from a man who is an expert in the field of housing, with a display of knowledge and suggested interesting things which, I should like him to know, we shall consider most carefully. For example, he asked that we should retain as much of our existing stock of housing as possible. I agree with him. More and more, as I gain experience of this job, I come to the conclusion that more must be done to restore and to retain existing houses, something which can be done at a cost far lower than that of building new houses all the time. The hon. member also spoke about the oppressive rates people had to pay. There too I should like to know that I am on his side. I believe the minority of town dwellers who are property owners have to pay unconscionable rates in order to maintain the cities of South Africa. Property owners in South Africa have, I believe, to buy their homes twice—once from the building society, which they pay off one day, and then from the city council, a debt which they never pay off. Therefore I am with the hon. member in this matter. That is why I am so delighted to know that the Government has appointed a most authoritative committee under the chairmanship of the former Secretary for Finance, Mr. Gerald Browne, to investigate other sources of income for our town councils. I am told that his report is already in the hands of the hon. the Minister of Finance and that we shall have the benefit of its advice quite soon.

I do hope that as a result of that some relief will come to the ratepayers of South Africa. When the hon. member speaks about the need for home-ownership, he is sure to have a positive reaction from me. Where we designate areas for urban renewal and it becomes possible for owners of dilapidated houses to apply for loans in order to renovate those houses, the hon. member says there should be a low rate of interest. In that respect I am with him again. I might tell him that we are now negotiating with the Treasury in order to determine what we can do in order to make loans available for that very purpose at a much reduced rate. I should like to pay a tribute to the hon. member for Maitland. I want hon. members to know that it is very difficult to say “no” to the hon. member for Maitland, because he is a most persistent man. I commend his persistence, which eventually persuaded my department to declare Maitland a designated area for the purposes of rehabilitation. I do wish him great success, and I am sure he will use his influence to see to it that the local authority plays it part in this matter as well.

*I have already reacted to the speeches by the hon. member for Innesdal and the hon. member who discussed Black housing. However, the hon. member for Prinshof made a speech which I appreciated. He paid tribute to the Vrouefederasie. I have said before that the women’s organizations of our churches are a model of unselfish zeal and leadership in this field. I am proud of the fact that they are the biggest partner of the Department of Community Development in the provision of welfare housing. Then the hon. member also discussed township development and asked that we should not mete out too harsh treatment to the township developers.

I wish to state clearly that we do not seek to treat the township developer harshly. However we want to do something that he also wants, and that is to prevent repetition of cases like that of Glen Anil and others which we have had in South Africa. All we ask is that the Administrator should be able to licence people who seek to develop towns in our country, that they be obliged to apply for that licence. That is part of our system of private enterprise. Every trader, every man who wants to do business must have a licence of some kind. Every professional person, too, must have a licence to prove that he is qualified. All we ask now is that township developers, too, obtain licences so that they can satisfy the Administrator that they are financially strong enough and knowledgeable enough to carry out this extremely responsible task, an undertaking which can cost the public millions of rands if things go wrong.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The problem with this licence is simply the fact …

Order! The hon. member must put a question.

The person who issues the licence is also a person who is in a competitive capacity, and that is the problem.

Say that again.

The person who issues the licence …

Order! The hon. member has not asked a question.

In other words, the person who issues the licence is also a township developer.

The Administrator?

The Administrator and the local authority. They, too, are township developers.

That is a very interesting point that the hon. member has raised. It is true that the Administrator also develops townships. It is he who issues the licence and not the local authority. That is the way things are. The Administrator is also a man who manages hospitals with their pharmacy departments, but this does not mean that he is entitled to licence chemists or determine the powers of doctors. There is not necessarily a conflict. I cannot see that there would have to be a conflict, because it is the Administrator’s duty—and that is why he himself is also a township developer—is to see to it that there is housing for our people. I therefore think that the hon. member’s fear is unfounded. However, this is something one must keep an eye on. If the hon. member sees that conflicts occur he must let us know, but I do not think we shall get many messages from him in this connection.

†I now want to come to the question of rent control and the phasing out of rent control. There were some strange arguments in this connection. I listened to the hon. member for Hillbrow. He had some very personal things to say about me, for which I forgive him. I wonder whether he really wants to suggest that a small number of home-owners, owners of the older homes, places built before 1950 or 1949, must indefinitely go on subsidizing certain tenants. Does he really think it is the responsibility of the private home-owner to subsidize tenants who often want to occupy dwellings in luxurious suburbs which are well above their own normal means. Is it the responsibility of the man who owns a home or a flat to subsidize individuals like that in order to make it possible for them to live above their means, or is it the responsibility of the community as a whole to see to it that all people are well housed? Why does he keep on hammering at that? Why does he keep on insisting that I should demand of individual home and flat-owners that they should do the work of the community? Why should they as individuals do the work of the community and subsidize all these people? There is, of course, another side to the coin. The hon. member obviously believes that there are more votes in it for him if he fights for the tenants, but he ignores principles and the interests of the man who owns the property, whose interests are just as important.

The hon. member also said something else that I could not understand. He said that once people irregularly increased rents by 10% it became an accomplished fact about which we could do nothing. But of course we can. I have made it perfectly clear that if cases like that come to my attention—and I appeal to tenants and to members of Parliament to bring such cases to my attention—I shall slap rent control back on that property immediately, without any delay. I have had one case where this happened. I said in Parliament last year that I would slap back rent control, but the next day the position was restored by the landlord.

[Inaudible.]

Let the hon. member bring me the cases, and if they are genuine I will act.

The hon. member for Sea Point, who is not here at the moment, asked me what would happen if sectional titles and rent control did not work. I just want to quote to him one paragraph from a statement I made when I started phasing out rent control, and this still stands. I said—

So what he said I would not do, I announced as my intention. He agreed that there was no reason to do this yet, but he warned me that by next year it might become necessary. When it does become necessary and if I am satisfied that it has become necessary, I shall not hesitate to do what I said when I originally made this announcement.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I am sorry. I have just received a note saying I have only 10 minutes left. Otherwise I would gladly have let the hon. member put his question.

I want to put the record straight. The hon. member for Sea Point referred me to Lusaka, or to Kinshasa, as an example of what can be done with assisted housing, self-help housing. When I pinned him down, he said: “Not necessarily Kinshasa. One can also refer to Lima and other cities in South America.”

He said one could also refer to those if one wanted more examples.

