Mr Chairman, allow me to begin by referring briefly to the tragic accident at Vredefort during the past weekend, in which the chairman of the Group Areas Board, Mr Schalk van Wyk, and his wife were both killed. The late Mr Van Wyk was a member of the Group Areas Board for 22 years and had been chairman for the last 10 years. Before being appointed to the board, he had been a high school teacher. He was in possession of a BSc degree and was married to a sister of the hon member for Faure-smith. On behalf of all hon members present here I should like to extend our condolences to the hon member for Fauresmith and his family.

The late Mr Van Wyk was a very able official, a person of great humanity. He was a respected cultural and church leader in his community, and on behalf of the Government and the Department of Community Development, I should like to pay tribute to him and to express our appreciation for the work which he did as chairman and member of the Group Areas Board over a period of 22 years. We also convey our condolences to his three daughters and other relatives.

Mr Chairman, I claim the privilege of the half-hour.

My party and I also wish to express our condolences with the late Mr Van Wyk’s family, including the hon member for Fauresmith.

I should like to thank the hon the Minister and his department for the annual report we received last week. The report has been easy to study. We also find it useful to have a memorandum in connection with programme 7 regarding the building construction undertaken by this department. Some of my hon colleagues will later deal with the question of housing, but deeds offices and the trigonometrical surveys have been referred to in certain Bills earlier this session. I wish, however, to address myself to matters relating to the Public Works Department.

At present the Public Works Department is involved in one of its most interesting projects in many years, namely the extensions to the parliamentary buildings and improvements to the other buildings and public spaces in the immediate vicinity of Parliament. I believe this Committee should take note of the fact that no mention is made in programme 7 of any moneys voted for this purpose; not as far as I can see. We therefore have no idea what these are going to cost. We also do not know whether the work is undertaken on credit.

What concerns us as members of Parliament—and I do not necessarily see this as a party-political issue, but rather as a national issue—is that the hon the Minister does not appear to realize how important these buildings are. In the first instance we do not have many old buildings in South Africa. The hon the Minister has shown a commendable interest in old buildings. Our parliamentary buildings, however, are important too because next year the oldest section of the Houses of Parliament will be exactly 100 years old. That, I believe, is a considerable accomplishment.

Secondly, Mr Chairman, the parliamentary buildings belong to the people of South Africa and will be serving South Africa long after the new constitutional dispensation, and probably other constitutional dispensations as well, have come and gone. It is indeed a rare architectural and environmental event. It is indeed an opportunity for some significant additions to be effected to so historic a building.

In France there are many old and historic buildings; many more than we have in South Africa. The alterations to the Louvre Museum have excited a national interest and a commitment to excellence, with President Mitterand taking a close personal interest, just as President Pompidou did in connection with the development of the Centre Pompidou, in Paris.

The hon the Prime Minister will be travelling abroad shortly, and I believe that he, when he goes overseas, should take a close look at the parliamentary buildings which he will have the opportunity of visiting. It is a matter of concern to us on this side of the House that the Government has done nothing to gain the confidence of the public at large in this matter. Precisely nothing was brought to public notice except an announcement to the Press by the hon the Minister of Community Development some five weeks ago. Neither the City of Cape Town nor Parliament itself, and certainly not the wider public, had been consulted before the end of March, as far as we know. The more I consider how this matter has been handled, particularly as far as public involvement is concerned, the angrier I become at the lack of awareness by this Government of its responsibility to the people of South Africa. I believe that this building is in the real sense “volksbesit”. It belongs to the people of South Africa. It is the peoples’ building, where their representatives—their own elected representatives—work and serve them. Moreover this building needs to be open to the public.

I should like to put a few questions to the hon the Minister, and I would appreciate his reply to them in his reply to the debate. First of all, once the principle of extensions to Parliament has been accepted by the Government, why can we not take a few extra months so that a competition, for example, on the basis of a full brief could be held? We can then develop the gardens, public access to Parliament, the parking and underground facilities, and also improve the security arrangements, if necessary. Mr Chairman, I believe that these improvements are too important to be rushed through, because we may well regret having done so. If necessary, all of us could make arrangements. I understand that some years ago the hon member for Houghton used to share an office with Mrs Bertha Solomon and Mrs Cathy Taylor. Older members of this Committee will also remember the years in which office accommodation had to be shared. I believe that for a year or two we can make some ad hoc adjustments for the sake of having a properly planned parliamentary building complex.

I am not suggesting that the architects or the professional consultants the hon the Minister has appointed will not yet come up with the best solution. However, how will we ever know that it is the best solution if we do not have the widest possible inputs from everyone?

The second question I wish to put to the hon the Minister is whether he will tell this Committee who has in fact been consulted in regard to these proposed developments and how they were consulted. Have bodies such as the Institute of Architects, the Historical Monuments Commission or the Arts Association or even the City of Cape Town been consulted? When I talk about being consulted I do not only mean in the sense of being informed that this is going to happen. I mean whether they have been asked for their views in respect of this whole matter.

In the third instance, the record of the hon the Minister in consulting even local authorities has been very poor. I have a copy here of a motion handed in at the municipal congress last month from Kakamas. They complain that State bodies do not submit plans to local authorities. If the good citizens of Kakamas are concerned about a Government department making decisions, and the authoritarianism associated with this sort of action, as far as buildings over which they have no control are concerned, how much more have the citizens of Cape Town and, indeed, the whole of South Africa in the light of the Government’s record in regard to the Groote Schuur Estate, the De Hoop missile testing range and Church Square, the right to feel uneasy in regard to these matters? I am not blaming the hon the Minister in this respect. However, he is a member of Government which is responsible for this sort of thing. The hon the Minister himself finally resolved the Groote Schuur Estate problem but only after he had been hounded by the hon member for Groote Schuur himself. We are concerned at the fact that we cannot be sure that the Government is making the sort of decision that we believe should be made.

The third question I wish to ask the hon the Minister is whether he is going to make a comprehensive model of the proposed alterations to the whole area available. I am not concerned about the internal arrangements of the parliamentary buildings because there are perfectly good committees that will investigate these matters. I am concerned about public access and the whole design of the complex including the fact that we are locating this complex in the historic Kompanjiestuijn, which was the garden which the first White settlers at the Cape established for the Dutch East India Company. I feel that the Government should involve the public as much as possible as far as this new building complex is concerned. At the very least, it is to be hoped that the last all-White parliamentary Government can leave for future generations a parliamentary building and precincts that will compel respect of its ancestors in the years to come for its vision, good sense and aesthetic sensitivity. Once again, I want to encourage the hon the Minister to try to persuade the hon the Prime Minister to have a good look at parliamentary buildings and facilities when he visits London, Bonn and Lisbon as well as certain other European cities shortly.

No other department has done more to create bitterness among the Indian and Coloured communities as a result of the Group Areas Act than the Department of Community Development which is responsible for the administration of the Act. If the new constitution is to have legitimacy, then those very Coloured and Indian people who have been alienated to such an extent by this Act must give that dispensation some support. I want to urge the hon the Minister not to come with any amendments or improvement, if that is possible, to the Group Areas Act at this stage. We do not believe one can improve what is such a thoroughly bad Act; it should be repealed. Those of us who are on that select committee have discovered that to try to amend the Group Areas Act is going to be a very complicated and difficult matter. The hon the Minister should, as an act of goodwill, rather let the select committee meet once it has Coloured and Indian members of Parliament to serve on it so that they, too, can at least feel that they can contribute in amending and changing legislation which has caused so much bitterness. I am sure that in that way the hon the Minister and the Government will be able to make the Coloured and Indian people feel in some way committed to the new dispensation. I would urge him to consider very carefully where he is going with this inquiry and the possible amendment to the Act.

In the report of the department there is a long section on the development of old District Six or Zonnebloem as it is now being called. I was concerned to see in the newsletter of the Public Servants’ Association that they are planning to build 100 flats in old District Six. I should like to know from the hon the Minister whether those flats are going to be for White public servants or Coloured public servants and whether the Community Development Board is assisting them. I should like to know what sort of arrangement they are making in that regard because I believe that that is the kind of development which is not really in the interest of the Public Servants’ Association.

Finally on this matter, I should like to ask the hon the Minister to stop any further evictions in so far as group areas are concerned. I went to visit the people in Lansdowne. They are ordinary, decent people, but when one visits a family who are clearly under hypertension, one finds that they begin to weep after they have talked for some time because of the pressure and the worry in their lives. One can only begin to appreciate the human tensions and pressures which visits from, what they call “The Group”, bring to bear. “The Group” is their description for the officials who implement the Group Areas Act. I know that the hon the Minister has endeavoured to avoid incidents. He personally has gone out his way to try to defuse the situation, but no matter how hard the hon the Minister and his department try, the fact of the matter is that this kind of legalized racial discrimination is entirely unacceptable. This will be dealt with in more detail by some of my hon colleagues.

I want to raise two further aspects with the hon the Minister. I refer to the botanic gardens. We have all seen with a sense of shock what the financial state of the Kirstenbosch Botanic Gardens is. Those of us who were at the plant sale on Saturday would have seen what tremendous support and interest there is in our indigenous flora, but if one looks at the money provided under programme 7, one finds that almost nothing—I think it is only R100 000—is available for botanic gardens. I should like to urge the hon the Minister to consider seriously making more money available.

Finally, I should like to praise, not the hon the Minister, but his department for the good sense they have had in Pietermaritzburg where, as the result of sensible decisions, a piece of land used as a parking area for the new Supreme Court has been exchanged with the Pietermaritzburg municipality which has now been able to take over the old Supreme Court for use as an art gallery. Shortly the old Colonial Building which is a grand old building and in which the deeds office is located is going to become empty. I would urge the hon the Minister’s department to do as much negotiation as possible with the Pietermaritzburg municipality—this is a very enlightened municipality and a very progressive one—because I am sure that they will find a useful and appropriate use for that fine and historic old building.

Mr Chairman, before I react to some of the remarks made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, I want to dwell briefly on a few departmental matters.

When one pages through the annual report of the department, one is impressed anew by the diversity of the activities of this department. In the 1984-85, Budget, R1 200 million is being voted for this department. This makes the department one of the five largest departments in our State administration, with activities ranging from Antarctica, Gough Island, Marion Island and overseas chancelleries, to beyond the Soutpansberg. For that reason I want to thank everyone in the department, a sensitive department in our State administration for what they have accomplished during the past year. Here I am referring to the hon the Minister, the two Deputy Ministers, the Director-General and Deputy Directors-General and the 16 000 employees of the department. As for the appointment of the hon Ben Wilkens as Deputy Minister of Land Affairs is concerned, I want to take this opportunity to congratulate him and assure him of the sympathetic goodwill of his colleagues on this side of the House. We wish him everything of the best for the future.

I also want to take this opportunity to draw attention to the earnestness with which the Director General and his staff approach their work. They distribute various publications to publicize the work of the department. In this connection I want to refer to the publications Behuising—Housing and Dead Level—Waterpas, which afford an exceptional insight into the activities of the department.

Getting back to the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North, I must say that many of the things he mentioned were of such a technical nature that it would be difficult for me to reply to them. I shall therefore leave it to the hon the Minister to react to them, particularly the proposed extensions here at Parliament and the proposed removals in Lansdowne. I am convinced that the hon the Minister will furnish the hon member with information on these matters.

I prefer to dwell on the central activity of the department, namely housing. Sir, South Africa is part of Africa, and in the African context the degree of order, stability, quality of life and social welfare is determined by the amount of housing available, the accessibility people have to such housing and the quality of that housing. In view of this housing is therefore of great importance in South Africa. We are dealing with a First and a Third World situation here. This First and Third World situation is also distinguished inter alia by the colour bar, and no Government can allow the housing gap between the First and the Third World sectors to become too great. In the constitutional sphere we are engaged, with a new political formula, in accommodating the various population groups in South Africa. Joint decision-making is a key word for stabilizing the population of South Africa politically. No matter how hard we try to achieve a political solution in South Africa, this political solution will be fruitless if it is not firmly anchored to orderly social conditions. Housing is one of the most important ways of stabilizing social conditions. It can make a major contribution to social reconstruction. In addition to the political solution something also has to be done about social stabilization of all population groups. Housing for everyone within the financial capabilities of everyone also ensures the survival of everyone in South Africa. Home ownership is the foundation stone of an orderly national economy. Home ownership is a basic element in a free market economy. Home ownerhsip is a segment of the improvement in the social conditions of people. Because the Government realizes the need for the social reconstruction of South African society with regard to housing, it has done two things. Last year the Government came forward with a vast programme in terms of which R373 million was spent on the construction of 24 000 dwelling units. In this way the Government made its contribution towards making housing accessible to everyone in South Africa.

However, the responsibility for the provision of accommodation does not rest exclusively on the shoulders of the State. With the co-operation of the individual and the private sector various programmes have to be initiated to make housing available to as large a sector of the population as possible. Last year the Government made R373 million available to bring housing within reach of those persons yearning for it. But the Government also said that that was not enough. The Government also made provision for housing programmes and is engaged in a tremendous sales drive. There are the 500 000 houses owned by the National Housing Commission which are now being made available to people to bring home ownership within reach of those people who need it. The Government helped utility companies to make their contribution to the overall housing strategy. A process of housing education is also taking place. All these things form part of the activities of the department. In this way the department is playing its part in ensuring that the process of providing housing succeeds.

As far as this matter is concerned, I should like to point out a few problem areas. The first problem area is housing standards. These standards are too high, but I do not want to discuss this aspect in detail because some of my collegues will deal with it.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon member for Pietermaritaburg North for the opportunity he has afforded me. As I was saying, the housing standards are too high. Recently I have given special attention to the matter of housing subsidies and the momentum it has gained. Housing subsidies in the public and private sectors are totally disrupting the housing market. In the Budget R103 million is being provided for housing subsidies to Public Servants on the central government level. To this must still be added the subsidies of provincial and local authorities, and subsidies are assuming such proportions that the matter requires the attention of the hon the Minister.

