Mr. Chairman, I have seldom in my life felt less like doing what I now have to do. In the atmosphere in which we are living I should like to see the important matters of housing, urban renewal and resettlement being discussed in a calm atmosphere. Unfortunately a certain English-language newspaper and a certain member of this House have made it impossible for me to allow this opportunity to pass without pointing out the mendacious language which both of them used.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that allegation.

Against a newspaper?

Was the hon. the Minister referring to a newspaper or to an hon. member?

I shall deal with the hon. member later, and then I shall have more than enough to say about him.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words as far as they refer to an hon. member.

I withdraw them as far as the hon. member is concerned, but certainly not as far as the newspaper is concerned. Sir, I think the time has arrived for this unsavoury gossip-mongering which is being directed at Ministers by certain English-language newspapers and by certain members of this House to be exposed to the bone.

Does that include Rapport as well?

It could include Rapport as well.

And the hon. member for Turffontein.

Sir, in the 30 years I have been a politician, I have never before seen such disparagement and such an attempt at character assassination of people from the Prime Minister down to the humblest member of this side of the House.

We have never before had such a poor Cabinet.

I do not think I can be accused of being over-sensitive in politics. I hit as hard as I can but when I am being hit at, I do not cry about it. I just want to say to the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central that I think it is high time he tried to behave himself in this House. He comes from a family that behaved themselves better than he is behaving himself in this House. Sir, I say that nothing and nobody will be spared, and I promised myself that if any gossip-mongering was directed at me, I was going to hit back as hard as I could, I was going to lay the matter wide open and that I would not care who got hurt in the process. I have my faults of course, perhaps more than the average member in this House, but I think there is one fault I do not have and which nobody can accuse me of having, and that is that I would use my position for personal gain. Sir, in the first place I do not need to do so, and in the second place, that is not the way I was brought up. I did not do it when I was a U.P. member; I held very responsible positions when I was in the United Party and no member was ever able to accuse me of having taken advantage of those positions for personal gain. And since I joined the National Party, I have held important positions and still hold important positions today, and there is no one in this House who can point a finger at me and say that I take advantage of my position for personal gain. I am not over-sensitive as a politician, but I am very sensitive when an onslaught is being made on my honour. And that is what is now being done by the Sunday Tribune and by hon. members of this House.

And in the Sunday Express.

I did not read the Sunday Express. In the Sunday Tribune of the 16th, the following appeared: “Cabinet Ministers’ Shares Mystery”, Very well then, the other Cabinet members can probably speak for themselves if it is necessary. I am going to speak only on my own behalf. This is what they said about me—

I say it is a downright lie that I ever said anything like that, and that the newspaperman who phoned me, a certain Mr. Van Oudtshoorn, knows that it is a downright lie that I ever denied being a shareholder in Bester. Then there is the second statement—

That is a foul lie. Mr. Bester’s name was mentioned for the first time in the third telephone call I had from that person. I did not tell him I was a friend of Mr. Bester. I told him I knew Mr. Bester, as I know Gerrie de Jongh, as I know Mr. Roberts of Roberts Construction and as I know Mr. Skene of Roberts Construction. There is no great friendship between me and Mr. Bester. The third was this—

And I say again it is a lie—

That, too, is a downright lie. What actually happened? This Mr. Van Oudtshoorn phoned me on a Saturday afternoon and asked me whether I had shares, and I understood him to say “Wester”. I said no, who is Wester? I do not know any Wester. He said he did not know either. I said: “Well, I do not have any shares in Wester; I know nothing about them”. The second time he phoned, he said Wester is a construction company and could I now say whether I had any shares in it. Then I said no, I do not know any Wester construction company. The third time he phoned me he told me for the first time the firm’s name was Bester Brothers Investments. Then I said: “Now I know who you are talking about”. I said I did not know whether I had any shares with them. For I have a relatively large portfolio of shares and I do not deal with those shares. My broker deals with them; my accountant deals with them, and a year or two ago when the share market was very high, we occasionally bought and sold shares. They did it; they advised me. Therefore, at that moment I did not know whether I had any shares in Bester Brothers. But what did I do then? I then gave Mr. Van Oudtshoorn the name of my accountant in Johannesburg and I told him to phone my accountant; “He will be able to tell you for certain whether I have any shares in Bester Brothers”. But, can you believe It, that they did not put in the report. No, they must now go and create the impression here that I have shares in Bester Brothers, a firm which has extensive business dealings with the Government, and also with my Department, and that I had wanted to conceal the fact that I have shares with them. I say that this is an absolutely scandalous attitude on the part of that newspaper. And then, in his leading article, he comes along with this piety of his and says—

But he did in fact imply that I had shares in that company and that I was concealing the fact. I say to the editor of that newspaper that he and his reporter are base liars, and they ought to be ashamed of themselves. But I do not think they have any shame. And there is nothing strange about the fact that I misunderstood them, for my colleague here also misunderstood them. He also said he did not have any shares in Bester Brothers, although he has, for the simple reason that he did not understand what they said. When they spoke to him. he thought they were talking about “Beste”. Now they make these base accusations.

But now I ask you this. What is wrong with Ministers having shares in enterprises which do business with the Government? [Interjection.]

Order! Who made that remark, “That is how I know them”?

What are you insinuating? [Interjection.]

Order! I am asking the question.

I deny that I said it.

We will leave it at that. I heard it. The hon. the Minister may continue.

What is wrong with a Minister having shares in a public company? This has always been the case. When Mr. Hofmeyr died, we saw in his estate what shares he had, and he was Minister of Finance. The same applies to the late Dr. Dönges. What is wrong with that now? I want to know from the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. Does he have any objection to Ministers having shares in public companies?

I shall reply later.

No, I say that this is an absolutely disgraceful business, and if a Minister may not hold shares, where must he then invest his money, if he has any? I say that Ministers have always since 1910, held shares in public companies, and I see nothing wrong with that. And I shall buy shares. I shall buy whatever shares I wish and it has nothing to do with you what I buy. But this one can still expect from a newspaper. But when it comes to a member of this House and he makes these accusations, then I maintain that he is going a little too far.

I want to come now to the hon. member for Port Natal, and I hope he will listen now. He said here in his speech under the Vote of the Minister of Labour—

Where did the National Party allow that? He did not even find out for whom these people were building houses. The houses were not being built for the Government; they were being built for Iscor. This is not a contract which Bester Brothers have with us; it is a contract they have with Iscor.

And with the town council.

What have I to do with the town council? What has the National Party to do with the town council? He said it was the National Party which allowed it. Then we go further—

That is an absolute and complete untruth.

What do they pay?

It is an absolute untruth. The Minister said in his reply here what they pay.

32 cents.

Order! The hon. member for Port Natal must contain himself.

Bester Brothers do not have one skilled Bantu labourer in their employ. The Minister said there was a sub-contractor, Van der Merwe, who used three Bantu plasterers, and he is now on the point of being prosecuted. The matter is now being investigated. But this has nothing to do with Bester Brothers. And then there is that other firm which lays the blocks. It was done by means of an agreement between the building trade union and those people, that the laying of those blocks should not be regarded as being done by skilled labour. Those blocks are being laid; the name of the firm is South African Block and Concrete Company (Pty.) Ltd., of Alberton. They employ 18 Bantu block layers and do not pay them 30 cents, as that hon. member said; they pay them 60 cents per hour; while the Durban agreement stipulates 50 cents per hour. Therefore in the whole statement he made here, there is not a single word of truth. Is he not ashamed to make those untrue accusations in this House? Of course he is not ashamed. And then he went on to say

Now I am challenging that hon. member.

How does it get away with it?

I am challenging that hon. member to rise to his feet and to say what “undue influence” Bester Brothers have, either with the Department of Labour, or with my Department, or with any other department? But the hon. member referred very clearly to the question of the shareholding of Ministers in Bester Brothers, as had been stated the previous Sunday in the Tribune.

I had nothing to do with that.

Then I challenge him to rise to his feet and say what “undue influence” that construction firm has.

I shall

He must also say what Minister is taking advantage of his position. I now say to that hon. member, and I now challenge him to do one of two things: Either to rise to his feet and apologize to me in the first place and to this House for having told so many untruths in this House, and to apologize to Bester Brothers. If he does not do that, I challenge him to rise to his feet and make an accusation against me to the effect that I take advantage of my position, for in that case I shall immediately ask for a Select Committee. If he does not do that, I say that we will know what kind of member he is. The choice is his, but if he does not do that, we will be able to deduce that he does not have a speck of courage and that he does not care a jot for the truth. In that case he will be a type of member I have never yet seen in this House in 18 years. I say he ought to be ashamed Of himself. If he in any way has the courage, he will now rise and make that accusation against me, so that I can ask for a Select Committee.