Yes, if one wanted any more examples. Well, Sir, I have got those examples. I have a publication before me by a group of men who went to Salvador in Brazil to attend a symposium on the reduction of housing costs, etc. Who were those gentlemen?: Mr. J. G. Brand, city engineer, and Mr. D. S. Lipman, assistant engineer of the city of Cape Town. I think they are beyond doubt authorities. What did they find? It was concluded at the symposium in Salvador that over one-third of the world’s population live in sub-standard conditions. I do not want the population of South Africa to be part of that one-third. In accordance with the wishes of the hon. the Prime Minister, I am devoted to trying to see that South Africa will improve upon the standard which obtains in one-third of the world. Of Salvador—these are now the other areas to which I was told to refer to find examples for South Africa—they found—

Sir, I am told to go there to learn! Of Sao Paulo they say, and this is very interesting, because here one sees our plan in operation—

That applies to the policy of South Africa too. Then they went to Uruguay, about which they say that little or nothing was happening in the field of housing. That is what would happen as well if the PFP came into power in South Africa. Then we get to Lima. The hon. member mentioned Lima specifically as the place from which I could learn. These gentlemen say of Lima—

Yet the hon. member for Sea Point wants me to learn from them. The evidence of experts, the knowledge of people who are intimately concerned with this, means absolutely nothing to the hon. members opposite.

I want to end off. I said at the outset that this was a good debate, a well-informed debate, but I also said that there was one exception, and that was the contributions made about the problems of tenants where landlords are exempted from rent control as a result of them availing themselves of their rights to sell flats and houses under sectional title. I was given to understand—and please note that lawyers took part in the debate— that the tenants would now have no protection. What are the facts? The facts are that at the time of selling, the houses—to which they refer—are under rent control. They squealed and complained about the old houses and the protection of tenants in old houses, but they never had a word to say about the vast majority of houses and flats built since 1965, which are not under rent control. They were only concerned with the old houses and old flats where rent control exists. What is the position if a man sells a flat under sectional title and in that flat there is living as a tenant a person whose income is within the limits contained in the Housing Act, viz. R300 for a single person and R540 for a married couple? Such tenants are protected all the time. The law says so. A barrister and a practising attorney sit on the other side of the House. What sort of advice do they give to people who come to them? The law states that before an owner can eject a tenant from a property like that, he must satisfy the Rent Board that he is doing it in order to occupy that property himself or that his major children will occupy it.

[Inaudible.]

What is more, if …

How long will that protection hold?

I am coming to that. What is more, in order to succeed in that the owner has to occupy that property for 12 months, else he is liable to prosecution. That is the law. Yet hon. members of the Opposition spend half of their debating time fighting me on an issue where they are legally at fault. They did not do their homework and consequently spoke utter nonsense. [Interjections.] I want to ask, with tears in my eyes: What value must we attach to the contribution of an Opposition like that? They should be ashamed of themselves, and certainly the hon. members for Hillbrow and Green Point should go back to law school and take a refresher course on the subject. [Interjections.]

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

As I have already said during the Second Reading, we are in fact improving the existing Act with this amendment, because in terms of the existing Act, one can be a member of the Cabinet for three months at a stretch without representing a seat in the House of Assembly or being a member of the Senate. This can be done ad infinitum with just a day in between each period. By means of this amendment we are now improving the position by saying that one can be a member of the Cabinet without being a member of Parliament for a total of 12 months only.

Mr. Chairman, we will support the hon. the Minister’s amendment. The amendment at least ensures that this provision will not be abused and that Ministers will not be appointed for periods of time, then resign and become reappointed again. It will therefore ensure that after a statutory period the Minister, if he wishes to remain in the Cabinet, will have to seek election to Parliament in the normal way. But we still believe that for a Minister to wait for a year before seeking election is far too long a time. We believe that there has always been a case for a 3-month period of grace, but to stretch this to one year takes the matter beyond reasonableness. The Bill which is before us is not really a Committee Stage Bill at all. Each clause of the Bill, namely clauses 1, 2 and 3, clause 1 being before us at the moment, contains a crisp statement of principle. Each clause has intrinsic in it a principle which amends an existing convention. Therefore we can either accept the principle of each clause or we can reject it, and I have been told that no amendments will be accepted from this side of the House in relation to these clauses. I do not believe that any amendments to these clauses can really assist the purpose of the clauses themselves. Accordingly, because this is not a Committee Stage Bill, we shall reserve our arguments of principle for the Third Reading, but we wish to state quite clearly that we are opposed to the three clauses of the Bill and shall vote against them.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to use this opportunity to make the position of the NRP clear, and not only with regard to this clause. As is customary, I also want to state briefly in the first speech during the Committee Stage what some of the reasons are for our being against the principles as well. As the hon. member for Sandton has quite correctly said, the principle carries right through to the other two clauses as well.

First of all, we shall obviously support the hon. the Minister’s amendment, but we shall not be able to vote for clause 1. Basically the principle of the extension of one period or periods is a limited principle, but the fact remains that it would be possible to allow a person, for a period of 12 months, to become a member of the executive. He could become a Minister without being a member of either the Senate or the House of Assembly. It does not always happen that we find such a tremendous factual change in the situation in a country between the Second Reading of a Bill and the Committee Stage. With all due respect to the hon. the Minister, there has been a tremendous factual change in the situation in South Africa between the Second Reading and the Committee Stage of this Bill. At the time of the Second Reading the avenue to Parliament, the avenue to becoming a Minister, was purely one of either being an elected member of this House, being an elected member of the Senate or being a nominated member of the Senate on the grounds of thorough knowledge of, or acquaintance with, various matters, for example Coloured affairs. There have been occasions where people were appointed not knowing exactly what they were appointed for. [Interjections.] Yes, there was the case of a Senator being appointed on account of his interest in the Coloureds.

He may have been a member of the NRP.

No. He was a member of your party. It was a member of your party who was unaware of the reason why he was nominated.

Did he say so himself?

Yes, he admitted it.

It is an old story.

What are you talking about now?

It is a serious matter, but I do not want to deal with it now. I have merely mentioned it as a side-issue. However, we now find that the provision envisaged here, which extends the period for which a member may be appointed to 12 months, has in certain respects become obsolete. Perhaps by the end of this parliamentary session we may find that there is no necessity for this because we are going into a changing situation. Quite frankly, I could have credited it had the hon. the Minister announced that he was going to drop this particular Bill and not proceed with it any further. There has been a commission that has already reported, and the hon. the Minister himself is the chairman of that commission. It has made certain recommendations. A third category is now going to be added, a category of people is being allowed to enter the legislative body.

