I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time.

Although considerable progress has been made over the past few years in making the Republic of South Africa less dependent on the outside world for its armaments requirements, the Government is determined, however, to speed up its programme of making South Africa relatively, if not entirely, self-supporting in this respect. I sincerely believe, Mr. Speaker, that the establishment of an Armaments Development and Production Corporation is not only a realistic approach to this issue but is in itself an essential tool for achieving this objective within a limited period.

Hon. members will be quite justified in asking whether—

1. (a) the same objective could not have been achieved through the existing Armaments Board in collaboration with private industry and, if not, whether
2. (b) it is not within the scope of the Industrial Development Corporation.

I shall therefore endeavour to cover these two questions first before I pass on to certain provisions in the Bill.

When I introduced the Bill to amend the provisions of the Munitions Production Act, 1964 (which will be known in future as the Armaments Act), I presented hon. members with a clear picture of the great responsibilities that will devolve on the Armaments Board in future. I specifically stated that the main task of the Armaments Board would be the procurement of armaments in such a manner as to ensure that the armaments requirements of the S.A. Defence Force are met as effectively and economically as possible.

In order that hon. members could appreciate the magnitude of the task and responsibilities of the Armaments Board. I outlined fully what is embodied in the concept of procurement. In the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to take up the time of the House by going over all this again. Suffice to say that I indicated clearly why it was necessary and essential to relieve the Armaments Board in future of its manufacturing activities and the accompanying responsibilities. I hasten, however, Mr. Speaker, to pay tribute to-day to the magnificent work done by the Armaments Board in the rather difficult circumstances that prevailed.

Production of armaments is generally considered to be one of the most highly specialized fields in industry. When one bears in mind the very high technical acceptance standards which are quite rightly set by the S.A. Defence Force, it makes it even more necessary that the highest level of efficiency in all phases of management should be maintained. Although I think that it may in certain instances be desirable and in some cases even essential that the State should have a direct interest in the manufacture of armaments, I am satisfied, however, that experience in our own country as well as in overseas countries has proved that State-managed industrial undertakings do have certain limitations which could sometimes hamper speedy adaptation to changing circumstances and thus progress in general. I therefore believe. Mr. Speaker, that the transfer of the manufacturing activities to such a corporate body would greatly facilitate matters and would undoubtedly be a further positive step towards achieving our goal.

As far as participation by the Industrial Development Corporation is concerned I want to point out that this corporation was established basically with a view to the economic requirements of the Republic and the Industrial Development Act specifically provides that “it shall be the duty of the corporation so to exercise its powers that every application or proposal dealt with by it is considered strictly on its economic merits, irrespective of all other considerations whatsoever”. Wherever possible the Industrial Development Corporation has joined forces in promoting the armaments industry in the Republic but in view of the limitations to which I have drawn attention. I think it will be clear to hon. members that the objects of this Bill will be defeated to a very large measure if they were to be incorporated in the objects of the Industrial Development Corporation. I would like to mention to the House, however, that the proposal of establishing a separate independent corporation for the development and production of armaments was discussed fully at a meeting of my Defence Advisory Council, of which Dr. Van Eck, the chairman of the Industrial Development Corporation is a member. Dr. Van Eck agreed that this would be the proper solution to the problem.

Mr. Speaker, I now wish to refer to some of the provisions in the Bill itself and to certain aspects which I trust will remove any doubts and clarify any problems as regards the application of such provisions.

With reference to clause 3 of the Bill, i.e. the objects and general powers of the corporation, I wish to explain, firstly, that it is not contemplated that the corporation should undertake the development or production of armaments in its own name. This will either be done through subsidiary companies or through companies in which the corporation will participate by way of shareholdings and/ or financial assistance. Specific provision is made in the powers of the corporation to this effect, In this connection I wish to refer to the provisions of the Bill on page 5.

Secondly, I wish to explain that reference to “development of armaments” is essential in view of the fact that development usually follows on research and embraces the industrialization phase which is a prerequisite for production proper. Unfortunately research institutes are not usually equipped to cope with this requirement and it is left to industry to do the necessary.

Then I want to point out that the preamble to the objects clause makes it clear that we intend manufacturing armaments for export too. When our own requirements have been adequately catered for, we shall export to such countries where it may be in the interests of the Republic of South Africa.

We could send some to Britain.

We could send them anywhere. I may inform members of the House that we already have certain items available. The supply of armaments to other countries will, however, only be undertaken in consultation with other Ministers of State.

Hon. members will notice that the preamble only refers to the supply of firearms and ammunition to members of the public; it does not include other armaments and it is intended that the actual sale of such firearms and munitions as are manufactured by companies controlled by the corporation will take place through the ordinary retail channels in commerce. One of the first tasks of such subsidiary company, however, would be to investigate the desirability of standardizing our firearms in the various fields.

Clauses 3 (a) and (b) are in conformity with my previous explanation, i.e. to provide for the transfer of the manufacturing activities from the Armaments Board to the corporation. I have already explained the modus operandi envisaged. The clauses should, however, be read in conjunction with subsections (5) and (6) of clause 6, which provide for the method of payment for such assets taken over. Whereas such assets have been acquired out of moneys previously appropriated by Parliament, the procedure merely involves a transfer of assets into another form of ownership and subsection (4) of clause 6 will therefore not apply.

Clause 3 (c) provides for the establishment of new undertakings. In this connection I wish to point out very clearly, however, that the corporation will not decide on its own to enter any specific field in the armaments industry. The task of procurement rests with the Armaments Board. Only where private industry in the Republic of South Africa is not equipped to manufacture such armaments, or where it is found that it will not be a feasible economic proposition for private industry or where the strategic nature of the particular armaments makes it desirable, will the Armaments Board refer the matter to me and after consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs I will then decide whether to refer the matter to the corporation for investigation with the directive, of course, that the corporation report back to me for a final decision before embarking upon any particular project.

Then I wish to point out that clause 3 (d) provides for a joint venture approach between the corporation and private industry. This will apply mainly where the risk involved is fairly big and private industry is not prepared to undertake the risk alone or where it is desirable that the State should have an interest. It is, of course, an accepted principle in private industry to-day that they will not enter a field where they are too much dependent on State requirements only.

In the past few months I have had numerous approaches from firms in the Republic and overseas for joint participation in such ventures. In some instances, after due consideration, it was clear to me and the Armaments Board that we could avoid the cost of research by ourselves and that the required know-how would be available. I want to emphasize to-day, however, that although the Government would welcome the establishment of armament factories in the Republic by approved oversea industrialists, it will certainly only be permitted after due cognizance has been taken of the capabilities of private industry in South Africa and will never be allowed on a basis where control is not vested in South Africa.

I want to assure hon. members that although it is in this category that the corporation can play a very important role, it will not trespass on the field of private enterprise without very sound reasons and then only after my approval, granted in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs, has been obtained.

Clause 3 (e) has been brought in with a view to certain possible eventualities which cannot be foreseen now. Basically it will cover smaller matters of detail, especially where more clarification may be necessary, and will thus be supplementary to the basic objects of the corporation. I wish to emphasize, however, that this will not entail bringing in any functions which will result in a departure from the basic objects or which in any way conflict with what I have said to-day.

Before departing from the most important clause in the Bill I want to reiterate. Sir, what I said on the occasion of the introduction of the Armaments Amendment Bill, namely, that the financial and technical activities of any company controlled by the corporation will be subject to the same measures of control by the Armaments Board as any other company supplying armaments to the S.A. Defence Force. We will deal with the corporation in the same way as with private enterprise.

Clause 5 makes provision for the appointment of a Board of Directors by the State President and I wish to assure hon. members that the same stringent considerations as regards qualifications, etc., would apply to any recommendations to the State President as would be observed in the case of the appointment of members to the Armaments Board.

The usual disqualifications applicable to directors of a company will be embodied in in the regulations provided for in clause 9 of the Bill, but circumstances may arise, for example, there may be too many subsequent conflicting interests, which are not covered under the normal disqualifications and which may make it desirable to terminate an appointment. Provision is therefore made in subsection (4) of clause 5 for the right to do so.

Although it appears to be a fairly large board I wish to point out, however, that it will undoubtedly be necessary for some of the directors at least to serve on the boards of subsidiary companies as well as companies where the corporation will be entitled to representation. This procedure will be necessary in order to establish and maintain the closest contact between the corporation and its subsidiary or associated companies.

Now I wish to refer to clause 6, which makes provision for the share capital of the corporation. It will be observed that the State will be the only shareholder in the corporation. Apart from the fact that there is no profit motive, except perhaps to the extent that the corporation participates in companies where the controlling interest is not held by the corporation, and that outside parties would consequently be very reluctant to take up shares, I consider it desirable that the corporation should be completely owned and controlled by the Government.

In view of that fact that the corporation will be financed through shareholding only (and thus not compete on the open market for finance by way of debentures, etc.) the initial share capital must be considered as a nominal amount only. A very large proportion of this amount will in any case be applied to the taking over of existing assets. It is therefore essential that there should be a certain amount of elasticity for increasing the nominal capital.

Subsection (4) of clause 6 provides that further “shares in the corporation shall be paid for out of moneys appropriated by Parliament for the purpose”. This will ensure that investments by the corporation are in fact controlled by Parliament, although I must add, and I am sure hon. members will agree with me that it may not always be advisable to give full details of contemplated investments by way of shareholding, etc., because it may sometimes prejudice negotiations or even embarrass other parties, especially under present-day circumstances. Subsection (3) of clause 6 provides for consultation with the Minister of Finance as regards the actual taking up of shares and in my opinion, therefore, adequately safeguards Parliament in such cases.

Now I come to clause 8. Subsection (4) refers to the auditors’ report. Hon. members will no doubt be aware of the fact that it is not possible to limit the duties of an auditor. Reference to “particulars as may be prescribed by the regulations” should, therefore, not be construed as having any limiting effect. To the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the provision envisages additional responsibilities.

Clause 11 deals with the use of the name of the corporation. I am aware of the fact that there is a registered company which uses an expression by way of reference, fairly similar to “Armscor”. There is, however, a distinct difference in the pronunciation so that there can hardly be a confusion. It is quite likely, however, that the corporation may, in time to come, be referred to in the envisaged expression and the object is merely to prevent new companies from registering or using such a name or expression that may cause confusion in future.

Lastly I wish to refer to clause 13. In view of the fact that certain officers or employees who are attached to the manufacturing activities and thus at present in the service of the Armaments Board, will carry on with their jobs as such, it is necessary to safeguard their existing rights and consequently the proposed amendment to the Armaments Act. Members will appreciate, however, that it was not possible for me to introduce this amendment earlier. I was advised to introduce it at this stage.

I hope hon. members will agree with me that this Bill is another step on the road of progress for South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, the passing remark of the hon. the Minister of Defence that the R100 million initially voted for the purposes of this measure was regarded purely as a nominal amount gives some indication of the scope of the Bill before us and the implications, and possibilities which may flow from it. We on this side of the House intend to support the second reading of this measure. We intend to support the principles which the Minister has outlined here this afternoon, and we intend to support them despite one or two reservations to which I shall come in a moment.

I want to say at once that in general we on this side of the House are concerned over the increasing incursion of the State into private enterprise, and our support of this Bill in no way derogates from our feeling that the State should not play a major part in competition with private enterprise in the fields of private commerce and industry. Lately the State has entered more and more into these fields, and it would be our natural reaction to oppose any measure which has as its object a further incursion into existing industry or potential private industry of the future.

The Minister will be the first to admit that the terms of this measure go far beyond what he has told the House this afternoon. They open a door to unlimited entry into almost every field of manufacture in South. Africa. Nonetheless, we believe that there are two reasons why this Bill should and will receive our support. The first is the overriding importance of defence, in ensuring the safety, and security of all the peoples of our country, and the basic need to ensure that we are able to provide to the maximum possible extent for all the requirements of those forces upon which our safety and our security depend. In these times of unreasonable, inexplicable boycotts from people who should be our friends, from countries whose own interests and whose own welfare should lead them to support us and help us to play our part as a bastion of Western thought in the ideological conflicts of the world, we should be as self-reliant as possible. Despite the dictates of logical common-sense which one would expect from those countries that boycott us. It is thus more essential than ever that we should be able to produce the maximum possible which we are able to make ourselves for our own use and our own requirements. We regard this as an overriding factor, a factor which enables us to look at this Bill not from the point of the technical possibility of incursion into private industry, but from the importance of this measure to our national security.

There is a second reason, and that is that we are not as entirely happy as the hon. the Minister appears to be with the situation as it exists to-day with the Munitions Production Board—now called the Armaments Board— currently responsible for production. We feel there is scope for tremendous improvement.

We feel that this measure is an attempt to create that improvement, to remove some of the inefficiency, bottlenecks and problems which exist in a State-controlled enterprise operating in the field of industrial production. The proposal of the Minister that private enterprise be able to bring its knowledge, experience, skill and know-how into service to a greater degree in the production of armaments, is one which we believe has a potential for improvement. So for these two reasons we support the principles of the Bill as outlined by the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

He dealt in particular with one aspect to which I want to refer. He dealt with the question of what was contemplated as the potential production of the Munitions Board and he limited it to armaments. He said that any further expansion will take place only in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs. That is to an extent a safeguard, but there are to-day in South Africa so many boards that one almost loses count of them. One thing has emerged very clearly from all the statutory bodies and the Government boards which have been created over the years, namely the irresistible temptation of a board to indulge in empire building once it starts to operate even on a small scale. The tendency is always to grow and grow and ultimately to create an empire of its own. Here again the old Parkinson’s Law applies— the need to create two assistants for every manager and those two to create two more assistants. Although there are safeguards we feel that those safeguards are not entirely satisfactory. Thus when we reach the Committee Stage we will ask the hon. the Minister to consider two amendments which we believe will in no way derogate from the principle or the objectives of this Bill but which will place some brake upon the tendency to empire building of any independent corporation which has unlimited powers. The present terms of the Bill are in fact unlimited. The hon. the Minister referred to clause 3 (e) of the Bill which gives the power to perform “such functions as the Minister may from time to time determine …” That is unlimited power. It gives the board the power to do anything it likes. All that limits it is the assurance the Minister has given this afternoon, namely that the intention of including this power is simply to deal with any minor matters which may arise. We would be the last to oppose measures which will provide for coping with unforeseen eventualities, which was what the Minister called these minor matters which might arise. We feel that there should be a limitation, firstly by restricting slightly the definition clause. We have armaments defined here in terms of the Armaments Act of 1964 which makes provision for any items which are required “for defence force purposes or other purposes determined by the Minister in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs”. We would like to see this limited to armaments, vehicles, equipment, and those things required by the Defence Force which can be regarded in the normal sense as armaments.

We do so because the Minister has himself said that he does not visualize clothing, boots and shoes, the normal products of industry, at any time falling within the scope of this measure. He does not envisage the Armaments Production Board using its unlimited power to make things which are commonly available from private sources in quantity and at competitive prices in South Africa. We would like to discuss with the Minister the possibility of making it clear in this measure that there is no intention to invade those normal fields which to-day supply through tender the requirements of the Defence Forces. But we do not in any way want to limit the right of this corporation to expand the production of those items commonly known as armaments, such as technical equipment, arms, weapons, ammunition, instruments and any of the things required for the conduct of war. We believe and accept that they should be incorporated. I hope at the Committee Stage we will be able to reach agreement on a slight amendment which will make it clear that items not connected with armaments as such will be excluded from this measure.

Secondly, I refer to clause 8 which deals with the question of laying on the Table the annual reports which will be made to the Minister. The wording used in the clause is exactly the same as that in the original Munitions Production Act, now the Armaments Act. In terms of that section and in terms of the clause now before us, reports of the board will be tabled unless the hon. the Minister decides that they should not be tabled. In point of fact the original measure was passed in 1964, but there has never been a report of the Munitions Board tabled in this House. Therefore we are at a disadvantage when the Minister pays tribute to the work of the board. We and South Africa have no knowledge of what that board has done since 1964. We have no knowledge of what it has spent or how it is operated. The only person who can speak with authority is the hon. the Minister. The reason is that we have never had before us any report of any kind from that board. There has been reference to it in the Report of the Controller and Auditor-General and members of the Select Committee on Public Accounts have been able to question the officials of that board, but Parliament, the body which votes the money and which as Parliament is responsible, has not had an opportunity to study the operation and the scope of the work of the Munitions Board. We should like to see a report in general terms which we can study tabled in this House. We are prepared to accept that there are aspects of that report which, because of internal and external security, must remain secret and confidential. We will seek to find a formula which the hon. the Minister can consider during the Committee Stage, where under the basic facts would be placed before us. We cannot, on the basis of the Auditor-General’s report which deals only with specific items and which does not give a comprehensive picture of the operations of the board, play our part as Parliament, either as Government or Opposition members, in protecting the welfare of the taxpayer whose money we are going to spend in vast sums through the medium of this corporation. So we will seek to find a formula, which I hope we can agree upon, whereby we can receive a report from which will be excluded names, descriptions and matters which could affect the security of South Africa. But this will give us a picture of the globular sum being handled and some indication of the sort of activities which are going on. Otherwise we will not have any indication of how in fact the very wide powers which we are prepared to grant in this Bill are being applied in practice. I do not want to go into any further detail at this stage but I would like to say that the principles and objectives, as the hon. the Minister has outlined them, are principles and objectives with which we agree. Our differences are purely based on the fact that this measure goes beyond what the Minister had stated. We sincerely hope that the objectives he has stated will in fact be achieved. We also hope that he will make use of the knowledge, experience and know-how of the I.D.C. to guide this new baby in its early crawling and walking days. We hope that it will be able to grow to fill that vacuum which has been created artificially by the present current of world thought.

So, Mr. Speaker, we will support the second reading. We give it our blessing, and we hope, with the Minister, that South Africa will grow to greater security and strength as a result of this measure.

Mr. Speaker, in the circumstances in which we are living to-day, which prevail not only in South Africa but also in the world outside, it is gratifying that the attitude of the official Opposition in regard to this measure is not one of criticism of the military considerations which are at stake, but perhaps only one of criticism of the economic aspects thereof. I am glad to be able to say this, because we are living in a time in which South Africa finds itself in the position that it can no longer rely at all times on its traditional friends and suppliers of armaments in order to safeguard itself and to maintain its position in safeguarding the Western world. That is why particular circumstances have arisen which compel South Africa to take specific steps to ensure that it can defend itself, apart from its manpower. I am referring particularly to the acquisition of armaments and weapons with which to guarantee its safety.

A week or so ago we conducted a debate here on the conversion of the Munitions Production Board into an Armaments Board, the function of which in future will not only be to act almost as an intermediary between the Defence Force and bodies which can supply armaments. It will no longer confine itself to the function of production. Here we have to-day the further consequence of a measure which makes provision for the creation of a corporation along, I almost want to say, the same lines as those of the Industrial Development Corporation, which was established when particular circumstances were prevailing in South Africa which made it necessary for the State to provide a stimulus for the development of our own industries. In this way a start has now been made in this legislation with the creation of a corporation to ensure, in circumstances of an unusual nature, that South Africa, will of its own accord, be able to meet its own needs as far as possible in regard to the necessary armaments with which to ensure its own safety. I do not want to go into details. I think we are agreed, as the hon. member for Durban (Point) also intimated, that such a development is a sensible one. It is a development which under normal circumstances would perhaps not have taken place, and under normal circumstances our Munitions Production Board would perhaps have been able to obtain the necessary armaments in other ways. But circumstances have made this development essential. I want to express the opinion to-day that it will ultimately be to the benefit, not only of our ability to defend ourselves in the military sphere, but also to the benefit of the economy of South Africa. But I want to differ with what the hon. member for Durban (Point) said here and the objections he expressed in respect of this measure, i.e. where he virtually saw the establishment of this Armaments Corporation as, in his view, an increasing encroachment by the State into the sphere of private initiative. In the extent to which the State has perhaps encroached on that territory under these circumstances, it is nevertheless clear, and this the hon. member for Durban (Point) conceded the point, that it is an encroachment which is necessitated by circumstances because the State bears that extremely great responsibility in respect of the safety of the country. The State cannot tolerate that, if it cannot obtain armaments in other ways, there is not at least the necessary local provision in order to obtain those necessary armaments.

I want to express the opinion here this afternoon that this development of an Armaments Corporation of our own, in contrast to what the hon. member suggested, is paving the way for a new industry in our own economy, and that it will ultimately be possible for private initiative to acquire an even greater share in this new industry which is about to be established. I see the hon. member is nodding his head: I think he agrees with me. I am very glad to hear he agrees with me. The motive behind this legislation is, after all, not to deprive private initiative of any opportunities; the motive behind this legislation is to guarantee the safety of the State. If by these attempts to do so private initiative, even if it is initially only a small share, will gradually obtain a greater share in this industry, an industry which in terms of this legislation and that of a week or so ago, can acquire a more stable pattern than in the past, then private initiative has everything to gain by it in this respect that there will be certainty in regard to a programme basis, and in regard to a period of provision for the Defence Force of the country.

In conjunction with this the hon. member for Durban (Point) raised the objection that this envisaged corporation could enter the field, also as far as the private initiative is concerned, of the manufacturer of goods which are in fact not directly military, but perhaps associated with that. Inter alia, he mentioned clothing, footwear, etc.

No, I said that they could. I did not say that they would make use of it.

I concede that. He said they had the power. But as a result of that he raised objections. I also want to inform him in that respect that a corporation such as this one, which has to concentrate on the high technical aspects of armaments manufacture will, after all, not take the trouble to enter the sphere of existing industries in our economy, of these sectors of the private initiative to which these hon. members referred. In fact, in previous legislation in regard to the Armaments Board, it was intimated that this Armaments board in particular was not going to concern itself with encroaching on the territory of the acquisition of supplies which would also be available through normal trade channels. That is why I wat to express the opinion to-day that the legislation which makes provision for this corporation has perhaps been borne out of the pressure of circumstances in the time in which we are living. But it marks the arrival of possibilities for our private initiative, in my opinion born out of the pressure of circumstances, which will be of great benefit to our national economy, apart from the question of the ability of our country to defend itself. That is why it is my great privilege to give this legislation my sincere support.

As the hon. the Minister has rightly said, the object of this Bill is to bring together Government control and direction, on the one hand, and private initiative on the other hand. I want to warn the Minister that in this field there is an opportunity for people to feather their own nests. This has been seen in the field of defence procurements in all parts of the world. I do not want the Minister to get me wrong, because I am not suggesting that this does or will take place in this country. If we go into the history of most countries, we will find that because of the urgency and secrecy of defence requirements, and because of the importance of having them on time, there is a tendency on the part of greedy people, unpatriotic people, to take advantage of the situation to make a quick profit for themselves. Therefore, it is incumbent upon the Minister and upon this board to take this into account during their negotiations in connection with defence requirements and production. They should remember the lessons which the past can teach them as far as this matter is concerned, he hon. the Minister will remember that during the war years Mr. Werth. the then member for George, was one of the biggest critics of defence expenditure from the Opposition side of this House. He showed a lively interest in the defence expenditure. Later in the war years the Government and the Opposition agreed to establish a commission to go into this question of war profits. Mr. Werth was a member of that commission. If the Minister refers to some of the reports of that commission he will realize the importance of control. The Minister will also remember that during the war we had the advantage not only of having trained personnel in the Defence Department, but also of a large number of voluntary workers—businessmen, highly trained technical men—able to give their services free to assist the Government in its war effort. A Director-General of War Supplies was appointed under the chairmanship of Dr. Van der Bijl. The various branches of the Defence Force received their requirements from this organization when they were in short supply. Anything of which they were running short was referred to the Director-General of War Supplies. This organization performed a similar function to the function this board is going to perform. That organization had three subdivisions: Production, inspection, and prices. It is to the production side that I want the Minister to give careful consideration. Here it is not only a question of getting firms to manufacture the goods but also of seeing what lies behind that acquisition. The Minister will find that for certain armaments the necessary raw material will not be available in this country. So, the Minister must ensure that raw materials which have to be imported are not loaded in price before they reach this country. It is not difficult for an organization which is offering technical advice to the Government to add a profit at the other end, knowing the control in this country to be very strict. It is not necessary for me to go into details. The Minister can easily acquaint himself with them if he refers to reports of the commission during the last war, the commission to which I have already referred. The Minister should give very serious consideration to what he means by “armaments”. This is a very wide term. The hon. member for Durban (Point) says that he does not consider boots and uniforms to come within the meaning of that term, but there are other items, such as electronic equipment, which do. The private sector to-day uses any amount of electronic equipment, equipment which formerly was protected by the army. Many radar devices, for instance, which were secret and protected in the last war, because they were essentially used for military purposes, to-day form part of the ordinary civil requirements. During a war there is the opportunity of doing research in order to perfect items of military equipment and to keep these away from the private sector. But to-day we are not in a “hot” war and the same secrecy does therefore not apply. Therefore it may be possible for a particular organization to obtain special knowledge, cover it by special patents and then makes that equipment available to South Africa, adding to the price at the other end because it knows of the strict control in South Africa. So, the Minister must be very careful not to get into a position where he thinks he has control while he has not, it being in the hands of some organization or other overseas.