Mr. Chairman, one thing the hon. the Minister has intended to do, is to get this House away from discussing this Vote, but I have no intention of digressing. Mr. Chairman, may I have the privilege of the half hour? I have no intention of spending a portion of the half hour available to me on dealing with the allegations made by the hon. the Minister, except to say in passing first of all, that the hon. member for Port Natal will deal with those allegations at the appropriate time. Secondly, in respect of the hon. the Minister’s allegations, which were worded somewhat extremely, against the newspapers it is interesting that the hon. the Minister gave the reasons for what was obviously a misunderstanding on the first two occasions, namely that he and the person at the other end of the telephone were not ad idem as to what name was being discussed I will leave the matter at that.

What is important to us at this stage is that, while we have a leading story in the Cape Times this morning containing an announcement of the hon. the Minister’s department and while we find in our boxes this morning a brochure which is referred to as a “General Information Brochure”, we do not have before us the formal annual report of the department. That is the document which should be produced and given to us before these booklets. Time is absorbed in producing these booklets of the nature of the one we found in our boxes today.

I want to react immediately to the statement with regard to District Six which appeared in the paper this morning. The hon. the Minister has frequently said that the department is not concerned with housing for the upper income group. When one reads the announcement in the paper this morning, one finds justification for the accusation which has been made against the department that it is turning itself into a glorified estate agency business. In District Six at the present moment In excess of R1 3 500 000 of public money has been spent in the acquisition of properly, We now see that District Six is to be developed to provide luxury and semi-luxury flats and maisonettes. This is not the function of this hon. the Minister. He has repeatedly acknowledged this fact in the House. This area should provide accommodation at rentals to assist the appalling number of middle and lower income group of people who are seeking accommodation at reasonable rentals. As we have asked over and over again, it could justifiably provide a measure of better class housing for Coloured persons who are involved in business in the City centre. Provision could have been made for that type of person. It was quite interesting to see that while the hon. the Minister so frequently talks about concrete jungles, the figures in the press this morning, provide for a residential density of 120 people to the acre as far as District Six is concerned. That is far above the acceptable norm of modern planning, I do hope that the hon. the Minister will now do with this plan as he should do, namely to hand the whole concept over to the municipality to get on with it. It is their job and it is certainly not the job of the Department of Community Development. I think we are entitled to know, after the long time that has been taken over the acquisition of these properties, what is to happen in regard to their resale. How is the resale of these properties to be handled? What is the profit margin to be, or are they going to be sold without profit to make redevelopment possible? Where are the funds to tome from that will be needed by the local authorities? Are these funds to come from the resale of properties in the replanned District Six? I hope the hon. the Minister will, during this debate, enlighten us further as to the business steps that will be taken in regard to the redevelopment of District Six.

This scheme, like so many others, will remain a dream until the fundamental problems relating to housing have been solved. As far as the hon. the Minister is concerned, grand planning always seems to take precedence over down-to-earth administration and the solving of basic problems in regard to housing. The hon. the Minister knows what the basic problems are in this regard. Firstly, there is the question of the availability of land for housing at reasonable cost. Secondly, there is the question of the extension of the capacity of the building industry, which has been restricted as a result of the labour restrictions imposed upon the employment of labour in the industry. Thirdly, steps must he taken to reduce the high building costs, because cheap accommodation will never be available as long as the cost of building continues to increase as it is at the moment. One must also bear in mind the fact that the Niemand Commission confirmed that only 20 to 25 per cent of the White population can ever afford home ownership or to live in luxury or semi-luxury flats. The rest of the population requires housing of a far more economic nature than that which has been offered them. I believe that this percentage could be improved, but the hon. the Minister continues to act on an ad hoc basis. He handles these problems piecemeal. He will not look at the problem as a whole. I want to spell out to him again what we on this side of the House believe is necessary if you are really going to get down to the solution of the basic problems in regard to housing. We believe that there must be an income tax rebate in respect of money spent on the acquisition of a home by the individual. Secondly, we believe that a system must be introduced to lessen the burden on young couples during the first five or ten years of home ownership. There are many ways in which this has been done and can be done. One solution is the payment of interest only on the bond, without redemption of the capital for the first five or ten years, and another is that the interest payments should be subsidized during the first period of ten years, when a young man is getting onto his feet and setting up a home. The interest payments can then revert to the normal unsubsidized rate after a certain period of time. Thirdly, we have asked and pleaded for a reduction in the exorbitant transfer duty and stamp duty rates on property transfers. These rates are exorbitant, but these appeals fall on deaf ears. We have asked for steps to speed up the inordinate delay in the proclamation of townships. Here I want to refer to a leading article which appeared in the Volkshandel of October, 1970. I quote only a short portion from it:

The hon. the Minister said he would look into this matter. Sir, it needs more than looking into. We need some action. I hope that these matters will be considered by the hon. the Minister, because these are matters which we believe can help to solve the housing problem.

I now come to the question of Coloured housing. Here again the lack of planning and the fact that the Government has placed the emphasis on the wrong aspect has created for the Government, particularly for the Minister, a vast problem. What has happened in the past is that the Government has regarded as a priority the resettlement of disqualified Coloured persons under the Group Areas Act, without having undertaken any forward planning for what are to be the future cities of Coloured persons in the Western Cape, in Port Elizabeth and elsewhere. The result is that one has sprawling, soulless and characterless townships of single dwellings. Now the hon. the Minister and his department suddenly realize that what we have been saying for years is correct. I want to read to you, Sir, from a circular which is now being sent to local authorities, after these sprawling townships have already been established. “Die koeël is deur die kerk”; they are there. This is what the Minister’s department stated in its circular to local authorities in October last year:

The circular then goes on to refer to the uneconomic use of property and then, in regard to Coloureds, we find the following comments:

Sir, this is a change of policy. How is the Minister now going to rectify problems which he has created for himself in regard to the Coloureds?

In the remaining time available to me I want to deal with some aspects of the application of the Rents Act. I believe that the Rents Act is not achieving the anticipated ends. Those who have accommodation in rent-controlled blocks certainly have security, but those who are seeking accommodation can find no joy in the application of this Act. Here again I want to appeal to the hon. the Minister please not to make ad hoc decisions regarding the application of the Rents Act. I want to refer him to specific aspects. Firstly, he speaks of releasing luxury fiats from rent control. That statement means nothing until the Minister tells us exactly what a ‘‘luxury flat” is. All the Minister is doing is to create uncertainty on the part of tenants and false hopes on the part of the owners. I do hope that the hon. the Minister will stop mentioning that possibility until he tells us what a “luxury flat" is. How is “luxury” defined, and how is it determined? Is it determined according to the size of the flat, the number of rooms, its situation, the finish or the fittings? It certainly cannot be determined according to the rental because the whole matter is then out of court. You cannot determine it according to the rental when there is already a determination restricting that rental.

Sir, I want to come to the Minister’s application of paragraphs (g) and (h) of section 33 (1) of the Rents Act. In terms of paragraph (g) the Minister has the power to remove rent control in respect of any building if he so chooses. I understand that he has removed rent control from a large block of flats in Sea Point, namely Alphen Court. I want to know what principle he applies in terms of this provision when he singled out that particular block of flats for exemption.

I now want to come to the prerequisites of the Act as far as paragraph (h) is concerned. The hon. the Minister will know that until July last year he could exempt from rent control any dwelling in respect of which the owner could satisfy him—

1. (i) that it is of an estimated or reputed age of not less than 100 years;
2. (ii) that upon the restoration thereof the owner has spent a sum of money exceeding the purchase price paid for such dwelling by such owner …; and
3. (iii) that the dwelling has been restored faithfully according to tradition.

Last year the hon. the Minister moved an amendment in order to add a further proviso in terms of which amenities inside a house may be modernized and this particular clause would nevertheless apply.

