On Friday, 4 May, during the discussion of the Internal Affairs Vote, an hon. member, by way of an interjection, in relation to another hon. member used the expression “You clot”. This was challenged and I stated that I was not aware that the word had been ruled unparliamentary before and that I would consider the matter. I find that it is a word that has been used in this House before without being challenged, but I have come to the conclusion that although it might have been intended to be merely uncomplimentary, the expression can be regarded as insulting and even offensive, and it is therefore unparliamentary.

Vote No 21—“Community Development” (contd):

Mr Chairman, it has been agreed that today I—on behalf of the Government—and the Administrator of the Transvaal, the hon W A Cruywagen, will make a joint statement in connection with the preservation and restoration of the western façade of Church Square in Pretoria.

Talks concerning the future of the western façade of Church Square, Pretoria, have been in progress for a period of virtually 20 years.

The buildings are Government property under the control of the Transvaal Provincial Administration. The Church Square Committee, which was established in 1972 under the chairmanship of a senior official of the Department of Community Development, prohibits any change to buildings or any development of Church Square, including the buildings in its immediate vicinity, without the prior approval of the Minister of Community Development. During the seventies there was strong pressure to demolish certain buildings.

Shortly after the hon. W. A. Cruywagen became Administrator of the Transvaal, it was decided to preserve and restore the buildings. Up to now, however, the restoration work has remained in abeyance owing to a lack of the necessary funds.

After discussions with the Administrator of the Transvaal, it was decided to issue the following joint statement today:

With a view to preserving the three old historic buildings on the west side of Church Square, Pretoria, ie the Netherlands Bank Building, the Law Chambers and the Café Riche, the Government and the Transvaal Provincial Administration decided jointly that active steps should now be taken to properly refurbish the buildings and to preserve the exteriors in their original condition.

The cost of restoration is estimated at approximately R1 million and the work will be done over a period of three years. The “Save Church Square” campaign has already collected an amount of R180 000 for this purpose. Over the next two financial years the provincial administration will make a contribution of R320 000.

Although the buildings are under the control of the provincial administration, the Government regards their restoration as being in the national interest and has therefore agreed to guarantee the balance of the restoration costs, ie R500 000. An amount of R100 000 will be made available immediately, with the balance being made available in two equal payments of R200 000 in the next two financial years.

The appointment of the necessary consultants is now being done, and it is expected that the first contractor will be on site by September 1984.

Mr Chairman on behalf of hon members on this side of the House I should like to convey our appreciation to the hon the Minister for the announcement he has just made here about the west façade of Church Square. I believe that every conservation body in South Africa, and in particular the people of the Transvaal and of Pretoria, will take cognizance of this announcement with profound gratitude.

†Coming, as this announcement does, in the wake of an announcement yesterday by the hon the Minister in connection with the erection of a replica of Newlands House, nothing, I believe, demonstrates more adequately this hon Minister’s, this Government’s commitment to conservation. I believe too that nothing makes the speech made by the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North more ridiculous than the announcement we have just heard from the hon the Minister.

Why did he not make an announcement in connection with the parliamentary buildings?

The hon member refers to the parliamentary buildings. Not only was his speech a motion of no-confidence in this hon Minister and his department, but it was also a vote of no-confidence in his own leader and in hon members of his party who serve on the Select Committee on Internal Arrangements and on the subcommittee of that particular committee, that deals with the physical arrangements of Parliament. [Interjections.]

Order!

I suggest that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North should talk to the hon leader of his party instead of moving a motion of no confidence in his hon leader here in this House.

We have been fully briefed by him.

Well, had the hon. member been fully briefed, Mr Chairman, one would find the remarks he made here yesterday even more puzzling. It appears too that the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North is totally out of touch with the work undertaken by this department. Should he read the publications issued by this department he would know what is going on. The hon member alleges that the Government is insensitive when it comes to conservation. He should read what the Government is indeed doing in connection with conservation …

[Inaudible.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, this department can best be judged by its deeds. In this respect we should only take a look at a few of the projects that are being undertaken at the moment.

An amount of R12 million is being spent on restoration at the Castle. An amount of R2 million is being spent at the Castle on the restoration of the Kat. The Clock Tower has already been restored and all the waterproofing has been completed. The archaeological work on the Dolphin Pool has also been completed. We also know about the restoration work that has been done on the old Presidensie in Pretoria, the building that was designed by Lennox Canning and the foundation stone of which was laid by President Brand himself. An amount of R1 million was spent by the Department on that fantastic restoration work. We also had the announcement yesterday in regard to Newlands House. To say, therefore, that there has been no consultation is absolutely wrong. The fact remains that there was consultation in depth, there was consultation with the local authority and also with the most sophisticated and informed environmental opinion in the person of people like Mr John Rennie and Dirk Visser and representatives of the local authority. For the hon member to come along here and say that the department is insensitive in regard to conservation matters is therefore absolute nonsense.

I should like to give another example in this regard. We have the work that is being done on the old Roeland Street Prison. The hon member will know that this matter was raised in 1977—it was raised by myself amonth others—and the department has displayed the greatest sensitivity in this regard. It not only received my representations but it was also prepared to listen to bodies, such as the Vernacular Architecture Society, the Institute of Architects and the appropriate body from the Cape Town City Council that discussed this matter with the department. The department received these representations and it replanned the archives that are proposed to be built. Perhaps the hon the Minister will be able to tell us more about this matter this afternoon. The fact remains that consultation took place in depth over a long period in this regard. The whole building was redesigned. It was even proposed that it be sunk into the ground in order to make it lower. We understand too that the important façade of the Roeland Street Prison is to be retained. Perhaps the hon the Minister will also be able to give some information in regard to this matter.

This building is very important. It is a building which we think was designed by Mr Kohler who was the architect of the South African Library. We think he was the architect of this building too because of the resemblance that the Roeland Street building has to the South African Library and also because we know that he worked in the Colonial Engineer’s office at the time that the building was designed. The building itself is a landmark building. It was also meant to be a landmark building. When we read the work of the people who wrote about that period, people like Hyman Picard, we find that they wrote at the time that the building had been erected to be a landmark building. It was also a symbol of prison reform that followed on the revulsion in regard to the prison conditions that existed at the Cape during that period. It has remained a landmark building and it is one of the few such buildings that were built at that time that still stands today.

That it was intended to be an important building can also be demonstrated by the fact that when Sir George Grey approved the plan, an amount of something like £16 400 was voted for the building. This was an astronomical sum at that time. I should like to quote in this regard from a letter written by Sir George Grey at the time in which he justified the fact that he was spending so much money on this building. He said, inter alia:

Therefore, he attempted to build something significant. Once the building was vacated by the prison authorities, the whole matter was dealt with by the department in a most sensitive fashion. I cannot think of any more careful planning than that which has taken place in this regard.

In discussing the question of historical buildings, I should like to put a question to the hon the Deputy Minister and the hon the Minister. I know that the department keeps a list of its buildings. There is a list of all the buildings. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether it will be possible to categorize those buildings that are of historic significance and not necessarily only the imposing ones, but all of them. All the relevant information should be brought on to that list so that when a building is touched for whatever reason, either for restoration or maintenance work, the people working on the building will understand what the significance of the building is and which sensitive elements may exist in that building so that they do not perhaps inadvertently do the wrong thing with any of the public buildings which are in the care of the public authorities.

There is a great deal of listing going on at the moment by people in Pietermaritzburg, by RAU and others. There is also listing being done in Cape Town. I think such a contribution by the department to the listing of the important buildings that are in the care of the department will be an important contribution to conservation in South Africa. It is also just possible that with the new data bank and the electronic facilities which are being planned in the department for housing, perhaps all of the data on all of the listings which exist in South Africa which are being done by various authorities in South Africa could perhaps be taken up into one data bank of buildings of historic significance in South Africa.

With those few words I want to congratulate the officials of the department on their work this year and to thank them for the sensitivity they displayed also towards the buildings of historic significance in our country. In so far as it affects Newlands House I want to point out that I had the privilge last Saturday evening of discussing this with some of the most informed conservation people and bodies in South Africa. The general consensus was that the best thing one could do in the circumstances would be to build a replica. The consensus also was that the best replica to build would be the Regency replica because we have many of the buildings and also artefacts of that period so that one can bring that building back. We have more material of that period than of any other period.

Mr Chairman, the hon member has just sat down, in referring to the hon the Minister and the department in the field of conservation, is both right and wrong at the same time. He is right in the sense that I think the department is more conservation oriented than it has been in the past and wrong in that the department all too often first has to have public pressure applied to it before it realizes its environmental responsibilities. Just look at Groote Schuur. We know what happened at Groote Schuur some years ago. The hon member mentioned Roeland Street. It was designed, and only when the design became known …

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

I cannot allow a question at this stage.

I say only when that design became known was there public pressure and as a result of public pressure there was a redesign. Likewise when we come to the west facade of Church Square. For how many years has there been public presssure on the Government to take action, and only now are they taking it.

We want to see the situation where the department or the hon the Minister instead of responding to public pressure, initiates environmental programmes. We want to see a lead from the hon the Minister; not the hon the Minister just responding to pressure.

I should like to deal with a few matters, some of which relate to the announcements made by the hon the Minister yesterday. He made an important announcement regarding revised rental formulae, or guidelines for these formulae, for housing provided from National Housing funds. We in these benches accept that from time to time increases are essential. We realize that from time to time there will have to be reviews of formulae. We want to look at the situation in this light. The first point is that the hon the Minister says rentals are going to be reviewed and related to current replacement cost and not historical cost. That is not basically an unsound formula for a future situation, but I must warn the hon the Minister that if a formula is changed in respect of individuals who at present are paying rentals on historical cost so that overnight those rentals will be based on replacement cost, there will be a dramatic rise in rentals for people who have been accustomed to paying lower rentals and who perhaps cannot afford anything more. I want to say to the hon the Minister that he should be extremely careful at the way in which he phases in any new formula of the kind he has announced. I do not know whether the hon the Minister is abandoning the 25% or whether he is abandoning the breadwinner, but let us assume that he is retaining the 25% and is relating it to family income. The point is that if the members of the family are living there permanently, that they are not just casuals coming and going, there is a case for saying the collective income of all the normal occupants should be taken into account. But here the hon the Minister again must be very careful. Youngsters may get married and suddenly two or three people may leave a household. Is he in that event going to reduce the rentals again? I want to stress that in applying a formula based on the tenant plus the other people who may be living there, the Minister should be extremely careful that he does not have a “wipplank” kind of situation as a consequence of the income of that household continually changing.

The Minister has indicated that the rental must be assessed and then there should be a subsidy to bridge the gap between the assessed rental and the ability of the individual to pay. This I think is a reasonable formula.

The hon the Minister has, I am sure, come to realize during his years in this portfolio that housing and rentals are sensitive issues and even if there is justification from the landlord’s side to increase rental, the manner in which it is done, the rate of the increase and the importance of seeing that the State does not squeeze the tenant beyond his ability to pay, is going to be a very important factor in determining what public reaction there is going to be.

The department is not squeezing the tenants. Our rentals are way below the market.

But you are now going to push up the rentals. The hon the Deputy Minister does not understand. The Minister said there is going to be a drastic increase in the rentals, and I think I am entitled to …

As from next year.

Then the explosion will come next year. I just want to warn the Minister about the way in which he applies his formula and the possible social impact thereof.

Yesterday the hon the Minister gave a review of his new housing strategy and said that he “was satisfied that the Government was on the right track.” I think he was ungenerous to certain local authorities. He seemed to think they were protecting certain vested interests. He must understand that there are people other than the Government who work in housing and who in all sincerity believe that there are aspects of the new housing strategy which could lead to socio-economic problems. He must accept that there can be differences of opinion on that and that it is not just a question of them wanting to protect an empire. He was Ungenerous towards those local authorities who have been his main agents in providing houses for the poor.

I did not mention any names.

That may be true, but the smile on the hon the Minister’s face told us exactly whom he was talking about.

Furthermore he reprimanded those people who made a political issue out of housing. Now, I think we should desist from making cheap political propaganda for the benefit of parties from the issue of housing. Yet the hon the Minister must realize that housing, shelter, is one of the most sensitive economic issues, and if there is not adequate affordable housing it becomes a political issue. People have then got the right to come to their public representatives in order to argue their case.

There is also a limit to that.

If the hon the Minister is concerned about the fact that housing is becoming politicized now, wait till next year when there is a House of Representatives and a House of Delegates. The vast majority of people represented there may be people who cannot afford housing. The vast majority of them will be dependent upon State housing and State subsidies. All I want to say is that the hon the Minister must not be too sensitive about politics and housing. It is a legitimate issue in respect of which the public representatives of people are entitled to fight for the rights of their voters.

Mr Chairman, we raise these issues not because we are opposed to certain philosophies of the new housing strategy. The hon the Minister knows that we have argued with him and with his predecessors year after year to allow the private individual to come into the housing market. He knows that we have asked that restrictions be withdrawn to allow the private sector to come in. To extent that the new housing strategy is designed to bring in the private individual and business organizations, we are not opposed to it.

But we say that in the end the hon the Minister must not pass the buck. Yesterday he came perilously close to saying that basic to the new strategy was the fact that the responsibility for housing lies with the individual. That is what I understood him to say. You can bring in the individual; you can bring in the State and you can bring in the private sector, but if, in the long run, there is going to be peace and stability in the urban areas, the State has to be responsible for seeing to it that all these various elements co-operate to ensure that there is sufficient housing. The Venter Commission on township establishment made a fundamental recommendation, to which the hon member for Bezuidenhout also referred, where it said, after referring to the explosive nature of housing. “Living units may be supplied by the public sector or the private sector, or a combination of both sectors, but that the chief responsibility lies 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 to prevent housing from becoming unduly politicized.” The commission went on to say “it accordingly recommends that the approach indicated above be accepted as a general point of departure”. That report was signed by the hon the Deputy Minister and by MPs and MPCs of all political parties. Does this represent the philosophy of the Government? Although the Government need not be responsible for actually building all the units that have to be made available the Government must still accept overall responsibility. The success of the Government’s overall housing strategy is not going to be tested on theory or on arguments across the floor of the House, but is going to be tested on whether it results in adequate housing for all sections of the population.

I am sorry to interrupt, but the hon member’s time has expired.

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

Mr Chairman, I thank the hon Whip for his consideration.

I was most disturbed at an answer the hon the Minister gave to a question of mine earlier this session. I asked what the estimated shortage of housing was for each population group in each province at the end of 1983. Inter alia the hon the Minister said:

Surely the State should be monitoring the housing needs and shortages. How can it possibly have an overall strategy if it denies its responsibility for monitoring the housing needs of the people of South Africa?