The Minister quite rightly said that we wanted to avoid control from outside. We should have control in this country, he said, but for production the Minister shall have to draw not only on his technical staff but also on the technical knowledge of the I.D.C. Some of the men in the I.D.C. are men who were engaged in the war effort and participated in the organization of the Director-General of War Supplies. They know what the mining industry and large engineering companies can do in the way of providing equipment.

After production there is the question of inspection. I cannot over-emphasize the necessity of the organization itself having a high standard of inspection. It is true that the Department of Defence will have its standards of inspection afterwards, but my experience during the war years was that because the defence were in a hurry and required the equipment urgently they were at times inclined to be casual in their inspections. Accordingly it was found necessary by the Director-General of War Supplies to have his own inspection staff to ensure that the specifications were carried out. You see, Mr. Speaker, during war there is always the possibility of counter manoeuvres. You may get an officer whose loyalty is open to doubt being in charge of passing certain equipment. If he knows there is to be a double check, he will be more careful. I am not suggesting, of course, that our officers cannot be relied upon or that our servicemen cannot be relied upon. During the war years we had to put electrical equipment onto ships; we converted whalers into minesweepers and for this it was necessary to provide equipment known as degaussing equipment for the detection of underwater craft. We know of occasions where the technical staff on board ship were casual and signed for wire and equipment which subsequent investigations brought to light had never been delivered. So, one cannot be too careful with control and inspection at the delivery end and before the Defence Department takes over control. The Defence Department as well must have and maintain a high standard of inspection and act as a check on the inspection carried out by the staff of the Minister’s department.

Then we come to the most important item, namely price. The Bill in clause 4 (a) says that in exercising its powers the Corporation shall deal with any application, proposal or other matters with a view to meeting the arms requirements of the Republic as effectively and as economically as possible, and in clause 8 of the Bill it is stated that the profit will be 8 per cent. During the war years it was found frequently that in the beginning a firm, because it had very little experience of this kind of production, had high costs, but as they achieved greater dexterity, more knowledge and experience they were able to cut costs considerably. If one goes back to the war years and sees what the cost was of hand grenades, mortars and land mines in the initial stages, and the cost of that same equipment two years later, one is amazed at the extent to which costs were reduced. The only reason why costs were reduced was because there was constant vigilance. The investigating cost accountants recovered for the Government several millions of pounds, being the difference between costs and a reasonable price and what the contractors wanted to charge in the ordinary way. So, when one knows what was done in wartime when everybody was supposed to be patriotic, or one expected them to be, it is more necessary than ever that in peacetime, or in a time of cold war when people think there is peace, there should be very sound and strict control. Once this gets out of hand it is very difficult to get the information. It is only when a few people have got rich quickly and rumours go about that a certain firm is making a packet out of Defence requirements that the public will ask, probably unfairly, what the Minister is doing about it. I know that the Minister expects this organization to be like Caesar’s wife, beyond suspicion and not suspect in any way. I want to remind the Minister that it is essential that that vigilance be maintained the whole time that he is at the head of this organization.

The question of price was referred to, and it was indicated that the Minister expects a return of 8 per cent on capital, but the definition is not clear. It indicates that 8 per cent is a reasonable dividend, but it does not indicate whether an 8 per cent return is the limit, because no provision is made for reserves or secret reserves. During the Committee Stage we want to analyze that in greater detail.

The Minister referred to clause 8 (3) and to the question of auditing and he said that he could not prescribe the functions of auditors. The auditor is mainly concerned with seeing that the expenditure has been accounted for. He cannot be held responsible if there has been slackness in the organization itself. An organization may go slow. For example, a particular company producing military radios may decide that it will go slow in its assembly department in order to establish a price. They go slow and establish reasonable production figures for field radios. They may have a trial order of 10,000 radios. They may establish the price and produce 10,000 radios and all the inquiries show that the costs are reasonable, until one wakes up subsequently and finds that the price was so satisfactory that the order was increased from 10,000 to 100,000 radios. Then further inquiries may show that not only did they produce them at the same price, but because they were able to step up production by improved techniques and by rearranging the factory programme they increased efficiency and were able to cut the costs by half, and they out the difference in their pockets. No audit will show that, unless it is included in the audit requirements that any unreasonable margin of profit above what is laid down by the Minister must be reported to the Minister. If it is only a question of accounting for expenditure, cash and receipts, the auditor will simply certify that the ac-and to report any indication of persons taking counts are in order, but if the auditor is expected to go into the question of efficiency advantage of the position, then a very different story may be told.

If the Minister would refer to the report of the Director General of War Supplies published after the war, he would find the extent to which the technical engineers and the cost accountants were able to effect a high degree of control as the result of intense vigilance over the whole of the period, so that as people became more expert in handling defence production their improvement in efficiency and savings were reported to the Government, so that the Government of the day had the latest information. Furthermore, not only did the Government have the information, but the Government was big enough to put members of the Opposition on the Committee, so that there was the combined vigilance of members of the Government and members of the Opposition. As I said earlier, the late Mr. Werth, the then member for George, was one of those who took a very lively interest in that matter.

We now come to the question of parliamentary control. There is the provision that this report must be tabled in the House, but that is no parliamentary control. We have had the I.D.C., Iscor and other organizations tabling their reports in the House, and after that they are put in the office of the Clerk of the Papers and we never get an opportunity of discussing them in this House. I do not propose to traverse those other corporations, but I am certain that it was the Minister’s intention that the accounts and the reports of this organization should go before the Public Accounts Committee. I would say, better than that, that the Minister should also consider a special secret session of the Public Accounts Committee so that very pertinent questions may be asked and so that both the Government and the Opposition may be satisfied beyond any doubt that there was adequate inquiry and adequate safeguards, because all defence expenditure is inflationary. It is unavoidable that defence expenditure should be inflationary. We want to ensure that we reduce the amount of inflation as far as possible and that we are getting good value for our money, and we want to ensure that there is adequate control.

When a South African as a member of the Permanent Force or of the A.C.F., is prepared to give up his life for his country, he is at least entitled to know that while he is prepared to sacrifice his life the business man is prepared to sacrifice profits. There is no call for a young South African to lose his life and for it to be found that the firm he has left behind is featuring its own nest. Patriotism should start in a man’s pocket. If he is not prepared to be patriotic there, it is no good talking about patriotism and doing flag-waving afterwards. The profit has to be limited through adequate control and there must be vigilance at all times. There must be adequate parliamentary control, yet adequate parliamentary control is a matter which is not sufficiently covered by the Bill before us. We hope that in the Committee Stage the Minister will do some further thinking in regard to this matter.

In the main the hon. member for Pinetown touched upon two matters here. He said that to his way of thinking there was not going to be sufficient control here, and then, from time to time, he also made a few covert references to the possibility of exorbitant profits. What the entire argument of the hon. member amounted to was that this legislation was creating the possibility of industrialists making exorbitant profits, and that there would be no control by Parliament over that. And then he added that a greater measure of control should be granted to Parliament, thus affording the Opposition an opportunity of sharing in that control.

At the beginning of his argument the hon. member referred to the Second World War, and the activities of the Director-General of War Supplies. That is no parallel with the present situation at all. I have here in front of me the Budget figures of the South African Department of Defence from the year 1939-’40 onwards. Hon. members will recall that during the war years a global sum was appropriated over which this Parliament had no control whatsoever. A global sum was appropriated without a single item being specified in the Defence Estimates. A note was simply attached to the effect that the Director-General of War Supplies would be responsible for the Estimates. During the war years the Estimates consisted of a single printed sentence. In other words, if there have ever been South African Defence Estimates over which no control existed, then it was those very Estimates during that period to which the hon. member referred. We have now developed a traditional method of control in South Africa, and according to that traditional method of control it is the hon. the Minister of Defence who is responsible here for his Defence Estimates. How did it develop?

Hon. members on the opposite side will concede readily that from the nature of a Defence Estimate there are items which simply cannot, as in the case of ordinary Estimates, appear on those Estimates. Those items cannot, in the interests of the country, be revealed, and because this is so the hon. Minister of Defence as a special task in this regard and has to exercise special control; and because that is the case, the hon. the Minister is coming forward with this legislation. Through this legislation, in clause 4, he is furnishing one of the best guarantees we can have in respect of armaments production. The hon. the Minister is assuming the power for this control organization in order to exercise control, even at this earliest possible stage, over prices and all the possibilities in regard to which the hon. member for Pinetown had objections. Price control can now be exercised even in the earlier stages of production. Here I am referring to clause 4 (a): “… as effectively and economically as may be feasible, having regard to the strategic value of particular armaments”. This clause makes it clear that control can be exercised even at that stage. The speculative possibilities mentioned by the hon. member for Pinetown are completely non-existent therefore, and become quite unfeasible if one sees how this process is going to work.

Sir, I want to return to the question of Parliamentary control. This is not a new matter which is being raised for the first time now in this debate. It is a matter which has quite a long history and which has cropped up from time to time in discussions in this House. It is a veiled insinuation against the lack of parliamentary control over Defence Estimates and expenditure. For a considerable time there has been a deliberate attempt on the part of the Opposition to acquire an equal say in matters pertaining to the Defence Force, but specifically in so far as it affects the financial aspects. This is an attempt which they have been making for a number of years. I think that we must understand each other very clearly in this regard. I have referred to the traditional control in South Africa. The hon. the Minister of Defence is responsible for control over this matter. I want to state unequivocally that this House, and obviously the Government as well, have confidence in the way in which the Minister and his Department have dealt with these matters up to now, but the nation of South Africa has every confidence that the way in which the hon. the Minister of Defence has up to the present spent every cent of what Parliament has appropriated for the Department of Defence has been in the interests of South Africa. When the Opposition therefore continues to harp on the lack of control and ask that they be included in this control machinery, they must not lose sight of this fact. They must bear in mind that the country outside has every confidence in the present method which is being applied, and believes that it is in the best interests of the country.

There are various other aspects of this legislation which we could consider, and I want to go into a few of the historical facts which gave rise to this legislation briefly. This measure is a consequence of the report of the Verster Committee which was appointed to go into this matter. When this Committee brought out its report armaments production already comprised a considerable, growing portion of the Defence Estimates. We began as long ago as 1958-’59 with special undertakings and with an armaments production estimate, which during that year amounted to the relatively small total of £154,000, as it was then. These estimates have grown until in 1962-’63 they made a very sudden jump to R14 million, and in 1965-’66 it increased to R52 million. Mr. Chairman, it has become important that the State should have more control over certain facets of armaments production in South Africa. There are certain items and certain materials which are being produced for war purposes in South Africa, which are of such a strategic nature and are of such strategic importance that a step such as this can no longer be delayed, and it is essential that these measures be taken in order to take the matter further. Recently we read in an industrial publication of the importance of explosives manufacture in South Africa. In particular it is emphasized that explosives manufacture in South Africa comprised a large subdivision of certain corporations. From the nature of the case the Defence Force is one of the most important clients of this industry in South Africa. There are also various other industries. I do not want to go into details, but according to the latest White Paper on Defence which has been submitted to us, there are already 167 main and 800 subsidiary contractors which supplied material to the then Munitions Production Board. It has become absolutely essential that control be exercised over the methods of production and over the means of production of these contractors. Now the hon. the Minister is, in terms of this Bill, and more specifically in terms of clause 4, acquiring the power to exercise control over production processes, but at the same time over the financial implications and the financial control which had to go hand-in-hand with the supply of armaments. I reiterate what I said at the beginning, i.e. that in terms of this legislation and at this very early stage, before there can be any question of speculation, the production processes should be developed along healthy lines so that, at this early stage, it will be possible to meet the needs. Here for the first time real provision can be made for requirements which stretch over a period. Up to now our estimate system was almost an ad hoc system running from year to year, and now for the first time we are making a start with a programmed budget which extends over a period and which exercises control over the extremely important aspect of armaments production. Sir, here experience has been drawn from. What is being drawn from here is the mature experience which was acquired in the first place by the former Munitions Production Board, which was changed by an Act last week to the Armaments Board. The experience and the study made in respect of the actions of the Industrial Development Corporation in the South African industrial world has also been drawn on. At the basis of this legislation therefore there is mature experience derived from two sources, experience which is being pooled in this legislation and which holds out the greatest promise for us for the future.

The hon. member for Pinetown stated that the Defence expenditure was inflationistic. Sir, all Defence expenditure cannot, from the nature of the case, be inflationistic. I do not want to enter into an economic argument with him in this field, but surely it is obvious that his statement is incorrect. A great deal of the expenditure is to the benefit of the country in various fields. It benefits the country in a very wide sphere, and serves as stimulus to further production and as stimulus to various industries, and as initiator of new production processes. Surely it is not correct to voice it abroad as inflationary spending if it takes place in that way. We have taken a major step forward. We are grateful that the Opposition supports this measure to the extent they have done. However, it is a pity that they have objections to certain aspects, particularly the hon. member for Pinetown who spoke about control, and who previously raised certain objections. We believe that we are taking a major step forward. We believe that this legislation is going to produce tremendous results for South Africa, and we want, in anticipation, to wish this body every success. It will perform a dual task: It will safeguard South Africa against the threats which are well-known to us, and will at the same time stimulate industry in South Africa. It will give industry a great boost; experience and knowledge has been put into it and it will produce many major benefits for us in future.

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that the hon. member for Middelburg has reacted to the criticism of the hon. member for Pinetown because the point he has discussed, namely the question of control, is the most important part of this Bill. We see in this Bill that the hon. the Minister is following a familiar pattern in this House, a familiar pattern created by the Government. This means that the Minister will assume sweeping comprehensive powers to control this corporation without the intervention of Parliament. We are members of Parliament, when the hon. member for Middelburg says that the Opposition has asked for a measure of control in various enterprises of the Government, it is not the Opposition only, it is Parliament. Parliament requires control over the work of the Executive, which is the Cabinet. When the elected members of Parliament obey the Executive implicitly, then we have come to the end of the road in democratic government. And that is a dangerous thing for Parliament. There should be criticism from the Government side as well, not only in the Caucus but also in this House.

Let us see what powers they do assume. They are almost absolute powers. The capital of this corporation is to be R100 million at the beginning, but the Minister has the power to increase it almost at will. I am referring to clause 6 (1), which reads as follows—

In other words, it is a very big sum of money which we are voting. We are giving the Minister, in consultation with the Minister of Finance, carte blanche to vote as much money as he likes, without any report to Parliament. If that is happening then Parliament should have some measure of control to know what is happening to the money under clause 8. In terms of this clause the Minister will agree to have an audit and there will be an auditor’s report to the Minister which he will lay on the Table of the House. But if he thinks it should not be done then he does not do it, in terms of this clause 8, because the latter part of sub-section (4) reads as follows—

In those circumstances he can say: “I am sorry but I cannot give you a report.” Under clause 12 the Cabinet have the power to make their own laws. According to the clause the Minister can accept some provisions of the Companies Act and reject others at will. In other words, we are granting absolute powers. Moreover, the Corporation can enter into contracts outside the country.

Now what should Parliament do? It has been suggested here this afternoon that there should be some sort of committee control. If one looks at clause 5 (6) we see that no Senator or member of the House of Assembly may become a director. I have never heard anyone explain why we have this provision in so many Bills, but I suppose it is a very useful precaution. But there seems to be no reason why members of Parliament should not be formed into a committee to control the work of directors. In other words, there should be a special select committee—not the ordinary Public Accounts Committee, and not a select committee that will inquire into the details of the transactions of this corporation, but a committee which will have some indication of the general progress of the work so that they can say to Parliament things are going quite well, because they had examined the accounts. I think that is necessary. But to come to us and ask again for powers of this kind is not right. I do not think it is reasonable to expect Parliament to grant these powers. The Minister says it is necessary. It is possible that this may be the great exception, but we have had many other bills of a similar kind, we have many enterprises of this Government, public corporations for instance, where we have no control whatsoever. We receive an annual report, it is laid on the Table, we see it but we can ask no questions about it. We may not ask how the money is being spent. Therefore I think at the Committee Stage the Minister should be receptive to suggestions from this side on how a measure of control might be introduced.

Mr.

Speaker, although hon. members support the principles of this measure. I still think certain hon. members have made one fundamental error in their approach. They have argued about this measure this afternoon without taking into consideration the fact that this legislation and this body is really a successor to the Bill we dealt with the other day, namely the Armaments Amendment Bill, because the Armaments Board is, to a large extent, the guarantor and the supervisor in respect of those very things which the hon. members are afraid may possibly happen. Let us look at the pattern of this matter for a moment. In the first instance the Defence Force will, as always, state its requirements. Nothing is being changed in regard to that. The Defence Force will determine what the threat to the country is, and it will then state what it needs. When the Defence Force has determined what its needs are, in the light of the threat, then the Cabinet will have to decide about what amounts should be made available in order to meet those needs. That amount is appropriated by Parliament.

In the second place the Armaments Board will decide—as was stated repeatedly last week—after the requirements of the Defence Force have been stated, whether the necessary equipment can be obtained by purchasing it either abroad, or at home, according to procedures which have been laid down. If it is K supplies, the normal kind of supplies referred to by the hon. member for Durban (Point), namely shoes and requirements of that kind, then it will, according to the present usage, be determined by the normal tender procedure which of those supplies must be acquired. Now the hon. member is saying that he is afraid that with this corporation we will proceed to the manufacture of footwear.

I say that the power to do so is there.

No, such a danger does not exist because the Bill, in clause 3, states emphatically, in respect of the aims of the corporation—

I shall have to discuss this matter with the Minister of Economic Affairs. But even before that happens the Armaments Board will first have to submit a report to me, informing me what kind of article or equipment they want to manufacture. Suppose they become so foolish as to decide that we should manufacture shoes in South Africa. Then the matter must still be referred to the Minister of Economic Affairs. He must then, according to this supposition, be deprived of his senses. He must, in full view of the fact that we are able to manufacture shoes in South Africa and already have factories for that purpose, in conflict with every reasonable concept, allow me to establish a shoe factory through this corporation.

Then there will be no objection if we exclude a thing like that from the Bill.

The Minister of Economic Affairs is there, and he will serve as the guarantee that the Minister of Defence does not become a shoemaker.

He used to be a tailor, you know.

Yes, with very good results; otherwise we would still have been wearing foreign uniforms to-day. If the hon. member wants to discuss those matters in a debate of this nature, and if he wants to be silly, then we can discuss it. I am asking the hon. member to keep the debate at the same level at which I introduced it. I know it is difficult, but let us keep to that level. If the Minister of Economic Affairs does not make use of his powers to go to the Cabinet and to say that the Minister wants to establish a shoe factory, despite the fact that we have an abundance of shoe factories, then I am asking you, what else can be written into a Bill? There is consultation between two Departments—one of which is there to keep an eye on existing industries, and the other which creates industries only in those cases where, for strategic reasons or for financial reasons, it is essential to do so.

There is no limit to what you can make in terms of this Bill.

But of course not. However, there is a limit to the number of foolish things a person can do in this world. If hon. members want to argue on that basis, then we will have to attach a long addendum to this Bill, comprising approximately 5,000 articles, which will provide that one cannot make shoes with a seam, or that one cannot make stickings which are longer than six inches. We will then have to attach an addendum which it will not be possible to store in this Parliament. When we make laws, we proceed from the premise that we are dealing with a reasonable national administration. In these laws authorization is being granted by Parliament to reasonable people to undertake the administration of the country. Suppose we have a Defence Force which lays down what its requirements are. They know that they can obtain shoes, but they want a shoe factory. In the second place we have an Armaments Board comprising responsible business people. They know that shoes are available, but they also want a shoe factory. In the third place we have a corporation which is controlled by a board of management comprising responsible people. They also know that shoes are available, but they too want to establish a shoe factory. How foolish can one become in one’s arguments?

This Bill, and the one preceding it, deals with something else. What do they deal with? I tried to explain it in my introductory speeches, during the discussion of the previous Bill, and once again to-day, i.e. that the acquisition and research in regard to technical supplies and technical equipment for the Defence Force will in future be vested in the Armaments Board. Because it will be vested in that Board, that Armaments Board will also exercise quality control for which the hon. member for Pinetown pleaded, and in regard to which I am in agreement with him. That Armaments Board will also apply cost control for which the hon. member also pleaded, and in regard to which I once again am in agreement with him. But that Board will also apply its quality control and cost control not only in regard to the private industries, but also in regard to this corporation and its subsidiaries. In other words, the corporation and its subsidiary companies will be subject to the same requirements as those which the Armaments Board is in future going to impose on private industry. Seen in that light it is a step forward, in comparison with what we have had. It is a major step forward because, up to now, certain factories were under the control of the Armaments Board itself. That implied the principle that the State was, in actual fact, encroaching on the territory of private initiative, and that the accusation could be leveled, I am not saying justifiably, that the State is at present not applying the same requirements in respect of its own factories, as it is applying in respect of private industry. Now we are separating the two. The acquisition, and the control over research, is now vested in one body. But this Armaments Board must still advise the Minister when something has to be manufactured. It is only when the Minister has received his report, and has consulted with the Minister of Economic Affairs, that we will go into the financial implications of that matter. Then, of course, the Minister of Finance will come into the picture. Only then will production of any equipment or supplies which are necessary be proceeded to. In other words, inherent in the legislation there are quite a number of safety measures.

In the second place these two Bills entail that the acquisition and the research on the one hand, and the production on the other of armaments is now being brought under undivided control. In other words, one person and one body is, in the final stage, being held responsible for that. We did not take this step without having good reason to do so. I explained to hon. members that a very intensive study had been made of processes in other countries, although I, for very good reasons, do not want to mention the names. We made a study of the pattern being followed in other countries. It is only after we had made a thorough study of that, and tried to eliminate the mistakes other countries had made, that we came to these conclusions, as contained in this Bill. In other words, what we are doing here is no mere whim on our Dart. It is the result of thorough study and the elimination of mistakes as experienced in other countries that we have come to this conclusion. The hon. member for Durban (Point) stated that in his opinion the State was far too busy competing with private industry.

I said that I was opposed to it in principle.

The hon. member is opposed to it in principle, but the thing we are doing in this Bill is precisely to emphasize three principles. The first is that this corporation is there to encourage private initiative, and not to eliminate or to compete with it. After all, the fact that the corporation has to take over certain assets from the Munitions Production Board, is proof that the corporation does not want to continue to stabilize those principles to which the hon. member has objected.

In the second place I want to say this. The corporation as constituted, as its aims indicate, is there for the very reason of not only acknowledging private initiative, but of causing new private initiative to develop in respect of needs which still exist. In other words, we are going much further than simply to acknowledge private initiative. We are in reality protecting private initiative and encouraging it. But then we add to that, and here we are accommodating the hon. member for Pinetown, as the hon. members for Stellenbosch and Middelburg both proved so effectively here, that the necessary control is now being created in a better form that it ever had before. Because a person will now be able to maintain certain standards, and it would also be possible to lend assistance if certain requirements were not complied with. In my speech I referred to the fact that even in respect of research, which is a very expensive item for defence to-day, and which can become a very expensive item if it is not kept under control, we shall have to determine whether it is the ideal solution or whether we will be able to achieve the same purpose with the available means. All this is inherent in this legislation.