I also want to refer to another aspect of the housing question, namely the role of utility companies, and more specifically housing utility companies. The housing policy of the Government has changed. The emphasis has shifted from housing provided by the State to housing acquired by the individuals themselves. The responsibility of the State is to provide housing for the poor, the aged and the handicapped. This shift in emphasis in the housing policy of the Government has led to local authorities no longer being able to play the role in the provision of housing which they did in the past. A vacuum has now arisen at local government level when it comes to the launching of housing programmes at local level.

Last year the Housing Act was amended to make provision for housing utility companies. In my humble opinion these companies can deal with the provision of housing at the intimate local government level. I want to illustrate another facet of the needs of utility companies by means of an example from letters which arrive at my office every day. I am quoting from a letter I received:

What I am trying to say is that housing utility companies could meet a specific need. Old people who grew up in a certain area and rendered a service there, could be settled in a smaller unit in that community. What is important is that the house in which they formerly lived becomes vacant so that younger people can buy it and children can grow up in it, our transport systems can be supported and schools can again acquire new enrolments. Housing utility companies could play a very important role in this connection. As a matter of fact, I want to express the opinion that every local authority should consider establishing a housing utility company within its area of jurisdiction. A housing utility company works on the unique formula that it generates its own finances in order to erect new housing. I do not believe housing utility companies are the whole answer to the housing problem, but I am convinced that they are part of that answer.

There is, however, one problem I want to bring to the attention of the hon the Minister. In order for a housing utility company to serve as a springboard it must have access to land at reasonable prices. This is the keystone to the success of a housing utility company.

It is very difficult to obtain land in a very competitive market. The State applies a sale and alienation programme to its own land which it does not use. The State has a specific policy to get rid of its own land. In the first place it offers the land to fellow Government departments. In the second place it offers the land to local authorities. If the land is not taken, it is offered in the third place to utility companies and welfare organizations.

Now, housing is just as important in the social sphere as a new political formula. I want to ask the hon the Minister—and this affects both the department and the provinces—after land which has been alienated has been offered to fellow Government departments, to place housing utility companies next in the order of priority. That land should then be offered to the housing utility companies at a market-related rate because a housing utility company can always approach the National Housing Commission for assistance in acquiring the land. In this way utility companies will be able to acquire land. Once the utility companies have that land, they can continue with their wonderful programme of providing elementary housing—not luxury housing, but housing within the paying capacity of the community. If the policy can be adjusted in this way it would be of particular assistance to utility companies in this regard.

In conclusion I want to say that the department adopted a very serious approach to welfare housing during the past year. There is the cadastral aspect of the department, the deeds aspect, the National Housing Commission, the Rent Board and the various commissions of inquiry, for example the inquiry into rent control and the technical Strydom Committee. Considering all these programmes combined, the department is engaged in a tremendously important task in the national economy of South Africa. On behalf of everyone on this side of the House I want to wish everyone involved in this task everything of the best.

Mr Chairman, we also want to extend our condolences to the family of Mr Schalk van Wyk. I knew him well and our personal relationship was a special one.

Today I do not want to talk about housing as such, but about communities and the Department of Community Development. At the present juncture it is essential for us to consider all the tumult surrounding the Group Areas Act and the appointment of a committee to investigate certain Acts. It is strange that the Acts being investigated are the following: The Group Areas Act, Act No 36 of 1966; the Community Development Act, Act No 3 of 1966; the Slums Act, Act No 76 of 1979; the Reservation of Separate Amenities Act, Act No 49 of 1953; chapter 33 of the Orange Free State Act; the Asiatics in the Northern Districts of Natal Act, Act No 33 of 1927; and section 28 of the General Law Amendment Act, Act No 101 of 1969. This investigation into group areas was the result of pressure from within the NP. It resulted from the desire, on the part of some people, to have the group areas adjusted. That is why the Strydom Committee was eventually appointed. Today I want to tell the Government that it cannot steer a middle course as far as group areas are concerned. One either has to abide by the Group Areas Act or abolish it. One should not try to make intermediate adjustments. In 1932 the then Government was faced by precisely the same problem and also made use of a judge in an effort to solve its problems. The then Mr Justice Feetham …

Fagan?

No, Feetham. Do not try to correct me. [Interjections.] Mr Justice Feetham recommended that apartheid should be included in title deeds to land. He, Henry Britten, and Saunders—the latter two were also members of the committee—adopted that standpoint and used the old gold legislation as a basis, legislation in terms of which Coloureds and Indians were prohibited from occupying land.

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

The hon member had better sit down. I do not want to reply to a question now. The fact remains that an attempt was made, at that stage, to make separate group areas workable by means of title deeds to land. They could not, however, be made workable because too many other rights were encroached upon under a title. It is, for example, only the poor who struggle with title deeds because he then becomes a lessee. The owner of the title can allow it to vary as he wishes. These were also the findings of Mr Justice Feetham. That is why I find it virtually incomprehensible why Mr Justice Strydom and others have been asked to investigate the matter of title deeds. Only the rich use it to buy their apartheid and ensure that no one interferes with them in their residential areas.

I have here a map on which I should like to indicate what Johannesburg looked like in those days. In the areas I am now indicating no Coloured persons, with the exception of messengers, were allowed to occupy land. Title, and also licences in these areas, were reserved solely for Whites. The yellow section of the map indicates those areas where Coloured persons were allowed to live under certain circumstances. What resulted from this?

[Inaudible.]

I want to ask the hon Chief Whip to please keep quiet. He would do well to behave himself for just a moment. [Interjections.] Sophiatown, the largest slum in the history of the country, sprang up. Sophiatown was planned as a town under title. In that township one could purchase property under title, and this caused the greatest slum problem in the history of South Africa. From that town Soweto was born, which creating as it has done a further problem for this country. [Interjections.] Now this Government wants to go back and investigate something which the Smuts Government allowed to take place and which was aimed at the total miscegenation of the people by way of title deeds. Why does the Government not have the courage right now to abolish the Group Areas Act? Why do they not say what they want to do? As far as this Act is concerned, they are also engaged in underhanded reform. [Interjections.] I could furnish one example of this after another. In the yellow areas on this map, for example in Rosebank, one might come across a person of colour who had obtained property under title, but in most cases it is Whites who live there. In places like Rosebank, Oaklands and elsewhere one could purchase property under title, and particularly in Sophiatown, the large slum area which cost the country millions of rands and which resulted in Soweto giving South Africa an image abroad which it should never have had. This state of affairs arose, however, because the then NP tried to give proper housing to people with a monthly income of R5, and that is why one of the largest slums in our history sprang up. I therefore want to ask that before we go any further with the Strydom Committee we should decide whether we should continue with this investigation.

Should we simply abandon it?

Whether we should abandon it and retain the Group Areas Act? That hon member will, however, not tell me he wants to retain the Group Areas Act. After all, he flinches from doing so. [Interjections.] Sir, I want to conclude with a word of warning to the Government. Mr Justice Feetham said, inter alia, in his report that the greatest problem was that the then Government was no longer prepared to implement its laws, and I maintain that this is also the case with the present Government.

Mr Chairman, it is a pity that the hon member for Langlaagte commenced his speech by referring to the Strydom Committee, since we are all aware that the ensuing select committee is still investigating the matter. The hon member has now resorted to speculation, sowing suspicion and riddles and he really did not get around to the crux of conditions of title. It is not only the wealthy man who can alter a title deed. In the normal course of events, there is a set procedure concerning how a condition in a deed of transfer can be altered. This is not relevant now, however, since the committee is still investigating the matter. Or was the hon member inspired by the speech of Mr Jaap Marais the other evening on television when he spoke of blood and war? Was he influenced by that?

Each year we try, and succeed, in keeping the discussions on the Community Development Vote elevated above petty matters, since, as the hon member for Bellville rightly said, we are dealing here with important, sensitive matters, matters which affect the weal and woe of thousands of people. I therefore wish to avail myself of this opportunity to refer to the great ideal of home ownership, which really forms the cornerstone of our Government’s housing policy. Home ownership can accomplish a great deal, inter alia, stability, happiness and peace for a family, and order and stability in a community and, consequently, in the country, for the entire population of the country. It was therefore an important event when the hon the Minister announced the scheme in terms of which potentially 500 000 lessees will one day have the tremendous privilege of becoming home owners themselves.

If people avail themselves of this golden opportunity, it will also have a positive effect on various facets of national life and of the country’s circumstances. After all, we are dealing here with a real opportunity for 500 000 people who can make use of it in due course. It is also an opportunity for employers actively to assist their employees, where possible, to become home owners. This also creates the opportunity for employees to create a better image of their organization, thereby attracting better workers. In so doing, productivity, which has really become the watchword in the modern world, can be increased to the extent that it will assist in establishing a stable labour force.

If one looks at this sales scheme, it immediately becomes apparent that it is firmly based on logic. It is also clear that the premise in this respect is that potentially there are 500 000 lessees who could in due course become owners of properties. That group consists of 400 000 Black people, and approximately 100 000 Whites, Coloureds and Asians. We also note that logical provisions are being laid down with regard to establishing the purchase price of each property, based on a formula consisting, amongst other things, of the important segments of construction and replacement costs. In addition, one finds that only the existing lessee can obtain the right to purchase such a property. There is often uncertainty and misunderstanding about this.

Of course, if the lessee does not wish to exercise this right, or if he agrees in writing that it can be sold to someone else, this can be done. However, in the first and final instance, the existing lessee is protected. Furthermore, this right holds good for 12 months, and there is also an important discount—between 35% and 40%—which the lessee can obtain if he decides to become the owner of his home. If possible, the purchase price can be paid in cash—ie out of his own pocket—or with the aid of the private sector. Of course, assistance can also be obtained from the National Housing Commission, but only under certain circumstances.

Of course, it is obvious that such a revolutionary scheme, a scheme which involves 500 000 houses, will also experience growing pains. These growing pains can be summed up administratively under the headings of identifying the specific property, the surveying of the property, establishing a selling structure, and so on. This also includes drawing up the necessary documents, of course.

There was another growing pain, however. This lies in the fact that lessees who for years were satisfied to forego the important privilege of true ownership, had to be inspired and activated into seizing this fantastic opportunity with both hands in order to be able to do that much for themselves and their families, particularly as far as family pride and the upliftment of the family are concerned. They had to be activated into participating. The fact that local authorities often acted very apathetically in this respect, was another growing pain. In this regard we are aware of a case near here. It is the case of a local authority which owns 50 000 properties, and which only decided a month ago to sell 29 000 of them. In the final instance, we have already accepted that our building societies, which play such a major role in the enormous effort of creating accommodation, have not always actively supported this scheme with enthusiasm. There have been exceptions, of course, and on this occasion one really wants to appeal to those 500 000 lessees to seize this opportunity with both hands. They must inspire their families to bring their savings to the building societies so that the great ideal of thrift can be promoted in this way; the great ideal to really have money saved. This must spread like wildfire among the thousands of lessees so that they can introduce themselves to the building societies so that the building societies can know that this is a family who saves, who has savings. If in due course this family applies for a loan in order to pay the purchase price, the building societies will know that these are people they can trust.

On the other hand, I know of few things that have so much potential to develop new fields, this large new fallow field in which the building societies can move. There are 500 000 potential clients for the building societies. They are people who, once they have been assisted to obtain a home, will remain lifelong clients of the building societies, first as borrowers and then as investors.

It is also true that despite all the tremendous* advantages this sales purchasing scheme held, there was also criticism, criticism from people from whom one did not expect it, criticism that is really unfounded. On this occasion I want to refer to a few aspects of this. The first appears in the booklet Oënskou of 4 April and it was expressed by the hon member Prof Olivier. There is a brief, concise article in it which deals very effectively with how the scheme works and so on, but then comes this criticism. He says:

Of course, the hon member was relatively confused about terms here, since dominium, as one knew it in Roman law, was an absolute right. If one compares it with what developed over the centuries to the concept “freehold” which we know today, can one say that present-day freehold, which is much less absolute, is inferior in respect of, and in contrast with, the dominium the Romans knew a thousand or more years ago? Surely that is nonsense.

Let me take another example. Would one say today that the marriage law of the Xhosa people is inferior in comparison with the marriage law of the White man? No, and why can one not say that? The reason is that this hon author was confusing being different with inferiority. If another person’s case is different from one’s own, surely he is not inferior.

I could give another example. Let us take the freehold an ordinary farmer has on his farm today, on condition that the may not burn his veld whenever he wishes, he may not store up more than a certain amount of water, he may not keep more than a specific number of livestock and he may not do any number of things. Is his freehold inferior to that of the Romans, who practically had an absolute right? Of course not.

Order! The hon member’s time has expired.

Freehold as we know it today developed to meet the demands of existing, modern needs.

Order! The hon member’s time has definitely expired!

Mr Chairman, I hope that the extra time taken by the hon member will not be taken off mine.

I wish to associate this party with the words of condolence to the family of the late Mr Van Wyk. We are sure that his loss will be felt in the department which he served so loyally for such a long period.

I cannot follow on the arguments of the hon member for Newton Park although I must obviously agree with a great deal of what he has said because it does make sense. I would just like to touch on one point made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North before I come to what I really would like to discuss this afternoon. I refer to his remarks in respect of the parliamentary buildings. Here again I do strongly support the sentiments expressed by him in that this is going to be a very important development in the history of South Africa and for many, many years in the future—we hope for hundreds of years. It would therefore have been rather a good thing if other people could have been brought into it and almost a competition situation had developed. However, I realize and appreciate the problems of the department in that they have to get things moving fairly quickly.