I want to move on to one or two other matters. I want to refer to recommendations made by the Select Committee on Rent Control in its previous report. It made certain specific recommendations to try to deal with the increase of the supply of affordable housing, especially to the lower and middle income groups. We have had generalities from the hon the Minister. There are specific recommendations contained in that report and we would like to know what the Government’s response is, not in general terms, but to the specific recommendations made as part of recommendation No 1 of that particular report. What positive steps has the Government taken in terms of those recommendations to relieve the shortage of housing for older people in our cities?

An additional R200 million.

The hon the Deputy Minister will have an opportunity to address the Committee. The housing situation in respect of older people in living on fixed incomes in the cities of South Africa is as parlous as it was a few years ago. More and more older people living on fixed incomes are finding it more difficult to keep up with the cost of living and the rising cost of rentals. That is the reality, and I believe the Government should face up to it.

The second matter I want to raise, is that, following the report of the select committee, the Government issued a document known as the Leases of Dwellings Bill. Whatever the intention of the Government might be, the fact that it released that Bill without an explanatory memorandum, a statement or a White Paper, and then said that recommendations had to be in within six weeks over the Christmas period, resulted in untold damage being done to the property rental market. That action in itself, whatever was intended, has prejudiced the position of thousands of middle income group tenants in the cities of South Africa. Its publication has undoubtedly frightened off people. It has frightened landlords into selling their properties. I would therefore hope that the Government, having lurched in one direction and having frightened off the landlords and the property developers, will not over-compensate by lurching in another direction and leave thousands of tenants without any protection against victimization or harassment. I hope that the Government will follow an even course and does not lurch from one side to another under pressure from various people in the community.

The next point is that there is an urgent need to plug a loophole in the present Rent Control Act. I do not intend to become involved in the deliberations of any select committee, but I do not know if legislation can be passed to amend any existing legislation on rent control or sectional title this year. However, there is a matter which requires absolute urgent attention, namely the loophole which certain unscrupulous property owners are using. Section 28(d)(iv) of the Rent Control Act stipulates that six months’ notice has to be given prior to evicting tenants if the building is to be repaired and restored. Thereafter a court order may be obtained. I believe that this provision is used quite unscrupulously by a number of landlords in South Africa today. I had a situation in recent weeks in my constituency where a property was occupied by 36 tenants. It was built in 1932 and was thus rent controlled. These 36 tenants have received notices telling them to vacate by the end of November as the building is needed for repairs and renovations. What is the position of these 36 tenants? At the end of November the holiday season starts. Where will these people find alternative accommodation, and where can they store their furniture while this is taking place? Will they be able to afford the new rentals when they come back to this revamped building? This loophole in the Rent Control Act is making it possible for landlords to evict tenants against the spirit and the intention of the Act. Even if it is not possible to amend other aspects of rent control, it is absolutely essential that before this session ends this aspect of the Rent Control Act be amended in order that tenants can receive the protection to which they are entitled.

There is another point which I would like to raise with the hon the Minister. For some four years now he has been investigating a suitable area for the establishment of a prestige residential area for Coloureds in the Cape Peninsula. He tried Hout Bay, Steen-berg, Constantia, where he got himself in a tangle with the hon member for Constantia. I understand he is now settling for a new township of 28 erven adjoining Walmer Estate. Is the hon the Minister still investigating and what is the result of his study of three and a half years?

I am still investigating.

The hon the Minister must actually stand up and admit failure.

As regards the Walmer Estate area, what is happening with the Bloemhof flats? In reply to a question I put to him he said that it had been handed to a private developer. We would like to know what conditions are attached to this accommodation which was formerly occupied by 386 Coloured families. On what basis was it sold to a private developer; for what purpose is it to be used and is any priority to be given to any category of people when these buildings are made available for general accommodation?

Finally, I want to refer to the technical committee of the Strydom Committee. The hon the Minister must not use the technical committee to hide behind when it comes to the Government’s responsibility. In the report it is stated that the committee is not aware of any other provision in the Group Areas Act which had such drastic, personal, offensive, if not humiliating, consequences as regulation 228. Some years a Human Sciences Research Council report recommended that subsection (l)(iv) of that Act and regulation 228 be repealed. The hon the Minister is caught on a hook and does not know how to handle the whole question of restaurants, facilities and services. He does need legislation for this. There is only one way and that is by scrapping regulation 228. If he is worried about the effect of that, the report of the Strydom Committee states that if there is any unruly behaviour, it can be dealt with in terms of present legislation.

I want to conclude by saying that the hon the Minister should not hide behind the select committee of the Strydom Committee. There are two specific recommendations, namely to repeal regulation 228 and to make it possible for owners and local authorities to regulate the use of these facilities. He should do it without delay.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Sea Point put certain questions to the hon the Minister which I shall not attempt to reply to now. Owing to the limited time at my disposal, I do not want to devote too much attention to my response to what the hon member said. I do just want to say, however, that he must not put words into the hon the Minister’s mouth when he gets up here to speak. I think it is unfair. At a later stage in the debate he will be discovering that he is wrong as far as that is concerned.

I should like to express a word of thanks to the hon the Minister of Community Development. In the agricultural area of Philippi, in my constituency, we had a tremendous number of squatters a few years ago. The Minister took action, and virtually all those squatters have by now been removed. I just want to mention the fact that we made representations to the hon the Minister and that he made accommodation for squatters in his constituency available to squatters in my constituency. For that we are sincerely grateful to him and would like to place that on record here today.

Today I want to refer to a matter that affects us all very closely, or ought to affect us all very closely, ie the accommodation of our aged. It is something we shall all probably find ourselves being faced with one day, if we are fortunate enough. At the outset I want to say that there are more than 6 000 aged and retired individuals living in my constituency. There are six homes for the aged and one for debilitated aged. One of the most wonderful privileges one can ever have is probably that of being involved in the weal and woe, the community life, the philosophy of life and the community involvement of the retired and the aged. There is a tremendous variation in the view of life and the approach to life amongst these people, ranging from “I have finished working; let others do the work” to “I still have some energy and my faculties left which I want to employ for the welfare of my community and in my own interests.” It is exceptionally enriching to be allowed to share in the experience of life, knowledge, wordly wisdom and tranquility of such a community. Specifically because that is so, one also comes into direct contact with their cares and worries, one of which is specifically accommodation. It moves one greatly to come across instances of flat-rent threatening to outstrip income. One is also deeply moved when one comes across cases of children, frequently the well-to-do children of less well-to-do parents, refusing to have anything to do with the care of their parents, in spite of their parents having made a direct contribution to the prosperity that those children of theirs achieved. In this connection we could perhaps learn something from our Black neighbours, amongst whom the children accept direct responsibility for the care of their parents.

Although the Department of Community Development has played a truly praiseworthy role in the case of the aged in my constituency, I did a bit of research and was interested to learn that since 1979-80 almost R74,5 million has been spent on White welfare housing, thereby making provision for 2 144 dwelling units in which 8 500 people could be accommodated. In the current financial year R26,5 million is being spent on 459 units, which brings the total to just over R100 million, by vitue of which approximately 10 500 people have been accommodated in more than 2 600 dwelling units.

The Government of the RSA is directly or indirectly involved in the care of approximately 8% of the White population. If a comparison with the rest of the world were to be made, one would come to the sobering realization that this was even more than in that much-vaunted welfare state, the Netherlands. There is another factor we must bear in mind. One must bear in mind that although there was one retired individual for every 16 working individuals in 1950, according to projections that have been made, by the year 2000 the ratio will be such that there will be two working individuals for every five people who have retired. One is then confronted with the fact that a dilemma is in the process of unfolding. This dilemma revolves around the fact that the State’s ability to meet these needs is being taxed to the very limit, whilst the needs continue to grow. One thing then becomes clear. That is that if it is our intention to reconcile the needs on the one hand, and the State’s ability to meet those needs on the other, a drastic change in approach is going to be necessary in future.

This brings me to another aspect in regard to which I should like to ask the hon the Minister for his assistance. I am referring to the fact that there are still enough people who want to care for their parents and who want to help create accommodation for them. Because the necessary funds are not always available, they are now looking for other alternatives, for example accommodating their parents on their own residential sites, in a separate room or flatlet which they have built on for that purpose. I am referring to the so-called “granny flat”. I receive almost weekly representations from my constituency about this, but one comes up against the relevant local authorities who obstinately refuse to assist people, even though the necessary space is available and there is no overpopulation, when measured in terms of population per square kilometre. One finds local authorities obstinately refusing to be of assistance. If one applies to have servant’s quarters or a garage built on, it is approved. But when one wants to make one of the noblest possible gestures as far as one’s parents are concerned, one is denied the privilege of doing so owing to the local authorities’ town planning provisions or their policy. If we want to have the aged remain part of the community for a longer period of time and relieve the pressure on the State, we shall have to take a serious look at this matter. Today I consequently want to advocate that in this regard the hon the Minister and his department take the lead in helping to establish a better dispensation for our aged.

Mr Chairman, firstly I want to express appreciation for the exceptional contribution made by the hon member for False Bay. Not only does it attest to compassion for the aged, but also to an exceptional understanding of their problems. In addition I also have considerable appreciation for the guidelines which, he indicated, should apply in the future care of the aged.

In the short time at my disposal I want to give attention to the Department of Community Development’s contribution to children’s homes and homes for the handicapped—a contribution that has indeed helped to make the care of the handicapped and the treatment of children in need of care in South Africa amongst the best in the world. As early as 1951 the then Minister of Social Welfare, Dr Karl Bremer, appointed a committee of inquiry to investigate the whole question of the financing of welfare organizations. This committee of inquiry was under the chairmanship of Mr Wennie du Plessis, the then MP for Standerton, with Prof G Cronjé as deputy Chairman. The committee’s report, which appeared in 1953, certainly made a major contribution to the stabilization of our own welfare system, a system that South Africa can rightly be proud of. As a point of departure there has been confirmation of the fact that both the State and each population group with its specific initiative—an own affair therefore— have their particular contributions to make and that the greatest success can be achieved if the two parties are regarded as partners. Partnership, of course, means that each partner has his specific contribution to make, that contributions by each are acknowledged and appreciated and that they also supplement each other.

The acceptance of the Du Plessis Committee recommendations confirmed the view that specific welfare organizations needed adequate means to ensure their successful survival and that the State should therefore financially assist them. There was also acceptance of the fact that no financial State assistance should be granted if specific minimum standards were not complied with, which also means, amongs other things, that private initiative itself must also make financial contributions.

It is also in this spirit that the Department of Community Development, together with other Government Departments and private initiative, act in partnership for the care of children in children’s homes and for the residents of homes for the handicapped. In the past five years, for example, the department of Community Development has spent an amount of R27 157 157 from the National Housing Fund on White children’s homes and homes for the handicapped; R3 788 622 on Coloureds and R337 508 on Asians. The numbers of inhabitants of the relevant population groups, on whom these amounts have been spent, were respectively 860, 525 and 100. The amounts spent covered the purchasing of land, expenditure on the installation of services, building costs and indirect costs.

For the 1983-84 financial year R8 847 859 was spent in that connection on 176 Whites residents and R1 097 306 on Coloureds. That is, of course, only the contribution of one of the partners involved in the care of the relevant individuals. For the 1981-82 financial year, for example, the Department of Health and Welfare paid out a subsidy of R11 154 488 in regard to 80 children’s homes for Whites, whilst large amounts were also spent by the Department of National Education on the education of children in homes for the handicapped. In addition private welfare organizations do, of course, also furnish a contribution.

The fact of the matter is, however, that within the framework of the policy in regard to the care of children who are in need of care and the handicapped, the Department of Community Development plays an extraordinarily significant role. Nor are these contributions merely confined to financial assistance, because advice and consultative services in regard to plans for buildings, the furnishing of buildings and similar aspects are also made available to private organizations and other bodies.

The policy relating to child-care, of course, is and will continue to be based on the principle that it is primarily the parents’ responsibility to care for their children. That is why as much social work services and other welfare services as possible, relating to family reconstruction, are done by the State, the Church and the private organizations before children are committed to institutions. Foster-care is also acknowledged to be a preferable form of substitute care, particularly in the case of young children and some teenagers with special problems. The care of the child who is in need of care nevertheless remains an extensive problem. In the latest annual report of the Department of Health and Welfare there is an indication, for example, that 7 834 White children in need of care are being cared for in the 78 registered children’s homes in the Republic.

The policy in regard to the handicapped aims at helping as many handicapped as possible to take their place in the community and in professional life, in accordance with their individual abilities, notwithstanding their particular handicap, and to help them to be as independent as possible. According to the Department of Health and Welfare’s latest annual report, 46 institutions for physically and mentally handicapped persons of post-school age are being subsidized at present. Each of these institutions has a sheltered workshop. In addition 13 sheltered workshops in the community, which are not attached to institutions, are being subsidized. According to Professor De Villiers, professor in social work, the most important characteristic of the modern approach in regard to individuals with a physical and/or mental handicap is probably the emphasis placed on their abilities or capabilities rather than their impediments. Gradually it has been realized that a large percentage of such people do not continually have to live a life of dependence and do not, of necessity, have to be a burden to the community or the State, but that they represent a potential labour force that can make an important contribution to the development of the State and the community. It has also been realized that in the past handicapped individuals were viewed from two different angles. On the one hand there was their physical or mental handicap as such, and on the other the attitude of society towards that handicap. It is specifically this attitude which, more often than not, prevented them from standing on their own feet and making a positive contribution to the development of our country.

This view has changed considerably, however, particularly with regard to the following: Firstly, the realization that the needs of the handicapped in no way differ from those of the non-handicapped; secondly, the realization of the importance of utilizing the potential contribution of the handicapped to his own welfare and prosperity, and to the social and economic welfare and prosperity of our country; thirdly, the tremendous, extensive and significant progress made by medical science, education, psychiatry, occupational rehabilitation and similar disciplines in recent times; and fourthly, the development of integrated medical, social, educational and professional services for the rehabilitation of the handicapped.

In the new dispensation the one partner, private initiative, must be developed further, as an own affair, each with its particular emphasis in welfare work, in the interests of the handicapped, in the interests of children in need of care and in the interests of the other welfare work that is being done.

In conclusion, just the following. When appreciation is expressed for the Department of Community Development’s contribution to children’s homes and homes for the handicapped, this is done in the knowledge that this contribution is indeed an investment, and in the knowledge that it is a task we have been charged with. Do we not read in Matthew 25:40:

Mr Chairman, I have no fault at all to find with the factual contents of the speech made by the hon member Dr Pieterse; on the contrary, I am in complete agreement with him when he says that what we are dealing with here is a very important and topical matter. When we discuss the problems and needs pertaining to home accommodation, we can have a lengthy and wide-ranging discussion.