But I want to come to a specific case, one which the Minister ought to explain. In the Cape there are a number of cottages known as the Chelsea type that are being renovated. I cannot believe that this House ever contemplated section 33 (1) (h) to cover renovations to such things as labourers’ cottages or workers’ houses. As far as I have always understood it, it was meant to assist those cases where there was a genuine restoration of period or historical buildings. In 1968 the Rent Board in Cape Town had occasion to consider one of these renovation schemes. It then reduced the rental of one of these cottages from R110 per month to R54 per month. These cottages are in the Mowbray area and were owned by one particular company. There were at the time also applications from other tenants for a reconsideration of rentals. However, nothing was done because the owners had made application to the Minister for exemption in terms of section 33 (1) (h). I have a photostat copy here of the relevant report of the board, signed by its members, in respect of one of these properties. This has reference to my question about the restoration of a period or historical building. This report is a long one and ends by stating—

These people applied for an exemption. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of a letter he received from one of the tenants, a letter dated the 6th of August, 1970. The tenant set out therein the position in which he found himself and said—

I have already referred to this reduction, i.e. from R110 to R54. This letter goes on—

The reply he received was to inform him that the matter was receiving attention. It must be remembered that this man had already been waiting since 1968 on a determination by the Rent Board. On the 20th August he received the following notice from the board—

Then on the 25th September he received another letter from the secretary of the Rent Board, referring him to the letter of the 20th of August, and informing him—

One finds that by 1971 the hon. the Minister had exempted 12 properties in this complex from rent control and he is also considering exempting the other block in which there has been a considerable reduction in rent. Now, Sir, this could not have been done before this Act was amended last year. I cannot speak condemnatory enough of this particular case where an applicant has been unable to get a determination since 1968 on account of the fact that an application for exemption was pending. This man too was entitled to have his rent reduced from R110 to R54—R600 per annum. However, his application was kept pending. Now the hon. the Minister has granted an exemption which he could only have done in terms of the proviso introduced last year. In actual fact this application should have been thrown out by the Minister years ago.

You supported that proviso, didn't you?

Yes, we supported it and let the hon. the Minister look at my reasons for doing so. I do not have the time to do it. He can look at the Hansard of the 31st of July, 1970, col. 868. We supported that amendment but, as I have said, for the restoration of period and historical buildings, as is being done in Stellenbosch and with some Georgian homes in this city, restored according to type and to add the amenities of modern life whilst maintaining the exteriors. This amendment was never meant to apply to this Chelsea type of cottage. The houses in this specific group may be well over 100 years old. That I am not querying.

If there is exploitation I shall not hesitate to put them under rent control.

I know the hon. the Minister will, but here is the case of an owner applying for exemption of a cottage for which the Rent Board considered a justifiable rental to be R54 per month. The owner was charging R110. But the owner applied for an exemption. For what reason? Only to be able to maintain the rental at R110 per month, for the other buildings in the block. I want the hon. the Minister to explain why this went through. To me the decision was wrong and was certainly not contemplated when we debated the amendment in this House. It is removing the protection of the Rents Act from people entitled to that protection.

I appealed to the hon. the Minister before, and I want to do so once more, not to make ad hoc decisions under the Rents Act. It has frightened off people from building flats. As a matter of fact, according to figures I saw recently which are subject to correction, only three building plans of blocks of flats have been submitted in Cape Town this year. I think the time has come that the hon. the Minister should sit down with the organizations concerned to see to what extent the Rents Act can be varied so as not to inhibit the building of and investment in flats and at the same time protect those tenants who need protection. I know this is a difficult problem. I have previously referred to those wealthy persons who should have a means test applied to them to get them out of the very cheap flats. However, how it ought to be done is a very difficult problem. But unless that is done and unless the Minister and his department face up to the basic inducement and assistance that must be given to would-be home-owners, the housing problem will never be solved. We shall never be able to provide houses for the natural increase in our population, for our immigrants and to provide housing in proper areas and under proper conditions for young South Africa.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point expressed his surprise at the fact that the Minister was first to enter the debate, that he first dealt with a matter questioning his integrity and honesty and that he did not immediately touch upon the matter of housing. The Minister very clearly stated at the outset that he would immediately like to discuss the question of housing in a calm atmosphere. but that there was one matter he would like to put right. Sir, were we not greatly surprised that the hon. member for Green Point then stood up and not the hon. member for Port Natal. Sir, it goes without saying that when a Minister’s integrity and honesty are questioned in this way, the Minister wants to clarify the matter. The Minister did the two things open to him; he told the hon. member that if he had the courage and the human dignity he should apologies, or else he must place the Minister in the position where he could request a Select Committee to investigate this matter. Sir, if one makes such insinuations, one must, after all, be sure of one’s facts. One is surely not just going to point a finger at someone and question his integrity if one is not sure of one’s facts. And if the Minister then gives one an opportunity, as the hon. member was given here, to immediately request a Select Committee, one must not sit there without anything to say; one must then come and substantiate one’s allegations, and if one does not do so, I must not be blamed for believing that relevant individuals are thriving on gossip. Sir, they are playing along with a section of the Press which can no longer argue about policy matters, but which has dragged character assassination as an instrument into the politics in South Africa, and then they consider that they are thereby doing South Africa a service. Sir, it is high time that we open up this matter the way the Minister would like to do it, and that in public life we get away from this character assassination, once again being prepared to set one principle against another in our newspapers and in this House. Sir, if that does not happen, we must dispose of these stories as gossip and then tell the public at large that that side of the House is more interested in such gossip than in making positive suggestions about an important matter such as housing.

They themselves are guilty.

Sir, in speaking of positive suggestions, I want to come to what the hon. member for Green Point has just said.

Order! The hon. member for Newcastle must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

I also want to come to what the hon. member for Green Point said here. He referred to certain problems in connection with housing and then made three statements. But, Sir, it remains a question of words. The fundamental problems in connection with housing, according to the hon. member, are the availability of land, labour and the high building costs. The hon. member only mentioned those problems, but made no positive suggestion to indicate how the problem of the availability of land, for example, should be solved. Then he merely mentioned the problem of labour. We know what the Opposition’s standpoint in connection with labour is. About how we must counteract and combat the high building costs, the hon. member had no suggestion to make. But it was at least an endeavour on the part of the hon. member. But when we come to that hon. member, who simply adds one piece of gossip to another, one also has question marks that one can apply as far as certain members are concerned.

Sir, the hon. member for Green Point also referred to District Six and to the announcement we saw in the newspapers this morning. I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point whether they support urban renewal. We have not yet had that clarified by that side of the House. Sir, this is a new field that we in South Africa must enter. At the opening of the Department’s exhibit at the Republic Festival Show, the Minister stated in a speech what the cardinal principles are in connection with urban renewal: The identification of such a slum area, its replanning, the resettlement of people living there, until the area is then built up. But on the whole principle of urban renewal we have not yet had any clear reply from those hon. gentlemen. As far as District Six is concerned, we were first attacked because we uprooted certain people; that was what the great fuss was about. Now that they see that we are progressing with District Six. and that it is developing into something fine, there is again a shift of emphasis in the attacks; now it is no longer a matter of people being uprooted: now it is a question of the costs of the scheme, and it is suggested that the scheme should be handed over to the city council, etc.

Who said that?

Sir, I believe, as I also read in this morning’s report, that there was the closest co-operation between the department and the city council. The department specifically sets itself the task, in matters such as these, of seeking the support of the city councils, and the city council agrees with that; the hon. member may read about it in this morning’s statement. Sir, I can also testify to the urban renewal policy, because I have one in my constituency. That is one on which the quickest and greatest progress has probably been made in South Africa. I regret not having the time to elaborate on that, but there you have a concrete example of the progress being made along the lines the Minister indicated to us. and of how we obtained results. But, Sir, those hon. members blow hot and cold as far as urban renewal and the Rents Act are concerned. The hon. the Minister has an open mind as far as the Rents Act is concerned. Our party’s group has held more than one discussion with the Minister about this matter, and we are looking for a way in which this matter can be handled so that it does not thwart the provision of more flat units, but will also ensure, at the same time, that people are not exploited. The Minister has said on occasion that he has an open mind about a Select Committee where all interested parties can come along and speak about the matter. The Minister is therefore not insensitive about the matter, Sir, I just want to make one positive suggestion, because my time is running out. I want to agree with the hon. member for Green Point that our fundamental problem is one of costs—the cost of building premises, the cost of services, particularly if suburbs are spread out far from the metropolitan centre, and then also the building costs to which the hon. member referred. The Minister also said on occasion that private home ownership is becoming less and less attractive, specifically because it is becoming inaccessibly expensive. Sir, we must now try to find a solution, and I want to put it to you in these terms: If a commodity is in demand, the merchant and (he manufacturer ensure that the supplies are there so that the demands can be met. In the field of housing we also have an article for which there is a demand, particularly from pensioners, newly-weds and people who first want to get a nest-egg together before they bind themselves to something more expensive and luxurious. I agree with the Minister that our young people must not expect to begin where Mother and Father ended—one surely crawls before one walks. I say that in the housing construction field there is also an article that is in demand, i.e. cheap housing, and I do not know whether we are providing a sufficient quantity of that article. I shall tell you what type of housing is in demand as far as the aged and newly-weds are concerned. It is the type of housing—I do not say that the pattern must be the same; I do not say that the material and their sizes must be the same—that we have in our Government villages. I get a tremendous demand for that, and if we have a demand for it we must investigate the possibilities of providing that type of housing. We shall also have to diversify more as far as the cost aspect is concerned. And this applies to urban renewal as well; where we rebuild urban areas, we shall have to diversify the cost aspect in the provision of flats. We shall have to give everyone a bigger choice. Let those who can afford to buy luxury houses go out and buy them, and let the private developer provide them with these houses, but if there are others with different tastes, let us also provide for their taste. Let us provide for the needs of those who want cheap housing. We must not force people, who want the type of housing one gets in Government villages, into expensive and luxury housing, because that is our problem in South Africa.

