Order! I have to inform the House that a petition has been lodged by the hon member Dr Z J de Beer on behalf of the hon member for Houghton, praying for the removal of a judge in terms of the Supreme Court Act, 1959.

Having declined to accept the petition, I have decided to give a considered ruling, detailing the reasons for doing so. I have instructed the Secretary to publish my ruling in today’s Minutes of Proceedings for the information of hon members.

Mr Speaker, on a point of order: I should like to draw your attention to the fact that your ruling is in conflict with a ruling given by Mr Speaker Jansen, as recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of 13 March 1935. On that occasion Mr Speaker Jansen was dealing with a motion moved in relation to a statement which had been made by Mr Justice Wessels, and he ruled that motion out of order because the matter was sub judice.

He then went on to make certain comments about the procedure to be followed when members wished to move for the impeachment of a judge. It is on that point, Sir, that I believe your ruling is in conflict with the ruling given by Mr Speaker Jansen.

He stated as follows—this is inter alia; I am not giving the full statement:

He then went on to say:

I want to submit to you, Mr Speaker, that by rejecting my petition you have denied me the right, as laid down by Mr Speaker Jansen, of moving my motion for the appointment of a select committee which is contained in my petition.

You have also, Mr Speaker, pre-empted the decision of the House whether to accept or reject such a motion. I believe also this negates the powers given to Parliament by the Supreme Court Act, No 59 of 1959, in section 10(7) for the impeachment of a judge via certain procedures laid down which I submit I have followed in presenting my petition. I ask you, Mr Speaker, to reconsider your judgement.

Mr Speaker, I wish to take another point of order namely that you said that you declined to accept the petition on behalf of the hon member for Houghton.

I want to submit to you, Mr Speaker, that it is not open to you, with respect, to decline to accept a petition. There are a number of reasons for my saying that.

The first one I would like to deal with is the question of the Rules themselves. The Rules prescribe in Rule No 189(1):

I am submitting to you, Mr Speaker, that you actually have no choice but to table the petition. The reason for that is that the Rule prescribes not only the issue of whether you approve but also that you must table. Therefore it must be tabled and, with respect, Mr Speaker, you have no discretion not to table it.

The question arises of what is actually meant by “approval”. I submit to you, Mr Speaker, all that is meant by the term “approval” in these circumstances is the approval of the technicalities of the petition. The merits of the petition in terms of these Rules are not material.

Let me give you an example, Mr Speaker. If I present a petition on behalf of one of my constituents for relief because of some action on the part of the Government, it is not for the Speaker to decide whether there is a case for such relief. It is not for the Speaker to decide whether there is a prima facie case for the relief. All the Speaker has to do is to say: Yes, in terms of the Rules I look at this petition; it complies with the Rules and formalities. I approve of it to that extent and to that extent I then am obliged to table it.

If that were not the situation and we have a case where, for example, there is a petition making application for a pension—of which we have dozens and which are referred to a committee in terms of Rule No 192—you Mr Speaker would be sitting in judgement as to whether there is a prima facie case for a pension or not! That has never been done!

In effect, the term “approval” means nothing more in the context than that it complies with the Rules. It cannot mean that a prima facie case or any other case has to be established. It can only mean that it complies with the Rules.

With great respect, in these circumstances, whether a petition is necessary at all is only because of the nature of the proceedings. One tables the reasons for the petition so that Parliament knows on what grounds the motion will be moved. That is all that one needs.

If we go back to the case that we investigated with regard to the Judge President of the Cape and the allegations made by the hon member for Sandton, it was made absolutely clear there, through a thorough study of the Rules, that one can only impugn a judge if one does go by substantive motion.

If you, Sir, now decide whether a substantive motion can be moved or not, you are creating a situation whereby the hon member for Sandton was absolutely right. He had no remedy but to speak because he would otherwise have had to present a petition, you would have decided whether or not it constituted a prima facie case and then it would have been dismissed. He would not have been able to do anything. Regarding the authorities, therefore one can move a substantive motion at any time.

Let me finally submit the following, with respect. The office of Speaker is an ancient office. It has a certain tradition attached to it. Mr Speaker represents Parliament. He can be a spokesman for Parliament. He is here to preserve order in Parliament but he is not Parliament. In the final analysis Parliament makes the decisions.

So, Sir, by saying that you will not accept the petition, I say, with great respect, that you are acting contrary to the Rules. By declining to accept the petition you are acting contrary to tradition. With great respect, I ask you to reconsider your ruling and to Rule that the petition be laid upon the Table of the House and that the hon member for Houghton is free to move whatever motion she may wish based upon that petition.

Order! I thank the two hon members for their comments in terms of the points of order they have raised.

The hon member for Houghton was kind enough to give me an indication during the course of the day of the point of order that she would consider raising were I to give the ruling I have already given. I have therefore had the opportunity to look at the authorities in this regard.

In terms of Rules 189(1) and 190 of the Standing Rules of Parliament a petition must be lodged with the Secretary and must be submitted by him to the Speaker for his approval. The Speaker approves a petition only if it complies with the Rules and with the practice. The same function vests in the Speaker under Rule 133 with reference to motions.

Over the years petitions of all sorts have been rejected by the Speaker for not complying with the practice of Parliament. It has been recorded that during the 1926 session the Speaker, in a private ruling, declined to accept a petition for the removal of a judge as the alleged misconduct of the judge was insufficient to warrant proceedings against him, and that a petition was rejected in 1945 as it contained reflections on the conduct and competency of certain judges, without setting forth the facts or formulating charges against them in such a manner as would establish a prima facie case for their removal on the ground of misbehaviour or incapacity.

During the recess in 1964 the Speaker declined to accept a petition which prayed that Parliament should review a particular Supreme Court judgment. The Speaker said it was an established principle that nothing could be more injurious to the administration of justice than that Parliament should act as a court of review of the proceedings of courts of law, and that Parliament would only intervene in cases that would make it necessary for it to exercise the powers vested in it under section 10(7) of the Supreme Court Act.

Mr Speaker Jansen’s ruling of 13 March 1935, to which both the hon members referred, although based partly on the sub judice rule, related to a motion seeking to criticise a judge for remarks made by him and applied to the motion the practice under consideration at present.

I may just mention that in my ruling which is to be published, I have gone very thoroughly into Mr Speaker Jansen’s ruling.

The rejection of the hon member’s petition in this case is to my mind firmly supported by the past practice in this House, upon which Rules 133, 189(1) and 190 of the Standing Rules of Parliament are based.

The hon members’ points of order are therefore not well taken and are accordingly dismissed.

Mr Speaker, may I ask if your ruling now means that every petition must establish a prima facie case?

Order! I have given my ruling and the hon member can study my ruling in due course.

Mr Speaker, this Bill to amend the Rand Afrikaans University (Private) Bill, 1966, is being introduced to bring about two small alterations to the existing Bill.

Clause 1(a) now vests the power to appoint six members to the council of the University in the Minister of Education and Culture. The present section 9 of the principal Act makes provision for the State President to make these appointments.

Clause 1(b) aims at altering the term for which casual vacancies on the council of the university are filled. In the past the new appointments only served the unexpired period of the period of office. The amendment now makes it possible for a member to be appointed for a period of four years. In my opinion these alterations are an improvement and will also improve the functioning of the RAU.

With these words I wish to pledge the support of the NP for this legislation.

Mr Speaker, like the previous speaker I also have connections with the RAU. I am an ex-student of the University and it is always a privilege to be involved with the making of legislation which could give rise to improved functioning of the specific university. In my opinion the hon member for Primrose dealt with the amendments fully and in the view of the practical nature of these changes and the improved functioning of the university which will arise from this legislation, the Official Opposition gladly supports this legislation.

Mr Speaker, this is simply a piece of amending legislation to streamline certain matters relating to the university council. I want to say that normally we would oppose such legislation as it transfers powers to the hon the Minister of Education and Culture in the House of Assembly thus entrenching apartheid education. However, in view of the particular nature of this legislation and the fact that it will streamline the functioning of the university, we will support it.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, the implementation of the UOFS (Private) Act was entrusted to the Minister of Education and Culture (House of Assembly). The hon the Minister gave his approval for the Bill to be submitted as a public measure, although it retains the form of a private measure.

In respect of clause 1 of the amending Bill, which amends section 3, the passing of the Bill will mean that the staff of the library, the administration, maintenance, public relations bureau, etc, now also become part of the university staff.

Clause 2 deals with section 6, and I have the following remarks to make here. The highest authority in a university rests with the university council, the senate and other specific authoritative bodies. In practice, effective management requires that the rector, as the executive officer of the council, should be able to delegate some of his duties, functions and powers.

The powers which the rector has had up to now. and which are set out in the Statutes, are powers which belong to the council and which were obviously delegated by the council to the rector, as a one-man committee of the council. The principle delegatus delegare non potest prohibits the rector from delegating any of the powers delegated to him by the council to other persons or bodies.

The fact that the proposed amendments in the Bill will empower the rector to delegate powers, etc. to certain persons and bodies, now gives him the legally defined power of subdelegation and also means that he will be able to delegate to bodies such as Inch or the students’ representative council.

Furthermore the legislation is being made more effective in that the State President is replaced by the Minister.

The other universities have already made provision in their Private Acts for the university council to have wider powers of delegation.

Mr Speaker, as the hon member for Bloemfontein North has said, the amending Bill under discussion proposes only a few minor amendments to the University of the Orange Free State (Private) Act. They affect mainly the internal arrangements of the university, and the CP would like to lend its support to these measures.

The University of the Orange Free State can be proud of its history. The first six students who attended this institution were registered on 28 January 1904 under the rectorship of Dr Johannes Brill. During the 85 years of its existence the university has made a fine contribution, not only to the academic education of young people, but also—and this is important—to the philosophy of life of those young people who subsequently went on to play leading roles in our country and in our national life.

On 1 February of this year the eleventh rector of the university. Prof F P Retief, delivered his inaugural address, and I should like to take the opportunity to congratulate him on his new post and at the same time wish him all the best with the great responsibility which rests on him. It is my hope that he will further extend the character of the university, making it, as one of his predecessors, H van der Merwe Scholtz, put it. a university for the people with a Christian-national basis, and the focal point from which knowledge, art and culture radiate.

The Official Opposition supports the Bill.

Mr Speaker, as has already been said, this Bill increases to some extent the authority of the University of the Orange Free State over its own affairs, with greater powers being given to the rector and to the university council, especially the ability and right to delegate.

As I said regarding the previous Bill, we are opposed to any extension of apartheid education, which this Bill is, in that certain powers are transferred to the Minister of Education and Culture in the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly. However, as this Bill extends the autonomy of the university concerned in that the rector and the council are given extended powers, and as we are in favour of greater autonomy for the universities as a step towards breaking down apartheid education, we will support this Bill.

Mr Speaker, I want to extend my sincere thanks to the Official Opposition and PFP speakers for their participation and support during this debate. I also want to thank the hon member for Brits for his intelligent explanation. After this amending Bill has been passed, the university will, under the leadership of the new rector, whom I equally … [Interjections.]

Order! I am sorry, but amid the loud conversation I find it very difficult to hear what the hon member is saying. The hon member may proceed.

When this Bill has been passed, the university’s influence, under the leadership of the new rector, whom we likewise want to congratulate on his appointment to and acceptance of his post, will reach new heights.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Speaker, I move the draft resolution which is printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows:

To begin with I want to say that by this motion I do not want to suggest that the housing shortage in the White communities is more serious than in the Black, Coloured and Indian communities. I hope that the discussion of this motion and certain proposals which may emanate from it, will contribute towards urgently addressing the housing shortage across the whole spectrum of the South African community life. Housing is a very important element in the economic framework of the South African economy. From the quarterly report of the South African Reserve Bank, one can see that the investment in residential buildings expressed as a percentage of the gross domestic product, amounts to 2,7%. That represents an expenditure of R903 million for the last quarter of 1988, and represents a labour force in the construction industry of 200 000 people.

One of South Africa’s most urgent economic problems is the lack of development capital. Problems with regard to the exchange rate have placed unprecedented pressure on the rand in relation to other currencies. The weakening rand has in turn affected the price of houses, construction material as well as the provision of basic services. Repayment of foreign loans has exceeded the surplus on the current account, which has in turn restricted the availability of capital. What is more important, is that capital in the South African economy has become very expensive. That is why, against this economic background, I am saying that despite a shortage of development capital, the Government has shown achievements in the area of housing which can only be to the advantage of all the communities. If I may dwell on a few of these projects, I should like to refer specifically to the fact that when there was a critical shortage of lease accommodation in Pretoria and the private sector was unable to fulfil the need, it was the department which made lease units available. Schubart Park was built and 813 residential units were provided.

Kruger Park followed and 319 units were provided.

In this way a total of 1 747 units have been provided during the past few years in the Pretoria area, on the initiative of this side of the House to relieve the housing shortage.

Every city or town has a certain sector which cannot be accommodated normally by the market mechanism. A specific need was identified in Port Elizabeth, and 1348 units were built there in certain areas of which Algoa Park and Gold Street are the best known. In the Durban area 14 projects have been completed during the past few years, and 10 in Johannesburg. Despite the economic climate, a total of more than 5 000 projects have been undertaken during the past few years to relieve the housing shortage for the Whites.

The extent of the housing aid provided by the Department of Local Government and Housing, often goes unnoticed, and I just want to dwell briefly on three of the aid schemes of the State in order to illustrate the fact that there is an urgent need for the State to address the housing problem. Firstly, there is the 100% loan scheme for public servants, semi-public servants and officials of statutory bodies. I do not want to trouble the House with statistics and figures, except to say that in the 1987 calendar year, 35 000 applications for housing aid were received in terms of this specific scheme. These applications represent a housing capital input of R1,8 billion.

We now come to the important aspect which I should like to discuss further in my speech this afternoon, and that is that subsidies are payable in terms of this scheme. The subsidies are very difficult to calculate, but if we accept that every application is subsidised by R250 per month, that brings us to a total amount of R27 million with regard to housing subsidies for the 1987 calendar year. If we bear in mind that this scheme is a cumulative scheme, and that the Government is bound to pay the subsidies over the entire repayment period, we can safely accept that in the 1987-88 financial year, housing subsidies in terms of this scheme amounted to R270 million. I shall return to this matter later.

There is a popular interest subsidy in terms of the 33,3% scheme. In 1985, 2 000 applications were approved. The applications increased to 16 000 during the 1988 calendar year. An amount of R54 million was appropriated in terms of this scheme.

On various occasions, this side of the House has requested the hon the Minister to extend this 33,3% subsidy scheme to existing dwellings as well. I do not want to debate the merits of the matter again. That has been done time and again. All that I am asking the hon the Minister is whether this matter cannot now be finalised.

A further facet of housing aid which I think deserves the attention of this House, is the aid from the Government with regard to welfare housing. The policy of the Government is that senior citizens should remain in the community as long as possible and that the State is only responsible for the care of people who are particularly frail. This is an ideal which is difficult to realise in practice. Today our senior citizens are trapped in a price spiral. There are the questions of loneliness and security which force senior citizens in our community to seek the safety of an old-age home. For this reason we can expect that increasing pressure will be placed on the Government and the Exchequer to provide finance for welfare housing. In the 1987-88 financial year, an amount of R68 million was spent on the provision of welfare housing. I want to say that we should not only view the Government’s contributions towards the housing process in the light of the amount of money spent or the number of housing units that are built. Housing, perhaps more so than any other service-orientated function of the State, is an important element in the creation of an ordered community life.