We have three important groups in our society today. The first group is the upper income group, the members of whom can pay for anything they want. They can choose what they want, where they want it, and are also able to pay for those privileges. We do not begrudge them those privileges; after all, they worked hard for them. Consequently we have no fault to find with that.

Then we have the lower income group, who can only afford what they have the money to buy. In these expensive times some of them do not have enough money to afford anything at all. In this group we find pensioners and unskilled workers in particular. They are part of our society and are therefore surely able to lay claim to the interest and also the assistance of the authorities, as well as that of the charitable organizations that exist in our country. In this respect we would consequently like to pay tribute to those organizations and to the people who make those organizations possible.

In particular, I should like to pay tribute to the women in those organizations, the women who work so hard for their fellow human beings and for the welfare of the people around them. When we think about these matters, we must always remember that the pensioner should never be regarded as a person who ought to be grateful for the old age pension which he receives; nor for the State accommodation.

These are people who made many sacrifices in times when salaries were small. They made sacrifices in order to develop this country into the strong industrial giant it is today. The pensions which elderly people receive today are really not sufficient to assure them of a carefree old age. Care of the aged should be a task that is carried out with much gratitude.

We also have the group in-between the middle income group, which is probably the group experiencing the greatest problems today. Their salaries are just not sufficient to cover the deposits they have to pay on their houses. The monthly instalments which actually, for many years, only cover the interest, are also very high. The price people have to pay to live a dignified life is higher than their incomes. Many young people who get married become absolutely frustrated at these conditions. It is a matter for concern that so many young people are simply living together today, and this is absolutely fatal for the moral norms of a community and a people.

Land is expensive and building costs are extremely high. There are not enough loans and subsidies. Our young people, who have to take our places tomorrow or the day after, are suffering hardships. They cannot make the grade, they cannot afford houses; they cannot scrape together the deposit because they are still very young and are not yet able to save up sufficient money.

I want to ask the hon the Minister to consider something. He is the Minister of Community Development and he has the power, for example, to insist in respect of new townships being established that, just as in the case of schools and sometimes even in the case of hospitals, land should be set aside for accommodation for elderly persons when such a town is being planned. In the lives of elderly people today it is essential that when husband and wife are still together they should have a little place of their own. If one of them should die, then the remaining spouse can live on in the same premises or nearby in the same familiar surroundings in a small house possibly consisting of only one room in which he or she can care for himself or herself.

In the case of the infirm aged who are no longer able to take care of themselves, they should also, if possible, be able to continue to live in the same surroundings by being admitted into and cared for in an institution for the infirm aged. It is important that their lives should not be disrupted to too great an extent. They should also be close to conveniences such as a medical practitioner, a pharmacy and the post office at which they can draw their pensions, and also near to the shops where they can do their shopping. It is very difficult for them to approach other people and ask them to take them to town or to the post office. Many of these people were previously quite independent and they are now obliged to depend for their welfare on other people. That is not always an easy thing for them to do.

If possible, they should also have a small piece of land on which they can make a garden. Many of them enjoy keeping pot plants. For that reason we feel that these conveniences are of great importance to them, and the local authorities should therefore ensure that land is set aside for these elderly people.

Our pensioners were responsible for many of the conveniences we enjoy today, and we should also realize that we have a responsibility towards them. [Interjections.] The hon member says that I am rapidly heading in that direction myself, but one of these days he, too, will find himself in that position.

Our church, our society and our people want happy young people, and we need these young married couples to take up where we left off so that they can in future preserve what we have accomplished. That is why it is necessary for these people to be absolutely happy and to be afforded the opportunity, while they still have the necessary strength, to discharge their obligations free of any cares and to play their part in the development of this country and its people.

The priorities in these difficult times should be community orientated. Restorations and luxuries can again receive attention in future when times improve, but human material is our most precious possession. What we possess in the way of material things and luxuries cannot weigh up against these necessities. In these times, they will simply have to take second place.

I come back to the State-owned houses that are being offered for sale in Government Villages and elsewhere. It is gratifying that we are offering these houses to the people living in them. I just feel that these townships have been in existence for quite a number of years. Even though the rentals paid by these people were small, those houses have been paid for over and over again. I should like to make a request in this connection. Those people do not have the deposits to pay for those houses. My request is that they should simply be allowed to pay off on those houses. They should not also be expected to pay deposits out of their extremely small pensions. Most of them receive really small pensions; they are all old age pensioners. It should be made possible for those people to acquire those houses, because they were paid off years ago.

Mr Chairman, the hon member for Germiston District will understand if I do not react to her speech, because I have just come back from the Standing Committee on National Education. One could say that everyone is getting out of there because of all the vehement squabbling about the Volkswag. That is why I fled to this House for a while, to be able to speak in a far more restful atmosphere.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to congratulate the hon the Minister very sincerely on the dynamic developments which he and his able staff have initiated. In this connection I am thinking in particular of what Mr McEnery has done recently in respect of developments in the sphere of housing. At the same time I am also thinking of Mr Van Blommestein. Together they are truly a pillar of strength for us in the department. Then, too, there is the Deputy Minister who is devoting attention to certain matters. Not only have they initiated a housing strategy, but what I am particularly pleased about is that they have brought home the responsibility to the individual and in that way tried to further home ownership. I want to congratulate them and also thank them very cordially for the scheme which they launched in connection with economic housing.

In particular I am very grateful for what the hon the Minister and his officials are doing. For years now they have been trying to alleviate the housing need in Rosettenville. I know that at Crown Gardens there are certain schemes in terms of which people are now able to buy houses or flats for as little as R8 670. [Interjections.] When I say that people are able to buy a house or a flat there for less than R10 000 then this is something for which the Government should be praised. We hope that people will make use of this scheme.

I am particularly pleased that the hon the Minister is keeping aside many millions of rands for me. We hope that we will eventually be able to make progress in South Hills as well. The Moffat Park there covers an area of 199 ha. The park is far too large, and we should do away with such large parks and open spaces that cannot be developed. A request for that area to be rezoned so that at least 300 dwellings can be constructed in Rosettenville, by means of which we can alleviate the needs of people there, has been before the city council for some considerable time. I hope that we shall be able, with that planning, to find accommodation there, for our elderly people in particular.

In the short time still available to me, I want to draw attention to a report which appeared in The Star of Monday, 30 April, under the heading “A problem Johannesburg cannot solve”. The Star is of course a PFP newspaper, a party that does not have the courage of its convictions to put up a candidate in Rosettenville. This newspaper is now attacking Mr John Citizen because there are not enough houses in Johannesburg. But I remember, and so does the hon member for Langlaagte, that when we were still serving on the Johannesburg City Council, the United Party, who was in control at the time, did nothing for housing, particularly housing for the Coloureds.

It was the NP that had to fight against a UP city council, people who are at present members of the PFP, who did nothing for the Coloured population of Johannesburg. It was the Nationalists who then had to take up the cudgels for them.

What does The Star say here? It says that there is simply not enough money because the Government is not giving all these organizations sufficient money. But may I point out that in 1983 approximately R373 million was spent on housing. The Cape metropolitan area received R81 million; East London, R5 million; Port Elizabeth, R44 million; Durban, R53 million; Pietermaritzburg, R2 million; the Witwatersrand, R56 million; Pretoria, R13 million; the Vaal Triangle, R8 million; the Goldfields, R1 million; Bloemfontein, R18 million; Kimberley, R4 million; Cape Town, R51 million and the Cape Divisional Council, R23 million. Is that not an achievement? In addition the Government is developing a project for the development of 236 dwelling units at Moffat Park, near Checkers, in Johannesburg North. Then there is Zuideroord, Johannesburg, where the department sold 40 stands at reasonable prices to the housing utility company of the Public Servants Association for the construction of houses for public servants in the middle income group.

Did The Star take any notice of this? Or is The Star too busy fighting the Saan Group in order to acquire a greater monopoly in this country? That is all that newspaper is interested in. It is only interested in monopolies. It gives no publicity to what the Government is doing. The Argus Group is a monopolized group of people. It is the present PFP newspaper.

Dwelling units in Crown Gardens are being sold at a discount of 25% to 30%. Did The Star or The Argus say anything about the old-age homes that are being built? They do not have the courage to do so. The PFP must get up and display the necessary courage to mention these things. What the NP does is never publicised. The PFP is a monopolistic group in this country, a group we can no longer tolerate.

Did the newspapers ever publish any reports on the Pro Ecclesia old-age home in Johannesburg that cost R1,2 million, or the Vrededorp old-age Home, or the Crown Gardens old-age Home or the Claremont old-age Home, or about the Italian old-age home and the Kennedy Children’s Home? Mr Chairman, one is becoming sick and tired of the English-language Press, of the PFP Press, that only tell their own stories and write nothing about what the NP is doing. I should like members of the PFP to rise to their feet here and say whether that is the right thing to do. We shall oppose them wherever they are, because they do not have the courage of their convictions. They sit there without saying a word and merely disseminate distorted information. As this newspaper says: “A problem Johannesburg cannot solve” and then they blame the NP for it. I say the NP Government is tops, the best under any circumstances, and for that reason I want the PFP to display the courage to call the English-language Press to account.

Mr Chairman, allow me to say at the ouset that as far as I am concerned, the hon member for Rosettenville is “tops”. It is always a pleasure to listen to him, particularly when he is in such a fighting mood and when he takes offence at ridiculous remarks made by the PFP and the newspaper The Star. Of course, it is utter rubbish to say that the Government is doing nothing about housing. After all, the hon the Minister announced yesterday that the department was, directly or indirectly, contributing more than a billion rand to housing in this country during the present financial year. That does not include the contributions of the other Government sectors such as the Department of Transport Affairs, the Post Office, State corporations and other bodies. But the hon the Minister will reply to the matters raised by the hon member.

I should like to react to three previous speakers, the hon member for Germiston, the hon member for False Bay and the hon member Dr Jannie Pieterse, who discussed welfare housing. Due to the very limited time at my disposal today, I want to ask whether I could not reply to their speeches next week, when the Health and Welfare vote comes up for discussion.

The hon member for False Bay referred to the amount of more than R100 million that the Government has spent on housing for the elderly over the past five years.

†The hon member for Sea Point knows that he is speaking arrant nonsense when he says that we are not doing enough for the housing of the aged. He knows what we are doing in this regard. For the current financial year we have a building programme of R65 million for housing for the aged and for old age homes. But the hon member said that we are not doing enough.

Correct.

There is no country in the world that can match what we are doing for our aged people, and the hon member knows that. I want to ask the hon member why he raises these matters we have discussed in the select committee, some of them ad nauseam over the past two years. Does the hon member find himself hamstrung behind the closed doors of a select committee and does he want to say these things for public consumption? Those matters have been debated and the hon member knows full well that a Bill is going to be introduced into this House in this regard and that these matters will be debated here once again. Does the hon member mention these things just to make politics of them?

The hon member for Maitland spoke with great knowledge and with great feeling of the restoration of old historic buildings and of the whole conservation programme of the Government. He came with a very constructive suggestion, namely that we draw up a catalogue of all these historic buildings. I can assure the hon member that we will look into this matter. I will discuss it with the hon the Minister and our senior officials and if it is feasible, we can use our computer to compile such a catalogue for us. What the hon member for Sea Point said happens will then not happen, namely that we only preserve when pressure is exerted on us. Of course it is not so, but even if it were so, we welcome the fact that there is pressure from the public, because it shows that it is conservation conscious. However, we have initiated most of these projects and there are many examples I could refer to. Of course pressure is sometimes exerted. The hon member mentioned the example of the Roeland Street Prison. The hon member for Maitland was the person who exerted pressure on us in this respect. If ever there was a prison which the people of this country have taken to their hearts, it is the Roeland Street jail. The hon member for Maitland voiced the sentiments of the people when he spoke with feeling about that historic building. I know that, years ago, the hon member for Maitland was responsible for approaching the then hon Minister of Public Works, the present Vice State President, to try to persuade him that that building should be preserved for posterity. There has been a long delay. The hon member has been prodding me all the time, and I am happy to announce that we will soon begin operations there. Hon members have probably seen the scaffolding against the facade of the building. Certain minor repairs are being carried out at the moment.

Hon members are also aware of the fact that the new Archives building is to be built behind the present facade. We will preserve the present facade, and all that will be demolished are the two unsightly blockhouses which were built at a later stage. Our plans are well advanced and virtually completed. The bill of quantities will be presented within a fortnight. We trust that by July we will be able to call for tenders and towards October the site might be available to the contractor and that by July 1987 the new building will be completed.

The hon member also referred to other matters, for instance to the Castle, which is being repaired at a cost of R12 million, and certain other buildings. I do not have time now to refer to them.

The hon member for Bezuidenhout is not here, but he asked me yesterday whether we could do anything about the restoration of the No 1 Military Hospital at Voortrekker Hoogte. The department is presently looking at this. The Defence Force requested us to do so. The major problem is that there are sink-holes in this area and we must have authoritative opinion on this before anything can be done.

*I now wish to make a statement about the issue of the preservation of the Valkenberg manor house. After an in-depth investigation, and in consultation with all the relevant Government departments, the Historical Monuments Council, and the city council of Cape Town, it has been decided to turn over the Valkenberg manor house, which was built in about 1877 and is situated in the grounds of the Valkenberg hospital, together with the nearby cemetery, to the NMC so that it may be restored and declared a national monument. In this way this exceptional legacy will be preserved for posterity. Arrangements have already been made to transfer the structures and the surrounding land as a separate entity from the hospital grounds. The Department of Community Development is at present negotiating with the city council of Cape Town with regard to the provision of a separate access road to the homestead in order to ensure unrestricted access. The NMC has undertaken to take steps to restore the homestead. On this occasion I should like to convey the cordial thanks and appreciation of the Department of Community Development to the NMC and the city council of Cape Town for their fine co-operation and support in regard to this matter. How, then, can the hon member for Pietermaritzburg North say that we do not consult people? We consulted very widely, inter alia, the city council, the Institute of Architects, the NMC and other Government departments.

†The hon member for Durban Point referred to the question of ground rents in the Marine Parade area of Durban. He mentioned that the valuation of certain properties has increased by 300% to 400%. I believe there are instances where it has risen by 1 200%. I want to make it clear that this department has no locus standi in this matter. We have no legal power to act and there is no legislation which we can invoke. However, I had the opportunity last week, in the presence of the Deputy Director-General, to discuss this matter with representatives of the Durban city council, the chairman of Manco, the Town Clerk and the City Valuator. We ascertained the facts from them. The facts are that there is a lease agreement with these lessees which stipulates that the valuation is reviewed every 10 years and that there be an interest levy on that valuation of 6% of the value of the leasehold. That was the problem. What is the remedy? We suggested certain possibilities to the delegation. We asked them whether it was not possible to adjust the lease annually and not every 10 years. They assured us that this was suggested to the lessees but that they preferred to have it adjusted only once every 10 years as that was in their interest. We asked them whether the valuations were not unrealistic.