But we agree with the objectives you have stated. We are opposed to the provisions of the Bill, which go much further.

I have now argued that, if we agree with the objectives …

That you state.

But it is stated in both Bills. The corporation will not be able to act before the Armaments Board has made the recommendations. Surely the hon. member admits that.

Yes.

Very well then. The Armaments Board can only make recommendations after the needs have been determined. The Armaments Board does not determine the needs. The Armaments Board will only be able to meet the needs or make the recommendation in the light of the funds which the Government has at its disposal, and the Government does not acquire funds unless Parliament makes them available.

The hon. member spoke about “unlimited power” which would be placed into the hands of the corporation. But it is not “unlimited power”.

Of the Minister.

Not of the Minister either, because in subsection (3) (c) and (d) it is expressly prescribed with what the Minister must comply before he can proceed to do so.

No, that is subsection (3) (e).

No, I shall come to subsection (3) (e). But, Sir, the fact remains that there will always be parliamentary control over the actions of the Minister. It is my difficulty with the Opposition that we hear vague references to a sort of control the hon. gentlemen want. But it is not really control that the Opposition want. They want a common say in regard to administration. But this Parliament is a legislative body. It is not an administrative body. The Administration of the country is there, but hon. members do not only want legislative authority. They also want administrative authority and unfortunately our political system does not make provision for that.

Now the hon. member is suggesting that in terms of subsection (3) (e) I have completely unlimited powers. Let me say to the hon. member that I shall accommodate him. If he feels that this provision is going too far, let him suggest an amendment in the Committee Stage which reads, “in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs”. Then I shall do so. All it amounts to is this, that we are living in a time in which technology and science are developing rapidly. We are living in a time when armaments for purposes of war become obsolete overnight, and new ones have to be purchased. We are living in a time when one cannot, according to existing usage, meet the requirements. The only reason why this provision is being inserted is to make provision for something for which provision cannot at the moment be made. But I am quite prepared to do so in consultation with the Minister of Economic Affairs. Then it is not “unlimited power”.

There were also complaints in regard to the question of the submission of the report. The present reports of the Munitions Board are open to inspection by me. The reports of the present Munitions Development Board, or the Munitions Production Board, as it is at present called do not consist of paragraphs of poetry, or dull prose or childrens’ tales. Those reports consist of factual information which indicates what we need, what is being produced, what orders have to be placed, and what orders have already been delivered. In other words, if I had to submit that report to this Parliament then I would be submitting to the enemies of South Africa a report of what we are producing. Now the hon. member is saying that I should establish some of other kind of secret organization here in Parliament, to whom this secret report should be submitted. But, Sir, surely it would still be secret then. Surely Parliament would still not get to know about it. If I were to have a small body of nine or 12 members of Parliament constituted here in order to study the secret report, then surely it is still a secret. Surely Parliament would still not get to know about it. It is simply impossible to work in that way with matters of this kind. Let me say this to hon. members: I do not find it pleasant to carry this information around with me, nor is it so for the few people who have to work with it. Why should I try to keep it secret if it is not absolutely in the interests of South Africa? But it is inherent in the duties of a Minister of Defence, and he has to fulfil them. That is why I hope that we will now put a stop to this question of secrecy, because it is all nonsense. What have I done now? In the first place, since I became Minister, I went out of my way to encourage visits by hon. members, not only to defence works, but also to armaments production undertakings. These things were open to their inspection in so far as it was possible to do so. In the second place we laid a White Paper upon the Table last year. In the third place I introduced a policy motion in the Other Place in which I made certain information available which we thought was not so confidential that it was necessary to keep it secret. I am prepared in future, next year and the year after, if it is necessary, to make information from these reports which should be placed at the disposal of Parliament available by means of a White Paper. There is one matter I shall never agree to. I cannot agree to hon. members having co-responsibility and an equal say in respect of matters affecting the Minister of Defence. I cannot agree to this, nor shall I.

Nobody is asking for that.

If you are not asking for that, you must be satisfied with what you get. Consideration shall be given to whether both these bodies, i.e. the corporation and the Armaments Board, should in future consult with the Defence Force about what should be made public. That will be laid upon the Table here by way of a White Paper. Further than that I am not prepared to go. I think that there are enough measures which guarantee financial control with the existing machinery. If that does not help, this Parliament will not be able to succeed in applying better financial control. In the course of my remarks I referred to what the hon. member for Pinetown said, namely the question of malpractices which can be perpetrated by unscrupulous fortune hunters who are to be found in the armaments trade. I admit that they do exist. I want to say to the hon. member, and I think he has had experience of this, that particularly in a country such as South Africa against which so many boycotts are being applied, people imagine that they only have to make an appointment with the Minister of Defence and offer him any equipment, whether it is second-hand equipment or not, to have a country such as South Africa purchase it. South Africa has had experience of this. I want to say here this afternoon for the benefit of the entire world, if they want to listen, that South Africa is not a beggar. Nor has South Africa any intention of becoming a beggar. South Africa purchases equipment which it finds suitable, and purchases if after thorough consideration of its value.

And pays for it.

And pays for it. If South Africa cannot find the things it needs from one source, there are in fact other sources in the world where it can find these things, perhaps only in another form. South Africa has no intention of making itself the victim of unscrupulous people in this field. Decent undertakings do exist. South Africa is trying, by means of these decent undertakings, to meet its needs. It is precisely because I want to lay down these guarantees, so that there should be no malpractices in respect of offers and acquisitions that I have agreed to assist them. If the hon. member were to give some careful thought to the system, he would agree with me that this system is in fact the very guarantee against any or the minimum abuses. It is only after the Heads of the Defence Force, who are the responsible people, have set out there requirements in the light of the financial ability of the country that businessmen can proceed to obtain what is necessary for the Defence Force. However, it is subject first to quality and cost control. Only when it is unobtainable from existing factories in overseas countries at a proper cost, and it is necessary to resort to producing it at a higher cost, will the Munitions Production Corporation take a hand. When losses have to be suffered in order to make those strategic supplies available, the Corporation will take a hand. The hon. member will agree with me that we now have a proper and a streamlined system of control.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the question of share capital. I have already explained in my introductory speech that the idea is that certain assets which are to-day under the control of the Munitions Production Board will be transferred to this Corporation. It is not possible at the moment to state precisely what the value of those assets will be. A large part of that amount will be taken up by these assets.

After valuation?

Yes, after proper valuation. It is not the intention to write up the full amount of R100,000,000. According to my information it is the custom, with all undertakings of this nature, to make a specific amount available. The shares need not be written up immediately. As money is required, we all ask Parliament for it. We will then explain that this Corporation wants a certain amount of money. This amount will appear in the Estimates. Hon. members will then, within reasonable limits, have the opportunity of asking the Minister of Defence whoever he may be, what that money is required for.

As in the case of the Industrial Development Corporation?

Precisely. In respect of the Coloured Development Corporation the same procedure is also being followed, i.e. that when money becomes available, it has to be appropriated here. This money is being appropriated by Parliament. The fact that the State is the only shareholder, serves as a guarantee that it will have to report to this Parliament. Hon. members will then, for example, have the opportunity of saying that the Government has now adopted a course when they could have adopted some other more satisfactory course. I cannot therefore understand the hon. member’s complaint, since there is Parliamentary control here as well. The smaller matters, in regard to which hon. members had certain objections, can be dealt with easily during the Committee Stage.

I am grateful that we agree on this major principle, namely that South Africa must have a corporation which is able to meet its defence requirements. I think that it is a great day for this country. I foresee the day when this Corporation will not only play a major part in meeting our own needs, but when it will enable South Africa to meet the needs of other countries as well. South Africa can prove thereby that it sometimes does a country good if pressure is put upon it by others, because it can in that way develop towards greater independence.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, the Third Reading of a Bill is the customary stage at which an hon. Minister, the father of an infant Bill, presents his offspring to Parliament and the world for comment. This is, in the case of this hon. Minister, his first legislative offspring, and under those circumstances we offer him the usual compliments. As the United Party is well-known for its kindness, as all members on the other side will agree, we shall refrain from using the customary phrase in this instance by saying, “Why, it is the spitting image of its father!” We shall not do so. At the same time it is also known that the United Party is well-known for its tact. We will, therefore, refrain from pointing out that in this infant Bill there are some remarkable features very much reminiscent of the hon. the Minister of the Interior and his Public Service Commission. It is also known that the United Party, I believe, is the party for facing up to some inevitable adverse circumstances with fortitude and a stiff upper lip. We are, therefore, prepared in this instance also to stand as godfather to this Bill, because we are agreeing to the Third Reading.

Having said that, I think we should pass on to discussing the future of this Bill. As we have passed it, the basic principle in the long title is that it is to provide for the administration of the affairs of the Post Office on business principles. These business principles will now have to be applied by the hon. the Minister. Whether he succeeds in doing so or not will be the real test of the failure or the success of this Bill. This Bill is not merely giving the Minister the power to build his own post offices or to buy his own vehicles. In fact, basically he has had those powers in the past. This Bill will require from him and his Department a completely new approach and complete rethinking of the attitudes they have adopted in the past. It might actually lead to a complete rebirth of the Post Office. We know that Government Departments are normally cautious, and rightly so. Businesses are aggressive sales organizations. We should like to see in the Post Office after the passing of this Bill, more of the aggressive sales drive that we find in organizations based on business principles. Let us hope, therefore, that this backlog will be overtaken in record time, that this huge backlog of 50,000 to 60,000 telephones will not disappear in five years but in five months, or at least in less than a year. We believe that expansion thereafter can take place, as it does in ordinary businesses, through selling the Post Office, by getting more customers. At present the attitude, if one wants a new telephone, is to say that there is a shortage of exchanges and there are too few lines or not enough cables. We know all these excuses, some of which are justifiable. But when this Post Office, as it is now going to be, is run on business principles, that must not be the attitude. If a person comes to ask for a new service, a new telephone, the reply should be: “Why only one telephone and not two? Take two telephones and have an extension in the kitchen and in the study”.

Order! The hon. member is making a third-reading speech now. He should not speak as if he is discussing the Post Office Vote.

If that is your ruling, Sir, I abide by it. I am looking to the future now, how I see the Post Office after this Bill is passed, and how we should like to see it if it is run as a business. If I may, I should like to show the hon. the Minister some brochures issued by the great telephone companies in America. This is an example of an aggressive sales technique, of running a business on business lines. It is a question of public relations. I will read some of the titles. Here are “The Magic of Your Telephone”, “How the Telephone Works”, and “The Telephone in America”.

Order! Will the hon. member tell me, if this falls under a third-reading debate, what would fall under the Post Office Vote?

I should say that under the Post Office Vote we should find out whether the Minister has been carrying out these things. We are suggesting to the Minister how he can carry out the provisions of this Bill, now that we have agreed to it. We support the third reading of this Bill. I am just discussing with the Minister now what he should do in future, but I will obey your ruling, Sir, and I will not go into further details.

This Act will now be tested in four respects, and the success of it will depend on how these four tests are met. The first test will be whether these new relations between the Post Office and the Treasury will lead to a reduction of the nagging shortages which have been experienced in regard to the telephone services. I am not satisfied with the explanation of the hon. the Minister that it might take five years or more. The second test is this. Will the autonomy which the Minister hopes he will now have in the Post Office, and which many hope this Bill will give, work out in practice? In other words, will the Post Office Personnel Board that we have given the Minister be able to create, as he hopes, the first vestiges of a new post structure for the Post Office and new wage scales, etc? That is a test. I think it must be said here that if this Bill fails that test then this side of the House cannot be blamed, for we have it on record that every hon. member on the other side of the House voted against our firm suggestions and proposals that the hold which the Public Service Commission still has on the Post Office should be relaxed. We did our duty on this side. If this Bill fails that second test, the Government and only the Government will be to blame.

The third test is this. Will it be possible under this Bill to give proper attention to the fair wages and the proper service conditions of the staff itself? The hon. the Minister might believe so. We gave him certain warnings and expressed our doubts. This Bill will have to face that test, and again I say that if this Bill fails that test, we have it down in black and white that every hon. member on that side of the House voted against a proposal that there should be a greater safeguard in this Bill for fair wages and proper service conditions for the employees. If this Bill fails in that respect, we shall be entitled to be completely merciless in our attacks on the Government in that respect.

The last test of this Bill will be whether the Minister will be able to run the Post Office economically to such an extent that if it is economically feasible he can even go so far as to reduce tariffs. If he fails in this, again let it be remembered that the vote of every hon. member opposite has been recorded as being against our suggestions and the provision we wanted to have in this Bill to strengthen the Minister’s hand so that he could reduce tariffs. Those are the four tests, and some of these tests are already upon him. He knows that the staff associations will be approaching him, and the effect of this Bill in meeting that test will soon be seen by everyone.

So there will be no excuse for the failure of this Bill. Our side has done its duty in regard to this Bill. We tried to strengthen the Bill, and the Bill as it stands now is as the Minister wanted it and not as we wanted it. But as we stand godfather to it, we are prepared to support the third reading of this Bill. We were prepared to give the hon. the Minister a sword and a ploughshare, but all he wanted was a penknife and a broom. If that is what he wanted, we are giving it to him and we say that he is going to face those four tests and we shall watch how he meets them. With these few words we on this side of the House bid this infant Bill Godspeed, and we hope it will be able to produce more than we fear it can.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was discussed very thoroughly during the second-reading debate. The objections which the Opposition had against it were thoroughly examined in the Committee Stage, and the hon. member for Orange Grove has now done his level best with a few clever witticisms to try to give a different complexion to the objections he raised during the second-reading debate and in the Committee Stage. But I want to say to the hon. member that he did not succeed in bringing the House under the impression that he was making a brand new speech on the Bill and that he was putting forward something new to-day which he had not noted in the previous stages of the Bill. I do not want to indulge in monotonous repetition, and therefore I do not want to reply to the hon. member in detail again. I just want to mention a few matters which he touched upon again.

The hon. member was very concerned about the business principle basis on which the Post Office is now being placed, and that it would not be based on business principles. But we saw yesterday what the Opposition thinks of business principles. We saw that objections were made against a clause which provides that the Post Office will in future be administered on business principles with regard being had to the promotion of commerce, industry and agriculture. Then the hon. member for Durban (Point), in his zeal to come to the assistance of the hon. member for Orange Grove, came forward with an amendment in which he proposed that the words “and the public” be added. In other words, if it must be a service which satisfies everyone, it will also be a service which cannot be administered on business principles. If one must specifically take into account the interests of the public and not consider the undertaking as such purely as a business undertaking, then one will totally destroy the business principles according to which the Post Office is to be administered; and then it is obvious that one may just as well delete “the promotion of commerce, industry and agriculture”. Then the business principles will cease to apply, because one had a broad objective in view.

The hon. member said that he hoped for a new approach. There will of course be a new approach as a result of the fact that the Post Office will no longer be purely a Government organ, but will become a business undertaking which will be administered on strict business principles. I should like to give the hon. member the assurance that in future, after this law has been passed, this Department will be administered on business principles, and without his assistance. Neither shall I allow the hon. member to dictate to me how these business principles should be applied, because I fear that I shall then land myself in a dangerous position. His knowledge of business principles is dangerous, as he very effectively demonstrated yesterday. I want to illustrate how dangerous the standpoint of the Opposition is with regard to business principles. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) said during the second reading that he would rather see less modernization and expansion of the Post Office at the moment, but that priority No. 1 should be the supplying of telephones. But if we were to do that, hon. members opposite would be the first to accuse us of maladministration. Surely it is obvious that the telephone system as a whole must be developed in proportion as more and more telephone services are provided. More services require larger exchanges, more cables, more trunk lines and the automation and modernization of the system to enable it to carry all the traffic. It is not simply a matter of supplying telephones; there is much more to it than that. It just shows you what a dangerous course we would be adopting in the Post Office if we listened to all the advice which we are getting from the hon. member for Orange Grove, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) and other hon. members opposite. Therefore I shall definitely not pay much attention to the advice which I receive from them. The hon. member also wants to try to dictate to me; he said that the Opposition would keep a close watch on the way in which the legislation was being implemented. I shall not really concern myself about this either. I shall do my duty to the best of my ability. Hon. members may be sure of that. I can do no more than my duty as the Minister concerned who will in future be responsible for this Department. I shall do that duty to the best of my ability.

Then, lastly, the hon. member again tried to create a wrong impression here. He is for ever creating wrong impressions. He simply cannot help himself; not with the best will in the world; he simply cannot avoid doing that. He created the impression that the members of the Government were not in favour of ensuring reasonable and proper conditions of service, reasonable salaries and wages and a stable standard of living for the staff. He also gave the assurance that the members of the Government were not in favour of reducing tariffs when the finances of the Post Office permitted this. Surely the hon. member knows that this is a wrong impression which he is trying to create. Surely he knows what the reasons are. We stated those reasons to him very clearly in the Committee Stage. Why does he repeat that statement to-day? “Reasonable salaries” is a vague concept. It lends itself to all sorts of interpretations. What is one actually saying when one speaks of proper conditions of service? Proper conditions of service will mean one thing to one person and something totally different to another. What is one actually saying when one speaks of stable conditions of service? Sir, if we had inserted that amendment in this Bill, it would have made a farce of this legislation. This side of the House is not prepared to make a farce of important legislation of this nature, and that is the reason why we rejected the amendment, not the reasons which the hon. member for Orange Grove mentioned here to-day.

Mr. Speaker, we have now come to the end of the discussion on this Bill. This measure places the Post Office on a new road, and I hope and trust that with the co-operation of the staff, which is in the final analysis essential to us, the Post Office organization will be developed to what it really ought to be, namely a service in the interests of South Africa, a service in the interests of the economy of South Africa.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Last night when we were dealing with this measure, the hon. member for Transkei, who stated our attitude on this Bill, indicated that we would support clauses 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 of the Bill without qualification and that we would support clause 9 with certain reservations. He indicated that it was clauses 3 and 4 which caused us difficulty. Clauses 3 and 4 make possible the application of the full paraphernalia of Government legislation affecting urban Natives to regions outside urban areas. Sir, I say “full paraphernalia” because it has been possible to apply some of them before, but not all of them. It must be conceded that this is certainly not the first or the main legislation giving effect to Government policy so far as the urban Bantu are concerned. This is not the first occasion on which these matters have been discussed in this House. We had a very full debate indeed on the Better Administration of Designated Areas Bill of 1963. We had a very full debate on the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill of 1964; and by comparison it must be admitted that this is a small measure with merely two provisions. At the same time it does for the first time make the full urban Native legislation applicable to new areas in its fullness. One can say that these new areas are being exposed to the full blast of the Government approach so far as the urban Natives are concerned. Sir, it has been said that our approach to this matter differs fundamentally from that of the Government. I think it would be useful just to sketch very briefly the nature of that difference. First of all, what are the facts, very briefly? The facts are that out of about 12 million Native people in this country, four million are in and around our towns; four million are in the so-called white country areas and four million in the reserves or homelands or Bantustans-to-be, depending upon one’s approach. The important thing is that of those eight million in the so-called white areas, practically all of them have been born here. Practically all the breadwinners of those eight million people work in the so-called white areas.

“So-called”?

Yes, I say “so-called”. I do not know how the hon. member for Koedoespoort can make the unqualified statement that these areas are White when in fact the Whites in these areas are outnumbered by about three to one. But this is the kind of illusion on which our hon. friends opposite like to live. The other fact that I want to mention in this short sketch of the facts that I want to give is that we live in a dangerous world to-day, in a world of big communist powers and in a world of terrorist infiltration amongst our indigenous inhabitants. I want to stress that one would have thought that one needed the loyalty and enthusiastic support of all our people in a situation of this kind. In that situation, Sir, what is the Government’s approach? The approach of the Government is to say to these eight million people in the so-called white area, “Give your loyalty not to us but to the Bantustans-to-be.” They say this irrespective of where these people were born and they tell them that they will have to exercise their rights in these Bantustans. It is interesting that this is the approach of hon. members opposite, because we can remember how they used to attempt to establish that all English-speaking people in South Africa should give their loyalty to South Africa and not to any country abroad. We on this side agreed with that view and attempted to convert those who did not agree with it to this point of view. Their line was that it should be impossible for English-speaking South Africans here to give their loyalty to a country overseas, and now they are attempting by their legislation to foster amongst the Native people the attitude that those living here and born here should give their loyalty, not to us, but to a state which is later to become independent.

A very good parallel.

Hon. members go on to say that these Native people are only here for the purpose of selling their labour; that they are a temporary labour force and not a permanent part of the population of the white areas. It is in pursuance of this ideology that we have this mass, this maze of legislation, affecting the urban Native. It is only necessary to give one or two examples to indicate how different their approach is from ours in this respect. A Native person who has lived here his whole life, who was born here and who is living in one of our cities, can be moved out of it, either to some mythical homeland or to some camp or aid-centre while a newcomer, who may have come in only in the last year or so, may remain and work in this area. This is perfectly possible. One can appreciate to what extent the very fabric of that section of our people can be undermined by such an attitude. Let me give another example. Married people, who work here permanently in our cities or villages, are often not allowed, in terms of this legislation, to bring their families here. They are directed to live in hostels, although they are married and have families. These are but two examples of the wide difference between hon. members on that side and hon. members on this side.

It is comforting to know that we are making converts amongst hon. members opposite to the extent that we know that in Sasolburg 243 families are now living as family units. This has been conceded by the hon. member for Heilbron. He appreciates that where a person is doing a permanent job in the police force and in other spheres, it is necessary for him, in order to be able to do his job properly to live here permanently and to have his family with him. This does not apply only to the police because there are not 243 Bantu policemen in Sasolburg. Among these 243 there are undoubtedly regular Native workers employed on vital work in the Sasolburg chemical industry. Any manufacturer, any industrialist, will tell you that in order to have efficiency in your industry you must have the permanent application by all your workers to their last, and you must build up their skill which can only be acquired by settled life near their work. We therefore welcome the relaxation of this control which is a recognition of the correctness of our attitude to these permanent people with permanent work in the Republic.

What about the mines?

The mines are another matter, by long historical tradition. Even there let me say there is a case to be made out that there should be family units for those Natives who work permanently on the mines, to a limited extent.

The approach of the United Party is different. We favour control and orderly development, but we do not believe that these eight million people, whose numbers have been growing by the years, and recently faster than in any other period in our history, are only temporarily here. We do not believe it. We say that at any time, but especially in these dangerous times we live in to-day, we need their loyalty and their co-operation in what may lie ahead. Let me say that by adopting our approach we had achieved control and orderly development of Native townships over a long period in the past.

Where?

In Cape Town we established Langa long before the Second World War, and long before the Nationalist Party were let loose upon South Africa in 1948.

What happened to Langa?

To-day it still is a model in this field. Langa has been a model from the time of its establishment during the time of the United Party albeit by a municipality not ruled by the United Party. There are other examples also. The hon. members for Port Elizabeth stress to me the fine schemes which Mr. Schauder and others established well before the war. These were well laid out housing schemes and thoroughly orderly. [Interjections.] I can see the hon. the Deputy Minister is getting excited. I want to deal with Johannesburg. I want to tell the Deputy Minister that Orlando was a Native township established during the time of the United Party and it was a completely orderly township, as orderly as one could ever wish to have.

I want to say this, and it is something which hon. members opposite should always remember. They often attribute their difficulties, as far as clearing up poor housing conditions is concerned, to the lack of co-operation of the municipality concerned. I want to tell them that, although the United Party was the government during the war time, the United Party did not control the municipalities where there was this tremendous influx. There is a lot of misunderstanding about this. According to information I have received from the Johannesburg City Council, the first political party to control Johannesburg in that period was the Labour Party. That was in 1945 and 1946. The Nationalist Party entered the council as a party in 1945 and 1946 as well. It was only in 1946-’47 that the United Party took over the control of the Johannesburg municipality.