What about Acacia Park?

Yes, there is another example. Sir, if we can manage this we are doing three things at once: We are providing for the requirements; we are forcing private developers to take their eyes off the luxurious for a moment and to also provide housing in accordance with the demand; and we are even relieving the burden on building societies. I think that the department and the Minister must help us there with the necessary research so that we can diversify more. I see that you want to stop me, Sir; I shall therefore take my seat at once, before you announce that my time has expired.

The hon. member for Germiston has made the same remarks that the hon. the Minister made some time back, that the housing demands of young couples today are too great; that they are setting their sights too high. This is an indication of the extent to which the Government has lost touch with events outside this House. This is just not so. [Interjections.] hon. members can go on making personal remarks if they like, but it is not going to help them amongst the people who are responsible for voting the future Government into power, and they had better bear that in mind. They had better in this regard perhaps have a look at the recent annual statement of the chairman of one of the house building companies I will name him. Duff Cooper— who says quite clearly that it is becoming impossible for companies such as his to cater for the housing needs of the lower income group, and here he is referring to the group with an income immediately above the income catered for in the economic group; in other words, the group for which private enterprise is expected to cater. And the reasons why it is becoming increasingly impossible to cater for these groups are quite simple. It has been mentioned over and over again by knowledgeable persons that there is a scarcity of capital; capital is costing more, building costs are rising, there are labour problems and there is a scarcity of material. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister what he and his department propose doing about these problems. These problems existed last year. We raised them under his Vote last year, and they are no better this year. If anything, they are worse. It in these things, among others, which are causing building costs continually to rise and which are pricing houses, even moderate housing, not luxury housing, beyond the means of the lower income groups, particularly the younger couples. I hope that the hon. the Minister will take the opportunity during his Vote this year to tell us what realistic and concrete measures the Government is going to take to cope with these problems.

Now I want to deal with other matters, but before I deal with general matters i would like to deal, in the short time left to me now, with a local matter which, although local, carries inherent in it an important principle which applies to other areas as well. What I want to deal with is the Queensborough area, and the problem which the Queensborough ratepayers are having as a result of the large area of land owned by the Minister’s department in that area in relation to the total area of the borough. The hon. the Minister already knows the figures, no doubt. He has had approaches from time to time from the borough for assistance. I want to plead with him today and to urge him to do something about this, because it is becoming a real burden on the voters in that area.

I would point out that there are a large number of house-owners in that area who are pensioners and who have very limited incomes, persons who are quite poor. There are a large number who fall in that category and as a result of the large proportion of properties owned by the department, on which the department pays no rates, the rates have had to be increased on the other properties, with the result that in effect the other ratepayers are having to subsidize the Department of Community Development, This is the effect, and just to name some figures, think that the percentage of the properties owned by the department in Queensborough is as high as one-third. It has been suggested to me that it is higher than that, but I say it is at least one-third of the total area of Queensborough.

The department owns at present 460 hectares, in round figures. These are figures provided by the Town Treasurer as at 8th January, 1971. It is 460 hectares, or approximately 1 050 acres, for the benefit of those who still prefer to deal in acres. The municipal valuation of these properties, on the very low valuations which Queensborough places on its properties, particularly land, is R2 556 000. In answer to a question last year put by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, the hon. the Minister said that the rate paid by the department amounted to only R20 395 in respect of properties let and sold on hire purchase. The hon. the Minister will know that this is a drop in the ocean in relation to the intrinsic value of these properties.

Now, what I am asking the hon. the Minister to do is to consider a grant-in-aid to this municipality. It has been done in Pretoria, I understand, and it has been done to a limited extent in Cape Town, and I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this, and I would suggest that possibly a fair figure would be 10 per cent of the municipal valuation of these properties. The hon. the Minister will know that the market value of these properties is far in excess of even the municipal valuation. Whereas the municipal valuation is R2½ million, it is estimated that the true market value is probably close to R27 million. I believe that it will be fair for the department to grant to this municipality a grant-in-aid to alleviate the burden on the present ratepayers who, I emphasize, are largely pensioners and people with limited means.

I want to revert to the question of the Rents Act. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the first place I want to say that I fear that we cannot agree with what the hon. member for Green Point said in connection with this brochure. I think that today we truly want to congratulate the hon. the Minister on the fact that he gives this House and the community such information.

I wanted first things first. His report comes first.

The report will come. Hon. members know what the problems are in connection with reports. They are not things one can hatch out under a chicken in a short space of time. This brochure is an excellent review of what has been done by the National Party in solving the housing problem in South Africa. All the stories we get from the United Party are quashed by this brochure.

The hon. member for Musgrave also referred her to the young people and said that we allege that the demands they make today in connection with housing are too severe. We did not say this. No-one on this side of the House with any sense of responsibility has ever said any such thing. But we all know what it means to own a house. When a person wants to do so, he himself must cut his coat according to his cloth. If one goes through this brochure, one can see what has already been done for that type of home owner who wants to own his own home. A great deal has already been done in the past, and an infinite amount is being done. The hon. member said that it is these young people, who we condemn as a result of the heavy demands they make, who will vote them into power. I just want to tell the hon. member for Musgrave that that will be the day. I want to say that the young people of South Africa are level-headed young people who will not be caught by such stories. They are not people one would catch with a mess of pottage. The young people of South Africa will vote for concrete principles aimed at keeping the Whites in power here in South Africa.

Benoni did not want it?

Benoni's people knew what they were doing in 1966. Even now they know that they made a mistake last year. But we shall discuss the matter again after the next election.

I just want to speak about a few matters concerning my own constituency. I want to lodge a plea with the department that, in co-operation with the local authority, we should launch an investigation there to obtain land on the southern slopes of the Klip River mountain in the Misgund and Comptonville areas. I want to bring it to the hon. the Minister's attention that there is still a tremendous amount of uncultivated land there where farming activities are still in progress. That land is at present still obtainable at reasonable prices. I want to advocate here that we investigate the possibility of obtaining that land and starting a housing scheme there.

What is the name of the place?

I am speaking of the Comptonville and Misgund areas.

Then I also want to say that the hon. the Minister’s department must investigate the activities at Klipriviersoog, It has come to my attention that in that vicinity, which is the only area of development for the Coloureds of Nancefield that must move further westward, the Johannesburg City Council is obtaining a reasonably large piece of land in order to erect a Bantu cemetery there. I want to say today that it is an extremely irresponsible move on the part of the Johannesburg City Council to want to erect a Bantu cemetery to the south of the Johannesburg-Vereeniging railway line, ‘right up against that Coloured area. I consider it to be absolutely scandalous, and we must guard against it happening.

Where must they go to?

The cemetery can be laid out more to the west, on the side of the railway line where the Bantu areas are established. We shall most certainly fight it tooth and nail. That is the area towards which the Coloureds could normally expand. On the other side lies the Indian area of Lenasia.

This morning I want to raise the question of rent control. As far as that is concerned I can agree with the hon. member for Green Point. I want to lodge a plea with the hon. the Minister in that connection. The appointment of commissions of inquiry already leaves a bad taste in the mouths of many hon. members in this House. I am one of those people who believe in commissions of inquiry. I think that in a developing country like South Africa, where we are faced with many complex problems, commissions that we have appointed to investigate certain matters have already given us tremendous help in solving those specific problems. The hon. member for Green Point proposed—and I think the hon. member for Germiston also referred to it—that discussions should now take place with the various bodies in connection with rent control.