They are.

Yes, I also thought so. There has been an increase far in excess of the consumer price index and I thought that was unrealistic. They assured me that it was very difficult to value leasehold properties because they have not changed hands. However, in the past few months three of these properties have changed hands and now there is such a basis. They further assured me that they called in an independent valuator and his valuation was within 5% of theirs.

That is a quite irrelevant comparison.

That is the information I have received. There is, of course, a remedy. In terms of the ordinance these lessees can refer the matter for arbitration and appoint another valuator. That might be a possibility. There was a third possibility discussed with this delegation and that is that the leasehold property revert to freehold property. We discussed that and were given the assurance that the City Valuator is presently investigating this possibility and hopes to submit a report to the city council within a few months. It is, of course, doubtful whether that would be to the benefit of the present owners. They are presently paying an interest of 6% and if they were to borrow money on the basis of the same valuations—if they are realistic—the interest on that would be in the order of 18%.

There if a fourth observation I want to make, and that is that share-block companies would be prudent if they built up reserves as a cushion against steep increases in costs, as has happened in respect of the beachfront properties there. Then, finally, we told the delegation that we believed that there was a lack of proper communication between the Durban City Council and the lessees. The city council sprang a surprise on those lessees which gave them a very nasty shock. The city council has promised to publish an information sheet explaining the position. That is, of course, after the event. It should be done timeously. I think that the hon the Minister set the right example yesterday by informing, more than a year before the time, the thousands of tenants of houses built by this department, that by mid-year next year we will be adjusting those rents. The hon member for Sea Point is extremely critical about that.

If I still have a minute at my disposal, I should like to refer briefly to the question raised by the hon member of the harassment of and notice of eviction served on a certain Mr Arthur Smith. That followed on a Supreme Court order, and he is being evicted in three months time on the basis of a mere technicality. I called for a copy of the court proceedings. I did so last week, but I have not received it yet. We will study those proceedings and see whether there is a loophole to be closed, provided of course that this is not an isolated case. I want to believe that this is an exception because I sincerely believe that the vast majority of landlords are fair-minded, reasonable people and should not be judged by the actions of a single black sheep. We of the department—I have made it my task—want to bring about conciliation between lessors and lessees. It is not such a difficult task if we are not hampered by the reprehensible actions of people such as Bay Homes. I want to assure this company that while it has won its case in the Supreme Court on a technicality it has lost its cause. I believe this company. Bay Homes, is going to be the ultimate loser because decent-minded people are loath to do business with such a firm.

I did speak to Mr Smith. He called on me during the course of last year and I spoke to him again this morning. I assured him that our regional office in Cape Town will be assisting him in finding alternative accommodation. I am pleased the hon member raised this matter.

Mr Chairman, first of all I should like to thank the hon the Minister for his reply to my question about Clairwood. It is of some interest to us from Durban to know at last something is happening there and that we are getting some progress. I might add that I suspect his comment re the degeneration of that area has been to some degree a planned and manipulated method to try to force these people to get out. I would therefore not like the people concerned to be blamed for the condition of the area.

Personally I regret his response, however, in respect of the Hillary Quarry indicating that there is such a shortage of that stone that they have to have it there. I believe that that low grade type of stone is available all over the place. It is merely that it is good business for the present entrepreneurs to remain there and to use their plant and equipment without having to remove it to another area, never mind the effect it is going to have on the local populace presently there, or on people who could be living in homes close to Durban. It is again a question of big business hammering the little homeowner. I am sorry, but that is the case.

The hon the Minister also mentioned the question of the 100% increase in home loans by building societies. Of course, this is very good, but regrettably one seems to find that those who want big loans at higher percentages of in terest do not seem to have a great deal of difficulty in getting them, while those who want smaller loans seem to be the ones to have problems. Whilst building societies may be lending more money I wonder if we are really getting more homes out.

I should also like to refer to the question of conservation, which is of interest to me also. I appreciate the fact that Newlands House in Cape Town is to be rebuilt and that some finality has been reached in respect of Church Square in Pretoria. This has been on the books and an argument for a very long time. There are also many other places that have been mentioned by the hon member for Maitland and others. I believe the concept of a catalogue of old buildings is a very sound idea, but I would express a word of caution in this regard. When one creates such a catalogue one should be careful to ensure that they genuinely are buildings of historic importance, that they are something special. There are cases coming to light now where the Historic Monuments Commission are making recommendations in respect of units that really have no historic importance at all. We have to be very careful about that. Especially when these properties are in private ownerships this can be seriously interfering with the estates of individuals. I know of one case, the Boulle family in Florida Road in Durban—this is an absolute disgrace—where the building was declared a national monument. It was inherited by a family of five children and they had their inheritance robbed from them—no more than that—because one or two people thought that they liked the frilly woodwork, or something like that, in the house. It is ridiculous! It is of no historic value, it is in a deplorable condition and it is situated in a place where nobody would visit it even if the department were to renovate it. It is therefore an unacceptable proposition. I may suggest that one should exercise extreme caution in this regard, otherwise we will lose the sympathy of a large number of people who genuinely support the concept of conservation. I myself, for example, fought for years to try to preserve the Durban railway station and several other buildings. I fought to retain those buildings and to have them renovated and recycled. However, I repeat that we should be careful that we do not lose the sympathy of otherwise staunch supporters of the concept of conservation.

Mr Chairman, I have a question which one of my colleagues asked me to put to the hon the Minister, and that is in respect of the fencing of farms bordering on the homelands and independent states. I understand that a certain sum of money was made available by the Department of Foreign Affairs for this purpose, and I have been asked to establish what progress has been made in this regard and whether any of these funds have not been used. I have a suspicion that my colleague wants to make a special plea sometime in the future, but I do not know what the situation is.

I want to touch upon another point of interest, and that is in respect of housing. Everybody has been talking about housing and, of course, we all realize the importance of housing to the less affluent sector of the community. However, I have here an article which shocked me somewhat when I saw it. It deals with the R40 million which was made available to Durban for housing but which they did not succeed in using. I am given to understand that they could not use it because they had not done sufficient forward planning, but I do not know whether this is true or not. It was put forward by Mr Baldeo Dhookie of the SA Indian Council and, if this is the case, I think it is disgraceful because for years, certainly in the days when I was involved with local government, Durban was one of the foremost cities in terms of forward planning in regard to housing for the various communities.

That was before the Progs took over.

Yes, of course, that was before the Progs took over. Things were done properly then. I should, however, like to know whether in fact this is the case and, if it is so, I feel that some chastisement should be exercised as far as Durban is concerned.

Finally, Sir, I have one other very important point that I want to raise and that is in respect of Cato Manor. This area has been lying dormant for over 20 years. It was first declared a group area for Whites; now for several years it has been a group area for the Indian community. That is valuable land for home development. Because of the ekashale substrata there, it is quite unsuitable for any large numbers of multi-storey buildings but it is suitable for home development, and surely it is time that real action was taken to get these stands on the market. I know that there have been efforts at selling some of these stands, some by the Durban City Council and in some instances by the department, but all the way through they are working, in my opinion, on the wrong principle in that they seem to believe that one must get the maximum amount of money for this land. I am sorry but this is the wrong policy and philosophy if one wants to get houses on State-owned or municipal land. I believe that this land must be made available at prices that people can afford. I understand that certain land, which the Durban City Council was selling at R15 000 per stand, was taken over by the department and sold at R25 000 per stand. They realized these prices purely and simply because so few stands were put on the market that people were anxious to grab them in order to be able to begin with their building operations. Is this right? Is this morally justifiable? I ask these questions particularly considering the fact that the department obtained that land in the first place at a fairly reasonable price. I am not going to say it was cheap. The department did pay a fair price for it. I also happen to know that they have to pay substantial prices for the development of services.

That land will be developed again later on in order to be resold.

I know all about that. The question is, however, how on earth the department is going to get such a large number of people who can pay that sort of money. That land is sufficient to accommodate 25 000 people in Cato Manor. Is it going to be possible to find such a large number of people in the Indian communtiy who will be able to pay that sort of money? Not in 1 000 years will that be possible. That is why I say that unless we are playing the fool when we call that an Indian area of development, we must reduce the prices.

Mr Chairman, I am afraid I must now leave the exciting field of housing and concentrate on a few less exciting, but equally important matters.

So without further ado I want to come to those topics I want to say a few words about today. There is also a request I want to address to the hon the Minister in this connection. I read through chapter V of the department’s annual report and found that it dealt with the Government Printer. In that chapter an extremely brief resumé is given of the work that has been done, and this is also compared with the work done in previous years. There was a drop in the quantity of raw materials used. The value of production however, increased. I tried to ascertain the reason for this, but without success. During the year under review more work of a certain type was done than in previous years, whereas less work of other types was done. Can one therefore accept that this is simply another example of less work costing more?

The turnover figure for the relevant year under review was considerable, namely R54,7 million. I also note that there are no complaints about a shortage of staff. The Government Printer would seem to have a prize-winning recipe. When there is too much work, private contractors are called in to help complete the work. When, however, one takes into consideration how many documents one comes across every day, printed by the Government Printer, one is convinced that one is dealing with loyal and hard-working officials. We should therefore commend them for this.

The next topic I want to touch on briefly is surveys and mapping. In the chapter in the annual report dealing with this, I read about certain need requirements in connection with the international survey discipline. These requirements must therefore be met. Information is consequently given on this. The report indicates a tremendous increase in the influx of work during the past five years, including leasehold surveys. The report mentions that a backlog of between three and nine weeks built up as a result of the leasehold surveys, the said backlog not being considered serious. Of course I have to agree with this. It is not a serious backlog.

That this is indeed the case, in spite of the tremendous increase in the flow of work, is a feather in the cap of the employees of that office, the technical staff in particular. I should therefore like to give them the commendation they deserve in this regard.

I now want to come to something that was recently a topic of discussion in this House, namely deeds offices. It goes without saying that because one cannot carry land around with one, methods had to be devised centuries ago to enable the landowner to prove right of ownership to his land. We read that in the time of the old Roman Law, in addition to the buyer and the seller, there also had to be five witnesses present at each ceremony transferring ownership of land. Much later, on 10 May 1529, an edict was published by King Charles V, providing for the sale or mortgaging of land having to take place before a judge—as he was called—and for a record to be kept of this. It is claimed that this is how deeds offices came into existence. In 1598 another edict was published charging town clerks to keep registries of land transactions up to date. Here in South Africa, from the outset, the formal execution of deeds took place before two members of the political council. In terms of a placaat of 1714 these members were replaced by two civil commissioners of the Council of Justice—this was the forerunner of the present Cape Supreme Court. In 1828, when the Council of Justice was abolished and the Supreme Court was established, the Registrar of Deeds was introduced. Initially the Registrar and his staff had to draw up the deeds. By 1844 lawyers and other suitable individuals had been authorized to draw up deeds of transfer and mortgage deeds. At a later date a deeds examination was introduced, and this was the forerunner of the system as we know it today.

If one looks at the annual report one finds that on 31 December 1983 the greatest delays being experienced were those being experienced in the offices in Johannesburg, King William’s Town and Pretoria, namely 29 days in the case of Johannesburg, 15 days in the case of King William’s Town and 12 days in the case of Pretoria. One also finds in the report that the Pretoria office worked the most overtime. A striking fact was that there was no backlog of work in Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Pietermaritzburg and Vryburg.

I now come to my request to the hon the Minister, and that is that he give favourable consideration to establishing a deeds office in Port Elizabeth for the Eastern Cape region.

Then I shall go and practise there.

The hon the Minister is most welcome to do so because we need good men there.

I thought so. [Interjections.]

I re-read the so-called Prins report. This was the commission appointed approximately eight years ago to investigate the closure of certain deeds offices and the establishment of others. I found that the commission was opposed to the establishment of an office in Port Elizabeth on the grounds that it was in favour of the centralization of deeds offices. I find it strange, however, that although this was the recommendation of the Prins Commission, it did not recommend the closure of the smaller offices as well. If centralization were essential—and there were various reasons why they recommended centralization—I cannot understand why the commission did not recommend that the offices at Vryburg, King William’s Town and Kimberley, for example, should also be closed because these were, after all, offices which did not have that much work and which, according to the commission’s own findings, did not do sufficient work to justify micro-filming or computer systems being introduced there.

I also want to refer briefly to the evidence given before the commission. In the period January to August 1975 approximately 6 900 transfer duty receipts—at that stage this was considered the best way of determining the number of deeds—were issued in the Eastern Cape, of which more than a third were issued in Port Elizabeth alone.

For the sake of interest I also want to give the statistics for the other towns and cities where the largest number of transfer duty receipts were issued. In East London there were approximately 1 200, in Uitenhage 550, in Humansdorp approximately 480, in Port Alfred 230 and in King William’s Town where the deeds office is at the moment, 200. Time does not permit me to explain my standpoint in more detail. It should, however, be clear that if a new deeds office were to be established in terms of the amending legislation we adopted a few weeks ago, Port Elizabeth would be one of the prime contenders. Port Elizabeth has had to suffer so frequently as a result of the mistakes of the dim and distant past, in consequence of which its growth and development were impeded. I want to make an appeal to the hon the Minister to display the necessary determination with regard to this matter and to do what is right in the public interest.

Mr Chairman, I should like to associate myself with the hon member for Port Elizabeth North and it gives me pleasure to support his appeal to the hon the Minister. I think this is a very deserving case and I hope that it will receive careful attention.

The preface to the latest annual report of the department reads as follows:

This may not sound like a dramatic announcement, but it is nevertheless a statement with far-reaching implications, particularly if one takes note of the very next sentence:

In view of this it was decided in 1982 to dispose of all State-owned land not required for any State purposes within the foreseeable future to the best advantage of the State.

These are two related matters because by disposing of more superfluous State-owned land, the private sector is obviously placed in a position to make its rightful contribution to this important matter. As a matter of fact I feel this represents more than a change of emphasis. I feel it in fact represents and testifies to a drastic change in policy. All credit must go to the hon the Minister, and the present top structure of his department, for their courage, drive and perseverance in launching this new policy and programme in order, if I may put it this way, to get out of the rut of the somewhat paternalistic approach and policy which characterized a former era in this regard.

One or two decades ago, as we are all aware, private developers frequently tried to enter this field. I myself frequently had to deal with this when I was responsible for town establishment in the Cape Provincial Administration. Both local and overseas developers were interested and approached us from time to time to provide low-cost housing for Coloureds and Blacks on a large scale and on attractive conditions. In those days, however, the department jealously claimed the provision of all housing of that kind for the non-White groups to be its exclusive prerogative, its task and its exclusive function. With the change in policy to which the annual report now testifies, a completely new era has been ushered in, an era which in my opinion holds great promise for the future.