The Nationalist Party never controlled Johannesburg.

No, it did not control the city, I said it entered the council as a party. The point is this. It was perfectly possible for our big municipalities to establish completely orderly and fine housing schemes for our Native peoples under the Native Urban Areas Act of 1923 and its successor of 1945, which were put upon the Statute Book by this side of the House. There were municipalities operating under this legislation. The United Party Government did not have full control over what the municipalities did, and indeed in debates during this session we have had complaints from hon. members opposite that municipalities are not co-operating satisfactorily with them and they want to change that.

Therefore I say if we want to be fair and correct in our approach, then it must be remembered that this was the situation during the war years. Moreover, during those years, many Native administrators and other people were moved into the war effort, and it is consequently not surprising that there was an influx in certain areas of our country. In the first place it was the duty of the local authorities to control the influx that took place. During no period of the war was the United Party in control of the Johannesburg City Council. Therefore I hope we will have a little more clarity in regard to some of the allegations which we hear from that side of the House.

I want to remind hon. members opposite that under their own governments, from 1924 to 1932, the Nationalist Party was perfectly prepared to operate upon the basis of the Native Urban Areas Act of those days. I want to stress that until the late Prime Minister became a power in the Nationalist Party the party, even in its post-war period of office, was perfectly prepared to operate upon the basis of the Native Urban Areas Acts as they received them from the United Party. It was only when there was the ideological change in the Nationalist Party, that we had this new kind of Native legislation and the new kind of Native Urban Areas Act. Only since that time, since the change in policy, has the Native been considered as one who is not permanently in the White areas. He is regarded as being here merely temporarily and must in some way be linked with his so-called homeland.

I have indicated the basis of our alternative approach, and I wish to stress that we stand for separate residential areas too. I stress we stand, and always have stood in terms of that legislation, for influx control to prevent excessive labour coming into our towns. We have stood steadily for a settled existence for permanent workers with a family life. Other matters matters such as hygiene, over-crowding, health, and so forth, were well controlled and well coped with under the old legislation of those days.

Mr. Speaker, these two clauses, namely clauses 3 and 4, go well beyond what we on this side of the House feel is necessary and what history has shown to be necessary in South Africa. Consequently we feel we must oppose the ideology which has caused the amendments which we have before us in this Bill.

I want to make one last point. There is tremendous complexity in the legislation affecting our urban Natives. Even this two-clause amendment now before us is difficult enough to understand. It is very difficult to see what the implications are. We are grateful for the help we have had from the department in endeavouring to unravel it, but one cannot feel at all certain that one realizes all the implications. Therefore, how can we expect the urban Native to know what he may do and what he may not do? We had this one case brought by a Native which went all the way to the Appellate Division where, with legal advice, he was able to establish something which was news to many people, but this is very much the exception. I say if one does not know what one’s rights are, as these people cannot possibly know, it induces a feeling of insecurity, and I say to the hon. member for Koedoespoort it induces a disregard for the law. Whatever laws this Parliament passes, these people are going to come in search of work. There just is no work for them in their so-called homelands. The work, the money the food, also for their families, can and must be obtained by coming here to work. They are prepared to face the hazards of a prosecution in search of that work. The white employers need the workers just as much as the workers need employment, and more and more employers are taking people into employment irrespective of whether their passes are in order or not. It is so difficult to decide what is the position in regard to passes.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, there is the position of the officials who must administer this legislation. We have already seen that it took the Appellate Division to unravel the particular problem in regard to “Sebokeng”. Before the hon. the Deputy Minister abandoned subsection (5A), as contained in clause 4, it was clear that he was taking powers to apply this legislation to scheduled and released areas. As the hon. member for Transkei said, this appears to be a big contradiction with Government policy, namely not to interfere with those areas. However, he has now, after the introduction of the measure, withdrawn that particular clause. I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Does he want to apply the better administration of the Designated Areas Act of 1963 to Sebokeng?

No, that is why I excluded that clause.

In other words, he is accepting that he cannot legislate in terms of the Designated Areas Act, so far as a section of Sebokeng is concerned?

Yes.

Well, I think that his attitude here shows what a very great maze these laws are, because I believe his original intention and hope was that he could apply the Designated Areas Act of 1963 to not only the whole area of Sebokeng, but any future management areas. So it is interesting to know that he is apparently not attempting to set to right what the Appellate Division found against the department in this regard.

I conclude by saying that this portion of the Bill in clause 4 appears now to be in a singular state of complexity and vagueness. I do not believe it really achieves what the hon. the Minister set out to achieve. In view of our opposition to and our feelings about that section and our attitude towards clause 3 of the Bill, the House will understand why we cannot support it.

Mr. Speaker, we listened here yesterday to the hon. member for the Transkei. He adopted a very moderate attitude and tried to create the impression here that the United Party agreed with this legislation in broad outline. He put one in mind of the cooing of a little dove, trying to gain popularity in both camps.

From the hon. member for Pinelands, however, we received a violent attack, as he expressed it here, on the ideology embodied in this legislation. The hon. member made the point here that we now had approximately 8 million Bantu who, as he said, had acquired residence by birth in “so-called white areas”. His great concern was about these 8 million Bantu who live in the “so-called white areas”. His argument here was that in the difficult times in which we are living, where we are faced with the threat of communism every day, we must go out of our way to gain the loyalty and enthusiastic support for co-operation with the Whites of these 8 million Bantu. If we ever want to have frustration in South Africa among the non-Whites, and among the Bantu in particular, we should implement the policy of the United Party as explained here to-day by the hon. member for Pinelands. I want to dwell on that for a moment. What does the United Party want? The United Party wants us, in the Bantu locations, and in specific cases such as Soweto in Johannesburg, Vlakfontein in Pretoria and Langa in Cape Town, to give permanence to the inhabitants of those areas. In other words, in a location such as these we must now give proprietary rights to those people. If we give these rights to them in those areas, it means that we must go further and give proprietary rights to each non-White in every other small location throughout the country. One would have to give it in Colesberg, Springbok, Windhoek and in every small place throughout the country. What would be the result of that? A large number of these smaller permanent areas throughout the country would be attached to white areas. The result would be that those people would obtain proprietary rights. Once those people received property rights in these areas, they would lay claim to increased rights in these areas, the same rights which they may now lay claim to where they are obtaining permanence in their Bantu homelands. Where they could obtain proprietary rights, they would also have to pay tax. They would have to establish a local authority, and in that local authority there would have to be an entire administration organization. They would have to get a say in those areas in regard to the spending of the taxes collected there, and so on. What would happen if in a city such as Johannesburg, for example, we granted proprietary rights to all the Bantu in Soweto? If one were to carry out the policy of the United Party, as advocated by them to-day, there would be a whole joint administration in Johannesburg, which would not merely be localized, so that one could say that there was a Bantu authority for Soweto, and a white authority for the white areas of Johannesburg. But we want to take a broader view of the matter. We must take a broader view in the matter. We must also view the matter against the background of the broader policy for the whole country which the United Party advocates. If one wanted to carry out their policy logically, it would mean that there would not be separate local authorities for Whites and non-Whites in Johannesburg, but a joint authority for Whites and non-Whites.

Why? How can you say that?

What is the logical conclusion of your policy?

That is precisely the reaction I expected from the United Party. With that I now want to prove that these people are putting up a great bluff to the country and the outside world. They say to the Bantu—and the Bantu must take note of this—that they can get eight representatives in this House, but that in urban areas or local authority areas, where there is a white area alongside a Bantu area, and where they have full rights, just as many rights as in their own homelands, they are not prepared to share local authorities with the Bantu. There they are then—the great advocates of apartheid throughout the country! Mr. Speaker, can you see the hypocrisy in their politics? No, I think that there the United Party is riding two horses. I should like to know what the liberal thinkers in their midst say about this. I have lived with these people in the Johannesburg City Council since 1951. In those days the hon. member for Houghton with her Progressive Party was the tail that wagged the dog. But I want to say to you, Sir, that to-day there are still liberal thinkers in the Johannesburg City Council, and large city councils controlled by the United Party, who are advocates of having a joint city council in which both Whites and non-Whites are represented. This would particularly be the position if the Bantu were granted proprietary rights. I now say that this is where the sting in this whole matter lies. If one should carry the United Party’s policy to its logical conclusion—and I think they would carry out their policy if they should come to power one day; and we say to the world that they would carry it out just as they would carry out this other thing—one would find that one would have joint local administrations in the larger city councils on which both Whites and non-Whites would serve.

Who says so?

What would then happen in a city such as Johannesburg? The other non-white race groups would not be satisfied with that. If the Bantu got that, the Coloureds would immediately agitate for it, and so would the Indians. Now I ask, in the case of a population composition such as that of Johannesburg, where the non-white groups are in the great majority, what would the final consequence of that be? They would be exactly the same as one finds in America to-day in a city such as Washington D.C. They would be exactly the same. [Interjections.] Hon. members must not say “oh, no” now. This would be the real final outcome of the integration policy of the United Party. The sooner the United Party, especially the conservative members of the United Party, men such as Wiley and Myburgh, start realizing this, the better it will be for the United Party and the sooner we shall get the split which we foresee will soon occur within the United Party. That leaven is busy rising and spreading through. We have already had the spectacle here of the hon. member for Transkei putting the conservative side of things to some small extent and the hon. member for Pinelands jumping up and once again delivering a plea to satisfy the liberal element in the United Party a little. The National Party’s policy is clear and lucid. It is not necessary for me to repeat it here once more. We have furnished the practical evidence of it. What happened in Johannesburg in the years when we pleaded for the removal of the black spots there? Who were the people who fought us tooth and nail? The United Party. And what happened? We removed Sophiatown and built a beautiful township for the Bantu in Meadowlands and Diepkloof. I want to ask the United Party if they have not learnt their lesson. Yesterday the hon. member for Transkei, and to-day again the hon. member for Pinelands, referred …

Order! I want to ask the hon. member to get a little closer to the Bill. I do not find the clause that he is now discussing, in the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pinelands discussed the ideology embodied in clauses 3 and 4. I am dealing with that and I shall reply to the hon. member on every point he made.

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill; he is straying too far from it.

This measure is aimed at applying the policy of the National Party consistently. I am speaking of the ideology, because we are not ashamed of that word. It is aimed at embodying National Party ideology in legislation and at ensuring that it is applied here as well. The hon. member was concerned about the vested rights of people which would now be affected. We had the same cry in the case of Sophiatown. Who are the people for whom these hon. members are pleading to such an extent? I think we shall also encounter similar cases in Evaton, i.e. that the persons who now have so-called proprietary rights there which can be affected by this, are people who are loaded up to their ears with all kinds of mortgages. In Sophiatown one could only say in the case of 2 per cent of the people that they had any claim to proprietary rights. Ninety-five per cent of the 2 per cent were persons with first, second and third mortgages on their properties. They were actually the people who were being exploited by the money lenders. Now I say that as far as this legislation is concerned, the people will receive fair treatment when they are separated. It will be seen to that they are treated in a fair and reasonable manner.

Where are you going to remove them to?

Sebokeng is the location to which they are going to be removed. It is high time that that hon. member studied the legislation a little so that he would not ask stupid questions such as this. He is not a stupid person.

The hon. member for Pinelands pleaded here for the creation of a stable Bantu middle class. These are now the people who would preserve law and order in South Africa. In this manner family life would also be maintained. These people’s consciences must certainly be troubling them. Who are the people who in a flagrant manner disrupted the family life of the Bantu in South Africa? Has the hon. member ever delivered a plea here for the abolition of the migratory labour system on the mines, in terms of which a large number of single Bantu are placed in hostels where there is no family life for those people? It does not suit them to do so. Now the United Party accuses us of disrupting family life. The National Party says that the Bantu must maintain his family life in his own area. The hon. member is now concerned about the family lives of the Bantu living in a location; but what about the family life of the Bantu which he has in his own backyard? Has any of those hon. members ever stood up here and pleaded that they be allowed to bring their servants’ husbands or the husbands’ wives into their backyards so that they can have children there and can have a family life there? The only member who most probably allows it in her backyard is the hon. member for Houghton. She is most probably someone who does it in practice. But has any of these hon. members ever allowed it in their backyards? Have they ever taken the mines to task and said that they should not use migratory labour because it means a disruption of family life? No, we cannot apply a double standard, and therefore I say let us be honest towards the Bantu, let us be honest towards the world and let us place this matter on a very high moral level. Let us say to them that we want to establish them and allow them to have a proper family life in their own area. But as far as the white area is concerned, there they are temporary workers, and everything we do, all legislation which we place on the Statute Book, has this as its basis, namely that it is temporary.

The hon. member for Pinelands also maintained that the influx of Bantu to Johannesburg occurred during the war years, when there was not a United Party City Council. But surely that hon. member was already a reasonably developed person in those years, and knew what was going on in the country. Surely he was already old enough for that then. In the war years there was a coalition government between the United Party and the Labour Party here in South Africa. It is true that the Labourites governed the Johannesburg City Council. [Interjections.] But surely legislation to control influx is not made by a local authority, but by this Parliament. Local authorities only act as agents, i.e. they must implement the legislation. If the United Party Government of the time was concerned about the influx of Bantu to Johannesburg, why did they not pass legislation against it and compel the Labour Party City Council of Johannesburg to observe it? But in actual fact the largest influx of Bantu to Johannesburg occurred after the end of the war, i.e. after 1945. A few years later the United Party took over the Johannesburg City Council. Therefore I want to assert to-day that the United Party must shoulder the full blame for the uncontrolled influx of Bantu to Johannesburg in those years. The National Party came forward with a policy to control the influx, and then again it was the recalcitrance of the United Party-controlled City Council which was responsible for a large-scale influx of Bantu. The history and the record of the United Party are well known. As far as the National Party is concerned, we stand by the 1964 and preceding legislation. All we want to do with this Bill, is to eliminate irregularities which have come to light since then, by means of amendments to the existing legislation.

Mr. Speaker, who would have thought that a little Bill like this would have led to such a heated debate? I am absolutely astonished, particularly in view of the fact that we were always being assured in this House that as soon as there were no more African Representatives in this House, there would not be any debates on native affairs. But here we have a very simple amending Bill and a very heated debate over certain basic and elementary aspects of racial policy. This only goes to show, Mr. Speaker, that this is the political issue in South Africa. Because, however much we may try to remove it from here, it comes back time and time again.

When I first read this Bill I, in common with certain other hon. members, was in doubt as to its interpretation. Although it is a short Bill, it is complicated. Some of its clauses are non-contentious, while others, particularly the two to which the Opposition objected—to which I will add a further two—are very complicated. One has to delve back into many other Statutes in order to find out exactly what they mean. At first I was of the opinion that there effect was simply to give the hon. the Minister explicit power to do what in fact was implicit in the law already. That is so, is it not? The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration nods his head. Well, that is how I interpreted it—that the Minister had the power all along to do these things, e.g. to declare an area inside or outside an urban area to be a prescribed area and thereafter to look for somebody to administer the legislation regarding urban areas and also the Native Labour regulations. This someone would be either a local authority, if there was one in the vicinity, or otherwise the Bantu Affairs Commissioner. That power was implicit in the law as it stood. Now he gets that power explicitly.

I am fully in agreement with other hon. members on this side of the House who complain that this law has become so complicated to-day that one literally has to go through a maze before reaching the end of it. How an untrained and uneducated African can be expected to know what his obligations are in terms of the law, or what his rights are, such as he has, is beyond me.

Do you know all the laws that affect you?

No, and Heaven forbid that I should know them. But at least I know about those laws which restrict my mobility, laws prescribing where I may live and where I may earn my living. These are, after all, one’s basic human rights. But it is virtually impossible for the African to know this. It is time, therefore, that we have a consolidation. Of course, I should like to see the majority of these scrapped, because I do not think they are necessary. But while we have them on the Statute Book, let the hon. the Minister, his deputies and his department at least see if they cannot do something about consolidating them, the Bantu Urban Areas Act particularly. I do not think there has been a consolidation of this Act since 1945 and there have been many amendments since then. The Native Labour Act has, of course, been consolidated fairly recently.

As far as the Bill before us now is concerned, I too object to clauses 3 and 4. These clauses now extend to the Minister the explicit power to apply the full force of the Urban Areas Act to additional areas in the Republic. In addition I am not very keen on clauses 5 and 6 either. By agreeing to these clauses, I think the Official Opposition gives away its entire argument against Bantustans, as also they do by agreeing to influx control. The minute one agrees to influx control over Africans born in South Africa—I am excluding those coming from outside our borders—one is conceding as a basic principle that there is a white South Africa and a black South Africa. That to me is logical. But the United Party wants to have it both ways—on the one hand it says movement should be controlled and it keeps on talking about “so-called white areas”. At the very moment it says there must be control of movement it is conceding that there are white areas in fact, into which Black citizens should not be admitted. The reserves are a temporary expedient or should be, as far as I am concerned, if one really considers South Africa as a multi-racial whole, a temporary expedient until their under-developed people are educated and assisted to a point where they can compete on an equal level. I am all for equal opportunities. One must see to it that people who are competing are given the same basic opportunities for education, etc., before they can compete equally with the more developed and educated racial group. Therefore I do not concede that there are territorial tribes, governments, etc. who should have appointed representatives, as clauses 5 and 6 lay down, for the Africans living in the so-called white areas, because you either agree that there are white areas or black areas, or you do not. I do not, and the United Party does. But they do not accept the consequences thereof. The Government, on the other hand, maintains that there are these separate areas, but they in turn completely ignore the facts of life, which are the facts as stated by the hon. member for Pinelands, although he does not accept the logical consequences thereof, namely that 8 million Africans in fact live their whole lives in the so-called white South Africa. If that is true, and it is true because there are 4 million Africans, roughly, living on white farms who have been there for ever and a day; they have been there for their lifetime and the lifetime of their antecedents, and their children will probably be there, too, and there are to-day an increasing number of Africans living in the so-called white towns, who were born there. Their fathers were born in the towns, and their children will be born there, and they will be there for ever and a day. Even if their status is changed and they are made migratory workers and section 10 is removed and they lose their 30-year leasehold, they will still be there physically, living in those towns. Once one concedes that, one comes right back to the point of view that South Africa is multiracial and that all of us have been placed here for good or for bad, whether one likes it or not, by the good Lord to live out our lives in South Africa. If it is a multi-racial country, then, as I say, one should not regulate the movements of one’s citizens, and that is why I cannot agree with clauses 3 and 4 which extend further the authority over movement and where one shall live, and where not, in the country of one’s birth. I do not agree with clauses 5 and 6, which appoint these territorial authorities to represent people who have never seen a territorial authority in their lives. These Africans were born in white towns or on white farms and they do not know a territorial authority from a bar of soap, I was going to say, but they will know what a bar of soap is. I disagree with clauses 3, 4, 5 and 6. Clauses 1 and 2 are not very important. Clause 1 relates to an old fee, which has fallen into desuetude, which was paid by the Africans of Grahams-town for education, and the other clause is not very important either. This is the Bill and I am not going to vote for it, because, as I say, it extends the authority of the Minister.

I was going to finish now, but I have a word or two to say to the hon. member for Benoni on the question of the granting of freehold rights in the townships which belong to the white municipalities, in which the official Opposition wants to extend to Africans what they call controlled freehold rights, although I am not sure what they mean by that. As far as I am concerned, if you live in a town and you can earn and save enough money to buy yourself a piece of freehold land, that is well deserved. I do not know what other criteria are going to be applied to decide whether a man may or may not own a piece of freehold land. But I would say to the hon. member for Benoni that we already have the state of affairs in South Africa—and I am now talking from the practical rather from the theoretical point of view—where Africans do own freehold land in close proximity to urban areas. Take Umlazi as an example, and Ga Rankuwa, near Rosslyn, at Pretoria. [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister is quite right. Those are scheduled or released—I am not quite sure which—areas, but he will surely agree with me that it was just a sheer accident of history that those areas happened to be scheduled areas and Soweto is not a scheduled area.

Is it not an accident of history that Holland is where it is?

The Deputy Minister must not be so smart about this, because he has been doing a bit of swapping around between black areas and white areas. Mdantsane definitely was not a reserve, but it has been created as reserve territory in order to help East London develop its industries, and it is called a border industry area, so that makes it quite in order with the Government. And we have heard from the Minister or one of his Deputies, or our friend the aspirant in the corner over there, that the whole of Natal is a border industry, if I am not wrong. The Deputy Minister said the other day that in any case Natal is excluded and that none of these planning Acts would apply to Natal. All I can say is that Natal is lucky. It can go ahead with its industrial development and it can become the major industrial province in South Africa. [Interjections.] Well, what is wrong with the poor old Transvaal, may I ask? Why should it not continue to develop its natural resources just because by the sheer accident of history there is Umlazi right next to Durban and there is Hammarsdale right next to Manitzburg, and the whole of Natal is in this lucky position? And now we have this position at East London. By a swap, and not by a lucky accident of history in that there happened to be some African tribes living in that area when the 1913 and the 1936 Land Acts were passed, Mdantsane is now made a reserved territory. There is also talk that the other Natal township. Kwa Mashu, will also become reserved territory. Is that right or wrong?

It is right.

It is right. So there we have a nice, honest, open sort of Chris Barnard type of admission. Kwa Mashu is going to become a reserve. The hon. member for Benoni is a very logical person indeed. Often, when I want to understand Nationalist Party politics, I listen very carefully to what he says, because he has a nice logical flow, although it is all based on the wrong premises. Would that hon. member explain to me why Soweto cannot be declared a reserve? [Interjections.] That hon. member is busy cutting beaches out of South Africa that were pure white. Now some are white and some are Coloured, and so on, but he gets annoyed when I mention Soweto. Soweto is not such a very big area. It only covers a couple of square miles. If it is the actual area that is worrying hon. members, because not one single inch more of land is going to be given to the Africans than the 19 million morgen of land set out under the original 1913 Act and the 1936 Act, if that is what is worrying them, then let us do a swap. Let us work out exactly what the total area of Soweto is and let us swap it for a black spot somewhere else where by an accident of history there were Africans living. Then, just like Umlazi right next door to Durban and Mdantsane right next door, cheek by jowl with East London, and Ga Rankuwa, only seven miles from Rosslyn and Pretoria, let us call them Bantu areas or reserve townships, or whatever you like, and allow freehold rights, and allow people to live there with their families and then ½million people will sleep secure in their beds because they will not have their family lives disrupted. Let me tell you, Sir, that the ½million white people in Johannesburg will also sleep more securely, because irrespective of the status of these people, whether they are de jure permanent residents or temporary sojourners, the physical presence of ½ million Africans remains in Soweto next to the white people of Johannesburg. I say, and any intelligent sociologist will say, that the very fact that you give people permanency and allow them to live their family lives untouched by the insecurity that they may be moved at any time, the very fact that they know that their jobs are secure, and that should they leave their jobs in that area they can freely seek a job elsewhere in Johannesburg, or even on the whole of the Witwatersrand, which could then be designated a border industry area, will make a difference to the security of the two population groups. I am not trying to make political capital and I am not being jocular, but I cannot understand the logic.

What about the increase?

Well, you know, people are going to go on breeding, whether that hon. member on the back bench calls them temporary sojourners or permanent residents. They go on breeding because that is where they are living, and what is more, you are far more likely to have settled family life and a lower illegitimacy rate than you have at the present stage. The terribly high illegitimacy rate results because the families are broken up and the men do not have their wives with them. Surely the hon. member realizes that.

Why do you not use that argument for Langa, too?

But I do. I have given Soweto as an example because I know Soweto. But I can see no logical reason, where there are these huge, settled urban populations, why they should not be left as settled populations. [Interjections.] The Minister does not usually care about moving people around and he is quite happy to go on swapping black spots for white spots anywhere when it suits him. There is very little consolidation of the reserves going on as far as one can see. But there is a great deal of swapping of land going on.

Are you in principle opposed to giving them freehold rights in Houghton?