Viewed from a constitutional perspective, housing and home ownership form the basis of an orderly local government system. Every rand that the State spends on housing, has an influence on unemployment. Every subsidy which is approved by the State, enables the individual to build up capital. Every project of whatever nature or extent forms a building block in the constitutional process. Every house, whether it is directly or indirectly built or subsidised by the Government, makes a contribution to the quality of life.

What does this motion tell the House? It tells us that despite a shortage of development capital, the Government has, up to the present day, implemented projects which are milestones on the road of housing in South Africa.

Having said that, I must also say that there are problems. The fact remains that housing, without some or other form of help, is not accessible to the ordinary salaried person. I do not want to go into the reasons. Hon members who are still going to participate in the debate, will expand on this. I am thinking, for example, of price increases, increases in interest rates and increases in the cost of town development. However, the fact remains that suitable housing without assistance, whether it be from the employer or from the State, remains an unattainable ideal.

I now come to the specific question as to whether the present subsidy formula according to which housing is made accessible to those who cannot be accommodated under the normal market mechanism, is still relevant to the problem of the day. Allow me just to make this point with regard to the question of subsidies. Subsidies are a bottomless pit and it is natural for a prospective buyer who is entitled to a subsidy, not to look at the price of a house, but at how he can buy in order to obtain the maximum subsidy benefit.

I think the time has come for us to calculate the cost of housing subsidies to the State. We must consider whether this subsidy system should not be drastically revised.

To in any way ascertain what the impact of the present subsidy policy is on the Exchequer, it is necessary to go back and look at what the shortage of housing is and make a projection for the year 2000. That covers the entire housing spectrum. When we look at the year 2000, we find that at least 3,5 million housing units will be required. Calculated at the present monetary value, a capital investment of R13 billion will be required to provide for this housing need. If we add to that the R2,5 billion required for services and the R9,2 million required for infrastructure, then my opinion is that the State cannot carry the burden of the present subsidy formula.

Housing assistance in the form of a subsidy is general practice in Western countries. I am not calling for the abolition of subsidies for housing. I am calling for an extensive revision of the existing housing subsidy formula. The time has come for the entire spectrum to be closely examined. White housing financing, the subsidy policy and the input costs in the building industry, are aspects which could receive attention in this regard.

The present subsidy system is having a ripple effect on the economy of the country. We are so used to talking about the R250 million per year which is appropriated for subsidies, but we forget that we are committing ourselves for the ensuing years. The question now arises as to whether the subsidy policy should apply over the whole period of repayment. Furthermore, one must ask whether a subsidy assistance fund should not be introduced, and whether, in the case of those who are presently receiving subsidies, a levy should not be placed on this benefit which they are receiving. Every person who receives a housing subsidy can then pay this levy into the housing subsidy assistance fund, because this generation has a responsibility to ensure that the following generation will also be able to receive housing aid in the form of subsidies. [Time expired.]

Mr Speaker, the CP does not support this motion. Nevertheless I want to thank the hon member for Bellville for bringing this matter to Parliament so that we can debate it.

In my opinion not enough is or has ever been done for White housing in South Africa. I want to confine myself specifically to the lower income group and the underprivileged section of the White population of the RSA, simply because sufficient funds have never been made available for this purpose.

I would have thought that with the implementation of the new Constitution and the creation of the concept of own affairs, the Minister responsible would have ensured that sufficient funds were made available for White housing. In view of the fact that the Whites carry 90% of the tax burden in South Africa, the CP demands more funds in order to assist these specific people. Last year there were already 33 000 approved applications for low-cost housing, and there must be many more by now.

Local authorities—including the CP-controlled local authorities—act as agents for the Government in respect of various housing schemes. I want to confine myself to two of these schemes in order to try to point out the distress and the need to hon members. My colleagues will talk about the other schemes.

In the first place I want to refer to housing for the lowest income group. In my constituency the Middelburg Town Council has 32 sub-economic dwellings at present and was requested by the Government to sell these dwellings. I am very pleased that they refused. They are still in our possession.

These houses are made available for letting to the poorest section of the White community in terms of the requirements of the Development and Housing Board, and are always fully occupied. At present there are 96 names on the waiting list, representing 314 people.

In the new era our country’s economy is entering, the middle class is being reduced and the lower class enlarged, with the result that the number of indigent Whites is going to start increasing drastically as we move closer to the year 2000. If homes are not built for these people timeously, they are going to experience the same problem as the Black population.

The tenants of sub-economic dwellings can be divided into three groups. The first group, which represents approximately 98% of the tenants, consists of those who have a very low level of education and literacy. Then there are those who essentially cannot help themselves. When they get a home, they usually rent it for a number of years. The second group consists of those people who really cannot take care of themselves because of physical disabilities. The same principle applies in their case. A dwelling is rented for a very long period. The third group consists of those people who do not fall under either of the abovementioned groups, but who have found themselves on the street because of circumstances over which they had no control. These people usually rent a dwelling for only two to three years, during which they attempt to find their feet again and after which they then get better accommodation.

The average income of these 32 tenants in Middelburg is R345 per month. The average municipal account, which also includes their rental, is R158 per month. They then have R187 per month left on which to live. When one looks at these figures, two questions arise. Will this income group ever be able to afford to buy a house, irrespective of the purchase conditions? If housing is not provided for these people, what will become of them?

The average size of sub-economic dwellings is 98m2. In 1970 the average building cost was R3 958. It is estimated that a similar house will cost approximately R40 000 to build today. Should the dwellings be sold to the present tenants, the following trend could ensue: With an income of R345 per month, chances are that there will be failure to pay, upon which the dwellings will be taken back from the owners, and the owners will be given notice to vacate the premises. The dwelling will be resold, and since people with dependants who have an income of R1 000 per month qualify, the dwelling will be sold to such a person. As a result, the very poor group is going to be moved right out. I think these Whites have become the Government’s stepchildren. [Interjections.]

With reference to flats for single elderly people, the Middelburg Town Council undertook the following steps between 25 February 1985 and 8 December 1988. On 25 February 1985 the council decided that the Department of Health and Welfare should make the necessary survey of needs in this connection as a matter of urgency. This is the prescribed procedure that has to be followed. At that stage the council already had more than 40 names on the waiting list. On 22 July 1986, the department had been satisfied that a need had been proved. On 26 August 1986, an application was submitted to the Department of Local Government, Housing and Works for approval in principle.

I can continue in this way, but to make a long story somewhat shorter, I merely want to say the following. On 15 February 1988 the project was formally approved, with the proviso that no tenders should be called for or contracts concluded. On 29 August 1988 the loan was approved. Take note, Sir, this was in 1988—almost four years later. Tenders were called for on 30 September 1988. The council considered the tenders on 8 December 1988 and wrote the following to the department:

At present the planning procedure in getting a scheme of this kind approved goes through 17 different steps in Government departments. The abovementioned planning procedure can take up to three or four years to complete—as I have indicated. By that time the abovementioned planning is no longer valid and the increasing building costs have placed the implementation of this scheme far beyond the department’s limit of maximum building costs.

When tenders are received, the local authority has to negotiate with the lowest tenderer to leave out the ceilings, floor coverings, electric wiring or even a bedroom in order to bring the tender price to below the departmental maximum. One must also remember that the cost of installing services, such as water and so on, has increased tremendously during the past few years.

What then is the solution? I now come to the second part of the hon member’s motion. In the first place the procedure for approving a scheme should be streamlined in such a way that a local authority or a welfare organisation which has identified a need can call for tenders for the scheme within 12 months thereafter. This means that local authorities should be trusted with the identification of needs without any external interference. Secondly, of course, the provision of funds for schemes remains a problem. Consequently consideration should be given to authorising local authorities to finance schemes themselves in the meantime and to go ahead with the scheme until such time as the Government can provide funds. This would neutralise the enormous increase in building costs and make these schemes much cheaper for both the Government and the future residents.

I want to refer to a single example. The maximum amount that is permitted for economic dwellings at present, including the cost of the plot, is R33 000. If, therefore, the cost of the plot comes to R8 000, only R25 000 is left for the building, the fence etc. Urgent consideration must also be given to the formula for maintenance purposes, which is between 1% and 3,5% at present. A maintenance grant of at least 10% should be considered.

Mr Chairman, in following the hon member for Middelburg I should like to approach this debate from a different angle.

In introducing this motion the hon member for Bellville expressed concern and sympathy with which we can all identify. For reasons which, I think, will become apparent we cannot support the motion as it stands. The availability of adequate k rusing for all South Africans is an ongoing challenge which we have to face. A stable and happy family life is essential for human development in our country, and the objective should be for every family to enjoy decent, affordable housing. Ideally, families should in fact own their own homes. Whilst creating a stable population, home-ownership constitutes an appreciating asset which is a major source of wealth creation.

The motion before us today deals with actions taken by this Government in the provision of housing for White South Africans. Housing is an own affair, and therefore can be examined and appraised in this way.

Before dealing with the motion I wish to make it quite clear once again that this party is totally opposed to this differentiation. We believe one cannot deal with housing in this way; that it is foolhardy to congratulate Government on its provision of housing for Whites when the Urban Foundation estimates the current shortage of housing for Black South Africans to be 800 000 outside the homelands, 125 000 units in the independent homelands and 892 000 in the other homelands, a total of 1,82 million housing units. In Cape Town alone, the waiting list for Coloured housing now stands at 65 000 families.

The hon member for Bellville has referred to the broader implications of housing policies and his call for a total review of White housing is urgently needed but, we would stress, for all South Africans.

The housing situation has been immeasurably aggravated and distorted by deliberate acts and glaring omissions by this Government. Firstly, its failure to build sufficient low income housing when it was affordable; secondly, its wanton destruction of housing units in terms of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting and Group Areas Acts; thirdly, the consolidation of homelands; and fourthly, its failure to set aside adequate amounts of residential land close to our cities.

Despite an apparently more flexible approach of late, the situation remains grave and potentially explosive.

Having put this matter in perspective I will confine my remaining comments to the availability of housing for Whites. While the prospect is not attractive the reality is that Whites are going to have to drop their standards for housing for two main reasons.

Firstly, land is a limited resource. Whereas demand is increasing the supply is limited. The 1988 guide plan for the Cape metropolitan area projects land availability for the various population groups to the year 2010. Based on a capacity of 25 to 35 persons per hectare there is sufficient land to cope with the expected increase in the White population. For so-called Coloureds, on a capacity of between 50 and 94 persons per hectare there is also sufficient land. The problem lies with Blacks. To the year 2000 the Black population is expected to increase by 780 000 people. At a capacity of 120 persons per hectare, 380 000 Blacks can be accommodated on the available land, leaving a shortfall of some 400 000 people. This clearly represents a major problem which we still have to face.

I stress the differences in the above figures in projected densities per hectare: Whites, 25 to 35; Coloureds, 50 to 94; and Blacks, 120 per hectare, or approximately four times the number of Whites.

The second reason Whites are going to have to lower their sights is economic, namely the cost of servicing land, the cost of constructing houses, and the availability of finance and the cost thereof.

Housing costs are estimated by the United Building Society to be increasing at about 10% per annum making a new house at current cost about 33% dearer than an existing house of the same size. Add to this the cost of bond finance, currently 19% and it is clear that the vast majority of young South Africans are being excluded or will be excluded from the home-ownership market. This will have serious socio-political consequences in the future.

The recent increase in the bank rate has caused the interest on home loans to increase for the sixth time since January last year, some fourteen months ago. During this period the cost of borrowing has increased by some 50%. It has increased from 12,5% to 19%. The latest rise will cost borrowers an additional R500 million a year and will impose a constraint on property developers.

I wish to stress the impact that this has on home-owners, particularly on young families who have recently purchased their own home. The hon member for Sea Point will later be dealing with the housing problems that affect the aged. I would like to express my concern about the young couples who have a stake in the future of this country but whose economic prospects are looking extremely bleak.

The following example is based on an R80 000 bond, repayable over 20 years. Monthly repayments have increased by R387 or 43% since January last year. This represents an intolerable burden to many people. What was affordable at the time that they made the decision to purchase a house, has become a financial millstone around their necks. Husbands, including schoolteachers and other professionals, have to resort to moonlighting in order to find the difference. Wives have to seek work when they would rather be looking after their young children.

When evaluating the affordability of a purchase, the yardstick is often that the repayments should approximate 25% of one’s income. To afford the higher repayments which I have just mentioned, a monthly increase of approximately R1 500 or 42,5% would be required. The option of extending the bond period has little impact on repayments but increases the total amount to be paid significantly. If the couple chooses to extend the bond period because they cannot afford the current payment they achieve little. On the R80 000 bond that I mentioned a moment ago this would reduce payments by only R26 if one extended the bond period from 20 to 30 years, but it would increase the total repayment by R146 000 over that period.

What is the answer? The following are some suggestions.

Firstly, a move towards smaller properties and less expensive houses.

Secondly, an increase in the rate at which serviced sites are brought onto the market.

Thirdly, at the lower end of the market, the provision of site and service, basic training in building skills and the co-operative purchasing of building materials.

Fourthly, the removal of all legislation which impedes the provision of land and distorts the market process.

Fifthly, the relaxation, within reasonable limits, of building regulations which tend to inhibit the construction of affordable housing.

Sixthly, a re-evaluation of the subsidy scheme, as was briefly mentioned earlier by the hon member for Bellville. We recognise the danger of keeping overall rates artificially low. In any event, this benefits all, including those who do not need assistance. I understand that the South African Housing Advisory Council is looking at recommending a sliding scale system of housing subsidy based on a means test. This should be administered across the board by a single housing ministry without the politically vested interests of own affairs. We support this proposal.

Seventhly, the prevailing practice of employer subsidies has also been referred to, particularly those to “non-starter” families. These are families who are buying their second or third home. It is estimated that some 70% of building society bonds are subsidised at present. These often encourage employees to occupy a standard of accommodation above the normal level that they could expect. People feel compelled to trade up their housing in order to fully utilise their remuneration package. They do not have a free choice on how to spend this remuneration.

Before anything can be done, the Government will have to spell out its intention to eliminate any tax benefit of subsidies so that employers can reconsider their pay package policy.

Clearly much has been done for White housing but I have detailed some problem areas which have to be addressed—most important of which is a fairer distribution of resources amongst all South Africans. In addition the current state of the economy, resulting in increased costs and a high interest rate pattern, is a direct result of this Government’s racial policies and economic mismanagement. Spokesmen for the governing party have stated clearly that people who want apartheid will have to pay for it. This we are now doing to the detriment of young and old who are finding it increasingly difficult to make ends meet.

Mr Chairman, on the way over here this morning I was driving behind a car with a sticker on the rear window which read: “Success needs no explanation.” That would be valid for the NP’s achievements in the field of housing over the past few years. It would be valid in a normal society where there was no CP and PFP. [Interjections.] The NP’s achievements are there for everyone to see, and we are not ashamed of the fact; on the contrary, we are very proud of what the NP has done for the Whites in this country in the field of housing, and in the coming election, which is going to take place soon, we shall be proclaiming that fact from one platform to the next. We shall be telling the people. [Interjections.]

Who says you are going to have an election? F W or P W?

It is only the CP that would try to denigrate and cast suspicion on these phenomenal achievements on the part of the NP, and do so, what is more, with the kinds of slogans they tote around the streets saying that the NP is doing everything for the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians, but absolutely nothing for the Whites. That is the kind of slogan those hon members bruit abroad.