Together with the new policy to give the private sector an opportunity and even to expect them to play their part, and as a logical consequence of this, it was decided about a year ago to launch an intensified marketing campaign by means of which the Community Development Board could sell as many as possible of its own residential and other properties that were no longer needed for State purposes with greater rapidity. The aim of this campaign was, once again, to involve the private sector in the housing and development processes to a greater extent, to make them accept joint responsibility for these processes.

In this way, during the period 1 January 1983 to 31 March 1984, 1 702 properties were sold for an amount of more than R29 million. In addition, a further 12 pieces of farming land valued at R3,6 million were also sold. The large number of properties owned by the State were purchased or accrued to the State for a variety of purposes. I cannot go into details in this regard, but I can point out that they were for example purchased for the requirements of various Government departments. There was also land which had been excised from Black areas with a view to the consolidation of Black states. There was also land which accrued to the State by way of donation in connection with town establishment. Futhermore, there was also land which was obtained for town establishment with a view to providing low-cost housing and similar projects. Various sales methods are applied in the case of property intended for town establishment and other urban development. There are for example local authorities that need it for their own requirements and in this regard the department is prepared to sell the land on the basis of offer and negotiation. The general method is to dispose of the land to persons or organizations by tender or auction. There are also organizations that want to qualify for the out-of-hand sale of Stateowned land, for example well-known church organizations, welfare organizations or semi-State institutions, again to mention only but a few.

Sometimes cases occur in which land is obtained in an unusual way and in which it would therefore be justifiable to adopt a special procedure to alienate it. There are for example cases in which the department acquired land and the owner was virtually compelled to surrender it because the land was declared to be part of a group area for Coloureds. This dates from the time when it was still the department’s policy to undertake all town establishment for low-cost housing for Coloureds as its own. If it were to happen that the previous owner, who at that stage was an unwilling seller so that the State obtained the land by means of expropriation, was interested in repurchasing the land, a good case could probably be made out for an exceptional procedure to be adopted in regard to its sale. It would perhaps be unfair to expect such an owner to compete with all other possible buyers by way of tender or at a public auction. One probably cannot find fault with the principle of competition per se, but there could be justification for restricting the competition to some extent in such a case. The previous owner concerned was for example prepared at that stage to develop the property himself as a Coloured seaside resort, but in terms of the policy prevailing at the time he was not allowed to do so. If he is still prepared to do so, and is able to give an acceptable undertaking in this connection, and is also prepared to commit himself to beginning and completing the development within a specific time, also with appropriate guarantees, I think it would be fair and just if the sale did not take place on the basis of direct offer and negotiation, if the tender process was at least adjusted in such a way that he would not be expected to compete with everyone, but only with other Coloured developers, for example. All this could be subject to certain conditions, guarantees and assurances having to be given, which could perhaps even be supported by guarantors. In the first place this would ensure that the development would in fact take place and, in the second place, that a start would be made within a specific period and that it would also be completed within a specific period. I sincerely hope that it will be possible for the hon the Minister and the department to accommodate this kind of developer.

Mr Chairman, I am happy to follow the hon member for Sundays River who devoted his speech to housing as I intend doing the same.

I believe that house-ownership is the cornerstone of Western civilization. It is the foundation upon which the peace, prosperity and progress of any country is built, and it is essential that every single citizen has a house to live in. I believe the Government is accepting this responsibility and I was encouraged by the words of the hon the Minister when he said yesterday that provision should be made for the housing of all the people in the country. The chief spokesman on housing on the other side of the House also devoted his speech to the provision of housing.

It seems clear that the provision of housing is the responsibility of both the public sector and the private sector. Unfortunately the Government has dragged its feet for too long and is now paying for the mistakes of the past. It has failed to provide sufficient ground for local authorities and to provide group areas, and now, having changed its policy, it is desperately trying to catch up on the backlog that has been created. I submit that the Government has a long way to go in this respect in spite of the concerted efforts that are being made.

We are indebted to the Venter Commission for its report and findings. I want to refer firstly to the shortage of housing. Apparently the hon the Minister had some difficulty in the past in answering questions on shortages. However, the Venter Commission had no difficulty in telling us that as far as Whites are concerned, the shortage is 18 000 units; Coloureds, 80 000 units; Asians, 20 000 units and Blacks, 240 000 units. The report states further the in the next 16 years, 3,5 million units must be provided and half of them for Blacks. It also estimates that R65 billion must be spent. Let us analize the implications of the submissions in this report. It means that in the next 16 years South Africa must build 490 784 units a year. If one accepts the basis of the Viljoen Report which states that the private sector is responsible for 46% and the Government for 54% of housing, it means that 265 023 units must be provided by the Government each year. The annual report of the department states that on average over the past five years 30 674 units have been provided. That means a shortage of 324 349 units per year. At that rate we have a long way to go.

If one looks at the expenditure of R65 billion the next 16 years—taking into account the Government’s responsibility of 54% of this—the Government needs to spend R35,1 billion over this period, in other words, R2,1 billion per annum. The current budget provides for the expenditure of R398 million which admittedly is R35 million or 9,6% more than last year. However, it is still R1,7 billion below the required figure.

Therefore, to catch up and keep pace with the recommendation of the Venter Commission, the Government must provide eight times the number of units it is presently providing and spend five times more than it is presently spending per annum. Having said that, I know that the Government is continuously looking at various methods of speeding up the provision of housing. One method which has been proved to help in this process, is the use of preconstructed units. As far back as 1946 approximately 500 000 units per annum were provided. The provision of mass housing by using preconstruction methods has been successful. The Government should look at this and I see no reason why it cannot be done in South Africa.

Local authorities also have a vital role to play. Are they doing their best in this regard? Without the necessary ground and the lay-outs of stands units obviously cannot be built. Therefore the provinces have a role to play in the speeding up of the registration of townships. Here again we are indebted to the Venter Commission for pointing this out. Local authorities should also not be allowed to drag their feet. I do not know what the hon the Minister was getting at. Maybe he has something at the back of his mind. The Department of Community Development should insist on examing the waiting list which local authorities have to see that they are keeping up with it. They should also submit regular reports. The routine required for submissions by local authorities to the Government for schemes should be speeded up and red tape should be cut. How long does it take a local authority from scratch to promote a housing scheme and the building of units until it is approved, the money is voted and the scheme is built?

In addition, the provinces and local authorities should make land available to utility companies. The private sector should also be given land and it should be made available to them at historic costs. As far as utility companies are concerned, we note that 15 schemes have been built and that R16,5 million has been allocated to them. They mostly provide accommodation for the aged. I am not sure whether they provide accommodation that can be let.

Insurance companies should be encouraged to provide letting accommodation. In the report of the Select Comimittee on Rent Control which has been tabled, recommendation 1 is that the Minister of Finance allow insurance companies to change their assets so that they can be encouraged to build.

I also want to refer to the question of tax relief and incentives. I do not believe that the present tax relief and incentives are sufficient. I believe that the Government should consider complete tax relief for people building letting accommodation and that they should grant the concession of no tax being paid on profits made for a period of five years provided that they build within the next three years.

As regards the private sector, one must remember that not every person is a home-owner. Many people will never be able to afford homes and therefore have to worry about letting accommodation. In this regard I believe that sectional title and share-block schemes have become too attractive to developers for them to worry about building letting accommodation, and conversions are taking place almost daily. The result is a drastic reduction in letting accommodation. A crisis is developing as no new letting accommodation is being built, and the Government is not tackling this problem sufficiently. Unless there is a drastic change in this regard, I believe that one will reluctantly but firmly have to consider a curb on sectional title and share-block schemes in respect of buildings occupied prior to 1 June 1966.

I do not for one moment believe that rent control as it operated in the past was a deterrent to builders. On the contrary, between 1966 and 1976, 380 000 units were built. However, with the high costs of building today, it is difficult for them to charge a rental of less than R600 or R700 per month. As complaints will continue to come in as at present, I believe that the hon the Minister must weigh carefully the weapons he has at his command to give relief where it is required and always to be in a legal position to assist tenants who stand helpless in the face of repeated increases, harassment and ejectment. The hon the Deputy Minister said he will look into the case of Arthur Smith, but unless he retains powers, he will be in no position to help Arthur Smith or anybody else who has suffered any of the difficulties I have mentioned.

I want to refer very briefly to Black accommodation. The hon the Minister referred to the UDF. I believe that neither the UDF nor anybody else will be deterred if one allows freehold title instead of 99-year leases. If that is done, that will solve the problem with regard to the 500 000 units.

Then, I want to congratulate the hon the Minister with regard to Garsfontein. I think it is a very nice scheme. Units were built for R40 000, but the land is fairly expensive. I think the authorities should have a careful look at the restrcitions placed on people moving into Garsfontein in respect of certain income limits. There are also certain other restrictions with regard to other accommodation.

I also want to refer quickly to Casa Mia. I want to thank the hon the Minister for the money supplied to the Johannesburg City Council. Casa Mia in Berea in the Hillbrow constituency was a hotel. I should like to know whether it is intended that only residential accommodation will be provided or whether food will also be provided and whether the people concerned will be able to use the restaurant or dining-room. I should also like to know whether it will be sold or let and what exactly the policy is in regard to it. I am very happy that Casa Mia has been acquired, but I want to know exactly how the authorities intend running it. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I should like to take this opportunity to thank hon members who have congratulated me on my appointment, for the appointment and for the good wishes that accompanied it. I also wish to extend my cordial thanks to hon members for their support and for the criticism advanced in the course of the discussion of the Votes. In particular I want to mention the hon members for Bellville and Witbank who are executive members and who take a great deal of trouble to regulate matters properly from our side, also as regards the vote. This applies to the officials as well.

I am accustomed to acting here as an ordinary member, and as representative of my constituency I want to say that I am pleased to see that R150 000 is to be spent on Hartbeesfontein this year. I want to thank the hon the Minister for that.

Three hon members raised matters in this debate which concern me specifically. The first was the hon member for Umbilo.

†I want to say that, as regards money being spent on border fencing, that is a subject that has been investigated by organized agriculture as well and they have indicated that certain areas must receive priority. The Department of Co-operation and Development and organized agriculture have identified certain areas in that respect. The Department of Co-operation and Development has also asked the commission to investigate the whole situation in respect of all the borders. After that report has been received—we expect it to be pretty soon—we will have funds available to start in certain areas if we do not know exactly what the whole program will involve and what amount of money will be involved. I can assure the hon member that we expect the report to be available soon and that we will start giving attention to certain areas, especially where it is most needed.

*Earlier this year, during the discussion of legislation on this matter, the hon member for Port Elizabeth North made special representations concerning the establishment of a deeds office in Port Elizabeth. He again gave us the background to this today and I want to give him the assurance that we shall consider the matter on merit. I believe that as regards the deeds office at King William’s Town we should not consider this solely on the basis of the number of transactions dealt with there, but should also consider what the effect would be if the office there were to be closed. I believe that if we were ever to consider depriving King William’s Town of its deeds office we should have to approach the matter with great circumspection. What is indeed the case—and provision was made for this in the legislation passed earlier by Parliament—is that the possibility is being created that additional deeds offices may be established due to an increase in the amount of work. I believe that on that basis the hon member made out a very good case as to why Port Elizabeth can make out a strong case for a deeds office of its own. We shall consider the matter on merit. I want to say to him that I think he is a fine MP to make a plea in this regard on behalf of his constituency at such an early stage. However, there is one aspect he raised which could mean that Port Elizabeth would not get its own deeds office, and that is the fact that the hon the Minister of Constitutional Development and Planning said that he would then go and practice there: because we must not lose him now, we might have difficulty agreeing to the establishment of a deeds office in Port Elizabeth!

The hon member for Sunday’s River discussed making land available to the department. This department obtains land in various ways and for various purposes. In the first place there is land that is required for other Government departments for specific purposes that have been identified. Then, too, there is land possessed by Blacks outside Black areas, the poorly situated Black spots, which are purchased and then made available once again. In this way they come into the posession of the department. Then, too, there is land which is purchased with a view to consolidation, and which comes available in this way. There is also surplus land in connection with the building of dams and dam basins, as well as State land which, in terms of the mineral laws, is proclaimed alluvial or as public diggings or has been mineralized and, after a reduction in mining or prospecting activities and with the permission of the Department of Mineral and Energy Affairs, is made available to the agricultural sector on a more permanent basis. Finally, there is also land obtained for envisaged State irrigation schemes.

I am aware that the hon member for Sunday’s River was chiefly referring to land which is in fact situated in township areas and has to be made available for housing purposes. As regards the alienation of this land I may point out that the Department of Community Development is systematically considering all State land, including agricultural land—this includes land in towns which is not at present being used for Government purposes or which is not required for the State’s future requirements—and identifying it with a view to selling it. A great deal has already been done to make land available and to sell it.

The hon member for Sunday’s River also pointed out that the method of sale would have to be identified. If the land is purchased for a specific purpose and from an unwilling seller, and it is subsequently evident that the land is not being properly utilized, the matter must be given specific attention.

As regards the land situated in township areas, I have not yet had the opportunity to examine specific instances. However, as far as agricultural land is concerned, we are indeed aware that land purchased with a view to consolidation but not subsequently used has later been put at the disposal of White farmers once again, and we have the same problems in that regard as those to which the hon member has referred. We put this land at the disposal of the Department of Agriculture, and in co-operation with organized agriculture it is made available to the agricultural industry in a specific way. However, there is one pertinent aspect in this regard, viz that it must never be possible to point a finger at the Government or the department and say that there has been improper conduct on the part of any agency involved, apart from the method of sale, whether it be by tender, public auction or out of hand. However, it will be very difficult to sell this land out of hand, but I believe that the right that the seller had to that land during the process of acquisition by the State will have to be taken into account. In such instances we shall go into that, too, on condition that we shall be able to avoid the bitterness that may occur.

I believe that I have now replied to all the matters that have been raised. Legislation will also be passed this year in regard to the profession of appraiser. The appraisers do a great deal of important work in this country, and we are grateful for that. They also encounter a great many problems and sometimes have to make considerable sacrifices. This department considers all the problems we encounter from time to time and, where possible, we try to resolve them.

Mr Chairman, the hon the Minister made a statement yesterday in connection with the rent formula for dwellings erected with the help of national housing funds. However, I do not wish to discuss this matter in the same spirit as that in which the hon member for Sea Point broached it; I do not want to be in his company in that regard. Mercifully the hon the Minister has not yet made the details of his intentions known, although the general guidelines which he spelt out yesterday were disturbing—disturbing because most of them, after logical and objective analysis, seem to me to be quite unavoidable. To avoid making any unfair deductions, therefore, I do believe that it would be advisable for the hon the Minister to furnish a few more details than those we have at our disposal so far.