As far as I can see, this is an economic question. [Interjection.] I see South Africa ultimately as opening up for all the people of this country. The hon. member must not misunderstand me. I am against any entrenched law which prevents people from owning property. [Interjections.] I cannot afford what other people can afford, and they cannot afford what I can afford, but this is not a socialist economy and it is not a communist economy. As long as you give people equal opportunities, whatever level they reach thereafter is entirely up to themselves, and their colour is immaterial as far as I am concerned. Now, as far as I am concerned, this Bill is one which, as I said, I would never have thought would engender this wide discussion on policy. I am however always glad of the opportunity to discuss policy. This is a Bill which I will vote against for obvious reasons. It extends something which I am basically against anyway, and which I believe does not assist in solving our racial problems at all. What it does is to push people out of sight and they can be unemployed there. The hon. member for Heilbron yesterday referred to his constituency, in which part of Sasolburg falls; the unfortunate part of Sasolburg falls within his constituency. He says that the part which belongs to his constituency has suffered from an influx of Africans who settle down in these squatter camps and, he then added this significant thing, “who work in Sasolburg”. As long as the people are working, why should he care? Does he not realize that it is part of the industrial development of this country that people should come and work in the areas where employment is offering?

On what clause are you talking?

I am talking on the clause referred to by the hon. member for Heilbron. There is nothing to stop the municipality of Heilbron from building houses. There is no reason why squatter camps should develop. There was no reason during the war and post-war years why those disgraceful squatter areas around Johannesburg should have arisen, because if the municipality of the day, whether it was controlled by the Labour Party or ultimately by the United Party, had got down to the job of building houses, we would not have had those disgraceful squatter camps arising. Interestingly enough, when the Fagan Commission reported in 1948 on urban Africans, it found that less than 4 per cent of the Africans in those areas were unemployed—a minute figure. All the others were actively engaged in helping to build up our economy, and indeed our whole war effort would have been frustrated if we had not had that labour, both in Johannesburg and in Cape Town, manning the Docks, and doing all the loading and off-loading, as they have been doing since the closing of Suez. We all forget about the need for labour. We all talk as though these people are unemployed Gypsies flocking into the cities and causing us social problems. Sir, those people are employed by South Africa. They have helped to develop our national income and without them we would all be the poorer—everyone of us; Black, White, Coloured and Indian, urban dwellers and farmers—and the hon. member for Heilbron should not forget this. The problem is to build houses, not to push people out, not to stop industrialists from using labour, not to push people back into areas where there is no employment. That does not solve the problem of unemployment. That problem remains; it just gets pushed out of sight, but if we tackle this sociologically there is no reason why we should not in fact cope with the problem perfectly adequately. Sir, that is why I am against any further controls. I am against influx control in principle. I believe that this Bill is going in the wrong direction. The hon. the Minister and his Deputy Ministers would do the country a service if they now started whittling away these laws instead of adding to them.

We have not seen the hon. member for Houghton in such a humourous mood and with so friendly a face in this House for a long time. I wonder if it is not attributable to the fact that we granted her an increase about which she is now very happy.

Order! Which clause of the Bill is that?

I am now speaking on the clauses on which the hon. member spoke all afternoon. If one must judge by the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, it would afford her the greatest pleasure to have all legislation dealing with the non-Whites in the Republic of South Africa torn to shreds and cast to the four winds so that chaos could reign throughout the length and breadth of the country. This is how the hon. member for Houghton feels about all this legislation. She is against influx control; she wants no control measures. She wants the non-Whites to be able to move from one place to another without the application of influx control. I want to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she is in favour of a non-White, if he can afford it, being allowed to buy a house next to her in Houghton. She would not mind.

I would not mind at all.

We are very glad to hear that she would not mind a non-White living next to her. She is at least honest as far as that is concerned, and that is what we respect in her. But I want to tell her to-day that she is the only one who feels that way. There will be very few people in her own party who feel or think that way, and I am convinced that if she says that in her constituency, Houghton, the United Party candidate will win the next election there.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to return to dealing with the United Party. We know exactly where the hon. member for Houghton stands and we appreciate her frankness; she is beyond redemption. I should like to return to dealing with the United Party Opposition. When the hon. member for Benoni spoke, they became very upset, especially my good friend, the hon. member for Transkei. They became upset when the hon. member for Benoni said that under their policy non-Whites would eventually sit as representatives on the city councils. They all set up a cry. But they are prepared to grant representation to the non-Whites in the highest council in the country, here in Parliament. Where is the logic? What did Mr. Cutten, a Johannesburg City Councillor, say? Did he not plead that non-Whites should represent their own people on the Johannesburg City Council? He is the one who pleaded for that. I now ask the United Party: If they want to grant the non-Whites representation in this Parliament, why do they want to withhold representation from them in the lowest form of government, namely local administration? Why must they then have their own parliament? Why can they not have their own city councils?

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill now. This Bill is not concerned with political representation on city councils.

Sir, I do not want to argue with the Chair, but I just want to say to you on a point of order that this matter was discussed at length by the hon. member for Houghton. She had the privilege of discussing any subject here this afternoon.

Order! I allowed it in view of what was said by the hon. member who spoke before her, and who covered as wide a field. The hon. member must now return to the Bill.

Sir, there are two small clauses in the Bill about which the United Party are making a tremendous fuss to-day. It is specifically these two clauses on which we disagree so radically in this Parliament, and about which a great storm broke loose in this debate, but it is specifically these two clauses which embody the principles of the National Party. That is why the National Party is represented in this Parliament by 126 members to-day, while there are hardly 39 members sitting opposite, it is specifically the principles contained in these two clauses which have afforded us the majority in this House.

Which are illegal.

They are not illegal. They are two principles with which we have gone to the electorate time and again. We said that there should be proper control and influx control. To-day the United Party comes along here and objects because we want to extend that control to areas bordering on our large cities. We are just moving the borders further and further. Even if the whole of the Republic of South Africa must eventually be included in this, we shall do it, because it is our policy. This is where the clash occurs between the National Party and the United Party, because our policy differs from theirs like day and night. We see the daylight and for hon. members on the other side it is pitch-dark.

You are conjuring up black spectres.

No, we are not conjuring up spectres. That hon. member must watch out that the black spectre of which he speaks does not overtake him and catch him; he must be very careful.

I should like to return to the speech made by the hon. member for Pinelands. He stuck out his chest here and said that under the United Party regime certain city councils, which he mentioned, had come forward to provide housing for the Bantu. He mentioned, among others, Port Elizabeth (City). But did Port Elizabeth (City) not accept Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd’s site and service scheme? Was the site and service scheme not the policy of the National Party? [Interjections.] It is indeed the policy of the National Party which eventually gave Port Elizabeth what it has to-day. What were the conditions under the United Party regime? With the kind permission of the hon. member for Graaff-Reinet, I should like to read to the hon. member for Yeoville what the position was in those days. I quote from the Star of 21st March, 1968. This city council was a United Party one and it still is to-day, but the constituency is held by the National Party. I quote—

Then the following appears under the heading “Showplace”—

And that policy was the policy of the National Party—

If it were not for the policy of the National Party, then we would not have had these beautiful “showplaces” throughout the Republic of South Africa. If we were to implement the policy of the United Party, as advocated by the hon. member on that side who pleaded for “a stable family life” for the Bantu and who pleaded that the wives of the Bantu be allowed to come to the urban areas, what would happen? The hon. member for Queenstown showed us in this debate what would happen in the Western Cape if the wives and children of all the male Bantu were to come to the urban areas. Absolute chaos would result. All that the Opposition is being asked here, is to grant the Deputy Minister the authority to extend these powers to neighbouring areas. If we do not do this in good time, chaos and slum conditions will develop. We on this side of the House give our full support to the Minister in carrying this legislation through, because this is the only logical legislation for applying apartheid and for bringing about peace and order in our country.

Mr. Speaker, the turn that this debate took was started, I think, by the hon. member for Heilbron who became very excited during his speech and before long he was laying down the law, explaining what the Native policy of this side of the House is, and he tried to pin those statements onto the speeches that had been made by the hon. member for Transkei. Of course, the way in which he put those things was quite incorrect. Let us go back to first causes and have a look at the Bill now before us. Let us deal with some of the points here.

As far as the Bill is concerned it is quite clear what the Government has in mind. They want to clear up a certain area which, on the face of it, needs clearing up. Let us be frank about these things. We on this side have no objection to these areas being cleared up: If they need clearing up, they should be cleared up. By and large history has shown that the resources of the provincial councils, municipalities, and other local authorities have been inadequate to deal with the problem of the influx of large numbers of Bantu into our urban areas because of the tremendous industrial development which has been taking place. That development, starting down here in the Cape during the First World War, introduced a large number of Bantu into the Western Cape. They came down in large numbers seeking employment which they found here, they settled here, and their irregular urbanization took place. So I want to say to the hon. member for Heilbron that when he alleges we on this side are not worried about the clearing up of these areas he is quite incorrect, because we are just as concerned about it as the Government are.

The Bill lays down that the clearing up can take place by the clearing up of a prescribed area which is in an urban area. As far as I know all the urban areas to-day are prescribed areas. If there is an irregular urbanization of Bantu outside those areas then the prescribed area can be extended to the irregular urbanization area and it can also be proclaimed a prescribed area. It is possible for an excision to be made of part of an existing urban area. In the new area, plus any piece of land excised from an existing urban area, if necessary, there can be by arrangement with the local authority be created a body to deal under the Urban Areas Act, the Native Labour Regulations Act and the Betterment Act, etc., with the clearing up of that area. If that fails then the Government can appoint the local Bantu Affairs Commissioner, or hereafter a management board, to act, and it can give the board the authority and the powers of a Bantu Affairs Commissioner as well as the powers which would be enjoyed by a local urban authority under the Urban Areas Act, and so forth. Here we are at one with the Government when it comes to the need to clear up unsatisfactory spots, and may I say in passing, and the need to exercise influx control. I know the hon. member for Houghton does not agree with that, but we as an Opposition have always agreed with it because we have always seen the need for it. But we join issue when it comes to the following matter. As regards the Bantu who are already there, people who have certain rights, we believe those rights should be protected. Where Bantu are legally at the present time, their rights should be protected. If coupled with those rights there is the right to a family life which is at present being enjoyed, then it should not be claimed, as was done in a Press report recently, that their wives and children are surplus Bantu who must go back to their homeland. I think it was the hon. member for Heilbron who had said it. They are not surplus Bantu; they are people who have got rights there. When the hon. member on this side said this, the hon. member for Heilbron said the United Party policy was to demand the right for Bantu to own property, to own their own homes and have their wives and families in white areas.

That is the case.

Other hon. members opposite are backing the hon. member for Heilbron. Of course our policy is nothing of the kind. This is pure politics, and that statement is pure politics. It was said for no other reason than that the hon. member for Heilbron, realizing there will be other tests of public opinion and other “Swellendams” coming along, wants to have it down in Hansard so that he can go around and say: “In Hansard you can see what I said United Party policy was and it was not denied. There it is, that is United Party policy.” [Interjections.] When the hon. member for Heilbron preaches United Party gospel then it is like the Greeks bearing gifts—we have to be very much on our guard. There can be all the difference in the world between the right of a Native to have his wife and family with him where they have a legal right to be without enjoying home ownership and the right to own the land. I hope the hon. member for Heilbron will appreciate that.

That is not what the hon. member for Transkei said. Read his Hansard.

I know what the hon. member for Transkei said. I listened to what he said. It is perfectly true that where it is possible through proper governmental management to provide that the Bantu shall have home life, we on this side should like to see them enjoying that home life. But to arrange and control such a scheme is beyond the capacity of the present Government; that we are prepared to admit. I was surprised to hear what the hon. member for Benoni said because I did not know he was following the footsteps of the hon. member for Heilbron inasmuch as he was allowing his sentiments and his feelings to run away with him. It was a most extraordinary outburst on the part of the hon. member for Benoni, with all due respect to the hon. member. The hon. member …

… is unsure of himself; we must sympathize with him.

The hon. member painted a picture, following on the hon. member for Heilbron, of every little drop throughout South Africa—those were his words— haying Bantu with their wives and families all living amongst the white people in the little drops—so that we will have a sort of piebald population in every little drop. [Interjections.] What an extraordinary picture!

Is that not your policy?

The hon. member asks me if that is not our policy. Hon. members have jibed at us and said they can buy our policy for a sixpence. Why do not hon. members opposite then get five cents and buy the policy? It is written down. [Interjections.] It is five cents now, it used to be a sixpence, for the hon. member’ information. That kind of statement is so completely frivolous, it is so completely exaggerated. It gets us nowhere in a serious debate of this kind because this is a serious debate. The Government is struggling with a certain problem in Evaton. What is to be done about it? If legislation is necessary then we say, subject to certain principles, we would be willing to help, but we cannot help the Government as far as this measure is concerned because it violates our principles.

The hon. member dealt with the fact that there are black spots, black areas, black belts still existing to-day, and he asked in effect what did the United Party do until 1948 when they were in power; why did they not clear all these places up; why did they have all these areas, the black spots? Why has the Government not cleared them up since 1948? They are still working at it. This Bill is an effort to grapple with some of those black spots and those black areas that are still left there. They have not been able to build Rome, not even a white Rome, in a day. They are still battling with this problem. We know the Bantu are there and we know that with the industrial development taking place in South Africa more Bantu will leave their so-called homelands to come and find employment in our white industries in our white areas.

And we need them.

Yes, and we need them. If South Africa is to progress as it should, we must have them. When I see the forecasts made regarding our annual progress in the future, I whisper very hoarsely under my breath: “Subject to Native labour being available.” Because we are dependent upon our non-white labour. All these prognostications as to how fast and at what rate of progress our economic development will proceed is entirely dependent upon the availability of labour. So it is not sufficient for us to take the Bantu who are illegally in the white areas and send them back to their so-called homelands. We must, in our own interests, make it easy for those Bantu who desire to work for us in our industries and our commercial undertakings to come and work here.

When I say that other courses are open— and it is no good grousing because all the black spots and black belts were not cleared up in 1948—I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Deputy Minister to legislation in Natal which goes back long before 1948, namely the local health commission and the work it was appointed to do in clearing up black spots and black belts. There was one limitation, namely the limitation of finance. It was financed almost entirely by the provincial council. Some three or four years later the Transvaal appointed the Peri-urban Areas Board—the hon. member will remember the Peri-urban Areas Board—which took, clause by clause, many of the clauses of the local health commission ordinance in Natal. Both these ordinances were designed to deal with the clearing up of the black spots and the black belts.

Edendale was one.

Yes, Edendale and Claremont. A number of these places were brought under control. Here again I want to say that they were brought under control so that public health measures, proper water, sewerage, and so on, could get proper attention and be properly dealt with. I want to tell hon. members that this is the policy of this side of the House. When the Government talks about these management boards where the Bantu will establish committees to run their affairs at a certain local level, it is in line with our policy, although it may be for a different reason. I want us to look at the problem to see how we can deal with it. First and foremost, we say that the Bantu who are there legally, with man, wife and children, should have their rights protected. Of course we are giving him freehold rights. They may not have that freehold right, but if they are there legally those rights should be protected, particularly if they are employed. The proper clearing up from the point of view of water, sanitation and public health should be attended to. If necessary, a proper measure should be applied. If there is some form of a management board to be established there so that there is proper local government control, let us not talk a lot of nonsense about seeing black mayors of Johannesburg, or as the hon. the Deputy Minister said the other day, that in ten years time, under United Party policy, there will be a black Prime Minister in South Africa.

Did you say that?

Yes.

Shocking!

These kind of wild statements only bedevil what is a very serious matter. They only bedevil relations, create discord and create trouble. [Interjections.]

Order!

This serves no purpose. We stand for the clearing up from the point of view, as I say, of sanitation, water supply, public health, and so forth. We stand for local committees to deal with local affairs. That was in our policy long before the Nationalists came around to it. That is one of the outstanding cases where they took the United Party policy. They now see among the Bantu the need to create, within the Bantu, their own committees running their own local affairs at a certain local level. They see that for themselves, and see that it is necessary. They have taken this and put it into legislation. That is fine. Here again, the same could apply. The moment that you apply the Urban Areas Act, the Native Labour Regulation Act, and the Betterment Act—and those are the instruments that are used by the Government for the purpose of dealing with this particular area to which I am limiting myself to—then the provisions of those Acts must be applied. These are improper instruments for the purpose. What is needed is an instrument like the local health commission or the Peri-urban Areas Board, where the Bantu can stay and are legally resident with their wives and families under those circumstances, namely where they are living, and where they are employed. They can do that without having the harsh provisions, which were necessary in bygone days, applied to them in terms of the Urban Areas Act. When the Urban Areas Act is itself used as the instrument, as it is used here, it will be harsh and will play hardly on the people concerned. Let us think about this. I do not believe that, if we were left free of party affiliations for one whole day, and be able to sit here and discuss from the point of view of national welfare and national well-being, a system which takes tens of thousands of Bantu males and herds them together, irrespective if they are married or not in their own homes, as single men living for months and months together in huge dormitories in areas which run into hundreds and hundreds of acres of land, we can then turn around and put our hands on our hearts and say that that is the best service that we can render to the Bantu of South Africa. I do not believe it. I believe that, free of party affiliations, this House would say: That is wrong. What we require now, is a Government measure, because the Government is responsible. They have the power, the initiative and the authority. This measure should deal adequately with the provision of the necessary homes for the Bantu family man so that he can have assured employment in a assured home with his wife and family.

Also for the mines?

Let me remind the hon. the Minister that it was suggested in the Free State by Harry Oppenheimer and he offered to pay, and this Government turned it down. They refused to allow it.

May I ask the hon. member a question? I would like to know what that hon. member’s views are in regard to the mines; not Harry Oppenheimer’s. What are his views in regard to the mines?

I have just said that I believe that this system is wrong. I believe that it is a matter of government, of enactment. While we stand for home ownership I am not at this moment pleading necessarily for home ownership in the sense of freehold title; I am pleading for home life. I am pleading for title where title is legally acquired. If in mines in other countries and other places white men can live with their wives and children, how come the Government does not have the wit to find the means of finding room for a black man to live with his wife and children also when they are working in the mines?

The hon. member for Heilbron did his best to avoid having to admit yesterday that there are certain Bantu living with their wives and children at Sasolburg. He wriggled and wriggled and did his best to escape it, but he was pinned down, and he had to admit that it is so. He said that these people are police boys, indunas and others. Precisely, Mr. Speaker, there can be police boys and indunas when they are living on the premises and working there, living under proper conditions; they are living at Sasolburg. Yes, they are living alongside of a mine. What is wrong with it? There was no difficulty found in dealing with that particular problem there. That solution may be in respect of a small area and a small number of people, 290 or 300 or whatever the hon. member said. But it points the way; it can be done. If one goes to the local Health Commission in Natal or the peri-urban areas board in the Transvaal, one will find that they are dealing with tens of thousands of these people, not 250. They are finding no difficulty in administering the areas and in bringing their health up to a proper standard and in giving the people a local say in their own affairs. So, let us be quite clear where we stand as far as the United Party is concerned. We want these areas cleared up. We are prepared to have management committees for local affairs at a local level. But we say: Let the Government find the means of bringing about a system whereby in the course of time—It cannot be done overnight; nobody on this side believes that it can be—these areas are cleared up. The Government has not cleared up the black spots in the 20 years they have been in power. They will not clear up this problem, as I say, overnight. It will take time. But it will pay dividends to South Africa.

Are you prepared to wait?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks whether I am prepared to wait. Have I any other choice? If it were to rest on the shoulders of the hon. member, I am afraid that I would have to wait a long time. There are hon. members on the other side who will appreciate the significance of it. Let them face the problem. The problem is that tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of married Bantu are living as single men for month after month in barracks. Is it good from whatever point of view one may take it, that that shall be the position here in South Africa? I say that it is one of the greatest evils that is facing us. It can be dealt with. I am going to say again that I do not demand it overnight; none of us do because that would be ridiculous. But a start has been made at Sasolburg by the local health commission and the peri-urban areas board and it can be carried out. The only authority in South Africa with the resources to do it is the Government itself but it will pay dividends. So let us have no more of this nonsense about the fact that we want a Native to live with his wife and children in a home of his own, whether the title is home-ownership or whether he has a right there as a lessor or whatever it may be. Because we want that, we are going to have held up to us a picture of where all our councils are going to be invaded by black men, Parliament is going to be invaded by black men and we are going to have black Prime Ministers sitting in this House. All that kind of nonsense gets us nowhere. It is much too serious a problem and far too great an evil to permit of that kind of nonsensical talk from anybody, particularly those with a sense of responsibility in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not mind if I come back to the Bill.

Yes, and to the real United Party policy.

We shall have ample time under the relevant Vote to discuss the matters which the hon. member for South Coast has now discussed.

Yes, so slyly (skelm).

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “slyly”.

Mr. Speaker, I withdraw it.

I just want to say that if the pattern which those hon. members want to follow is that the Bantu may come to the urban areas according to the demand and on a family basis, we shall have four times as many Bantu on the Witwatersrand and in Cape Town and all these areas within 10 years as we have at present. And then my estimate of 10 years is probably far too long a period.

With influx control.

If we allowed labour to come in according to the demand, there would be no such thing as influx control. I just want to thank the hon. member for Transkei for his kind words of praise towards our Department and towards me. I appreciate it very much. He looked strange in the capacity of “I thank the Minister”, but I want to thank him sincerely for what he said.

I thanked you for the courtesy we do not usually get.

I can give the hon. member the assurance that we deserve it too. I agree with the hon. member for Houghton, because I also did not think that this very innocent Bill would evoke such a tremendous discussion, because virtually the entire Bantu policy has been discussed. I am not going to follow suit, because, as I have said, our Votes will come up for discussion one of these days and then we shall have a full five hours to discuss these matters. Then we shall probably be able to discuss them to our hearts’ content.

I want to come back to the Bill. The hon. member for Transkei spoke about clause 9. He saw some objection to clause 9 in the sense that the corporations would compete with private interests in the brewing of Bantu beer. Of course, this cannot happen, because Bantu beer is not sold by private concerns.

But it can.

No, it cannot. It can only be sold by local authorities and certain employers. [Interjections.] The local authorities are the only bodies allowed to sell Bantu beer to bottle stores. The bottle stores can only sell it after consultation with the local authorities. I can give the hon. member the assurance that where local authorities want to brew their own Bantu beer, we will not give the corporation the right to sell it there against the will of the local authority. There are, in fact, such authorities that do not want to sell Bantu beer to bottle stores. Some of them only want enough beer for a beerhall. Then we see no reason why the corporations may not sell Bantu beer to bottle stores. There will therefore be no competition in this field with private concerns.

I now come to clauses 3 and 4. Clauses 3 and 4 comprise nothing more than giving us the power to control certain areas where there are large concentrations of Bantu and over which we have no control to-day. One such area is at Camden power station, where there is a large concentration of Bantu. Clause 3 now gives us the power to allow the City Council of Ermelo to control Camden. The hon. member for Transkei said that he was afraid that we would now declare the entire country a prescribed area. We only want the powers contained in this clause in order to control large concentrations of Bantu in certain areas. That is why clause 3 has been included in the Bill.

You therefore do not agree with the member for Brakpan.

He said “if necessary”. If we have large concentrations of Bantu who cannot be controlled in terms of our present legislation, then, surely, we must take the powers to control them.

Clause 4 deals only with the position of Evaton, which is a released area and which we now want to bring under the control of the Sebokeng Board. The Sebokeng Board issued certain regulations to control the position in Evaton. These regulations were found illegal by the Supreme Court as well as on appeal. All we want to do now, is to give to the Sebokeng Board the power to control Evaton. Evaton decidedly needs control. I may also just add that the intention is to cut out Evaton as a released area when it is practicable and to have it controlled as an urban Bantu residential area by the Sebokeng Board. The only point on which they and we differ—and the hon. member for South Coast virtually said this himself—relates to the method of control. The hon. member for South Coast and Transkei said that their method of control is that the people should be there on a family basis. They should be able to own property there, and a middle class should be developed and so forth. But that is precisely the type of control which is being applied in Evaton to-day. They can come there on a family basis. There is no influx control and they own land there. But Evaton is the greatest mess you can imagine. It is the worst slum area and shanty town that one can find. That is their method of control.