I just want to make one further point in regard to the question of the various Government departments not submitting plans to local authorities. I just want to draw the hon member’s attention to the fact that since Union it has been the policy that a senior level of government does not apply for permission to a lower level of government. This has been so no matter what party has been in power, virtually since Union. I just want to draw the hon member’s attention to that fact.

Two wrongs do not make a right.

No, I am merely stating what has been a fact for a very long time indeed.

I want to deal now with a matter which is of considerable interest to me, as it is to all hon members, namely the question of housing. The most serious problem involved in the provision of homes for many citizens is in regard to the availability of land that is close to major urban areas and that is suitable for this type of development. It must be borne in mind that such land that there is available for this purpose is under the control or ownership of the local authority or the Department of Community Development. One of the main problems is that although substantial quantities of land are available under the department and local authorities, there seems to be no urgency at all to get that land on the market. This is what is worrying so many people.

Having served on the Venter Commission, I am obviously well aware of the question of township development having been explored at great depth, and that a great deal of useful information and many useful recommendations have emanated from that commission. Here again, however, the question of urgency bothers me. One cannot help but feel that perhaps because of the heavily subsidized housing enjoyed by so many officials not only in Government departments but also in provincial and local government, they do not feel the same degree of urgency as is felt by many members of the general public.

As far as I have been able to ascertain the categories of people who are really suffering at the present moment because of a shortage of suitable accommodation—I am referring to Whites now—are the less affluent group and also young married people. Just the other day the hon the Minister made the statement when he was looking at some houses that so many people simply could not afford houses, even the kind of housing that the hon the Minister was viewing. They would have to have incomes in excess of R3 000 per month which would place such housing absolutely beyond the reach of the groups really requiring this assistance.

I believe that the problem starts in the area of suitable, serviced land. Once again, this was part of the function of the Venter Commission. We cannot help but feel that this is very important. We have the situation where this land is just not being made available quickly enough. In this regard I should like to give an example of the attitude of a local authority—I shall keep the department out of the matter for the moment—which does have suitable land, for example, in Durban. Here again, it is prime residential land in an area that is only 8 km from the Durban City Hall. This land could accommodate between 1 000 and 1 500 units. It has been serviced with roads, it has electricity, and what are they doing with this land that is 8 km away from the city hall? They are thinking of turning it into a quarry! This is utterly ridiculous. These extractive industries are an absolute curse to the people who have to live anywhere near them. I am referring to this particular project because I am hoping that the hon the Minister and the hon the Minister of Mineral and Energy Affairs will object to the Durban City Council’s allowing this land to be zoned for extractive industries. I am referring to the Ridgeview area in Hillary. This area consists of good, prime land as I say 8 km from Durban and there is very little ground left so close to Durban which is suitable and zoned for White development. I believe that those people who already live in close proximity to the present quarry—which I understand has a relatively short life—will not be appreciative of having this quarry extended by giving them another 142 ha of land so that they can be bedevilled with blasting, dust, endless noise with these huge and heavy stone trucks passing their homes day and night sometimes. I am appealing to the hon the Minister to oppose this on the grounds that residential land inside a city is scarce while you can get stone outside the city limits.

A few days ago in this House the question of Wentworth was raised, the amenities and facilities there. I wanted to know whether the residents of Wentworth pay rates and whether the Durban city council was responsible for providing the amenities. Of course I knew the answer from the word go. What I should like to ask the hon the Minister though is whether he is satisfied that adequate amenities have been provided in that area of Wentworth, and in regard to the lawlessness and the general unpleasantness in that area what is happening to resolve the problem.

Another problem I have is in respect of Clairwood. This is a problem of long standing. Originally this was a residential area for Indians which the municipality wanted to convert into land for industrial purposes. Part of it was used to create the market and certain stands were developed there. But there are many, many Indians still living in that area. The matter does not appear yet to have been resolved, with the result that people are living in suspense. There is considerable tension among the people as to what is going to happen. Frankly we have had too many people removed in this country for other needs than to think in terms of moving maybe another 20 000, unless it is of course absolutely vital and can be done without costs to themselves.

Mr Chairman, the hon member will pardon me if I do not react directly to his speech.

In his opening speech at the opening of Parliament this year the State President said the following, inter alia:

I associate myself with that. The programme for the year and the building programme of the department makes one acutely aware of the extent of the activities of the Department of Community Development. Against the background of the rapid urbanization of the South African population and the changing economic, social and political circumstances in particular, the provision of housing for the lower income groups has been under the spotlight on an almost daily basis since the late ’seventies. This meant that all kinds of proposals were made by people who regarded themselves as experts in this field. However, many of these proposals were unproved and created confusion. The need therefore arose to carry out an in-depth investigation into the most effective methods according to which the lower income groups could be provided with housing. In a free market system it is a fundamental premise that the State does not accept responsibility for providing housing in general. The responsibility for this lies primarily with the individual himself and he must provide his own accommodation. In this process the individual must be supported by employers, financial institutions and developers. For a number of reasons, however, the misconception took root among a number of people, particularly in the lower income groups, that they could lay claim to a house provided by the State practically as part of their birthright. In view of rising incomes and the elimination of the wage gap between population groups during the past year, these people often spend too much money on less essential, and even luxury consumer items and they neglect to provide for one of man’s most basic needs, a home, by saving and using the fruits of their labour with discretion.

Against this background the hon the Minister of Community Development appointed a committee in 1980, which was known as the Louw Committee, to investigate the large-scale provision of low-cost housing. In its report this committee came up with proposals with regard to self-build projects, and in association with this, in 1983 the department issued a manual entitled Guidelines for Self Build for Local Authorities and Utility Companies using National Housing Funds. Amongst other things, a definition of a structure, which includes a house and a core house, is given in this well-written document of the department. The principal of self build is also dealt with, the standards which qualify for funding by the commission, the role of the local authority, the role of the individual, etc.

I do not wish to burden the Committee with many statistics, but I should now like to give an indication of the self-build projects the department has been engaged in since 1 April 1984. The department is involved in the building of 4 405 houses altogether and in making 2 988 serviced plots available. A total of 32 311 houses and 14 830 serviced plots are being planned. Self-build projects are being envisaged in which prefabricated components which the owner-builder can assemble himself on the premises will be used, whilst he will be given technical assistance and advice by the manufacturer of the home. The technical acceptability of this kind of building method is being investigated at present, and the findings will be considered in the near future. This will mean that someone who uses this method of building can construct a house for between R2 000 and R6 000, depending on the size. Long-term insurance for such a home will also be provided by the manufacturer. Alternative building methods will have to be considered on a continuous basis. Since Iscor is celebrating its fiftieth anniversary this year, and since it has been manufacturing steel for so long, I think it would be an exceptional occasion if Iscor were to announce that it is going Jo make an effort to provide housing. I think it is possible for Iscor to provide houses. A former Prime Minister, Gen Smuts, lived in a corrugated iron house until the day he died. In 1983 alone the State spent R372 759 101 on housing, and the private sector spent R2 600 million. Seen against the background of demographic trends in South Africa, this will mean that by the year 2020 we will have to spend R780 million per annum on housing, and in the year 2050 we will have to spend R1 916 million per annum.

I have given hon members an indication of what the housing question in South Africa entails. To me it is very important that we should refrain from impeding people at all three levels of government. People should rather be assisted to help themselves with housing. Unnecessarily high standards will have to be done away with.

I want to refer hon members to the National Building Regulations and Building Standards Act, which was passed by Parliament in 1977. A committee was instructed to prepare building regulations, and draft regulations were published for comment in 1981. However, we still do not have those regulations. Urgent attention must be given to this matter, since time is running out and we must see to it that housing is given the highest possible priority in this country.

I also wish to appeal to developers to develop land for housing at the lowest possible price. Unnecessarily large plots must be eliminated. The total soil surface of the RSA is 1 124 996 square kilometres. In Pretoria one pays between R19 000 and R30 000 for a small plot of 800 square metres to 1 000 square metres.

I want to refer to a short article in Die Vaderland of 1 May. It is not directly related to my speech, but I am referring to this to give hon members an indication of the direction in which we are moving. It states that the cost of a grave in Johannesburg is being increased from R66 to R800 for a non-resident. Surely that is ridiculous.

Land for township development must be identified in the long-term and it must be made available at the most realistic prices. We can no longer afford speculation with land for township development. I also plead that financial institutions and building societies must determine the need of an applicant before funding is considered. Only then can the problem be solved. To me it is very important—the hon member for Bellville referred to this as well—that the high subsidies and allowances that are paid, and the housing guarantees that are given, should be reviewed. The amount for which a person qualifies should no longer be linked to his income. His real needs should be considered. If a person requires luxuries such as an additional bathroom or a garage, he must save for it himself. This must be made very clear to our people.

The State is also guilty of this, particularly local authorities and larger employers, such as Escom. We must tackle the housing problem in earnest, since only then will we solve this problem in South Africa.

Mr Chairman, I follow on the hon member for Witbank with a certain amount of good feeling as I intend dealing with the whole question of financing of housing and what I believe is the correct manner to deal with this.

However, before I come to the main object of my speech, I would appreciate it if the hon the Minister would under programme 7 of Vote 21, “Defence”, please undertake the restoration and refurbishing of the old No 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekkerhoogte. This old hospital has seen two world wars and the present armed conflict on the South West African-Angolan border and has served a useful purpose. A new hospital has been built and a beautiful new structure has been erected. However, it would be sad if the old hospital was not re-habilited. It can still be utilized to good purpose and still serve for many years to come. Perhaps it should be declared a national monument.

The annual report of the Department of Community Development states that the first report of the Commission of Inquiry into Township Establishment deals with the, and I quote:

As a commissioner, I would like to pay particular tribute—I am glad he is here—to the chairman, Mr A A Venter, the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. Under his chairmanship it was possible to review somewhat dispassionately the whole problem of township development for Whites, Coloureds, Asiatics and Blacks and so to consider it as a part of the actual provision of housing. Without serviced stands in urban areas in this modern day and age it is impossible to build a house. In addition, the contributions of Mr Strydom, Secretary of the Commission, and particularly of Mr L Claassen, Chief Director: Town and Regional Planning, of the Department of Community Development are outstanding and also noteworthy.

The first report is vital because it deals with the major problem of finance. All the high ideals one may have—and one hears them expressed here so often—are of no account if the money is not available to provide certain essentials, namely serviced sites, and building material and labour. In paragraph 3.4 the report of the commission states categorically that—

This new policy implies a greater integration of action by the public and private sectors now that the National Housing Commission can raise loans from financial institutions at ruling market rates in the open money market. Being a provider of infrastructure means providing residential sites, while the private sector should help to build the houses on these sites. As a rule of thumb, 25% of the ultimate cost of a home is for a fully serviced residential site and 75% for the building material and labour involved.

What the commission recommends is that a development corporation be established similar to the Industrial Development Corporation. This development corporation should be a partnership between private enterprise and the State, but with the majority control in the hands of the private sector, which would provide a larger amount of share capital than the public sector. When we refer to the public sector, we mean the central government and provincial and local authorities. The private sector will provide development capital, expertise in the field of management, financial control and entrepreneurial skill. The Urban Foundation has proved what an outstanding contribution private enterprise can make when collaborating with the central government. It is essential that the importance of housing in the national development structure be recognized. Housing must be a top priority within the national economy and a housing policy must be devised as also a strategy for its fulfilment. These must be devised for various reasons, which are set out in paragraph 3.3 of the report. The following common fundamental approaches to housing strategy, as a basic and dominant philosophy, were observed:

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

As I indicated, that issue can become highly explosive. The commission therefore recommended—

However, South Africa faces tremendous urbanization between now and the turn of the century. It is no longer in the capacity of an individual to provide an urban building site for it needs a piece of surveyed land linked to an extensive system of engineering services which provide access roads, services of water, telephone and electricity, as well as the disposal of sewerage and storm-water. At present South Africa for all its population groups has a supply of just on 2 million houses, while the housing need is for 2,25 million, leaving a housing shortage of some 0,25 million of which Black housing has the largest shortfall, namely 160 000. What is staggering is that between now and the year 2000 we will need 3,5 million housing units to provide housing for all our population groups in addition to what we have. Based on 1980 costs the report shows that it is estimated that the financial implications are enormous, for instance for residential sites R22,5 billion and for homes R65 billion, making a total of some R87 billion which is required to build 3,5 million new houses and to provide the necessary services. It will be impossible for the State to provide the largest share of this development capital needed particularly for the middle and lower income groups. The public sector has been unable to provide these funds because it has a much wider aspect to consider for dividing up its revenue. The Department of Finance, on the other hand, has followed the policy of controlling public expenditure by annually placing a restriction on the amount local authorities are allowed to spend. The National Housing Commission too has been restricted in its expenditure on development. However, without a vast increase of capital expenditure on township development and subsequent housing we can never provide the 3,5 million serviced stands and the houses on them that have to be developed within the next 16 years to the turn of the century. A vast amount of capital still has to be raised. I believe it is essential that the development corporation on the basis recommended by the Venter Commission, and already accepted in principle by the Cabinet, is set up without delay. I trust the hon the Minister will give us some ideas today on what has happened to date.

Furthermore, I believe that all housing matters, whether for Whites, Coloureds, Asians or Blacks, should come under the ambit of the Department of Community Development. It is against all concepts of rationalization that housing should fall under different departments. Its rightful place is under Community Development. Then, when the Development Corporation for Housing is established, it will take all township development and housing matters in respect of all population groups—Whites, Coloureds, Asians and Blacks—within its ambit. I trust the hon the Minister will ensure that this happens soon.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Bezuidenhout once again described problems the Venter Commission has been wrestling with recently. However, I do not think he has come up with a new solution to the problem. Instead he presented the hon the Minister with a number of problems and asked him to solve them now. I did not hear him making a contribution to solving these problems.