What was the hon the Minister actually telling us yesterday? He was saying, loudly and clearly, that the days of cheap housing were gone for ever. Those who have up to now been fortunate enough to occupy houses built with the help of national housing funds are now coming face to face with completely new situations, particularly in those schemes completed before and immediately after the last war. Up to now rentals for those houses have been determined according to a formula based on fluctuating interest rates, depending on the lessee’s income, and calculated on the basis of the historical value of the dwelling. That people who are resident in these schemes today are better off than those who have to seek accommodation outside such schemes is undoubtedly true. I concede that. But that those participating in those schemes are paying a healthy rental is not to be doubted either.

If the same formula which applies today, namely that of fluctuating interest rates, remains applicable, but is calculated only on the replacement value of the dwelling, a completely new situation arises. However, I hope that I am wrong and that that is not going to be the position, that that is not going to be the final norm in the calculation of rentals. I have an idea that the replacement value of a building erected prior to 1951 is equal to approximately 7,7 times its historical value. In addition one also has the situation that a lessee in an old building, dating from that period, is dealing with deficiencies and limitations unique to all such buildings. I should like to illustrate this on the basis of the position of a lessee whose income amounts to R150 a month today, and who is living in a three bedroomed house, in a community such as Ruyterwacht, which is situated in my constituency.

At present the monthly rental of such a person amounts to R59,27, or 39,5% of his monthly income. Calculated at replacement value his rental will probably remain the same because in the R0 to R150 group, the value of the dwelling plays no part in the determination of the rental, but is calculated only on the basis of a fixed percentage of his monthly income. If his income, in terms of the present formula, goes up by R1 to R151 per month, his present rental is also increased by 28,64% to R76,25, which then amounts to 50% of his monthly income. This is because there is no sliding scale for rentals.

The replacement value of a building erected prior to 1951 is, as I have already said, calculated at 7,7 times its historical value. If we should not calculate this at replacement value, the rental of that same person with an income of R151 per month, would amount to R132,62 per month, or 87,8% of his monthly income. I do not think that that ought to happen. I cannot imagine that this is really what the hon the Minister and his department finally envisage. This rental—I must concede this point—applies up to an income of R250 per month, in which case a person’s rental will then represent 53% of his income.

In his statement, however, the hon the Minister said that in the months which lie ahead, the particulars would be thrashed out with the interest groups and authorities concerned, before he made a final announcement in this connection. We are very grateful for that of course.

Consequently I want to make a very earnest appeal to him today to give thorough consideration to this aspect before a final decision is taken. Shock absorbers will simply have to be built into this formula. How serious the situation is, and how many people are going to be affected by it, I could perhaps best indicate by presenting to hon members the results of a rent classification according to incomes in one of my communities. This is the result of a survey carried out among 1 301 lessees on 1 July 1983. In addition, of course, it must also be distributed among the income groups on the basis of which the present rent formula is determined.

In the R0 to R150 group there were 381 lessees, or 29,3% of the total. In the R151 to R250 group there were 250 lessees, or 19,2% of the total. In the R251 to R350 group there were 206 lessees, or 15,8% of the total. I just wish to observe in passing that 844 lessees, or 64%, of that total of the 1 301 lessees questioned, had an income of less than R350 per month. This demonstrates to us how people in this income group take refuge in the last resort, where rents for them are still to some extent affordable. That these people importune me from morning till night, and for the most part seven days a week, is no exaggeration. Of course this happens because there is such a scheme in my constituency, and also because for the last 20 years or more I have been the representative of the hon the Minister on the board of the utility company concerned. For me to be importuned in this way by people is therefore by no means unusual.

However, let us be quite frank with one another today, Mr Chairman. There is a category of people who will never qualify for home ownership. Many of them are responsible for their own misfortune. Day after day I find this to be the case. But someone has to make provision for these people. We can say—and I agree—that such a person is not the responsibility of the State alone, but we do not for one moment expect the private sector to look after such a person. Even if we did, we are aware that the private sector will not look after these cases. The most heartrending and frustrating aspect of this whole matter is that usually there are a few children involved in the case of such families, which make the matter even more difficult.

I just wish to complete the classification of those 1 301 families. It indicates that the percentage drops as the income increases. In the R351 to R450 group there were 145 or 11,3%; in the R451 to R550 group there were 108 or 8,3%; in the R551 to R650 group there were only 91 or 7%; and then it drops dramatically in the category R651 to R800, in which there were 65 or 5%. Over R800 there were only 49 lessees or 3,86%.

Hon members will therefore be able to understand my cry for help today when I say on behalf of these people of mine that they simply cannot afford to pay drastically increased amounts. Hence my plea that we should build in a shock absorber against this replacement value as a norm.

I wanted to discuss the present formula of interest rates which varies from 3,5% for the R151 income group to 11,5% for the group above R650, but there will probably be not time for that. [Time expired.]

Mr Chairman, I want to refer again to the speech I made yesterday. I said that the Government should give timeous consideration to not examining the recommendation of the Strydom Committee any further and that it should take cognizance of what happened in the thirties. I want to point out to the Government that the method of wanting to govern under title simply does not work. What happens here is that a group area is established under a right of title, or otherwise that an attempt is made to control a group area under title. In that way you are impairing a person’s proprietary rights. That is what happens in the first place. In the second place one is controlling colour and in the third one is controlling by means of rights in respect of to whom and when it is possible to lease. In the fourth place the suspension of a title is a formality from region to region. That is why it cannot work.

I just want to point out to the committee the central urban areas which were demarcated in 1930 to 1932. I want to do so to indicate to hon members how the commission made recommendations at the time. The colours on the chart are red, yellow and green. The red areas indicate the recommendations of the commission. The yellow areas are recommendations in respect of the Indians and the green areas are those which the city council said could form part but to which the commission did not give its consent. The fact remains that each of these areas became the nucleus of a slum. The people adjoining those areas had no real rights, and the title which they did have did not really protect them. This also applied to the people in adjoining areas, and therefore the areas collapsed around these people and that is precisely what is going to happen in respect of the Government’s present intention—and I am sorry to have to say this—to transfer its political task to a judge.

I must say that in his years Mr Justice Feetham found that it was an impossible task, as a judge, to decide the rights and political rights of people collectively, and I do not think that any judge will find it possible to do so at this stage either.

Something else which struck me and completely astounded me was that the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs announced that a Coloured or an Indian could purchase a farm in any area, as long as the people on adjoining farms did not object. Where was that decision taken? [Interjections.] Yes, it is stated in Hansard. The hon the Deputy Minister was reported as follows:

He then continued:

This is done when a Coloured person wishes to buy such a farm. If those two persons agree, he may purchase a farm. [Interjections.] Wait a minute. If Potgietersrus is therefore so stupid as to vote a member of the NP into the Provincial Council, then those people can allow Coloureds and Indians to buy their farms throughout the whole of the Potgietersrus area. That is what the hon the Deputy Minister of Internal Affairs said.

You do not know what you are talking about.

No, do not tell me now that I do not know what I am talking about; I would never go so far as to say that the hon the Deputy Minister was telling a lie.

You are making a fool of yourself.

The hon member for Swellendam says I am making a fool of myself. [Interjections.] When one is dealing with a member who makes that kind of allegation, and one analyses him, one realizes that one need not react to it. One cannot react to IQs that are down here somewhere; it is undignified.

I have great appreciation for one thing the hon the Minister has done. I think—I want to say this in all honesty—that despite all the economic problems in which the Government finds itself involved, in spite of all the absolutely erroneous philosophies of the Government, the hon the Minister has with the means at his disposal really tried to develop a sound housing policy. His precedessors were people who did not understand what was needed. I am sorry to have to say this, but only two years ago I said in a Standing Committee that we were going to have chaos. Then the hon the Minister took over, and I want to tell him that I have no complaints about him. He is trying his best; the means are just not available.

There is one thing I find extremely perturbing. Let us consider the question of the western facade in Pretoria. We are turning it into a monument, a monument to what? Why do we have monuments if I cannot visit the monument on 10 October? Why are we spending millions of rands if I cannot, on a day like 10 October, lay a wreath at the monument without the Government’s consent?

At what monument?

At the Voortrekker Monument in Pretoria. Are cultural affairs my own or not? This department is spending money and preserving such places, but the gates are being closed to my people. The gates are being closed to my people. You are threatened if you visit the monument.

The intolerance of the liberal.

Yes, the intolerance of the liberals—are they also going to erect a fence around the Vrouemonument so that we cannot lay wreaths there either?

But you need to be fenced in.

On 10 October we shall march in procession to the monument. It belongs to us. I am asking the Government to stop being an oppressor of our people. The Government must not stop us from going to places which are sacred to us. I think we have now had enough of finding that when one wants to visit a monument, it has been fenced in and the gates locked. When one wants to lay a wreath there, the gates are locked.

But you are holding demonstrations there.

In the time of Babylon it was said that Daniel was holding a demonstration when he prayed. Did the hon member know that? May I not pay tribute to my people and commemorate their history in those places that are sacred to us? Why do you want to destroy us? The hon Chief Whip is putting up his hands. I know he frightens easily, but he must not say that I am threatening him now. History will demonstrate what I am saying today, namely that the Government is putting chains around our monuments and allowing undesirable elements to hide away in our sacred places, so that those places can become overgrown and turn into a wilderness. This is being done so that they can turn into a wilderness and so that places which form part of the national heritage of our people may no longer be visited by us. We have had enough of this now. Those who want to threaten us with television and film only certain signs that were made and show them to the viewers, those who were no longer able to remain with Nasionale Pers, like the Freek Swartses, but who only come to film signs in order to denigrate us, can carry on with what they are doing. The day will come when we will take over the government of this country, and then we will set all these things straight.

Mr Chairman, I do not know whether to laugh or to cry at this exhibition by the hon member for Langlaagte. I wish the whole country could have seen what has just happened here. The hon member for Langlaagte emulated the leader of the AWB, Mr Eugène Terre’Blanche with his outburst here in this House. In front of him the hon member for Brakpan sat there grinning, while behind him the hon member for Germiston District blushed with shame at the conduct of his colleague.

That will be the day.

Absolute nonsense.

The two hon members sit two benches away from me, and my observations were correct.

I want to tell the hon member for Langlaagte very briefly that he should please go to the trouble of looking at the April edition of Volkshandel. A very positive standpoint is adopted in the leading article, particularly on the matter of principle, in regard to the Strydom report and the Minister’s commission of inquiry, to which reference was made. I do not wish to go into this any further today.

I should like to put a question to the hon member for Langlaagte. A few Saturday’s ago they adopted a resolution at their congress that the emphasis was now going to shift from an Indian and a Coloured homeland policy to that of a White homeland policy. They confirmed it at this fascist congress which was held on Saturday.

Mr Chairman, on a point of order: We are now discussing community development and not policies, and I ask you to call the hon member to order.

Mr Chairman, I still have a great deal to say, and I withdraw it. [Interjections.] If one considers the consequences of the CP policy, ie that there is going to be a White homeland somewhere in the heart of White South Africa, and one considers the position of Potgietersrus, because that is what the hon member is discussing, which is one of the constituencies that is adjoined to the greatest extent by Black homelands …

Order! That matter cannot be discussed now.

I just want to draw the inference that they will then have to go and tell the people of Potgietersrus that they will have to be the first to move the White homeland, for then they will be turning Waterberg, Pieterburg and Potgietersrus into Black areas.

Order!

Mr Chairman, this falls under land purchases.

Like the hon member for Langlaagte, I also want to refer to a speech which I made during this same debate last year. In it I addressed the hon the Minister with reference to a situation which had arisen throughout South Africa as a result of new infrastructures such as roads, schools and power reticulation.

As a result small pieces of land were cut off by these infrastructures and are now lying dormant because the owners have no use for it. I now wish to associate myself with the evidence which I gave before the Venter Commission—I have great appreciation for the commission and all its members—in November 1982. I made a submission there which is more or less contained in the recommendations of the commission. I want to congratulate the hon the Deputy Minister, who was the chairman, and his commissioners and the department on the outstanding piece of work they did in this connection.

The speech I made last year can be found in Standing Committee Hansard, columns 895 to 897. I referred to a situation in my constituency although it occurs everywhere in the country. This afternoon I want to advocate to the hon the Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister and the commission working with these matters, that these small pieces of land be transferred in the name of the owner. This will not only mean compensation for that owner, but at the same time create thousands of new residential sites throughout the country. I see this as a new category of housing possibilities in South Africa. What is more, it will not cost the State a cent to create these new housing possibilities. The owner will be responsible for providing the necessary infrastructure, such as roads, water and power, on this piece of land, which will be registered in his name. There will be a great gain for South Africa in this connection and thousands of city-dwellers, such as unmarried persons and senior citizens will be able to live on these smaller units. It will cost many of them nothing because it will in fact be their own land. There is no ceiling to this specific category.

I come now to the recommendations of the Venter Commission. The second report of the commission makes the point on page 56, paragraph 5(12), that there is a clear demand for such units. Nor is there any question of a semi-urban situation which will develop next to main routes. Such a development will promote rural occupation and local communities can in this way be strengthened to the benefit of all.

I now want to conclude by advocating that the recommendations of the Venter Commission be realized as quickly as possible in the form of draft legislation to be submitted to this House.

Finally I want to thank the hon the Minister and his department for certain projects that have been initiated in my constituency during the past year. I just wish to refer to a few of them without going into any details. Extensions to the Rusoord Home for the Aged in Brits were made at a cost of more than R1 million. On behalf of all those elderly people I want to thank the hon the Minister for this. My mother is also living in that home, and is very happy there. I want to invite all hon members to come and have a cup of tea with the staff of this home for the aged.

In the second place there was the total renovation of the Sonop Settlement in Brits at a cost of more than R5 million. When it has been completed it will be a showpiece of the department as far as this type of settlement is concerned.

Thirdly I am very grateful, particularly to the hon the Minister of Welfare and of Community Development, for providing a section for mentally handicapped and infirm adults at “Die Oord”, We say thank you very much for that assistance. My constituency is one of those in the country which may consider itself very fortunate to have received so much assistance from this department during a period of recession. And then I am not even referring to what the department is at present doing for the Coloureds of Brits by creating a separate residential area for them, which will shortly be a reality, or to what the hon the Minister is doing to provide Indians with proper housing at Marikana. I say thank you very much to the hon the Minister, his Deputy Ministers and the department for their excellent work, in connection with my own constituency as well.