It is because there is no control there.

But we do not have the power to control it because our regulations were declared illegal. Consequently we now want that power. It is now going to be cut out as a released area.

What about the Slums Clearance Act?

I doubt whether one can do it in terms of that Act. One cannot do it in terms of that Act, because it is a released area. It can be cut out as a released area and then we shall be able to control it. Because Evaton is such a slum area, it has to be controlled. Nobody is gladder about the advent of the Sebokeng Board than the Police and the health authorities. Now we are to be deprived of that power. Let us take the position of Sharpeville. At Evaton the United Party’s form of control is in operation. There we also have these slum conditions. But where our form of control has been applied only a short distance from there at Sharpeville and Bohelong, one finds an orderly existence. There one finds good sanitation, streets and other essentials. But the hon. members do not know Evaton. Evaton is a slum with shanties. There the refuse is dumped in the streets. The water-wells are next to the sanitary pits and things are in a terrible state. That is why it has to be controlled. That is why we want this control and there is nothing more than that in this Bill.

Motion put and the House divided:

Tellers: G. P. C. Bezuidenhout and G. P. van den Berg.

Tellers: A. Hopewell and T. G. Hughes.

Motion accordingly agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

At this early stage I should like to make a few announcements in regard to new developments and adjustments, especially in the field of housing. Firstly I want to refer to the joint loan scheme existing between the National Housing Commission and the building societies. This is the scheme in terms of which borrowers obtain two-thirds of the loans from the building societies and one-third of the loan from the National Housing Commission. Thus far this scheme has to a very large extent not been a success, in the sense that not much use has been made of it, possibly as a result of two factors, firstly because the public were not always fully aware of this scheme, and secondly as a result of the fact that the building societies mostly preferred to provide the full loan themselves rather than obtain portion of the loan from the Housing Commission. But now this year, with the announcement made by my colleague the Minister of Finance in connection with the special assistance granted to building societies, an agreement was reached with the building societies that of the more or less R16 million being made available to the building societies by the Treasury, at least half should be utilized over the next two years for this joint loan scheme; that means that on the part of the building societies at least R8 million must be made available in the next two years for this joint loan scheme, and the building societies must assist in having it made available to the public. In other words, they must assist in advertising it. That means that in addition the Housing Commission will add R4 million during that period from the Housing Fund for those schemes.

I also want to announce that from 1st April already—unfortunately this was not given sufficient publicity—the income limit for persons qualifying for loans of this type was increased from an income of R3,600 per year to an income of R5,000 per year. At the same time it was also decided to increase the maximum loan of R6.750, i.e. on the 90 per cent basis, which could be taken in respect of a house costing R7,500 to R9,000. On the 90 per cent basis this means that the borrower receives R9,000 on a house costing R10,000. In other words, both the income limit and the loan limit have been increased. Of this maximum amount of R9,000 per loan, the building societies provide two-thirds of the loan, but, by agreement with the Treasury, not at 8½ per cent, at which they normally make funds available, but at 8 per cent, while the National Housing Commission makes its one-third available at 6¾ per cent. In other words, these persons falling in the income group below R5,000 per year can now obtain a house with a loan of up to R9,000 at an interest rate which works out at an average—this is now the building society rate and the National Housing Commission rate taken together—of 7.583 per cent. I think that this is an exceptional concession for persons in the middle-income groups. In addition I hope to introduce legislation this year still whereby an additional concession will be made possible. In the past these loans could only be used for the building of a house by the borrower himself, and by an amendment to the existing Housing Act I hope to make it possible for these loans to be used either for the building of a new house or for the purchasing of a new house which has not yet been occupied. This will at the same time help the small builder and the small developer to build a number of houses which can then be sold to the public in this way against loans which they can obtain on this joint basis from the building societies and the Housing Commission. I believe that this will be of particular assistance to persons in the middle-income group to obtain their own houses.

Then, as regards the schemes of the National Housing Commission, there are three to which I want to refer, namely the ordinary individual loans to individuals, the loans to local authorities and the National Housing Commission’s own schemes. Up to now the income limit of persons qualifying for Housing Commission loans was R180 per month for a family with not more than two children, and R250 per month for a family with more than two children. I have decided to increase this limit from the 1st June to R225 per month for a family with up to two children and to R300 per month for a family with more than two children. This will mean that the selling schemes and the individual loans will now have the same income limit as the letting schemes had until recently.

But I also want to make a concession in respect of interest rates. This applies to individual loans as well as selling schemes and letting schemes. I reached agreement with the Treasury that from the 1st August of this year they should not, in respect of all these schemes, levy the present 6¾ per cent at which the Housing Commission obtains the money from the Treasury, but only 6 per cent. This is therefore a decrease of ¾ per cent in the rate of interest. I cannot put it into effect immediately, because it also applies to all the existing houses, especially rented houses, which already carry a higher rate than 6 per cent. Consequently a large number of adjustments will have to be made by the Department itself and by local authorities in order to introduce these adaptations. The intention is to introduce this adaptation as from 1st August. I want to emphasize that this adaptation will not be a subsidized rate in the sense that it will place an extra burden on the taxpayers of the country. The reduced income of the Housing Fund as a result of this will be made good by the Housing Fund, in the near future at any rate, from its own Revenue Reserve Account. This Revenue Reserve Account is there for maintenance purposes, for poor leases and for other purposes, and the Reserve Account is at present strong enough to carry this adaptation.

I am aware that a category of persons remains for whom I should very much like to do something. You will know that the present position is that a family whose bread-winner has an income of up to R100 per month can live in a sub-economic scheme with an interest rate of ¾ per cent. If his income is between R101 and R130, then in the case of a letting scheme he pays a rental carrying an interest rate of 3 per cent, and if his income is between R131 and R160, an interest rate of 5 per cent is levied. I am aware that a family with a large number of children and with an income, for example, of R131 per month, is much worse off with a rental rate of 5 per cent than a family with few children which lives even in the ¾ per cent scheme, but to make an adjustment here would have particular financial implications and would require a considerable amount of study. I have instructed my Department and the National Housing Commission to investigate this matter and to determine in what way we can meet large families as far as their rental is concerned, over and above what we are doing at present. But unfortunately I can say nothing more than that at this stage, because I will have to discuss with the Treasury any proposals which can be worked out in this regard.

So much for housing. I now also want to make an announcement in connection with building control. Hon. members know that a year or so ago we extended building control to include industrial buildings as well. In the past year, 1967, I gave considerable attention to the whole question of building control of industrial premises, and I have found that during the year 1967 altogether 31 projects to the value of R7,508,880 were initially postponed for some period or another. Several of the projects were reconsidered after the submission of new evidence, and 18 of the 31, to the value of R5,779,258, were allowed after reconsideration. In other words, during 1967 we in actual fact postponed only 13 projects to the value of R1,729,622 for some period or another. But it is also the position that any new industry, or any existing industry which wants to expand and consequently needs new machinery which must be imported, must get past the new Industries Committee of the Department of Industries. Furthermore, since December of last year every existing factory which wants to expand or add to its buildings, and every new factory which is to be erected, must receive permission from my colleague the Minister of Planning in terms of the Physical Planning and Utilization of Resources Act. I feel that after industries have undergone these two sifting processes, building control no longer serves a useful purpose in respect of industrial premises, and I have accordingly decided to abolish all building control in respect of industrial premises as from to-morrow.

May I claim the privilege of the half hour? Sir, I welcome this statement by the hon. the Minister. It is surprising to me that he should make this statement only when his Vote comes up, in other words, at the 12th hour. I think he should have made this statement sooner. Nevertheless, I must say, to deal with it quickly, that I welcome this letting-up on the multiple controls upon our industry. The hon. the Minister and myself and all those who have had anything to do with industry know full well that our export market has in many cases suffered because industries have not been able to put up buildings to house machinery. The hon. the Minister acknowledges that where the Department of Planning has given its approval for the purposes of increasing exports or for the purpose of stepping up local production, it seems absurd to have building control. I welcome this letting-up. I think that the hon. the Minister could have relaxed it from tonight instead of from to-morrow morning.

When it comes to the question of relief for people in the lower income groups, I welcome his statement very much too. I welcome not only the relaxing of the income levels of these various people to enable them to take advantage of these new schemes, but I also welcome the lowering of interest rates, and more especially do I welcome the fact that children are now becoming an important factor in making available housing to families. The person with a big family finds that the one Minister encourages families and that another Minister introduces a set of controls which puts the family with many children at a disadvantage as compared with a family of one or two children only. Some people go so far as to call these families the selfish families. I welcome this acknowledgement that the person who has a large family should in fact have an advantage on that score.

Sir, what the hon. the Minister has said tonight ties up with what I was going to say to him. I feel that what he has said, although it is going to be of great assistance to people, is an indication that we should stop and have a look at the direction in which we are going in this huge Department of Community Development. In my opinion its two main functions are the provision of housing and the implementation of group areas. Those are its two big jobs and they are very important jobs in the light of the nation’s requirements. I want to deal with these two at the moment because I believe that they are the two most important. I know that there is slum clearance and all these other factors which go with the Department, but I believe that we can get a clear picture of the work of this Department and what we ought to do if we just look at those two factors; I think they will give us a very good example. Other speakers can deal with other aspects.

Sir, let us deal first with the housing aspect of the Department of Community Development. The purpose of this housing section— and the hon. the Minister has just accepted this fact—is to provide housing, mostly for the lower and middle income groups. The wealthy person can look after himself. He has not got any problem because he can either pay cash or else his company will finance him, but in one way or another he manages to do reasonably well for himself. It is the lower and the middle income groups, I think, that we are mainly concerned with. We must ask ourselves whether the policy of this Department is succeeding in providing houses for those two groups. At the moment I would say “no”. The hon. the Minister in announcing this concession to-night, has based his thinking in respect of the middle income group on a purchase price of R10,000 for a house. I have been around Cape Town, for example, and I find that the type of house in which the middle income group is accustomed to living, no longer costs R10,000; it costs R18,000. If the hon. the Minister goes to these community schemes, such as the one which is being built somewhere near Fernwood, he will find that these three-bedroomed houses cost R18,000. I think it is fair to say that the person in the middle income group is entitled to say: “That is the type of housing I want; that is the type of housing to which I am accustomed.” I think the hon. the Minister must still further revise his thinking and start thinking in terms higher than R10,000, because houses cost a great deal to-day.

Now I want to take this question of housing a little further. The hon. the Minister obviously believes to a large extent—I do not say entirely—that in increasing the amount of the loan from 66⅔ per cent to 90 per cent and in giving more people that advantage, he is coming nearer to solving the problem. Sir, he is coming a little nearer, but he is not coming as near as he thinks, because, you see, he also lays down that the repayments must not exceed 25 per cent of their income. In other words, the instalments must approximate to 25 per cent of the income of those people. Sir, what is he doing here in many cases? He is giving the young couple starting off in life the choice between having a house or a baby. I have gone into this matter very thoroughly.

It is a vicious choice.

Of course it is. He is not doing it wittingly, but this is in fact what is happening. The building societies tell you that where a young couple get married and they want a house of the type in which they are accustomed to living and which they have been brought up to expect, the wife and the husband both go out to work. The 25 per cent repayment is based on their joint income to help them to get a house. What happens? In many cases, not in isolated cases, I am given to understand that the wife earns more than the husband. What happens if she has a baby? Their joint income then bears no relationship to the instalment which they have to pay. As a matter of fact, they are in trouble; they can no longer afford to live in that house. That is why I say that this is not the solution to the problem because, as I see it, we are giving them the choice between having a house or having a baby. I do not think they can afford both. Sir, in which direction does the solution lie? The solution lies more in the direction of providing housing at a cost that they can afford.

You have had a look at the scheme in the Fernwood area, but have you had a look at Bothasig?

Yes, I have had a look at it. Take a couple with an income of R3,600, one of the levels which the hon. the Minister has mentioned to-night. He is raising it from R3,600 to R5,000 a year so that they can buy a house under the extended loan scheme. Sir, it sounds a lot of money, but when you come to pay the instalments it is not a lot of money at all. As a matter of fact, it is such a big slice out of the income of the couple that I doubt if they can afford to keep a house of that kind at all. This is one of the factors which I think the hon. the Minister must take into consideration—the actual cost of the house. His job must be to provide housing at an overall price that they can afford. This is the thought that is concerning all the people who are vitally concerned with the provision of housing for the young couple who want a house.

Sir, I have suggested that the time has come to stop and have a look at the direction in which this Department is going. It is a huge Department and it is growing every day. I do not believe that it is growing in the right direction, and I think we should stop and have a look to see if our direction is in fact right. I think the hon. the Minister should appoint a commission or a committee consisting of the right kind of people, people who have these things at heart and not just necessarily only departmental secretaries and people like that, but people who live with this problem every day. Those people should look at the various aspects of the Department. The hon. the Minister’s Department is becoming a huge estate agency, one of the biggest in the country because it is responsible for the implementation of Group Areas determinations, and one questions whether it is such an efficient agency. I do not believe it is. I could quote many examples to the hon. the Minister to illustrate my point. Then, Sir, the Department is becoming a landlord to-day in quite a big way. And in that regard, it has come in for quite a lot of criticism. Let me give the hon. the Minister one example of the criticism which has been aimed at this particular sphere of operation. The Financial Mail of the 3rd May has an article which is headed “State Flats Flop”. That is quite a catchy headline, but what does it say underneath? It says—

The very people we are talking about—

The hon. the Minister can correct this statement if it is wrong—

In other words, it is not completely finished; that I accept—

This might be wrong, it might be right, let the Minister say so. I continue—

This is for other flats in the area where this scheme has been embarked upon. The article goes on—

This is not the Minister’s scheme, it is a private scheme. I continue—

I do not need to go any further. These are criticisms, and there are more of them. Indeed, the hon. the Minister can have this magazine if he wants it. This Department has embarked upon a scheme here which it is said is probably the biggest single housing contract in South Africa, and here is the criticism leveled at it, rightly or wrongly. The Minister may be able to water this down a bit. But I believe basically it is correct. This is why I am able to stand up here and say I believe this Minister should now have a look at things and he should get an impartial commission to do so.

In addition to this the Minister has indicated that he might be launching out on something new. He has indicated that he is in fact very impressed with industrialized building which has been incorporated in this particular scheme. As a matter of fact, he made a statement reported in the South African Digest of the 7th November, when he came back from overseas. I read from the report—

This was reported in an official Government publication. The Minister must remember that when he makes statements like that and foreshadows what might well come, namely that his Department is taking an interest in companies which are going to embark upon industrialized building, the rest of the industry must react. That causes unsettlement and, indeed, the reaction came. It came from Mr. J. D. Roberts, and this is what he said—

So do I, because as soon as this Minister gets a clamp on it, I can assure you, Sir, that building costs will rise, they will not go down. We will have the same chaotic state which I believe is developing in his Department at the moment, because it is getting too big and they do not know how to control it. Private industry is equipped for this job, but I wonder if the Minister’s Department is as well equipped. That is why I want him at this stage to have a look at the position. Mr. Roberts goes on and says—

I venture to say that we would not have had industrialized building, this thing that the Minister is eulogizing at the moment, had it not been for private industry doing the necessary research, and risking their capital to see if it would work in South Africa.

During the recess I attended a certain symposium in Durban. It was a very good symposium, called by the Natal Employers’ Association. I have not the time to go into all the aspects, but I should like to deal with the conclusions quickly. They were unanimous. This deals with Durban but I believe it can be repeated throughout South Africa in almost every town, in every city, and many villages as well. Let me give the hon. member a summary as it pertains to Durban because I believe it can be applied to Cape Town, Johannesburg, or anywhere else one would like to go.

The first point is that there is a housing shortage in Durban, and I want to stop there at the moment. This is another reason why I think the Minister should stop and review the situation. At this symposium and at every discussion I attended on housing and the housing shortage nobody knew whether there is a housing shortage; they only know that people cannot obtain houses. They do not know what the shortage is, and I venture to say that even the hon. the Minister’s Department, with all its fantastic facilities and so on, cannot tell us what the housing shortage actually is.

Yet when we provide the houses they stand empty and we cannot let them.

Yes, the hon. the Minister is helping me to make my case. The Minister says he builds houses and they just stand empty. Who is wrong? It must be the Minister because he has built the wrong houses. They are either too expensive or else they are not provided for the people who want them. People still want houses. According to estimates 180,000 units are required in South Africa. I am not saying 180,000 houses are required. A unit is based on 1.08 units per person, in other words, 1.08 rooms per person. People believe there is a shortage. They have estimated it on facts, and I can give the Minister a graph if he wants it and I can also give him the basis of the calculations. Indeed, he should have them himself, because he after all is the Minister of that Department. There is a shortage but the Minister’s Department cannot tell us what the shortage is. All they say is the shortage they have to provide for is something like 5,700 houses. If that is so, then, because they are building 7,500 houses per year, there is no shortage, because they are building more in a year than they need. But they are continuing to build houses and they are still planning for a shortage, so obviously those figures are wrong somewhere.

Private enterprise said—and I think the Minister’s Department said so too—that they are going to build 22,000 to 25,000 houses per year to provide for the increase in population, apart from anything else. What are the correct figures, where can we get them from, where can we get reliable figures that people can plan upon? I do not know, and neither does this Department, and this is another reason I offer for asking this Minister to go into this matter. They accept that there is a shortage in Durban, they accepted an immediate and factual survey of the housing position there should be carried out. Then the symposium comes to a very good point, namely that a five-year plan should be embarked upon, not calculating from year to year as the Department does at the moment. They say it should be reviewed each and every year in the light of what has happened in the past year and what is going to be required in coming years? I think the Minister should work on a five-year plan like that rather than on an estimate for one year, and then we will be able to get nearer to a solution to the housing problem than we will with our present basis of calculating from year to year, from hand to mouth as it were.

Then in many areas bye-laws, building conditions and so on are hampering the building of houses, they are hampering the sub-division of plots and they are in fact slowing down the rate at which houses can be provided, and I think the Minister has to inquire into that too. Bye-laws and building conditions laid down by local authorities are definitely slowing matters up, and also the time it takes to sub-divide land. We put an Act through Parliament and nobody seems to have noticed that it has speeded up the sub-division of land. I am only going to deal with one more recommendation but I should like to give the Minister a copy of this document so that he can go through it. The eighth resolution of this symposium reads as follows—

That is what I am asking the Minister to do.

Because of the time factor I must move on quickly, although I could speak on this matter for a long time. I believe that in connection with the implementation of Group Areas this hon. Minister should stop and examine the position. At this stage when we have more than a thousand group areas proclaimed in South Africa the hon. the Minister has seen fit, apparently, to appoint three committees to represent those people who are mostly affected by the implementation of group areas. I want some details about these committees, because I do not know anything about them. We hear so many claims—I can read them out as I have a whole stack of them here, plus letters that come almost every day to every member of this House—about the hardships which are involved and the varying prices which are given. I have, for example, a case of an Indian who at the moment has had the agreed amount to be paid out and the adjustment of appreciation altered two or three times. Why could he not have had the proper value of his property given in the first instance? This is just one example. I can go on for a long time quoting cases and laying them before the hon. the Minister. The answer does not lie in every individual case. It lies in the overall principle which creates these situations and which, in fact, inflicts these hardships which are brought to our notice. These are hardships which make a gathering like TUCSA want to come to the hon. the Minister to see if he cannot alleviate some of these problems. In this field I do not believe that three committees are necessarily the answer. They might help a little bit, because they can put forward the cases of the particular groups which they represent. I accept that. It is better than nothing. I think that a commission of inquiry into the implementation of group areas would make it work very much more smoothly. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he does not think that the time has arrived when we must review this policy of group areas implementation, as we cannot even keep up with the normal requirements of housing in South Africa. We accept that we will have to duplicate the total existing housing of South Africa in the next 30 years. We must review the ideology—you can call it what you like, I do not want to be unkind—of moving whole communities of people, when we cannot provide the normal housing that is required from day to day. Are we not creating problems for ourselves? Are we not trying to do the impossible, and are we not getting into a greater mess as a result? Surely if we look into this position thoroughly and properly we can find a solution where we can get on with our slum clearance at a rate the country can afford. This will put us in a better position to supply the housing which is so vitally necessary to house the people of this country and its increasing population.

Firstly, on behalf of this side of the House, I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the announcements which he made here this evening in connection with the provision of housing, especially for the middle and lower income groups of our population. The announcements which the hon. the Minister made here to-night make it possible for the concession which we receive from the Department and the Government to be more practically utilized by the public. While thanking the hon. the Minister for this announcement, I must actually express my sympathy with the hon. member for Umlazi, because the hon. the Minister took practically all the wind out of his sails with this announcement. As a result of this, he had virtually nothing to say about these matters this evening. The nothing which he did say he said at quite some length and he took up nearly half an hour in doing so. Unfortunately I do not have the time to waste. I just want to reply to a few points.

The first is the question of the housing aspect, especially where he used Fernwood as an example. This is probably one of the most expensive places in the Peninsula in which to erect a house. I do not think one can obtain a plot there for less than R10,000. If the plot alone costs R10,000, it is obvious that one cannot erect a house there for R10,000. But there are many other places in the Peninsula where the circumstances are not the same. I must point out the tendency which exists, especially among our young married people, to buy houses which in fact they cannot afford. This is a tendency that is found among our young people, especially when both the husband and the wife are still working and their income is still relatively large. They then undertake to buy a house on which the monthly payments are very large. Presently the wife can no longer work, because there is a child in the home, and then these people find themselves in difficulties, because they have to cut down on other items of domestic expenditure in order to be able to pay the instalments. This only makes families unhappy. I do not want to support the hon. member for Umlazi’s argument at all; on the contrary, I want to appeal to our people to cut their coat according to the cloth in this respect as well.

As regards the flats in Algoa about which he expressed criticism here, I just want to say the following. I do not have the details at my disposal, but it appeared to me as if the hon. member was using that report in the newspaper to complain that the Department had created a surplus of accommodation. They complained bitterly all along that insufficient provision was being made and said that the Minister and his Department should get down to providing housing, but to-night the hon. member blames the Minister by implication by saying that there is a place in the country where in fact surplus accommodation has been created by the Department. This only gives me the impression that all the stories on that side of the House about there being such a tremendous shortage of housing are exaggerated out of all proportion. The hon. member for Umlazi has come a cropper in this particular case which he mentioned. In my opinion he actually insulted the Department by saying that they were not capable of coping with certain undertakings, that these should be left in the hands of the private sector, that the Department was actually undertaking schemes which they are not competent to deal with. Let me say to the hon. member that one of the major cost factors in the provision of economic housing to-day is the question of land, of the site. The trouble is in fact that the town planning is usually done by private initiative, speculating town planners. That is why our plots are so exorbitantly expensive, and that is why we cannot provide proper economic housing for our people. It is time that the Department gave attention to this question as well. The new legislation which the Minister introduced this year now makes it possible for him to take action himself in this connection and to make available cheaper plots for the provision of housing.

I also want to refer here to the appeal which the hon. member made to the Minister rather to abandon the process of removing the races to their designated areas and first to ensure that housing is provided to meet the ordinary needs of the people. We have shouldered this burden all these years. We are creating a new dispensation in South Africa as far as residential areas are concerned. I want to say to the Minister that he should continue to do the one thing without neglecting the other. He should remove these unauthorized persons to their proper places, and he should also provide housing. It is not necessary that the one should be done at the expense of the other. No, Sir, I know why the hon. member had nothing to say. It is because he cannot bring forward a shred of criticism this evening against this Government in respect of the efforts which it has made in recent years to provide housing. I do not think we should leave the matter at that. I think that for our part we should give some indication of what we have done in recent times. We should point out that apart from the R16 million which the hon. the Minister mentioned here and which the Treasury is making available to the building societies, the Railways made available R14 million this year for an additional 1,300 houses for railway servants. For the financial year ended 31st March, 1968, the Department appropriated no less then R74 million from the Housing and Development Fund for housing. This year it intends spending an even larger amount on that. Last year it spent R74 million and this year it intends spending R80 million on that. This shows you that while economics are being effected in other Government Departments with a view to combating inflation, this Department’s eyes are wide open to this problem of providing housing for our people and it is not prepared to cut down on its housing projects, but is making additional money available this year for the provision of housing.