In the few minutes at my disposal I wish to discuss community involvement. Community service or community care has always been seen as a team effort. Various parties or partners are involved in such an action. When such an action consists of only one party acting and the other party or parties only being at the receiving end, certain warning lights begin to flash. Then the time has come for us to look at the matter anew with renewed involvement. In the first half of my speech I wish to confine myself to involvement, and to try to ascertain whether that involvement still exists, and if it no longer exists, to try to indicate what can be done to re-establish it. Since we are discussing the Community Development Vote today, I want to approach this from the point of view of housing. The first general fact we must accept and which is certainly at the root of the dilemma is that, to a large extent, we in South Africa still have a developing community and economy. Another fact is that the realities of a First World and a Third World are present here in South Africa. This is something we cannot wish away or undo. We are living in a country where these two worlds meet and where there necessarily has to be certain points of contact. With the passage of time these points of contact have begun making increasing demands, particularly on the Department of Community Development.

In due course, as the Black communities achieve a higher level of remuneration, the need for better quality housing will increase. Their murmuring, which could later turn into demands, could place increasing pressure on the department and the available housing funds. Meanwhile, we have become entangled in a system of subsidies from which it will be difficult for us to disentangle and uproot ourselves. Increasingly heavier demands are going to be made on the Treasury in order to be able to pay these subsidies, which are increasing. I should also like to associate myself with what the hon member for Bellville had to say in this regard, viz that the system of rental subsidies will have to be seriously considered in the future. I am referring specifically to the subsidization that makes it possible to acquire houses at a lower rent.

I maintain that the present lower rental for houses is going to result in home ownership, particularly among the Black people, not coming into its own. Home ownership in general, and an own home, more specifically in the case of the Black people in the White urban areas, is one of the keys to stability and leads to peace of mind which, in turn, could have an influence on labour peace, which could then have an influence on greater productivity. When the Black employee, in particular, is placed in a position in which he does not have to worry about a place to live because he owns a home of his own, he must necessarily be happier in his work and perform his task with a great deal more vigour. It is therefore in the interests of the employer, as well as the employee, to become involved in the provision of housing. In fact, I think it is in the interests of the entire economic set-up in South Africa that there should be this involvement.

I therefore maintain that the employer, both in the public and in the private sectors, can by no means detach himself from the provision of housing for his employees. However, the question arises to what extent the employer is already involved. We know that the public sector, ie the Public Service, has already become involved to a large extent by way of interest subsidies. To a certain extent the private sector has already become involved. In this regard I am thinking of the schemes the banks and building societies offer their employees. In addition, there is a large degree of employer involvement by top officials in the private sector.

When one analyses the report of the Venter Commission—and the hon member for Bezuidenhout claims that I have not studied that report—particularly where it deals with the influence of changing economic circumstances on the building industry, there are certain visible trends of which one must take cognizance.

I do not want to quote complete statistics in this regard. I just want to point to a single statistic. It is very clear that from 1974 to 1980 there was a decrease of 15% in the total investment in residential buildings. Expressed as a percentage of the total domestic fixed investment, investment in residential buildings amounted to 17,1% in total in 1960; 15,51% in total in 1970 and only 10,8% in 1980. What is very important, however, is that it now appears that the contribution on the part of the public sector—ie of the State—remained relatively constant over this period, but that the involvement on the part of the private sector declined. The private sector may not detach itself from this responsibility. The private sector must therefore remain involved, and become increasingly involved in the provision of accommodation.

Unfortunately, my time has almost expired. However, if the State wants to detach itself from subsidized rental, and it wants to move more in the direction of a market-related rental, this could, of course, mean that the employee—and the Black employee in particular—can resort to the alternative. That is the 99-year leasehold system. In order to realize this, and to bring about a greater effort in that direction, I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider a tax rebate to employers for financial assistance to employees so that they can aquire their own homes in that way.

Employers will have to become more involved. The State can assist by awarding employers tax rebates in this regard. The hon the Minister could argue that this is not in his field, but that it is the right and the duty of the hon the Minister of Finance. However, the issue here is involved in the provision of housing by the private sector, as well as the alleviation of pressure on the available money for housing. I therefore believe that this is a possible alternative to which urgent attention should be given.

Mr Chairman, since this matter is of general interest, I should like to make an announcement concerning the latest developments as far as Newlands House is concerned.

†I wish to announce that as a result of the events concerning the rebuilding of Newlands House, I have appointed a committee of experts to advise me and the department on the proposed project. The terms of reference of the committee are to give advice and to make recommendation regarding the following:

1. (a) Should Newlands House be rebuilt?
2. (b) If so, according to which period and building style?
3. (c) What size should the replica be?
4. (d) Where should the entrance to the building be situated?
5. (e) To give advice regarding any other aspects which the committee should deem of importance.

The following persons have been appointed by me to serve on the committee: Mr C W van Niekerk, Deputy Director-General (Building Services), of the Department of Community Development, as chairman; Dr C J Loedolff, Director of the National Monuments Council; Mr D Jack, Deputy City Engineer of Cape Town; Mr J Schoeman, Assistant City Engineer, Building Services, Cape Town; Mr J W L Rennie, nominee of the Institute of South African Architects; Mr D Visser of the partnership Munnik, Visser, Black and Fish, which was appointed by the Department of Community Development to undertake the restoration/ rebuilding of Newlands House; and Mr J P Hood, Assistant Director: Ministerial and Parliamentary Services, Department of Community Development.

*The committee has submitted the following recommendations to me: Firstly, that the residence known as Newlands House should be rebuilt; secondly, that the residence be rebuilt as it was in 1828—in the Regency style—as this was the most representative style of architecture applicable to Newlands House and the one which most people will associate with the House; thirdly, that the entrance to the property be off Avenue La Caille since the existing access route off Newlands Avenue runs through several subdivisions and is not only impractical but would also be aesthetically unpleasing. This entrance was in any event not the original entrance. Fourthly, that since Newlands House has been renowned over the years for its receptions and in order to make this distinctive historic residence accessible to as many people as possible, its utilization as a Government guest house is appropriate; fifthly, that expert archaeologists be appointed to assist with the excavation of the foundations; and, sixthly, that the boundary walls of the property be complementary to the architectural style of the residence. The magnolia and other trees on the property must be left untouched.

I should like to express my sincere gratitude to all the members of the committee for their well-considered attention to this matter. I have instructed the department to continue with the project on the basis as recommended.

Why not follow the same line of action as far as the parliamentary building is concerned?

I shall be dealing with the Parliamentary building later.

I do not wish to discuss housing in general at too great length. Hon members have asked very penetrating questions and it will take a great deal of time to reply to them in full. Nevertheless I think it is necessary for me to state, right at the outset, the department’s new policy in connection with housing—its new housing strategy, as it is called—which the hon member for Bezuidenhout also mentioned. The hon member for Bezuidenhout added that it was very important that there should be such a housing strategy. I also think it is important that I should explain this strategy to the Committee and defend it. It is true that questions are asked from time to time, and I shall deal with that later.

I am very satisfied that we are on the right road with our new policy as regards the provision of housing. Generally speaking it has been well received in all quarters, particularly by the private sector which, in terms of the new policy, is being involved as one of the most important partners in the housing sphere. Our new approach in this instance is based on the standpoint that the State can no longer continue to provide houses for virtually all non-Whites in the country, as well as all Whites in the lower income groups. After all, it is general knowledge that we made provision for more than 90% of the Blacks, and that the position is not much better as far as the other race groups are concerned.

If we take into account what we had, and what we are engaged in doing now, then we find as regards our former policy of mass provision of housing by way of mass building projects, that in spite of the fact that colossal sums of money were spent on these building projects, a tremendous backlog nevertheless developed. Not only did this lead to a tremendous backlog being built up; the gap between demand and supply, too, grew by the day. We had not the faintest hope of even keeping up, let alone making up this leeway, with the methods we were using. What is more, the other facets of housing, such as the purchase of land, township development, surveying and so on, fell way behind. It was impossible to give this the necessary attention and as a result a widespread shortage of serviced plots developed in this country, and where such plots were still available—I am speaking in particular about plots for non-Whites in their own areas—the prices of plots increased unrealistically, due to the competition to obtain such plots.

This in turn has meant that many thousands of Indians and Coloureds who could afford to make provision for themselves, are today sitting in houses leased by the State; but because in the first place they lacked a plot on which they could build a house and in the second, they were not encouraged to do so, they are today accommodated in State housing which is being very heavily subsidized. I shall refer later to the colossal amount we are already paying today in the form of subsidies on rented houses. What is more, in terms of the old dispensation a tremendous backlog developed in respect of welfare housing and in respect of the most vital community facilities. We allowed many of the housing projects to proceed in the absence of the necessary facilities for the people and in the absence of community halls and other facilities, and this had a degrading and restrictive effect on the new areas that we established. What is even more important is that due to this tremendous effort we made, in terms of the old system, to go some way towards alleviating the tremendous need that existed for non-White housing, the provision of housing for poor Whites lagged behind.

That is why I say that in spite of the millions more rands of State funds being pumped in in terms of the system of mass housing projects, the discrepancy between supply and demand continued to grow and, as I said, we had no chance of keeping up and we should never have had the slightest chance of making up the leeway. It was simply impossible to carry on in that way.

Realities, and the hard facts of this matter, compelled the Government to investigate every possible avenue and method in order, firstly, to achieve the optimum utilization of the available funds for housing and, secondly, to involve all the parties concerned, viz the private developer, financial institutions, employers and—most important of all—the individual himself, in the provision of low-cost housing, and in addition, by way of, firstly, the founding of housing utility companies, secondly, the encouragement of self-build and self-help projects, thirdly, the expediting and simplification of township establishment procedures, fourthly, the drastic scaling down of standards and services and, fifthly, the establishment of uniform acceptable norms, to make a purposeful and co-ordinated effort to deal with the housing problem in all its facets.

I have said that this is what we are trying to achieve by way of the new housing policy, but there is opposition to it and I recognize that. Whereas there is a considerable degree of acceptance, opposition is also being encountered. From which quarters are we encountering the opposition? In the first instance, there are those, eg the UDF, who blatantly exploit housing for political purposes with a view to the Coloured and Asian elections that lie ahead. However, it is not only they who are exploiting housing for political purposes; others, too, are doing that. Many people want to make a political football out of it. In the second place, there are many non-Whites who are finding it difficult today simply to accept responsibility with regard to their housing, because they have never been accustomed to doing so. They have been accustomed simply to go and request the State for accommodation, and to demand it. Once they had received it, they were often dissatisfied and critical. On top of that it was often neglected and maltreated. In the third place there were the lazy local authorities, that became accustomed to spending lavishly at the Government’s expense and that, in addition, built up large empires for themselves, so-called housing departments, that they would prefer not to dismantle now.

With reference to this I should like to quote what was said by Mrs E Stott according to Die Burger of last Friday. She is in charge of the housing committee of the Cape Town city council, which administers approxmately 50 000 rented houses. These houses were built with money from the National Housing Fund. Among other things, Mrs Stott said at the Cape Municipal Congress:

Tarred roads with kerbs could also be added. I quote further:

—that is to say, under the old dispensation—

Right at the outset I want to say that I have nothing against Mrs Stott; indeed, we know each other well and get along well. She is one of those people who does not merely talk; she does something. To Mrs Stott and to everyone who thinks as she does in this connection, viz that we should revert to the policy that the State has to give a house to every person, particularly among the non-Whites, and that he can rightfully expect to obtain it from the Government and can demand it as a right. I want to say: Forget it. The sooner we forget that idea, the better. The Government is not a milch-cow for anyone. Funds for housing do not fall like manna from heaven, and the available funds must be judiciously allocated to all aspects of housing, and not only to total housing. I am not saying that in terms of this new housing strategy we have all the answers, but my department and I are wholly convinced of one thing, and that is that we cannot revert to the old policy. I do not say that we should not investigate and exploit other possibilities or that contructive criticism should not be advanced. All I ask is that we should not act as hindrances, but should be more enthusiastic and positive and should give the new housing policy a chance. I think that this is possibly the method whereby we shall be able to provide housing for the biggest number of people with the money at our disposal.

†The main objective of the Government’s new housing strategy is to ensure that the entire community, that is the authorities, private enterprise and individuals, becomes fully involved. I know it has been said that the State has surrendered its responsibility for housing to the private sector and that the private sector does not have the capacity to make a significant contribution. I wish to emphasize and repeat what I have said on numerous occasions, namely that the new policy is in fact a genuine effort to assist more people to obtain housing of an acceptable standard. More money is being made available for housing than ever before in the history of South Africa, and the individual now has the opportunity to accept responsibility for the erection of his own house, either by means of his own labour and efforts or with the assistance of financing institutions and developers as well as employers.

Since the announcement of the new housing policy, it is most heartening to notice the way in which employers, building societies and the private sector in general, have responded. Until recently the State provided more than 90% of all housing for Blacks in urban areas. The State accepted the responsibility for the planning, financing and physical erection of almost all houses. In the course of less than two years the position has changed dramatically. It can be said that the private sector has in the past year made a contribution of more than 30% to the new housing stock for Blacks. It is clear from the co-operation and the enthusiasm of the private sector in this regard that they can play a far greater role provided enough land is available. The hon member for Bezuidenhout also stressed this. This aspect is receiving serious attention at the moment, particularly in view of the report of the Venter Commission.

*This is merely a general overview with regard to our new approach to the provision of housing. I cannot go into it in more detail at this juncture. If hon members will wish to refer to it again we can discuss it further.