I want to advocate this morning that the hon. the Minister should give very serious thought, as far as this matter is concerned, to the appointment of a commission of inquiry that can investigate this whole matter. I also hope that we shall get the support of the other side of the House in this connection. I think that the private sector, in this case the land developers, are people who would welcome it. In discussions we have had with them, certain things were mentioned in connection with the spending of money and the development along these lines, things that upset the present-day developers a little. Therefore, without speaking about it for very long, I want to advocate and submit to the hon. the Minister the suggestion that he give serious attention to the appointment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the whole matter of rent control.

Mr. Chairman. I am pleased that the hon. member for Langlaagte supports my proposal made to the hon. the Minister earlier in this Session, namely that the time has arrived for the appointment of a commission of inquiry to consider the effects rent control legislation is having and to consider possible ways of overcoming some of the undesirable aspects thereof. I made this suggestion as the hon. the Minister will remember on 25th February when the House was dealing with the Rents Amendment Act.

I would urge the hon. the Minister to give serious consideration to this matter at this stage. The hon. the Minister said quite frankly in reply to me at that stage that he was considering a number of improvements and that if they did not prove satisfactory he would seriously consider a commission. Quite frankly, I do not believe that the hon. the Minister will deal satisfactorily with this problem—he might deal with it piecemeal —without a commission to consider all the aspects of it. There are many suggestions that can be made. Above all there are variations. It may be that one suggestion has certain problems but there could be alternatives proposed when this was fully considered to meet the difficulties. For example, the hon. the Minister suggested that it may be possible to control flat rentals up to a certain figure. The hon. the Minister suggested R150 or R175. He, however, mentioned that one of the problems in that regard is that in the same block you may have flats of that rental and rentals above it. That is a problem. But I believe it is not an insuperable problem. I think it is something which could be solved after proper consideration.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to another very undesirable feature which has developed over the years in respect of rent-controlled flats. Today there are very large numbers of rent-controlled flats that are being occupied by persons in the executive class, persons who earn incomes far above the type of income that requires the protection of the Rents Act. They are keeping out of rent-controlled flats persons in the lower and middle income groups who have to pay higher rentals, in many cases above their means. Surely this is a matter to which attention should be given. The only justification for rent control is to enable persons who cannot afford higher rents to have accommodation that they can afford. It was never intended as a perk for people who can afford rentals on the open market If the hon. the Minister will investigate many of these rent-controlled blocks he will find that a very large number are being occupied not by persons in the lower or middle income groups who need the protection of lower rentals, but by persons in the higher category.

I agree with you entirely, but have you any suggestion as to how we will get them out?

I think that in respect of those who are already occupying flats it may be difficult to get them out. It may be even undesirable, because they have possibly spent a lot of money establishing themselves and therefore have a vested right. But I do believe that one thing that could be considered for the future is that no rent-controlled flat that becomes available in the future shall be given to a person unless he satisfies the owner or the agent by signing an affidavit that his income is not beyond a certain accepted figure. The amount of such income is a matter which would have to be considered. Perhaps the figure should be roundabout the R5 000 mark. It is true that you cannot control the position entirely by simply receiving an affidavit from a man. He might not disclose everything. But if he signs on oath that his income is not above a certain figure you then have evidence upon which he can be prosecuted if it can be shown that he made a false statement. This would have very considerable detrimental effects on a person who might choose to try and get away with it when in fact he earns more. I believe this could be done in regard to the occupation of future rent-controlled flats. This could go a long way towards alleviating this abuse. There are, as the hon. the Minister pointed out, blocks of flats such as the Bordeaux block. The Bordeaux block is the type of flats which should never be under rent control. This the hon. the Minister conceded in replying to me when we dealt with this matter before. There are various suggestions which can be considered to overcome the unsatisfactory developments which have been taking place under rent control. All these unsatisfactory features result in one thing, namely that there are fewer controlled flats available for the persons who really require it. Therefore, rent control must be imposed more strictly, and this inhibits the building of new flats.

I would respectfully suggest to the hon. the Minister that he must be very careful if he is going to rely completely on the Sectional “Titles Act for the alleviation of the position. Undoubtedly, this will help to stimulate flat building, but it will take several years before the effect will be felt. In the meantime, the position can only deteriorate, unless proper investigation is carried out in regard to these other unsatisfactory features of the Rents Act. I should like to point out to the hon. the Minister that in Australia it has been found possible to phase out rent control gradually. I think it still applies to some extent, but it has been phased out very considerably. It has been found possible to do that without jeopardizing the position of those persons who do need that protection until the housing position is sufficient to enable control to be dispensed with altogether. I would therefore urge the hon. the Minister to give consideration at this stage to the appointment of a commission to go into this matter properly.

I now want to come back to the question of housing. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister and the Government that they must look at the problem which faces them more realistically than they are doing at the moment. In answer to a question put by one of our hon. members on this side, the hon. the Minister of Statistics replied that no population projection to the year 2000 has yet been made. I am surprised to hear that. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, rent control is only one of the subdivisions of the activities of the Department of Community Development. The hon. member for Musgrave will therefore pardon me if I do not elaborate on that any further. This department has two other important functions about which I should like to say a few words. Hon. members can also obtain more information about these two functions in the brochure that has been made available to us. I, too, only found this brochure in my post box this morning, but I have at least taken note of the information contained in it. These two functions, to which I am referring, are slum clearance and the promotion of urban renewal. These are two of the various functions entrusted to the Department of Community Development when it was called into being on 1st April, 1964. Even at that stage slum clearance had become a must as far as all our people were concerned. It was necessary. Slums were also known to exist, because the National Party had for several years been doing slum clearance work. The Department of Housing was doing it. The Group Areas Board was also doing so. When the Department of Community Development came into operation, the experience of the previous few years taught us that this matter should immediately receive very urgent attention. In its short span of existence South Africa obtained its large cities. With rapid development, of course, these dilapidated areas came into being. I can tell the House that since the department took this task upon itself in 1964, almost R112 million has been spent on urban renewal. This is no meagre achievement. I want to mention a few examples. Firstly I have in mind the Merriman Avenue area in Stellenbosch, where the department is re-developing about 50 acres, an area which, in the approximately 100 years of its existence, has declined to such an extent that clearance has become necessary. However, the department does not only knock down; they also have their aesthetic feeling, and they retain what must be retained, whether as a result of a building’s attractive architectonic appearance, or because of other considerations. The department has, therefore, set to work somewhat conservatively by not knocking the entire area down, but by preserving for the future that which has a bearing on the past. This area is chiefly being renewed and re-planned for residential purposes. A large part of the area will be given to the private sector for development, but the department itself will be responsible for a group of multiple houses with both architectural and cultural-historical value. The estimated cost of this work is R243 000.

With reference to the area which the hon. member for Germiston mentioned, I want to point out that those 43 acres have already been obtained. This was done quickly, and I do not believe that it could ever have been done more quickly with the help of the Opposition. Things may be said that will do so much damage that opposition could come from the public, opposition one would not have had if the department tackled the work on its own. In any case, about 1 500 residential units are going to be erected in this area, and these will eventually stand there as a monument to the department and a dynamic Minister, someone who does not let the grass grow under his feet. The department has also made provision for 138 duplex residential units there, and these will be erected by private enterprise. Another example is South End at Port Elizabeth. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North will probably be grateful for the developments taking place there, because he is a great mediator for Port Elizabeth. At South End 87 hectares are being developed. Those hon. members who took the trouble to go to the Goodwood show-grounds, would there have seen a replica of what South End would eventually look like. The preparation work is proceeding rapidly, and soon the work itself will be started. That will be a proud day for the department and the city council, who cooperated very nicely in this connection.

In Durban there are also several areas that must be cleared up. There are, for example, Prospect Hall, Riverside, Brickfield-Hoosen, the Wiggins Estate and many others. My time is too limited to give a full explanation. At Riverside the services have already been planned at great cost; likewise also in the Rand area, Brickfield-Hoosen and elsewhere. Then there is still the Glenmore West area, Blocks AK. and G, Bonela and a portion of Bellair. One is left simply breathless at how this department can cope with everything. And yet they manage so much.

In Johannesburg there is the Jeppes area, where at present 128 flats are being erected at a cost of R1 190 000. This will be a big feather in the cap of the department.

But there are still other areas, for example in Pretoria, in Cape Town at District Six, etc. You will remember how District Six looked. One could almost say that the area was degenerating into a plague bog. Now it is being cleared up, and what is to take its place will redound to the honour of Cape Town and the department. Other places at which similar work is being undertaken are Oudtshoorn, Grahamstown and East London.