I should just briefly like to bring two aspects to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Firstly I want to make a plea to the Minister about the necessity for better and more coordination in respect of town planning between the local authorities and the Department of Community Development. The Department of Community Development does not only provide housing. One of the basic functions of the Department is to establish communities; that is why it is called the Department of Community Development. The Department is in fact establishing new communities every day. It is tackling town planning and housing projects, often outside the perimeter and control of our local authorities. While the Department is engaged in planning on the borders of a local area, it sometimes happens that the local authority is also undertaking planning within that local area. Often these various planning projects pass one another by. They do not fit in with one another. Then one finds eventually that with the development of the urban areas, the new areas which the Department laid out are incorporated in the towns. They then discover that they joined lay-outs which do not go together. Therefore I want to plead to-night that the Department be given a greater say in the over-all planning of town lay-outs. In doing so I do not want to plead that the Department should take over certain functions from the local authorities. I know that the local authorities are very proud and jealous of their independence and are afraid that some of their powers may be taken away. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope that in South Africa to-night there will be young married couples who will take note of what the hon. member for Parow has just said. He has warned those people who, he says, cannot afford to live up to the standards to which they aspire, not to try to live up to those standards. He has warned those young married people, and there are many of them in South Africa, who would like to live up to a certain standard of living, against getting married and against having a house of their own. His attitude is very similar to that of various Ministers of Agriculture who from time to time have said that those farmers who are suffering economically in South Africa today should leave the land: “Die onekonomiese boer moet uit.” That is what they have said. That is exactly the same advice as the hon. member for Parow has given to those young people to-night who would like to get married and who find that the cost of living is above their means. What we on this side of the House have offered is an annually adjusted cost of living allowance which would meet the requirements of those people. Secondly the hon. member for Parow has issued a warning to those who speculate in land. I would suggest that the hon. member for Parow should warn some of those people who live very near to him, in the constituency of Bellville, for example, who speculate in land and who have pushed the prices of land up unreasonably in the last five years.

What about the department?

That is quite apart from the department itself. My purpose tonight is to deal with the declaration of group areas, and in particular the declaration of two group areas which had a widespread effect, not only on the people in the Peninsula, but also throughout the length and breadth of South Africa. I refer particularly to the group areas declarations in Simonstown and Kalk Bay.

That must be discussed under the Planning Vote.

Mr. Chairman, I would suggest that you are the one who is to decide whether I am to discuss this under Planning or Community Development. There had been years and years of doubt and uncertainty, several commissions, the retarding development in those areas, local unrest and suspicion. Then ultimately we had a declaration.

Order! I think the hon. member should confine himself to the Vote under discussion.

Mr. Chairman, I am going to deal with the consequences of those declarations. [Interjections.]

Order! When I call for order the hon. member for Transkei must please obey the Chair.

Mr. Chairman, if you will permit me very briefly to illustrate my argument, I should like to refer to the fact that there have been non-European people in Simonstown for approximately 250 years. They have been engaged mainly in fishing. They have been boat builders and dockyard workers and others offering their services as domestic labourers. The Indians who have been in Simonstown since 1900 have earned their livings as traders. Approximately 4,500 people in Simonstown alone are involved in resettlement and removal in terms of the Group Areas declaration. I should like to point out that these people who are to be removed have their own churches, schools, school halls and municipal housing schemes established by the Municipality of Simonstown. There are approximately 30 shopkeepers and 1,200 schoolchildren. They are part of a law-abiding and well-ordered community. In the case of Kalk Bay approximately 1,000 persons are involved. Fifteen families are affected by the declaration and are required to move within one year. The other families of fishermen who live in flats are required to move within 15 years. Those living in Kalk Bay are mainly engaged in fishing and domestic labour. They are equally law-abiding, well-ordered and respectable. I accept that the Department of Community Development will give them proper consideration in their resettlement. I have no doubt whatever about that. The dealings I have had with the officials of the Department in Cape Town, and especially the officials of the regional Department, have been most encouraging. I believe that they are sympathetic people. They will treat the very awkward predicament in which these people in Kalk Bay and Simonstown find themselves with the utmost sympathy. However I want to make an appeal to the Minister to-night, first of all to resettle the Coloured and Malay communities at Simonstown as a community …

Order! The hon. member can raise this matter under the Planning Vote. This has nothing to do with community development.

On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member is completely in order now. He is dealing with the resettlement of disqualified persons, which does in fact fall under my Department.

In that case the hon. member must come to the point more quickly.

Mr. Chairman, you know how longwinded all politicians are! My plea to the hon. the Minister is that the Coloured and Malay communities in Simonstown and Kalk Bay should be resettled as entire communities.

They are not a part of the Coloured community and the Malay community of the rest of the Peninsula. As a result of long experience of these people, and as a result of the experience of others before me, I would in many ways regard them as almost an ethnic group constituted of their own people. I believe that they should certainly not be allowed to disintegrate, but that they should be allowed to be resettled under the auspices of the Minister’s Department as communities as such.

The second appeal I wish to make to the hon. the Minister is that they should be provided with houses similar in standard to those which they have left. For example, in both Simonstown and Kalk Bay there are fishing families and trading families who have built up and acquired an amount of wealth. Their standard of living has accordingly risen. I believe that when they are resettled as part of the same community, as I have advocated, they should be given houses of a similar standard. Those that are qualified, or should qualify, for economic type houses, should be accommodated accordingly. Those who form a part of the slum areas of Kalk Bay and Simonstown should be accordingly reaccommodated in sub-economic type houses in the area to which I hope they will be removed.

There is a further appeal which I wish to make. These people have churches, schools, playing grounds, shops, and halls of their own in those areas. Is it not possible, in view of the fact that these are special, indigenous communities, ethnic groups, as I called them earlier, that they should be given similar facilities in advance of their being removed? When it comes to transport, I would say that those served by transport facilities, namely bus and rail facilities, in Simonstown and Kalk Bay over the years, should at least be entitled, in the area to which they are being moved, to like or similar facilities, and by the quickest route possible—if necessary subsidized by the Government.

Thirdly I should like to make a very earnest appeal to the Minister to make an immediate statement on the resettlement of these communities of Kalk Bay and Simonstown. My reason is that the uncertainty amongst them would then be ended. It would stop the vacation of their present premises by individual Malay and Coloured families. It would stop the splitting up of those communities. I believe that this is not only in their interests as Coloured or Malay communities —and I recognize their existence as separate groups—but it would also be in the interests of the Municipality of Simonstown, in the interests of the Navy, in which many of them are employed, in the interests of the dockyard and in the interests of the Divisional Council which at the moment is engaged in the building of a housing scheme at Slangkop near Kommetjie, as the Minister is aware.

Lastly, Sir, I should like to make an appeal to the Minister to make a statement, or to include in the statement for which I have already asked, details of the future of the present municipal housing schemes in Simonstown. I should like him to make a statement not only on the housing schemes, but also in the flat schemes—and there are many involved—for which the Simonstown Municipality has undertaken heavy responsibility. I understand that their outstanding indebtedness is at the moment approximately R½ million to the Department concerned, by way of loans. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to incorporate in his statement a further statement as to whether the Department will take over those schemes or whether it will be left to the municipality to administer them, and whether Whites will be put into the accommodation about to be vacated by the Coloured people. I should like him to state whether they will be put into that accommodation without that accommodation being altered, or whether he is prepared to make substantial alterations to the non-white accommodation before he places Whites into that accommodation, because of housing shortages, arising as a result of the inefficiency of his Department and its lack of advance planning. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to make complaining any speciality now, as the hon. member for Umlazi does. Apparently being able to complain well is his occupation. I should like to say that the good work of the Department of Community Development has been crowned to-night with the announcement made by the hon. the Minister. I am convinced that everybody outside will take cognizance of this fact with much gratitude. The hon. member for Simonstown probably thought that, by putting certain words into the mouth of the hon. member for Parow, he could, with those assertions, canvass a few votes for the United Party at the next by-election. It is by no means the intention of the hon. member, nor of the National Party, to say that if people cannot afford houses, they should not get married. On the contrary, I think that it is the ideal of everyone of us to see that those young couples, when they are on the point of getting married, should be in a position, or should be placed in a position, where it is possible for them to acquire proper and inexpensive housing.

To my mind this is also the basis on which the entire Department of Community Development should function. That is why I say— and this is what I want to plead for as well— that this Department, and particularly the hon. the Minister, should intervene to a far greater extent in the development of urban areas and housing schemes, regardless of who is carrying out these schemes. It makes no difference whether it is being done by local authorities or by private initiative. In order to do so properly I want to ask to-night whether the time has not come now for it to be determined very definitely what the housing needs really are. At various places on the Rand there are regional offices of the Department of Community Development.

For example, there are such offices in Johannesburg itself, in Germiston, in Boksburg and in Brakpan. On the other side there are offices in Randfontein, Krugersdorp and Roodepoort for example. There is a group of local authorities with a regional office. It is obvious that, if I want a house, I shall put down my name for a house at one of those offices. As a result of that I do not think we will ever be able to determine what the need is. That is the reason why land speculation is rife to-day, because people are very clever. If one keeps a careful watch on the Press, one will notice that this position is constantly being alluded to, and that land speculators and people who specialize in speculative building activities and the selection of residential areas are always over-emphasizing this state of affairs.

As the hon. member for Parow did, I also want to say in the first instance that we must establish what the real need is. In addition I want to say that in many cases the need is attributable to the fact that the housing which is available is too expensive for the occupants. It is not a case that people do not have roofs over their heads. What does happen is that the roofs they have over their heads are beyond their financial and economic means. There are for example young couples who marry and then find that they cannot obtain inexpensive housing. They then stay in a flat, which is the property of a speculator, and they have to pay high rentals. They then apply to the Department of Community Development, or to the local authority for a house which is less expensive. In other words, there is not such a major shortage of housing. It is the price of housing which is beyond the means of those people. That is why it is my plea this evening that the Minister should give very serious attention to the areas within major urban complexes which should be replanned and renovated. Mr. Chairman, you must excuse me, but I actually want to confine myself to the case of Johannesburg. In the city of Johannesburg the expansion of boundaries is continually taking place.

People are being accommodated further and further away from their places of employment, in the open areas where major capital expenditure is essential. Water, sewerage, roads, lights, etc., have to be laid on, while within the municipal area there are areas which should be renovated. There is Jeppes, Belgravia, Doornfontein, Malvern, Vrededorp, large sections of Mayfair, Paarl’s Hoop, Booysens, large sections of Fordsburg, Turffontein West, and one can almost say Turffontein as well. All the people whom I maintain will require housing within the next 50 years can be accommodated within these areas if they are properly replanned. It would entail a tremendous saving on capital. The cost of replanning would also be covered by saving on capital expenditure for the provision of services, because services in those areas are already available. But instead of doing that, the City Council of Johannesburg is co-operating with the owners who would like to see slum areas developing so that they can get those areas proclaimed as industrial areas, and this must be prevented.

That is where I maintain the Minister should take a hand. He must state that before consent can be given to their going beyond the urban area and erecting housing schemes there, these areas will have to be priority number one; they will have to be replanned and renovated. At the moment there is an application by the Johannesburg City Council to the provincial authorities of the Transvaal for permission to expand its boundaries to a very great extent. Its excuse is that it needs that land for housing during the next five year’s period. Now, if the City Council gets its own way, farmers, who are making a good living, will have to leave their farms up to a distance of 15 miles from the city centre. It is the under-privileged people, the workers, who have to go and live there. In other words, the distances are being extended; there are greater costs involved in regard to transport, and going hand-in-hand with this there is the provision of services which will require a great deal of capital. That is why I am advocating that the Minister should himself acquire the right to have a greater say in these matters.

I just want to refer to the large-scale development which is taking place in my constituency as well, and which the newspapers cannot find enough to write about, namely the co-operation of a few mining companies to develop the land, from which they have already taken the gold, into residential areas. If one had looked at the stock market reports, one would have seen how tremendously those mining shares had risen after this announcement. These are tremendously large areas of land. Why can they not be utilized for housing for the underprivileged? Why should mining companies be allowed to speculate with that land? The fact that the land belongs to the mines does not give them full right to that land; the land still belongs to the State and to the people of South Africa, and the people who need housing are priority number one.

I am also asking the Minister to intervene there, despite the criticism that will be leveled at him. Those men and women to whom the hon. member for Simonstown referred this evening when he put certain words in the mouth of the hon. member for Parow would be very grateful to the Minister if he intervened here. It is that land, within the industrial complex, near the city, where those people would be able to live very inexpensively. If the hon. the Minister and his Department were to give attention to these matters and determine what the actual housing needs are, then I believe the land speculators would be dealt a severe blow from which they will not easily recover.

The hon. member for Langlaagte has made certain remarks. We knew that he was a Nationalist, but I think this is the first time that we have gained the impression that he is a National-Socialist. He referred to certain needs in his own area and he also referred to the necessity for determining the needs for housing. I want to deal with positive needs that exist now, and I want to refer the Minister to the needs of the Coloured people in regard to housing. I believe that from the point of view of the whole Republic the need is urgent, but in so far as Natal is concerned the need is critical. The Minister has been good enough to reply to various questions I put to him and to give me figures which indicate a calculated demand for dwellings, which fall within the income category applicable to national housing, and the demand is indicated in racial groups. I quote it to the nearest thousand. In regard to Whites, the calculated demand is 4,000, for Coloureds 22,000, for Indians 12,000, and for Bantu 27,000. This is the position which obtained at the end of December, 1967. From these figures it would appear that the Coloured group is one of the worst off, but when we come to Natal the Coloured group is the worst off because in Natal, and I refer primarily to the Durban complex, in December, 1966, the estimated demand, again in terms of the Minister’s figures, was 1,000 houses, and in 1967 the total had grown to 1,200 houses.

It is interesting to study the extent to which houses have been made available in so far as this particular area is concerned. The two years to which I have referred indicate that a figure of 9,400 houses had been provided for all racial groups, but out of this total 329 houses were made available to the Coloureds. I know that the Minister will tell me that as far as the houses for Coloured people are concerned in the Wentworth complex, tenders have been called for for 524 houses and that a further tender has been called for for 192 houses. Sir, this is very gratifying. This is in 1968, but I want to go back to 1964 and I want to quote from a letter from the then Secretary for Housing, in which he referred to the Merebank-Wentworth complex and indicated that the intention was to provide 1,500 dwellings there, 50 per cent of which would be sub-economic. This is what was said in the letter—

That was in 1964. Then in 1965, before this hon. Minister took over …

Who is responsible for that scheme? Is it my Department, or is the Durban Municipality undertaking it with money borrowed from my Department?

The letter reads—

As the result of that I would say it is the Minister’s Department.

Then in 1965 I had a further letter from the Department of Community Development, which indicated that in Wentworth approximately 1,040 dwellings would be erected, and it was expected that construction of the dwellings would begin in approximately 12 months. Then a letter was addressed to the Durban Coloured Federal Council on 30th April, 1965, which said this—

And an indication was given there that the number of houses would be 1,700. Then in December, 1965, we had an announcement in the Press indicating that tenders for roads and drainage had been called for and that housing could be expected within two years of the completion of this work. The position became a matter of concern to the Coloured people in Natal, and as the result of their frequent representations I approached the Minister’s predecessor, Mr. P. W. Botha. In an interview with me he told me in May, 1965, that the land surveyors were already on the site at Wentworth. Further representations and complaints were necessary before any clarity could be obtained, and the next letter comes from the present Minister of Coloured Affairs, in which he said, in October 1966, that there had been a heavy demand for funds and it had had the effect of curtailing building programmes, but high priority has however been accorded to the departmental scheme at Wentworth. What is the result? After four years we are told that tenders have been called for approximately 700 houses. The disturbing feature about all this is what has happened to the Coloured population in the meantime. They had no certainty as to the number of houses to be built, because the figure varied from 1,040 to 1,700, but many of them have been living under shocking conditions. I know because I speak from personal experience. I went round to have a look. I asked the Ministers to come with me, but they did not. From first-hand experience I can tell the Minister that in the Greenwood Park area, in one street alone, 14 of the 17 houses’ garages are being occupied illegally by people who have no other accommodation. I know this because I have seen it. Many Coloured families are living in outbuildings and garages in Indian areas. One case that I saw myself was of a woman with six children and a boarder. The children varied from 18 to two years in age, and the rental was R9 a month for a garage. They lived, they ate, they bathed and they cooked in this garage. In many cases it is a question of sharing bathing and toilet facilities with their Indian landlord. The examples which I have handed on to the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs are too numerous for me to mention in the time at my disposal. The question of exploitation has exercised the minds of the people involved. I would say to the Minister that as the result of an approach by the Minister of Coloured Affairs, this Minister’s Department indicated that they had investigated the question of possible exploitation by Indian landlords and their conclusion was that none of the buildings was under rent control and that the rents charged are not considered to be excessive. Sir, that may be true as far as it goes, but how does one establish the truth when a tenant is in fear of being ejected if he discloses the truth in regard to the rental he pays? Is he not rather prepared to remain silent than to expose the exploitation which is taking place?

Then I want to refer the Minister to another aspect, because I feel it has a bearing particularly on the Coloured people of Natal. At the United Municipal Association meeting in February the Minister gave details in regard to the number of houses provided for various racial groups. From the figures he disclosed it is possible to determine an average value. We find that the average value for Whites is R4,225, and the average value for Coloureds is R1,112, while the average value for the housing of Indians and Chinese is R1,806. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that the Coloured people in Natal deserve facilities more in keeping with their standard of living than the type of house that can be provided at this figure. I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that after these delays there will be no further delays. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place it gives me great pleasure to pay a word of tribute to my predecessor from Pretoria (West), Mr. B. J. van der Walt. Hon. members here in this House know him very well. We had the privilege there of seeing him in harness for 15 years, and in his new career overseas, where he is representing our country, we wish him everything of the best. I can only add that at present he also holds the record as the M.P. who represented Pretoria (West) for the longest consecutive period. He beat the record of no less a person than Gen. Smuts, which stood at 14 years. Mr. Van der Walt represented Pretoria (West) for 15 years. [Interjection.] I am not mentioning this because I want to break with tradition; I am only mentioning it by way of interest.

After having served on the Housing Committee in Pretoria for six years, it does my heart good to take cognizance here to-night of the announcement made by the hon. the Minister. I am very certain that although it may not perhaps solve all the existing problems, it will in fact bring alleviation to a very large extent where this will be felt the most and where this is needed the most.

To return to the Community Development Vote and consider the two votes there, the one under the Loan Account and the other under the Revenue Account, we see that the tremendous amount of R85 million is being appropriated there. Under the Loan Account the amount which is being appropriated there for community development is the largest amount in the entire account. That proves how much attention is being given to this item in the country, and what planning and development there is in order to provide our people with accommodation. It is being appreciated by everyone. It is felt that in some places this cannot be done rapidly enough, but in general there is great appreciation for this.

Then I should like to associate the matter of house rentals with one of our major socioeconomic problems, which is not a problem unique to South Africa, but is found in the entire Western world, and that is the problem of the shrinking family. Perhaps we can, by doing something about rentals, help to increase the size of families again.

According to available statistics we find that the birth rate in Western Europe is an average of 16 per 1,000 of the population. In France it is somewhat higher; in the neo-European countries—Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa—the birth rate is an average of 24 per 1,000 of the population. We compare very well therefore with our old mother countries. But if we consider the increase in the non-white population in South Africa, the position becomes an alarming one. We find that the Coloureds are increasing at a rate of 36 per 1,000 of the population. This constitutes a tremendous danger to us. The days when we had large families, the days of the Great Trek, the days of the pioneers, and even those days after the First World War, have regrettably disappeared. The size of families has shrunk consistently. This is a process which we must not only put a stop to to-day, but it is also a process we must reverse. We ought to do everything in our power to ensure that families become larger. What is the most natural and the most pleasant way of increasing in numbers? It is by means of the natural growth of the population. What is more pleasant than a large family circle all together?

I firmly believe that one will, by doing something about rentals, be able to bring about an increase in the size of families. Under the sub-economic schemes, where the income is at its lowest, and where the family is usually at its largest, a great deal is being done. Money which is lent out at an interest rate of 6¾ per cent, is being lent out for those schemes at an interest rate of ¾ per cent, and that is a tremendous accommodation. But in spite of this those people are still struggling. It would perhaps be a welcome solution to grant an allowance or a rebate in respect of their rental to large families. This can be given to a family which is larger than a certain number, which one can determine by means of a scientific investigation.

One could even go so far as to do away with rentals entirely in cases where families have reached a certain size. I know that there are many people who will throw up their hands in despair and say that South Africa has now become a welfare state because we are subsidizing the rentals of large families. But with the tremendous need we have for numerical superiority in South Africa, I do feel that in this case the end will justify the means. We already have the example in the Army and in the Police Force where people acquire houses according to a points allocation, houses which are being erected by the Department of Community Development. The people who have not been included in this scheme, are the group of people who feel unhappy about it. That shows you what a success that scheme is. One could expand that scheme even further perhaps by giving further encouragement to large families. In the Provincial Administration, the Public Service and Iscor, etc., one can bring alleviation by making concessions in respect of rentals in order to encourage larger families. This is simply an idea which I am mentioning here, but I do think it is a very important one.

The average age at which couples get married in this country is 23 to 25 years. It would help these people a great deal if they knew that by building up a family, they will obtain a house sooner, and that they will also be helped to build up the family, because there it is a case of nothing for nothing and very little for a sixpence. It is only when the family is there that the allowance should be given to the head of the family.

Mr. Chairman, there was a time here in the Cape when there were people who felt that the Cape was too small for them and they moved into the interior. We then found immigrants from the Cape going into the interior of Africa. If we can reverse this process and increase the size of families in South Africa again, then we could possibly have another Great Trek. More and more Whites can move into the interior of Africa and in this way we will be able to carry the torch of white civilization further and further into the interior of Africa. I believe that by building houses, we would be building a nation!

It is my very pleasant privilege to congratulate the hon. member for Pretoria (West) on his maiden speech, to wish him well and to say that I hope, as we all do on this side of the House, that he will have a long and honourable record in Parliament. When he referred to the service of his predecessors, I thought it was a very happy thought, particularly in the case of Gen. Smuts. I can only say that if he reaches the heights that were reached by Gen. Smuts, he has a tremendous future before him. Sir, the tradition of the House demands that a maiden speech should not be controversial and I do hope that the exuberant gentleman on the cross benches over there, who interjected will realize that the traditions of Parliament are things which should be guarded zealously and protected in every possible way, and that new men making their debut in a place of this calibre with its great historical record behind it, should be given the courtesy of the House and be heard in silence, when they make their maiden speeches.

To come now to the few points that I wish to make in the short time at my disposal, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would not investigate the methods under which permits are issued to Coloured persons, Coloured organizations, societies and clubs when they wish to hold a function or arrange a sporting fixture in areas other than Coloured. I have a few examples here, examples with which I do not want to weary the House at this stage, but I can say that I speak from knowledge and from facts, when I say, that the Department of Community Development is thoroughly unreasonable and most dilatory in making decisions on applications for permits of this kind. I have here an application which was made for a permit for a function in a public hall. It took two months before these people received a reply that they would not be permitted to hold the function in the hall for which they had applied. Furthermore, they were told that because there was a hall, which had been provided by the local authority, they should hold two functions if that hall was too small, which it was, for the function which they had hoped to promote. Then again, Sir, I want to mention to you and the Committee, the sort of thing which bedevils our relationship with the Coloured community. During the summer, when Mr. Basil d’Oliveira was in this country, the Coloured people of the city to which I am referring, decided to stage a cricket match, so that d’Oliveira would have the opportunity of performing in front of his own people. They thought that it would be a nice idea to have a match on a ground where they could take a gate and where there were separate amenities of the kind required. They then cast about and found a private ground which the owners of the ground said they could use. At a very late stage, namely, six days before the match was to take place, these people approached me and asked whether it would not be possible to accelerate the decision of the Department of Community Development in Pretoria on their application for a permit. I would like the hon. the Minister to know that I myself telephoned the appropriate official in Pretoria no fewer than three times. His own local departmental regional representative did exactly the same. We were told that the application which had been sent off in good time, legally and officially ten days before, had not reached them, and although the circumstances were explained and everybody was only too happy to get on with the game, believe it or not, approval for the permit came the day before the match, and in rather a strange form; it read: “For Coloured people only.”