I now wish to refer to the remarks of the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North with regard to extensions to the Parliamentary building. I read the hon member’s speech in The Argus last Friday night, but it does not matter that he repeated it here today. There was a stage when the Government had to identify a place in the vicinity of the Parliamentary building where the new extension could be built. A Cabinet Committee in conjunction with Mr Speaker and the secretariat of Parliament investigated all posibilities. They were consulted in the matter, step by step, right from the outset. What is more, in this process we also consulted Mr Jan Brand, the City Engineer of Cape Town. This could not be on a formal basis, of course. When the plans are formally accepted by the committee in question in Parliament, we shall submit them to the City Council for perusal at the first opportunity. When the area to the south of the Parliamentary building was identified, architects in the department made sketches of what the building might look like. After these sketches had been made Mr Brand, Mr Gawie Fagan and Mr Fish, the president of the South African Institute for Architects, were consulted in the matter. Of course, all this was still on an informal basis, since Parliament still had to decide on it. Therefore we only carried out a provisional investigation. If the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North had come to speak to me in advance he would not have made such a fool of himself and of The Argus. We said to the relevant committee of Parliament at the earliest opportunity: “Look, this is a possibility we are considering; the building could be extended and this is what we think it ought to look like”. Now it is in the hands of Parliament. After having thrashed out the matter with the committee of Parliament, we shall await the final drawings. Then it is for Parliament, and not for me as head of this department, to announce a competition and call for people to submit plans. Of course, we do not have time for that, because we are saddled with an acute shortage of accommodation. However, if Parliament wishes to do so, it can do so. The hon member is barking up the wrong tree.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister a question? I thank him for his reply, but does he not believe that, in view of the tremendous importance of this building, more than simply Parliament should be involved in such internal decisions? I ask that in view of the historical importance of the building. What is more, it does not merely concern this building, but it also concerns Tuynhuys and the Company’s Garden. [Interjections.]

It is not for me to decide on that. This is a matter for the relevant select committee of Parliament to decide on. It is out of my hands. We are merely going to construct the building and have the plans drawn up. We are merely the functional department that is now acting on behalf of Parliament.

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

The hon member must just not waste my time.

I won’t. I am not necessarily holding a brief for Parliament, but if the hon the Minister is requested to produce something different, if, for example, the Prime Minister when he goes overseas in the next three weeks, sees something impressive in Bonn, Lisbon or London and comes back with some questions, will the hon the Minister be happy to look at such other proposals?

I think the hon member is now indulging in flights of the imagination. Anything practical will be considered by the relevant committee and the Government, but they will take the time schedule into account in this regard.

The hon member also asked me: What about the development around the rest of Parliament and Stal Plein? If he approaches me in this regard I shall provide him with a plan of what Stal Plein is going to look like. What is more, I invite him to come and look at these things next week or at any other time.

[Inaudible.]

I shall invite that hon member too, if he would only hold his tongue. Those things have already been spelt out on a number of occasions. However, if the hon member wants to see models and plans of the layout of Stal Plein he can come and look at them. That work has already been done and the information is available.

Then the hon member dwelt on the Group Areas Act, as did the hon member for Langlaagte. The Group Areas Act is now in the hands of a select committee, and the hon members have a seat on that committee. I do not intend doing the work of the select committee in this House. The hon members must make their contributions there. I want to say to the hon member for Langlaagte that there is no question of the principles of the Group Areas Act being thrown over-board. Moreover there is no point in his trying to make political capital out of it. However, if he wishes to make a contribution in this regard the correct place is the select committee, on which he has a seat. There we shall thrash out the matter of the Group Areas Act and then, in due course, submit a recommendation to Parliament. I shall discuss the removals later.

I wish to thank the hon member for Bellville for the words of gratitude he conveyed to certain members of staff. He referred to the importance of home ownership, the important role that housing utility companies can play and how we can help them. I know that the hon member is very enthusiastic about that work. I want to say to him that since the time the hon the Prime Minister directed that we attempt to utilize housing utility companies for the provision of housing for the middle income group, we have already established 19 new housing utility companies. He pointed out that it was difficult for the companies to obtain land, because little land was available in urban areas. I want to say to the hon member that we are already doing as he requested. Where we have land available in urban areas we also offer it to utility companies, just as it is offered to other bodies. We are pleased if they wish to make use of it. We also referred to the housing subsidies for public servants. The hon member for Witbank, too, referred to this. The whole matter of housing subsidies is being investigated at present. Earlier, during the discussion of the Budget, the hon the Minister of Finance said that the Government was fully investigating the whole matter of the subsidization of housing loans to public servants.

The hon member for Langlaagte spoke about group areas and referred to the Strydom Committee. He said that one should not appoint a committee on a matter of this nature to furnish one with advice. [Interjections.] What the hon member said may have merit, but I do want to say that when we appointed the committee at the time, the hon member was still one of my supporters. At the time he accepted joint responsibility for the appointment of the committee. [Interjections.] We might as well leave it at that.

The hon member for Newton Park referred to various aspects. He referred inter alia to the sales campaign which is being conducted at present and to other important aspects. Not only he, but various other hon members referred to the sales campaign. I should like to make certain remarks today about the sales campaign. There is criticism of the fact that the sales campaign is not “getting off the ground”, as many people put it. I do not wish to apologize for the existing backlog. We certainly have not progressed as rapidly as I though we should, but I do wish to point out that in 1980 legislation was passed in Britain to provide for the sale of seven million state houses—not only 0,5 million, as is the case here. After almost four years, in November 1983, 550 000 houses had been sold, that is to say, 7,9% of the total number.

Did you not learn from them, then?

Yes, I do learn from them.

What have you learnt?

I shall tell the hon member in a moment. In fact we are doing far better than they are. I should just like to give a brief report on the matter.

As regards surveying, 296 000 commissions have already been issued for Blacks, 129 000 of which have already been completed. The entire surveying process for Blacks will cost R32 million. As far as Whites are concerned, 80 933 commissions have been issued which will cost a total of R9 million. The surveys in this regard have progressed further. As far as the identification of saleable units is concerned, we have investigated 531 695, 447 871 of which we decided were saleable. We have already determined the purchase prices of 375 270 of them. Thus in that regard, too, we have made progress. As far as sales to Whites are concerned, 847 houses have already been sold. These are transactions which have already been finalized, but there are many prospective buyers who have intimated that they wished to buy their properties. In the meantime 847 Whites, 1 931 Coloureds, 1 850 Asians, 14 527 Blacks—a total of 19 120—have already bought properties at this stage. This has yielded R28 664 000. The houses sold to Whites represent the biggest percentage, viz 8,8%. For Indians it is 8%; for Coloureds 1,3% and Black people, 5,5%.

The greatest amount of agitation occurs among the Coloureds, of course, and I do not want to be personal. I get along well with the people of the Cape, but I do, after all, have to state where these properties have been sold. For example, 342 properties have been sold to the Coloureds in Johannesburg; 868 in Port Elizabeth and 458 in Cape Town. The latter were sold by the Divisional Council. The hon member for Sea Point knows exactly where the problem lies.

†The sales campaign launched during the middle of 1983 was initiated with the object of making as many of the approximately 506 000 letting units not previously offered for sale, available to the present tenants. Although prior notice had been taken of anticipated problems in connection with the surveying of sites, compliance with township development formalities and even with the identification of saleable units, it was nevertheless accepted that the tenants would grasp the unique opportunity to purchase a dwelling at a price which could never be repeated. Responsible Coloured, Indian and Black leaders supported the campaign, but I must admit that I was initially very disappointed with the reticent attitude of some local authorities. This attitude led to some interested tenants becoming very impatient and frustrated as they could not get a positive reaction to their applications to purchase dwellings.

The department, particularly Mr Johan Kruger and his team, however, undauntedly continued to activate all those involved to give their full support to the campaign. I am pleased that their efforts have not been in vain and that there are signs that the programme is now progressing satisfactorily.

*Mr Chairman, you will probably agree with me that the sale of 500 000 dwellings is an enormous task, and the fact that more than 19 000 dwellings have already been sold in little more than five months is in itself a major achievement. When the project was launched, I announced that the sales campaign with its attractive conditions of sale would apply for at least one year, and in the light of the representations I have received from community and other leaders it has been decided to retain the special concession, with adjustments where necessary, for a further period of one year from 1 June 1984. We are therefore extending it for one year.

As regards those who are not cash buyers, we have already made several concessions to make matters as easy as possible for them. The deposit normally required by building societies is 20%. However, we have arranged with the building societies that they will only ask a deposit of 5%. The National Housing Commission will guarantee the difference. We are permitting White employers and agencies that wish to assist their non-White workers by purchasing houses, to protect their interests by registering deeds or even by taking ownership of such properties in the non-White areas.

Since certain housing projects which are now being offered for sale were built in far-off towns, buildings societies are hesitant to grant mortgage bonds in view of the limited market conditions and the fact that they do not always have branch offices in those places. In order to assist people with these problems, it has been decided that the National Housing Fund will provisionally make loans available to these buyers on the same conditions as those normally set by building societies. Arrangements will then be made in due course to cede the loans to approved financial institutions. Along with this, of course, there is the question of rent. Hon members will bear in mind that I already intimated at that time that rentals had to change. Therefore I believe that as far as rental formulas are concerned the time has now come for there to be a timely indication of what lessees can expect after this sales campaign has been finalized. When the sales campaign was launched it was clearly stated to lessees that no pressure whatsoever would be exerted on them to buy the dwellings they were leasing. However, they were informed that they should take cognizance of the fact that adjustments to rentals would necessarily have to be made in the near future.

The most important reason for the revision of the existing lease formula is to reduce the present subsidies, which are assuming disturbing proportions, to a more realistic basis. Although the National Housing Fund was originally established as a revolving fund, the aims of the fund are nowhere near being achieved at present, and the total yield of the fund is being allocated exclusively to subsidization, with the result that virtually no new projects for new houses can be financed.

The potential revenue of approximately R300 million is at present being devoted entirely to the subsidization of accommodation. I do not intend giving full details of proposed new formulas which will now, due to the extension of the sales campaign, also be held back for a further period of 12 months. I should much prefer to lay down the broad guidelines that will apply. Therefore, together with the extension of time as regards the sales campaign, we are also postponing for a year the implementation of the new rental scales.

†In the first instance the rental value can no longer be coupled with the historic cost of dwellings. Such values will in future be reviewed periodically, taking into account, inter alia, current replacement costs based on prescribed annual building cost indexes. In the second instance we will no longer be able to stick to the principle that the household cannot spend more than 25% of the breadwinner’s income on housing. Today it has become common practice in even the poorest section of the community that various members of one family receive a permanent income, a part of which income will in future be taken into account for the calculation of the rental.

Thirdly I am of the opinion that the subsidization of rentals must not be regarded as a right, and that every family’s position must be assessed according to its particular circumstances. Each dwelling should therefore have a fixed rental, and such rental can be reduced on application, if justified, by a monthly subsidization on a sliding scale, and also taking into account the particular circumstances. The details of the proposals will be cleared with all interested groups and authorities in the months ahead, after which a final announcement will be made.

*Mr Chairman, this brings me to the hon member for Bezuidenhout. I shall come to the hon member for Umbilo later. With reference to what I have just said, however, I first wish to address the hon member for Bezuidenhout. This hon member also raised the matter of the financing of accommodation and its importance. I want to point out to hon members that they should not only look at the annual report or the amounts indicated in the Budget. That is not all we spend on accommodation. Hon members must also realize that there are concealed amounts, particularly as regards the subsidization of accommodation. This is subsidization which became essential in these times of high interest rates in order to bring housing within the reach of our people. Due to the extremely high interest rates and the extent of the subsidies, I have just said that the amount of the subsidy, the aim of which is to try to keep housing within the reach of the majority of people, is today R300 million.

Let us only consider the Budget figures to which the hon member also referred. During the current year, money that will be drawn directly from the National Housing Fund will be spent on the following items: Social housing, R65 million; complete dwellings, R211 million; land and infrastructure, R100 million; material and self-build loans, R43 million; individual loans, R20 million; community facilities, R20 million; and growth point development housing, R15 million. This gives us an amount of R474 million out of the National Housing Fund.

Let us also consider the various programmes. Under Programme 3 a further R27 million from the Community Development Fund will be spent. Under Programme 2C there is an amount of R112 million for interest subsidies on outside loans. These are the loans we negotiate with financial institutions amounting to something like R200 million every year. The interest we pay on that amounts to R112 million. Under Programme 4 there is an amount of R102 million in respect of housing subsidies for public servants. As far as Programme 7 is concerned, an amount of R40 million is set aside in respect of official housing, particularly for our service departments. Interest subsidies on State-supported mortgages—that is, the 20% scheme announced by the hon the Minister of Finance and the subsidization of mortgage bonds with building societies—amounts to R20 million. All these amounts I have just mentioned total R775 million. To that must be added the amount of R300 million I have just referred to. This means that this department alone is going to spend an amount of R1,075 billion on housing in the current year. That is in respect of the Department of Community Development alone. That does not include the housing that will be made available by, for example, the Department of Transport Affairs, the Department of Posts and Telecommunications, the Department of Co-operation and Development and other Government departments, as well as State corporations. Therefore I say that the astronomical amount spent on housing annually gives the he to and contradicts all the allegations made by people from time to time to the effect that the Government is trying to shift its responsibility in regard to housing onto the private sector. That is the biggest nonsense on earth, and I just hope that hon members in this Committee do not go around thinking that.