Mr Chairman, like the hon member for Brits, I also wish to refer to local matters and more specifically to the Durban area and the problems which are being experienced by the Coloured community in my constituency and in neighbouring areas. The hon member for Umbilo yesterday very briefly raised the Wentworth issue. The hon the Minister did supply some information and at the same time offered to make more information and more details available. The first aspect I wish to raise is the overall problem in Wentworth. I know that the hon the Minister and his department are aware of the fact that there are tremendous social and economic problems in Wentworth. That also includes housing. The department is aware that that is a problem which one Government department cannot resolve on its own. The Department of Law and Order cannot do it on its own, nor can the department of this hon Minister. I should like to ask the hon the Minister whether any attempt has been made by his department or by any of the other departments involved such as the Department of Internal Affairs or the Department of Law and Order to co-ordinate their efforts in Wentworth in an attempt to provide a co-ordinated plan of action to improve and uplift Wentworth as a whole. Has an attempt been made to approach the Wentworth problem in that way? As I see it, unless that is done, Wentworth will remain a problem area with a high crime rate, social problems and poverty. That is the first question I would put to the hon the Minister. Can he give some information on whether there have been developments in that direction?

Secondly, how is this department in the medium term going to upgrade the accommodation and services in Wentworth? The hon the Minister mentioned that an amount of R2 million has been set aside for Austerville. Can he perhaps give us more information on what precisely is going to be done with the R2 million? Services were mentioned. How is that money going to be spent? What about Wentworth proper? When is that going to be included in the Government’s plan? Is one perhaps talking about a year or two, or is it a long-term plan? What does the Government intend doing to upgrade facilities in Wentworth?

The third aspect I briefly want to raise concerns a well-established Coloured community in my constituency in the Greyville area. The hon the Minister knows that many of the families living in that area have been there for 20 years or more. It is an area which has been inhabited by Coloureds, Indians and Whites and no one has ever suggested that the community in the Greyville area is not a stable and settled community. There are families in that area who have received notice or who have received veiled threats that their time is up and that, unless they find alternative accommodation, there may be threats of eviction. I want to ask the hon the Minister how many Coloured families are involved in the Greyville area, and what precisely his department intends doing about them. Some two or three months ago they received notices to the effect that unless they found alternative accommodation in two or three other Coloured areas within a very short period—I think it was seven days—they would be evicted under the Group Areas Act. The department did however withdraw that and acknowledge that it could not do so. Are these people going to be given the opportunity to find accommodation in an area which is as good as the one they are living in at the moment? What provision for alternative accommodation has the hon the Minister made for them? These aspects all relate to the Coloured community in that area. There is tremendous insecurity at the moment because no one can establish with clarity what the department’s plans are.

Mr Chairman, I do not intend reacting to the speech by the hon member for Durban Central, because he devoted the greater part of his speech to matters in his own constituency. I believe that the hon the Minister will reply to him in that regard.

Before coming to my contribution I should like to address the hon member for Langlaagte. I want to ask him not to make a caricature of our people. If we become excited about certain matters we must do so in such a way as to render a good account of ourselves. I am a member of the same community that he claims to be, and I have free access to the monument he waxed so hysterical about this afternoon, with the one difference that I respect the control board to which that monument belongs, and I visit the monument only with their permission. [Interjections.] We must be careful about what we say. As recently as 1981 the hon member for Langlaagte auctioned Hillbrow out to the Coloureds and the Indians. I should like to quote from a report in Hoofstad:

One cannot say that at one moment, and then the next moment set oneself up as a pious person who cannot permit anything to be done to his own people, unless one rejects that group of people who live in Hillbrow and does not regard them as part of the Whites of South Africa. [Interjections.]

Why do you not read further? Why do you not read that I said that one either had to enforce the Act or give them the area?

I am reading what appears in the report before me.

You have turned so many somersaults that you do not quite understand the matter.

If I were the hon member I should not speak about turning somersaults. They have somersaulted from the old NP to the new NP to the HNP to the AWB and now they are with Eugene Terre’Blanche. Where are their somersaults going to stop? [Interjections.]

At this point I should prefer to confine myself to the achievements of the department thus far. The matter has already been dealt with at length by many hon members in this House. Accordingly I do not wish to elaborate once again on the more than 800 000 houses already built by the department. Nor do I wish to elaborate on the more than R1 000 million to be spent this year on the promotion of home ownership, in whatever form. I should prefer to refer to the seven Government villages in which we provde emergency housing for people who lack a roof over their heads. Altogether 1 229 have already been made available to these people, while there is a waiting list of another 837 families who do not yet have a place to stay and are also standing in line to be accommodated here.

According to statistics in respect of Benoni and the Government village in my own constituency, 46% of the inhabitants are less than 60 years old. I infer this on the basis of the number of applicants and the number of heads of families there. Almost half of the people we accommodate in Government villages are therefore not necessarily pensioners. However, they represent a large group of people who have been able to obtain their own houses in their lifetimes and can enjoy home ownership.

In addition to the hard word performed by the department and its officials in order to give home ownership to those who can afford it, we must also add the work being done by the Department of Health and Welfare, that is responsible for child and family care. Therefore for the lesser privileged, too, a refuge is found, of course with the assistance, ultimately, of this hon Minister and his department, particularly as regards the accommodation of such unfortunate people. Moreover, in the very recent past we have also seen the gigantic task performed by, for example, the Venter Commission, with regard to township establishment, the Steyn Commission, with regard to financing, the Louw Commission, with regard to alternative housing, the Cronjé Commission, in regard to rent control, and the Viljoen Commission in regard to the housing shortage.

Surely this indicates to us that in all these instances the Government has done what it could be resolve the problem of housing. Moreover, in this way data has been collected which covers a very broad spectrum, all of which is geared to resolving the housing shortage in South Africa, or at least alleviating it. Apart from this the Government has also involved the private sector in a joint effort involving both the public and the private sector, to provide additional accommodation to people. If we add to this the efforts of the Government to assist people to obtain accommodation by way of subsidies provided by both the public and the private sector, then I ask what more the Government must do to help people in this sphere.

It is the Government’s declared policy to encourage homeownership. Accordingly I suggest that at this juncture, with the help and co-operation of the Department of Community Development, we must make a positive effort to educate all people in South Africa with regard to housing. Can we not design a systematic national strategy in this respect? I recommend that the hon the Minister appoint a group of key officials in an effort to determine how, with all the means at our disposal, we can assist those in South Africa who are not yet home owners, to obtain their own dwellings.

In addition I believe that we should attempt to ascertain what the general public really understands about a family budget. What section of the income of a household is to be set aside to pay for the roof over a family’s head? Could we not also provide financial instruction to people who are in trouble as far as housing is concerned? Could we not also provide instruction to people as regards accommodation planning?

Surely we all know that young people who have houses built today want to begin right away with a dwelling equivalent to the one in which their parents are retiring. Could we not assist in this regard, too, by making available all the knowledge and information obtained by the commissions to which I referred earlier, and conveying it to the public? Surely this can be done through the media, the radio and television.

I hesitate somewhat, of course, to ask that education, too, be involved in this matter. However, I do believe that our institutions for secondary and tertiary education in particular could do a great deal by way of programmes of instruction to educate the youth of our country with regard to housing and everything it entails. Perhaps regional offices of the department could even be opened in which information of this nature could be conveyed to people.

On a previous occasion I said to the hon the Deputy Minister that in the Government village in my constituency there were certain properties that could perhaps be renovated and converted into regional offices where people could obtain information on all matters relating to housing. We could thereby provide instruction for people on the East Rand and make all these plans, to which I have just referred, available to them. In this way they can be guided along the first steps of the path of obtaining their own houses one day. Therefore the emphasis must not fall solely on dwelling units for people who are in need. People must be uplifted and made to be self-sufficient; self-sufficient under their own roof.

I honestly believe that we cannot carry on as we are at present. We cannot do so, particularly bearing in mind the projection presented to us here by the hon member for Hill-brow. No State has the money for that. Nor can we carry on ad infinitum as we are at present. We must come up with new plans now, and try to guide our people along a different road by conveying to them, by way of more meaningful instruction, the knowledge at our disposal so that in that way they may obtain a house of their own.

Mr Chairman, I had intended virtually to conduct a clinical analysis of Coloured housing in our country this afternoon. Having listened to the hon member for Hillbrow, however, and having heard his negative criticism of the hon the Minister; having witnessed what almost amounted to temerity on his part in that he accused the hon the Minister of dragging his feet and then insisted on putting a lot of suggestions to the hon the Minister, most of which were quite impractical from a financial point of view, I thought that since we had now come to the end of this debate, and virtually to the end of an era as well, I would just like to make a few brief references to history.

There was a time in our history, after all— not so long ago—when every right-minded and compassionate South African was ashamed of the conditions under which many of the Coloured people in South Africa, and particularly in the Western Cape, had to live. Those deplorable conditions did not come into being under an NP Government, of course. They came into being when most of those who have been raising a hue and cry over the past 30 years about every step taken by the Government to relieve the housing shortage of the Coloured people were still able to do something about this situation themselves. That situation arose when the Nationalists of South Africa were quite unable to do anything about it. After all, we were not in power then. Those people were supposed to be governing the country at that time.

I am told that on one occasion, a head of state who was on a visit to South Africa wanted to visit Paarl. The people who took him there chose the old route via Bloubergstrand and Durbanville because they were simply too ashamed to take him past the old Windermere. I would also have been too ashamed to accompany him on that road. Windermere was the dreadful legacy of a past government to this country. Conditions there were so terrible that it was simply not possible to try to deal with them by normal means. Extraordinary measures had to be taken to remedy the situation there. For that reason, the resettlement of people was also inevitable.

I want to emphasize this. The resettlement of people is a drastic step; a step which almost always have negative side-effects. Enemies of the Government are always emphasizing this fact. When it comes to the fine and positive results which have been achieved by means of the subsequent community development projects, they are conveniently silent. We never hear a word about that.

I want to point out again what has often been stated, and that is that South Africa has a built-in potential for conflict. Our population composition, our cultural differences, our unequal levels of development and the gulf between rich and poor make this inevitable. That is why there are indeed tensions in our country. We do not have to look for them. However, I want to point out that without the order and development that this department has brought about over the years, those tensions would have given rise to disorder by now. On the eve of the new dispensation, and now that we have virtually come to the end of a long process of resettlement, I want to repeat that it is necessary to point out that the degree of order, peace and quiet which we have in the Western Cape today is largely due to the opportunities which have been created for the Coloured people by this department. Many Coloured people in our area have been enabled by the initiatives of this Government to develop a healthy family life in decent houses which have been provided at reasonable prices in orderly and well-equipped communities. Where else in the world has a developing country succeeded in doing as much as this Government has done for the development of the Coloured community, with limited funds which are subject to many demands?

To come back to the statistics: According to data supplied by the National Building Research Institute and quoted in the report of the Venter Commission, the number of dwellings available to Coloureds in 1970 was 207 948. This was long after the Government had commenced its housing project, of course. During the next ten years, 162 152 units were added, an increse of 77,97%. According to the latest annual report of the department which we received last week, the department was instrumental in the erection of 62 089 dwellings untis for Coloured people in the five years up to 30 September 1983. This means that on average, almost 49 houses per working day were completed over a period of five years, and this is after all an exceptional achievement. I personally would be content to let the official Opposition give vent to all their frustrations in their negative criticism of us, if only they would occasionally emphasize these positive aspects as well. Surely that would restore the balance to some extent.

Of course, mistakes were also made in the process. Who does not make mistakes? We all make mistakes, and it is very easy, of course, to point out the mistakes in retrospect. One of the mistakes that were made, in my opinion, is the fact that in our planning of communities over the years, we have perhaps not sufficiently consulted the leaders and other knowledgeable people in the communities themselves. I am not saying this in a negative sense; I am saying it in all sincerity, because it has also been my experience where I have worked with these people. We have been too ready, perhaps, to assume that our needs and their needs are identical, and this is not the case. They are not identical. In particular, it is not the case because the prosperity of the Whites over the past 30 years or so has resulted in a lack of realism on our part. We have set ourselves standards and norms which developing people elsewhere in the world can only dream of, and we have simply accepted that those standards and norms should also apply to the Coloureds.

Where I grew up, it was not unusual for a shoemaker to ply his trade in an outside room at his house. Nor did we ever need to walk any further than the next street to get to the cafe, where the owner lived and worked in the same building. Today we no longer want this, however, because it is not good enough for us. We want to live in a peaceful, residential environment, and our wives travel five or six kilometres when they go shopping in our second or third motor vehicle. Now we want to make the same standards applicable to the Coloured people, as though the things that are important to us were important to them too. The Coloured people with whom I come into contact tell me that this is not so. What is important to us is not necessarily important to them. Many of them do not even have one car, not to mention a second or third one, so their needs are different from ours.

I am mentioning these obvious examples simply by way of illustrating the point I should like to make. There are many other examples I could quote. I am mentioning this because we shall soon have to lay down norms and standards for community development, including housing, with a view to the new dispensation. The diverse requirements of our respective communities will then have to be taken into consideration. Community development is an own affair, and surely we must allow the Coloured people the freedom, as far as possible, to deal with it in accordance with their unique requirements. This will be a point of departure for positive co-operation.

Since other hon members have ventured to refer to their own constituencies, I also wish to touch on just one local matter. Stellenbosch also had Coloured squatters until quite recently. The people of Stellenbosch saw this, but they did not demonstrate about it. They formed a committee together with Coloured people, and even members of the squatter community served on that committee. The help of the Department of Community Development was requested, that help was granted, and with the co-operation and goodwill of all, a temporary housing project was brought into being, which was called Uitsig. It was funded with money collected by the local community itself. I should like to emphasize that money was also collected in the Coloured community. What is more, that squatter community also contributed to the funds in their own particular way. I believe that this is a splendid example of what can be achieved through co-operation and a reasonable approach. I thank the department for its help, and I specifically want to thank the ever friendly, ever willing and very competent Mr McEnery.

Mr Chairman, since we seem to have come to the end of the discussion on this Vote, I should like to convey my thanks and appreciation to all hon members for their contributions. Whether these took the form of criticism of the Government, of recommendations, or of expressions of thanks, I took cognizance of them all. I believe that the officials of the department who were present listened to all the speeches. When the relevant edition of Hansard has been published, we shall also give attention in due course to those matters in the speeches on which the two hon Deputy Ministers and I have not replied in detail. We shall then let the hon members have our replies in writing. I thank all hon members for their contributions.

Allow me, too, before time runs out, to convey my personal thanks and appreciation to the two hon Deputy Ministers. Since I became Minister, the hon the Deputy Minister of Community Development has shared my yoke in this difficult department. We were later joined by the hon the Deputy Minister of Land Affairs. He controls that section of the department in an able manner. Without the two hon Deputy Ministers’ loyal assistance, it would simply not be possible to perform my task in this enormous department.

Having said this, I must also convey a personal word of very sincere thanks and appreciation to the head of the department, Mr Van Blommestein. It is indeed a pleasure to co-operate with such a person. He sets an example with his dedication, his leadership and his assistance to the two Deputy Ministers and myself at all times. I should like to convey my personal thanks to him for what he does and for the way in which he inspires the department, thus enabling us to achieve what we are in fact achieving.