Order! The hon. member’s argument has nothing to do with the clause. I shall, however, allow discussion of the principle of the clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order: This clause provides for a person to sit in this House as a member without having been elected as such. The hon. member for Durban Central is arguing that that is not necessary, and that is specifically pertinent to this clause. It is not necessary, because there is another method by which a person can sit in this House. I submit that this is relevant to the clause and part of the detail of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, on a further point of order: There is no evidence before this Committee that anything at all will come of that legislation.

Mr. Chairman, if it is the feeling that there is very little confidence that the recommendation will be implemented I am prepared to continue … [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may proceed.

What I am now considering, is the effect of the change from three months to 12 months. First of all I want to say that it is generally conceded that it is an unsatisfactory situation even with the three-month provision. But that was tolerated because there was the opportunity for changing an unsatisfactory situation after three months. What is envisaged here, however, is clearly to approve what is generally regarded as an unsatisfactory situation, namely that a person can sit in the executive and not be a member of either of the two Houses of Parliament, for a period three times longer. The period is therefore increased by 300%. We maintain that this is an unreasonable situation. It is totally unreasonable and unnecessary, and for these reasons we are totally opposed to the practical effect of this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to devote much time to discussing this matter now. It was announced in advance that we would discuss this once again during the Second Reading. I just want to state the interesting fact, by using the examples that I have already given before with regard to Great Britain, that when Sir Alec Douglas-Home became Prime Minister, he was Prime Minister for a short time without having a seat in the House of Commons. Consequently, this is a custom that exists in the Mother of Parliaments too.

For how long?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home did not have a seat in the House of Commons for a short while. If the hon. member had been here, he would have heard that I also said during the Second Reading that there is no time limit in Great Britain.

But it is a convention.

The convention is that there is no time limit.

*Therefore, we are now on safe ground. We are introducing fair legislation, and we can take the matter further during the Third Reading.

Mr. Chairman, the PFP will also be voting against clause 2 for the simple reason that it gives an appointed Minister, who is not a member of either the Other Place or the House of Assembly, the right to speak and sit in the Other Place and this House. It does not give him the right to vote, but on the other hand it does give him the right to sit and debate in this House, and will obviously add to the strength of the governing party. One wonders what the need for this is.

Firstly, we are aware that it has been the practice in political parties that if they wish to bring a member into this House, the more normal means of doing it is by getting one of their members to resign his seat and for the member they wish to bring in to fight a by-election in a safe seat. This has been done over the centuries in many, many areas, including this country where it has been done many times. That is one method this Government could use to get Ministers of their choice into this House. It is therefore not necessary to go the lengths of altering the constitution by incorporating this and the preceding clauses. One wonders whether the hon. the Prime Minister is not wanting to strengthen the voices in favour of his Prime Ministership within his party and caucus. [Interjections.]

We must realize that theoretically 18 Ministers could sit in this House, none of whom was elected. Eighteen people could be sitting in this House adding their voices to the debates, 18 people who were not elected. [Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Chairman, I am delighted to see that I am making the hon. the Minister of Transport Affairs so angry. It gives me great pleasure to see it. [Interjections.] It gives me great pleasure when he gets so angry because … [Interjections.]

If one takes the matter further and realizes what the report of the commission, commonly known as the Schlebusch Commission, has to say about this, one realizes that if this clause goes through, one could not only end up with 18 additional members who were not elected to this House, but one could end up with 38 additional members, sitting in this House, none of whom was elected, none of whom was responsible to the electorate at all. When one adds to that the fact that the majority of those 38 members would presumably also be taking part in caucus meetings of the NP, one begins to realize precisely what is being aimed at and what is being driven at in terms of this particular clause. Therefore, we in these benches will not support this clause at all. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, we in the NRP will also not be supporting this clause. I am rather surprised though to hear from the hon. member for East London North that he attaches such a tremendous importance to the fact that a member of this House should be duly elected. [Interjections.] I should like to know how much importance he really attaches to that principle, particularly in view of the fact that he was originally elected on the strength of his membership of a particular political party, and subsequently became the adopted son of a completely different political party. [Interjections.] In all seriousness, Mr. Chairman, that was the crux of the hon. member’s argument. He submitted that every member of this House should be an elected member, and that a nominated member could not really represent the electorate. Of course, he is quite correct in that argument, but I believe his party should not have let him speak in this debate. Another hon. member of the PFP should have spoken instead. [Interjections.]

With him it is a matter of “if you do not like my principles, I have some more”. [Interjections.]

Yes, but there are still going to be many more principles from him before the end of this year. [Interjections.] I wish to conclude by saying that what this clause, makes provision for, is an unhealthy situation. For that reason we cannot go along with it. Whether it be 18 or 24 nominated members in the end, or whatever number, does not matter. It is an unhealthy situation and we in the NRP, who attach real value to the fact that a member of this House should be elected, believe that this responsibility of the electorate is something which one cannot blithely push to one side.

For that reason we shall vote against this clause.

Mr. Chairman, I am really not going to follow the hon. member for East London North now on his wild flights of imagination. It is most probably true in theory that all 18 members of the Cabinet could serve on the Cabinet in this way, without representing constituencies at a particular time. However, this is the theoretical position in terms of the present legislation. In terms of the present Act they can do so for an unlimited time. With the envisaged legislation, as I am trying to amend it, they will only be able to do so for a period of 12 months. Of course, it is ridiculous to try to present it as a true, practical possibility. I honestly do not think that we should take flippancy so far.

At the moment, anyone who is not an elected member of this House, must sit in the public gallery, even if he is a member of the Cabinet. He has certain obligations and certain responsibilities and he is held responsible here in the House. It is only logical, right and fair, if the hon. the Prime Minister considers him good enough to be a member of the Cabinet, that he should also be held responsible for his department here on the floor of the House and be able to be cross-questioned by hon. members of the Opposition. Therefore, if one is in favour of clause 1, as this side of the House is, clause 2 should merely be a logical consequence of it.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration has been given to amending clause 4 to read: “This Act shall be called the Senator Owen Horwood Relief Act, 1980.” [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Good administration requires that at the centre of the political dispensation there should be an institution which is objective and knowledgeable and can act as an agent and adviser of Parliament and the Government on matters of administration. The role that must be played by a central institution in the administration of the country, is already being adopted largely by the existing Public Service Commission.

The following must be noted in this regard. Apart from the Public Service Act, 1957, there are 50 other laws and ordinances in which specific functions and powers are vested in the commission, including functions and powers concerning institutions and personnel groups which fall outside the Public Service as defined by statute. Furthermore, apart from the responsibilities which are entrusted to the commission by statute, it must also assist the Government with the administration in other important respects.