Today they did not have a word to say about this. In a nice way, in fact in a very civilised manner, the hon member for Middelburg took the floor here today. I appreciate that fact. If they would only be as civilised in their normal everyday dealings, we would greatly appreciate the fact. [Interjections.]

Where are the people?

Pardon me? Where are the people? No, we do not need so many chaps to deal with those hon members. We only need a few, and then we simply settle accounts with those hon members before breakfast! [Interjections.]

Hon members on the opposite side of the House have apparently not read the draft motion of the hon member for Bellville. At no stage did we say we have done enough for White housing. We never said that, but hon members are now simply trying to score another cheap political point. We merely said: Come, let us thank those who, over a period of many years, have concerned themselves with developing home-ownership for the Whites in South Africa. Hon members are not even prepared to talk about that.

Why did you stop?

Hon members are speaking about Middelburg’s problem. We are now speaking about what has been achieved in the past. Our standpoint on this side of the House is that we shall do everything we can for our White people on the housing front, within the financial capabilities of this country. That is also something we shall be proclaiming from one platform to the next in the months ahead. We have only asked for a little recognition for what has recently been achieved in the sphere of housing. A great deal was done in the period in which those hon members in this Parliament were still NP members. Do hon members not want to say thank you, for once in their lives, for what was done up to 1981? Surely we shall then have made some progress. [Interjections.]

What have you done after that?

Does the hon member concede that a great deal was done up to 1981? Then the hon member must move an amendment in which they express their gratitude for that.

I do not want to react to the speech of the hon member for Pinelands, except to tell him that it is not possible for this Government, or any successive governments of this country, whoever they may be, to build a house for every family in this country.

I did not say that!

Those hon members must stop creating those expectations amongst people of colour because they are expectations that cannot be realised, given over the limited financial means, and also in view of future developments.

Nowhere did I say that!

The hon member must please not create those expectations.

Read my Hansard!

This motion also makes provision for the identification of possible future obstacles. I should like us to examine a few of these obstacles impartially, because we are not here merely to heap praise on one another. We are also here as responsible members of Parliament to examine obstacles we, as a Parliament, must identify so that we can achieve the objective of proper and affordable housing in this country in the end. In the time available to me I should therefore like to examine the question of housing costs.

Firstly I want refer to the services that are necessary to make land available for housing purposes. I am told that today the internal services cost approximately R12 000 per erf. One is inclined to ask where that money goes to. I want to mention a few examples which I think are applicable and which we must examine as far as the high cost of services is concerned.

Quite a substantial amount of copper is used when furnishing these services. The hon member for Sea Point will concede that copper piping and electrical cables containing copper are one of the extremely expensive items.

How is copper purchased in this country? The price is determined on the London bullion market. That price is quoted in South Africa in dollars or pounds, and if one pays, one pays in the currency that gives one the most rands.

Copper is mined and processed locally, and it is disconcerting to know that over the past six months the price of copper has increased by 50%. I want to ask whether this is a fair price being quoted in our country at present. When the price of copper was low, it was quoted in rands. Now that it fetches a sturdy price it is quoted in dollars and pounds. Is that a reasonable practice?

Secondly I want to refer to the underground pipes that have to be laid when stands are marked out for the construction of dwellings. Preference is given to fibre cement pipes, and there is only one manufacturer of those pipes in the Western Cape. That manufacturer has his nominated agents, and there is no price difference amongst them.

If local authorities were to allow one to make use of plastic piping, however, one would not be in a much better position. There are only two sources of supply in the Western Cape, and their prices are exactly the same. I could mention further examples, but my time is running out. If we look at stone, for example, we see that it has increased in price by more than 200% from 1982 to 1989.

Let us look at the building costs of a house, ie the costs of the material used in its construction. Do hon members know that the person who grows the timber on his farm, the forester, obtains R16 per cubic metre for the timber he delivers to the lumber-mill? When the man in the street purchases that timber from the dealer for building purposes, he pays approximately R900 per cubic metre. I think that in the timber industry there is a bug in the woodwork that needs to be treated. [Interjections.] No, leave the NP out of it. That hon member cannot even spell the word national. [Interjections.] I am actually in the process …

Order! The hon member for Nigel must restrain himself. The hon member for Parow may proceed.

I could go on listing examples. If we look at glass and paint, we see that the prices are astronomical. Do hon members know that one of the most important components in the manufacture of paint is titanium oxide? From 1984 to the present day the price of titanium oxide has increased from R1 900 per ton to R5 200 per ton. This in an increase of 173%. I am sorry the hon the leader of the PFP is not here. He knows a great deal about titanium. I would have liked to know from him whether he thought that was a reasonable increase in the price of titanium.

We can likewise refer to bricks. In the past four year there has been an 88% increase in the price of cement. Cement prices increased by 88% in four years. [Interjections.] I am not trying to score political points, but I am trying to focus the attention of this House on the fact that we want to give our people out there houses they can afford. If we want to do so, we must look at price inflation. My contention is that we need an urgent investigation. This is an industry with cost increases of 1,5% per month. Is there something wrong? I want to make an urgent appeal—I spoke about this same matter in the House three or four years ago—that we take an urgent look at this matter in the interests of the building industry and in the interests of our people so that we can ultimately succeed in achieving our goal, and that is to give every person and his family in this country proper housing that he can afford.

Mr Chairman, I should like to reply to the beetle-fighting hon member for Parow later in the last portion of my speech, not with reference to what the CP has said, but with reference to the leading article in Die Transvaler four or five days ago.

First of all I want to refer to the hon member for Bellville who, in introducing his motion, suggested that despite the shortage of essential capital, the Government had nevertheless fared well in the provision of housing, particularly to the lower income groups. I say thank you for what has been provided, but it remains far too little. This Government could have done and spent far more to uplift the Afrikaner and the needy Whites with regard to housing.

I want to tell hon members this and I should like to refer … [Interjections.] No, give me a chance. I should like to refer to the criticism that has been expressed, and particularly to the criticism of the hon member for Middelburg with regard to the long-drawn-out procedures which usually exist with regard to the completion of projects. I am going to refer to just one of these.

I want to refer to the service and aid centre and flats for the aged at Heidelberg. This erf was made available free of charge by the town council of Heidelberg on 25 August 1986. Heidelberg’s Association of the Aged did the necessary spadework. A year and eleven months later, on 7 June 1988, the Administration (House of Assembly) allocated an amount of R2 million for the planning of this. Architects were appointed, and on 13 September 1988 the council applied to the department for R5,851 million after the planning had been completed. On 31 January 1989 the chairman of the Heidelberg Association of the Aged was informed that the housing project blueprint committee had considered the matter and that it was being referred back for replanning and recalculation before the application was finally submitted for recommendation to the executive council of the Development and Housing Board for formal approval. The reason is, of course, understandable. It is because the permissible amount of the loan is far larger than that which was originally budgeted for.

In my opinion it will take another two years to reach finality, and then the original project will cost far more, after five years and all the associated long-drawn-out procedures, than it could be built for at present. The bottle-neck which I wish to identify, is that streamlining must take place so that whenever negotiations are entered into and approval has been given in principle, this situation can proceed more quickly.

The hon member for Bellville referred to the three housing schemes for young people. He also referred to the 33,3% interest scheme with a maximum amount of R65 000 for the purchase of a house, including the erf. It states very clearly in the leaflet: “Only new dwellings will be considered”. I want to tell hon members that there is virtually no town in which one can still buy a house or an erf, with all the administrative costs that are associated with this, for an amount of R65 000.

We now come to the second one, and this is the 3% savings scheme with a limit of R20 000. The third loan scheme comprises 90% with a limit of R33 000, of which the applicant must contribute R3 300 himself. Therefore, the applicant must have something of the order of R3 300. Where can a White person buy a house today for an amount of R33 000? Surely it is out of the question. I gain the impression that the Government has introduced these schemes so that it can say that it has at least done something, that there is a scheme in existence. It can therefore say that it has not begrudged the Whites certain privileges with regard to housing. After all, certain schemes exist and the Whites must make use of them.

I want to tell hon members that in Pretoria one can dismiss any thought of obtaining a house on those conditions. Although housing and prices differ from town to town and from region to region, it amazes me that the department has not yet identified this scheme as a serious bottleneck. That is precisely what this motion is about today. The prices of houses have increased to such an extent over the years that the loans that are being offered, are totally inadequate to make provision for those schemes.

There is only one conclusion that can be drawn, and that is that own affairs are being dealt with in a neglectful manner. There are never sufficient funds available. If there are not sufficient funds available, adequate planning cannot take place for the future either. It is very clear that the department will have to give some serious attention to the question of adequate funding.

It is actually pathetic that the Government, by way of a front-bencher, should come to this House with a motion like this today and request that bottle-necks be identified, whilst hon members of the Government themselves have spoken about those bottle-necks. After all, the bottlenecks have been identified and the Government has basically done nothing about them. I am amazed. I want to tell hon members that this is a motion of no confidence in their own Government. The Government identifies bottle-necks, but does nothing about them. I want to tell hon members that this department has inherited some very competent officials from the other bodies. I am really and truly amazed that the Government has been unable to discover that there are bottlenecks.

After the examples that have been mentioned to us today, such as those that were mentioned by the hon member for Middelburg, I can tell hon members that the greatest bottle-neck is finance. That is the bottle-neck which hon members also identified. Money is therefore required to complete the projects within an acceptable period of time. The examples that were mentioned here today and the delays that were pointed out, make the original project considerably more expensive, whilst hon members say that they do not have the necessary funds. I want to make the statement that the department that was previously responsible for housing in the period before 1984 catered for the needs of the Whites far better than is presently the case now that housing falls under own affairs for Whites.

When one looks at the rate at which Black housing, for example, is being established in the PWV area—this includes the obtaining of land, the establishment of an infrastructure, and the building of houses—one will see what is happening there when one drives along the N3 highway from Leondale to Heidelberg. It is therefore no wonder that there are no additional funds available for the Whites, because just look at the tremendous expansion that is going on there, the rate at which it is taking place and how quickly the money is obtainable.

The White group, which makes far and away the largest contribution to the Treasury, is being woefully neglected when it comes to the allocation of funds for housing. I should now like to refer briefly to a quotation in a leading article in Die Transvaler of 2 March 1989, with regard to home loans. I should like to make this applicable to the hon member for Parow. This is not a CP newspaper, but an NP newspaper. We read: “Of die beleid self is ’n mislukking, of dit word nie reg toegepas nie”. It is not the CP who is saying this, but the hon members’ own newspaper. The article goes on to say:

Just look at the schemes which the Government is offering to young couples. The point I want to make, is that the fewer people who are placed in a position to acquire their own housing today—I think hon members will agree with me in this regard—the greater the pressure will be on the Government in the future to provide housing, with the associated lack of funds.

The Government of the day is presently causing thousands of young people to give up their homes. Once again I quote from the aforementioned leading article: “Nou het dieselfde huis meteens onbekostigbaar geword, of moet dit behou word ten koste van noodsaaklikhede soos kleding en voeding”. The hon member’s newspaper is telling the Government and the voters outside, and they must please take note of this: “Nog die sakeman, nog die individu kan sy toekoms beplan, nie eens ’n jaar vooruit nie. Laasgenoemde weet nie of hy die huis wat hy nou op verband koop en die sitkamerstel wat hy met ’n bankoortrekking aangeskaf het, more nog sal kan bekostig nie”.

The bottle-neck that has been identified here, is that of interest rates, and the Government will have to take some drastic measures in this regard. The CP is telling the Government that they must desist from treating White housing so neglectfully. They must get their planning in order. They do not need to identify the bottle-necks, because these are already crying out to high heaven.

Mr Chairman, I am going to do my best to steer this debate away from the pre-election atmosphere that was created by the previous two speakers, the hon members for Parow and Nigel. [Interjections.] Taking my cue from the much more calm, more relaxed and more objective approach displayed by the hon member for Bellville, I want to thank him for the motion he submitted, as well as for his approach to this subject.

As someone who has served on various committees and commissions with him for years, I know him to be an expert and an authority in the field of housing and it is something that is very important to him. He has taken tremendously effective action in his own constituency, especially with regard to housing for the aged. In addition he is prepared to share his knowledge with me and others who have less knowledge of this particular subject. I want to thank him for this across the floor of the House.

†I would also like to congratulate the hon member for Pinelands who, to my mind, made a very constructive contribution by identifying a number of specific problems and providing solutions.

The hon member for Bellville by implication indicated that he felt it was a pity that this motion was limited to dealing with White housing. I think that that was what he was trying to say. Nevertheless, the motion does deal with White housing and I want to agree that it is a great pity because, while we can talk of community life and own affairs, housing is a composite subject which requires an integrated and composite solution and policy.

As far as township development is concerned, one cannot have separate policies for Black township development, White township development and Indian township development. As far as housing delivery is concerned, builders build houses and finance knows no racial or ethnic barrier. One should look at housing in a composite way. One of our tragedies today, I think the hon the Minister will admit this, is that we have no fewer that six departments responsible for housing. We have a White housing department, a Coloured housing department, an Indian housing department, we have an urban housing department under the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning, we have a rural housing department under the hon the Minister of Education and Development Aid and we have a composite policy formation under the hon the Acting Minister of Public Works and Land Affairs. Six departments are handling housing and that is why I think we have certain problems in the housing field.

One of the problems—if we have to talk about White housing as opposed to talking of Black housing—in White housing has been the shift away from availability to affordability. The problem is essentially in the area as to whether people can afford the houses that are there. The problem in Black housing remains a combination of nonavailability and affordability. People cannot pay in any case. Black housing is therefore much more difficult and much more important and let me say that I believe that it creates a much more explosive situation than White housing does in South Africa today.

The Black housing problem is caused in part by the process of urbanisation because people are coming from the rural areas to the urban areas and this requires more housing. It is created by the poverty of that particular community and it is also intensified by years and years of various kinds of racial restrictions.

The Urban Foundation in a recent report said that something like seven million Black South Africans were today living in what is known as informal settlements around the urban areas.

Shacks!

Those are “pondoks” and shacks or self-help houses. Seven million South Africans are living in that kind of housing today.

If one looks at overall responsibility there is always the balance between the private sector and the public sector. I accept that both sides have an important role to play. The public sector has a most important role to play at the level of the people who have a problem of affordability. The private sector has a role to play in providing the houses for those people who can afford them. Both elements have a very important role to play.

I was a little distressed to read, in the January edition of the monthly journal Housing in South Africa issued by the Institute of Housing, how the hon the Minister, who will respond to this debate, deals with the responsibility of the private sector. The hon the Minister concedes that the public sector has a complementary role to play but he says:

The hon the Minister says further:

I want to say that this is not the responsibility of the private sector; it is the responsibility of the Government. The Government must be doing the surveys and must be providing the basic facts on which both the public and the private sectors can base their solutions. It is not the function of the private sector perse to accept overall responsibility for people who cannot afford economic housing. It is not their function.

They must help.

I am saying that they must help but the hon the Minister places the overall responsibility on the private sector. It is the public sector that has got to look at the particular situation because in the end the private sector only operates if there is a reasonable return on the money that is invested. If in fact housing for certain categories cannot produce a reasonable return the private sector can do nothing about it.

What about their workers?

Even the workers are part of the return on the investment.