The hon member for Pietermaritzburg North also asked a question in regard to the housing project of the Public Servants’ Association in Zonnebloem. The Public Servants’ Association is a very important utility company and they are providing excellent assistance as regards the provision of housing. They have projects under way in Pretoria, Johannesburg, Bloemfontein and everywhere, and I am pleased that the Community Development Board has given them 100 plots on which to build houses for young officials and young married officials in particular, people whose need is so great. The National Housing Commission will help to provide the bridging finance until the first money has come in. For Coloured public servants the department itself will provide housing in the Coloured section of Zonnebloem.

†This brings me to the hon member for Umbilo who asked quite a few questions. In the first instance he wanted to know what was happening at Clairwood. This area was earmarked years ago by the city council as a future industrial area. There are 1 136 Indian families still residing in that area. There are 113 industrial sites situated in that area. The portion envisaged for the industrial area is in a reasonable condition but the residential area is in a poor condition. The suggestion of the department aimed at the improvement and the upliftment of the area is that a portion of the residential area be retained as such and be redeveloped by the private sector. This is as far as Clairwood is concerned.

So that they can walk to work?

Yes, that is correct.

With regard to Wentworth and Austerville I want to mention that an initial allocation of R2 million was made available for the upgrading of Austerville. I think that forms part of Wentworth. The planning has been completed to improve certain portions of Austerville in order of priority. This includes services as well as renovations to buildings. Specifications for the first phase of the work which includes the provision of service for an amount of R400 000 are now ready so that tenders can be called fór. It is endeavoured to complete the work during the current financial year, and as soon as the initial work has been completed the buildings will be renovated. If the hon member wishes me to supply further details, I shall gladly do so.

He also inquired about the availability of land for housing. The department has already made a special plea to local authorities to make land which they have and which is not required for their purpose, available to housing utility companies and welfare organizations as well as development companies who undertake housing projects for the lower income groups. Land which has been acquired with National Housing funds and which is no longer required has already been offered for sale. The department is at present giving attention to an interdepartmental report on the whole issue of the sale of available Government-owned land, and a decision in this regard will be taken in the very near future.

The hon member asked me about the situation around Ridgeview Quarry. This matter has been receiving the attention of the Department of Constitutional Development and Planning and the Department of Community Development at the request of the Durban Corporation because of the acute shortage of the type of stone which is available in Ridgeview …

Cheap, common stuff one can get any where.

This is not my finding, but the reply I received. They say that because of the type of stone which is available in Ridgeview, all the relevant authorities are satisfied that there is no alternative but to allow the quarry to be extended. There is still land available for White housing in Cato Manor.

*This brings me to the hon member for Gezina. He referred, inter alia, to the increasing demand for housing which cannot be met with available funds and he also referred to the issue of subsidies, which I have already discussed. In addition, he raised the matter of the Venter Commission, and in this regard I just wish to say that the report of that commission is a very good one. The hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism was the chairman of this commission and I wish to convey my wholehearted congratulations to him and to his commissioners, including the hon member for Langlaagte, on the excellent work they did. At the request of the commission, the first report was referred to an interdepartmental committee to investigate the feasibility of the recommendations contained therein. The second report was accepted by the Government and was referred to the various State departments so that the recommendations contained therein could be implemented. I have already conducted discussions with the administrators on two occasions and they are very positive about the whole matter. They will effect the necessary changes to ordinances and issue the necessary instructions in this regard. As regards the department itself, legislation containing provisions whereby to implement certain of the commission’s propsals is already on the Order Paper. The third report of the commission is at present before the Cabinet. I encountered problems with the printing, but this has now been finalized and it is to be hoped that it will be tabled within the next week or two. It contains very meaningful recommendations concerning what can be done in the longer term.

The hon member for Gezina added that there had been a decline in the rate of contruction of accommodation by the private sector. To this I just want to say that here has now been an improvement in this regard. Considerable progress has been made with all the initiatives launched and the efforts made to activate the private sector to contribute its rightful share to the provision of housing, to such an extent that approximately 20% of the housing provided for Blacks last year was provided by the private sector, whereas in the past we had to provide 90% and more of that housing. In the Economic Review of South Africa of 2 May 1984 an article appeared to which I should like to draw the hon member’s attention. In this article the following amongst other things, is said:

This shows, after all, that the private sector is again making a substantial contribution towards the provision of housing, and this bodes well for the future. However, if we continue to parrot what people say by contending that the State should provide everyone with a house on demand, we shall never realize the great truth that the responsibility for this is primarily that of the individual. However, the Government must help where it can. The story that we only build houses for people with an income of less than R150 per month is not the whole truth. We build for the poorest people, and we had to give local authorities guidelines concerning who were the poorest. Cognizance has been taken of applications submitted to the department and it is realized that it would not help to say that we shall build houses for people with an income of up to R400. We simply do not have the money, and we have realized that we must be realistic. Accordingly, it has been decided to build houses for people with an income of approximately R150. These are not rigid guidelines. If more funds become available as a result of the present sales campaign, the amount will be improved. Indeed, we are already doing this. We are now building houses for people earning far more than that. However, we must lay down a guideline because we have to cut our coat according to our cloth. That is why a guideline of R150 per month was specified. However, we are obliged first to help those who are totally unable to help themselves, and after that attention is given to other groups.

Sir, I shall let that suffice.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister will understand if I do not react immediately to the announcement which he has made and the replies which he has given to other hon members. I am sure that hon members will react to it in the course of this debate.

I would like to refer to the Group Areas Act, as I believe that in the year ahead of us it will require our attention. The effects of this Act certainly require our attention at this stage. It need hardly be stressed how disruptive and unpopular the Group Areas Act has been and still is, particularly for the Coloured and Indian communities in South Africa. As if confirmation of this was necessary, the Human Sciences Research Council conducted an investigation amongst the Coloured community which showed that the Group Areas Act was the single most objectionable and hurtful law in the experience of that community. No longer will this be only a matter of acrimonious debate in this House in the future. It may yet become the source of more trouble for the Government’s new dispensation than any other Act. This Act may yet produce more deadlocks, ill-will and frustration in the new deal than any other political issue. This is so because no Coloured or Indian representative politician can afford not to take a strong stand on this issue.

With this in mind, I want to appeal to the hon the Minister and the Government to institute a wide-ranging parliamentary investigation into the Group Areas Act as soon as the new dispensation has been constituted. The hon the Minister might say that there has been the Strydom Committee and there is now a select committee investigating this matter. I will refer to that later on, but I want to point out at this stage that the terms of reference of both those committees were extremely limited and were far from what is really necessary to do something about this problem. An investigation into this should not be limited and should not be restricted to the parameters that were set for the Strydom Committee. It should allow scope for hearing all relevant opinions and for discussion in depth of all the aspects of the Act as well as discussions by all members concerned and all communities affected by it.

No Government or political party becomes compromised merely by granting wide terms of reference to a committee or commission of that sort. Limitation of the terms of reference rather suggests immaturity on the part of the instigator, or at the very least an inability to discuss matters on a sensible level or to be tolerant regarding the issue concerned. I am privileged to be a member of the Select Committee on the Prohibition of Mixed Marriages Act and Section 16 of the Immorality Act and no member of that committee will deny that participation in its proceedings has been an enlightening and thoroughly worthwhile experience. Listening to evidence given by a wide range of some of the most prominent people in the country putting across their views with great sincerity, motivating them and answering questions, I would be very surprised in any member of that committee claimed that he had not learnt something by serving on that committee. The operation of that committee so far has certainly brought credit, I believe, to the functioning of democracy in South Africa.

Such an investigation into the substance and the application of the Group Areas Act could be a most worthwhile first task for the tricameral system that is to come into effect in the months to come, firstly, because it will be addressing one of the most pressing problems facing South Africa; secondly, because it will launch members of the three Houses into an early exercise in the art of consensus government and of finding consensus; and, thirdly, because it could cool a debate which could become so explosive as to threaten the very foundations of the new structure. It is clear to me that the Strydom Committee has not even touched on the fundamental problems generated by the Group Areas Act, mainly because it was not allowed to do so by the narrowness of its terms of reference. Such proposals as have been made suggested improvements only in marginal areas, and to those marginal areas the parliamentary select committee is paying attention, while the alternative legislation proposed by the Strydom Committee seems likely to produce many technical difficulties.

The seriousness of the objections to the Group Areas Act should not be underestimated, in my view. I believe that members who are not aware of this at this stage will become painfully aware of it when the new Parliament with its three Chambers gets off the ground. Can one expect it to be otherwise if one consideres the history of the Group Areas Act? In spite of Government claims—also in spite of efforts by the Government in this regard—that it should not be a discriminatory Act, let us just look at some figures. Since the inception of the Group Areas Act in 1950, the following group areas have been proclaimed: For Whites 448, for Coloureds 313 and for Indians 116. Secondly, the total surface area proclaimed for each group so far since that date has been the following: For Whites 749 866 ha; for Coloureds 95 128 ha; and for Indians 50 535 ha. The last comparative statistics are the following: The total number of families moved from their homes in terms of that Act were, in the case of Whites 2 331; in the case of Coloureds 82 859; and in the case of Indians 39 892.

Many of them are squatters.

That may be so, but this is discrimination judged by anybody’s standards. It is then no wonder that it has been the cause of so much wrath.

Finally I want to refer to what I believe to be a popular misconception about the Group Areas Act, namely that that Act has in a sense substantially served its purpose as far as removals are concerned and that therefore the pressures created by the Group Areas Act and the unpopularity of that Act will lessen and will be alleviated in the near future. However, statistics supplied by the hon the Minister himself this year show that a further 7 500 families still have to be moved. Furthermore, it is clear from situations such as we see in places like Mayfair and other parts of central Johannesburg that the Group Areas Act will still cause many a problem in the future, particularly at a time of acute housing shortages, as a result of the pressure building up because of the need for housing in those communities which are less privileged, which have not been able to look after themselves in that respect so far and in respect of which the State has not been able to bring alleviation. I believe this is a situation with which we will have to live for many years to come. Also in that respect we must not bluff ourselves that the problems that have been created by the Group Areas Act in the past are a thing of the past. They will be inclined to recur and we will see a lot more of them in the future. For that reason, if for no other, but also for the other reasons which I have mentioned, I believe the time for a thorough look at this Act is overdue. Therefore I want to put it to the hon the Minister once again that only a wide-ranging representative parliamentary investigation into this whole matter can really address the problem before us properly. It should be an all-party investigation, such as the one we have had on the Mixed Marriages Act and the Immorality Act. Let everybody make their inputs and let us hear what witnesses have to say, because I believe that will be a thoroughly enriching and worthwhile experience. Let us then see if we can come to a mature conclusion to bring about a new perspective in regard to this very difficult piece of legislation that has caused so much difficulty in the history of South Africa.

Mr Chairman, by way of commencement, I should briefly like to add to what the hon member for Bezuidenhout and the hon the Minister had to say with regard to the Venter Commission. I was privileged to serve as a member of that commission and one can only express one’s gratitude and appreciation to the hon the Deputy Minister of Commerce, Industries and Tourism, who acted as chairman. We have a high regard for him and for the way in which he led the commission.

In his speech the hon member for Green Point held forth about the Group Areas Act, the Strydom Committee, as well as the present select committee investigating this particular aspect. Similarly, the hon member for Langlaagte made a speech full of bravado about the Group Areas Act. Those two hon members displayed a totally different approach in the arguments they advanced. The hon member for Green Point is afraid that the Group Areas Act will be retained, whilst the hon member for Langlaagte has the inbuilt fear that it is going to be abolished. I believe that the select committee will indeed look at this aspect with a great deal of responsibility. I therefore want to suggest to those two hon members that when we speak about those aspects again in the select committee they should raise these objections so that one can sort this out there.

Today I should like to speak about a few of the standpoints of the hon member for Langlaagte. The matters I am going to raise really affect the Department of Community Development directly because it is in charge of building projects, and in particular those with regard to Parliament. The hon member for Langlaagte undertook to state these standpoints of his in the House on occasion, but a number of weeks have past since then, and I have not yet heard him state them in the House so that they could be made known. The hon member for Germiston District also knows about the standpoints of the hon member for Langlaagte. What is more, the hon member for Langlaagte participated in the debate earlier this afternoon, but we are still waiting for him to bring up this matter. I hope and trust that he will possibly have another turn to speak so that he can react to this.

The question arises as to whether hon members of the CP agree with the hon member for Langlaagte with regard to these particular standpoints of his. Is it a new policy of the CP, or is it an alternative plan they are keeping up their sleeves? One recalls that Dr Connie Mulder said at that time that he knew that the 1977 proposals could not work. Yet he had another plan up his sleeve so that if the 1977 proposals did not work he could present that plan, which would then work. [Interjections.]

Which Vote are you discussing now?

The hon member will realize that I am speaking very pertinently about the Community Development Vote in this particular regard, and if you would give me the opportunity, Mr Chairman, you would be able to satisfy yourself that I am confining myself to this Vote. I find it odd that the hon member for Brakpan is so very sensitive. Perhaps he suspects what I am really getting at. Perhaps I am treading on someone’s corns, since it could be that this particular matter should not be made known to the public at this stage. Perhaps they first want to discuss this matter amongst themselves.

If the CP’s policy of homelands for Coloureds and Indians should not work, I should like to know whether the alternative of the hon member for Langlaagte is the workable plan they are keeping up their sleeves. Surely the hon member for Langlaagte would not state these standpoints and defend them if they had never been discussed in their ranks. In fact, the hon member for Germiston District would attack and repudiate the hon member for Langlaagte if it were not a possible alternative of the hon members of the CP. The question is also whether the leader of the CP approves of these standpoints of the hon member for Langlaagte. If so, they should tell the voters that they have an alternative plan if their homeland policy should not work.