There are two main reasons in particular why the country’s central body for administration can no longer continue to exist in the form of a Public Service Commission. In the first place, the name “Public Service Commission” literally indicates a commission for the Public Service. In fact, the commission has not been such a commission for a long time. Its scope reaches beyond the Public Service. The present “commission” is thus obviously inaccurate and too narrow. In the second place, the commission is understandably being limited in the broad fulfilment of its function, i.e. in its action beyond the Public Service, by its obvious link to the Public Service.

The broad role of assisting Parliament and the Government in the administrative sphere cannot be fulfilled properly by a commission for the Public Service on the long term. It must be borne in mind that, according to the definition in the Public Service Act, 1957, the Public Service is a personnel corps and is only one of many public personnel corps. The need for assistance to Parliament and the Government in order to ensure that the course of administration runs smoothly, is noticeably wider than the statutory Public Service.

The Bill replaces the Public Service Commission with the Commission for Administration and also provides that any reference to the Public Service Commission in any Act or document should be interpreted as a reference to the Commission for Administration in future.

Mr. Speaker, prior to the Second Reading of this Bill being taken I was very relaxed about this measure and believed it to be innocuous. I became somewhat alarmed at the very lengthy introduction given by the hon. the Minister. However, he has allayed my fears. In entertaining the House for approximately five minutes I do not think he said a great deal. I have always believed that a rose by any other name will smell as sweet and a commission by any other name will still procrastinate. It seems to me that the functions of the commission are unchanged and its work will continue even while it is to be known by a new designation. Other than that I see very little scope for debate in so far as this measure is concerned. Therefore, it is my duty to advise the House that we shall support this measure in all its stages.

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of truth in the saying that a leopard cannot change its spots. We also believe, as far as this change in name is concerned, that whatever weaknesses or good points there are in a system of having a commission concerning the Civil Service, to call it a Commission for Administration will make no difference whatsoever. However, if it is going to make people happy and lead to effective administration, we will support this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their support.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

The Road Transportation Act, Act 74 of 1977, came into operation on 1 January 1978, and is therefore one of the more recent Acts on the Statute Book. It is true that practical experience is the best teacher and I make so bold as to say that there is probably no law which has been placed on the Statute Book which does not contain some pitfall, loophole or deficiency which gives rise to cumbersome procedures, ambiguities or misinterpretations and even malpractices. Unfortunately, though, this situation only comes to light after the law has been put into operation. The logical step is then to remedy the situation and effect the necessary amendments to that legislation.

During the 1979 session of Parliament the Road Transportation Act was amended to extend the concession to farmers with regard to the conveyance of their own farm labourers, and also to curb the malpractices that were occurring in the use of one-ton bakkies. A further period has elapsed since then, in which the Act has been tested in practice, and the indications are that there are still certain further adjustments which ought to be made.

In a nutshell, then, I can just confirm that the amendments which are now before the House, are aimed at eliminating unnecessary red tape, something which will of course facilitate the position for the road transportation public, as well as at the elimination loopholes and the rectification of certain provisions in order to eliminate ambiguity and the possibility of misinterpretations or differing interpretations.

†I now wish to deal with the amendments contained in the Bill before us and I trust that hon. members will agree that these amendments are to the benefit of all concerned whilst ambiguity will also to a great extent be eliminated.

In terms of the existing definition of a “decentralized industry” such an industry is described as a factory or workshop situated within an area declared by the Minister of Transport Affairs to be a decentralized industrial area.

This definition, I submit, does not convey the true intention of the legislature in the sense that, for example, a property which houses a sewing machine operated by a single person can by definition claim to be a decentralized industry, although it may in no way whatsoever be involved in the decentralization process. Nor is any indication given as to what the position would be in regard to industries that establish themselves in or wishing to extend their activities to such areas after the declaration of an area as a decentralized industrial area. Because of the problems experienced by decentralized industries in rural areas and the invidious position in which they often find themselves compared with their competitors who have not decentralized, it has become necessary to revise the definition of “decentralized industry” as contained in section 1(1) of Act 74 of 1977. The proposed amendment will have the effect that more industries will qualify for concessions made in favour of decentralized industries on the one hand whilst these concessions will be limited to bona fide decentralized industries on the other hand.

Whilst industrialists are encouraged to decentralize to rural areas and also to areas situated in self-governing territories as defined in section 38 of the Black States Constitution Act, Act. 21 of 1971, the Act will now provide that industries that are situated in areas within such self-governing territories may also be recognized as decentralized industries for the purposes of Act 74 of 1977, provided, however, that they are recognized as such in terms of the Road Transportation Act in force in the particular country or territory concerned. In this connection I can mention that Dimbaza, for instance, has been declared a decentralized industrial area by the Ciskeian Government and I am informed that the Ciskei is considering an amendment to its own Road Transportation Act to bring it into line with what I have explained above.

In order to promote the forming of lift clubs for the purposes of fuel conservation, the requirement that transportation by means of a lift club is to be on a reciprocal basis has been deleted. In terms of the proposed amended section 1(2)(h) a person who is not an owner of a vehicle can now also become a member of a lift club. This stems from the amendment to the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Act, Act 56 of 1972, which we debated some weeks ago and which has since become law through Act 23 of 1980.

It is common practice for a building contractor to convey his employees from one building or construction site to another by means of a light delivery van or a lorry. The insertion of section 1(2)(kA) will exempt him from the requirement of applying for a road carrier permit for such conveyance.

It is with some regret that I must state that the provisions of sections 1(2)(x) and 1(2)(y) are being abused by road carriers and businesses in that they have in certain instances created fictitious places of business in order to extend the radius of 40 km or 80 km as the case may be. The proposed amendments to the existing sections 1(2)(x) and 1(2)(y) seek to counteract or to eliminate this malpractice.

In order to protect the public’s interest, as well as the rights of the holder of a public permit for the conveyance of persons by means of a bus, I propose to amend section 3(1)(g) to make provision for the National Transport Commission to institute an inquiry into the financial position and operating practices of the holder of such a public permit, as and when it might be necessary. An investigation of this nature can, in terms of the existing provisions, only be instituted upon receipt of an application for the increase of tariffs. It is one of the functions of the commission to determine bus tariffs and to consider subsidies, and to my mind it is in the public interest that it should also be empowered to conduct or to order such an investigation as and when necessary, and not only when there is an application for an increase of the tariffs.

*The proposed amendment in clause 3 is of a purely administrative nature and is aimed at making provision for the constitution of a local road transportation board under certain circumstances, viz. for the consideration of a specific matter when a member of a board has recused himself from such board. For years interested parties have always had the right to appeal to the National Transport Commission against decisions of a local board, or to take such decisions to the Supreme Court on review. They have every right to do so, and ought to retain that right.