I think that the hon the Minister will concede that the policy of the Government should best be summed up in the recommendations of the Venter Commission which sat way back in 1983-84. It defined in very specific terms the fundamental philosophy that there should be about housing. In par 3.3, page 9, of its first report, the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment and Related Matters, states:

1. (a) From a social, economic or political point of view, housing is a matter of critical importance.
2. (b) Housing as a form of shelter and defensible living space is so basic a human need that its unavailability, whether because living units do not exist or because the units are beyond the means of those who need them, is not only socially and economically disruptive but is also potentially politically explosive.
3. (c) Living units may be supplied by the public sector or the private sector or a combination of both sectors, but the chief responsibility rests with the State to see that sufficient housing within the means of all who require it is available, in order to ensure social and economic progress and prevent the housing issue from becoming unduly politicised.

In other words, while the private sector can play a role the chief responsibility for seeing that that role can be played on its own or in complement with the public sector rests fairly and squarely with the State.

I want to deal in particular with what I believe is the prime problem—the problem of affordability or non-affordability. I am not talking so much about the availability as about the affordability. That involves the cost factor. As far as housing is concerned there are four basic components— land, services, building and the finance costs. A combination of these components of the cost factor are squeezing many middle and lower income group city dwellers right out of the housing market. We can talk about owning our own homes. We can talk about everybody being housed but in fact these cost factors are squeezing more and more people out of the housing market and making it impossible for them not only to have reasonable accommodation but also to purchase their homes. The two categories of people most affected by this are clearly firstly, young couples with small children, and secondly, elderly people living on pensions and relatively fixed incomes.

Let us look at these four components of cost. First of all the land. There is no doubt that costs are rising merely because of the pressure of demand on limited land that is available as far as the declared townships are concerned. Equally there can be no doubt that costs are very often incurred by the distortion caused by the Group Areas Act. It is caused at the time that the land is identified. It is caused because one cannot have economies of scale. It is caused because land and services are allocated, not on the basis of functional needs, but on the basis of the racial consideration. Moreover, when one gets change in demographic distribution within urban areas and there is the upgrading of certain categories of people and the downgrading of others, it becomes even more difficult to provide reasonable services without increasing both the land and the service costs.

Not only that, the Group Areas Act makes it impossible for the private sector to play a full and effective role in bringing down the cost of housing. Free enterprise is the very antithesis of the Group Areas Act. The Group Areas Act says that when it comes to the sale of land free enterprise is irrelevant—race is the dominant thing. Do not let us underestimate that particular effect.

Secondly, there remains the question of the delays and the costly procedures and the red tape which there still is in the obtaining of approval for the registration and the development of townships. The hon member will know that we went on a commission and came up with lots of extraordinarily sensible recommendations, some of which have been adopted. The fact remains, however, that there are still too many authorities and too much red tape, and every time there is a delay in the proclamation of a township, the cost factor comes into the reckoning. If interest rates are running at 20% per annum, the cost of the township goes up by 20% for every year of delay in its proclamation. That is one fifth of the cost every year, merely because of delay.

I would like the hon the Minister to tell us about his own commission’s recommendations which are still outstanding. What has been done to reduce this time factor in the proclamation of townships and also, by doing so, to reduce the cost factor of those proclamations?

The next point relates to the question of services, a matter to which the hon member for Parow referred. Are the quality, standard and specifications of services which we demand not imposing an extraordinary cost burden on the person who is going to live in a particular house? I am referring to roads, drainage, sewerage and waste disposal. Are the standards of materials and specifications appropriate to a country which is short of development capital?

Secondly, cannot we evolve a system of progressive installation of the less essential services so that those services can be paid for as people rise on the economic scale and the services become more affordable? When one has to install all of the services in a township before it is ready for development, one has locked up capital which is eating away at the current interest rate of 20%. Cannot there be some way of installing services progressively as the level of affordability of a community increases?

Thirdly. I refer to the physical cost of building. According to the figures at my disposal, the situation is simply appalling. Let me take the subsidised rental scheme of R65 000. of which it is assumed something like R40 000 would be spent on a house as opposed to the other services and the land cost. All the indications are that while one could have built a house of 100m2—this would be a very modest house, I might say, and not the kind that the hon member for Turffontein. for instance, would live in—for R40 000 in 1987. the estimated cost in 1988 would have been R52 000, and that for 1989 would be R68 000. According to these estimated figures, the amount required has increased from R40 000 to R68 000 in the course of two years.

I have figures issued in terms of the Haylett formula, which the Government uses for calculating its escalation of costs, and they show that over the months from February 1987 to December 1988, there was an average increase of 30,71%. In other words, building costs—this refers not to the end product, but to the cost of construction—rose at twice the rate of inflation for those two years.

Let me refer again to the figures of the Stellenbosch Bureau for Economic Research, which show that house prices have risen by 73% over the past four years. For those who were lucky enough to buy a house in 1970. it is now worth ten times as much. There has been 1 000% increase over 20 years!

Finally, there is the question of finance costs, which the hon member for Pinelands also mentioned. Not only have the costs of loan repayments on bonds increased by 42% over the past 18 months, but there is also the 40% increase in building costs for the same products. Today one has to pay 100% more in terms of interest on one’s bond to get the same square metreage of housing than one would have had to pay in January of last year.

I believe that inflation remains Public Enemy No 1, especially for older people, and it is in fact sapping their moral economic fibre. Millions of hard-pressed South Africans are totally unimpressed by the Government’s feeble attempts to bring inflation under control. Let me give one or two suggestions as to what may be done.

First of all, I believe that instead of the home buyer having to take out a bond for the total value of a home, the concept of shared equity between the mortgagor and the mortgagee, which exists in other countries, should be considered here, so that while a person owns a home and has a right to it. it is in fact shared between themselves and the building society or the bank that lends to them. This would reduce that particular cost.

The popular thing to say is: what are the massive pension funds doing? I think we have to be careful not to raid the pension funds because pension funds provide the finances for people when they retire. Nevertheless there is a very good case to be made out for the pension funds rather applying some of that money towards paying off the bond on the pensioner’s home instead of paying out the total pension in cash when the person retires. When the person then retires, he gets both a bondfree house and a reduced but reasonable financial pension. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman. I should like to react to the hon member for Sea Point. I am not going to react to all his remarks now. I shall come back to him in the course of my speech.

I want to refer to something the hon member for Nigel said in this House this afternoon. If I understood him correctly, the hon member said that this Government was not doing enough as regards the housing of the White Afrikaner.

I said and the Whites! [Interjections.]

I want to tell the hon member that that is a dangerous and extremely irresponsible statement to make in this House, because when this Government provides housing for White groups, it also considers the interests of the other cultural groups living in this country. [Interjections.]

Previous speakers have already referred to the tremendous contribution the Government has made in respect of White housing. I do not want to repeat all the achievements in this sphere, because I feel that speakers on the Government side have already singled out these aspects very well.

However. I want to say the following. One of the major reasons for the successes which resulted in increasing numbers of members of the White population group becoming home-owners in this country, is that this Government has created a climate of safety and stability in which people can become home-owners. [Interjections.] Homeownership in a climate of instability and in a country in which there is no peace and order, means very little. Because of a stable and orderly Government the home-owners of this country have become owners not only of decent homes, but also of an asset which gives them security and stability in this country. [Interjections.] Nowhere in the world where there is disorder, instability and chaos, can and has home-ownership ever come fully into its own.

The Government has succeeded very well indeed in addressing the housing problem of the White population of this country. Although for the moment the problem is adequately under control. I do want to say today that the problems of the future must always be identified timeously in order to meet the housing demands of the future. At the moment there is no real shortage of units for Whites, but there are certain projections which indicate that by the year 2000 there may possibly be a shortage of units for Whites. I have no doubt that the Government will undertake adequate planning in this regard in good time. It will be necessary to accept certain new concepts and guidelines in the combating of future problems.

It is an absolute fact that by the year 2000 approximately 80% of the total population of South Africa will be living in cities. There is no getting away from the fact that when the number of people increases the amount of land decreases. It will simply not be possible, with regard to future planning, to continue to provide housing in the conventional way and in terms of conventional planning.

The high density concept will have to come increasingly to the fore and will have to form the crux of the planning. High density does not simply mean dividing land into smaller units, but requires a new approach in respect of the layout and planning of urban residential areas, in order to make the most productive use of the available space. Meaningful and practical housing can involve planning on smaller plots, but then it is absolutely essential for certain regulations and requirements which are laid down by some local and second-tier authorities to be scaled down.

It is an accepted fact that the provision of housing for the aged will set an increasing number of challenges to the planners of the future. At present this problem is receiving very successful attention, but as regards the future there will have to be increasingly detailed planning. Meaningful housing for the aged is at present not within the reach of all pensioners. These schemes are becoming increasingly attractive undertakings for the private sector. More specialised planning for housing for the aged in the future is therefore absolutely essential.

This is not a separate facet which must be tackled in isolation from the total housing problem. People are growing older, they are living longer and the task of the Government in this regard is becoming greater. The Government has done and is still doing tremendous work in this regard.

However, I want to say that housing for the aged should form an integral part of the planning of a municipal area. It is essential that when a new municipal area is laid out, from the outset a certain percentage of the land in the municipal area should be set aside for housing for the elderly and for specialised housing for the aged. In this way they can benefit from the land prices which applied at the outset. If this were to become compulsory, the State and the community would be better able to make a bigger and more meaningful contribution, at more reasonable prices, to this objective.

I should like to mention a few aspects regarding another problem which has come to the fore in the field of housing. However, I first want to say—this has already been said in this House this afternoon—that no Government can be expected to meet all the housing aspirations of its subjects. It is the task of the Government and all the organisations assisting with housing, to enable young people in particular to acquire a home when they need it most.

A trend which is causing increasing concern is that the demands and aspirations of our young people are too high. Not all young people are prepared to start at the bottom and adapt their houses as their incomes improve. One cannot insist from the outset on a house with two bathrooms or other luxury accommodation. South Africans will have to realise that, with regard to the future, we will have to scale down our priorities and demands in connection with housing needs.

The Government of this country has already done tremendous work in the field of housing and will continue to do so in future. However, the Government cannot be expected to bear the sole responsibility in this regard. The private sector must realise and accept their social task. In the years ahead the entire community will have to become increasingly involved, and be more socially motivated.

For that reason it is important for the Government to encourage the establishment and the availability of organisations, such as housing utility companies, to an increasing extent. The Government has already stated its intentions in this regard very clearly. Fine housing utility companies have already been established. In order to meet the demands of the day, an increasing number of utility companies will have to be established, so that there are more organisations that can make a contribution to the housing struggle in the country on a non-profit making basis. It is very important for the State to undertake the general propagation and encouragement of the establishment and availability of more housing utility companies. The Government must introduce more incentives to make it possible for them to undertake this social task.

These utility companies, which are established with a purely social motive, attest to a practical partnership between the State and the private sector and also enable the individual members of the community to use their knowledge and dedication to the benefit of their fellow-man.

The more housing utility companies that are established, the less the State’s obligation will be, and for this reason it is important for the State to encourage this aspect. As I have already said, the provision of housing is the social duty of the State, and this Government has never and will never shirk this duty. However, it is not only the duty of the State to provide housing, but it is also the duty of the State to inform and educate its subjects with regard to their housing needs. It is becoming increasingly essential for an intensive housing information programme to be launched so that people can become increasingly aware of the benefits of home-ownership, as well as the obligation they have in this regard. People are so easily misled by marketing and the profit motive of certain entrepreneurs. In the long run they are the ones who must shoulder the heavy burden.

As regards housing it is essential for the general public to be increasingly informed and educated. This country is a country of wonderful opportunities and we must at all times succeed in solving the housing problems, because in this way we are paving the way for stability, because no country which is a country of home-owners who are happily accommodated, will sacrifice its stability, but will be prepared to defend what is its own to the very end.

Mr Chairman, it is not often that the CP is in complete agreement with the hon member for Parow. What he said this afternoon about never-ending spiralling costs in the building industry was just what the doctor ordered as far as the CP was concerned. In doing so he indicated that on occasion he is also prepared to say something in defence of his people. It is not only inflation that gives rise to spiralling costs, but also the tremendously high prime rate which has increased from 12% to 19% and which is paralysing our Whites and our entire country, particularly the building industry. The interest on a house of R50 000 immediately increased by approximately R250 per month. We specifically blame the NP Government for this. They are the ones who are unable to deal with this. They are the ones who have sent costs spiralling so dramatically.

On behalf of a small group of senior citizens I also want to give a vote of thanks to the Department of Transport. Owing to technical development there are empty houses on various stations. These houses are ideal for our senior citizens. On making inquiries I obtained the department’s assurance that redundant houses would not be demolished, but would be rented out, in particular, to our senior citizens at relatively nominal amounts. On behalf of these householders I extend my sincere thanks. We appreciate this and trust that the department will never demolish these houses, but will make them available to our senior citizens forever and a day.

I also want to speak about the many farmhouses standing empty. Mention is made of what is being done about our housing, but what is not said is what is not being done about our housing. There are many farmhouses today that are empty and dilapidated. There are hundreds of these farmhouses, particularly in the rural areas of the Transvaal. There was a time when these homes were showpieces in their areas, but today one wonders if anyone will ever live in them again. One asks where the owners are and why the houses are empty. Repeatedly one is told that they have moved to the towns. They have moved away. When further enquiries are made, it becomes apparent that they have been forced to move, but not as a result of economic conditions. It was not because of a lack of funds that they have had to say farewell to their farms and the beloved homesteads in which they shared all their joys and sorrows.

Nor does the reason lie in physical conditions or psychological flaws. Twenty or 30 years ago there were many married couples who lived on farms— lived there for so long that eventually death claimed one or other of the partners. The blame for so many farmhouses now standing empty I lay squarely at the door of this Government. [Interjections.] In every sense of the word the Government has failed to secure farmhouses situated in remote areas. [Interjections.] There are burglar bars. Steel is not good enough. It does not afford adequate protection. Stronger lighting that illuminates the areas at night is inadequate in the case of those farmhouses.

What about an extra sun? [Interjections.]

Fierce dogs and electrification are not always the answer, because virtually thousands of vagrants have already inundated our roads and farms. [Interjections.]

Those hon members opposite are joking about it! They are laughing about it!

Order!

A few years ago vagrants were the exception. Now they are a normal phenomenon. One need only travel about amongst the rural farms to see how many vagrants there are on the roads. [Interjections.] Why? This Government has abolished influx control. [Interjections.] Now people come from far and wide to make life difficult, particularly for our aged in the rural areas. [Interjections.] That is a fact. Sir. No one can deny it. Giving the police instructions to protect these married couples is to saddle them with an impossible task. [Interjections.]

The Government repeatedly makes the same mistake. It makes that mistake over and over again. This Government has one specific problem. It tries to combat the symptoms, but does not treat the cause of the illness. As long as the Government tries to treat the symptoms and not the cause, it will become increasingly difficult for our aged to live in the rural areas. [Interjections.]

How many murders have not been planned by vagrants who wander around without any control, purposely seeking out elderly married couples so that they can commit their nefarious deeds? When the CP comes to power it will put a stop to these itinerant vagrants. [Interjections.] Our farmhouses—this is something we now want to tell our senior citizens—will once again be safe to live in, as is now happening in Boksburg. [Interjections.]

Order!