Work is also being done for the Coloureds and Indians. For the Coloureds a part of Newclare is being cleared up in order to provide, inter alia, a large enough business centre, while in Fordsburg a bazaar area is being planned for the Indians, development that will lift that area out of the terrible conditions prevailing there. Then there is the old Asiatic bazaar in Pretoria, where a good deal of progress has already been made. In fact, a start has been made on building 130 shop units, and these ought to be ready by the end of 1972.

I have hereby given a brief outline of works the Department is engaged on. How they can work more quickly I do not know, unless of course we suspend the activities of all the other departments and order them to assist the Department of Community Development. The department has reason to be proud, and it has reason to boast; they also have the right to organize a great 201C;brag201D; on the grounds of their achievements. All that we can still do is to tell the department: Be ready for the fray; see that you are armed with means for many years; continue, with the aid of your dynamic officers and your dynamic Minister, in your salutary work in connection with urban renewal.

The hon. member mentioned a number of areas, inter alia, the Riverside area in Durban. However, I would suggest that he give a little more study to this particular area, because this is an area where the planning of the department certainly went haywire.

But I want to come immediately to the hon. the Minister himself. He started off this debate in his usual charming manner. Inter alia, he dealt with the matter concerning Bester Homes. I want to say to him that it does not concern me at all that he has an argument with a particular Sunday newspaper. We on this side have nothing to do with that particular statement. His argument may or may not be valid. That I shall leave there. Much has been written about this particular firm, about its use of Bantu bricklayers and plasterers. The hon. the Minister of Labour gave us a reply to certain questions put to him this morning. Attention was drawn to this firm as far back as a year ago in the Other Place by Senator Crook. He referred to it on at least two occasions, that this was happening. But I shall leave the labour aspect of the matter there and say to the hon. the Minister that it has been alleged that five Cabinet Ministers are shareholders in that particular firm. They are listed as shareholders. Nobody suggests—I certainly have not—or can suggest that these Ministers are not entitled to hold shares in this company.

Then why are you saying it?

They are fully entitled to hold shares in any public company. No one can suggest that the many Government and semi-Government contracts obtained by this company have been obtained other than by the legitimate means of submitting tenders and being awarded those contracts in the normal course of events. Nobody disputes that particular point of view.

And undue influence?

I want to say just in passing that it is interesting that this company, to my knowledge, has a contract of R1 190 000 at Jeppe, a contract of R553 000 at Hammanskraal from the Department of Community Development, a R4¼ million contract from the Department of Economic Affairs, or actually from Iscor. and in the area of Newcastle 100 houses are now being built by this particular company. This contract was awarded by the Town Council of Newcastle, although it had to be confirmed by the Department of Community Development because they supplied the funds.

Sir, whether these Ministers should hold shares in a company like this, is however a matter of opinion. my opinion certainly is that they should not do so, as a matter of principle, firstly because the prospectus of Bester Homes issued on the 13th June, 1969, boasted of the number of Government contracts that it had obtained, and it is certainly entitled to do that. It builds Government buildings, post offices, high schools, primary schools, police stations and so on. There is nothing wrong with that at all. But where a company boasts of the number of Government contracts it has obtained, then I question whether it is good in principle for a number of Cabinet Ministers to hold shares in such a company which is doing Government business. I have said already that I do not say that these contracts were obtained in any but the proper manner.

But what about undue influence?

The second point I want to make is this: This company also holds large tracts of land in an area which is at present the subject of a controversial reproclamation or proclamation in the Newcastle area. In fact it holds 1 583 acres, which it has already bought and of which it has taken transfer, and a further 1 390 acres, of which transfer has not yet been effected. A further company, Model Homes, has 970 acres, and we find that Minister M. C. Botha happens to hold shares in this particular company. This company therefore holds a total of 3 943 acres, out of a total of 7 400 acres in an area which may or may not be subject to re-proclamation. Sir, in the session last year when we had a dispute over the re-proclamation of Ladysmith, I put a certain question to the hon. the Minister of Planning, and he told me that both the Minister of Community Development and himself quite naturally were concerned with any area which was due for re-proclamation—and quite rightly so. He went on to say that these two Ministers investigate any objective set down by the Cabinet: in other words, decisions with regard to proclamations and re-proclamations may have to be taken at Cabinet level. I ask the hon. the Minister of Community Development in these circumstances whether he thinks it is correct that five or possibly six Cabinet Ministers should sit in judgment on the re-proclamation of an area where five or six Cabinet Ministers hold an interest in a company which may stand to gain by this re-proclamation. I am not saying that it is going to gain, because it depends on where the area is finally demarcated. I believe, Sir, that that is wrong, and I say that those Cabinet Ministers are duty-bound to recuse themselves from any discussion that takes place with regard to these re-proclamations. Any other course would certainly be unjustified. An area of 100 acres bought by Bester Homes is at present zoned as a Coloured area forming part of the Newcastle town. It was bought on the understanding that the area would be re-proclaimed, possibly as a White area. If this decision is going to be taken at Cabinet level, as is very likely to happen, surely I am entitled to say that these Cabinet Ministers should not hold shares in such a public company.

You are now trying to justify these dirty insinuations.

Sir, let me finish. If a city councillor held an interest in a company which tendered for city council work, that city councillor would have to proclaim or state his interests in the matter and he would have to withdraw. I am not saying Sir, that anything improper has happened, but what I am saying is that it is certainly unwise for Cabinet Ministers to hold Shares in companies which have Government contracts and, more important, hold share; in a company which holds a vast acreage in an area which is subject to re-proclamation, in the light of the statement last year that this sort of thing is often decided at Cabinet level. For this reason I say to the hon. the Minister that he is certainly incorrect when he makes this statement

What statement is incorrect?

The hon. the Minister’s attitude to the matter is incorrect. In principle I stick to my guns. Mr. Chairman. I say that it is incorrect that Ministers should hold shares in public companies which do business with the Government; it is as simple as that. If the hon. the Minister of Community Development disagrees with me, then I am afraid we are going to have to agree to disagree, because that is the way I see it. It is just incidental—and I make no suggestions in this regard—that this particular company showed its astuteness long before any member of the Cabinet became a shareholder, in that it took options on land at Newcastle three days before it was announced that the new Iscor would be established at Newcastle.

What are you insinuating?

I am not insinuating. I say that the Ministers were not shareholders at that time. [Time expired.]

You know, you are just about the biggest coward that I have ever come across.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw it, but I am afraid it is true.

Order!

A new matter has been raised in this House this morning, and a new standpoint has been adopted here for the first time in 30 years. That hon. member says that no Minister may hold shares in any undertaking, even a public undertaking, that does business with the State in any way. That is his standpoint. He is afraid to say that something improper has happened and now he does so by way of reflections and innuendoes. I am waiting for the hon. member actually to say so, and then I can ask for a Select Committee to investigate whether there has been any improper conduct or undue influence on the part of Ministers, for the standpoint which the hon. member has adopted here is a completely new one which has never been adopted in this House before, and I have been sitting in this House for 28 years.

They have no policy.

Is it now expected of every Minister who buys shares on the share market—and dozens and dozens of companies are listed on the Stock Exchange—first to determine beforehand whether that particular company is going to do business with the State at some time or another in the future? Surely this is quite absurd. Must a Minister now first investigate every one of the many companies listed on the Stock Exchange in order to determine whether any of these companies is perhaps going to do business with the State in the future? In other words, a Minister may not hold shares in a gold mine. A Minister may hold no shares in any property company. He may hold no shares in any press company. He may buy no shares in any coal company. He may buy no shares in any agricultural company, because perhaps it may do business with the State. Have you ever heard such utter nonsense? This has never been applicable. In the years I have been sitting here, members of the United Party Government were big shareholders in many companies, and no objection has ever been made to that. I know that the late Senator Conroy was not only a big shareholder, but also a director of Die Suiderstem, of which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition was also a director at some stage, if I remember correctly.

No.

Then I pardon him. But in any case he was not in the Government at that time. He was not even in the House yet. But the fact remains that Senator Conroy and other members of the United Party Government were big shareholders and directors of a press company. As far as I myself am concerned, I am a shareholder in a press company which does business with the State. This has been the position all these years. All my predecessors were shareholders. There were the late Mr. Strydom and the late Dr. Verwoerd. They were shareholders in Afrikaanse Pers, and that company entered into contracts with the Post Office for the printing of telephone directories. Now I want to know from any hon. member whether there is anything improper in that. Because all are these tenders are issued by the impartial Tender Board, and that Tender Board decides on good grounds or on merit which company is to get the contract. However, I just want to say that the whole intention of that hoember is, as they say in English, that 201C;he is prepared to wound, but is afraid to strike201D;. He is afraid of making actual accusations, or even of making the innuendo that there is something improper.