However, we are finding to an increasing extent that a person appeals against an act or decision of a local road transportation board without having himself stated his case to that board, an aspect which might perhaps have influenced the conduct or decision of the board if it had been stated to the board during the hearing. By lodging an appeal with the commission without having originally stated his case to the board, he in truth begins his case with the body where it should really have ended. In other words, instead of the National Transport Commission being the court of appeal for people objecting to the decision of the local board, it now happens that the National Transport Commission represents the beginning of a process. In reality the National Transport Commission then becomes the court of commencement.

By amending section 8 as I am now proposing, it will be possible for those who have a real interest in a matter and who have indeed stated their case to the board without success, to appeal to the commission, while those, except the holder of a permit, who never took the trouble to submit representations to a board, will be excluded from the right to appeal. I hope hon. members will agree with me in this specific regard.

To indicate the need for the insertion of sections 8A and 12A by means of clauses 5 and 7, which I wish to deal with jointly, it is desirable for me to explain briefly the procedure which a bus service has to adopt when it wishes to increase its tariffs. The economic and efficient operation of a passenger service at the present time, in which price increases are a common occurrence, is severely restricted by existing procedures which have to be adopted by such companies. When I refer to increasing operating expenses, I am thinking of sharp increases not only in the price of fuel, but also in the price of buses themselves, spare parts and tyres and the raising of wages, etc.

When it consequently becomes necessary for a bus company to cover its increasing operating expenses, it must apply to a board for approval before the fares can be raised. Upon receipt of such application a board must publish the application in the Gazette. The Government Printer requires notices to reach him at least 10 days before the Friday on which the Gazette is to appear. After the notice in connection with the application has appeared in the Gazette, persons who wish to submit representations in support of or in opposition to the application, are granted 10 days to bring such representations to the attention of the local board in question. Only then may a board determine a date for the consideration of the said application.

In the meantime almost two months have elapsed, during which the bus company would have had to cover the increased operating expenses from its own pocket. If, at that stage, an appeal is lodged with the commission against the decision of the board, whether by the bus company itself or by a person who submitted representations to the board in connection with the application, a further two to three months may elapse before the commission considers the appeal and the bus company knows what the outcome of its application is, which was submitted approximately five months prior to that date. I think that in this connection we must bear in mind that a prospective appellant is granted 21 days in which to appeal against the decision of a board. Subsequently the board is given 21 days to furnish the reasons for its decision against which an appeal has been lodged, and only then is the commission able to determine a date for the consideration of the appeal.

In the new section 8A which I am proposing, a further delaying process with which my department has recently had to contend is being dealt with. Recently various cases were brought before the Supreme Court against bus companies whose applications for increased fares had been approved by a board. In all the cases proceedings were only instituted when the increased fares had been put into effect by the bus companies concerned and in all the cases the bus companies were compelled by court interdicts to return to the old fares. This process entailed heavy financial losses for the bus companies, and the State, in its turn, had to offset some of the losses suffered by bus companies in this connection by way of increased subsidies to commuters. These court interdicts which were obtained against the decisions of the boards were based on legal technicalities pertaining for example to the way in which the application had been advertised in the Gazette, the constitution of the board, and so on. The merit of the application was never in issue. I do not wish to criticize these actions or deny the interested parties their right to take a decision of the board on review. Once again I wish to say that they have every right to do so.

But, Mr. Speaker, as a result of the experiences we have had in this connection and the considerable amounts of money which the State has had to pay in these specific circumstances, it is essential that the power of the law courts should be curtailed to a certain extent, as is indicated in the proposed section 8A. This will mean that the increased tariffs approved by the commission or a board will remain in force until a court of law has passed final judgment on the application. Here I also wish to refer hon. members to an amendment which is printed in my name on the Order Paper and which I shall move during the Committee Stage in order to place the position beyond all doubt.

Will there be no interdicts?

There will be no interdicts that will suspend appeals against the increased tariffs. We can discuss that in more detail in the Committee Stage or even in this debate.

*As we all know, any increase in the fuel price results in added operating expenses and resultant tariff increases which, owing to the procedure which has to be adopted and to which I have just referred, can only be put into effect after several weeks and sometimes months have elapsed. I have also pointed out that various bus companies have during the past year been forced by court orders on the ground of legal technicalities to provide services at uneconomic tariffs. I wish to emphasize that these decisions were not based on the merit of the applications themselves. It is important that the interests of the public in this connection should be protected. I reiterate that we are responsible for ensuring that it is possible to operate bus companies economically if we wish to persuade them to provide commuters with transportation. In our eagerness to do so, however, we must ensure that the interests of the bus conveyors are not entirely overlooked, to the eventual detriment of the commuters themselves.

Consequently I have seen fit to propose the insertion of a new section 12A in terms of which bus companies will be allowed to increase their fares by a maximum of 10% in the event of fuel price increases, and subsequently apply to a board within 10 days for an appropriate amendment of its permit. These fare increases must relate specifically to the influence of the general fuel price increase on the fuel component of the bus companies’ fare structure. I am referring in this connection to the amendment to clause 7, as printed in my name on the Order Paper.

This procedure will have a twofold advantage over the existing one. Firstly the fares will be increased while the increase in the price of fuel still fresh in everyone’s mind and will therefore be more readily accepted by the passengers. Secondly the bus company will not be subjected to accumulating losses while an application for an increase in fares is receiving attention. Under these circumstances the existing control measures are not being sacrificed either, because a board or the commission is at liberty, within their discretion, to reduce the increased fares if the increase should appear to be excessive in view of the circumstances.

Notwithstanding the provisions of section 13(2)(a) of Act 74 of 1977, viz. that the commission or a board may refuse to consider an application which is substantially the same as an application refused within the previous six months, it is being found that such an application may easily be repeated, for example by submitting the same application to the board or commission in the name of another person. The proposed section 13(2)(bA) in clause 8(b) provides that the commission or a board may charge a deposit in such cases. The intention is merely that such a deposit will serve as a deterrent to the submission of trivial applications which have little or no chance of succeeding on re-application.

The proposed sections 13(2)(bA) and 18(5) in clauses 8(b) and 12(e) respectively place it beyond all doubt that renewal fees shall be paid prior to the date on which the relevant permit, whether public or private, lapses. This is a principle which applies under all circumstances, and the reason for it is obvious.