In Boksburg, the senior citizens there tell us, they can now again leave their doors open at night because there is not much chance of murderers or thieves entering. [Interjections.] In Boksburg, our senior citizens tell us, women can again walk the streets without worrying about when their handbags are going to be snatched. In Boksburg, our old people tell us …

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

No, Sir, my time is very limited. [Interjections.]

Order!

In Boksburg the old people are starting to live again, as was the case a few years ago when the true NP still governed. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Witbank is entitled to make his speech in relative peace and quiet, and I intend to ensure that this does happen. The hon member may proceed.

Mr Chairman, I also want to take up the cudgels for those aged who do not receive a social pension, but who nevertheless have to keep body and soul together on a mere pittance. This category of aged is growing by degrees. Nowhere are the aged in more dire straits as far as housing is concerned than here. Here, too, the destructive influence of inflation is rampant, and once proud home-owners have, in time, become indigent inhabitants of single rooms in backyards. According to the February 1989 issue of Ekonomiese Soeklig the value of the rand decreased from 100 cents to 65 cents from October 1985 to October 1988 as a result of rampant inflation.

Between 1980 and 1985 the means test for social pensioners provided that when senior citizens received social pensions, these pensions kept pace with the inflation rate. Since 1985, however, no adjustments to the means test have been made. The result is that there are a group of elderly people who ought to qualify for a social pension by now, who ought to be living in old-age homes, but who are struggling, because of the negligence of this Government, to keep their heads above water as far as housing and general living standards are concerned.

If the means test wanted to keep pace with inflation and be brought into line with the escalating inflation rate, instead of the means test being based on an income of R450 per month, it should now have been based on an income of R675 per month. There are a group of pensioners who thought, 10years ago, that R500 was enough on which to live and on which to keep body and soul together, but today they realise that it is not nearly enough to live on. The result is impoverishment, neglect and a loss of their own residential facilities. I want to ask the Government to give particular attention to that group of elderly people who are living just above the threshold laid down by the means test and who just do not qualify in terms of that means test.

Mr Chairman, the acrimony—I almost said virulence—elicited here today from the Official Opposition surprises me. It reminds me of two huge pythons sailing across the street. The female suddenly stopped and asked the male whether they were poisonous snakes, to which he replied of course not. Her response was: “Thank heavens, because I just had the fright of my life! I have just bitten my bottom lip.” [Interjections.] I want to tell certain hon members of the Official Opposition to be careful they do not bite their bottom lips in the process. It could prove fatal.

Today it is my turn to follow on the hon member for Witbank. I do not want to comment at any length at what he said. He tried to speak with a fair degree of authority about the symptoms, signs and diagnostic procedures involved in the housing question, but neglected to prescribe the treatment.

It is a very great pleasure and privilege for me to participate in the discussion of this motion. I should like to thank the hon member for Bellville for having moved it. He spoke with great authority and we appreciate it.

When the Development and Housing Act—Act No 103 of 1985—was passed in 1985 it heralded a new era in the history of housing in the Republic. The legislation laid a new foundation for housing policy to provide for the particular and unique housing needs of members of the White population. It can therefore rightly be said that since the beginning of the eighties the Government has made a singular effort to promote home-ownership, particularly amongst the lower income groups, with a view to advancing the human dignity of these people.

As a result it has also been made possible for young people to become home-owners, which in turn has promoted, and is still promoting, social stability and cohesion. Make it possible for a man to give his family good housing and one has a contented man. Make it possible for him to own his own home and we have a proud father or husband who enjoys returning home to his family after work in the evenings. [Interjections.]

Under the direction of the hon the Minister, and as a result of the dedication and ingenuity of the department, which we greatly appreciate, tremendous progress has already been made. This could only be achieved by the establishment of various schemes, the most important of which are the following: The State-aided home-owners’ saving scheme, the 90% home-loan scheme and the 33,33% bond interest subsidy scheme, to name but a few.

The most important is probably the 33,33% bond interest subsidy scheme. I should therefore like to go along with those who advocate the adaption of the existing scheme so that, for the purposes of the scheme, the subsidy limit can be increased to cover the total building costs, with the interest subsidy also being made payable on purchases of existing homes, including flats.

Building costs, as has been clearly demonstrated here today, are so high, and there are simply no longer any cheaper techniques than those we have thus far tried. That is also why it is so important to preserve the existing supply of housing and upgrade it with a view to obviating irreparable and unsightly dilapidation. Such an allocation by the hon the Minister could make provision for this, and if this were to be implemented judiciously, it could embody great benefits and give many people a roof over their heads.

Although the aforementioned schemes are actually open-ended schemes—a bottomless pit, as the hon member for Bellville so graphically expressed it—I nevertheless think it is of cardinal importance for us to continue with this in the interests of our people and the upliftment and stability of the population as a whole. It is also an important component of the overall population development plan for South Africa, and in itself is probably the best investment the Government can make to ensure the survival of all peoples in our beautiful country.

In order to make the most meaningful investments with the limited funds at its disposal, thereby dealing with the most urgent bottlenecks, at the insistence of the hon the Minister a central housing data bank has been started to process and monitor all housing needs throughout the country. This takes the guesswork out of planning for the future in that the hon the Minister can put his finger on the actual bottle-necks, thus bringing effective relief where it is really needed most. In the future this data bank is going to fulfil an increasingly important function, because in future all new developments for White housing will have to be examined very carefully.

The truth of the matter is that even now there are numerous luxury developments which are simply not viable. I therefore want to make an appeal today to the local regional and provincial authorities to provide the housing data bank, on a regular basis, with the necessary property and population statistics and also the latest housing need survey figures. They could thus assist in keeping the data bank’s reliability coefficient at approximately 95% to 99%, which is what it is at present. It is indeed an achievement and will obviate unnecessary duplication, which is the last thing our country can afford.

I want to link up with what was said by previous speakers. Today I also want to thank the hon the Minister for the fact that housing for the aged is receiving constant attention. It is gratifying to note that it is now also possible, by way of the information obtained from the Department of Health and Welfare in connection with the unique needs of the aged, frail aged and the handicapped, to constantly monitor the need for welfare housing with the aid of this housing data bank.

It is with an immense sense of gratitude that I can report today that in my constituency at present there are no outstanding housing projects awaiting approval. Nor is there any basic shortage of sub-economic housing.

Lastly I want to thank the private sector for the mammoth contribution some bodies are making to the provision of housing for their workers. I want to express the hope that they will also extend these schemes so as to make provision for housing for people of colour. The schemes that Anglo American and Gencor provide for their Black workers in Welkom are praiseworthy and exemplary schemes which are well worth looking at. I should like to support this motion.

Mr Chairman, in opposing the draft resolution I would like to move the following as an amendment:

We are faced today with a rather strange situation because we are debating an NP motion on White housing and fewer than half of the hon members of the NP are present in the House. Could it be that the hon members of the NP in this House have become so left-wing radical in their approach that they perhaps consider this motion too racist for them? After all, their motion does concern White housing and every time we on this side of the House talk about anything to do with Whites, even hon members on that side of the House refer to us as being racist.

I wish to take advantage of this opportunity to make a special plea on behalf of the people in Krugersdorp who are really in serious need of housing. We have a critical situation in which young White married couples are renting garages from other White families because there is nowhere else for them to live. We have senior citizens in a similar plight. I would like to draw this matter to the attention of the hon the Minister and ask him to give sympathetic consideration to urgent action in the area of Krugersdorp specifically, on the West Rand and all over South Africa in general. We will always have these needy people amongst us and we in Krugersdorp are proud that we can assist in helping these people. As far as that matter is concerned, we are happy to meet our responsibility.

I would like to say to the hon member for Parow that all I can say of his speech is that it reminds me of the saying: “Nothing sucks seeds like a parrot.” He must remember that the NP lives in the past when it comes to their achievements. I wish to remind him further of the monopoly situation involving financial institutions in this country. [Interjections.] White people are becoming less and less able to buy a home and when they eventually take the plunge, they are lumbered within months with a doubling in the interest rates which seem to increase in peaks and valleys, with the valleys continually becoming shallower and the peaks continually becoming higher and higher. [Interjections.]

Referring to the speech by the hon member Mr D P de K van Gend, I do not think that the speech has enough substance to comment on. What I would rather like to know is what that hon member was doing in the Wilderness before the caucus meeting was held by the NP at which the new leader of the NP was elected? [Interjections.]

Finally, I would like to refer to a report in the Saturday Star of last Saturday which clearly indicates that since the CP has taken over in Boksburg, stability has returned and housing prices are skyrocketing, a situation which I am very, very proud of. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I also listened to the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis now, and I should like to tell him that we should actually like to see him grow a little in stature and try to give expression to the dignity of this place in his conduct in this House.

The hon member has a way of being terribly derogatory. We had an example of his utterances in the Chamber of Parliament and I should like to tell the hon member that there are examples on his side of the House of members whose conduct, and the substance of whose speeches, he could use as an example. [Interjections.] The hon member tried, at the end of a very positive debate, which was conducted on a high level today, to score a few petty debating points with derogatory comments which were really not relevant to the debate, and the same applied to the amendment he moved here. Whereas the hon member had an opportunity to speak for ten minutes he only spoke for about four minutes. This demonstrates that the hon member did not really have any intention of making a contribution to this debate. [Interjections.] In the reply I shall furnish I shall touch on all three aspects which the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis included in the amendment which he moved.

Right at the outset I want to thank the hon member for Bellville sincerely for the motion which he moved here today, and I also want to thank the hon member for the speech he made. In a moment I am going to say far more in this connection.

One matter was raised throughout by several hon members. In my opinion the hon member for Parow made an interesting speech on this subject. The hon member for Sea Point also referred to it, and so did the hon member for Pinelands and other hon members. The fact to which they referred was the concern which exists at the increase in building costs and the general cost increase in the establishment of housing. I should like to say, as in every speech made here today except of course those parts which were a petty political debate, that I will refer these points to the South African Housing Advisory Council for the necessary attention, and I shall also refer them to the Committee of Housing Ministers. In fact, exceptionally good proposals were made here today in this debate to which I think careful attention must be given in future with the view to dealing with the problems that have arisen.

Concerning the whole issue of the problems of affordability the matter will be referred, as a matter of urgency, to the South African Housing Advisory Council for investigation and advice. At the same time, particularly when it comes to the financial aspect of increasing financing costs. I want to say that I referred the matter as a matter of urgency to the Committee of Housing Ministers during the course of November. The matter was referred to a working group and also to the South African Housing Advisory Council to institute an investigation into methods of affording relief to those affected by the rising financing costs of housing. I also want to inform hon members that I addressed an urgent request for this investigation to be speeded up with a view to making further consideration of this matter possible. In this connection I trust that the hon member for Pinelands will also have appreciation for this.

The hon member Mr Derby-Lewis dismissed an exceptionally good speech of the hon member Mr Danie van Gend here as being meaningless. I want to urge the hon member to read the speech and he will then see what an exceptional contribution we had from the hon member Mr Van Gend today. [Interjections.] The hon member for Losberg, who is often a little loose-headed, thinks I know nothing about housing and therefore he will simply have to wait a while. The hon member made an exceptionally important point about the further establishment of housing utility companies as well as points concerning a housing information programme and the value of homeownership which I think were worth following up.

I should like to refer to the hon member for Witbank who made a serious attempt here to deal with the actual motion, but who then digressed quite considerably. The question of the means test does not fall under this department and I shall refer that portion of the hon member’s speech, in which he made requests, to my colleague, the hon the Minister of Health Services and Welfare. I do want to say, though, that the hon member made rather far-fetched statements here concerning the question of farm houses and so on. All of us are concerned about the safety of people, and as the hon member will know steps were taken by my department to introduce specific aid measures for the aged in our White residential areas so that they could safeguard themselves with special measures, for which we vote funds.

The hon member for Middelburg apologised for not being able to be here. Concerning the entire issue of procedures to be followed. I want to say that it is my desire as well as that of my department, as soon as any request for a housing project has been received, to bring it to finality as soon as possible.

Concerning the question of procedures I instructed the new development and housing council established this year, as a matter of urgency, also to investigate these procedures with a view to expediting and finalising them. I therefore hope that with the inputs that are being made this matter can be dealt with jointly.

The hon member for Nigel also referred to the question of accelerated procedures. I want to say once again, as I also said last year in the discussion of the Vote, that if there are hon members who have specific problems concerning specific projects, which I cannot of course go into in detail this afternoon, hon members are welcome to come and discuss them with me personally or with the department. We are available because we would like to render a service to those people whom it is our duty to serve.

With reference to the debate today and to earlier representations that were made I should like to communicate a few things to this House. In my reply I am going to confine myself basically to the young house buyer, to the aged and the indigent. I want to state only one point of view, which is that there is a statutory housing fund which is growing annually, a revolving fund. That is probably why there is money available every year to spend on housing projects for the Whites. Probably it is not enough for the heavy demand we have to contend with. In addition Whites are becoming progressively older and consequently there is a greater demand for specific housing projects for senior citizens, and perhaps the emphasis should in a certain sense also be placed on what one could describe as security housing.

The hon members for Welkom and Bellville referred to the interest subsidy scheme of 33’/3% for first home owners. I think the hon member for Sea Point paid the hon member for Bellville a good compliment this afternoon. I agree with him; the hon member for Bellville is indeed an expert on housing matters. I am therefore of the opinion that the speech which the hon member made here when he introduced the motion was one which indeed deserves furtherconsideration. I shall forward his suggestion about establishing a revolving fund, concerned with the question of a housing subsidy which will also be available for succeeding generations, to the Committee of Housing Ministers so that we can have a further in-depth discussion on this matter.

The interest subsidy scheme for first-time homebuyers is geared to enabling first home owners to pay their instalments on the first new dwelling they have bought. A subsidy amounting to 33 ⅓% of the interest component of the instalment on a loan obtained from a financial institution is payable as a bridging measure for a period of seven years. It is true that the subsidy is payable on a loan of not more than R40 000, with a maximum cost of R45 000 at the moment and an all-inclusive cost of R65 000. In exceptional cases, the loans can be increased to a maximum of R75 000.

It is expected that R27,3 million will be spent this year on this scheme for White home-owners. Over the past three years and nine months, an amount of more than R57 million has been spent in terms of this scheme. At present, the subsidy is being calculated on the basis of an interest rate of 18% on R40 000. This means that we are contributing R196,41 each month to the bond repayments of a first-time home-owner. Almost R200 a month is being made available by this department to these buyers.

During the discussion of my Vote last year representations were made—these included requests from members of my study group and from the administration, as well as from people outside—for this scheme to be extended to include existing dwellings. The same plea was made here this afternoon by the hon member for Bellville and supported by the hon member for Welkom. In view of this, I am glad to announce today that it has been decided to extend this scheme to include first-time buyers of existing homes.

Hear, hear!

This applies to the Whites. As in the case of new houses, it applies up to an all-inclusive maximum amount of R65 000. Furthermore, it is important that in the case of existing homes, too, it must be a buyer’s first home. This scheme is expected to come into operation on 1 July 1989. Hon members will understand that there are certain administrative procedures as well as priorities that have to be determined, especially in view of the financial implications. These aspects are receiving urgent consideration at the moment, and I hope to announce further particulars in this connection in the near future. I trust that this step will indeed help to promote home-ownership in South Africa. I believe the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis will agree that this effectively disposes of one leg of his amendment.

There is another matter on which I should like to make some information available to this House. Hon members will recall that during a previous discussion of my Vote, I informed the House that I had decided, after consideration of the matter, to order an inquiry into the situation in seven Government Villages in South Africa with a White population.