He is a terrorist.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that,

I withdraw it.

I must say the terrorists at least have the courage to risk their lives, but that hon. member does not even have the courage to make his accusations here. Therefore one cannot draw that comparison in respect of him at all. The hon. member for Port Natal is an insignificant member of this House; he is an insignificant backbencher. He cannot speak on behalf of his party, but the hon. the Leader of the Opposition can. I should like to hear what his standpoint is in regard to the matter, whether he expects a Minister who wants to buy shares on the share market first to investigate whether there is any possibility that some company or other from which he wants to buy shares may do business with the State at some time or another. In addition, I want to say the following. I do not know how many shares have been issued in that company, but it is probably about 900 000. There are Ministers who each hold 1 000 shares. Can 1 000 shares influence a Minister to such an extent, if this were to be true, that he would use his influence to get special preferential treatment for that company? It is an absurd and a ridiculous statement which the hon. member made here. I do not know why we are still paying any attention to the hon. member, except that he should make accusations if he wishes to do so. Then we shall know what to do further.

I want to say this very clearly to the hon. member now. He did not say a single word about this allegation of 201C;undue influence201D;. Now I want to say this to the hon. member. He must level a specific charge at me, or apologize to me. If not, I shall never have anything to do with him again, neither in this debate nor as long as I am a Minister. [Interjections.] I shall treat him strictly according to what he is. I now challenge him to say what the 201C;undue influence201D; is. He spoke of the large contracts which Bester Brothers have with the Government. Does he as a member of Parliament not know that those contracts go to the Tender Board without exception? Does he want to drag in the Tender Board now? Are they corrupt? Is there 201C;undue influence201D; on the Tender Board as well? Sir, I now want to show you what sort of man the hon. member is. I think the hon. member’s Leader ought to speak, but I do not think he will do so. I do not think he has the courage. [Interjections.] I have looked it up now. Last year I received R48 in dividends from Bester Brothers. Would I place my whole political reputation, which extends over 30 years, at stake in order to increase that R48, to what? To R50? To R100, or to R1 000? Is he not ashamed of himself? But I will show you what type of man we have to deal with here. Last year I accused him of having told this House three absolute and blatant untruths. I repeated those very words in Durban, but there I did not say that he had told blatant untruths; I said he had lied blatantly. Then I received a letter from his attorney which stated that he was going to sue me for defamation, and that letter landed in the wastepaper basket without further ado. But then I wrote a letter to the Durban Chamber of Commerce, and I used the following words, which were published—

Worse defamation one cannot commit towards anybody, but what was his reaction to that? He did not take me to court in order to test it, in the same way as he does not want to level an accusation at me now. He did not take me to court in order to test the matter, but issued this thing, a string of inaccuracies and untruths, and greater rubbish I have never read. A child in Std. 2 could have done it better. But he said here—

I challenge him now: Take me to court, so that we may test your incorrect allegations. Or make the accusation now, so that I may ask the Leader of the House to appoint a Select Committee.

I have not got a Cabinet to pay my expenses.

Docs the Cabinet support me in such a case? That is another insinuation. Very well, then I shall make him this offer. Let him take me to court and I shall pay his costs, win or lose. This is the type of man one has to deal with here, and I repeat: Those hon. members and the Leader of the Opposition, who is sitting over there with his cynical face — this is the type of mean politics which he tolerates, and since the hon. the Leader of the House has spoken now, he too should state his attitude in regard to this matter now. I repeat that the hon. member should rise and apologize to me or level an allegation which can be tested, otherwise I will pay no further attention to him in this debate or at any other time.

I certainly do not intend to get on to the same level as the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Where did you start?

I want to bring one or two pertinent matters to the attention of this House, which will demonstrate just the sort of Minister we have. The hon. the Minister may leave the Chamber, but the public of South Africa will decide who is right and who is wrong. Last year in a debate in this House I mentioned to him that there were certain Indian traders in the Ladysmith area particularly who had been offered alternative accommodation 50 or 60 and up to 100 miles away from the place where they were, at Ladysmith. They were offered alternative accommodation in Dundee and such places. The hon. the Minister got up in this House and said it was a scandal; he had never heard of such a thing, and why had not somebody reported it to him? What the hon. the Minister did not say, Sir, is that seven months before I made that statement he had a letter from a leading member of the Indian community pointing out the very thing I had just said. Yet he got up in the House and said he had never heard of it before. In any event, I mentioned it then, and what has happened since then? Absolutely nothing. He has not cancelled the 201C;scandalous201D; treatment that he then mentioned in this House. In this session the hon. the Minister got up during a debate and spoke lyrically of open spaces in our towns and cities. While he was speaking of such places his department was taking over an open space in Durban—it was in fact part of a park—to build a massive block of police flats. This happens while he gets up in the House and makes a statement about open spaces. He then replied to me across the floor of the House and said that no other areas were available, but he completely ignored the fact that the City Council of Durban had offered him an alternative area.

Earlier in this debate this year we dealt with another matter and I asked him whether he had submitted plans for a block of flats to be built on the Bluff to the Durban City Council. He said he had, but what he omitted saying was that the plans he had submitted were in fact for a building completely different from the one he was now building on the Bluff, which the Durban Corporation knew absolutely nothing about. He has said time and time again and particularly earlier in the session, that we must judge him by his deeds. Mr. Chairman, I would very much like to judge him by his deeds. In this regard I want to say to him that he again spoke lyrically just recently here in Cape Town of the thousands of people that have been moved under his department. What in fact do we find? That in a two year period he has only gained 3 600 odd houses in respect of Indians, because of the numbers that are continuing to be displaced. Against displaced and disqualified Coloureds, he has only gained a net 2000 houses. The list of Whites waiting for housing in Durban has in fact increased over the past year and the list of Coloured housing, certainly so far as Durban is concerned, has gone up quite considerably. Yet the hon. the Minister gets up and, again with words and not deeds, says that there is no such thing as a short age of housing in South Africa and that the housing position has never been better.

We have warned time and time again concerning the type of housing he is building in the non-White areas. I and many other people have told him that he is in fact replacing slums created by history with slums created by decree of his departments. We have now had the warning of the riots in Port Elizabeth, where these very things were said. Not more than two or three weeks ago in this House by way of an interjection the hon. the Minister told me that everybody was moved to a better house than the one they occupied before. Yet the report from Port Elizabeth after the Port Elizabeth riots gave as one of the reasons why the riots took place the fact that people lost good homes and were forced into smaller and less comfortable houses than the ones they had had before. Year after year we get the same performance from this hon. Minister: There is no shortage of housing and people are always moved to better housing. Yet all anyone has to do in South Africa is take a week-end off and go and see some of the slum conditions which have been created since this department came into operation. In addition, while this is going on, there are at the present time 27 further group areas under consideration, which are going to add to the chaos. I would say to the hon. the Minister, who has not the courtesy to sit here and listen to the criticisms, that he will sooner or later listen to the condemnation of every single right-thinking South African, who is getting sick and tired of the lack of humanity attached to this particular department The hon. the Minister gets up and boasts of the hundreds of thousands of people who have been moved under the aegis of his department, but he ignores completely that people are not statistics, that they have the hope, wishes and desires of every member sitting in this House. They are looking for a better life and they have certainly not been able to obtain that under the hon. the Minister and his department.

Mr. Chairman, I want to say again, as I have said year after year, that I ask for a commission of inquiry into the actions of this department. I want to repeat this appeal, just for the record. In South Africa we can hold commissions of inquiry into the shortage of bananas, wheat or oranges and every blessed other thing, but when it comes to holding a commission of inquiry into the wholesale and callous movement of thousands of our people, we do not even have the decency to do so. Just recently this was highlighted in the proclamation of the Benoni area, for which that Minister will shortly be responsible. A comprehensive survey was made of that area, and what did the hon. the Minister and the Government do? They ignored completely the advice of all the professionals in this regard and simply carried on piecemeal to move people around.

In conclusion I want to say that it matters not one iota to me whether the Minister deals with me or not. Ultimately he and the Government of South Africa will deal with the people of South Africa, who are sick and tired of this hard-hearted attitude. The time is coming when the conscience of the people of South Africa will no longer tolerate the attitude of this Government and in particular of this Minister.