There are certain circumstances in which an application for the amendment of a public permit, for example the permanent replacement of a vehicle, is a mere formality. At present the Act provides that all applications for the amendment of a public permit, i.e. applications for the replacement of a vehicle as well, shall be published in the Gazette. In clause 9(a) I now propose that section 14(1) be amended in such a way that those applications need not necessarily be published.

The proposed amendments of section 14(2) and 18(2) by clauses 9(b) and 12(b) are intended to facilitate matters for interested parties who wish to acquire copies of applications and relevant documents. Applicants are now being accorded the right by means of clause 9(c) to scrutinize objections to their applications and to make copies thereof.

Sections 15(1), 18(4) and 20(3) of Act 74 of 1977 provide which factors shall be taken into account in the consideration of applications for public, private and temporary permits. The proposal is that these sections be amended by clauses 10(a), 12(d) and 13(b) to provide that fuel consumption shall also be taken into account in the consideration of an application for a road transportation permit. The times in which we are living make this an essential insertion in the legislation.

As section 17 of the Act reads at present, only those persons who, inter alia, wish to convey their own goods with their own vehicle, may apply for a private permit. In terms of the provisions of the repealed Motor Carrier Transportation Act, 1930, those persons who conveyed goods which they had repaired and cleaned qualified for an exemption—at present a private permit. In clause 11 I am proposing that this section be amended in such a way that in the latter circumstances as well a private permit instead of a public permit should be applied for, since the goods which are being conveyed under such circumstances, although not the property of the person undertaking the transportation, are not being conveyed for reward.

The proposed amendment of section 17 also entails that employers who wish to convey their own employees between the place of residence and place of work of the employees, will in future have to apply for a public permit, in contrast to the present position where an employer may under these circumstances undertake the conveyance in question under a private permit. Although this type of conveyance cannot be undertaken for reward, this nevertheless, happens quite frequently, to the detriment of existing passenger transportation services, and the latter ought to be given the opportunity, if they so prefer, to object to such applications. Hon. members will recall that applications for private permits do not have to be published in the Gazette as in the case of applications for public permits, and consequently passenger transportation services are unaware of such applications and are unable to object to them.

The proposed amendment of section 20(1) by clause 13(a), places the onus upon the person who applies for a temporary permit to prove the need for the proposed transportation. This amendment is essential because experience has taught us that applicants who apply in terms of the aforesaid section, seem to be of the opinion that an indication that the transportation must be undertaken urgently, is sufficient motivation for the granting of a permit. The reason for the so-called urgency is seldom if ever furnished in the original application, and if it is then refused, it leads to unfair criticism of the commission or board, while the applicant should actually bear the blame himself for the failure of his application. The proposed amendment simply provides now that the applicant should motivate his application properly.

In practice it frequently happens that for some reason or other the vehicle to which a permit is applicable has to be withdrawn temporarily and replaced by another vehicle. So as not to disrupt an existing service, and with a view to facilitating the procedure, particularly for the permit holder concerned, it is being provided in the proposed new section 23A that a permit referring to one vehicle may, with the written consent of either the commission or the board, be used temporarily for another vehicle, of which the carrying capacity does not exceed that of the first by more than 20%.

The recent past has borne testimony to how important a role fuel consumption plays in the economy of a country. Consequently it is understandable that section 25 of the Act should contain a provision in terms of which the commission or the board, of its own volition, may refuse a permit if it is in the interests of fuel conservation.

They have had the power before. Why is it now necessary to specify it?

Yes, that is correct. However, I wish to give the assurance that such action will only be taken in extreme circumstances, with great circumspection. In addition the procedure, as prescribed in section 25(2) does not lend itself to abuse if such a step is in fact being considered.

Finally, there is one other matter I should like to bring to the attention of hon. members. An orderly road transportation industry cannot be achieved through legislation alone. The road transportation industry is both capital-as well as labour-intensive, and precisely for that reason it is necessary to strive for greater stability and uniformity. However, I am aware that the need for this will be appreciated by the road transportation industry itself, and that positive efforts are being made to improve the standard of performance and service so as to place the industry on a more professional basis. I arrived at this conclusion when I received representations from the members of the road transportation industry for the Road Transportation Act to be amended in such a way that the acquisition of an operator’s licence should be made a prerequisite for authorization to render a service in connection with the conveyance of goods or people for reward. However, I have decided, in view of other developments in the sphere of road transportation, not to comply with this request at this juncture, but to let it stand over for the time being.

My reason for this decision is apparent from the fact that the acquisition of an operator’s licence would have to be made subject to certain requirements in order to achieve the desired goal. It is true that not all managers of road carrier undertakings have the necessary training in managerial techniques, while others, again, are properly qualified in this respect, but could have a faulty knowledge of the relevant Act and regulations. It is not only I who say this. The road transportation industry says the same thing, and that is why the Federation of Road Transportation Associations, of its own volition and in conjunction with the Department of Transport Affairs, has made arrangements with the Rand Afrikaans University for the presentation of a two-year course. The first one is a basic training course, and the second a continuation course for advanced students.

The National Transport Commission recommended to me—and I approved—that an amount of R6 500 per annum be allocated to the Rand Afrikaans University from the Urban Transportation Fund in partial defrayal of the financing costs of the courses. This allocation is subject to annual review.

I do not wish to burden hon. members with details of the courses. Suffice it to say that I should first like to afford people in the road transportation industry an opportunity to improve their qualifications and in that way raise the standard of professionalism within the industry. After that, I think consideration could be given to a possible amendment of the Road Transportation Act to make such an operator’s licence a prerequisite for a public permit. The interest in the course is very encouraging, and serves as an indication to me that the desire to place the road transportation industry on a sound foundation is the earnest wish of all concerned.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill before us, as the hon. the Minister has said, is a Bill amending the Road Transportation Act of 1977. Other hon. members of this House and I sat on the commission that rewrote that Act. We thought we had done a reasonably good job at the time, but as I said to the hon. the Minister’s predecessors, last year, and I think the year before, although the purpose of the new Bill that came before the House in 1977, which is now the present Act, was to make road transportation a freer operation, in other words, not so restrictive, the regulations that were finally published in terms of the new Act did away with a lot of the good that had been envisaged in rewriting the Act. We had Bills before us last year, as the hon. the Minister said, introducing amendments. Most of those amendments had our approval, and this year again there is a Bill introducing a number of amendments to the Act, some of them good and some of them bad. Perhaps I could describe this as a sort of mixed grill piece of legislation. One always has difficulties with this sort of Bill, because one might support some clauses, oppose others and have reservations about some others. It is always very difficult to know exactly how to treat a Bill like this at Second Reading. It is our belief that one has to weigh up the good things against the bad and then make a decision as to whether one is going to vote for the Bill or against it.