He is surrounded by very able men in the three Deputy Directors-General, Mr McEnery, Mr Van Niekerk and Mr Hattingh, who are present here today. We owe the same debt of gratitude to each of them, as the head of a specific directorate, and through them to the approximately 17 000 officials, White and non-White, who are employed by the department. We want to convey our sincere thanks to each of them in the position which they occupy and for the task which they perform. I wish to single out Mr Johan Kruger, who is with us at the moment, and who is devoting himself with great energy to the sales campaign. I hope he will increasingly see the results of his labour in the near future.

To our parliamentary staff, especially my personal staff, who have to experience the ups and downs with me every day of the year and who often have a lot to put up with together with me, and sometimes from me, I want to convey my sincere thanks for the fact that they are prepared to do this, morning, noon and night. It does not go unnoticed. I owe a great debt of gratitude to all these people.

Many questions have been asked today which still have to be answered. I shall not be able to deal with everything in the time available to me, but I shall do my best to reply to the questions as quickly as possible. I want to begin with the hon members for Sea Point and Tygervallei, who raised the same matter, namely the proposed new rent formula which it now seems will be introduced by the middle of next year. The information which I am now going to furnish to the Committee was available to me yesterday as well, but because my time was limited, I left out some information here and there, which I should perhaps not have done in this connection. A misunderstanding arose when I said that I did not want to go into detail, but only wanted to state the principles on which the new formula was going to be based. I want to emphasize that my reference to the cost of replacement as one of the elements in the determination of rent did not mean that it would be the full cost of replacement. We intend to apply the same formula as the one applicable to the determination of selling prices under the present selling scheme, namely the original cost plus replacement cost divided by two. Furthermore, it is certainly not the intention to introduce drastic or unrealistic increases overnight, but rather to phase in these increases gradually, having regard to the particular circumstances of tenants. While the hon member for Sea Point was speaking, I said by way of interjection that he did not need to tell me that. I meant that he did not need to tell me how sensitive rent formulas were. When people are opposed to this, it very soon results in stonethrowing and unrest. Therefore we always handle this matter with the greatest circumspection. Matters are thoroughly discussed with all parties involved—the local authorities who have to administer the rent formulas and the community leaders—before we implement the formulas. As far as the new formulas are concerned, I want to give the same assurance. However, I want to point out that it is in the interests of the people rather to buy the houses which they are renting today if those houses are for sale, because it would be better for them. I am simply being honest in saying this, because we cannot carry on as we are doing at the moment. One of the reasons why the sales campaign is not making the desired progress is that people are not interested in it because they are paying virtually nothing for their accommodation at present. It simply cannot go on like this. I want to sound a warning, therefore, that this utopia cannot continue for ever. I have great sympathy with the hon member for Tygervallei in the light of the specific circumstances which prevail in his constituency. I also have first-hand knowledge of these, and I want to give him the assurance that between us it will be possible to find a solution to his problems.

The hon member for Sea Point raised several other matters as well. I referred to these yesterday. I do not wish to discuss them again today. The hon the Deputy Minister, too, has reacted to some of the things which he said. I also think that it was improper of the hon member to raise matters here which he should rather have raised at the meetings of the select committee. However, I do not blame the hon member for wanting to raise them here. After all, there is not much for the hon member to criticize. The department is so good that the hon member finds it difficult to voice any criticism. He is obliged to raise those matters in this House, therefore.

As far as the Bloemhof flats are concerned, I want to tell the hon member that the block of flats has been sold to a development company by way of tender. No specific conditions were laid down concerning the persons to whom the flats should be sold or let after renovation and rebuilding. However, the developers were required to submit plans together with their tenders, and it was possible to infer from these that Whites from the middle income group would be able to afford the flats after they had been renovated.

The hon member also raised the question of a prestige residential area. The hon member must please give me a chance; I am still looking around. It is true that I have finished with Hout Bay, but I have not yet finished with the area in Constantia. We are no longer looking at that farm in Constantia, but the other area there cannot be overlooked. We are evaluating other areas, therefore, and a decision will be taken in this connection in due course.

The hon member for Brits referred to a matter today which he had raised before. I have great sympathy with his standpoint and the department will go into the matter. This matter is also dealt with in the third report of the Venter Commission. I understand—I do not wish to anticipate the report—that the recommendation is that such land should in the first place be used for agricultural purposes. However, the report has not yet been published. It is hoped that it will be made available to hon members in about two weeks. Some of these pieces of land are so small and so integrated into the communtiy that they could be used for the purposes suggested by the hon member for Brits.

†The hon member for Umbilo referred to Cato Manor. I associate myself fully with his remarks regarding preservation and his stand that one should be very careful not to exaggerate the issue. A balance should be maintained in this regard. It is a fact that there are many so-called preservers who are the biggest sinners in this regard. As far as Cato Manor is concerned, an overall development plan for this entire township was prepared many years ago. Because of the proclamation of the area whereby the greater part was proclaimed for Indians, the area had to be replanned. This task has just been completed and the relevant planning committee is at present giving attention to the detail planning as well as planning of essential services. As the latter task will only be completed towards the end of this year, the future responsibility for the development of the area, including the selling prices of the land, will be transferred to the Indians own department and the Indians will therefore have to decide for themselves.

*The hon member for Hillbrow referred to a number of matters, as usual, and I can hardly deal with them all today. Among other things, he also referred to the Venter Commission. He juggled with the figures of the department’s budget and referred to the figures set out under programme 2. I told the hon member yesterday that he should not concentrate exclusively on those figures. They are only a part of the amount spent by the department. The amount we are actually spending this year is well over R1 billion for housing in all its forms. The hon member said that we should build five times as many houses as we were building at the moment if we wanted to give effect to the recommendations of the Venter Commission. I am not interested in those numbers. We do not intend to build all those houses ourselves, nor is it expected of us. We are not the only ones who are building them either. I told the hon member yesterday that the private sector was contributing its share.

The State is doing only 54% of this.

We are co-operating with the private sector. The days of big housing schemes are past. We shall not even try to achieve that. The fact is that we must get everyone involved in the housing sphere so that they may contribute their proper share. Only then shall we be able to deal with this problem.

The hon member also said that we should not sell all the houses, because there would always be people, poor people who would have to rent houses. I agree with the hon member.

Not everyone can afford a house.

Yes, not everyone can afford to buy a house. Nor do I want people to get the idea that my department wants to sell every house it has. This is not so. Thousands of houses will remain when this sales campaign of ours has been completed. We realize that there will always be those who will have to make use of rented accommodation. Therefore we shall continue to set aside units for rent.

After the hon the Deputy Minister had spoken, the hon member again raised aspects of rent control. These are matters which simply have to be ironed out, and I have great confidence in the select committee on which the hon member serves. I look forward with keen anticipation to the report which they will give me to submit to Parliament.

†The hon member also mentioned Casa Mia, if that is the name.

Yes.

Casa Mia was purchased as a fully-fledged old-age home with all facilities and amenities. Very few changes will have to be made. That is the reply to that part of his speech.

Mr Chairman, may I ask the hon the Minister whether the people concerned will eat in the dining-room there?

Yes, they will.

*Then I come to the hon member for Sundays River. He has a beautiful constituency and he also made a fine contribution here today. In particular, I am very grateful for his kind reference to the new housing policy and to the sales campaign and the results which have already been obtained. He is not a pessimist. He does not wear braces as well as a belt. He is an optimist and he sees the positive side of things, just as we do in the department. I appreciate his words.

Among other things, he referred to the question of the alienation of State land. The hon the Deputy Minister of Development and of Land Affairs replied to him on this. I just want to tell the hon member that the department is prepared to negotiate with former owners or developers about the repurchase of their land, provided that they are prepared to develop it for purposes that are acceptable to the department. They have only to contact the department and to submit their proposals. We are sympathetic towards people to whom such land has belonged in the past, land which we want to alienate again. There are cases where we did not simply accept the highest tender or offer, but where we accommodated former owners if they wanted to start a new enterprise on the land.

The hon member for Durban Central enquired about Wentworth.

† At the moment sufficient facilities are not available in Wentworth, but particular attention is being given to an upgrading action in this regard. Regarding the social conditions, the department has, in co-operation with the Department of Internal Affairs and the SA Police, already investigated the matter and made several suggestions which are already receiving attention.

*I must tell the hon member that Wentworth is not the only place where these conditions prevail, of course. There are many of these bad spots. Sometimes I am not very satisfied with what the Durban city council is doing about this. As far as these matters are concerned, the city councils rely far too heavily on the Government, who then has to remove these bad spots in their communities. I think the hon member should bring his influence to bear on the Progs in the Durban city council to ensure that they will also get a move on and do something in this connection, instead of always sitting back and waiting for the Government to do something. As regards the hon member’s question about the Coloureds at Greyville, the families there will be rehoused in houses in Coloured areas where housing is available, at Newlands and Marianridge, for example. I want to assure the hon member that we shall not remove anyone without offering him alternative accommodation. However, the people must co-operate. They have been living in that area for a long time and the matter is controversial. We would not like to cause any disruption. I want to emphasize the fact that no one will be removed without alternative accommodation being provided. On the other hand, one should not demand a castle if one has not been accustomed to it. The hon member asked that they should receive the same kind of housing, but there are cases where people have been living in corrugated iron structures and now expect to be rehoused in castles. The hon member for Stellenobsch also referred to this earlier on. However, we shall do our best to help these people to be resettled and properly established within their own communities.

The hon member for Brentwood made a very fine and positive contribution about housing. In particular, I was pleasantly surprised by his remarks about Government villages. Government villages were established in the past and people were settled there under very difficult economic conditions. The original idea was that the Government villages would be merely temporary, but the department’s view has changed completely over the years. These Government villages have come to stay. That kind of accommodation is not available anywhere else. Government villages have produced many families, and good people live there. What the hon member said was true, ie that we should assist these people, who are sometimes living at a very low economic level, and that we should educate and instruct those who are not yet accustomed to home-ownership. We must plan their future housing needs in consultation with them. I think that is a very fine idea. The department is already engaged in such projects on a small scale, of course, but once again it is a question of funds and staff that are not always available. We have a desparate staff shortage.

The hon member for Langlaagte also spoke, or did he not? [Interjections ] Before I come to him, I first want to reply to the speech made by the hon member for Stellenbosch. This hon member put the other side of the coin. There is another side, which is very seldom put. When it comes to the removal of people in order to implement the Government’s policy of separate residential areas and to create orderly communities in South Africa, one hears only of tears and sighs. However, those of us who came to the cities after the Second World War know of the benefits which the non-White population groups in this country have also reaped under this policy and we know what we have done for them. We have rescued many of them from the most squalid slum conditions and placed them in surroundings where they were able to start a new life. One never hears about this, however. Instead, one hears that we took them by the scruff of the neck and removed them to areas where they did not want to be. The Coloureds do not speak the same language as the Progs. [Interjections.] Coloured and Indian leaders with whom I come into contact from time to time tell one that they cannot say this publicly, but that if it had not been for the Group Areas Act, they would still have been living in the slums today as indigent tenants. [Interjections.] We uplifted them and created communities for them.

What were their names?

That hon member knows nothing about this matter. He was living in the Outpost of the British Empire at the time. [Interjections.]

The hon member for Stellenbosch said that we had made the mistake in the past of not properly consulting the leaders of these communities. I agree with him. Today our policy is different, however; before talking to the Progs, I talk to them. [Interjections.] The fact is that we have a corps of leaders among the Coloureds today. At the time when we took over from the United Party, they were not interested in Coloured leaders, but only in the Coloured vote. After that they cast the Coloureds on the rubbish heap. [Interjections.] Today, however, there are Coloured leaders whom one can talk to and whom one can consult. This is what we do, and that is why there is such a large measure of contentment, in spite of all the sob stories told by the Progs. The trouble with the Progs is, of course, and I cannot improve on the description of their attitude and mentality given in The Star of 16 November 1983:

[Interjections.]

I want to congratulate the hon member for Stellenbosch on the good relations which exist between the Coloured communities under the leadership of Mr David Curry, the municipality and the relations committee in Stellenbosch. This is a wonderful relationship, and one finds it not only in Stellenbosch, but in many other rural towns as well, including my home town, where the Afrikaner communities live together with the Coloured people and plan and regulate their communities in a relationship of the closest mutual trust.

The same applies in our town.

Yes, but unfortunately I have never been there, because the hon the Minister has not invited me there. However, the fact is that when one listens to what is said in this House, it seems as if we are continually locked in a kind of battle with the Coloured people. Such a situation only arises because some hon members do not know what the relationship between the Afrikaner and the Coloureds has been over the years. The bitterness which exists does not arise within our own ranks, but is introduced from outside.

Well, I have now dealt with the Progs and now I want to talk to the hon member for Langlaagte in a very kindly way. [Interjections.] I would have preferred it if my time had expired so that I did not have to reply to the hon member. However, I do not want to quarrel with him. He referred once again to the question of group areas, a matter which we have referred to the Strydom Committee. It is a matter which has already been dealt with. I pointed out yesterday that the Strydom Committee had been constituted with the best of intentions in the days when the hon member and I still belonged to the same party, and in my opinion, that committee did good work. However, the hon member will have an opportunity to evaluate the report on the select committee.

The hon member made some rather dramatic statements about the Government’s decision in connection with the monuments. The hon member said that we were locking up the monuments. However, we are not locking up Church Square, the Vrouemonument and other places. In fact, I hope it will not be necessary for us to impose restrictions on people there as well. However, after repeated attempts had been made to degrade the Voortrekker Monument by means of processions and demonstrations on festive days, the Government deemed it advisable to ask the control board to reserve it only for Government functions on certain festive days. We do not wish to keep the undesirable elements in, as the hon member suggested, but in fact to keep them out.

The situation is that an application can be submitted in the proper way to the committee of control, the chairman of which is the Administrator of the Transvaal, and the members of which include people such as Prof Carel Boshoff. In fact, he has not yet protested against the decisions that were taken there.

Mr Chairman, could the hon the Minister just tell us whether he is aware of the fact that the Administrator of the Transvaal gave his permission for those grounds to be used in the first place? Subsequently something happened, however. What was it that happened there?

Mr Chairman, surely the hon member for Brakpan knows what happened there. If he does not, he should ask the hon member for Rissik to tell him what happened there. I think the hon the leader of the CP and all other hon members of that party should know what happened there. They should know what forced us to take this decision. However, I want to leave the matter at that. If I were to tell the whole story in this connection, we would see some very red faces in those benches over there. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr Chairman, I want to convey my thanks once again to all those who participated in the discussion of my Vote. With that I wish to conclude.

Vote agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Mr Speaker, I move:

Agreed to.