Now I want to say that I have personally visited these Government villages, inhabited by 1 202 White families, at Benoni, Germiston, Randfontein, Vereeniging, Pietermaritzburg, East London and Port Elizabeth. I have paid a personal visit to all these Government villages. I went to acquaint myself with the conditions prevailing there.

And Akasia Park as well! [Interjections.]

I should like to point out to the hon member for Langlaagte that this is not a day for confessions. [Interjections.]

Generally speaking, Mr Chairman, the conditions in these Government villages are fair to poor. In some cases, poor materials were used, but in spite of that, these Government villages have served a very good purpose over a long period of time. Different kinds of materials were used. Different kinds of buildings have been constructed, using bricks, wood and so on. Generally speaking, the lay-out of the villages is such that they no longer comply with modern planning requirements, although they are functioning relatively satisfactorily. I appointed a committee of inquiry, which conducted a thorough investigation over a period of about a year and then reported to me.

The inquiry at the Oribi Government Village at Pietermaritzburg has been completed. All that remains to be done is for the report to be drafted and submitted to me. However, it is certain that the Oribi Government Village will remain. The investigations relating to the other Government villages have also been concluded. On the basis of these investigations, and because the accommodation is of a reasonable standard and may be put to good use for some years to come as accommodation for persons with a low income, it has been recommended that the Government villages at Benoni, East London, Pietermaritzburg, Port Elizabeth and Germiston should be retained and should be transferred to the Development and Housing Board, which will then be responsible for its administration and for the upgrading of the dwelling units and the possible provision of new accommodation within the existing Government villages.

Hear, hear!

The reason for the transfer is that the Development and Housing Board has the power to upgrade these villages in a meaningful way. Moreover, the Board has better access to our housing funds. It is a more practical arrangement, therefore, than for us to vote money in the Main Budget every year for the administration and maintenance of these Government villages.

The Ministers’ Council has already decided that the Government Village in Benoni is to be transferred to the Development and Housing Board, and we are carrying out this decision. With regard to the Government Villages in Vereeniging and Randfontein, the position is as follows: Owing to their situation, the condition of the dwelling units and other environmental factors, the committee has recommended that the inhabitants be rehoused and that residential accommodation be provided elsewhere in co-operation with the local authorities. It will be financed from the Development and Housing Fund. Negotiations are also being conducted with the local authorities about possible take-over of the land on which these Government villages are situated at present. The cost of upgrading the Government villages that are to be retained, and of the proposed new dwellings within the Government villages, as well as the provision of other accommodation for those who are to be removed, is estimated at approximately R25,7 million. This expenditure will be financed from the Development and Housing Fund and will be spread over five financial years, after existing priorities have been rearranged. This amount does not include operating expenses, which will also be financed from the fund. The inhabitants of these Government villages will be personally informed of these developments in a suitable manner.

These people are poor. The rentals per unit charged in these Government villages vary from R8 to R20 per month. Being poor, however, does not mean having to lead a miserable life. [Interjections.] I want to tell the hon members opposite—the hon member for Middelburg said that same thing this afternoon—that we on this side, the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly, and the Government will not abandon the poor White person to his fate. I trust that in taking these steps, we are proving that we are in earnest about attending to the needs of less well-to-do Whites, and I think that also disposes of the second point of the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis’ amendment, in which he said that we were not protecting the needy.

I should like to make a few observations about the elderly. We realised that it is important for elderly people to find suitable accommodation, because it gradually becomes the focal point of most of the activities. It is often difficult for elderly people to find suitable accommodation that they can afford. To a large extent, our White population is an aging population. Houses are expensive and rentals are relatively high. South Africa has become the Western country with the highest proportion of elderly people in institutions. It is understandable, therefore, that the State has to pay out millions of rands in subsidies each year. This point was mentioned by the hon member for Bellville as well.

Naturally, there is an urgent need to find suitable accommodation for the elderly. Because of the growing interest on the part of the private sector in the provision of housing for the elderly, the Ministers’ Council had all the facets of housing and facilities for the aged investigated. This investigation revealed that the participation of the private sector in the provision of housing for the aged should be encouraged by means of the retirement village concept. In addition, certain malpractices have come to light, and in order to exercise better control over these aspects, the Housing Development Schemes for Retired Persons Act has already been passed by Parliament. It was the outcome of the first report of this committee of inquiry.

It was also concluded that it was desirable for elderly people to remain a part of the community for as long as possible. This is a standpoint that the Ministers’ Council has adopted before and which has led to the introduction of the loan scheme for securing the homes of the aged. In terms of this, a loan of R2 500 may be obtained by those with an income of less than R1 000 a month. Service centres are being established to meet all the needs of the aged, whatever their income. In the light of the great need which exists to provide for the frail aged, and the high cost involved, it is proposed, in the latest report that has been received, that bridging capital in the form of loans be made available to private developers by the State. Serious consideration has been given to this proposal in an attempt to meet this need.

†The more important recommendations of the Committee of Enquiry into Housing for Retired Persons, under the chairmanship of Mr Boet van Straaten—who is also the chairman of the Development and Housing Board, include the application of a means test in order to determine the areas of responsibility of the Ministers’ Council of the House of Assembly and the private sector.

This means that persons who comply with the qualifying requirements may be provided with housing in a project supported by the Government, whereas those who do not qualify should rely primarily on the private sector to obtain suitable housing or accommodation, whilst their need for services may be fulfilled by a Government supported service centre to which no means test will apply.

Moreover, what is important, is that the committee recommended the introduction of a new scheme in addition to existing schemes. In terms of this scheme, 50% of the capital costs of an approved project is contributed on a voluntary basis by the prospective purchase of occupational rights in such a project, whilst the balance is financed by way of a loan from the Development and Housing Fund.

It is a recommended principle that the sale of occupation rights be extended to both new and existing projects financed in terms of the existing scheme, inasmuch as the committee recommended that 30% of the units in such projects be offered for sale.

I am now considering these recommendations which manifest new concepts, and we can have further consultations on their implementation.

*I conclude by saying that since the Constitution Act came into operation in 1984, R479.977 million has been spent by the State on White housing. Welfare housing, about 70% of which represents housing for the aged, has accounted for R273.651 million of the amount mentioned above. This represents a considerable achievement on the part of the Government in the provision of White housing. I should like to thank hon members for their contributions, and in particular I thank the hon member for Bellville.

Mr Chairman. I am merely rising to thank hon members who participated in the debate.

The hon member for Parow referred to a very relevant matter, and that is the whole question of the possibility of a monopoly in the production sector of the construction industry. I think that it is a matter which really deserves urgent attention and that this could contribute to bringing the cost of housing, and the affordability of housing, within reach of the ordinary salary earner.

The hon member Mr D P van Gend is an expert as far as utility housing companies are concerned and is a member of the board of Garden Cities, where he makes a very significant contribution. Once again he stressed the fact that there should be specialisation in the provision of housing. He also emphasised the role of utility housing companies. I want to thank him for that.

The hon member for Welkom made a very significant contribution. I want to thank him for participating in the debate.

†I wish to thank the hon member for Pinelands for his contribution to the debate. Despite the political differences we might have, I think he made a constructive contribution to our debate this afternoon.

I still regard the hon member for Sea Point as a grossly underrated politician in South Africa. I think the distinction that he drew between the cost of the land, the construction costs and the total cost in the whole housing process is very appropriate and very relevant. I think the hon member made some worthwhile suggestions and they can be followed up to achieve what was the main thrust of his speech, namely the affordability of housing. I thank him very much for his contribution. I think another contribution the hon member can make is to prepare two speeches every time he participates in a debate and then silently slip one of the speeches across the bench to the hon member for Nigel. [Interjections.]

*I want to thank the hon members of the Official Opposition, namely the hon members for Middelburg, Witbank and Nigel and the hon member Mr Derby-Lewis, for their contributions. I want to conclude by telling them that the time for playing off White against Black in South Africa is past. It serves no purpose and is not in the interests of Whites to say how much is being done for the Blacks and to compare that with what is being done for the Whites. An aspect of politics in South Africa is that the White people should improve the quality of life of the Blacks in order to make it possible for White people to survive in South Africa. [Interjections.] If hon members cannot convey this political message in this debate and to all the people in South Africa, they have no role to play as far as politics in South Africa are concerned. [Interjections.]

There are two remarks I should like to make in reacting to hon members’ contributions. Firstly, the hon member for Middelburg is not present, but he said that too little was being done for White housing. I want to tell the hon member for Middelburg that no senior citizens in old age homes and no welfare organisation concerned with housing in South Africa would have been able to function if they did not receive financial aid from this side of the House.

That is not correct.

It is true. All senior citizens in old age homes are subsidised in various ways by this side of the House. I challenge hon members to prove me wrong. The hon member for Witbank said that farmhouses were standing empty.

They are using the same excuse as Louis XIV.

He also said that influx control had been abolished and that the security of these people was at risk.

His knowledge only stretches as far as Louis XIV.

I want to say to the hon member that he is telling a lie in this House. I was involved in abolishing influx control and I maintain that that is in the best interests of the Whites and of South Africa.

Debate concluded.

Draft resolution and amendment, with leave, withdrawn.

Order! Before the House commences its proceedings and on behalf of the House, I should like to avail myself of the opportunity to congratulate the hon the Leader of the House sincerely on his appointment as Deputy Minister of the Budget, as well as the hon member for Mamre on his appointment as Deputy Minister of Education and Culture.

I think the promotions will contribute to my having less work, in that I shall no longer have to call the two hon Deputy Ministers to order. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, I am very pleased that the Joint Committee on Pensions has been able to approve these two cases of supplementary pensions. These are, namely, the case of Mr Jacobus Cloete, formerly a sergeant in the South African Police, and Mrs Johanna M Rudman, formerly a housekeeper in the provincial hospital in Port Elizabeth. According to the Schedule to the Bill, the pension of Mr Cloete, who was treated as a special case, will be increased to R6 000 per annum with effect from 1 September 1988, and Mrs Rudman’s pension will be increased by an amount of R2 736 per annum.

Standing Order No 36 provides that when a member desires a petition with regard to a pension or another benefit in respect of service rendered to the State, which pension or benefit is not authorised by law, it is to be referred to a committee appointed by the House for the consideration of such a petition. A petition is drawn up if a person approaches a member of Parliament to assist him and to see whether anything can be done with regard to his pension.

I want to qualify our support for the approval of this Bill by laying emphasis on the words “service rendered to the State”. Generally speaking, the words “service rendered to the State” comprise, inter alia: (1) service by members of the fixed establishment of the Public Service; (2) service by former judges; (3) military service; (4) service by teachers and nurses whose cases are not covered by existing legislation; (5) service to the State by members of Parliament; (6) petitions from widows and dependants of persons to whom I have referred.

The committee felt that it could not but strongly support the petition that had been submitted by the hon member for Bishop Lavis on behalf of a voter who had worked hard for the State as a law enforcement officer, and who had not been able to contribute to a pension scheme at that stage. There are hundreds of similar cases in which people are having to rely on inadequate pensions. I want to appeal to MPs once again to take cognizance of everything the Bill under discussion entails.

Mr Chairman, I should like to express my gratitude to the committee which considered this petition. I am pleased that this case serves as an example to our people that they should regard Parliament as an institution that may be made use of.

The hon member for Robertson pointed out that an application may be made for this sort of pension when a person has rendered outstanding service to the state. I should like to take the opportunity to inform members of the outstanding service which this person rendered in the police service. He was a member of the Police for 38 years. Upon his discharge from the service he received the following: a medal, the SA Police Star for Merit; the SA Police Star for Faithful Service; the SA Police Medal for Faithful Service.

This indicates that this person devoted his life to the State. Not only did he do this, but two of his children are also in the Police Force. For this reason I want to thank the committee most sincerely for the fact that it has decided after a third attempt to increase Mr Cloete’s pension. There are many policemen among us who, at the time when they had the opportunity of becoming a member of a pension scheme, earned only £12. Out of that amount he had to provide for accommodation, five children and his uniforms.

It was difficult for them to participate at that time. As a result of this we have a large number of these men today who are sitting in the fields of despondency and who do not know where to turn or what to do. I am pleased about this committee. It at least creates the hope once again that people will be able to come here and make use of Parliament in a process of negotiation so that people will not have to be wretched with hunger, but will immediately be able to obtain assistance.

I also ask that whenever other hon members come across former policemen who have rendered outstanding service to the State, they will make use of this institution on behalf of these men—not only for them, but also for other people who have served in the Public Service or who have dedicated their lives to the State—by submitting a petition and asking that committee to consider increasing their pensions.

Sir, I thank you for the privilege of now being able to go back and tell him that this Parliament will grant him this.

Mr Chairman, permit me to associate myself with hon members in congratulating the hon the Leader of the House in his absence on his promotion to the post of Deputy Minister. I also want to wish him success and good fortune in the important task he has to perform. It is also my privilege to congratulate the hon member for Mamre upon his appointment as Deputy Minister. I believe that he, too, will be blessed with good fortune in the important task he is to perform.

I want to thank the hon member for Robertson for his very fine explanation of what this legislation entails and how petitioners may be assisted by means of it. The hon member for Robertson made a very good and penetrating contribution with regard to this particular matter in the joint committee, particularly with regard to the case of Mr Cloete. I wish to congratulate him on that.

The hon member for Bishop Lavis also explained how this legislation really formed part of democracy in South Africa and how people who had received really small amounts, particularly the former policemen, could be assisted by this. We are dealing with a very good institution of Parliament here, namely that of presenting a petition through an hon member of Parliament, who represents the person concerned.

†It is important that we should remember that the petition to Parliament is a very old and honourable procedure. Ralph Kilpin, an expert on parliamentary procedure, in his book Parliamentary Procedures in South Africa, second edition, 1950, p 142, had the following to say regarding the jurisdiction of Parliament with regard to petitions:

The words of Kilpin are still pertinent today since the present Constitution also differentiates between the legislative, executive and judicial powers in our country.

*Finally. I sincerely want to thank those hon members who served on this committee. I want to thank those hon members who took part in the debate this afternoon. I want to invite all the hon members in the House once again to make use of these petitions for the sake of their voters, because I believe there are voters in every constituency which they represent who could benefit from this.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, before I introduce the Bill, I also want to take this opportunity most sincerely to congratulate my colleagues and friends, the hon the Leader of the House and the hon member for Mamre. Owing to my personal association with them it is a great privilege for me to be able to be here on the day on which they have been instated as Deputy Ministers. I wish them both everything of the best on the road ahead.

I want briefly to sketch the background to the Bill for the House. In terms of the Status of Bophuthatswana Act, No 89 of 1977, the entire district of Molopo was included in Bophuthatswana when it became independent. A certain farm named Logaging, which belongs to a certain Mr F Pretorius, formed part of the district of Molopo. However, it was accidentally not excluded from the district when the district was included in Bophuthatswana.

It was never the intention that the relevant farm should be part of Bophuthatswana and after the mistake had been discovered, when Mr Pretorius applied for a mortgage on the property, Bophuthatswana, as a result of negotiations by the RSA, excluded the relevant farm from its territory in the Bophuthatswana Border Adjustment Act, No 25 of 1985.

It will be obvious to hon members that this Act is not valid in the RSA. In order to ensure that the farm is formally incorporated in South African territory again, an Act of the South African Parliament is needed.