Let us have a look at these standpoints, in other words, at the alternative policy of the CP, of the hon member for Langlaagte, if the hon members of the CP should repudiate him in this regard. The hon member for Langlaagte says that there is a much easier solution than the tricameral system we want to introduce now. In this case, my discussion falls pertinently under Community Development, since it has to be decided where the three Houses should be built. The hon member for Langlaagte suggests that we could solve this problem by simply retaining this one Parliament, as it is at present, but perhaps with more seats. That is the main idea. The solution simply lies in the voters’ rolls. He suggests that we should place the Whites and the Coloureds in the Cape Province on a common voters’ roll. In Natal we would place the Indians on a common voters’ role with the Whites.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: The matter the hon member is discussing now has nothing to do with the Community Development Vote.

Order! I have given the hon member for Losberg an opportunity to develop his argument and to digress a little, but in my opinion, he is digressing a little too far. The hon member must please deal a little more specifically with the buildings we are discussing now.

Mr Chairman, this is in fact about the buildings, since if Parliament should ever accept the standpoint of the hon member for Langlaagte, it would mean that funds would not need to be voted for the building of the other two Houses. This is what the argument is about. [Interjections.]

Furthermore, the hon member for Langlaagte suggests that the Whites in the Transvaal and the Free State should remain on the voters’ rolls alone. Meanwhile, however, he does not say what is going to happen with the Coloured and Indian voters in the Transvaal and the Coloured voters in the Free State. When these voters’ rolls have been drawn up, the representatives have been elected and the indirectly elected and nominated members have been appointed, everyone will sit here in one joint Parliament. Therefore, this means a Parliament consisting of Whites, Coloureds and Indians, or an Assembly Chamber with one House in which all three population groups are represented.

I do not know how the hon members for Kuruman and De Aar associate themselves with this standpoint of the hon member for Langlaagte. The question is whether or not they agree with his standpoint. If his suggestion should be carried out, in my opinion, few White MPs would come from the Cape Province and Natal.

Order! The hon member must please come back to the Vote.

Mr Chairman, this concerns the Government Printer who is in charge of printing the voters’ rolls.

In conclusion, Mr Chairman, as far as this matter is concerned, I just want to point out that the PFP could possibly have people in their ranks who would agree with the hon member for Langlaagte. I do not think there is anyone at all in the ranks of the HNP and the CP who would endorse this standpoint.

Of course, I live in Acacia Park. I live there in a Department of Community Development house, and in that house I have a television set which I watch. I now want to speak about the house in which I live, which is situated in Acacia Park, and which is a Department of Community Development house. In that very house I watched a television programme last evening, 6 May, in which the hon the leader of the CP expressed the standpoint that our descendants would not build monuments to traitors. Never before have I agreed more positively with a standpoint of the hon the leader of the CP than I do with that one. However, as well-read as he is, and as blessed as he is with the gift to be able to state his case so well, particularly by using adjectives, he did just forget one thing last evening. He forgot to say that our descendants will not build monuments to blood-thirsty traitors. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, on a point of order …

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

Mr Chairman, I found it interesting to listen to the hon member for Losberg. What is also interesting, of course, is the fact that the hon member for Losberg is one of those people who does have the time, now and then, to listen to the CP’s “think-tank”. He was, after all, a member of the NP’s “think-tank”, and in that “think-tank” I said, at one stage, that if the Government were to allege that the Coloureds were lepers, as far as we were concerned, that would be incorrect. They allege, do they not, that we treat the Coloureds as if they are leprous scum. If hon members of the NP believe that the Coloureds are absolutely part and parcel of their nation, and must consequently also have representation in this Parliament, they should, after all, have the Coloureds and the Whites on a common voters’ roll, which would mean that there would be only 56 seats in the Cape, and not an extra 60. If they were to do that, it could be economically feasible. At the political level the peopel would then, in fact, be able to see that the Government is engaged in underhanded reform. That is what I said. The hon member is quite correct. If he thinks that is my policy, however, he must just remember that when one is teaching children, one tries to do so in such a way that the children understand what is going on. One therefore does not merely publicize one’s own policy. [Interjections.]

Mr Chairman, now I am finished with the hon member for Losberg. He will now probably understand what it is all about. [Interjections.]

This now brings me back to last night’s television programme. That is a matter about which I should also like to say something here. In this House 124 or more hon members threw in the towel after one speech by the hon the Prime Minister. When Gen Cronjé surrended, one could at least excuse the fact by saying that there were women and children in his group. Those 124 or more hon members opposite, however, were all sitting here without their women and children when they surrendered and accepted a mixed Government in this country.

You are talking rubbish, man.

No, that is exactly why I am saying that last people were perhaps still being given an opportunity to open their eyes. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon member for Langlaagte has, in fact, reacted to what the hon member for Losberg said. He must now, however, confine himself to the discussion of the relevant Vote.

Mr Chairman, today I want to talk about Mayfair. Firstly I want to make it clear that in speaking about what has happened in Mayfair, I am not pointing a finger at this hon Minister. He must simply implement Government policy and philosophy; he can do nothing about that. I want to make it clear in this House today that this is an excellent hon Minister, particularly when it comes to the implementation of Government policy and Government legislation having a bearing on his portfolio. He does indeed do an outstanding job. If there is anything I am really tired of, it is people like Alan Hendrickse and others going around claiming that they have heard in discussions when this hon Minister is going to be given the boot. I think the time has come to tell those people, from this highest Chamber in the land, that they should keep themselves in check. We are dealing here with an hon Minister of this House for whom we all have the utmost respect. [Interjections.]

We find that the question of the infiltration of Coloureds and Indians into Mayfair has a long history. It began in 1980. In 1981 letters were written by the department. There were also RAU students who asked the aged there how they felt about the Coloureds and whether they felt that the Coloureds were hostile to them. Particularly when those old people were alone they did not, of course, say they felt that the people next door to them were hostile to them. They are, after all, good old farming stock. They also said the same in regard to the Indians. They said that as old farming stock they were not afraid of Coloureds, Indians or Black people. Those students therefore concluded that those old people did not mind Coloureds and Indians moving in next door. When there is a housing shortage it is, of course, not the most difficult thing on earth to understand the problems of anyone living in such a house.

I want to refer to a specific example of such a person. I think the hon the Minister has done everything in his power, but I think that area has now been declared. That area has already been declared an Indian area.

Mayfair East.

Yes, Mayfair East.

It is just a small strip.

No, it is not such a small strip, because there are 245 White families living there. There are also more than 300 Indian families living there, and numerically they are on the increase. What people live that area? Amongst them there are some lovely English-speaking people. Here I am referring to the case of the Millers who live in that area and who now have to find a house. I want to quote the following welfare worker’s report:

It is not only a question of one or two such cases occurring in the area, and who in the public sector is going to make housing available to these people?

But we make housing available to them.

Yes, I am glad of that. I am glad the hon the Minister’s department is going to make housing available to these people. I know I can always rely on the hon the Minister. The people are so slow, however, that if I did not take them there by the hand, they would never come forward and would never get a house.

When I speak about these matters in Parliament, people call me the “little rich fat man” or something like that. So one is not allowed to talk about these cases.

I have a big problem as far as Mayfair is concerned, yet there is one thing for which I want to thank the hon the Minister. We are blessed with a Minister who, when one approaches him, evidences a feeling for people. He goes right out of his way to help one. The problem that arises is actually related to the philosophy adopted by the Government. Mr Gibson, a PFP member of the provincial council, said: “Leave everybody. Let them stay together. Give them a grey area.” I am now thinking of Rosettenville, where the PFP and the NP have agreed to support each other. When I think about that, I am also certain that Mayfair is going to remain a grey area. My request to the hon the Minister is please to use what he has at his disposal. [Interjections.] I shall probably be disbelieved, but I think the hon member for Durban Point would be able to tell hon members that he landed up in hot water because his party also put up a candidate there. I here, from the other side, that they also want to give him a basting because he put up a candidate.

I thank the hon the Minister for the help he is giving to many of my poor people. I thereby want to tell him that he has done for us whatever he could. From the Government’s point of view, it is the poor who are in trouble.

Mr Chairman, I must say that the hon member for Langlaagte is often rather amusing when he addresses this House. Sometimes he has tins with which he demonstrates things and at other times he has cards.

I am a working man.

On the basis of those tins and cards, he then makes certain statements, as he did again this afternoon in speaking of a “cunning” policy and that kind of thing. I should like to tell the hon member that it is curious that his party should now be using the fiery quasi-cultural heroes to try to solve their problems, but this will only lead to confusion and chaos. A person who wishes to misuse culture as a power base to achieve other objectives is being counter-productive. However, I shall leave it at that, because my time is limited and I should like to say something about the Venter Commission.

I endorse the remarks made by other hon members who have referred to this commission, and I also wish to thank the chairman and the secretary, Mr Gerrie Strydom, and the six advisers who assisted the commission, and to congratulate them on the outstanding way in which they have performed their task.

In recent years, building sites have become increasingly scarce and expensive, with the result that the average family and young married couple has found it more and more difficult to obtain or to afford land on which they could build. Therefore it could be useful, perhaps, to refer briefly to the crucial aspects considered by the Venter Commission in an attempt to resolve the more serious difficulties.

To begin with, I should like to refer to the first report, which deals with the economic and financial factors relating to township establishment. The lack of stability in the South Africa economy is creating special problems for the township establishment industry. This was one of the most important complaints of the private sector in connection with township establishment, as expressed by the people who gave evidence before the commission. The long production period which is characteristic of the industry means that the developer finds it difficult to assess the market, and this makes it risky. Furthermore, the cost disadvantages resulting from the delay have an adverse effect on the buyer as well.

The commission considered the matter and recommended that a constant supply of sites could be promoted if the production period were drastically reduced. It should be possible for the development programme to be adjusted more easily to changes in the business cycle, in order to delay financial inputs until market conditions have become favourable again. This would make it much easier for the township establisher to arrange his financial affairs.

There is also the factor of the shortage of residential sites. The commission estimates that the total number of residential sites required for all population groups in the Republic of South Africa will amount to approximately 3,5 million units in the period 1982 to 2000. Because of the limited funds available to the authorities, the private sector will have to get involved to an increasing extent in the development of townships for the lower and middle income groups. This, too, has already been said this afternoon. The recommendation in this connection is that the specialist institution, namely a development corporation, should more fully integrate the activities of the private and the public sectors. Such a corporation could make a major contribution by ensuring a stable flow of funds to the industry.

The complaint has also been voiced that certain towns lay down unrealistic and unfair requirements. This statement was repeatedly made in the evidence given before the commission. In the second report, recommendations are made which would simplify the process of approving township establishment. The most important recommendations which could simplify the approval procedure are the following: The separation of the process of township establishment into an approval facet and a development facet, and, secondly, the laying down of a timetable for the approval facet of township establishment. In addition, township establishers have complained that as far as engineering services are concerned, a stalemate arises between the authorities, especially the local authority concerned and other authorities that are involved, and the township establisher. With regard to the cost of engineering services, the most important recommendations concern the basis on which liability for costs should be determined, the implementation of guidelines for engineering services, and the introduction of an appeal body to effect reconciliation between a local authority and a township establisher when differences arise concerning the division of costs and the implementation of standards for engineering services. This is a very important finding of the commission, since it often happened in the past that there were differences of opinion, that demands were made by the authority involved and that no agreement could be reached. This led to delays, and in this case the appeal body will be able to resolve the matter and to expedite the procedure.

The commission accepted the standpoint that township establishment would have to be undertaken by the private sector to a larger extent in future and that the authority would have to play a supporting role. The township establisher will have a greater responsibility within the broad framework of standards and norms laid down by the authorities. This country has been wrestling with the problem for many years, and many commissions have investigated the problem without achieving the desired results. If everyone contributes his share, and if there is co-operation between the parties involved, the implementation of the recommendations could result in significant progress being made, and communities could be established on a sound basis in this way. Time will show whether the comprehensive task performed by the commission was worth while. If I remember correctly, the commission devoted approximately 30 full working days to this comprehensive task. Many parties gave evidence, and in my opinion, a very thorough investigation was conducted and there was an in-depth inquiry into the problems relating to township establishment in particular. I trust that if the recommendations are implemented, especially those I have been able to deal with in the short time available to me, it will help to speed up this process considerably, and that it will be possible to resolve the problems which have arisen and which township developers have strongly emphasized. In particular, they have problems with engineering departments of town which lay down certain requirements. In their opinion, the standards that are laid down are too high and they experience problems when they are unable to comply with those standards. It has not been easy to have the matter finalized either. If they were not prepared to comply with the required standards, the whole process was simply delayed. In certain cases, the situation even resulted in a stalemate. If this appeal body which has been recommended functions properly, I am convinced that it will be possible to solve many of the problems which are being experienced with township establishment at the moment, especially those relating to delayed development. I trust that it will have the desired effect in the near future, so that more and cheaper residential sites will be made available. In some of our bigger centres, the prices of plots are simply too high at the moment. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Welkom referred to a very important matter. It is a matter to which the hon member for Umbilo also referred in the past. Some of the aspects to which he referred worry us, too, particularly the delays and costs. This brings me back to the point to which the hon member for Umbilo referred, viz the availability of land at a reasonable price. Later on I shall briefly come back to this subject.

†I want to deal with one or two specific issues this afternoon. The first is a matter which has been dealt with by a number of persons and bodies including the hon member for Sea Point, the hon the Prime Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister of Community Development and the courts. I refer to the Smith case here in Cape Town. I do not know why this has come to me; perhaps they think I can perform miracles, which I do not expect to be able to do; but perhaps I can make a suggestion to the hon the Minister.