The hon. the Minister has gone through this Bill in considerable detail. He has given us the motivation for most of the clauses contained in the Bill. Although, in the normal course of events, this could be described as a Committee Stage Bill, it is my intention tonight to deal, in a fair amount of detail, with many of the clauses that are before us, because many of those clauses do contain principles which we should like to discuss at this stage and which we might be inhibited in discussing in the Committee Stage when the principle has already been decided. So it becomes necessary to look at the detail of the Bill at this stage, in spite of the fact, as I have said, that this would normally be considered a Committee Stage Bill.

The definition of “decentralized industry” contained in clause 1 we have no quarrel with at all. It is a definition that is long overdue, and certainly clarifies a situation that was not clear at all previously. The second part of the clause is consequential upon the passing of the Compulsory Motor Vehicle Insurance Amendment Bill, which was introduced earlier this session, a Bill which inserted the definition of “lift club”. Now this consequential amendment makes very good sense indeed.

The proposed new section 1(e) introduces a new paragraph (kA). This, as the hon. the Minister has said, creates a better situation than that which prevailed in the past in that now employers—he specifically mentioned contractors—who wished to transport employees from one site to another may do so without applying for a permit. That is an improvement. What went before was an unnecessary restriction. I wonder whether it is not time for the hon. the Minister to give consideration to allowing employers to pick up employees from their homes. Particularly in the contracting industry one has a situation where employees are taken to sites. At the present time those employees have to leave their homes, say in Langa, and proceed to town. Then, when they get there, they are taken in their employers’ transport to the place of work, which might well be Somerset West. If employers were allowed to pick up those employees in Langa and take them to Somerset West, certainly one might be doing the bus company that covers the route into town out of a certain amount of trade, but surely we have reached the stage where it is necessary to conserve petrol. The hon. the Minister talked about the conservation of petrol and fuel. I believe that the time has come for us to give consideration to making this a freer situation by allowing employers to pick up employees from sites. I do not believe that every employer in town is going to buy a bus, pick up his employees and bring them into town. I do not actually believe that the bus companies will suffer to any great degree if this happens, because in many cases—and I am talking about the more affluent section of the community—one finds that a person who has to catch a train or a bus decides to go to town in his own car. One therefore has the situation that actually fuel is being wasted because those individuals are making an unnecessary journey to the head office of the concern before proceeding to a site when they could go straight from their place of residence to the site. This also particularly applies to people from the townships. I know that in Johannesburg it used to be done illegally by many contractors. They simply used to send out their bakkie or bus—I used to do it myself, illegally, as did most people in the building industry …

Aha!

… and I got caught and punished.

They say confession is good for the soul but bad for the reputation.

Yes. Anyway, then we used to proceed to the site, in that way saving a tremendous amount of time, a tremendous amount of expense and a tremendous amount of fuel. On the other hand, one did not put money into the pockets of the bus companies. I think that under the present circumstances what I might have been doing was a patriotic action: I was saving petrol. I was also saving time and making my men more productive. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could not consider in the very near future, possibly next year, amending this section of the Act to allow employers to pick up employees from their place of residence. I think that what we have before us is a definite improvement, but it is not yet quite good enough.

The rest of that clause has to do with the question of the 40 km free zone in the case of hired transport and the 80 km free zone in the case of own transport. The hon. the Minister is new to the Transport portfolio and this is the first time he has dealt with legislation that has to do with road transportation, and I would commend to the hon. the Minister that he ought to give consideration to scrapping the difference between hired transport and own transport and making a 80 km free zone for all transport. We have seen from the effects of the Act that what we are doing is making transport contractors out of people who are not specialists. People know they are going to get an advantage from buying vehicles for themselves because they then have an 80 km free zone. They therefore buy their own vehicles instead of going to the specialists who can sometimes do the work much more efficiently and much more cheaply. In many cases they find they cannot go to the specialists because the specialists are restricted to a 40 km free zone. I should like the hon. the Minister to look at that situation sometime in the future.

The amendments before us are quite in order as far as we are concerned. Operators have established what may be called accommodation addresses at the outer edges of the free zones enabling them to go into the next zone and from that into the next zone so that in fact the free zone regulations have become meaningless in some instances because people have taken advantage of this.

As far as clause 2 is concerned, we believe that this is a definite improvement. The National Transport Commission may at any time institute an inquiry into the financial circumstances and operating practices of a bus company. We all know that many bus companies receive large Government subsidies.

A situation also exists where consumers have to be protected when one is giving the sole right to a transport concession to a bus company. If there were competition—and I am not necessarily of the opinion that there should be competition in every instance—the mere fact of that competition would tend to keep bus fares down, but when one gives the sole right to a company to operate and set its tariffs, I believe it becomes the responsibility of the Government to take a look at those tariffs from time to time. The change involves giving the National Transport Commission the power to look into that tariff structure at any time, and not just at a time when a company applies for tariff increases. So we would approve of that.

Clause 3 has to do with the make-up of particular Road Transportation Boards, and we have no objection to that. Certain operators in the transport industry have told me that they either reach a working relationship with the local chairman and the local board, or they get on his wrong side for some reason or other, and over a period of time this tends to colour the decisions made by that board on future applications. Perhaps chairman and boards tend to get a little familiar and a little subjective, and I think it would be a good practice to make changes from time to time or to effect transfers. I am not saying that this has to be done, or necessarily should be done, but I think one should give consideration to this as a possibility.

When I read clause 4 of the Bill I began to get a little suspicious, because it narrows down the sort of people who may object to tariff increases. I began to think of the case of the Cape Town City Tramways about which we read in the newspapers recently. I therefore read clause 4 very carefully, and it does narrow down the sort of people who may object. I cannot quarrel with that, but this is immediately followed by the clause to which we take strong exception, and that is clause 5.

Are you satisfied with clause 4?

Yes, I am satisfied with clause 4 as it stands, but it led us to clause 5, whereby a new section 8A is proposed to be inserted in the principal Act.

Four will always lead one to five. [Interjections.]