†Therefore, the Bill before the House provides for the farm to form part of the Republic, specifically the Cape Province, the district of Vryburg, retrospectively from the date on which the Bophuthatswana Border Adjustment Act came into operation in 1985. This is embodied in clauses 1 and 4 of the Bill.

Clause 2 is merely a technical provision. It is confirmed that existing charges and real rights in respect of the farm remain unaffected by the Bill.

Clause 3 is a standard form of provision with regard to the incorporation of land and provides that existing treaties, conventions and agreements between the two countries with respect to the land area of the farm will continue.

The Bill was considered by the Joint Committee on Constitutional Development on 1 March this year where it was approved without any amendment. I am sure that the hon members are, without exception, convinced of the necessity for this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I ask for a little bit of latitude. It would be discourteous on my part if I did not respond to all the good wishes that have been extended to myself and my colleague, the hon member for Mamre. I just hope that we deserve the congratulations, and we certainly hope that we deserve the promotion. Only time will tell whether this was a good move or not. Nevertheless, on behalf of the two of us I would like to say how much we were touched by the sincerity of all who had conveyed their congratulations to us.

Let me also in the same breath say, while the House is in such a good mood, that it is fitting that we deal with a Bill that is so uninvolved. The Deputy Minister has left very little for us who served on the Committee to say about the Bill. In fact, we spent exactly 15 minutes dealing with this Bill.

Hon members know our viewpoint on this whole business of consolidation. We are dealing here with a person that has a little bit of land who is actually landless. In other words, he has a little bit of land that is in no man’s land. He is neither a Tswana nor a South African. This proves how many errors can be made if one divides common territory. I do not want to be prescriptive to the hon the Deputy Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning and I do not want to dwell on the mistakes of the past. However, allow me to say that my party has propagated for a long time the solutions to South Africa’s problems and if we are thinking in terms of dividing South Africa, we must divide purely on geographical grounds.

Take for instance the case of Mr Pretorius. He is certainly not a Tswana by birth; he became a Tswana by ownership of land. This is what we are thinking in terms of. When we think in terms of the future South Africa we believe that every individual will be protected by a bill of rights. It can only be done in a geographical federation. Therefore, I am not saying it is going to be impossible to unscramble the scrambled egg. It will certainly take some effort and thinking on all sides. Moreover, the implication is that all sides will have to compromise. Therefore I am grateful that we are dealing with a Bill of this nature here, where there is no controversy whatsoever, but there is a tremendous amount to be learned from, because this wonderful country has a tremendous amount of potential.

In the whole of the southern hemisphere there is no other country that has the potential that South Africa has, although we have political problems. We are, in the first place, going to solve our political problems if we think in terms of a common nationality. Should there be concern for protection, that protection will automatically come in a geographical federation. Sir, I have no hesitation in supporting the Bill before us.

Mr Chairman, I only want to say two things. One is that the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget is right that we are dealing with a very interesting situation here, which must be rectified. A survey of our history since 1985 shows that the relevant piece of land is not part of any country. It was therefore in a vacuum. [Interjections.] This is a very interesting position and that is why it is important for us to make this rectification today. It would be a very interesting investigation for anyone interested in the law to ascertain where this piece of land has been in the interim.

Secondly, with reference to what my hon colleague said, we must bear in mind that a country like Bophuthatswana became independent of its own free will. The Republic of South Africa respects that independence. Because this is the case and a specific inter-state relationship exists between Bophuthatswana and ourselves, Parliament has no choice but to consider legislation of this kind in order to deal with the matter and, in fact, rectify it.

I do not want to react now to the interesting remarks by the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget with regard to the future, because this is not the right debate for this. One can discuss this in future. However, for the purposes of this legislation, I want to say that in the meanwhile we have an obligation to respect the independence of that state as well as our inter-state relations. Consequently we have no other choice but to deal with the matter by means of this Bill.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman. I should like to move the Second Reading of this Bill. Permit me in the first place to associate myself with the previous hon speakers in their congratulations to the two new hon Deputy Ministers in this House, viz the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget and the hon the Deputy Minister of Education and Culture.

These two gentlemen did not simply sail into those positions; they have played a leading role here during the course of the past few years since this House came into being, established itself and built up a reputation. They did so by means of hard work, dedicated study and leadership in their sphere. Consequently I believe that their appointment in this capacity and their swearing in today is not only a happy occasion for all hon members of Parliament, but in particular is a well-deserved acknowledgment of what they personally have achieved during this period. We trust that they will have a very successful term of office.

This Bill has already been dealt with in a reasonably comprehensive Second Reading speech in another House, and therefore I do not want to repeat what I said there in detail. The Bill proposes certain amendments to the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936, which can basically be divided into three categories. The first category concerns the procurement of land by the Development Trust. The second concerns the transfer of that land which has been obtained by the Development Trust to the self-governing territories for the benefit of which the land has actually been purchased in principle. The third category of provisions concerns administrative problems which are related to township development in the Trust areas.

This Bill is relatively complex. One feels quite dizzy after reading the memoranda and the explanatory information about it, and even more so once one has read the Bill itself.

Briefly the Bill envisages eliminating complicated matters and uncertainties regarding the status of State-owned land, when it is incorporated into released areas, and the question as to whether it then becomes State-owned land, yes or no, so that that State-owned land will be incorporated clearly and unequivocally as Trust land, of which it is supposed to form a part.

Secondly it deals with the question as to whether certain of these areas must be incorporated into Trust land by means of formal action taken by the State President, and whether this can take place automatically by means of the law. That uncertainty is also eliminated.

One problem arose with regard to the transfer of this Trust land to the self-governing territories. That is that certain pieces of land do not belong to the Development Trust in the first place and are not registered in its name, but are registered in trust for the tribe or community in the name of some or other State authority, such as a Minister or the President or even a tribal leader.

When such a piece of land is transferred to the Government or to the Minister of a self-governing territory, it is necessary to make it clear that that Government or Minister is not getting that land as State-owned land, but is getting the land in trust for the community or tribe concerned. The fact that it is being kept in trust for the tribe or the community must be spelt out beyond any doubt. There have been disputes about this before, and in reaction to a request made by the communities involved we should like to ask Parliament to state this beyond any doubt.

The third category of provisions deals with urbanisation. This House in particular knows how important positive urbanisation and the provision of proper infrastructure and services and proper housing are, not only with regard to the people’s quality of life, but also in respect of the country’s general development and progress.

There are two hindrances with regard to the development of Black townships in trust areas. The first is that old existing restrictions, servitudes and other rights which are not clearly registered are an obstacle to taking out township registers when the Black townships are regulated formally so that property rights, leasehold rights or title deeds can be allocated. If we have to reregister those servitudes and all the other restrictions in each new title deed, or on the other hand, if the developer has to have all those rights revoked first by way of a decision of Parliament or an application to the court, we shall not get anywhere with Black housing and township development. It will take decades of red tape and delays before anything happens. That is why we are asking Parliament, as has been done in respect of townships outside the self-governing territories, to grant general approval for the Minister, subject to the necessary compensation should people’s existing rights be encroached upon, to be granted the authority to revoke these servitudes and other restrictions so that township establishment and the formalising of the surveying of plots in that township can take place more easily. If that does not happen there will be a big spoke in the wheel of township development.

The second obstacle with regard to township development resides in the uncertainty that arose concerning the allocation.of 99-year leasehold in Black townships to people other than Blacks. Hon members will know that most of the developers who undertake that township development either on their own account or on instruction, are not Blacks. They are Coloureds, Whites or Indians. It is necessary for there to be a reasonably easily transfer of leasehold to the developer so that the latter can then transfer the plot on which the house has been built to the purchaser. The law advisers, however, questioned whether the existing arrangement in terms of which the Minister grants leasehold to the developers was valid, and whether each case should not be approved separately in Parliament. All the involved parties agreed that it would be an impossible situation for Parliament to have to approve all these separate cases. That is why the Joint Committee recommended and we request that the Minister be given the authorisation to proceed with the method followed in practice, viz that he be authorised to grant leasehold rights to non-Black persons as developers of Black residential areas so that they can effect the development, build the houses and sell those houses to the purchasers in terms of leasehold or freehold, as people might choose.

We believe that in passing this Bill, this House will be making an important contribution to the acceleration and streamlining of the township development processes for Black communities in the Trust areas. For that reason I should like to recommend that the Bill be passed.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister has correctly pointed out that this Bill deals with the status of State land, correcting various legal interpretations and also making urbanisation possible within these Trust areas which adjoin the homelands.

*We must say to the hon the Minister that this House will provide all the support for township development. We believe, however, that this township development, especially in regard to the Blacks, should occur as far as possible within the greater South Africa and not necessarily in the existing self-governing areas or in areas adjacent to these areas.

†I would like to put this very clearly. As the hon the Deputy Minister of the Budget said earlier, we are against the racial consolidation of South Africa. However, we also ask ourselves the question how to unscramble a scrambled egg. This Bill deals with Trust land and in a sense also with the consolidation of homelands, because in future this land could revert to a homeland. Although there is that aspect to it we also ask ourselves, in terms of the new South Africa which we are now entering, whether these areas would not eventually become part of a geographical regional federation of South Africa.

However, I cannot address what is in front of us today without for one second looking at the whole question of the homelands, because the two are interrelated. For years the homelands were the sole retreat for Black South Africans; the so-called excess Black population. The Black Land Act, No 27 of 1913, attributed to the then African reserves a total of 9 million hectares or 7.7% of the total surface of South Africa.

Subsequent amendments enforced by high population growth provided for the eventual addition of a further 6,2 million ha in terms of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936. It is a process which took decades to complete, however. In relation to the fast growing population, territorial expansion was only minimal.

The later homelands maintained their traditional function as a workforce reservoir to an ever-increasing extent. According to the estimation of the Surplus People’s Project no less than 3.5 million people—mainly Blacks—were resettled between 1960 and 1980. A large portion of this resettlement is connected with the homelands whereas in 1951 just under 30% of South African Blacks lived in the settlement areas of that time. In 1985 this figure had increased to almost 57%.

In absolute terms the number of homeland inhabitants rose even more dramatically from 5 million to 14 million. One must not get the wrong impression as to why they were there, however. We believe the development was enabled by a so-called functional urbanisation process, which consisted mainly of landless people who were dependent on urban income and who were gathered in densely populated so-called settlements or border towns. Sometimes these settlements or border towns fell within a homeland area and in other cases within the adjoining trust land.

The legislation before us deals with these Trust areas. In the past it was almost compulsory that these areas became part of the homelands. The Bill before us also provides for those areas to be transferred so that they can become part of South Africa as we know it.

I venture to say today that the self-governing areas will have a role to play in the new South Africa or. from our point of view, the developing federation. All the elements of South Africa including this Parliament, the ANC and the homelands will co-determine the internal structure of this new South Africa. In this sense we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I support the Bill.

To start with I also want to congratulate the chairman of our component in the Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs and Development Aid. the hon Leader of the House, on his swearing in as Deputy Minister of the Budget today. I also congratulate the hon member for Mamre.

The amendment Bill is certainly a very technical Bill and therefore it is not strange that the opposition withdrew their names from the debate. It was because they did not fully understand these technical details. [Interjections.]

Clause 1(a) of the Development Trust and Land Amendment Bill amends the specific Act in order to define certain released areas more clearly and to make provision for the transfer of certain rights and obligations.

Section 2(2)(b) and section 2(3)(a) of the Development Trust and Land Act provide that when land is excised from a released area or set aside for occupation by Blacks, such land shall become State-owned land, while State-owned land is added to such released areas as compensation by way of a deed of grant which is transferred to the Trust. Such deeds of grant have, however, never been issued by the State President and it was accepted that the State-owned land so added, was vested in the Trust without further ado. The proposed amendment of section 2(2)(b) makes the necessary provision.

Clause 5 of the Bill imposes certain restrictions in respect of the procuring of development rights or leasehold within the Trust areas. This amendment of section 18 of the Development Trust and Land Act of 1936 will enable town developers to obtain real rights to land and will facilitate the speedy development of these areas. I support the amending Bill.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the hon member for Diamant and the hon member Mr Lockey very much for their support and also for their understanding of the necessity and importance of this legislation.

†Allow me to make a few remarks about the important matters of principle raised by the hon member for Diamant. He said that in his opinion the population of the homelands—he used the old term—because of the rapid population growth grew out of proportion to the available living opportunities and the settlement space in those homelands. I want to point out that over the years the Government has induced considerable development in those areas to provide an income for this growing population.

First I should like to point out the tremendous progress made in ensuring that the agricultural processes would become more responsible and productive. It is well known to hon members who have visited some of those areas that where there is communal or tribal occupation of land and where the whole community owns the land without any individual being specifically responsible for a particular piece of land, this has led to over-utilization of the land and an impoverishment of the soil. A great deal of work had to be done to gain the co-operation of traditional communities for the more orderly and better planned use of their common land. This is a difficult process which has met with success and progress in some of the territories while others are still lagging behind.

In the newly added trustlands which had not been occupied by tribal communities, the policy is to settle on a planned basis individual commercial farmers on land which has been developed so as to ensure a good productive capacity whether for extensive cattle-farming, agriculture or irrigation farming such as the Makhatini Flats, the middle Letaba projects of Gazankulu and particularly the river valleys of KaNgwane. These individual commercial farmers have only been settled there since the early 1980’s. It is a recent development, but the successes achieved in those areas are really outstanding. The policy is that the people who acquired individual farms on a lease basis should be enabled to purchase those farms in freehold title. Those who are more successful could then acquire more farms and those who are not successful would be eliminated by the economic process.

This improvement of traditional communal agriculture as well as the introduction of modern commercial agriculture is a very important development in those areas and has provided many additional opportunities and means of living for the people concerned.

I would also like to remind hon members of the industrial development which has taken place. Industrial growth points have been identified in the self-governing territories and this has lead to inducement schemes for industrialists to settle their industries in those areas. This has brought job opportunities closer to the people in the areas where they have traditionally been living and has enabled them to get good jobs without uprooting their traditional social systems.

It is also interesting to note that large-scale urbanization, town development and the provision of town housing in the homelands have only been taking place since the beginning of the 1970’s. There was a large backlog. More than 80 towns were started in the course of that decade. Today there are important towns housing tens and hundreds of thousands of people in the homelands offering them a good living. Many of them prefer to live there and send their children to school there rather than in the urban areas.

Therefore, in agricultural and industrial development as well as in the development of urban areas and housing, a great deal of progress has been made in improving the living conditions of the growing population in those areas.

However, the keyword is growing population. Unless population development programmes can have the effect of levelling down the general growth rate of the population, their future will be one of poverty. The population growth comes up against the limited resources of the country for sustaining the life of the growing population. Therefore population development programmes to raise the general quality of life of the community, and, especially to affect the population growth rate in a favourable sense, are extremely important to ensure the quality of life of the people.

I hope that with these few remarks I have responded to the useful contributions made by the hon member for Diamant.

*I also wish to thank the hon member Mr Lockey for his support.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, I should like to add my congratulations to those of my hon colleague in respect of the Leader of the House and the hon member for Mamre on their being sworn in as Deputy Ministers this afternoon. It is exciting when one receives that kind of promotion. Those who have experienced it, know this to be true. I want to tell my true hon colleagues, however, that the honeymoon does not last as long as one would like. Then the hard work and the problems begin. But I am certain that they will be successful and are well prepared, and I wish them everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, the object of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Amendment Bill is primarily to effect improvements pursuant to practical experience acquired in the implementation of the Principal Act. Provision is now being made for a chief executive officer of a body with jurisdic personality, or a government enterprise, to promote the application of the safety management system further by bringing about the direct involvement therein, and ensuring the dedication of top-level management.