This is the sort of thing which the hon. the Minister should investigate and to which he should apply his mind. I cannot conceive of any Department being so slack as to take so long to say “no”. Why they play around with these applications I cannot say. The documents in connection with this case are available, and I believe that the Minister would be well advised to investigate the delays which take place between his regional representatives, who in most cases agree to these things, and the distant person sitting in Pretoria behind a great big square desk waiting for the application to come and, like Mr. Micawber in reverse, waiting for something to turn down. I believe that the hon. the Minister could improve things very considerably and make his Department work far more smoothly, if his Department would only be a little more realistic. It is all very well to be tough, but one must accept and realize that these communities, who are moved about to distant places from where they have lived happily for years, do suffer hardships. They feel most aggrieved. These are not political meetings that they wish to hold; they are purely sporting and social functions, and the Department shows little or no sympathy.

The second point I wish to discuss with the hon. the Minister is this business of siting Indian shopping centres on the borders of Coloured townships. There is the case of the town, to which I have referred, and of which the hon. the Minister is well aware, where a shopping centre consisting of 14 or 16 shops was established for displaced Indians, Chinese and others. Of these shops seven are standing vacant, according to the last count which I made myself, but in addition the hon. the Minister’s Department has expropriated another area, a white area, for the express purpose of establishing an Indian shopping centre. In the first instance, the City Council was not averse to the proposition, but they were, to the second one, and they said so. I had the privilege of showing the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs what was going on. I wonder what co-operation or collaboration takes place between the departments when matters of this kind are decided. It is a great pity because, not only is it grossly unfair to the Coloured community, who have these traders more or less, encamped on their boundaries, it is also unfair to the Indian trader himself. The illogical thing about this sort of behaviour, or attitude, of the department is that these Indians, who have been traders in white areas for years, own the properties, which they occupy. It is illogical that they are expected to vacate the properties they own, and go to trade in rented property belonging to the Department of Community Development. I believe that the hon. the Minister would take a step forward to create greater race harmony in this country, if he would realize that the process of giving the Indians trading facilities and trade rights cannot be done overnight. The Department is forcing these people out of properties which they own and putting them in direct competition on the main roads that lead to Coloured townships and through Bantu townships as well. The persons who are forced by law to trade in the townships find themselves in a field, in which they are unable to make any headway. I therefore say to the hon. the Minister that this aspect of his policy is bad, it needs investigating and I do hope that he will make some changes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, we know that the Department of Community Development is one of the instruments of the Government which has made a major contribution to the welfare of the ordinary citizen and the accommodation of the family. I want to display my gratitude towards the Department of Community Development for what it has already done in regard to the accommodation of our people. We realize only too well that the greatest problem with which the Department of Community Development has to contend, is the high building costs. As a result of this the Department has turned to many different methods. One of these alternative methods, to which the Department has turned, is that of prefabricated construction. It appears as though even this method of prefabricated construction has not succeeded in supplying us with cheaper houses. But since we know that the hon. the Minister has announced that prefabricated construction will be given another chance, we want to express the hope that such progress will be made with prefabricated construction in the technical field that it will succeed in enabling us to obtain less expensive houses. My personal opinion is that we may possibly have to abide by the old traditional building methods because I believe that the material which is just as good as the brick will not be found very easily. I am even more convinced of this, particularly when I see that private initiative is retaining our old traditional building methods. Whatever the case may be, I should like to put forward a suggestion to-night, i.e. that in order to decrease building costs, the Department should give consideration to the following: Where contracts for building projects are being given out, these contracts should be for smaller quantities.

I believe that this will afford the small contractors an opportunity of competing. I believe that large building contracts make for monopolies, and by doing so the smaller contractors are not afforded an opportunity of competing. Related with the question of building costs is, of course, the question of the higher rentals which are being charged. Now we are, of course, very grateful that the Department saw its way clear last year to announce a new rate of interest on new buildings of 3 per cent, 5 per cent and 6¾ per cent. This evening the hon. the Minister announced that this 6¾ per cent will be decreased to 6 per cent. We owe the Minister a sincere vote of thanks, but nevertheless I want to say to him that we are faced with the following problem. The rentals which are being charged are not within reach of a certain group of citizens, namely the lower income group. The rate is in fact ¾ per cent for the sub-economic group, namely those with an income of R100 and less. But as soon as that amount is exceeded, the next rate, namely 3 per cent, applies. It is for this group of people, with an income of R100 to R140, that we are struggling to provide with accommodation. It is in this case that I want to plead with the Minister to increase the sub-economic income notch from R100 to R130 in respect of house ownership, and even to R140 for the white family with two or more children. We must take the children into account, because I am convinced that the father of a family with three, four or more children, is in a much less favourable position as a result of the 3 per cent interest than that person without children, or with one only, falling under the sub-economic group, with a revenue of R90 per month. It is for that group of people that I am raising this plea.

Now I should like to quote something to the hon. the Minister. I have a letter written to the Director of Housing in Port Elizabeth. A widow there was living in one of the sub-economic houses. She then got married. Consequently she had to leave the scheme because they thought that her husband’s income would exceed the R100 limit. I then wrote to the Director of Housing, and he replied as follows (translation)—

This letter was addressed to me on the 15th September, 1967. But he went on to write—

Here we are now faced with the problem that we are accommodating people with an income of up to R100. But as soon as the income exceeds R100, and goes up to R120, R130 or R140, those families with children are affected, and we cannot accommodate them.

Are those Whites?

We are, of course, talking of Whites. We are dealing here with a group of white people with a specific income whom we cannot accommodate. It is here that I want to ask the Minister whether we should not be realistic and take those families with children into consideration and accommodate them. Mention was made here to-night about the buildings in Algoa Park. Now I want to inform the Minister that the buildings there are standing empty while the rentals are too high for people to pay. Now I want to ask the Minister to allocate those flats in Algoa Park to people who cannot acquire economic houses, and who do not fall into the sub-economic group. We must not forget that those buildings were erected as an experiment with prefabricated construction. At that time there was a terrible shortage of housing and steps had to be taken in order to accommodate the people. Because it was thought that prefabricated construction was a more rapid method, it was applied in erecting those buildings. Of course there is nothing wrong with that. All I am asking is that the rental of those flats should be decreased because we have in Port Elizabeth 280 sub-economic families that have to be accommodated. Why can we not accommodate them in those flats? We do not need the United Party to suggest to us what we should do—we can do so on our own initiative.

I come now to a matter which is very close to my heart. This is the matter of accommodation for our aged persons. On 24th August, 1966, in my first speech in this house, I pleaded for our aged persons. I supplied statistics and said that there were 300 old people who were waiting for housing. I said that the City Council of Port Elizabeth had made application for that scheme, and I pleaded for that scheme to be speeded up. At the same time I thanked the Minister for the fact that the per capita amount had been increased from R1,000 to R1,400. In actual fact the loan was granted to the City Council of Port Elizabeth. [Time expired.]

Earlier this session we had a debate in which I made a plea for greater financial assistance to local authorities, to assist them with the establishment of townships on their boundaries as well as inside them. On that occasion the Minister dodged the point I made, by not giving me a satisfactory reply. So, I want to take this opportunity to put it to him again. When the Community Development Act of 1943 was passed, provision was made for the establishment of a fund for financing the administration of that Act. The point about which I wanted to convince the Minister earlier, and about which, I am going to try to convince him to-night, is the fact, that local authorities have to provide very expensive services to the perimeters of these townships. I refer to water, lights, sewerage mains and services of that kind. After the previous debate on this matter, I received quite a number of letters, particularly from small local authorities, thanking me for raising this matter. With the exception of a few large areas, such as Johannesburg, Durban, Cape Town, and perhaps a few others, there are very few areas designated by the Minister for planning by the Department of Community Development. Many small local authorities have to establish townships but cannot meet the costs of the services required to run those townships successfully. I have it on the authority of several municipalities that there is a serious flaw in the approach of the Department of Community Development towards local authorities. Therefore, I should like to ask the Minister to consider extending the scope of the fund. The position to-day is, that many local authorities simply cannot bear the cost of providing these services, services which already, are very expensive and are getting more expensive by the day. Mention has been made of the cost of these services and amenities. As far as I know—I am speaking under correction—this fund may only be called upon to finance the provision of amenities within the area, i.e. within the designated area, or the area of the township established by the local authority. I think the time has come for the Minister to bring pressure to bear on certain local authorities to provide certain of these amenities. In many cases where coloured communities have been moved, no halls or meeting places have been provided for them; roads are bad and access roads are even worse; water mains and drains are all unsatisfactory. I should like the hon. the Minister to consider this matter within the framework of a broad plan in terms of which, he should view it from the standpoint of the ratepayer of the smaller local authorities, who has to foot the bill.

There is another point I want to discuss with the Minister. Has he ever had discussions with the Department of Social Welfare and the Department of Coloured Affairs about the type of house that is being provided? For years we have had two-roomed houses without ceilings, inside doors or floors, except in certain wet areas where the Minister has relented and has provided inside doors and impervious floors. I often wonder, whether the Minister and the Government, realize that many of the sociological problems, which confront the coloured people to-day, are due to the fact that they are congregated and herded into these two-roomed houses, where a man and his wife and perhaps three or four children, adolescent boys and girls sometimes, are herded together in one living and one bedroom. I do not for one moment suggest that there is a simple and easy solution. However, I do feel a practical approach should be made, so as to ensure that persons with large families are provided with better accommodation, not on the basis of the rent they can afford, but on the basis of the needs of the family. I know the Minister will reply that there are three and four roomed houses. That is correct. But the problem we have to face here is a sociological one. The Minister is creating slums—and I do not say this in any unkind way. One has only to travel through these townships to realize that conditions are getting worse and that the intention of the Government to uplift these people is not coming to fruition.

There are many other aspects I want to discuss but I do think these fall within the scope of this Vote. However, I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether or not, this matter has been discussed between himself and the Minister of Coloured Affairs and with Social Welfare, because here we have a very real problem. In scores of these townships we find that the lighting is poor. There are no amenities whatsoever, for these people to enjoy at night, with the result that they are drawn to lighted streets where they congregate like moths round a candle. I say all this is the result of the fact that we provide them with inadequate housing. Here I want again to refer to the two-roomed houses I spoke of earlier on. It must be remembered that the Government moved these people from houses of substantial construction, when there were no similar houses available for them at the places to which they were moved. We heard speakers here this evening refer to the predicament of certain white tenants, who are unable to pay the rental or to purchase houses of good quality. The fact is that there are far more Coloured people in the lower income brackets who have occupied and owned substantial types of property and they have been moved and placed in houses, very inferior to those they used to occupy. I say this in a spirit of constructive criticism to the hon. the Minister, because I believe that unless the three Ministers concerned put their heads together and evolve a plan and a programme, the sociological problem of the deterioration of the Coloured community, especially in the lower income groups, the poorer section, will become so serious as to become a menace. I do not think it is possible for these people to do anything for themselves. They have to be assisted. The first thing to be done is that they should have a good, clean home with proper facilities. I want to put it this way. When there are water pipes or stand pipes at 500 feet intervals in the streets and people have to walk with a bucket or a four-gallon tin to get some water with which to wash, and there are no facilities for heating the water, so that one can at least have a warm bath, then we must realize we are only asking for trouble. We must accept that these people will never rise above their present level.

I appeal to the hon. the Minister, in a good spirit, to take cognizance of what I say and to realize that this is a very real problem. If these people are to prosper and become real citizens of the country then the Minister is the man to tackle the job and make a start immediately.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Karoo has asked that pressure should be brought to bear on certain smaller local authorities to provide services which do not exist. It is quite strange that the hon. member should come forward with such a request because hon. members on the opposite side are always very concerned about the rights of local authorities and provincial councils. On the other hand the hon. member for Langlaagte is being condemned because he asked that pressure be brought to bear on certain bodies. We must view these matters in the correct perspective. If local authorities do not fulfil their duties then pressure must be brought to bear on them; I agree with that I want to support the hon. member for Langlaagte and say that if there are other bodies who stand in the way of providing housing for our people, including the land speculators who are increasing the costs, it should be possible for the State to act in those cases as well. We must therefore take steps everywhere in the best interests of the greatest number of people, and we must take steps against local authorities, as well as other bodies, where it becomes necessary to do so.

I want to refer to another matter, which affects my constituency specifically, but is also a matter which applies generally because similar problems also exist in other major urban complexes. During the discussion of his Vote last year, the hon. the Minister referred to certain areas to which attention will have to be given with a view to urban renewal. Inter alia, he mentioned the George Town area in Germiston. In regard to this area I drew up a memorandum a year or two ago and submitted it to the local authority there. I also sent a copy to the Department. Ultimately it was decided to declare this area a renewal area. The normal procedure was then followed. No subdivision was allowed, the pre-purchasing right applied, and a Government committee was appointed. This committee consists of representatives of the local authority and the Department, and these knowledgeable people are now meeting to replan that area and ultimately to decide what the future of that area will be. I believe that it should become a residential area. I do not want to anticipate the findings of that committee now, but I hope and trust that the finding will be along those lines.

Once the committee has completed its work, there are a great deal of things which still have to be done: There is the purchasing of land, perhaps replanning and the normal services which have to be provided. A whole series of activities have to be carried out, and we know that those steps and activities take time. Such a urban renewal project is in point of fact a long-term one. But because it is a long-term project we must not waste time. Such a problem came to the attention of the Department specifically because problems existed in respect of the accommodation of people, sociological and other social problems, and so on. That is why attention is given to such an area. If we are unable to eliminate certain time-consuming procedures, then those problems simply continue to exist and continue to do damage. In reality many of those problems are becoming worse. We must remember that the inhabitants of such an area are not accommodated at all. The conditions under which they have to live in this interim period—if we can call it that— are poor. Then there are sociological and other social problems which in actual fact have not been solved at all, problems which, as I have said, can intensify, problems which, if we are allowed to continue unabated, actually defy rehabilitation. Apart from that there are also problems in respect of the provision of educational facilities. In this specific area, to which I have referred, a high school was forced to close down because the number of pupils there had dwindled, and a primary school in this area is also faced with problems at the moment in respect of the number of pupils. In other words, certain services and facilities which exist in such an area are breaking down and declining, but they are services and facilities which will ultimately have to be provided in that area again when we reach the process of rehabilitation. There are problems in respect of churches as well. The size of congregations who are established in such an area are also diminishing now, and obviously their income is also diminishing. With that income a congregation usually did very good social and welfare work in such an area. Now the diminishing numbers are causing the work which they have been doing to suffer.

These are all problems which we shall have to look at very carefully. We know that we have in other fields eliminated time-consuming negotiations and activities within this Department. We have had the Removal of Restrictions Act. An enquiry has been made into the provision of building sites. All these things have been done in order to see whether we cannot expedite the provision of housing for our people. Now I feel that even though, when it comes to urban renewal, we are dealing with a long-term project, we should also institute an investigation in order to see what time-consuming procedures can be eliminated. It is becoming very essential that, in the process of urban renewal, we should arrive as quickly as possible at the stage where the development work can begin. Only when the development work begins, whether it is done by the State, or whether it is done by private initiative, can we cope properly with the problems to which I have referred. Then we can eliminate those problems along these lines.

I also want to refer to a minor matter which is unrelated to this. I am referring to the Rent Board serving Germiston. Germiston is the sixth largest city in the Republic, and it used to have its own Rent Board. With the re-organization of rent boards, Germiston was classified with the eastern suburbs of Johannesburg. I think the Rent Board is now called the Eastern Rent Board, and has its premises in Johannesburg. I feel very unhappy that the sixth largest city in our country should be treated in this way. As I say, Germiston has been classified with the eastern suburbs of Johannesburg, and they have apparently become so important that the premises of our Rent Board is now in Johannesburg. I think the position should be exactly the reverse. I do not think the suburbs of Johannesburg will mind being grouped with the sixth largest city in South Africa. That is why I am asking that our Rent Board centre should return to Germiston.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to reply to the hon. member who just sat down, later on. I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North). He was pleading for what we call industrialized buildings and new Building methods. I want to remind him that the last report we had from this department covered the period from 1/4/1963 to 31/12/ 1964, and it was issued in 1966. We have not had a report since then. In this report the Minister talks about the Louw committee on the pre-construction of building methods. Those of us who attended a symposium of the C.S.I.R. listened to what was said there. Industrialized buildings are probably something for the future but, as Mr. Roberts said at the symposium, we still have a lot to learn; it is something we have to adopt if we want to get on too of the housing problem in this country. There are many of these industrialized buildings. The hon. the Minister spoke of Bothasig. I do not know whether he is quite happy with the type of building erected there. I understand the cost of such a building is nearly as much as that of an identical brick building. If we are going to go in for industrialized buildings, we will have to do so on a large scale, if we want to have the scheme operated on an economic basis. It is possible that the Government might have to assist those firms which want to go in for this type of building. We know that one or two companies who have embarked on this type of building have gone to the wall.

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) also pleaded for lower building costs. As was said here by the hon. member for Umlazi, building has gone up in price. The value of money has gone down, however. The hon. member also pleaded for a rise in the minimum income qualifying one for sub-economic housing from R100 to R140. On the one hand he pleads for lower building costs and on the other hand he pleads for a rise in the income ceilings. I think we must face the fact that building costs will not go down. They will steadily go up and we will have to pay more and more for housing. I think the days of the small builder in this country have disappeared. It is the big operator to-day who is able to carry out these big contracts. The small builder has had great difficulty in carrying on and cannot compete with the bigger builder. When we have industrialized building the small builder will find it more difficult unless he sub-contracts.

I am at one with the hon. member for Germiston when he speaks of the urban renewal schemes. In my constituency we have the guinea-pig of the urban renewal schemes. That is in the Woodstock-Salt River area. Great play was made of this new urban renewal scheme. A steering committee known as Corda was set up, and the members of the committee are very prominent people. Now, the general feeling of the committee is that before anything is done in that area ten years will have passed. According to a newspaper report, the following transpired at their first meeting—

What is really happening in that area at the present moment is that it is becoming like a bombed-out city. The Department of Community Development is acquiring property. Properties not worth rebuilding have been demolished, as well as properties which I think were worth rebuilding. Throughout the area one finds big open spaces. To worsen matters, a large road has been driven through the area and the appearance of the vicinity is just too terrible for words. As a result of the freezing of the properties in the area we are suffering just as they are suffering in Germiston. We find that good properties are deteriorating and the entire area in fact is deteriorating. The people who have had to vacate properties because they have been acquired, have had great difficulty in finding other houses. I feel that in the interim a lot of these properties could be repaired. The hon. the Minister becomes the landlord, and I feel that many of these properties could be repaired at economical cost until building operations start. It would be wrong to have an area like this completely demolished before they start building, because I think it will take another ten years, if not more, before a start is made with building in the area concerned. In the meantime people in the sub-economic group have difficulty in finding homes. I want to appeal to the Minister to follow the following procedure. When he buys these houses, even if they are in poor condition, before he gives the occupants notice and gets them to move, he should find other accommodation for them. It is not good enough to give people three, six or nine months’ notice if they just cannot find alternative accommodation. Some of the people concerned pay R16 or R18 per month rental—that is all they can afford to pay—and they must move. What happens to them? On the one hand the hon. the Minister is trying to clear up what he calls a depressed area under the urban renewal scheme. What happens to many of these people who have to move out? I have followed up quite a few cases, and often finds they move into another house where over-crowding takes place. So the position is not cured. I think we must be careful not to move people out of an old slum and in the process create a new slum. We should create something better. I want to appeal to the Minister when he takes over these houses and before he demolishes them to ask himself the question: Firstly, where am I going to house these people who must get out? Where can I house them at the same rental they are paying now? It is no use saying to those people there are dozens of empty flats, because they just cannot afford to pay R50 or R60 per month for a flat. One finds families who live in three-roomed houses, probably not of the best, and suddenly they find they have to move elsewhere where they all share a room or else they go and live in a back-yard somewhere. That is what is happening. People are moving into other areas and living there under the most terrible conditions. Therefore I say that when the Minister has acquired a property, before he gives the occupants notice to quit, he must first ask himself where he can put the people so that they pay the same rental and perhaps enjoy better conditions. That is the problem which the Minister has to face in these urban renewal schemes. He cannot suddenly give people notice and tell them to go. He must try and find a place for them to stay. If the house is not good enough for them to live in, the Minister must assume the duties of a landlord and he must put those houses in order so that the occupants can continue to live there. He cannot just abandon his responsibilities. The private landlord is not allowed to do so and the Minister should not do so either.

I am sure the steering committee, Corda, must by now have submitted an interim report either to the Minister or else to the hon. the Minister of Planning. Now, we should like to see some building going on in that area. We should like to see some accommodation being provided. The place looks like a barren area, it is becoming like a desert. Hon. members have no doubt seen photographs of areas just behind the Wall in East Berlin. If one goes to District Six one will also find enormous patches where buildings have been pulled down. [Time expired].

Mr. Chairman, I think that what the hon. member for Salt River had to say about prefabricated construction is important, and for a moment I want to bring what I want to say into line with that. I hope that the hon. the Minister of Community Development will, when he replies to what has been said here in regard to this matter, see his way clear to telling us what his impressions were in regard to the latest prefabricated construction building methods in Europe, America and Canada. In future we will definitely, apart from our conventional building methods, and with a view to increasing the supply of living accommodation, have to make use of revolutionary building methods. It is estimated that the building costs of houses in South Africa will, in three years’ time, probably be between 50 and 75 per cent more expensive than what they were in mid-1961. If these tendencies in the building industry continue, we will definitely have to consider whether we cannot devise methods of making our building construction a little less expensive. As the position stands at present, prefabricated construction is not much cheaper than the conventional construction methods. However, I foresee that in future, if it is possible to make use of prefabricated construction on a larger scale, it will also be possible to alleviate the serious shortage of building workers in our building industries to a certain extent. There is at the moment a considerable amount of building work which has to be undertaken for essential services such as hospitals, schools, etc. As a result of the shortage of labour in the building industry many of these projects are not being completed rapidly enough. There is a large shortage of artisans, such as plasterers, bricklayers, steel reinforcement workers, concrete workers and joiners. If it is possible for us to make use of prefabricated construction there is a good chance of our being able to solve this labour shortage. Notwithstanding the fact that we have, during the past few years, experimented with prefabricated construction in various parts of the country it has, as far as I know, been found that the methods can only be used as a supplement to our old conventional construction methods. The fact that local prefabricated construction builders have access to the methods which are being followed in regard to prefabricated construction overseas, will help these people in future to achieve more success with their industry and also to supply any deficiencies that existed. I hope therefore that the hon. the Minister can give us guidance in regard to the mistakes which were made in the past and in regard to how the South African prefabricated construction industry can adjust itself to experience overseas so that that experience can be applied here in this country. The prefabricated construction building industry will also be able to solve the problem of the South African housing shortage to this extent in that there is a tremendous shortage of building plots to-day. Because we will in future have to supplement our housing shortage by means of high density construction, it will perhaps be possible that we will be able to use previously manufactured prefabricated construction units for houses and flats which can be stored one on top of the other and in this way we will be able to build faster and also take up less room when doing so. It is for this reason that I want to plead with the hon. the Minister to give us guidance in this regard. This industry is still in its teething stages but I hope that in future many more of our construction builders and building contractors will be able to make use of this process. It has also been envisaged that, as far as prefabricated construction is concerned, it may be possible to make use of the wonder material, artificial resin.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.