I do not intend to give details of the whole story as this has already been done in the Press. It is the case of a pensioner who mixed up his cheques and put the wrong cheque in the envelope to his landlord. What makes me bloody-minded is the fact that that landlord sat on this cheque for more than the statutory 14 days, knowing what he was doing. In fact he said that it was deliberate—that the tenant had made a mistake and he was taking advantage of it. He deliberately sat on that cheque until the 14 days in which the tenant could have paid his rent, had expired. The cheque was then sent to the correct people and the first thing the tenant knew was when he received an eviction order. He had no idea that he had made the mistake of mixing up the cheques. The rental cheque was deposited by the wrong recipient without looking at it and it was only when it came back from the bank that it was discovered that a mistake had been made.

The court acted in terms of the law which states that seven days is allowed plus another seven under special circumstances. There is nothing we can do to reverse a decision of the court. Without being a lawyer, I do not think the court has an option where something is specifically provided for.

However, I think Parliament should protect tenants against this kind of deliberate misuse of a provision in order to evict a tenant through a mistake. Where a landlord knows that a mistake has been made when he receives a cheque addressed to another business and deliberately sits on it, he is exploiting the law. I want to suggest to the hon the Minister that a proviso should be incorporated into the Rents Act. This proviso should exclude a landlord who is aware that a mistake has been made and takes advantage of that provision by delaying notifying the tenant. Alternatively, the proviso could be added that, if a tenant has not paid his rent within seven days, the landlord should notify him of non-receipt of rental, and that the second seven days should only count after the landlord has notified the tenant that he has not received his rent. A man who, as in this case, has for 28 years paid his rent strictly on time has no way of knowing that his cheque, a banker’s cheque, never reached the landlord. I would therefore plead that the hon the Minister and his department should look at the possibility of adding a proviso which will cover a bona fide mistake. I recall a case in which a wrong figure appeared on a cheque. The cheque was consequently out of date or the figures did not tally with the amount in words and, as a result, the cheque was not accepted by the bank but returned to the landlord who then sat on the cheque and then tried to evict the tenant. Where it is known that a mistake has been made, the landlord should have the obligation to send it back to the person concerned, pointing out the mistake and giving him an opportunity. I am sure it is not beyond the wit of the department to formulate the necessary amendment. If it is possible to make it retrospective, I will be even happier. What the hon the Minister might think of doing is to slap rent control on the relevant block. That would teach them not to come with this sort of slenter.

The other matter I want to refer to is one which I raised—perhaps it was not strictly in order then—with the hon the Deputy Minister concerned in the discussion of the Deeds Registries Amendment Bill. That question has also been raised by the hon member for Umbilo, but it applies particularly to my constituency. I refer to the position of leasehold properties on which flats have been built which have then been sold by the share-block system—sectional title does not apply there. In due course, after the specified period, the relevant leases have come up for review. Let me give an example concerning a building in my constituency. I have here a photostat of the actual municipal valuation of the land for 1983. It is R125 500. The buildings do not matter. This concerns rental for the lease of the ground. That lease has now come up for review and the people concerned are now being asked to pay rent based on a valuation of R528 583. That is well over four times the municipality’s own valuation of the land on which it bases its rates. The same municipality values that land, for rental purposes, at over four times its own valuation for purposes of rates, viz from R125 000 to R528 000. The municipality is increasing the rental from R6 800 per year to R31 715. That is the ground rental only. On top of that, there are levies and all the rest. I think that this is absolutely disgraceful. It is again a question of the availability of land. That city council is the only debt-free city council that I know of in South Africa. It has no debt. Yet it is squeezing the last possible drop of blood out of tenants who are largely retired people and whom it is supposed to serve.

Do you want city councils to run into debt?

No, but I do not expect them to use pensioners as the stone from which to get blood. It is because that hon member’s party is in control there that that is the position. They do not give a darn for the people. They are only worried about squeezing money out of people. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, the aspects that are now being discussed in the debate will be dealt with by the hon the Deputy Minister. The two aspects raised by the hon member for Durban Point—the Smith case, concerning rent control and related matters, as well as the aspect dealing with public works—will also be dealt with by the hon the Deputy Minister. However, before we examine those aspects, I should like to round off today’s debate by replying to the speeches of a few hon members to whom I have not yet referred.

I shall begin by referring to the hon member for Green Point. He requested the appointment of a comprehensive commission of inquiry into the Group Areas Act without the restrictions which the Strydon Committee had to contend with. I wish to point out to the hon member that the question of separate residential areas is an inherent part of the basic principles of the Government’s policy. It would serve no purpose to have the matter investigated at this stage, therefore. Nothing could be achieved by an inquiry of this nature before the Government had changed its policy. [Interjections.] This aspect of group areas has already been dealt with by the President’s Council. In addition, the Strydom Committee was also able to investigate all matters relating to group areas, with the exception of the principle of the retention of separate residential areas. While a select committee consisting of all parties represented in Parliament is in the process of investigating the matter, the hon member is again asking for the appointment of a commission. I believe the correct thing to do is that the select committee should now try to complete its investigations and that we should then consider the recommendations that are submitted to Parliament.

There will be very few of them.

It depends on the hon member. Perhaps there are other more enthusiastic and more active members on that committee, whose capabilities are also greater. [Interjections.] Just give us a chance to do our work, and then things may take their course. [Interjections.]

The hon member also raised another aspect and put an important question to me. Interjections.]

[Inaudible.]

I should like to have a little silence, please. If only the hon member had remained on the other side, the windmills would have been turning over there and we would not have had them over here. Could we please have some peace and quiet now, when the wind has died down, because I want to deal with an important matter raised by the hon member. I am referring to the question of the resettlement of disqualified persons.

As a result of changes and adjustments to our policy on this matter, and as a result of changes in respect of the group character of quite a number of areas which had originally been proclaimed White, such as Maitland Garden Village, Helderzicht, Temperance, Abbottsdale, Kleinmond and Kalkbaai—the hon member is aware of these—as well as of a new socio-economic survey conducted over the past 18 months, it has been ascertained that another 4 839 families have to be removed from White areas. Of these, 2 818 are Coloured families and 2 211 are Indian families. These are people who are living in White areas. The occupation of a number of these families can be condoned because it is non-contentious or because it is not economically justifiable, as a result of the small number of families involved, to proclaim or develop new group areas for them. In the Greater Cape Peninsula, 300 Coloured families have already been condoned on this basis because they possess these qualifications.

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

Mr Chairman, the hon member should just give me a chance to make my point first. As a result of these surveys and the condonation of certain non-contentious cases, another 1 372 Coloured and 684 Indian families, ie 2 056 families in all, will have to be resettled eventually. However, many of these families live in rural areas. In Vredendal, for example, there are 293 Coloureds living right next to the White town. I was prepared to allow them to remain there and said that I would reproclaim that area. However, they insisted through the hon member for Piketberg, on being removed to the new township, and that is why they are still included in these numbers. In the whole of Greater Cape Town, there are only another 186 Coloured and 27 Indian families that have to be removed.

[Inaudible.]

The hon member for Pinelands should rather stick to his Black affairs. The Indian families to which I have just referred are at present living in temporary accomodation in Greater Cape Town and originally lived in District Six. In Port Elizabeth there are only another 63 Indian families, and in Durban, another 67 Coloured and 89 Indian families, that have to be resettled. The rest are living in rural areas and in their case there is no urgency about resettling them. I am finalizing this task with the greatest circumspection.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister tell us whether the situation which he has just outlined has arisen since he gave a reply to the question which I put on 8 March?

The figures which I furnished in that reply were based on old statistics. We have been working on these new statistics since last year, but we have not been able to make the adjustments, because a year after my announcement that Heldersig near Somerset West would be reproclaimed as a Coloured area, the people who are living there at the moment are still there as removable cases because the Group Areas Board has not yet instituted another statutory investigation and Heldersig has not been deproclaimed. It is a lengthy process, therefore, and until such time as that deproclamation takes place, these are the official figures with regard to removable cases. There are now approximately 2 000 families that we can exclude in this connection. Those areas have not all been officially deproclaimed yet, but we have received the figures and adjusted them on the basis of the socio-economic survey that has been made, and as a result of that, I am able to furnish the new figures today.

I am very glad that the hon member for Langlaagte is being fair to me, and I appreciate it, but he really should not suggest that we gave Mayfair to the Indians. We only gave two street blocks to the Indians by way of a buffer strip. At the time, when the hon member was still on our side, I discussed the matter with him. It was an essential step, and this border strip which we have introduced there will prevent many problems in future.

Hundreds are moving in there.

While I appreciate the fact that the hon member is being so reasonable towards me, he really should not pretend that we have given the whole of May-fair to the Indians. When we look at the people living in that strip, we see that according to our survey, there are 86 White families living there, including Portuguese, Greeks, English-speaking and Afrikaans speaking people. Then there are 51 Chinese families and six Coloured families. These amount to 143 disqualified families in all. We consulted them all, especially the 86 White families. We put it to them that we would like to help them in every possible way. We also asked them what we could do for them. The response of 124 of those families was that they wanted to sell their properties themselves and to see to their own resettlement. They indicated that they did not want to go and live where we wanted to resettle them. They were not interested in going to live in Lindbergh Park, Crown Gardens, Triomf, Paarlshoop or Albertville, for example. The Coloured families did not want to go and live in Ennerdale either. They felt that it was too far away. They preferred to look after themselves. Only 19 families wanted our help. Of those 19 families, we have resettled 10. We have made offers to the others as well. Of course, they are simply trying to get out of us what they can; in fact, they believe that we owe it to them. I am very anxious to help them, of course, and for that very reason, we are doing everything in our power for those people …

Please help me with the Millers.

Yes, very well. I can assure the hon member for Langlaagte that those people will be helped with great circumspection. The people living there in Mayfair will be handled with great circumspection.

The last hon member to whose speech I wish to reply at this stage is the hon member for Welkom. In the first place, on behalf of all those present, I want to extend our sincere congratulations to the hon member for Welkom on his birthday.

Hear, hear!

The hon member talked about the report of the Venter Commission. I have also expressed a few thoughts in this connection. I have nothing more to add, therefore. I can only confirm that we have taken cognizance of all those things. I also agree wholeheartedly with what the hon member said.

The hon member pointed out that the biggest problem area identified by the Venter Commission was the cumbersome, tedious and time-consuming procedure of township establishment. It is also a very expensive procedure, the hon member said. I agree with him, of course. This is in fact the problem which we are now trying to resolve. We are trying to do everything with the help of the provinces in order to effect an improvement in this respect. Hon members must realize, though, that the provinces are also very jealous of their own rights and privileges. Surely I cannot disregard their interests completely. That is in fact why the proposals for township establishment, as contained in the amending Bill which is on the Order Paper at the moment, were formulated after an agreement had been reached with the provinces to the effect that we would handle the township establishment procedure in that way.

I want to try to obtain the full co-operation of the provinces, which are the most important and biggest functionaries in this connection. Now I have said before that after having had discussions with the Administrators and members of the Executive Committees of the provinces—the people who are responsible for local government—I can only testify to the greatest measure of goodwill on their part. They are all trying to give effect, not only to the spirit, but also to the letter, of the recommendations of the Venter Commission. When the stage is reached where the local authorities want to do these things, we have come a long way, and we have reached the point where we can achieve a break-through.

Instead of the authorities and the private sector both getting involved in township establishment in the same town, there is nothing wrong, I believe, with having the private sector take over the whole process of township establishment itself. The local authority concerned or the State and the private sector should not each be undertaking the process of township development on its own in the same town. This only makes the whole process more and more expensive. That is why I believe that we should leave it to the private sector to proceed with township establishment in cases where it wishes to do so. Only when can the township establishers be sure that the local authority concerned will make available a certain number of sites, which it needs for the provision of housing to the subeconomic or lower income groups, at a pre-determined price of course, which will give the township developer the security of knowing that he will be able to sell those plots and that he will be able to recover the capital rapidly, while the money saved by the public sector in this connection can be used for the provision of other services.

Mr Chairman, may I ask a question, please? Did the hon the Minister know that we suggested to the town councils 10 years ago that they should do what the hon the Minister has just said, but that it was turned down at the time? It was a very practical proposal.

It seems that the Minister at the time did not receive the sensible advice which we have received from the commission of the hon the Deputy Minister of Industries, Commerce and Tourism. [Interjections.]

There is a desperate shortage of serviced plots, especially for Coloureds and Indians who want to buy houses. The whole departmental strategy is aimed at making up that backlog as soon as possible. However, the backlog is very great. There are areas on the East Rand where, with the best will in the world, one cannot tell a single Indian that one has a plot to sell to him. That is why all these people are putting their names on waiting lists. There are thousands of names on waiting lists. They are not homeless, but they want their own houses. If we could only have offered them a plot, that would have gone a long way towards solving the problem.

In this connection, I also want to appeal once again to the private sector and to building societies in particular: Acquire land and develop it as soon as possible so that we may make plots available to these people. We shall do the same with the land which we own. In this connection there is the example of Lenasia South, where we have already done this. We shall make that land available to them so that they may undertake its development themselves, and it can be done. We have a development corporation which has sold 231 houses to Coloureds. In addition, 141 units have been sold to Indians, of which 54 are group housing and 87 are conventional houses. The same corporation has made 811 houses available to the Black group under the 99-year leasehold. It can be done, therefore. The building societies, the developers and the financiers come to an agreement, they form consortiums, they acquire the land, they develop it and the department helps them, and therefore it is no longer necessary for the State to bear the cost of all these matters for which it had to accept responsibility in the past. The hon member for Bezuidenhout may ask his question now.

Mr Chairman, I should just like to ask the hon the Minister whether he is aware that 70% of the bonds granted by building societies are in respect of houses already built, and that only about 25% is devoted to new housing?

I shall take the hon member’s word for it.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No 22.