It also leads to six, seven and eight, and if one goes backwards like the Government four sometimes leads to three, two and one, because the Government has a remarkable ability to retrace their steps. [Interjections.] I am afraid that we cannot agree with the insertion of the proposed new section 8A which is contained in clause 5. We cannot agree because we believe it has been the practice over many, many years in this country to regard our courts as the final arbiter in any matter. We believe that the courts should retain those powers, and we also believe that this clause is an incursion on the common law rights of both the courts and the ordinary citizens. I would say that this clause has been included in the Bill as a result of the well-known Rommel Roberts case in Cape Town in which, on technicalities perhaps, tariff increases which had been approved by the local Road Transportation Board were stopped by the Supreme Court. Over a long period—the hon. the Minister is quite right in that these things do take a long time, five or six months perhaps—the bus company was forced to keep its tariffs down until such time as it could put its house in order and the Transportation Board itself put its house in order. There are technicalities and technicalities. I notice in other clauses of this Bill that the hon. the Minister has conducted bureaucratic exercises which, for example, tell people that they will not be allowed to reapply if they are late in paying certain fees, or if they do not do so within 14 or 21 days.

In other words, the hon. the Minister is laying down technical procedures which the ordinary public in making application must follow.

Also the bus companies.

Fine, but then the hon. the Minister says that when the Road Transportation Board itself does not have its house in order, people take advantage of technicalities to subvert the intention of the local Road Transportation Board.

May I just point out to the hon. member that in terms of the provisions of the clause the right of the courts to arbitrate is not taken away?

No, I am coming to that. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that if the Rommel case had proceeded in terms of this clause, the court action would have taken place, but in the meantime the paying customers would have been paying the higher tariffs. If at the end of those proceedings the paying customers were proved to be in the right, what would have happened?

Were they?

How would there have been redress?

But were they?

I am not commenting on the court case at all. I am talking about the principle of this. I am saying that if fare-paying passengers happened to be in the right, how does the hon. the Minister think that those people could be repaid the money that they had been forced to pay through increased tariffs?

But you must argue the opposite as well.

I do not actually believe that our courts behave with any levity. For example, I do not believe that they allow any injunctions, unless there is very good reason in terms of the law, and if there is good reason in terms of the law, then they deserve everything that they got. If one is going to force technicalities upon people, one has to abide by technicalities if other people pick on one. Therefore, in weighing up this clause, I came to the conclusion that we could not support the whole Bill because we are so opposed to this clause, which we regard as an incursion, that we have to do something about it, and in showing our displeasure I should like to move the following amendment—

I just want to return to the last sentence of my amendment where it states “the ordinary citizen who may be required to pay increased transport fares in terms of determinations which may subsequently be declared invalid”. What exactly does the hon. the Minister intend to do about those fares that people have been overpaying in the sort of circumstances that I have outlined? There is no way by which he can do it.

We have never had a court interfering with the substance of decisions of the commission.

Well, this may or may not be so, but we are talking about a very, very important principle, namely the rights of the courts.

That is not correct.

I hear from the hon. member for Yeoville that what the hon. the Minister has said is not correct. I should like to have a look at the situation. [Interjections.] I am inclined to believe what he says, he being a learned legal man. I am sure that if one researched a little one could find plenty of substance that would contradict the hon. the Minister’s contention. I believe that there have been many instances where the courts upheld decisions which did not bear only on technicalities. Obviously we are going to argue further about this particular clause in the Committee Stage, but I would like to hear from the hon. the Minister in his reply to the Second Reading what he would do if fares had to be repaid. I do not know how he would do it.

I also noted with interest the amendment to clause 5, the amendment which appears on the Order Paper, which puts it beyond any shadow of doubt that a Supreme Court interdict would be without meaning in this instance and that tariffs would remain at the level as assessed. He made it absolutely clear that no rights were given to the courts to interfere with the National Transport Commission, and that we cannot accept under any circumstances.

In all fairness, that statement is not correct.

The hon. the Minister has put his case. He can answer to this when he replies to the debate.

Clause 6 is largely a drafting correction and is an improvement. Clause 7, whereby the proposed section 12A is inserted in the Act, is also quite acceptable. The provision in respect of the automatic increase in the price of petrol is reasonable. I think we might run into certain difficulties in this respect. Fare increases over shorter distances tend to be in the order of one cent or two cent. The percentage increase of a tariff would sometimes amount only to a fraction of a cent. I think this has to be watched very closely. I should also like to say that there would be a necessity for a predeclaration by the bus company as to what percentage of the total tariff covers the cost of fuel. If they use fuel wastefully and give a complete arbitrary figure as to what fuel is costing them, how exactly is the hon. the Minister going to check up on that?

They have 10 days in which to review it anyway.

Yes. I think the whole review process has to be very carefully scrutinized. I think the hon. the Minister might give consideration to the necessity for bus companies making a predeclaration in which they will state what percentage of their tariff covers the cost of fuel at a certain time so that if there is an increase in the cost of fuel in the future, there would be no argument about it and matters could go ahead fairly smoothly.

In the proposed section 13(2)(bA) we come across technicalities. It provides that “if the applicant or the person who submits those representations, as the case may be, has not paid the fee prescribed by regulation in connection with that application or the said representations, as the case may be”, the case is thrown out by the court. This is purely a technicality. This is a good piece of bureaucratic legislation.

In view of your attitude to clause 5, you should accept this clause.

I am asking the hon. the Minister to concede that we are dealing with technicalities. Technicalities can be very important. I actually think the hon. the Minister is being a little unnecessarily tough and severe in this respect. Human beings are frail, and I believe that a good bureaucracy has a certain sympathy for human frailties. This is typical bureaucratic officialese. I do not believe it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to be quite as tough as he is with the introduction of this clause.

The proposed section 14(1)(b)(iii), as contained in clause 9, reads as follows—

Paragraph (b) provides that the Road Transportation Board may—and I want to stress this word “may”—waive the necessity for having the transfer published in the Gazette. Vehicles wear out. The Gazette has been full of applications for the transfer of permits to new vehicles as old vehicles wear out. Of course one has to stop a situation in which somebody, when he replaces a vehicle, replaces it each year by a new vehicle with an added capacity, even of 20%. The board therefore, quite rightly, retains the right to force that applicant, if necessary, to submit his application through the normal channels. However, generally speaking this is an improvement.

The proposed section 14(2A) largely has to do with documentation. It provides that copies of any representations objecting to an application shall be made available to the person who has made the original application and also that the application itself shall be made available to the objector. There has been trouble in various Road Transportation Board offices in that people have had difficulties in obtaining details of objections. This makes the responsibility of the Road Transportation Board very clear indeed. There is no question at all about it that this provision is an improvement. Sir, it must be admitted that I give credit where credit is due. When a clause is good, I say so to the hon. the Minister, but when it is not so, we certainly object.

[Inaudible.]

I now want to come to a very contentious clause indeed, specifically as far as its phrasing is concerned, and that is clause 10.