The principal Act imposes on an employer a diversity of obligations which, in the case of the company, are the responsibility of the company itself and not the individual. The responsibility for the discharge of these obligations by a company is frequently conferred upon a junior employee, which often means that this is not done on the desirable level and this in turn leads to the inefficient functioning of a company’s safety management system.

The amending Bill entrusts the chief executive officer with the obligation to try and ensure that the safety management systems functions as efficiently as possible. The amending Bill envisages the exclusion of a load line ship, a boat or floating crane as defined in the Merchant Shipping Act, as well as certain inspections in terms of the Aviation Act from the purview of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act.

At present a great deal of duplication exists in the area of jurisdiction of the Marine Shipping Act and the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act of 1983. The problem arises from the fact that safety standards and regulations prescribed under the two Acts differ considerably and can seldom be reconciled in practice. In addition South Africa is bound by numerous international conventions dealing with safety at sea and the safety of vessels and crews. Consequently it is undesirable for matters to continue to be duplicated in this way, and the proposed exclusion emanates from this.

The reporting of aviation accidents, in terms of section 17 of the principal Act, which also have to be investigated in terms of the Aviation Act, 1962. is also being excluded since this unnecessary duplication serves no purpose.

†In order to enhance the effectiveness of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety, the number of members is being increased from 9 to 12. It is deemed necessary that a second officer of the Department of Manpower be appointed to cater for the distinction between the two main professional branches that comprise occupational safety, namely physical safety and occupational hygiene. Provision is also being made for the inclusion of two experts in occupational safety or the safety of machinery in order to fill a need for additional expertise in these directions.

Practical experience has shown that the designation of one safety representative for every 50 employees in shops and offices and monthly safety inspections of such workplaces is excessive. The practice of the Minister of Manpower to grant exemption on condition that one safety representative is designated for every 100 employees in shops and offices and that safety inspections take place once every 3 months instead of monthly is being embodied in the principal Act so as to eliminate the need for exemption and for easy reference. The maximum fine for the contravention of certain provisions of the principal Act is being increased from R2 000 to R10 000 and, in the case of injury on duty because an employer caused an act or omission which would have made him guilty of culpable homicide, from R4 000 to R20 000.

The increases are necessary because the cost of complying with safety standards at present bears little relationship to the maximum fines. The reason for the increases is to facilitate the more effective enforcement of the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, the purpose of the Bill is to amend the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act of 1983—the principal Act—in specific respects. The principal Act has been in operation since 5 October 1984. The amendments arose from practical experience gained through the administration of the provisions of the Act as is deemed necessary. The Bill defines a chief executive officer of a corporate body and imposes a duty on him; excludes merchant shipping and certain investigations in terms of the Aviation Act of 1962, from the application of the principal Act; increases the number of members of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and provides for a period of office and renumeration of additional members; differentiates between shops and offices with respect to the designation of safety representatives and their functions; and deletes absolute transitional provisions and increases the fines which may be imposed under the Act.

An important feature of the amending Bill is that most of its provisions are aimed merely at confirming existing practices which are presently being applied by using the powers of exemption and the power conferred on the Minister of Manpower to make regulations with the Act. It is accepted worldwide that the success of a safety management system in any workplace is largely dependent upon the involvement and commitment of top management. The Machinery and Occupational Act of 1983 does not address this principle at all—this is viewed as a major shortcoming.

The principal Act charges an employer with various duties which, in the case of a company, are imposed on the company itself and not on the individual. The responsibility to ensure compliance by the company with these duties is often redelegated to a junior employee with little or no decision-making authority which frequently results in the failure of a company’s safety management system. Prosecution of the company and compensation to the victims do not address the root cause of the problem, namely the absence of commitment to safety by top management of a company.

The purpose of clause 6 is to insert a new section 10A in the principal Act, which charges the chief executive officer of a corporate body with the duty to ensure that the employer complies with the provisions of the principal Act. The personal accountability which this will bring about will in turn ensure the involvement and commitment of managers of a corporate body, thereby substantially reducing the risk of failure of the safety management system.

In order to enable the chief executive officer to discharge the duties placed on him meaningfully subsection (1) confers overall authority on him in matters to which the principal Act relates, while subsection (2) provides for delegation by him. In terms of subsection (3) the responsibilities and liabilities of the corporate body under the principal Act are retained, subject to section 30 of the principal Act which provides for the vicarious liability of employers for their acts or the omissions of their employees, agents or mandatories.

Subsection (4) places the departmental head, normally the director-general of a State department, in the same position as a chief executive officer of the corporate body. This subsection is necessary as subsection (39) of the principal Act provides that the Act also binds the State.

The purpose of clause 10 is to increase the fines which may be imposed for contraventions of the provisions of the principal Act. This is necessary not only due to the general erosion of the value of money, but also to the fact that the cost of complying with safety standards bear little relevance to the maximum fines. It is well known that some unscrupulous employers have taken the approach that it makes economic sense to risk paying the present maximum fine three or four times a year rather than to incur the cost involved in complying with legislation. Admittedly, not many employers subscribe to this point of view, but it has a serious effect on the enforcement of legislation. Moreover, magistrates very rarely impose the maximum fine, even for repeated offences. Among other things, the presiding judicial officer gauges the seriousness of the offence during sentencing in relation to the maximum fine that the legislator has enacted. The level of the existing maximum fines in the principal Act is totally out of line with the potential risk to public safety, for example non-compliance with section 14 which states that the sale of certain machinery and equipment is prohibited.

By increasing the fines the amending Bill demonstrates the serious light in which Parliament views contraventions of the principal Act, and facilitates its effective enforcement. We support the measure.

Mr Chairman, although the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, which came into operation in October 1984, has to a large extent influenced the employers and other users of machinery to devote more attention to safety in the workplace, practical experience in the administration of the Act has shown that improvements could be effected.

Certain defects became apparent quite soon after the Act came into operation, such as its application to shops and offices. Practical experience has shown that the designation of one safety representative for every 50 employees in shops and offices is not feasible. Section 9 of the principal Act is therefore amended to make provision for one safety representative for every 100 employees in shops and offices and one for every 50 in all other workplaces.

Similarly it has been found that the stipulation that workplaces in shops and offices be inspected on a monthly basis was not practical. The workload placed on inspectors just did not make this possible. Section 10 of the principal Act is thus amended to provide for such workplaces to be inspected once every three months.

The proposed amendments have been practiced for a considerable time by way of ministerial exemptions and are now embodied in the principal Act in order to obviate the time-consuming procedures which have been followed for granting such exemptions.

One of the major shortcomings of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act is that the responsibility of implementing safety in the workplace is imposed on the company and not on any particular individual. The result of this is that the safety of employees is left in the hands of a junior member of management personnel, who has very little decision-making powers. It is no use bolting the stable door after the horse has bolted by prosecuting the company and paying compensation to the victims, because the main purpose of the Act is to prevent accidents.

The new section 10A, inserted by clause 6 of the Bill, is therefore welcomed. The proposed new section places the responsibility to ensure that the Act is complied with squarely on the chief executive officer of a corporate body. This section allows the chief executive officer to delegate duties but also retains the responsibilities and liabilities of the corporate body. It must also be noted that the same responsibility rests with the departmental head, who is normally the director-general, of a State department because the Act applies equally to the State.

Clause 7 amends section 17 of the principal Act so as to exclude the reporting of aircraft accidents which has to be investigated under the Aviation Act. It must be pointed out that the amendment only refers to the reporting procedures and does not affect the safety measures which applies to aircraft. Reporting under the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act only leads to duplication, as it in any case has to be reported under the Aviation Act. Furthermore it has been proved, especially with regard to the Helderberg disaster, that inspectors of the Department of Manpower do not have the expertise to investigate aircraft accidents meaningfully.

Section 28 of the principal Act is amended by clause 10 of the Bill by substantially increasing the fines for contraventions of the Act. This is particularly welcomed as it could curb certain unscrupulous employees who would rather risk paying the maximum fine several times per year instead of incurring costs for the maintenance of safe working conditions.

In conclusion I want to say that the CP raised a big fuss about last year’s two extra sessions. The consideration of this Bill by the joint committee took place in Cape Town during the recess. As hon members know, this represents considerable expenses with regard to out of town members. Yet, the two CP members serving on the committee came all the way from the Transvaal, only to abstain from voting on every clause of the Bill. They even abstained from voting on a clause which corrected a grammatical error. If this is not a waste of the taxpayer’s money I do not know what is. Incidentally, this is also the meeting where the hon member for Carletonville refused to shake my hand when I tried to greet him.

Leave him!

I am not angry with the hon member; I am only sorry for him.

†There is no doubt that the Bill enhances the application of safety measures in the workplace, and that is something which can only be to the benefit of the workers. Therefore I support the Bill fully.

Mr Chairman, I wish to thank the two hon members, the hon members for Elsies River and Belhar, for taking part in this debate and for supporting it. Both hon members revealed a very good understanding of the Bill and they had prepared themselves very well and extensively.

It is important—both of them referred to it—that there should be high standards of safety. I merely wish to underscore what they said, namely that the Bill is bringing about safety standards of a higher degree, and that is important, and also that it cuts out a lot of duplication. That is also important for the administration of this Bill.

I thank the hon members for taking part in this debate.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Mr Chairman, the purpose of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Amendment Bill is mainly to effect improvements as a result of practical experience gained through the application of the principal Act.

Provision is now being made for a chief executive officer of a body corporate or a Government enterprise, so as to promote further the application of the safety management system by way of the direct involvement and commitment of top management in it.

The principal Act charges an employer with various duties which, in the case of a company, are imposed on the company itself and not on an individual. The responsibility for ensuring compliance by the company with these duties is often delegated to a junior employee, which frequently means that it does not take place at the right level. This in turn leads to the ineffective functioning of a company’s safety management system.

The amending Bill charges the chief executive officer with this duty so as to endeavour to ensure that the safety management system functions as effectively as possible.

The amending Bill envisages the exclusion of a load line ship, boat or floating crane as defined by the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, as well as certain investigations in terms of the Aviation Act, 1962, from the scope of application of the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act.

At present there is a large overlap in the area of jurisdiction of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1951, and the Machinery and Occupational Safety Act, 1983. The problem arises from the fact that the safety standards and regulations prescribed under the two Acts differ markedly and can seldom be reconciled in practice.

South Africa is also bound by several international conventions pertaining to safety at sea and safety of vessels and crews. It is therefore undesirable that things should run in double harness— hence the proposed exclusion.

The reporting of aircraft accidents in terms of section 17 of the principal Act—which also have to be investigated in terms of the Aviation Act of 1962—is also being excluded as this unnecessary duplication serves little purpose.

So as to enhance the effectiveness of the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety, the number of members is being increased from nine to twelve. It is deemed necessary that a second officer of the Department of Manpower be appointed to cater for the distinction between the two main professional branches that comprise occupational safety, namely physical safety and occupational hygiene. Provision is also being made for the inclusion of two experts in occupational safety or the safety of machinery in order to meet a need for additional expertise in these directions.

Practical experience has taught that the designation of one safety representative for every 50 employees in shops and offices and monthly safety inspections of such workplaces are excessive. The practice of the Minister of Manpower to grant exemption, on condition that one safety representative is designated for every 100 employees in shops and offices and that safety inspections take place once every three months instead of monthly, is being embodied in the principal Act so as to eliminate the need for exemption and for easy reference.

The maximum fine for contraventions of certain provisions of the principal Act is being increased from R2 000 to R10 000 and. in the case of injury because an employer caused an act or omission which would have made him guilty of culpable homicide, from R4 000 to R20 000. The increases are necessary because the costs of complying with safety standards at present bear little relation to the maximum fines. The reason for the increases is to facilitate the more effective enforcement of the principal Act.

Mr Chairman, I should like to welcome the hon the Minister in his new capacity as Acting Minister of Manpower.

The present Act has on many occasions in the past been praised for the control it brought about in respect of safety in places of work. However, certain changes have now become necessary and that is why this amending Bill has been tabled in Parliament.

Several overlaps exist in the present Machinery and Occupational Safety Act of 1983 and the present Merchant Shipping Act of 1951. Both Acts p-ovide for the safety of ships and boats. Discus: ion between the various authorities has led to an agreement that merchant shipping should only be controlled by the Merchant Shipping Act—something which this amending Bill should achieve.

The same principle applies in respect of accidents in which aircraft are involved. The Bill now makes provision for the exclusion of certain enquiries into aircraft accidents from the aegis of the Department of Manpower.

The present fines in the Act are not in all cases sufficient to deter people from contravening the provisions of the Act and therefore provision is now being made for increased fines to deter people from contravening those provisions. This is being done with a view to the safety of other people. All the proposed changes to the Bill were considered by the Advisory Council for Occupational Safety and were agreed to. We have no objection to supporting the Bill.

Mr Chairman, I also want to extend a warm welcome to the hon the Minister. By the same token, I want to pay tribute and pay my compliments to the former hon Minister who, I know, worked heart and soul for the well-being of workmen. We want to place that on record and express our appreciation for what he has done in that regard.

The Bill before us is certainly a Bill that was needed because, when one looks at the place of work, one finds that accidents take place very often, in particular in aircraft and on factory floors.

In order to bring about some kind of awareness, with this Bill we aim to provide better facilities so that both the management and the employee will take cognisance of what safety is all about.

If one has knowledge of what goes on in these workplaces one knows that the little noticeboards with the information in very fine print are hung on the walls where the workers normally just walk pass them. They never utilise them until an accident takes place. Only then do they try to find out who is at fault—whether it is the employer or the employee. Then they try to find out whether the best possible facilities and safety measures were provided.

We are very happy that this Bill has come before the House. It not only creates an awareness but at the same time it is a very protective measure that gives encouragement to the workers.

Some accidents take place when people have got so used to a machine that they do things like trying to fit a belt on the machine without switching it off. They think that they can do such things. This Bill reminds workers that everything should be done according to the rules and that accidents can happen when the rules are not followed. All accidents are not necessarily accidental—some occur because of negligence.

We on this side of the House support this Bill. We think it is an improvement and we would like to compliment the department on having looked at it. I do not think it stops here—we can even go further. As I said, we support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, it is always nice to see this amiable hon Minister. Unfortunately, in his present portfolio we do not have to ask him to run away or do anything like that. That we have to do in his other portfolio. [Interjections.] I support this Bill.

Mr Chairman, I want to thank hon members for taking part in the discussion of this Bill and especially for supporting it. I am very glad that the hon member for Reservoir Hills and I can agree today. I am sure that he is not surprised that I am still here. [Interjections.]

I want to thank the hon members for Havenside and Mariannhill for their support. I also want to thank them for welcoming me here and paying tribute to my colleague who handled this portfolio with great distinction.

I think this is a good step that we have taken. It means better safety for the worker and less duplication. I thank you, Mr Chairman.

Debate concluded.

Bill read a second time.

Order! I have to inform the House that a petition has been lodged by the hon member Dr Z J de Beer on behalf of the hon member for Houghton, praying for the removal of a judge in terms of the Supreme Court Act. 1959.

In response to points of order raised by Mrs H Suzman and Mr H H Schwarz to the effect that the Speaker did not have the authority to decline to accept the petition, Mr Speaker gave the following ruling: