Order! Before calling upon the Secretary to read the first Order, I have to inform the House that the hon. member for Yeoville on Tuesday evening submitted representations to me regarding the application of the sub judice rule to the discussion of matters arising from the events on the Seychelles during November 1981. The hon. member also submitted a memorandum setting out his representations for which courtesy I wish to thank the hon. member.

I informed the hon. member yesterday morning that I would consider the matter and would give a considered ruling today before the resumption of the adjourned debate on the Defence Vote by a Standing Committee in the Senate Chamber.

The hon. member for Yeoville has submitted—

1. (1) that the sub judice rule can only be applied to matters pending in a South African court of law;
2. (2) that the rule does not prevent legitimate discussion of matters of public interest which are the subject of court proceedings;
3. (3) that the charges and issues involved in the case at present being heard by the Natal Provincial Division of the Supreme Court of South Africa only relate to what the accused did on the aircraft in question;
4. (4) that none of the issues placed before the court according to the indictment relates to the question whether there was an attempt to overthrow the Government of the Seychelles and matters arising therefrom;
5. (5) that important Defence issues have been and continue to be discussed in the Press and elsewhere. These include:
   1. (a) Allegations that Defence Force personnel were aware of plans made by mercenaries for their activities in the Seychelles.
   2. (b) The reported unauthorized call-up of Defence Force personnel to go to the Seychelles.
   3. (c) Matters relating to the alleged taking of arms to Swaziland and the Seychelles.
6. (6) that the abovementioned matters are vital for the SADF and should be clarified as soon as possible, and need to be accounted for to Parliament;
7. (7) that no charges are pending in respect of these matters.

*I have given careful consideration to the hon. member’s representations and in particular to the principle as stated by Mr. Speaker Schlebusch on 12 March 1975, and referred to by the hon. member for Yeoville, viz. “that the fact that there is a criminal case proceeding or pending against certain persons should not prevent discussion of the broad national issue involved, provided that such debate takes place without reference to any specific cases which are or will shortly come before the courts” (Debates, 1975, Vol. 55, col. 2362).

This principle is regularly applied in respect of the discussion of matters such as rent control where there is a clear distinction between the general principle of rent control and matters under the Rents Act which are before the courts.

However, in the present case, I am faced with the very real difficulty that in my opinion there is not a clearly defined “broad national issue” which members can debate without a substantial danger that statements may be made which could be regarded as references to the case at present before the Natal Provincial Division.

Here I must refer again, as I did on 1 February, to the ruling of 30 September 1974 where Mr. Speaker Schlebusch stated that the basis for the strict application of the sub judice rule in debate to matters before criminal courts was that it was well-nigh impossible for the presiding officer to judge in advance what effect any such discussion might have on court hearings. Mr. Speaker Schlebusch then quoted the comment by Mr. Speaker Hylton-Foster that “… the Chair has got to hear it before he stops it—and then the poison is done” (Debates, 1974, Volume 51, col. 4053).

With reference to the hon. member’s submission that matters which relate to the events in the Seychelles have been discussed in the Press and elsewhere, I must point out, as did Mr. Speaker Schlebusch in 1974, that the essential difference between the sub judice rule as applied by Parliament and the courts is that the former is imposed voluntarily by Parliament upon itself and exercised subject to the discretion of the Chair, with the object of forestalling prejudice of proceedings in court. The courts of law on the other hand protect themselves from prejudicial comment outside Parliament by the exercise post hoc of their powers to punish contempt. It is this basic difference which has resulted in Parliament appearing to be subject to more severe restrictions than the Press and the public in discussing such matters. Hon. members are protected by privilege and are therefore free of the restraining influence of possible subsequent action by the courts and that being so, it is as well that Parliament exercises great restraint in these matters. (Debates, 1974, Vol. 51, col. 4054).

†Here it may be of interest to the House that as recently as 17 November 1981 a member of the House of Commons stated on a point of order that under the sub judice rule as applied in the House of Commons he could say things in a newspaper article that he was not entitled to say in the House. The Speaker of the House of Commons stated in reply—

In reply to a further point of order the Speaker stated—

As did Mr. Speaker Schlebusch in 1974, I wish to make it clear that the House has an inherent right to inquire into and debate matters of public importance. However, I also know that the House would not wish there to be the slightest danger of its debates prejudicing a trial, and in view of the considerations to which I have referred, I consider that I would not be justified in exercising the discretion vested in me by relaxing the application of the ruling I gave on 1 February.

I accordingly have to rule that I cannot allow any discussion of matters arising from the events on the Seychelles until such time as the sub judice rule is no longer applicable.

Mr. Chairman, before the debate was adjourned last night I said that we on this side of the House were building on firm foundations. One such firm foundation which has been laid, is that an effort must be made to bring about goodwill between Whites and Blacks in this country. In that respect a great deal of success has already been achieved, and we are very grateful for that.

A second foundation upon which we are building, is that the development of Black people in the national States continues to be given the highest priority by the Government. The Government also scrupulously ensures that what is done in the White areas does not adversely affect its actions in the national States.

Considerable progress has been made in the sphere of constitutional development as far as the Black people of this country are concerned. Four peoples have already obtained equal status with the RSA, and 8 050 080 Black people, according to the census of 1980, have been fully enfranchised in their respective States. A major regional development programme was launched on 1 April 1982 in connection with which these National States confer together about the common as well as the economic interests of Southern Africa on a basis of absolutely equal status with the RSA. This is a major achievement. As a matter of fact, I regard it as one of the greatest achievements of the 30 years that I have been involved in the affairs of Black people. The programme that has now been launched is a comprehensive one and all the leaders of the independent and national States have participated in it, together with the Government of the Republic of South Africa. I shall refer to this again later. This endeavour will undoubtedly produce results.

As I have said, 8 050 080 Black people of the four independent nations are involved in the constitutional development. However, if one adds the Whites, Coloureds and Asians to the above-mentioned figure, it means that at this stage, out of a total of 25 591 000 people in the RSA, 13 084 450 people have been granted full voting rights and complete freedom by this constitutional dispensation. This represents colossal progress indeed, Sir. Unfortunately I do not have time now to explain how this edifice of freedom, prosperity, peace and progress has been built brick by brick, but I am aware of the dedication on the part of many Black and White people that it required. I realize, too, that the Whites or the Blacks alone could not have done it. White and Black worked together to make this great progress in constitutional development for the Black people possible.

As far as local government is concerned, the Black people outside the national States also have better instruments at their disposal today than the Coloureds and the Asians. This is an achievement not to be underestimated.

I want to emphasize, too, that as far as the Black people are concerned, we are continuing to make progress in the constitutional sphere, in accordance with declared policy, and good progress is consistently being made. On 4 December, a mere four months ago, Ciskei became independent, and it is anticipated that further proof of the statement that good progress is being made as regards constitutional development will be furnished before the end of this session.

I now want to say something about another very important matter. I wish to associate myself wholeheartedly with the statement by the hon. the Prime Minister during the discussion of his Vote that we shall not stand in the way of nations that wish to unite anew in cases where they have predominantly common histories, cultural ties and a common future and that this Government will not be slow to show encouragement when nations wish to think along those lines. Of course, this has nothing to do, as the hon. the Prime Minister said, with driving people out of the Republic of South Africa. It has everything to do with the concept of self-determination and the proper structuring, in a peaceful way, of peoples that live side by side. The hon. member for Durban Point then interjected: “Of their own free will?”. The hon. the Prime Minister then replied: “Of course it is of their own free will, and without interference”. Then there was an interjection: “And without intimidation?”. The hon. the Prime Minister then added: “Of their own free will and without interference and without intimidation”. Consequently, when we on this side of the House talk about self-determination arising from what I am talking about, surely this is proof that it is not mere lip-service. If anyone should then allege that no progress is being made in this constitutional sphere, on that policy is not being carried out, then surely, with all due respect, he does not know what he is talking about or else he is steadfastly refusing to face the facts.

I should now like to illustrate in greater detail the instruments wherewith to support the development of the national States. These instruments are of cardinal importance. Both the South African Government and the Governments of the national States—once again, White and Black working together in unison—are fulfilling an extremely important role in the development of the national States. Mr. Chairman, I want to draw your attention to three instruments. The first is the delimitation of land and the consolidation of the national States; the second, the decentralization and deconcentration of economic activities in the national States and the adjacent RSA areas, which are being given very high priority by this Government, and thirdly, the rendering of financial and other assistance to the Governments of the national States and to the development corporations concerned.

I wish to say the following about the first instrument, viz. consolidation. Since the hon. the Prime Minister gave the assignment to the Commission for Co-operation and Development approximately two years ago we have received 20 reports from them. These reports cannot, however, be dealt with in isolation. They should be correlated with reports such as those on manpower utilization, regional economic development, the proposed development bank and related matters in order to obtain a comprehensive view of the problems of consolidation and development. If anyone were to state that this does not mean a stepping up of consolidation, then with all due respect, that cannot be, a statement based on fact.

The Cabinet enlarged the Commission for Co-operation and Development to 12 members in order to investigate certain problems of the Black people in White areas, and as information has been gathered by this commission, new guidelines, based on accepted recommendations, have been embodied from time to time in the various reports of the commission. All parties agreed here yesterday that these new guidelines have resulted in a certain adaptability and greater flexibility as regards this whole matter. Surely this can only benefit the country.

Mr. Chairman, it is very important that I tell hon. members that at the behest of the Cabinet last year, the commission will still, as planned, submit to the Cabinet by the middle of this year final recommendations based on the guidelines laid down at the time. Those recommendations will not only deal with the demarcation of borders, but also with a programme for buying out land, a matter of the utmost importance. In other words, it will be a financing programme with the financing methods which such a programme entails. Thirdly, it will involve the economic development and productive utilization of land and, fourthly, related matters affecting the position of Black people in White areas. It is still the intention of the Government to give priority to the 1975 proposals which were referred to here yesterday. In the mean time, excellent progress is being made with the transfer of land. The Cabinet last year decided that Trust land had to be transferred to the national States as soon as possible. 100 000 ha have already been transferred. At the moment we are negotiating the transfer of an additional 100 000 ha which have to be transferred as soon as possible. We are also trying to transfer the trust land of Lebowa as soon as possible, as well as that of the other national States. However, there is a cardinal and important factor present here, viz. that in the transfer of such land, which we want to complete as soon as possible, it will have to be seen to that such land will be utilized in an economic and productive way. This delays the process to some extent.

As far as decentralization and deconcentration—the second instrument—are concerned, there is just one fact I want to single out. It must be understood that due to co-operation between White and Black we have now reached a point, with consensus among everyone, at which improvement in the incentives for labour-intensive industries in the national States announced by the hon. the Prime Minister on 1 April, is on average 180% better than any previous incentive. For capital-intensive industries in the national States there is an average improvement of 50% on any previous incentive. If one adds the two together, allowing for the weight of the kind of industry that one is dealing with, they are on average 115% better than any previously applicable incentive.

The third instrument is the rendering of financial assistance to the national States, which contributes substantially towards those programmes embarked upon by the Governments of the national States themselves or the development corporations. An amount of R1 238 million has been voted for the budget of the Department of Co-operation and Development this year. Of this, 51,8% goes directly to the self-governing national States. This is a powerful instrument for development, by any yardstick. The total allocation to the national States for 1982-’83 means, in round figures, that R1 000 million—and I am not talking about the independent States now—will be at their disposal for utilization in various fields. Obviously, in terms of needs, we require more funds, but the fact of the matter is that we have gigantic achievements to our credit in this regard. This has resulted in exceptional results. In 1959, 23 years ago, the Economic Development Corporation was founded with an initial capital of R1 million for the sole purpose of providing the national States with an economic substructure. By the end of 1981 the Economic Development Corporation was R600 100 000 to the good. Is that not an achievement? I can recall that when I was still a young Deputy Minister in 1968, the then member for South Coast, Mr. Mitchell, sat opposite. In my enthusiasm I said to him—and hon. members must bear in mind that this was only a few years after the founding of the Economic Development Corporation—that I would guarantee to him that we would be able to show him more than 250 industries in the national States within ten years. There was laughter on that side of the House, and Mr. Mitchell said that I might be very enthusiastic, but that I did not know what I was talking about. Well, yesterday hon. members heard the figures from hon. members on this side of the House. Many more industries than that were established in the national States in a far shorter period. Today it is history. And what was the result of all this?

In this regard I just want to single out one fact. The gross national product per capita is generally recognized by the World Bank and other interested agencies as the criterion for a country’s level of development and the well-being of its inhabitants. No one can question that. A comparison with African countries in this regard shows that virtually across the board, the inhabitants of our national States enjoy a higher level of prosperity than those of other African States. Only a few countries, like Swaziland and Zambia, have a higher per capita income. If all African countries are considered, the average gross national product per capita of R362 of each of South Africa’s 10 national States is higher than that of 33 African countries. More important is that the growthrate of the real gross national product per capita of the national States of South Africa, viz. 9,9% per annum on average for the national States, is far higher than that of other African countries. This indicates that the level of prosperity of the inhabitants of the national States of South Africa is increasing far more rapidly than in the rest of Africa.

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

I shall willingly reply to a question later. The GNP per capita in our national States is R362, and the annual growth rate averages 9,9%. Let us compare this with those of the following countries: In Angola the figures are R244 and 3,4%. In Mozambique they are R122 and 4,3%; and in the following countries the growth rate is as follows: In Zambia, 0,2%; Sudan, 2,5%; Ethiopia, 0,2%; Somalia, 1,1%; Burundi, 0,6%; Ruanda, 1,3%; Zaïre, 1,4%; Upper Volta, 1,6%; Mali, 1,9%; Niger, 1,8%; Sierra Leone, 1,3%, etc. These are only a few countries which I picked out of an entire list. The figures in our national States, as I say, are R362 and 9,9%, as against innumerable States in Africa whose figures are far lower than ours, but these are not accepted even by hon. members on the other side of the House as exceptional achievements on our part.

May I ask my question now?

Yes.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the figures he gave in regard to per capita income in respect of the national States include income which derives from the Republic of South Africa.

Yes, it includes that, but we are all members of one family of States here. That is a fact we cannot deny. What kind of ridiculous question is that? Surely those countries also have certain benefits which are calculated in the per capita growth rate. Why does the hon. member want to disparage South Africa’s when they are based on absolutely comparable facts?

We are also making very important progress in this regard at other levels. I now want to refer you to instruments for the promotion of the political linking and the socioeconomic upliftment of Black people in White areas. I have already indicated the prospects with regard to the political development of the national States as well as the prospects, based on the economic progress already made, in regard to the implementation of this vast programme that was announced on 1 April, and the co-operation and favourable attitudes it so clearly reflects. As regards the instruments for the promotion of the socio-economic upliftment of Black people in White areas, I want to say that various extremely important initiatives have already been launched by the Government in both the economic and the constitutional spheres, by means of which the position of the Black people in the RSA outside the national States has been made far more agreeable, and by means of which an effort is being made, through the negotiation process, to make the Black people in the RSA part of a meaningful and acceptable model of reform. Here I refer inter alia to the trilogy of legislation which is designed to provide a better dispensation for Black people outside the National States—an ambitious enterprise. One of these Bills has already been introduced and the other two will be introduced shortly. The Government is engaged in a programme which will accommodate the local and community needs of the Black people outside the national States as well as the needs relating to aspirations towards political participation at the sovereignty level. The first leg of this programme implied that the Black communities in the RSA get a decent dispensation at the local authority level with full local management powers while in the second place, initiatives are launched for the establishing of close co-operation among independent States in South Africa, from which a confederation could eventually arise, and the foundations of this have already been very well and firmly laid. I shall come back to that point again. As already stated on a number of occasions by the Government, the policy is that Blacks in the RSA can be meaningfully linked with the various peoples in the national States by way of a confederation. Aspects supplementary to this are being considered such as, inter alia representation in the parliaments of the national States for Blacks in the RSA. In this regard I should perhaps reply here and now to the hon. member Prof. Olivier. A State like Qwaqwa, for example, is exerting considerable pressure on me to draw the necessary “constituency” borders as soon as possible, so that they can elect to their legislative assembly representatives of their citizens outside their national State. Therefore the hon. member Dr. Odendaal knew exactly what he was talking about yesterday while, with great respect, the hon. member Prof. Olivier was not in possession of that knowledge. He therefore attacked us unnecessarily, and his attacks were unfounded.

There are other States, too, that are exerting considerable pressure on me. I say to those hon. members that many aspects are at stake here. For example, there is the territorial integrity of the State. One cannot simply say that we are going to do this or that tomorrow; there are many political and other aspects that have to be taken duly into consideration, before the Government and I can give effect to the urgent pleas of the Government of Qwaqwa. However, these are the facts of the matter and the possibilities in this regard are considerable.

The so-called extraterritorial powers of Black Governments over their citizens in the RSA is something which is receiving our constant attention, but this, too, is a complicated matter which must be duly unravelled. There are co-operation agreements in terms of which constant liaison takes place between adjacent Governments at all levels. Let us assume that the mayor of Soweto is a South Sotho and that the South Sothos want to grant representation to their citizens outside the national State, as they request. Let us assume further that the mayor of Soweto is a member of the legislative assembly of Qwaqwa and is also, due to personal ability, a Minister in that Cabinet. If that were to happen, what would be wrong with that? What would be wrong with that if that is what the Black people who are South Sothos want?

But that is not the essential problem.

But it is the essence of part of the solution of this very difficult problem. The establishment of an institutional framework as well as, for example, the Small Business Development Corporation, and diplomatic representation, by means of which the political and socio-economic interests of Blacks living in the RSA are looked after on an on-going basis, is of great importance. The whole spectrum of these activities presumes a virtually unceasing involvement of the Black Governments with their citizens wherever they may reside in an effort to make democracy meaningful.

We are not closing our eyes to the realities. We are working on a very realistic effort to guarantee this kind of progress, freedom and peace for the children of all the different population groups. Because this is so, I am pleased to be able to inform the House this afternoon, with the full authority of the hon. the Prime Minister and the Cabinet, that in-depth discussions are at present taking place within the Government with regard to the future dispensation as regards Black people resident outside the national States. Of course, these discussions are taking place and will continue to take place with the Black leaders, and as soon as finality has been reached, the Government will make announcements in this regard. The fact that the commission for Co-operation and Development has been enlarged to 12 members to include members of Parliament with expert knowledge on Black urban affairs, is certainly evidence of the Government’s sincerity in this regard.

I should like to make an appeal to all hon. members. We are dealing with a large-scale problem. The hon. the Prime Minister has referred to it as one of the biggest problems which any country in the world could be faced with. On this side there is not only a will to govern, but also an absolute determination to resolve the problems effectively. All we need is help in a spirit of co-operation. We must not throw stones at the building while we are building it.

It is not the will, but the policy that worries us.

However, what the hon. members of the CP did there, was to throw down their trowels and run away. We do not need that, either. When we try to build these things, efforts are made to make people mistrustful of us and efforts are also made to break down what we have built up.

Show us what is hidden behind the wall.

We are building on the foundations laid by great predecessors—Dr. Malan, Adv. Strydom, Dr. Verwoerd and others. The hon. members cannot improve on those foundations; they must just be careful that they do not break this building down to the foundations, but I believe that the South African people will not allow that. I therefore make a friendly appeal for co-operation. Let us differ, if we have to differ, but let us co-operate in the important matters so as to make these things possible for our children.

I want to stress that negotiations are constantly taking place with all interest groups, both within and outside the national States, concerning the abovementioned matters. In the light of the rapid progress made with constitutional development, it is the intention of the Government to increase drastically the intensity of negotiation with Blacks in an effort to reach a generally acceptable and just dispensation for all the people of the country without delay.

One of the fundamental issues in this debate has been the whole question of urbanization, as well as the question of housing. I now wish to confine myself to these matters, but I hope that I have put it very clearly that when I discuss this, what I say is based on the important priority, viz. the development of the national States—political, economic and so on—and that we are not prepared to move away from that basis. Accordingly, when I discuss urban housing and the provision of services in South Africa, I should very much like to put forward, in all humility, a world perspective. I do so, not because I think that to do so alleviates our problems, but to indicate that our country is not the only country that is struggling with these problems. I also do so in order to bring home certain concepts to hon. members, because I feel that people in South Africa speak somewhat loosely about the provision of housing, the housing backlog and the contribution that the State must make in this regard. I shall indicate that we in South Africa are achieving a fair degree of success with these problems and the provision of housing, despite the tremendous challenge of 160 000 Black dwelling houses, costing R1 billion, which are needed. However, that does not frighten us. Nor do I think it is necessary to be frightened by it. It is simply a challenge that must be accepted, and I want to indicate that it has already been tackled with great success. I think that the World Bank, which fully realizes the extent of the problem and is very intimately involved in the problem of the provision of housing in Third World countries, sums up the problem very well in the following statement—

All the more reason why all of us in this House must co-operate in order to deal with these problems. The more one reads through the reports of the World Bank and the housing division of the UN nowadays, the more one realizes that they are really concerned about the rapid urbanization which is taking place in the world and the fact that it is very difficult to meet the demands of these new urban dwellers. More than half of the urban population of the world is already living in the cities of Third World countries. Prominent scientists expect the squatter population of Third World countries to double every five to six years. Indeed, 90% of the population of Addis Ababa, 75% of that of Ibedan and 53% of that of Accra are regarded by these experts as squatters. A foremost authority in the field of urbanization, a person I have quoted before in this House and whom I regard as one of the foremost experts in the world on this problem. Prof. Davies of Britain, rightly remarks that this rapid urbanization is alien to the people of Africa, who do not have a reasonable urban tradition. He goes on to say—

This is part of our problem too. Notwithstanding the fact that only about 20% of the population of Black Africa are urbanized at present, the well-known Black Nigerian Prof. Aken Mobogunje made the following remark—

Of course, in South Africa this problem is complicated by the fact that the frame of reference of the Black population is that of the Whites. This is the old problem of the Third World and the First World that have been thrown together here.

I honestly believe that the time has come—and now, against this background, I turn to housing—for everyone in South Africa to think in terms of a change in standards with regard to the provision of housing.

[Inaudible.]

A change in standards does not necessarily mean a drop in standards because otherwise the progress in technology in recent years will have meant little to us, and I refuse to accept that. In this regard we must relate certain concepts in respect of housing to one another. For example, there is always talk of substantial housing shortages. Reference is made to a shortage of 160 000. A tremendous fuss is made of this. Some people say that an amount of R1 500 million is involved. However, what do we mean by housing shortages? The fact is that the housing needs are not related to available resources. The World Bank and the housing commission of the UN point this out. In contrast to estimates of housing needs in terms of arbitrary standards, housing needs must be determined in accordance with the ability and preparedness of households to pay for the household. Low-cost housing in the eyes of the developer is still nowhere near being housing for low income groups. There is no doubt about that. There are several examples in the world of more than 50% of those who seek accommodation not being able to afford the cheapest house being built. There is a fine example of this in Kenya, where a large number of scheme houses were built, and it was later found that more than 68% of the people who were seeking accommodation were not able to pay for those houses. We almost walked into the same trap in regard to Crossroads. After we had carried out house-to-house surveys, we reached the conclusion that if we were to build houses costing a certain amount, they could be occupied. We only just made it. However, I can say that if the economic recession had occurred earlier, we, too, would have been in difficulties in that regard. Let me quote from what the World Bank has to say in this regard—

Because the Government is fully aware of this problem, there has been a considerable change in our approach in the past number of months with regard to the provision of housing for Blacks in South Africa. There has been a considerable change in this regard. An hon. member asked me yesterday why it had taken us so long as far as the Viljoen Committee was concerned. My colleague, the hon. the Minister of Community Development, will confirm that our departments held discussion after discussion with one another. This led to the strategy which I announced here at the beginning of the year.

It took you many, many years to get there.

That strategy is already yielding very good results which, moreover, have been very well received. We also accepted the report of the Viljoen Committee, and the basic principles contained therein are very simple. They are that the State will fulfil its role in providing housing to the real welfare cases, the groups with a very low income, but will then use its money to provide the infrastructure so that the individual and the private sector can enter the picture and provide housing for themselves or for their employees.

I do not want to go into detail now. However, I may say to hon. members that I can indicate that in this short space of time excellent progress has been made in this regard. I shall give hon. members the facts in a moment. In the meantime the Cabinet has directed that the Social Planning Branch of the Office of the Prime Minister work out an urbanization strategy for South Africa. I am informed that very good progress has been made in this regard. We have in mind a positive strategy for urbanization, involving the widest possible utilization of the resources of the country, so that the population distribution may be as balanced as possible. We do this in order to avoid having a few large metropolitan areas causing endless problems, as are in fact encountered in the great cities of the world, with regard to air pollution, transport problems etc. Accordingly a strategy to bring about a more balanced distribution of the population in South Africa will be announced shortly.

In connection with the whole problem of housing, permit me just to make a few remarks about the 99 year leasehold system. In the first place, I think that we were perhaps too quick to announce the 99 year leasehold system in 1978. We were perhaps somewhat overhasty, because we had not yet established the machinery to put this whole concept effectively enough to the Black man, with his background of a communal system of land ownership. It has often been pointed out—in fact, it was pointed out again yesterday—that only 1 700 houses have been sold in terms of the 99 year leasehold system. However, in this regard I should like to quote from an interview in the Financial Mail with Mr. Tim Hart, executive director of the Association of Building Societies. He says—and he knows what he is talking about—that although house sales have not been satisfactory recently, they are now gaining considerable momentum. He then says the following—

That is what he says. One of the major problems that has also been referred to is the issue of the surveying of land. This is an enormous problem. If I had been willing to agree that land intended for Black people in terms of the 99-year leasehold system did not have to be surveyed by a surveyor, can hon. members imagine what difficulties we would have caused this country within a few years? As far as land for Whites is concerned, the whole surveying system is one of the best in the world. There are hardly ever any court cases about these matters in South Africa. In other countries of the world this same matter gives rise to innumerable court cases. Since we have an outstanding system for Whites, what would be the result of an inferior system for Blacks? That is why we decided that this would have to take place on the same basis as that which applies to Whites. It was a very difficult process, but it is already bearing fruit. Therefore we took a very sensible decision at the time, although we are given very little credit for it.

However, what are the other facts? In the meantime we have carried out in-depth investigations into so-called aerial surveys. In Soweto …

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister why the department does not conduct such an aerial survey of Soweto in order to get a move on?

Oh good gracious! I was just saying that I was mentioning the so-called aerial surveys in Soweto. Did she not hear when I began to say that?

Great minds think alike!

And fools never differ.

You should have undertaken such a survey 30 years ago! [Interjections.]

Now you are so terribly clever all of a sudden! Your only problem is that you were unable to come to power. That is your problem. I do not believe you will ever come to power. [Interjections.]

Kindly allow me to continue with my speech.

†We have given serious consideration to the question of aerial surveys, not only as of late, but right from the very beginning. There are many problems, however, in connection with this matter. I can state nevertheless that in Soweto it is now being determined that an aerial survey will reduce the surveying cost from R450 to approximately R60 per stand.

Well done!

Eureka! You have discovered the wheel at last! [Interjections.]

If we can succeed in getting the Office of the Surveyor-General to accept this and accordingly work out jointly an acceptable system for everyone involved, instead of creating chaos in this country, then there are definite possibilities in this regard. However, I want to mention another very important fact relating to aerial surveys. Last year I attended the congress of the Chairman of Administration Boards in Durban. I sat there for hours listening to this matter being discussed at length. I myself conducted discussions about this matter with the Surveyor-General. At the moment the situation is such that we can in fact make use of aerial surveys in Soweto. However, there are other problems, too, involved here. As soon as a survey is done from the air, the surveyor must in any event go and hammer in his survey pegs. This in turn means that certain expenses are increased. Therefore, if the survey cannot be carried out in co-operation with the Surveyor-General, a chaotic situation will be created in South Africa. That is our problem.

We tried to obtain the necessary permission from the Surveyor-General before the discussion of this Vote came up for discussion. Unfortunately this was not possible. The Office of the Surveyor-General is, after all, a professional institution. Moreover, we cannot undertake these things unilaterally. However, if we ultimately succeed in doing so, we shall immediately have the money available as far as Soweto is concerned. Not only would this cut costs substantially, it would also mean that the surveying period would be cut from an estimated eight years to approximately one year.

There is no-one in this House who is more desirous of having this done than I. Indeed, I had hoped to be able to make an announcement in this regard here this afternoon. Unfortunately I am not able to do so. Apart from the reasons I have already furnished it is not possible to do so, purely and simply because we have not yet been able to agree with all the interested parties so as to place this on a firm basis. However, we are trying to do so as soon as possible. If we succeed in this, it will signifiy a considerable improvement, as I have just explained.

In the meantime, however, hon. members opposite speak as if no houses or any form of accommodation at all are being built, particularly since the national economy is in recession at the moment. I now wish to provide the facts, and I do so with emphasis. Allegations such as those to which I have just referred are devoid of all truth. I went to great trouble to obtain the data I shall now provide, from the various Administration Boards. Hon. members must not forget that there are about 18 Administration Boards in the country.

Allow me, therefore, to provide the facts at this point. 1 500 beds have been built on the West Rand over the past year at a cost of R3,5 million, while 2 400 beds to the value of R7,2 million are in an advanced stage of planning. The private sector have upgraded 2 000 beds to the value of more than R2 million. Through the mediation of the private sector, 192 plots in Diepkloof and 20 plots in Alexandra have been allocated to individuals. Schemes that have already been planned are at present at the development stage including 1 200 dwellings in Dobsonville and 900 dwellings in Diepkloof. Of these, 40% will be given to the private sector. I want to stress here this afternoon that since the acceptance of the report of the Vijoen Committee, the private sector has really come forward to contribute its share. I praise and thank them for doing so, and I wish to make a friendly appeal to them to continue to do so.

What is particularly gratifying is the number of extensions being built. I wonder whether the hon. members realize the importance of extensions. In 1980, 1 306 applications for extensions to the value of more R6 million were approved on the West Rand. In 1981 2 055 applications—almost twice as many as the previous year—were approved for extensions to the value of R12,8 million. From January to March 1982, plans to the value of more than R2 million were approved. It is therefore clear that this is gaining momentum. This is also the kind of development we should like to see to an increasing extent in the future. In the areas of other Administration Boards, too, there are signs that the trend to build extensions is becoming popular. In the Oranje-Vaal Administration Board region 3 602 houses were built in 1981, whereas in the Western Transvaal, 900 houses have been built. Employers provided more than 100 of these, while 624 hostel beds have also been provided. A great many of these houses were built in accordance with self-build schemes, and this is really something to be proud of.

I just wish to point out to hon. members that Escom has tackled a housing scheme valued at more than R40 million in the Oranje-Vaal region, and this we really welcome.

Hon. members would do well to accompany me to inspect self-build schemes in Kroonstad, Steilloop, Christiana and various other places in the country. They would see that these schemes are achieving signal success. We and the Black people have reason to be proud. On the East Rand, for example, more than 2 400 houses were built for Black people last year, and about 300 were built at Lebowa-Ghoma, giving a total of 2 700 for the East Rand region alone. Apart from that, the private sector built 190 houses, while 482 plots had already been allocated. In addition, 45 hostels with 2 305 beds have already been built, while plans for 4 hostels with 2 688 beds have already been approved. On the East Rand, the private sector has already invested more than R19 million in housing, while a further R4,2 million will be invested shortly, and it is with pride that I can say that this has been done by a firm in my own constituency of Primrose. As a matter of fact, I myself was involved in this.

The Economic Development Corporation and the various national corporations in the national States are also building houses. The Urban Foundation is also doing very meritorious work in this regard, particularly by encouraging the provision of low-cost housing. The CSIR, too, is carrying out research on low-cost housing at the moment and is making very good progress as regards the practical implementation of plans.

In various parts of the country tests are being carried out to determine how we can overcome the housing crisis. It is particularly gratifying to take note of the self-build schemes that are in progress. I referred to some of them last year. Community development is the solution for the housing crisis in South Africa, and it is imperative that we realize this.

I am very optimistic that the Black Local Authorities Bill and the Community Development Bill can contribute a great deal towards resolving the housing crisis, in that the communities themselves are being involved to an increasing extent. I need not try to convince hon. members of the vitally important role which the provision of housing can play in the general economic development of our country. In my humble opinion, every individual who employs Black people has an obligation to hold out his hand and help them to find suitable accommodation. If all of us in South Africa were to co-operate, we should not only resolve this colossal problem of housing for Black people, but could develop it into a powerful growth sector. For example, building programmes have a very considerable ripple effect. They stimulate the cement, timber, brick and furniture industry. It is easy to train people, and when people begin to build, job opportunities are created on a large scale. Moreover, the pride that is developed is endless. Therefore, all we have to do in this regard—based on the facts I have tried to furnish here in connection with the progress that has been and is being made—is to decide to build. White and Black must build together; if they do, we can build a peaceful South Africa with place for all its children, and the housing we are concerned with will be an important factor in this regard.

I now wish to refer to the report of the Danie Steyn Committee. The hon. member for Houghton said that we had accepted the recommendations of the Viljoen Committee. I have just provided her with a number of facts concerning the progress made with housing and I have not even come to Soweto. However, I am still going to say a few words about that. As regards the issue of finance—paragraph 9 of the report of the Viljoen Committee—the Danie Steyn Committee was appointed to advise the Government on that aspect alone. I am very pleased to be able to say this afternoon that this committee has made considerable progress with its activities and will be able to submit recommendations to the Government shortly relating to certain matters such as the sale of dwellings to Blacks, the selling price of existing units, the promotion of home ownership among Blacks, etc. Any decisions taken by the Cabinet in connection with these matters will be announced immediately in order to expedite the implementation thereof. I do not wish to commit myself to a time scale, but my information is that the Steyn Committee hopes to submit its report within 14 days. Hon. members are aware that the Housing Act of 1966 was amended during the present session to give the National Housing Commission the power to negotiate loans for the financing of capital projects.

I now wish to say a few words about Soweto. I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily, but Soweto is becoming an outstanding success story, and I have the facts to prove it. The hon. member for Houghton had better pay a call there in person.

†The construction phase of the Greater Soweto electrification scheme, which embraces the Soweto, Deep Meadow and Dobsonville areas, was commenced during the middle of 1980 at an estimated cost of R204 million.

*I want to select just one fact from that. We have already laid 4 500 kilometres of cable in Soweto. This is no small achievement, and Soweto will have its electricity before the date set—at considerable expense. The hon. member’s position in South Africa is surely not that of a stranger in Jerusalem to the extent that she has not taken cognizance of the fact that in Germany the day before yesterday, the hon. the Minister of Finance negotiated a loan of R170 million for the upgrading of services in Greater Soweto. I wish to say here this afternoon that Mr. Louis Rive deserves high praise for that, and at a later stage, when I speak again, I shall address a special word of thanks and appreciation to him and other senior officials. I want to say here that the mayor of Soweto, Mr. Thebehali, deserves high praise for the loan. At the time, when he discussed a loan of R150 million which could be obtained for Soweto, he was ridiculed by inter alia, hon. members on the other side of the House. Why do they not stand up now and say they were wrong? And why do they not congratulate Mr. Thebehali and others who were involved. Then they should congratulate me, too, because I also did a great deal. When I discuss this matter I can wax eloquent. Two months after I had been appointed to this post I can remember … I knew Soweto like the palm of my hand; I have been there hundreds of times. I have dreamt about Soweto, but I have never come here and boasted about what Soweto was going to be like and so on. I refrained from doing so. Like Boland Coetzee and Burger Geldenhuys, however, I entered the scrum and took the ball, because I regard it as a pleasure—even though they trample upon me. I need not be a captain of the team—there can only be one captain—but to me it is a pleasure to pick up the ball, if only the team wins. I need not boast about Soweto: one need only to go to Soweto today to see how things are changing for the better. A few months after I had been appointed in this post I had to plead for R9 million here—and my good colleague, Mr. Horwood helped me—because at that stage Soweto was a stinking slum. The rusted sewers were split and blocked every weekend, and how we have progressed in two years’ time! I have referred to the loan we have managed to negotiate. Looking at the upgrading of basic services one sees that—

At that time I told hon. members in private, because I do not like to speak about these things in public: “Watch me! Give me two years and I will really show you something.” And now just look at what has happened in two years. Now I say: Watch Soweto in the next two to three years. All the channels have been established and cleared. I am therefore justified in being very excited when I discuss this.

The hon. member also spoke about land usage. Let me just give her the facts. I take it she wants the facts.

Certainly!

After proper planning over the past few years it has been determined that there is adequate land available for approximately 14 000 new dwelling units in certain areas in Soweto.

*We have been giving attention to the issue of the land for a long time. It is common sense that if one has everything necessary for housing at one’s disposal but the land is not available, one can get no further, even if one has the money. Therefore the hon. member need not tell us anything about that. I have now informed the hon. member of the fact that we have place there for 14 000 units to be constructed. While I am discussing this matter, let me say that on analysis, I regard the Eastern Cape region as the next region which deserves special attention. We are already concerned with this. I personally appointed the Linde Committee. That committee has carried out a very fundamental and in-depth investigation into the problems. Unfortunately I cannot make announcements now, but the announcements will be made shortly. We are going to tackle the Eastern Cape region with everything we have in order to give that region the necessary viability, and we shall succeed in that, too, as we have in Soweto.

I wish to conclude by mentioning one fact. The housing issue was one of the major points in this debate. I am merely providing a summary, and I regret that I do not have the time to go into more detail. For the A, B, and C projects in Soweto, there are 11 984 dwelling houses; 4 615 flats and 31 586 beds for an amount of R100 440 997, which at present are either in an advanced stage of planning or have already been built. Two years ago the hon. member for Houghton made me feel ashamed here when she asked me how many houses had been built in Soweto. She made me feel disagreeable because I had to tell her that as yet nothing had been built. However, we tackled the whole issue judiciously, and to begin with only provided the necessary basic services. Then we began to straighten out the issues relating to land. By last year I was able to present a more favourable picture. I am very grateful to be able to come to this House today with these facts. God willing, and if we are still here next year, I shall be able to present an even more favourable picture, because there is no shadow of a doubt that we are winning the battle there.

There is one final matter to which I want to refer, and I am very grateful that it is possible to do so. I say this with reference to the fact that a few of the young members of this House came to see me about a year ago and said that in their opinion, matters were progressing well in Soweto. However, the one major difficulty they indicated was that we should try to make Soweto economically selfsufficient and that we should have advance financial planning for a five-year period. We then tackled this task. I have the correspondence with me and I can show hon. members what good progress has been made in this regard. Two years ago the monthly increase required to eliminate the deficit was a little over R30. Due to excellent planning and outstanding people at our disposal, for example Messrs. Louis Rive, John Knoetze, Thebehali, and also brilliant officials about whom I shall have something to say later, the position today is that the deficit is now a mere R7,91. If we could have that R7,91 added, the deficit would be eliminated and as a result we shall be able to plan the establishment of Soweto on an economically self-sufficient basis within approximately five years. As yet we cannot say this of Deep Meadow, nor can we say it of Dobsonville. There the deficit is still R23 and R24 respectively.

When I speak again I shall reply to the individual questions put to me by hon. members, and I thank hon. members for the patience with which they have listened to me thus far.

Mr. Chairman, nobody can ever accuse this hon. Minister of not speaking enthusiastically. He has given us evidence of this again this afternoon. My only problem is that I sometimes wonder whether his enthusiasm is a reflection of the depth of his convictions or the lack of them.

I gave you the facts; don’t try to decry them.

The hon. the Minister concluded his speech by giving us a large number of figures in regard to the progress that is being made in regard to housing, particularly in Soweto, in regard to the approach of the Government to the whole problem arising out of urbanization. From this side of the House I want to say that we welcome the fact that progress is at last being made. The hon. the Minister has placed on record the amount of money being spent in respect of the projects in hand. Of course, we on this side of the House have urged for a long time that this be done and, as I say, we welcome the fact that some progress is at last being made. It is also a fact that we on this side of the House have for many years urged that when considering housing problems particularly as far as the Black areas are concerned, the Government should opt for site-and-service schemes and low-cost housing. At last this appears to be happening and we welcome this too.

The hon. the Minister also spoke earlier on of the Government’s programme of decentralization and its programme of flexibility, as he termed it, in regard to consolidation. As far as decentralization is concerned, we on this side of the House have never been opposed to it if it is done for good economic reasons and not for ideological reasons. As far as consolidation is concerned, we welcome the fact that there is at least some indication, as there was yesterday afternoon, that there will be a flexible approach on the part of the Government to this matter. We await the programme with great interest and nowhere more than in the province of Natal where the issue of consolidation is a very real one.

I want to move from those few general comments now to deal with a specific issue. I want to deal with the issue of Inanda which is of such tremendous importance to the greater Durban area. I believe that what is happening in Inanda represents a dramatic challenge to all of us on the whole issue of urbanization. The situation there cries out for long and short term planning of the highest order in order to ensure stability for the area concerned and also in order to protect the welfare of the people who are there at the present time and those who will be there in the future. This is a matter of very great concern and importance to the City of Durban in particular and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to make use of the opportunity he has during this debate to give us a clear, definitive and comprehensive statement on his plans and those of his department in regard to the Inanda area. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us assurances in regard to the security of tenure of people living there now and to indicate again what flexibility he is going to put into practice in his approach to the existing problem while his long-term plans are being implemented in the future.

The hon. the Minister knows the area well and I think he is aware of some of the problems if not all of them. Estimates are that there are at present between 200 000 and 300 000 people living in the Indanda area and that in 20 years’ time this figure will increase to some 650 000. At present the area comprises privately owned land, land administered by the S.A. Trust and also land falling under the jurisdiction of the KwaZulu Government. There are people there who are settled and who have been there for years, there are people who are there and who are at present benefiting to a small extent from self-help housing schemes and, of course, there are squatters. Therefore, this area in every way reflects the whole phenomenon of urbanization with all its features and all its problems in South Africa. As I have said, the population growth is intense and it is irreversible. However, when one looks at the whole area, one realizes that there is no real administrative infrastructure in the area and that the services that are provided there are minimal. As we know, there have been outbreaks of disease in that area. Last year it was typhoid which was a cause of great concern to the whole of the greater Durban area. This year we have had the whole problem of cholera, which has also manifested itself in the Inanda area, where there is a lack of proper water supplies and proper sanitation. I dealt with some aspects of this matter earlier this session when I referred to the lack of water and the strange and reckless withdrawal of tankers that took place last year. At that time the hon. the Minister interjected and said (Hansard, 4 February 1982, column 353): “We are treating it as an emergency situation”. That was his interjection. I want to ask the hon. the Minister specifically how he is treating it as an emergency situation. What specifically is his department doing about the issue of water supplies to the people of Inanda and the Inanda area. I also want to ask the hon. the Minister whether, in fact, he has yet studied the report of the Umgeni Water Board which was prepared nearly two years ago but which, according to Press reports, the hon. the Minister had not yet seen as late as February of this year. The report apparently recommended a low-cost mains supply of water from a local dam to Inanda and adjoining areas. Has the hon. the Minister read that report, is any action going to be taken in terms of that report, or what is the alternative? I also want to ask the hon. the Minister what emergency action he has taken in regard to the emergency situation which he acknowledged earlier this session, exists in regard to the water supply to Inanda.

Then there is the question of the Government’s grand plan for the area. We know that the department has commissioned private consultants to examine the socio-economic problems of the area and that a report was submitted to the department by these consultants, some time in February this year, I think. There have been recent Press reports of a five-year plan arising out of the report of these consultants, a five-year plan costing in excess of R130 million and providing for 20 000 housing sites per annum plus the supporting infrastructure. I would like the hon. the Minister to indicate whether this is correct, whether he has examined and considered the report of his consultants, and I want him to tell us what sort of infrastructure the department is going to create for the area. At present there are at least four bodies or organizations that are responsible for the administration of the Inanda area. There is the Department of Co-operation and Development, the hon. the Minister’s department, there is the department of Health and Welfare and there is the commissioner in the relevant magisterial districts. The areas over which they exercise responsibility have different boundaries, and no single party has jurisdiction over the whole area. If the area is going to be properly developed, and if we are going to avoid confusion, it will have to be administered and developed as a single entity. This is necessary if stability is to be brought to the area, and if its development is to be properly regulated. It is vitally important that there should be a single authority in order to avoid confusion. I talk about confusion and lack of co-ordination because that is what there is at the moment. There have already been two frightening examples of this, and the hon. the Minister should take note.

Let me refer, in the first place, to the question I referred to earlier on, that of the withdrawl of water supplies from Inanda. Somebody took that decision. The hon. the Minister, it is true, reacted very promptly and restored those water supplies, but this is again an indication of the lack of co-ordination and confusion that can arise in regard to a vital aspect, that of the supply of water to an area of that kind.

This brings me to the second incident that I should like to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention, and if the hon. the Deputy Minister would just give the hon. the Minister a chance to listen, it might help this debate.

I am listening. [Interjections.]

I am talking about confusion, and I mentioned the incident of water tankers having been withdrawn last year, on whose authority we do not know. I said that this again illustrated why there has to be some single person in charge of the area who can take decisions and be in touch with the hon. the Minister, because I do not believe that the hon. the Minister approved of that action.

The other incident happened about a month ago. I am referring to the threatened forced removal of some 400 families from the area. I was in touch with the hon. the Minister and his department about those families who were served with eviction notices.

But you are talking about problems that have been resolved long ago.

Yes, I know, but I do not want those problems to arise. That is what is giving me cause for concern. The hon. the Minister says the problems were resolved. I know all about that. The hon. the Minister must just be a little patient. How can one explain all this, however? The day before 400 people are to be removed from an area, they are served with eviction notices. They then stage protest meetings. They phone through to members of Parliament and others. One then gets hold of the hon. the Minister’s department. Action is taken promptly, and I give him credit for that. One is told in the end, do not worry; it is not going to happen—it was all due to a misunderstanding. How does this happen? I ask in the hon. the Minister’s own interest that he should ensure that that sort of situation cannot be repeated in future. It affects the lives of people, of families.

I know that.

The hon. the Minister is aware of it.

Did he sack anybody?

He must tell this House what he is going to do to ensure that this sort of situation is not repeated in future because it can be a flash-point. We know the situation in these areas in South Africa, and I ask him to ensure that there is an infrastructure which can avert that sort of thing being repeated in the future.

There certainly was, as I say, a very serious misunderstanding in that regard, and this is an indication of the fact that there is no proper control. I am trying to help the hon. the Minister; I feel sorry for him. I think he has an enormous responsibility. However, he has to ensure that a thing of this nature is not just left to one official, another official or half a dozen officials of a different kind with no liaison, with no co-ordination, to take decisions, because this is how he gets into problem areas such as the problem areas which have arisen in Inanda township. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea will understand my not reacting to his argument on Inanda, because the hon. the Minister or the hon. the Deputy Minister will give him a reply in this connection.

Once again I want to turn specifically and confine myself to the Viljoen report which was signed by Mr. Viljoen, the chairman, on 27 July. In the first place, as far as this report is concerned I want to suggest that the report on the involvement of the private sector in the provision of housing in Soweto, together with the Riekert and Grosskopf reports, heralds the start of a completely new era as regards the quality of life in the Black urban areas. This is a breakthrough for the quality of life of the Black people in the urban complexes.

The central message in these three reports is that in the urban complexes where the Black people live, there is room for a dynamic programme of social reconstruction. I do not think the Government can express its thanks for the Viljoen report in a better way than by putting into concrete and practical effect the positive recommendations that appear in it.

Having said this I want to emphasize the fact that the entire Black housing effort, no matter how important it may be, cannot be seen in isolation. The entire Black housing effort in the White area should be seen as a subdivision, an element on an entire co-ordinated process. The entire housing effort cannot be seen in isolation from the establishment of economically viable Black local authorities, both inside and outside the national States. The housing effort must go hand in hand with an imaginative programme of family planning. The housing effort must go hand in hand with the effective channelling of the urbanization process within the national States themselves. The housing effort must also go hand in hand with the successful implementation of the regional development strategy. However, it must also go hand in hand with co-ordinated action on the part of the entire Black community, and by this I mean individual Blacks, the private sector and the State in a partnership to solve this housing problem.

If I may confine myself to a few of the findings of the Viljoen report, I should like to concentrate on three of them. In the first place it was found that there was a phenomenal backlog as far as Black housing in the urban areas was concerned. There is a backlog of 168 000 houses. However, it was also found that the policy of regarding the urban Black man as being semi-permanent had led to this backlog. For the record I just want to state that the standpoint and policy of this side of the House is that the Black man should be accepted as a permanent Black urban entity; that he participates in the social structure of an urban environment; and that planning must accordingly take into account that he is an urban Black, with effective channelling of his political rights. We can no longer debate whether the Black man is semi-permanent or permanent. It is the policy of this side of the House that the Black man outside the national States must be regarded as a separate urban entity.

In the second place the Viljoen Committee found that the housing policy, as it had been applied by this side of the House during the past few years, was ineffective and inefficient. I should like to associate myself with this finding. The housing policy must be adjusted and has been adjusted in order to bring the standards of services and housing to a level which those persons for whom it is intended can afford. These were a few of the findings.

In the Viljoen report it was recommended that the dynamic planning of housing should be continued; that the Black man himself should be involved in a site-and-service scheme under controlled supervision, which was accepted by this side of the House, and that housing standards and housing services as such should be changed so that the Black man whose needs are to be met can afford them. It was recommended that utility companies should be established in an effort to solve this problem. These were all practical recommendations, as the hon. the Minister stated in his reply, which are now being incorporated into what I want to call a dynamic programme of social reconstruction for the urban Black man. I want to emphasize that a total programme of social reconstruction for the urban Black man is important. Why do I say this? I say it because it is in the interests of South Africa, and for this reason it is in the interests of Whites as well as Blacks.

I want to express a few ideas in connection with the sale of existing houses in Soweto and other urban complexes. As far as this matter is concerned there are the technical problems of surveying and drawing up diagrams of the plots. Apparently this is now under control and will be completed in the near future. Once this has been done we must come up with a programme to sell these houses because the existing supply of houses actually represents dead capital. That capital must therefore be converted into working capital in order to provide new houses. This can be done. That is why I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister for a formula to be found which will, in the first place, ensure that the houses are sold on such a basis that they are within the means of those persons who may purchase them. In Soweto, for example, houses can be sold at between R700 and R3 000 each, depending on the size of the house. However, I also want to suggest that the sale of these houses should go hand in hand with a review of the unrealistically low rentals that are being paid for them, as the hon. member for Carletonville put it. In the third place such a selling formula should provide for a discount for cash. If a lessee of a unit wishes to purchase that unit, he should also be given a discount calculated according to the period for which he had rented that house. For example, if he had rented the house for five years, a discount should accordingly be allowed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the past the discussion of this particular Vote aroused great interest among hon. members. However, I find it significant, when I glance around the House, that at the moment there are only eight hon. members of the Transvaal NP present.

A Standing Committee is at the moment meeting in the Senate Chamber. Did you know that?

Yes, I know that.

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

Oh please, do not waste my time. You know I only have 10 minutes. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, to start with I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria Central on his appointment to my position on the Commission for Co-operation and Development. Whether this will be an improvement only time will tell. [Interjections.]

I should now like to turn to the hon. the Minister. I must admit that when he speaks his enthusiasm sometimes causes one to conclude involuntarily that his enthusiasm is in inverse proportion to the results of what he says he is going to achieve. This afternoon he told us that the NP has not lost the will to govern.

Recently we have been having problems with illegal Black squatters in the Western Cape. However, this did not occur in the Western Cape only. In my own constituency there has also been illegal squatting recently. The hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development are well aware of the fact that Blacks are squatting illegally on the farms of farmers in my constituency. They also know that representations have been made in this connection. To my surprise I, the MP of that area, was informed for the first time on 19 February of this year—and that is the exact date—by the hon. the Deputy Minister that as early as December of last year it was decided that no action would be taken against those illegal squatters. When farmers in my constituency—in the vicinity of Badplaas—tell me that the Badplaas police had refused to take action against illegal Black squatters on the private property of White farmers, my reply to them was that the police could not ignore the laws of South Africa, and that they would have to take action. On 19 February of this year I was informed by the hon. the Deputy Minister that early in December 1981 it was decided that no action would be taken against those illegal squatters. Believe it if you can Mr. Chairman, that a responsible man, preferably the MP of the particular area, should be asked to explain the position to the farmers of the region. That decision was taken in December last year. The MP of that specific area—who just happened to be me—was informed of this position for the first time on 19 February of this year. This afternoon the hon. the Minister said that the NP had not lost the will to govern. It has always been my standpoint, in my own constituency as well, that if White farmers allow unregistered Blacks to live illegally on their farms, action must be taken against them, and action always has been taken against them. Why has an administrative decision therefore been taken that no action will be taken against the illegal presence of Black people in my constituency? I therefore ask myself whether the NP does in fact still have the will to govern.

I listened to the appeal by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt for special funds to be made available for the final consolidation of the Black homelands. We on this side of the House want to support him wholeheartedly in that appeal. When the hon. the Prime Minister announced in 1979 that a thorough investigation would again have to be made into the final consolidation of the Black homelands, my excitement knew no bounds. What were the results, however? The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt was directed to make recommendations so that the final boundaries could be drawn. Today, however, he finds himself in the position of a general who has been instructed to enter the field of battle without the necessary troops to man that battlefield. In this connection I am thinking specifically of funds. In the memorandum we were given on this Vote, we find the following—

Mr. Chairman, one does not want to laugh; one wants to cry.

The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that in the Barberton district since 1975 there has been about 30 000 hectares which still have to be purchased. He also knows that we have repeatedly made promises to those farmers. The hon. the Deputy Minister knows that he made a final promise that those farmers’ lands would be valued and purchased in June last year. He also knows that upto now, nothing has been done in this connection.

Yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister made an announcement in connection with R104 million which is available. I read the newspaper reports in this connection and also listened to the radio report, and now the hon. the Deputy Minister must please help me. The idea is now being propagated that that R104 million is sufficient to enable the hon. the Deputy Minister to make all the purchases in terms of the 1975 proposals. In any case, that is what was announced over the radio today. I feel that in his own interest the hon. the Deputy Minister will have to set the matter straight as quickly as possible, and should also appeal to the SABC to listen to what is said in this House. We on this side of the House are really in earnest about the consolidation of the Black homelands being finalized as soon as possible.

Were you also in earnest about it when you were still sitting on this side?

Of course, and that hon. member knows it.

Did you object to …

To inadequate funds, yes. Just ask the hon. the Minister. Mr. Chairman, we are very much in earnest. I have no doubt about the enthusiasm of the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Minister, but when I see the aggregate amount appropriated in the budget for the purchase of land for consolidation purposes decreasing year by year in spite of the inflation rate and in spite of the escalation of land prices, I ask myself: Is the NP still in earnest about this matter? Is it really? I doubt whether the hon. the Minister of Finance is in earnest about it, because it is he who must make the funds available and it is he, as Minister of Finance, who must determine the priorities. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Barberton raised a point here which interests me also and I would like to respond very briefly thereto. It refers to the question of squatters. The hon. member for Barberton expressed his disappointment that police do not take action against squatters when called upon to do so. What concerns me here is what happens to the squatters when they are evicted. Where are they to go? They are faced with the option of going back to the homelands where there is nothing for them to do and precious little to achieve, or else they can stay and face prosecution in terms of the Act which prohibits them from going into town, i.e. the legislation on influx control. I would like the hon. the Minister to respond to this because it is a question that I personally would not like to answer, not while influx control legislation is still a factor in this country.

I would like to respond very briefly to something the hon. the Minister said about his intention to tackle the problems in the Eastern Cape in the very near future. I should like to say how glad those of us who are concerned with the Eastern Cape are to hear of this and we look forward to seeing the proposed developments.

During the Second Reading of the Second Agricultural Credit Amendment Bill on Tuesday an issue was raised briefly in this House concerning the Fingo people of the Tsitsikamma. A brief discussion flared up over this and the thought was put forward by members on the other side of the House that this issue could best be considered under this particular Vote, and therefore I would like to return to this issue and devote some time to it this afternoon.

Earlier this year I was approached by the leaders of the more or less 4 000 Tsitsikamma Fingoes who were removed from their homes near Humansdorp and resettled at Elukhanyweni near Keiskammahoek in the Ciskei. These people told me of indignities to which they were subjected and they told me of the great hardships which the move to Elukhanyweni brought upon them, and they have asked me to intercede with the Government on their behalf. They want to return to what they consider is their ancestral home.

Some of the complaints which they brought forward were very specific. Firstly, they said that they had opposed the move from Humansdorp because the land there had been granted to them in 1834 by Sir George Grey and had been held in trust for them ever since. Secondly, they alleged that when their people refused to leave, they were compelled to do so under force of arms. Thirdly, they said that the removal was carried out in such a way that their goods and property were damaged and they were not adequately compensated for losses suffered. Lastly, and maybe most important of all, the area to which they were moved was not one which could support them. Because of this and because they had lost their jobs as a result of the move, they were suffering from hunger, disease and other hardships. Old people and children were dying.

Mr. Chairman, apart from the fact that things like this were allowed to happen, there still remains the fact that, in terms of this department’s policy, there are still some 40 000 to 60 00 Xhosa people in the border region alone who still have to be resettled. If these complaints are valid and if this is the way in which the department sets about effecting these removals, one must ask: Are the people who are awaiting resettlement to be treated in the same way? I want to come back to these people in the Border region later in my speech.

Because of the seriousness of these allegations—and I have here any amount of evidence to back up the allegations, including a letter written by Chief Ezekiel Msizi to the hon. the Minister of Co-operation and Development—I started probing what the Fingo people themselves alleged and I also started asking questions of the Ministry. I was given strongly conflicting answers to my questions. For example, with regard to the question regarding the use of armed force in evicting the people, according to the Ministry, the people left of their own free will and there is an absolute denial of any force being used either by the officials of the department or by any other person or persons accompanying them. On the other hand, what is the Fingos’ reply? I have here a whole sheaf of sworn affidavits. Let me read a few excerpts from these affidavits. Firstly—

A second person said—

A third person stated—

A fourth person stated—

And there is a great deal more. Does the hon. the Minister still insist that these people were moved of their own free will and that there was no armed force in evidence?

Then there is the allegation in regard to damage to property. I do not have the time to go into this in detail, but I have here a sworn statement made by a Mr. Moses Mbete which will be enough. He stated—

However, it was only once the people had reached Elukhanyweni and were settled there that their troubles really began. There are a great number of complaints that the people cannot survive on the land given to them there. There are many complaints that they are “dying of hunger and starvation” and that “our old people and children are sick because they must live on water.” Those who had jobs at Humansdorp lost them. One of these people says—

But what about the provision for livestock? Many of these people were the owners of livestock. Questions were asked about this matter and in the hon. the Minister’s own reply to a letter from a Mr. Mtselu had the following to say—

In other words, it appears that these people are removed and resettled without thought as to how they are to keep body and soul together in the new settlement camps. So what happens? They die. It has been alleged that in the community at Elukhanyweni of some 500 families one child dies every two and a half weeks. I find this a very disturbing allegation, Mr. Chairman, that has been made also by people who have visited the area and questioned the people there intently in respect of these matters. I myself am very familiar with the conditions in those areas and I believe that it is imperative that provision be made for the well-being of the people being settled before they are simply removed. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Albany referred to the removal of the people from the Fingo lands. There was one basic flaw in his argument. He argued as though that area was Black land. It was never Black land. In terms of the 1975 proposals this Parliament decided that the area should be given to the Whites. Those people were moved to Keiskammahoek and I visited that area on the orders of the hon. the Minister to investigate conditions there. I just want to say that the conditions there are not as deplorable as the hon. member alleged. [Interjections.]

I now come to the hon. member for Barberton who attacked us. The hon. member said he was not responsible to me, but I just want to tell him that we are both responsible to the people whom he and I represent in this House. It is a pity the hon. member did not state all the facts. He did not state the matter in its entirety. At one stage I received a telegram from his farmer’s association claiming that things were not going well there. I immediately took the liberty of asking the hon. member to come to my office to discuss the entire matter with me. At the stage when I received the telegram the situation was much worse however. I feel that the hon. member, who was supposed to have known what the situation was, should have informed me of it before the time. I found it strange that the farmer’s association sent that telegram to me and not to the hon. member. However, I informed the hon. member. I outlined the position to him and told him why no prosecutions were being instituted at that stage. The hon. member was duly informed. I explained to the hon. member that at that stage very sensitive negotiations were in progress because one of the Ministers of that Black State as well as a chief were involved. The hon. member knows what those negotiations were concerned with. They were in the interests of the Whites and in the interests of consolidation. However, I also told the hon. member that this did not mean that there could be lawlessness and I informed the hon. member, after certain decisions had been taken by the Cabinet, that prosecutions would then be instituted and he had the assurance of the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Law and Order and myself that action would in fact be taken. Action was in fact taken. I therefore say that the hon. member did not state the matter in its entirety. I just wanted to give all the facts so that there could be no erroneous impression in this connection.

The hon. member mentioned the Carolina District and he also mentioned a figure of plus-minus 30 000 ha. That is quite correct. There were plans to purchase that land. However, the hon. member knows that we do not always have control over the financial position of the Government. No one expected this total collapse to take place. I just want to tell this House that long before a purchase programme is initiated, planning is undertaken a year before the time to ensure that the valuations are correct. Perhaps this created the impression among the farmers that we would be able to purchase the land the following year. This would in fact have happened if we had not had this financial slump.

Certain questions were put to me after the announcement of the purchasing programme yesterday evening. This concerned a purchasing programme for this financial year of approximately R104 million. Incidentally, this of course has nothing to do with the total purchase programme as regards the 1975 proposals. It is impossible for that to be done in one financial year. I should like to put this matter straight. It is only concerned with the purchase programme for 1982-’83 and does not mean that we shall purchase all the land involved in the 1975 proposals in one financial year.

It was asked whether, under the postponed payment scheme, farmers could be allowed to remain on their own properties free of charge until the final payment is made to them in 12 months’ time. I want to be quite clear about this: The answer is no, because the purchase price is in fact being increased to make provision for compensation for any inconvenience arising from the fact that the owners of the land are not paid the full cash price. Rental therefore remains payable as from the date of registration. However, we shall be most sympathetic towards farmers who want to remain on their farms on a lease basis while the drought continues and it is difficult for them, under specific circumstances, to transfer their livestock to another farm. We are quite prepared to be sympathetic in such situations.

There is another aspect I want to refer to. I should like to associate myself with the hon. the Minister regarding the atmosphere he tried to create in this debate, an atmosphere of goodwill which lays the foundation for all development efforts, particularly when different nations are involved. I maintain that this attitude is particularly important in persons living on the border because communal interests exist which extend across those borders and these could also develop and change constantly. The present consolidation effort, for example, entails that new boundaries are being drawn. It means that there are new neighbours now. In this process a new neighbourliness must be developed between the various inhabitants. If this new neighbourliness does not develop on a basis of sound attitudes, it must of necessity lead to tension, and all kinds of border problems could arise which could adversely affect development on both sides of the border. Tension at local level between inhabitants on the border must inevitably lead to tension between the Governments of the various States as well. The handling of border matters therefore plays an extremely important role in inter-state relations. Liaison at the highest level between Governments can definitely not take place successfully if it does not filter through to the local level as well. On the borders in particular the areas of contact are extremely sensitive.

Because we consider border matters to be an extremely important facet in relation and in development efforts, it was decided last year to hold talks with the national States on finding a method in terms of which liaison across the borders could take place on a sound and permanent basis.

It was decided, between ourselves and Gazankulu, to establish local Committees for Co-operation and Development. The first committee was established at Tzaneen last year, under the chairmanship of the Minister. As a solution to the problem of inadequate communication the Governments of the Republic of South Africa and Gazankulu now have liaison at local level through this committee, and it works exceptionally well.

At the inaugural meeting it was decided to delineate certain fields of co-operation within which the committee could set its activities in motion, for example water resources, labour matters, infrastructure and agriculture. It is interesting to note the representation in this committee. The representation on Gazankulu in the committee is as follows: A member of the Legislative Assembly, the Secretary of the Department of Internal Affairs, another member of the Legislative Assembly and a representative of the Office of the Chief Minister. The representation on the part of the farmers of Letaba as follows: The Regional Chairman of the Northern Transvaal Agricultural Union, a director of the Northern Transvaal Co-operative and deputy chairman of the Letaba District Agricultural Union, the chairman of the Great Letaba Main Irrigation Board, the chairman of the fresh produce marketing committee of the South African Agricultural Union and the chairman of the district agricultural union. This proves to hon. members that there is good and sound representation for setting programmes of action in these various fields in motion.

At the first meeting held on 19 January three very important resolutions were adopted. In the first place it was resolved that the programmes of action would be divided up among subcommittees so that the various committees could operate on a specified basis in the various fields. Secondly the head committee also resolved to define the tasks to be carried out by the subcommittees. Thirdly it was resolved that the Commissioner-General would act as chairman of the head committee, while his office would also become the secretariat and would do all the administrative work. The status of this committee is such that it does not have executive powers, except for the fact that it holds discussions and creates better attitudes. It can also serve as an advisory body for both Governments at local level, to the benefit of the inhabitants on the border. The chairman himself, the commissioner-general of Gazankulu, holds out very good prospects for these committees. He goes so far as to say that they could form the foundation of the envisaged confederal system. The hon. member also said that a foundation could be laid in terms of which co-prosperity systems could be developed at local level and in terms of which one could advise the governments concerned. The reason why I have tried to deal with this committee in detail is simply to demonstrate what inherent possibilities there are in communication based on goodwill and the recognition of the interdependence of the local communities. We shall continue. We see these committees as a model. We shall also continue to conduct negotiations with other national States and farmers’ unions to see whether we cannot launch these co-prosperity and development committees on a larger scale. I believe we will in this way eliminate many of our border problems, problems which are today creating great frustration among the various States and the border inhabitants of those States. On this basis, with good communication, a good understanding between people which extends across the borders, better relations must definitely be created, and when one creates better relations or goodwill, there is also far greater potential for development on both sides of the border.

Mr. Chairman, I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister to excuse me for not replying directly to what he has just said, because I have a rather parochial matter that I want to raise. I want to refer to an area just south of Durban, the Umlazi and Umbumbulu area. I do believe that what I have to say involves the principles of what many other hon. members have discussed in the course of this debate, i.e. the development of both the rural and the urban areas. One thing that has struck me in this debate is the manner in which the Government members are now facing up to the reality of this problem. I, for one, welcome this attitude on the part of the Government, and I sincerely hope that by debating this matter with each other, instead of talking past one another, as we have done in the past, we will be able to come up with some answers to the problems.

It has been said by many that the Government is faced with a formidable task in this regard, and there is no doubt about that. The task, however, is also complicated because—I think it was the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs who said this—we are dealing with both a First and Third World situation at ground level. This is complicating the problem, because it raises all sorts of issues which, in other areas of the world, might not be of any concern. Somehow we have to find our way through these problems, and this can only be done through debate and discussion with all concerned. That is why I am very pleased that the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned what Chief Gatsha Buthelezi said about people having to be part of the decision-making process when it comes to their own lives.

I just want to put the thought to the hon. the Minister that this task is such a formidable task that we have to accelerate the principle the Government has already accepted. Many hon. members have spoken about it, inter alia, the hon. member for Parys. The Government has accepted that it cannot resolve the problem itself, but has to bring in the assistance of many other people such as employers, the people concerned and interested parties like, perhaps, the Urban Foundation and others. I am pleased that the Government has now realized this fact. I should also like to put the thought to hon. members that, after all, the Whites did not achieve what they have achieved to date by having the Government do it all for them. Certainly, the Government must provide the infrastructure and prepare the ground, but in the end result it is the individuals, the local communities, the people themselves, who pull themselves up by their boot-straps. I think this is something we have to stress when we are dealing with fellow South Africans who happen to be Black.

I now want to raise a parochial matter. It affects the area just south of Durban which lies behind the boroughs of Amanzimtoti and Kingsborough. At this stage I want to thank the hon. the Deputy Minister for taking time off from a very busy schedule to come down to Amanzimtoti along with his officials and for allowing me to take him on a tour of the area and show him what the problem is. I am sure he has an appreciation of the problem, but I regret to say that to date very little has been done. I may say that I myself have met the local Zulu representative of the KwaZulu Legislative Assembly, a Mr. Mbongwe. I took him around to show him my problems, and then he took me around to show me his problems. He took me to Malukazi, to which I regret I did not have the opportunity to take the hon. the Deputy Minister while he was there. I regret to say that the Malukazi area is an appalling area. That is the only way I can describe it. It is an area about which I believe something has to be done fast. I will admit that the department and the KwaZulu Government are doing something about it in that they have developed the Folweni area to which they are now transferring people in order to relieve the pressure on Malukazi.

The point I want to make is that, in the first instance, there has to be sound township and rural planning. I regret to say that even in the case of Folweni it is incomplete, it is only half done. An article on this appeared in The Developer which I read with great interest. If our Government or the KwaZulu Government is incapable of doing the planning correctly, I believe outside people must be commissioned to do it so that there can be sound basic planning.

There is also the matter of the land tenure system which I believe must be reviewed, especially so far as the people of KwaZulu are concerned. It is not for me to prescribe to the Zulus what form of land tenure they should follow, but I just want to say that there is nothing that motivates a person as much as ownership of property. We find that in our own history. I think that this is something the Black people of South Africa are going to have to come to grips with as soon as possible, viz. freehold title to land, not only urban land but also agricultural land.

There is another very important aspect in regard to land tenure, and that is availability of finance. Until Blacks can get title to land, whether agricultural or urban, they are denied access to financial institutions which will lend them money in the normal course of events. I am going to give an example of where others have helped Blacks, but in the normal course of events they are denied access to financial institutions where they can obtain development funds.

Fourthly there is a need within these development areas to promote local entrepreneurship. When one looks at Folweni, one sees no provision at this stage of facilities for local entrepreneurs.

I notice on the next page of this publication an article about bricks and cupboards. There is also a picture here showing a Black man making bricks. He is doing it very cheaply using a machine which cost R10 000 and produces 10 000 bricks a day. Yet one sees that at Folweni they are building houses out of wattle and daub. I wonder why the KDC could not set up a brick-making machine or plant near Folweni, a plant run by a Black man where the bricks could be manufactured to build those houses.

Having mentioned the need for outside help for Blacks, I should like to use this opportunity of telling hon. members what the S.A. Sugar Association has done for the Zulus in Natal who are sugar cane farmers. In 1973-’74 the Sugar Association decided to give a grant of R5 million to what they called the Small Canegrowers Financial Aid Fund. This fund, incidentally, has now grown to R8,5 million, with a further R1 million from the Sugar Association and R2,5 million borrowed from Barclays Bank. Since its inception this fund has financed 10 000 individual loans, totalling a sum of R12,8 million. The majority of these loans have been made to new farmers. Sugar cane production has increased from 355 000 tons in 1973-’74 to 1,2 million tons in 1981-’82; an annual compound increase of 16,4% a year. The income from sugar cane development has increased from R2,7 million in 1973-74 to R24 million in 1981-’82 an annual compound increase of 31,4% in revenue over this eight-year period.

According to a forecast for 1989-’90 a total amount of R42 million will be raised by cane farmers by that time. It is calculated that only 3% of KwaZulu is available for sugar cane farming. This percentage represents some 90 000 ha. At present only 42 000 ha are being utilized and might I say that the level of production is lower than the average of White farmers. Therefore the potential for sugar cane farming in KwaZulu is really great. I might also add that the Sugar Association has established schools for the training of farmers in the proper growing of sugar cane. With adequate and direct help from outside, however, the potential annual income derived by Zulus from sugar cane production alone is in excess of R100 million at at today’s values which would represent 28% of KwaZulu’s total income from agriculture.

I am quite sure the hon. the Minister is fully aware of this but I raise this nevertheless because I believe hon. members will be interested to know that we have here an industry that has gone to the trouble not only to provide the necessary finance but also the technical and managerial know-how to increase the livelihood of Zulus in the sugar cane producing areas of Natal. I am quite sure that if this could be expanded into the commercial and industrial areas, however small they may be—in local communities such as Folweni—a growing commercial and industrial activity will be created within these areas. This, I believe will only add to the growth of those areas causing them to become financially viable growth areas within KwaZulu. I appeal to the hon. the Minister and the hon. the Deputy Ministers to ask this department and the KwaZulu government to give added attention to the areas to which I have referred. These are the areas just south of Durban, such as Umlazi and Umbumbulu, because it has become an increasingly festering sore within the community itself, as well as bedevilling relationship between Black and White, and therefore needs urgent attention. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot reply directly to the hon. member for Amanzimtoti. The time available to me is far too short for that. I do wish, however, to address myself again to the problem of the Fingos and the Fingo reserve.

Nobody with the slightest claim to any sense of objectivity will believe that our Government has fulfilled its trusteeship obligation in any but a disreputable fashion in the treatment of these people. Not only has the Government failed to carry out its moral obligation, but I believe that it has indeed also acted illegally. [Interjections.]

All the areas that make up the so-called Fingo reserve in the Humansdorp district, with the exception of the area known as “The Gap”, were included in the schedule to the 1913 Black Land Act. Section 6 of Act No. 18 of 1936 provided that this land would be vested in the South African Development Trust. Section 6(1) states—

I have here a photostat copy of the Deed of Reservation in respect of Witelsbos—the others are all the same—and it reads—

The 1936 Act provides that if land in a scheduled Black area is to be excised from the Schedule, it must be dealt with as provided in section 3(b) which provides that the State President may by proclamation passed by Parliament, amend the said Schedule by deleting therefrom any reference to land defined in such proclamation which is the property of the Trust, provided that land likewise defined of at least an equivalent pastoral or agricultural value, shall by such proclamation be included in a scheduled Black area in the province concerned. Section 3 further provides that this replacement or compensatory land shall be transferred by the State President to the Trust and that it shall not be taken into account when assessing the actual area acquired by the Trust as against the 7,25 million ha agreed upon; in other words it will not be regarded as quota land. As far as I have been able to ascertain, no resolution to this effect has ever been passed by Parliament. Parliament has never approved the excision of these Fingo reserves from the Schedule to the 1913 Act. It seems that there has been no proclamation by the State President declaring that land to be excised, and no proclamation defining the land of equivalent pastoral or agricultural value which is to be included in the Schedule to replace it. What I cannot understand is that this land has now been offered for sale, and a notice inviting applications to purchase approximately 6 000 ha comprising the old Fingo reserves for an amount of approximately R1,25 million appeared in The Eastern Province Herald on 12 February. Perhaps the hon. the Minister would like to tell us whether any sales have as yet been concluded. The sale is being made in terms of the Agricultural Credit Act, and applications have to be forwarded to the local magistrate’s office.

If I understood the hon. the Deputy Minister correctly, he said that this was not Black land. Is that correct?

Yes, that was what he said.

This amazes me, Sir. I suppose he was referring to the 1975 Select Committee and its recommendations to Parliament. I submit, however, that those recommendations had nothing whatsoever to do with land but concerned the removal of people. In other words, the only deduction that can be made is that this land has been transferred out of ownership of the Trust to the State. If this is the case, it would seem as if a number of illegal acts have been committed, inter alia, that the requirements of the law that resolutions of Parliament are necessary before excision of land from the schedule can take place, have not been complied with; that the requirement of the law that a proclamation has to be issued to have land excised from the Schedule of the 1913 Act has not been complied with; that the requirement that in such proclamation the compensatory land must be defined has not been complied with; that consequently, if the transfer of the land from the Trust has taken place, it would seem to be illegal; and that consequently the offer of this land for sale through the Department of Agriculture seems to have no basis in law.

That is right.

If, on the other hand, this land has not been transferred from the Trust to the State, then the situation would appear to be just as bad in that a further illegality would then seem to have been committed. The people handling this matter would then appear to have been deliberately attempting to bypass the laws and procedures established by this Parliament for dealing with just such a case as the disposal of the Fingo land represents. In reply to a question I put to the hon. the Minister, he said the following (Question No. 405, 2 April 1982, col. 565)—

I suggest that this reply makes absolute nonsense of the law and is intrinsically illogical. I can accept that the Trust did not have to have a valuation of the land at the time of the removal of the people, but to contend that therefore it was not necessary to provide compensatory land is both illogical and to my mind a flagrant disregard of the law. If this were not so, what would be the purpose of section 3(b), which stipulates the manner in which land which is the property of the Trust and is scheduled land, is excised from the Schedule?

I think all of us would probably like to ride with the hon. the Minister on some kind of a verbal high, but we cannot do that. These are serious matters and if we are realistic, we have to look at them and see them in all their unpleasantness with their implications for South Africa and the future. A peaceful and useful community of several thousand people has been wrenched, I believe illegally, from the land it has occupied for 150 years and dumped in the veld to live in abject poverty hundreds of kilometres away.

How can you do these things? [Interjections.]

We cannot disguise this from ourselves. Just because it is one of many things we cannot hide the enormity of a thing like this. It has been the cause of death and suffering. Seeds of hatred have been sown with which our children will have to come to terms. We cannot point a finger at somebody like Mr. Mugabe for taking White land and handing it over to Blacks. He is guilty of no seizure of White land and its redistribution to Blacks that is as amoral and outrageous as this step taken against the Fingo tribe of the Tsitsikamma.

The Black Sash wrote that speech.

Never mind the Black Sash; you just look into your own black consciences.

It is quite beyond me why these Fingoes do not join us and help us fight the total onslaught! We really do mess about in this place. If we want to be regarded as respectable people, we had better start handling ourselves correspondingly. [Interjections.] I appeal to the hon. the Minister to return this land to the Fingo people before it is too late. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am afraid I cannot react to the hon. member for Walmer’s speech because he discussed local matters, but I assume that as far as the contents of his speech are concerned, the hon. the Deputy Minister will tell him what he wants to know.

I should like to talk to the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. the Minister. Two years ago, in 1980, the hon. member for Krugersdorp made a speech during the discussion of this Vote in which he asked the hon. the Minister to give attention to legislation concerning the definition of citizenship. He alleged that according to the modern school of thought—he also referred to certain writers—a distinction is drawn between citizenship and nationality. I want to return to this theme. Two years have gone by and I am aware that the hon. the Minister has kept his word and has followed up this aspect, but let us once again draw a distinction between citizenship and nationality. They are not the same thing, but represent two sides of the same coin. The one side represents the concept of nationality, which involves the relationship between the State and the national, the citizen, when that citizen is abroad. The State affords him protection through its officials, and it affords him travel facilities. In contrast, citizenship is concerned with the civil and political rights of a person within a State. These rights may vary. They may vary from franchise with all the rights of citizenship to a mere right of residence. In the 1927 Union Nationality and Flag Act a very clear distinction was drawn. In that Act the concept was interpreted correctly, because the Act referred to nationality or citizenship. A distinction was drawn between nationality and citizenship. In terms of the 1927 Act, nationality was linked to people. They were defined according to their nationality, and in terms of that nationality certain rights of citizenship were granted to them. The same applies to the 1946 Act with regard to the Electoral Laws. I wish to suggest that the hon. the Minister should examine that Act and that definition, because I think it could serve as a model in terms of which we could take this matter further.

This now brings me to the hon. member for Green Point. Yesterday he spoke a lot of nonsense because he did not analyse the contents of citizenship and nationality and merely spoke semantically. Those hon. members are always quarrelling with this side of the House about the semantics of this side of the House. In practice they are, however, the people who seize on words and then become emotional about them. Let us analyse what is at issue here. The hon. member for Green Point alleged that we were depriving these poor people of their rights of citizenship; we were forcing the citizenship of another State on them. Let us, however, analyse the contents. The hon. member also referred specifically to the Transkei and the Ciskei. What happened prior to independence? What rights did these people have? If one analyses their rights of citizenship, one finds that they were able to live here. Under section 10 they had certain rights. At that stage they were able to vote for the old urban councils. They could enter into 30-year hire purchase contracts in respect of houses and they were also able to vote for the Legislative Assembly of their national State. Since then legislation regarding the independence of the Black homelands has been passed. In practice, as far as the contents of their rights were concerned—and this is the contention I wish to make—nothing has been taken away. On the contrary. The contents have been upgraded. In practice we have the situation that they may still live here.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member whether it was not the position that as far as the Cape Blacks were concerned, they had the franchise up to 1936 and indeed, until the late ’fifties, had the right to vote for representatives in this House, even though they were Whites?

Everything the hon. member has just said is true. However, the speech of the hon. member for Green Point dealt with independence. I am speaking of the policy prior to independence, i.e. long after those people the hon. member was referring to had been deprived of their franchise. What is at issue is the result of the policy of making national States independent. My contention is that the people had had certain rights before that time. I spelt this out to the hon. member. After this the contents of these rights were upgraded. They are still able to live here in terms of the provisions of section 10. There is published legislation, in consequence of the Riekert report, the Grosskopf Committee and the Constitution Committee which now has to consider this Act which was referred to it in this House after the First Reading, regarding the profounder contents of the rights under section 10, or the other, more comprehensive contents for the co-existence of these people. The hon. member Mr. Olivier is a member of that committee. He knows what is going on there and he need only read that legislation.

The second aspect I wish to refer to is the question of franchise. They were able to vote for the old Urban Council. Since then they have been able to vote for community councils, and we are now working on local government where they have to get full local authority powers. Surely these are profounder contents of the rights of citizenship they had, and which have allegedly been taken from them, but which are in fact being guaranteed to them in terms of agreements and also in terms of legislation.

Finally, the 30-year lease scheme which was established prior to the independence of the Transkei has been replaced by a 99-year leasehold scheme. Surely that is a profounder constituent of the rights of citizenship. When we refer to the right of citizenship to vote, that Black man was able to vote for the Transkeian Legislative Assembly. That Black man is now able to vote for the same assembly in an upgraded status—he votes for a parliament. Nothing in respect of the exercising of rights has been taken from him. Having said all this, the actual problem is that we were dealing with the concept of “citizenship” whereas I feel we should have been dealing with the concept of “nationality”, if we have recourse to the pre-Union legislation. If we would only go into this and if the hon. the Minister could follow up the ideas of the hon. member for Krugersdorp, we might find answers to quite a number of problems.

The hon. member for Green Point also kicked up a great fuss and said that this side of the House wishes to make land independent and not nations. Unfortunately that member is not here, but I want to ask those hon. members if it is not also within the framework of their philosophy—I am not referring to what they do in practice and the effect of their policy, but to the underlying philosophy—that nations and cultural communities should be free, which is also fundamental to the school of thought of the hon. member Prof. Olivier. They should be able to be free; we are not saying how they are to be free, we are discussing the philosophy. If he can be free—and that is what this side of the House wants to do—we must work in that direction. We gave content to it by linking it to a territory. I want to say this quite openly. The dilemma which followed was that a large number of the members of that nation were living outside that territory, while jurisdiction over the members of that nation by their own people was actually restricted to that specific territory. This is a dilemma and it also proves how complex things are in South Africa. It also shows why we began moving towards the idea of a confederation. Having said this, I want to give the hon. the Prime Minister a good deal of credit. In 1979 and in the early ’eighties he began speaking in terms of the parameters of a council of States and representation on the council of States by the independent States. He spoke of observer status for the self-governing States, and he said provision could even possibly be made to give attention there as well to the interests of the Blacks outside the national States. As a matter of fact, he said so again last week during the discussion of his Vote in this House. There is also the philosophy that people should speak as equals. I think we can solve many problems in this way. I cannot develop the argument now because there is insufficient time.

For example, as far as education is concerned and the application of the De Lange report, if we were to accept and apply this concept, in terms of the NP’s policy, confederation is a prerequisite. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, because my time is limited and because I should very much like to touch on a subject which I feel is of great importance and relevance, I want to ask the hon. member for Randburg to forgive me for not following up on what he said. I also want to tell the hon. member for Bloemfontein East that I shall react in due course to the speech he made yesterday, but not today.

The matter I should like to discuss is the question of social development. I want to refer specifically to the matter of welfare services. As I have said, this is a subject of great importance which has not yet been touched on. When I read the department’s report I was particularly impressed by and satisfied with the welfare services provided for the Black people. I think the field already being covered by welfare services is so vast and extensive that there are few aspects of welfare which are not yet receiving attention. One can list them—care of the aged, child welfare, care of the handicapped, care of alcoholics, drug addicts and so forth; all those fields are covered to a certain extent. What I regard as of particular importance is that I was struck by the fact that these services are to a great extent geared to the homelands. However, particularly as far as institutions are concerned, it appears that many of them are still situated in the White area. I want to ask the hon. the Minister in all fairness whether future development in this connection would not benefit by the construction of such institutions inside the national State. Welfare services do not only arise because of urbanization, but are also needed in rural areas and in the national States, because human distress, social distress and social problems do not only exist or arise in the city.

I also noted in the report that a great deal of attention is already being given to community involvement. I think this is a very important development in the field of welfare.

The entire question of community organization has become particularly important during the past decade, or perhaps a little longer. Actually it is a new field in welfare services, and many important works have appeared during the past few years to furnish guidance in community organization.

I feel that as far as the Black people are concerned, we have today a community with increasing financial resources of its own, so that the community could be persuaded to come forward and provide its own welfare services in the community alongside the services of the State. If we can make progress in this connection, I feel we shall be doing the Black people a tremendous service.

A very important matter is that welfare services must be provided on a professional basis. One particularly needs professional people for community organization, to be able to provide successful welfare services. I am convinced that there is still a need in this respect because there are insufficient trained social workers among the Black people to serve the Black people in respect of welfare services. The question therefore arises as to whether it would not be possible for the department to make more bursaries available for students in this field.

Another important matter which comes to the fore in this regard is that one must aim this welfare service at the two important principles of welfare services, namely, in the first place, that one provides a welfare service for these people aimed at promoting the principle of self-help. Therefore, whether an individual or group service or a community organization is involved, one must see to it that the service provided by the professional workers that there are, is such that the people reach the point where persons in distress or with a problem can eventually help themselves.

There is the further very important matter in this connection, and this is the second principle of welfare work. I refer to the principle of partnership, in the sense that whoever provides the welfare service, whether it be a State department or a private welfare organization—it does not matter whether it is at the level of child welfare or family welfare, care of the handicapped or whatever—must in this process of service, of furnishing assistance to these people, gradually bring the client to the point where he is a partner in the service rendered, in the sense that he will benefit from the service and will reach the point at which he will co-operate towards his own rehabilitation or upliftment. Here I have in mind in particular alcoholics or drug addicts. I was actively involved in welfare services for 15 years, and during that time, drug addiction among Black youths was one of the real problems we wrestled with every day. In those days we also had a problem with a shortage of professional people, people who could really provide this partnership service from a professional viewpoint. We really struggled to persuade these young people to move in the direction of a partnership so that they could be brought to realize that everything was being done for their own good and their own welfare, and that we needed their co-operation to succeed. In this respect it is essential that we have the necessary professional workers, people with the necessary professional knowledge. They must be people with a knowledge of sociology, psychology and even criminology so that they can lead those people along the road to rehabilitation.

This brings me to another very important problem that we have, and that is the question of begging. During my years in the field of welfare it was my experience that very few of those beggars were really needy people. Most of them received some pension from the State. They were either blind or handicapped people who received an allowance, but in any case they received some form of help from the State. However, they abused their position and turned to begging. In the first place, it is not a very good advertisement for a community to have a lot of beggars on the streets, and on the other hand those people make an absolute nuisance of themselves. It can be someone standing on a street corner shaking a tin, or someone being led around by a young child or someone making music on the pavement, or even a quartet of street singers. It does not matter who they are, they are a nuisance. Can the hon. the Minister’s department, by virtue of its welfare services, not give more attention to these people? I ask this because I do not think it is fair simply to burden the local authorities with this problem, or to expect the police to keep removing these people, because before long they are back on the streets. Can we not place these people in some sort of institution where they can be rehabilitated, or can they not be taught some trade so that they can get away from begging?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to continue the discussion of the hon. member for Koedoespoort, because if there has ever been a true success story in the Department of Co-operation and Development, it is that of our welfare services. We have the most dedicated and best trained Black social workers one can find anywhere. They are people who are doing absolutely unique and brilliant work in the department. Consequently I am very pleased with the fact that the hon. member referred to that work with appreciation.

†I do not often have the opportunity to praise the officials of my department, but at this stage I think I am in duty bound just to mention one small incident. Hon. members will recall that yesterday afternoon I was asked a question, by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central, about the pension of an old man of 105 years of age. On behalf of the department I undertook to investigate the matter to see what could be done about it. I was advised this afternoon by the Director-General of my department and by the Director-General of Finance that this old man’s pension was paid to him this morning at his home.

Hear, hear!

I have great appreciation for what my department did in that regard.

I also listened with appreciation to the speech of the hon. member for Berea in regard to circumstances pertaining at Inanda. He approached the matter in a very responsible manner. He handled this very difficult and delicate situation, which could have serious ramifications, with a great amount of responsibility, for which we in the department certainly have a lot of appreciation. Let me say at the outset that no one in the department is happy at what has happened and is happening at the moment at Inanda. I was there and I was absolutely aghast to see what was going on there, through no fault of the department or any of its officials but simply as a result of socio-economic circumstances. This again highlighted the fact that the squatting on the periphery of our cities is only a sympton of that which is wrong in the homelands themselves. It also highlighted the fact that we cannot afford not to develop these homelands at a much faster pace than we have done in the past. I think that, fortunately, the new policy of the Government is going to achieve exactly that. That is why I want to tell the hon. member for Berea that this matter is enjoying our very serious attention.

I think that another factor which contributed to the establishment of the squatter camp at Inanda, which as the hon. member correctly said contains about 300 000 people, is the fact that in that very area the department is developing two townships, namely Kwadabeka and Kwandengezi. I think this has contributed to the migration to that area, because people feel they may be able to get a house in one of those townships. We have even had the experience that, while building was proceeding in these proclaimed townships, over weekends people came to squat there because they were afraid they were not going to get a house in that area.

You will first have to build a bridge over the Umgeni.

I am not aware of any bridge.

Inanda lies on the other side of the Umgeni River.

Sir, I cannot understand that hon. member. Whenever he gets on to his feet, he talks a lot, but when he sits down, he talks even more; then he wants to make speeches. Will he just bear with me and listen to my story? I do not have all afternoon to explain it to him and the story of Inanda is quite an involved one.

*The hon. member for Berea also raised the matter of the water-tanker story of last year. Because of a misunderstanding that service broke down, but only for a weekend. We restored that service immediately. Unfortunately it was the kind of misunderstanding to which a series of circumstances had given rise. Certain people were responsible for that and steps were taken against them, but they, too, did what they did because of a misunderstanding. The events were not due to any inefficiency or unwillingness to render assistance. I may tell the hon. member that the service was restored the moment it was brought to our attention. In addition I may inform him that at that time that service cost the department between R6 000 and R8 000 per month; and that simply to have those water-tankers stopping three or four times per day at certain central points to provide fresh water to those people. Hon. members must realize that there we were dealing with a situation on land of which we owned only a part, whereas the land on which most of the squatters were living belonged to private owners, particularly to Indians. At that stage it was even impossible for the Indian owners of that land to set foot on their land to collect their rent. So what I am actually trying to say is that we did not have the authority to erect permanent structures on that land. After all, the land did not belong to us.

Moreover, it was established that just to construct a proper pipeline to that area would cost an amount of R8 million, money we simply did not have at our disposal at that stage. When we realized what the situation was in that area, that things were getting out of hand, the Blumrick Commission of Enquiry was appointed to determine what could be done about the matter. We had hoped that this commission would have been able to present a final report by the end of February. Unfortunately the consultants whose help was enlisted were unable to submit a final report for consideration by the commission. That delayed matters to some extent. However, the commission did present an interim report, from which I should like to quote in brief so as to illustrate what decisions have been taken and what has been done to date. I may just mention that for the 1982-’83 financial year an amount of R1,385 million was appropriated for Inanda at the recommendation of this commission. This amount is intended for the purposes of the self-help building scheme which is in progress in Inanda. In addition an amount of R5 million was appropriated for the supply of water, for schools, clinics and pit latrines, as well as R1 million for the purchase of land on which residential areas will be established. The department will have to purchase approximately 1 000 hectares of land from the present Indian owners in order to create proper conditions there. A total amount of R7,38 million is involved in this matter, and hon. members must realize that we found this sum of money in spite of the difficult economic circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment. We constructed, since becoming aware of conditions there, a pipeline of 50 kilometres so as to alleviate the water supply problem because this is, of course, one of the most important priorities we have to attend to there.

We immediately made available an amount of R2,5 million for the purpose of constructing a water pipeline there. In addition the commission recommended the immediate establishment of a control structure. Consequently steps were taken to establish a proper control structure in so far as it is possible to exercise control in a situation of that nature. The commission also made certain short-term recommendations because, as hon. members will undoubtedly understand, attention can only be given to the long-term solutions once the final report of the consultants has become available. Unfortunately it is not yet available at the moment.

A further recommendation was to terminate all further squatting in that area by means of the strict application of existing legislation and by taking steps against new squatters. People will perhaps object to this. However, we have a situation there which has to be brought under control. Only today I received a report from the Commissioner in that area of squatters erecting shacks on a large scale all over the non-Trust land. These shacks can be seen in all stages of construction and it is very clear that despite all the publicity being given to squatting the Black people and the landowners have no intention whatsoever of abiding by the laws of the land. If construction continues at this rate we shall have to admit defeat, which will mean that it will never be possible to upgrade the Inanda area. Consequently we must take these facts into account.

Are these the present squatters?

No, I am speaking of the new squatters. Consequently we are asking for understanding when we take steps against these new squatters who are moving in. We are unable to handle a situation if people resist control measures which we are taking, not in our interests but in their interests. The hon. member said quite rightly that Inanda presented health hazards, and we cannot tolerate that situation for a day longer.

As I have said, we are purchasing 1 000 hectares of land belonging to Indian owners for an amount of R1 million. Hon. members must also understand, however, that a very large percentage of the inhabitants of Inanda are employed in Durban and at the moment we are receiving complaints to the effect, and it is being feared, that Durban will not be able to provide employment opportunities to all those people. This, too, will create a very difficult problem.

The provision of clinics and schools is seen as a further priority, and in order to meet the essential needs in this sphere the commission recommended the establishment of three schools at an estimated cost of R1,5 million and of clinic services at an estimated cost of R500 000. It is proposed that pit latrines, where they are required for health purposes, be provided at an estimated cost of R500 000. The estimated capital costs of the short-term measures alone, amount to R5,9 million. This will have to be spent in one financial year. In addition a further amount of R600 000 per annum is required for the control structure of the township and for the running costs of one of the clinics.

I trust that the hon. member for Berea, who showed understanding for the problems in his speech, will also realize that this is a very difficult and virtually uncontrollable problem.

†I really do appreciate the spirit in which the hon. member approached the whole matter, and I trust that he will maintain his interest in this area; also that he will remain rational and compassionate in his approach in regard to these matters.

Mr. Chairman, it is nice to note that the hon. the Deputy Minister can be polite on occasions.

I am always polite, at least more often than not.

I myself do not have that happy experience of his politeness very often. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister spent his time on the hon. member for Berea, while I still have a lot of matters to raise with the hon. the Minister.

I was glad to hear of the various schemes for improving the various townships, more particularly in the eight crisis areas in the Eastern Cape mentioned yesterday, following upon the Linde report. I must tell the hon. the Minister that as long as a year ago headlines began to appear about the R542 million set aside for schemes in the Eastern Cape, and I therefore want to warn him that we are going to keep our beady eyes fixed on this one. We hope very much that something more positive than mere promises is going to come about in this area, which is indeed a very dire situation.

Had you been here, you would have heard about it long ago. A lot of money has already gone into it.

Nothing, or at least not very much, seems to have happened there. The hon. the Minister, in answer to a question yesterday, said that no houses had been built in those areas …

[Inaudible.]

It was in the newspaper this morning. I want to tell the hon. the Minister, however, that he cannot leave it to officials to just raise the rentals in these urban Black townships in order to balance the books. These people are groaning under the rent increases and a situation is developing in those areas that could become dangerous. I want to warn the hon. the Minister about this. He says that he is so pleased about the Soweto situation and that the books are more or less balancing. That has happened because rentals have gone up on a differentiated scale. It has been left to officials to decide what people can pay according to their income vis-à-vis a formula which I gather was laid down in Pretoria. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that according to the report of the Viljoen Commission 56,6% of the inhabitants of Soweto earned less than the latest Household Subsistence Level which has now gone up to R256,50 a month. Therefore these people simply cannot bear constant increases in rentals. I hope the hon. the Minister will remember that.

I want to say a few things about pensions. I am very glad that the old gentleman aged 105 had his pension paid at his house but I am more interested in the thousands of pensioners who have to queue up for their pensions every two months. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister knows what the situation is now. Many of these people get up the night before in order to arrive at dawn because by midday money has run out or the officials have given up. Many of them go back without their pensions having been paid. These are old people by virtue of the fact that they are pensioners and many of them are infirm. I think it is time that the department devised another way of paying pensions to Blacks. White people can collect their pensions at post offices and I think someone will have to sit down and work out a scheme which will somehow or other save these people this terrible sweat of getting their pensions every two months.

The Winterveld situation has been brought to my notice once again and I have raised this matter several times before in the House. I believe approximately 90% of the 500 000 people living in that slum area near Pretoria are non-Tswana although the area falls within Bophuthatswana. There is the greatest difficulty in getting the Bophuthatswana Government to pay pensions to these people. I understand that the South African Government has paid a large amount to the Bophuthatswana Government especially for pensions to which the inhabitants of Winter-veld who are South African citizens are entitled. However, these people are not getting their pensions. I know that approaches have been made through diplomatic channels but so far nothing seems to have happened as a result of that. I accordingly ask the hon. the Minister to press that point because these people have no other income. I also think he ought to make representations regarding the difficulties of South Africans living in Winterveld are experiencing getting work permits renewed. The difficulty is on the Bophuthatswana side. Most of those people, if not all of them, have jobs in the Pretoria-Witwatersrand-Vereeniging triangle and they have to get these permits renewed because they are migrant workers. That is another difficulty which I hope the hon. the Minister will look into.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he can give me any information about the Natal Code situation. Earlier in April I put a question …

Yes, I know, and I replied to it.

Yes, the hon. the Minister told me that the KwaZulu Assembly had passed the necessary law which would elevate Zulu women to the status of majors when they either married or turned 21. I then asked him whether anything further had happened and he said that the Bill was with the State President. I understand, after making inquiries, that it has been with the State President since May last year and I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can do anything about expediting the signature of the State President on that legislation so that Zulu women may be freed from all the shackles of perpetual minority which they have suffered.

Is that what Gatsha Buthelezi wants?

Black women in the Transvaal are also since a few years ago,

subject to this humiliation. I asked this question because I have been approached by certain Zulu women who want to know what it is all about.

It is impossible for the legislation to have been that long with the State President. That I can tell you now.

I also want to know from the hon. the Minister whether he upholds the statement made by the hon. Deputy Minister last night, in reply to the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens, on this question of section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) Blacks in the Western Cape and the question of the Coloured labour preference area. I, as hon. members know, do not agree with that policy at all. However, I would say that it is at least reasonable to relieve the people who are section 10(1)(a), (b) or (c) Blacks in the Western Cape of having to go through all the complicated procedures before they can take jobs. The case that the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens brought to the hon. Deputy Minister’s notice is one of thousands. One cannot employ any Black no matter how long he has been here, even if he was born in this area, without going through that complicated rigmarole, and that is nonsense.

It is not so complicated.

It is nonsense and the hon. the Deputy Minister’s explanation is more nonsense. He said last night that the Coloured people must be protected from unfair competition. I say that is nonsense. The only protection that anybody is entitled to, Black, Coloured or White, is the rate for the job. That is all. Otherwise everybody should be on an equal basis in competing for jobs in the countries in which they live.

We just have to disagree on our philosophies.

But there is no logic in what the hon. the Deputy Minister says. It is no good just laying down the law. I want to know the reasons why. I shall also tell the hon. the Deputy Minister something else.

But you have a different philosophy.

The Coloured people want to know why. They do not want this Coloured labour preference policy. They dislike it intensely. They do not need that sort of protection.

The other nonsensical statement that the hon. the Deputy Minister made—he was in a great state of rage the whole of last night but I am glad to see that he has calmed down now—was that the Coloured people have nowhere else to go. Just listen to that. The Coloured people can go anywhere. For example they can move to Johannesburg.

What is wrong with that?

If they want to move, they just go. This is also the habitat—to use the hon. the Deputy Minister’s own words—of the Black people who have been born in Cape Town and they cannot go anywhere except, as the hon. the Deputy Minister pointed out, to Transkei, Ciskei or Venda where there are no jobs. Let us try to argue this out logically.

You know that the section 10’s can go anywhere.

It is no good the hon. the Deputy Minister pointing his finger at me. It does not frighten me and it does not put me off my stroke.

I would not try to frighten you. That is impossible.

It is impossible to frighten me, certainly by what is said by hon. members on that side. I can assure the hon. the Deputy Minister that it will need much more than that. I know that the hon. the Minister has problems. I know that the Cape Nat MP’s are much worse on this issue—and that includes the hon. the Deputy Minister of Co-operation—than any Transvaal member in this House.

Why do you point your finger at me?

The Transvaal members are much more sensible, and I even include the CP members, about the Coloured labour preference area than any Cape MP. I say this because they have this bee in their bonnet about protecting the Coloureds and they have another bee in their bonnet—and it is a much bigger bee—and that is that they are dead scared of Black people.

Coming from Cradock, how can I be scared of Black people?

That is basic to their whole attitude.

What rubbish!

Yes they are. They are not used to them and they are dead scared of Black people.

What utter rubbish.

Therefore I ask the hon. the Minister not to try to get the whole thing abolished—though obviously that is what we would want—but to see if he cannot quietly talk to some of the members of his caucus, and particularly to the hon. the Prime Minister who also has a bee in his bonnet about this matter since he introduced it at the Cape NP congress, to see whether it is not possible to at least get the class of Black person mentioned by the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens yesterday, i.e. the section 10(a), (b) or (c) Blacks, exempted from the Coloured labour preference policy. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, 24 years ago I wrote my first speech which was about decentralization, for someone in the Senate, namely Senator Malan, and for interest’s sake I looked up what I had written. However, he gave this speech to another Senator. I had quoted what Lord Keynes said in the British Parliament, and this Senator had translated it. The translation read—

What is interesting is that Senator Raw asked: “From what are you quoting?”, to which that Senator replied: “I am quoting. I am telling you what our policy is and if my hon. friend would just listen carefully he might learn something.” That is still what decentralization is about.

Between 1957 and about 1965 the Government was very active in the decentralization of industries, but in those days decentralization of industries went hand in hand with industrial development. I should like to mention the names of people active in this field, such as Mr. S. Kuschke of the NDC, Dr. S. P. du T. Viljoen of the Board of Trade and Industries, Dr. Jan Moolman of the Natural Resources Development Council and Dr. Piet Rautenbach of the Department of Bantu Affairs. The question now arises: What happened in the ’seventies? In those years we had a drop in economic growth, but it seems to me as if there was a split between our planning for industrial development and the decentralization of industries. In the period from 1957 to 1965 we also had the start of déconcentration. Rosslyn was the start of the policy of deconcentration. However, a halt was called to the development of this policy. The hon. the Prime Minister has now again taken the initiative with the White Paper and the information document on decentralization and deconcentration which was handed to us recently. There are a few very interesting points in that report. I want to mention one, namely, the informal economy which is emphasized here. It has been proved in Africa that one’s industrialists come from the ranks of one’s artisans, from one’s electricians and plumbers. If we want to develop the national States, we must ensure that our Black people are trained in these professions. Our mines can play a far greater role in training people in this field. We speak about the problem of migrant workers, but could we not do something to train migrant workers on the mines by means of evening classes, so that when they return to their national States they can start their own businesses?

We also ignore the Black woman. The Black woman plays a tremendously important role in the entrepreneurial activities of the Black people.

We shall battle to cause our policy of decentralization to succeed if we do not give more consideration to the Whites who have to move to those areas. These people have problems sending their children to school, and I think we should consider giving them education allowances.

A very important aspect is the question of regional development. In this connection I want to emphasize one point, and that is the question of communication—rapid road transport, rapid rail transport and telex and telephone facilities. Communication involves the rapid movement of goods, people and information. Many of our attempts at decentralization failed because we did not ensure that there were rapid means of communication. Rosslyn is only now getting a decent road, after all these years. It is of the utmost importance that metropolitan areas, deconcentration points and industrial development points be linked to each other. No deconcentration or industrial development point can function in isolation. Communication among various growth points creates certain agglomeration benefits, which is one of the major factors in the establishment of industries—in other words, the benefits of concentration. Rapid communication between a series of points also makes it possible for transport-sensitive industries to be established at any of those points. We must ensure that in our policy of decentralization and deconcentration, account is taken of communication needs. Here I have in mind the PWV area, the Durban-Pietermaritzburg area, the Cape Town-Paarl-Somerset West-Atlantis area and the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area. Over 100 000 Black people at present work on the Witwatersrand in industries which are transport-sensitive and dependent on agglomeration benefits and which can be shifted to deconcentrated points. By establishing “nodules” away from the Witwatersrand but still within that network, we create the possibility of the establishment of new industries and the shifting of existing industries.

We are going to have problems in the existing areas. The Driessen report pointed out that between 1970 and the year 2000 the motor transport of the Black people is going to increase by 2 073%. Our present metropolitan areas will have to bear the expense of roads. This will cost millions. These costs will have to be defrayed locally. However, we must remember that the existing metropolitan areas are also the “seedbeds”, as they are called, for new small business undertakings. Correct deconcentration is economically justified and can be implemented quickly and successfully. In the town of Javis near Singapore, a city is being planned for 500 000 people.

We must also consider a northern axis-Rustenburg-Brits-Rosslyn-Hammanskraal Bronkhorstspruit. This could ease the pressure on the PWV area and fit in with the Government’s policy of self-determination. We can also give the right of property ownership to the people in those areas. We must consider a coastal axis. We are struggling with East London and the Transkei. We could consider a decent sea link between East London, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town. At the moment we have a discount on harbour tariffs, but we could also introduce a fast subsidized shipping service. Then East London could be effectively linked to all these harbours.

In conclusion, I want to say that in order to implement decentralization and deconcentration, we must have an industrial development strategy. We must link our decentralization with what the Board of Trade and Industries has in mind. I know that Dr. Klue of the Board of Trade and Industries is working on this, and the plan must be completed as soon as possible, because if we do not know what industries we are going to promote in this country, how can we decentralize and deconcentrate our industries?

Mr. Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words along the lines of what the hon. member Dr. Marais mentioned in respect of deconcentration and decentralization. I feel that the results of the physical planning in regard to regional industrialization are not going to be forthcoming nearly as fast as we should like to see in respect of absorbing the labour from the homelands in certain areas and thereby assisting in the slowing down of the urbanization process. Many industrialists, after perusing the White Paper, have commented that the agricultural sector, which uses 14% of the nation’s labour force, should play a far greater role in the provision of work opportunities and should thereby assist in slowing down the urbanization process while the building up of facilities and the creation of work opportunities in respect of deconcentration and decentralization takes place. In that regard I should just like to say that perhaps the hon. the Minister should have a word with the Manpower Commission to see to it that proper consideration is given to incentives for the training of labour and the upgrading of the whole concept of the provision of work opportunities fn the agricultural sphere. They should go into this fully in order to assist the hon. the Minister, particularly in those areas near the homelands where they can indeed assist with the provision of labour opportunities. Industrialists and commercial people have been given tremendous training incentives—there is, for example, a tax incentive—and I think that is something we could have a good look at to see what role the farming community could also play in assisting in that regard. I merely say that in passing.

The hon. the Minister gave us all the good news in his speech. Two years ago he said, in his normal enthusiastic way, that he would fetch the ball out of the scrum, like Boland Coetzee, and run with it. He said we should watch him in the next two years. This is a very interesting attitude. I think it has been the missing element in the debate today. Yesterday there was a great climate in the House, with everybody agreeing that the missing factor was plenty of finance. Everybody agreed that we needed vastly greater amounts of finance to get even near to implementing any of the envisaged schemes. I would say, however, that the missing factor is the time factor, the period of time that it takes to implement something like this. I think the hon. the Minister must therefore get his team together and give them team talk.

Yesterday in this House the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt spoke about the commission’s work being on schedule and said that the commission would present its report to the Cabinet at the end of the session or in July for their consideration. He said he was very happy that he would be rid of the problem and that the Cabinet would then be dealing with it. That means that the Cabinet will be looking at this issue after the session, and that means that it will not come back to the Select Committee of this House until next session. That, of course, means that the people who are living under those dreadful border conditions that we spoke of yesterday—the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned them again today—will not have any relief until at least two years from now. That is not, however, the sort of time-scale we have in mind. I believe that the hon. the Minister must see to it that the completed portions of the report go before the Cabinet as they are completed, piece by piece. As these sections of the report come off the production line, the Cabinet must consider them, because we must try to implement the necessary measures at a far greater rate.

When the hon. member for Barberton was on his feet, discussing some or other matter involving a farmers’ association, the hon. the Deputy Minister said that the hon. member for Barberton should have reported the matter to him more timeously, for then action could possibly have been taken before matters were too far advanced. I would say that the farmers’ associations and the S.A. Agricultural Union have been on about this matter of border farmers and fences for years now, yet no action has been taken. I truly despair, because there are too many people involved in the fencing situation. If it is a railway line that is the boundary, it is the Department of Transport Affairs that is involved. If it is a road that is the boundary, one is referred to the roads department at provincial level. If the boundary lies somewhere in the veld, one could find oneself having to deal with the Department of Foreign Affairs. It is all a real “gemors”, and I would like to suggest that the hon. the Minister’s department co-ordinate with the various other departments and take over the responsibility from them. They are the people who know what they are talking about. They are the people who are dealing with the planning, surveying and plotting of the boundaries. It is the commission that has all the in-depth knowledge. Those people know South Africa like the back of their hands. So to farm the matter out now to different departments, and to have us start working through other departments all over again, is going to mean a great deal more delay. I make the plea to the hon. the Minister that this question of fences be rationalized, that this matter be kept within his department with the people who have been working with it right from its inception and that a very specific time scale be laid down to deal with circumstances that fall within the boundaries of the “deernisgevalle” that the hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about yesterday. We must not wait until we are dealing with a person who is ancient and is just about cracking up or somebody who is at death’s door before we look at the circumstances that have been created by the proposal, because once that proposal goes in the circumstances go with it. In area, for instance, along a stretch from Arnoldton up towards King William’s Town, along the stretch between the freeway, the railway line and the Ciskei border, a young wife was shot last month. She is now in a very highly nervous state. Other people have been attacked there. For me to come down here, to sit in this House and to discuss this matter with the hon. the Minister, his Cabinet colleagues and his department, and to then go back and tell those people that we are going to discuss this matter again next session, is of no interest to them whatsoever. Somehow we have got to get together in order to speed up the rate of implementation of these matters. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will give some consideration to this matter because I believe that in view of the new atmosphere that was created in this House yesterday where there was agreement on certain matters this is an area that we must definitely look at.

I should also just like to refer further to some small matters with regard to concessions to farmers. Earlier this session we did ask questions of the hon. the Minister as to whether the S.A. Agricultural Union had supplied him with the necessary data and memoranda on the question of concessions to border farmers. Mr. Chairman, you know and the hon. the Minister knows about the number of meetings that farmers have held in relation to this matter. To have people simply repeating the same thing at meeting after meeting and getting nowhere is creating frustrating circumstances. I am sorry to say that in this case it is the department that is the cause of a lot of the bad relations that exist on the border. The department is the cause of this because one starts off with people who are balanced and moderate, who have grown up with the particular group of whom they are neighbours, who speak their language and know their customs, but by a slow process of wearing them down they become embittered and because of the delays a situation is created which is far worse than the one with which one started off. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to tell the hon. member for King William’s Town that I undertake to consider his recommendation in connection with the Manpower Commission. I appreciate hon. members of all the parties in the House, having pleaded for more money to be placed at the disposal of this department particularly in view of the urgent requirements that exist. All possible help in the way of more financing is always welcome. However, I must point out that there is a 15% increase in this year’s budget and that in view of the circumstances in South Africa, it was not possible for the Treasury to make more funds available to us. This is a matter which is receiving constant attention. The fact that this debate was conducted in such a fine spirit, that all hon. members addressed their requests in such a positive frame of mind, will be conveyed to the Treasury and the Cabinet. We can only benefit from this. Consequently I should like to express my sincere gratitude for this.

As far as this matter of the borders is concerned, I want to mention that my two hon. Deputy Ministers and I held talks in the Eastern Cape area quite recently—a member of the commission was also present. Certain resolutions were adopted, resolutions which are in the process of being implemented. The Commission for Co-operation and Development is devoting special attention to the entire question of border problems. It is an extremely important matter and is receiving special attention, I can assure the hon. members of that.

As far as the hard-luck cases are concerned, I wish to point out that such cases have been entrusted to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and he and I are indeed trying, within the financial means, to accommodate as many hard-luck cases as possible in connection with the buying out of their land. I wish to suggest, however, that if hon. members are aware of specific hard-luck cases, they are very welcome to bring them to my attention or to the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs. It is possible that such cases may occur in the constituencies of certain hon. members and hon. members will, after all, know more about their own local problems and any special circumstances which might exist. If hon. members would consequently bring such cases to our attention, I can assure them that we shall devote special sympathetic attention to them.

Now I should like to reply to questions which were put by the various hon. members who participated in the discussion. Once again I wish to expressed my gratitude and appreciation for the good spirit which in general prevailed during this debate. Of course there were a few exceptions, which I shall deal with when I come to them.

†I want to state clearly and categorically, so that there will be no misunderstanding, that with regard to the report to which the hon. member for Houghton referred yesterday—the hon. member Prof. Olivier referred to it again today—I am not in agreement at all with the specific wording of it and I would like to dissociate myself from it.

[Inaudible.]

No, I am talking about the report.

The departmental report.

Yes, the hon. member understands it. He can explain it to the hon. member for Houghton later.

[Inaudible.]

No, I can assure the hon. member for Houghton I am not being nasty. I am only trying to make myself quite clear.

*I wish to point out that I acquainted myself very thoroughly with the underlying intention here. Hon. members must bear in mind that that specific aspect is the responsibility of a scientific division. I ascertained that there was no intention at all on the part of that scientific division to make any “derogatory statements” in this respect. I am quite certain of that. In addition hon. members must also take cognizance of the fact that the underlying intention was therefore very clear, viz. to point out a certain difference. In essence it was based on findings which were the result of scientific research carried out by a research division, and should not in any way be interpreted as being the opinion of the department. Therefore I hope this matter will now end here.

I have replied to hon. members in detail as far as housing matters are concerned. I now wish to go on to other matters, but not before I make a specific appeal to hon. members.

†I want to make a very definite appeal to hon. members. We all realize that this is a grave problem. Hon. members should know by now that literally everything is being done to obtain the co-operation of all the relevant forces in South Africa, both Black and White, in order to co-ordinate matters in an attempt to solve this problem in the quickest prossible way. All the ways and means by which this can be achieved, I believe, have been amply explained in the Viljoen Committee’s report, as well as by various other instances concerned. All that remains now is that we should all apply our minds to this important matter, and utilize all our energy in one unanimous effort. Then, without a shadow of a doubt, this problem can and will be solved. In South Africa, I am sure, that problem can be solved in a better way than in any other country.

*Without the co-operation of hon. members of the Opposition I think this is definitely not possible. Therefore I sincerely hope that the hon. member for Houghton will never again come here and refer to Soweto as a squatters’ camp. If she should ever dare to do so again, may the devil take her. I hope she understands this clearly. [Interjections.] Particularly after this afternoon, after I have furnished the facts, she must just dare to do it again! I think that the last time she was in Soweto was in her young days. Now, in her old age, I think she should go there again.

You are not growing any younger either. Let me tell you that!

Well, I have never said that I was all that young. In any case I am younger than I look! [Interjections.] The fact of the matter, however, is that the electrical wiring of 6 000 houses in Soweto has in the meantime been completed. The electricity supply cannot be switched on before the scheme has been completed. Surely that is only logical. But as soon as it is in any way possible, it will definitely happen. I regret that I do not have the time now to elaborate in detail on the situation in the Western Cape. Still, on this occasion I should at least like to make a few basic statements in connection with this matter. I wish to do so in the hope that we shall come to understand one another a little better on this matter as well. After all, the hon. members of the official Opposition do not have a monopoly on acting in a humane way towards other people, and I have said this before. [Interjections.] The hon. judge can laugh until he is blue in the face, but that is the honest-to-God truth. He does not have such a monopoly either. The fact of the matter is that we claim—and I personally and the hon. the Prime Minister have every reason to do so—that we are trying to deal with these matters in the fairest, most humane and most Christian way possible. In truth, we are being attacked because we are in fact trying to do so in that way. However, we have to contend with complicated and difficult problems. In my humble opinion there is no other area in South Africa which is more problematical than the Cape Peninsula, and I shall explain briefly why I say this.

In the first place the Peninsula, where our Mother City is situated, lies between two oceans, and people cannot after all be established in the ocean. Consequently the Peninsula offers limited possibilities. [Interjections.] To the north of Kuils River we find the most expensive agricultural land in the Western Cape. The planners in the Office of the Prime Minister have gone into this matter in depth and they have found that it would be too expensive to establish people in that area. If we were in fact to do so, we would be harming or even destroying the goose that lays the golden eggs.

When one goes into what has happened during the past ten years in the Cape Peninsula one finds that, in spite of all the attempts which have been made by this side of the House, there has been a population growth of 3,9% among the Blacks, 3,3% among the Coloureds and 2,3% among the Whites in the Peninsula. The department, in conjunction with the planners, has studied the situation carefully, for there is probably no one who would like to have the problem solved as much as I would. By this time hon. members know that I do not like squatting. However, it is a major human problem, with geographic limitations, and then there is still the further problem that Cape Town as such is not an industrial city. After all there is no gold, diamonds or other minerals here, and that is why we established Atlantis in the Western Cape although we could just as well have done so anywhere else. The Government has also adopted other measures to establish industries in this area, and why have we done so? To create employment opportunities.

It is not for nothing, however, that the Western Cape is a Coloured labour-preference area, for the Coloureds have been living in this area all along. On the other hand, Black people were not always resident in the Western Cape, and consequently it is a sober and correct policy to give preference to the Coloureds here.

What are the additional facts? If we were to make a projection of what a natural growth of 3,9% among the Black people in the Cape Peninsula is going to give us in the year 2000, i.e. in less than 20 year’s time, we would see what a large number of Blacks will be present in this area by that time. Besides that we also know that there is going to be a natural growth of 3,3% among the Coloureds, and with this in mind the question arises—and the department, in conjunction with the planners, examined this problem—of where these people are to be established. Where should they live, work and play? After all, a responsible Government must take circumstances of this nature into account, otherwise it would be impossible to maintain order, and for that reason this Government gave attention to the problem.

Is it in any way possible to reduce the natural growth of 3,9% among the Black people during the next 10 years to 2,7%? One can work out the growth rate at whatever percentage one likes, but if one is realistic, one knows that somewhere in the Cape Peninsula 3 600 ha of land will be required for the Blacks, that is if one does not act in good time and make certain that no more Black people come to this area. If one does not do that, there will be chaos in the Cape Peninsula. One does not need a prophet to predict that, for on the one hand one cannot squeeze the people into the ocean, and on the other hand one cannot establish them in the winelands either. We must therefore accept that there is an extremely limited area of land in the Cape Peninsula while we must also make provision for the other population groups which are living here, we must provide them with residential areas and create basic facilities for them. Having taken all these things into account, the planners tell us that there is only one solution to the problem. If more Black people should come to this area, they say, the only expedient is that they will have to be accommodated along the West Coast, for there is after all no other suitable land available in the Cape Peninsula any more.

If one looks at the West Coast, one sees that one cannot locate people within a certain radius around Koeberg, for reasons which hon. members understand as well as I do. Going beyond Koeberg one finds the cost factor of commuting and everything associated with that. I want to make this very clear and the hon. member for Houghton can discuss this matter with me privately, with the greatest of pleasure, for I am merely stating the facts concerning a complicated matter very briefly now, facts which we have really gone to a great deal of trouble to ascertain. We have made absolutely exhaustive studies of this matter. I sent social anthropologists to the areas where the Blacks were coming from to establish what was happening there. I am now telling hon. members on that side of the House that, if they have any moral standards, they will have to share an understanding of one thing with us, which is that in years to come the Cape Peninsula will be limited as far as the establishment of people is concerned. The creation of employment opportunities is not unlimited in this area. If they are not going to co-operate with us and if the Black people are not going to co-operate with us in this matter, I can tell them at this early juncture that this country is turning its Mother City into a chaotic place. Nyanga and Langa are situated in the heart of Cape Town. I have seen what happened over a period of years in Soweto. If we do not reach unanimity in this country on the Cape Peninsula, I am telling you now that we are going to be burdening ourselves with intolerable problems. I hope that the Opposition will use its influence so that we can at least succeed in doing one thing in this country, viz. the proper preservation or order when one has the facts at one’s disposal, and that they will not accuse us of being callous or inhuman or base. We are none of these things, nor do we wish to be. However, we do not want to be stupid either. We have to accept the responsibility. I am appealing to the churches to read Matthew VI, verse 16 on fasting. Then they will not again allow what happened here recently in the Cathedral. Consequently I wish to make an urgent appeal for understanding in regard to this matter of the Mother City which all our people love and in which we should very much like to ensure that order is preserved. If the hon. judge on that side of the House cannot understand this, I am extremely sorry and I invite him to come and see me in private so that I can furnish him with the documented information which will make him understand. I am speaking earnestly about a matter which causes me deep concern and which I know cannot possibly be solved if there is not going to be any understanding of the problems interwoven around this matter in the Cape Peninsula, for the reasons which I have briefly mentioned here.

[Inaudible.]

I am coming to the hon. member now, and she can put a question to me on this matter with the greatest of pleasure, but I think that I have already replied to all the questions of the hon. member for Houghton.

No!

To which question have I not replied?

[Inaudible.]

I am dealing with the questions in sequence, as hon. members raised them. I shall therefore come to the hon. member’s last questions.

[Inaudible.]

I shall come to them, because those are the questions which the hon. member raised at a later stage of the debate.

I wish to thank the hon. member for Parys for the positive speech which he made. Not only did I find his elucidation of labour matters to be very sound, but I also agreed with them absolutely. I wish to tell him that this is already being applied with great success in Bophuthatswana. I hope all hon. members took notice of what the hon. member said in this connection and that we will receive further inputs on the part of the Commission for Co-operation and Development to implement this matter in our other national States as well. If we are not going to introduce White skills and in-service training in agriculture, we shall not be able to make any progress. The hon. member was completely correct with his statements in this connection.

The hon. member for Klip River made a very important speech. I have a long reply for the hon. member with me here. In this House I have seldom seen an hon. member making his speech while all the parties not only took unanimous notice of it, while the speech itself met with great approval. This did not go unnoticed on my part. It was a complicated matter which the hon. member raised. I have already asked the department to go into it properly, and I have a long written reply which I shall give to him. In general we should very much like to help the hon. member in pursuance of the statements and the requests which he made concerning this very important matter. I thank him for doing so.

The hon. member for Mooi River apologized for not being able to be present. I want to thank him, too, for his positive contributions. Here I am thinking in particular of his fine remarks on Ndaleni.

†Obviously we shall do everything in our endeavour to develop the Ndaleni complex as best we can, but there again it is a question of funds. I hope the hon. member will also assist. It is true that the local member of Parliament can make a tremendous contribution towards development, and the hon. member for Amanzimtoti has drawn attention to the fact that the local member of Parliament can assist in getting a complex off the ground.

I want to assure the hon. member for Mooi River that I shall do everything in my endeavour to see to it that agreements with the Agricultural Union about the 1975 proposals will not be broken. We are absolutely bent on maintaining the good co-operation of the Agricultural Union. I thank the hon. member for having drawn my attention to this aspect.

*The hon. member for Bloemfontein North was quite correct. I am very pleased about the impressive figures which he furnished in connection with industrial development. I hope they are conveyed further than this House alone, because they were indeed impressive. He was quite correct. One can consider Onverwacht from whichever angle one prefers, but it is an achievement which is being accomplished there from the point of view of health, urbanization, and from many other points of view. If one thinks of the problems which were initially experienced there, and if one observes the degree of development which is taking place at present, one is infinitely grateful.

†And now the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens. I honestly do not like to fight with anybody; it is not my habit. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that I have watched him closely. He is a young hon. member, and I am no longer a young member.

You look young, Piet.

Well, actually I am even younger than I look. [Interjections.]

†If I may, I want to give the hon. member a bit of advice, but I do not think he will accept it. In almost every speech the hon. member makes, he bedevils relations in this country.

He is a good Opposition member.

He may be a good one, but I am now dealing with an aspect of a specific problem. I feel that if the hon. member—I have watched him closely—is not trying to bedevil relations between the Afrikaners and the Jews or the English and the Jews, then he is doing it with the English and the Coloureds or with the Whites and the Coloureds. If he is not doing that, then he is doing it with the Whites and the Blacks. I am really absolutely “buikvol” of this; I have had it up to here.

*If he continues with this kind of thing in my presence—I shall spare him this afternoon—I shall deal with him very thoroughly. I have certain things which I can use in order to do so. I am not threatening the hon. member now.

Of course you are threatening.

His conduct is on the same level as that of bedevilling relations. I am making a friendly appeal to him. He spoke here of “policies of racial hatred”. Surely it is not fitting to say a thing like that. [Interjections.] He said “it is not Christian”. When the hon. member adopts that kind of attitude I say it is unseemly, for in this place an example should at least be set for the other population groups. I shall leave the hon. member at that now. I repeat that I am not threatening the hon. member, but I can tell him straight that if I had had the time, I would have gone further with him and would have exposed him as a person who has really, on more than one occasion, gone out of his way to bedevil relations between groups which ought not to be bedevilled. I appeal to him to cut it out.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 22.