Mr. Chairman, I have encountered spineless individuals (papbroeke) in my life, but never spineless individuals such as I have seen in this House this morning. I now also want to say, with the utmost respect, that I include the hon. the Leader of the Opposition in this.

You are a renegade (hanskakie), man.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is an hon. member entitled to call another hon. member a “renegade”?

Order! That word must be withdrawn. I do not know who said it, but the hon. member must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir. [Interjections.]

Order!

Mr. Chairman, are you prepared to accept the word “papbroek” as being in order?

The hon. member for Boksburg must withdraw the word “papbroek”.

Sir, I shall withdraw the word “papbroek”, but I want to say that I have never seen such frightened people in my life, and this includes the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. Leader of this House and the Minister asked the Leader of the Opposition to stand up and state his point of view. Sir, he remained seated. We must now conclude that he associates himself with the hon. member for Port Natal. It is a pity that he is now leaving … [Interjections.]

Order! I have just said that the word “renegade” may not be used, and the hon. member for Germiston …

I did not say a word, Mr. Chairman.

The hon. member who used the word “renegade” must withdraw it.

I withdraw it, Sir.

Mr. Chairman, I want to repeat what the hon. the Minister said, i.e. that it is probably one of the most scandalous and dirtiest attacks yet made on anyone. The Leader of the House and the Minister of Community Development told the Leader of the Opposition: 201C;If you ask for a Select Committee we shall request that it be appointed201D;. The Leader of the Opposition had the opportunity, but neither he nor any member on that side had the courage to stand up and ask for such a Select Committee. The hon. the Minister also made this offer to the hon. member for Port Natal: 201C;I shall pay your costs. You can take me to court201D;. The hon. member did not have the courage to do so, and do you know why, Sir? They are engaged in such attacks because they do not have a policy to present to the people. That is why they busy themselves with such gossip. As the hon. member for Germiston said, they are making character assassination a specialized weapon of theirs. A great deal was said about Ministers that may or not have shares in public companies. I wonder whether those hon. members are aware of the fact that the Bester Brothers did a great deal of work for the Government long before they became a public company. They built many houses, and not one of those persons had shares in that company at the time. Is there now something wrong with that? Sir, that hon. member did not have the courage to support the insinuations he made. He asked various questions. Only last week … [Interjections.]

Order! I now warn hon. members that I will not tolerate any more interjections. The next member to make an interjection will be sent out.

Only last week that member for Port Natal asked the Minister of Economic Affairs a question in respect of a tender that was granted at Newcastle, and the Minister replied that the lowest tender was accepted. In the Sunday Express he also states that the lowest tender was accepted, but even so he makes such a scandalous attack here on the Minister. The same man who was the hero of the English Press, was a mouse in this House this morning. I wonder if he would ever have had the courage to make such an attack if that tender had been granted to Anglo-American or a similar company. We know him, Sir, and we know the typical untruths he utters. Last year, in December, a report appeared in the Natal Mercury in which the hon. member misled the Durban public by supplying the Press with inaccurate and false information. The report concerns the thousands of stands in Cato Manor which he mentioned. The heading of the report reads as follows: “A Crying Need for Homes—Sites must be sold, claims M.P. Those are stands that had to be sold last year. The hon. member accused the Department of Community Development of keeping those stands back and thereby forcing up the prices. Sir, he knows, having again beard it in reply to a question last week, that the Durban City Council is responsible for furnishing services. When we speak of services, we mean electricity, water, and sewerage systems, etc. Those services can, at the very earliest, only be furnished by December, 1971, but as early as last year the hon. member wanted the stands sold without services to the public. If those stands had been sold at the time, he would probably have launched a different attack and said that the Department of Community Development sold stands without any services being provided. If the hon. the Minister ignores him and takes no notice of him in the future, no-one will blame him. I may also just say that among his own colleagues on that side, the hon. member is in disfavour.

I should like to tell the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department that apart from the provision of housing for the middle and lower income groups, they also deserve a feather in their cap for what is being done for the accommodation of our aged. The aged of South Africa are grateful to the Government for its endeavour to have them spend the last years of their lives in comfortable circumstances where they can be properly cared for. For the record I should just like to mention that at present we have 183 old age homes in South Africa, seven of which are fully maintained by the State, the other 176 receiving State support. May I also just say that in the past five years 39 old age homes were completed at a cost of R43 million. In addition, there are also 41 being built at a cost of R79 million. There are also five old age homes in the planning stage, at a cost of R14,5 million. The total population of our old age homes is 10 402. Seven per cent of our aged at present find themselves in old age homes where they are cared for. As far as can be determined, this is the biggest percentage in the whole world. May I also just add here that the Department of Community Development has never refused a single application for a loan for an old age home.

I have a few requests I should like to make to the hon. the Minister in respect of the granting of economic houses, since the granting of such houses is left in the hands of the local authorities. I now immediately want to add that it is probably not an easy task for a local authority to allocate houses, since there are usually more applications than available houses. Consequently not everyone who wants houses can get them. Then there is frequently the accusation that the allocations by the local authorities do not take place on a fair basis. That is why I should like to ask the hon. the Minister if he would not consider giving an official of his department a seat on the committee of local authorities making the allocations. Thereby the local authorities would be protected against this sometimes unnecessary and unfair criticism.

But there is also a second request I want to make to the hon. the Minister. We have cases where applicants fall into the required income group when they apply for these economic houses, but then receive salary increases before the allocation can be made, because sometimes a year goes by from the time the application is submitted to the time when the house is allocated. As a result of the salary increases, these people then do not qualify. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if a formula cannot be found according to which these people would qualify? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just sat down, in the final portion of his speech, dealt with old-age homes and the provision of economic housing. I hope to deal with that during the course of my speech.

Mr. Chairman, I want to join with the hon. member for Green Point in expressing the disappointment which is felt by most hon. members on this side of the House, at the lack of an up-to-date report on the activities of the hon. the Minister’s department. One of the most important departments that we have in the Government today, is the Department of Community Development, because the matter of housing is very important to the growing numbers of both Whites and non-Whites in South Africa. In order to know the true position, one must have up to date statistics. This calls for an up-to-date report by the department. Otherwise one has to continually hammer the hon. the Minister by tabling questions in order to find out exactly what is happening.

Mr. Chairman, we as Members of Parliament, recently had the privilege of visiting the Cape Flats and seeing the prevailing conditions and the extent of the development in respect of the rehousing of Coloureds in that area. Unfortunately, it was a very hurried visit and it was impossible to gather all the facts in the very short time. However, I should like to pay tribute to the members of the Department of Community Development and of the other departments who accompanied us for the exposition of the position as they saw it. We went through District Six very quickly. It is an area which I represent in this House. Then we went on to the Cape Flats to look at the development there. One is surprised to see the tremendous spread of housing in the Cape Flats. One thing all Governments have to avoid is creating new slum conditions when moving people. With the shortage of money it is not always possible to provide the homes one would like to provide for these people. But, at the same time, if there is to be any socio-economic upliftment of the Coloureds, we will have to do very much better than we are doing at the present moment. When one sees the housing schemes other than those in which the Coloured people are able to purchase their own homes, one realizes how depressing it must be to have to live there. There are no two ways about it. One wonders whether we would ever be able to lift up the Coloureds so long as they are living under the conditions under which they are living now. The Government is, I know, housing people in haste, but in doing so is providing a type of accommodation which leaves much to be desired. Of course, I do not like to see them living in shanties, but while we are housing them I think we ought to give them something better than what they get al the moment.

The hon. member for Germiston accused us of blowing hot and cold as far as urban renewal is concerned. Let me remind the House that the first gigantic urban renewal scheme in Cape Town, in respect of District Six, was only published today, and we are in the year 1971. I can remember that way back in 1950, when I was chairman of the Cape Peninsula Maternity Hospital, we had great difficulty in rebuilding there, being told from time to time that the Government had not yet made up its mind about what would happen to the area. Meanwhile we have had committees and commissions to investigate and eventually the Government decided that it was to be a White group area. Since then we have been waiting a long time for plans. It is not only District Six that is affected, but also the adjacent areas. Areas like Salt River and Woodstock are semi-depressed areas and cry out for renewal. Let me tell the hon. the Minister that it is impossible for the Government to undertake this work on its own. But somebody has to do it because we cannot wait indefinitely.

As a matter of fact, we cannot even wait another ten years. Vast tracks in District Six are being demolished and I for one would like to see something happening there. Let me add to that an appeal to the hon. the Minister to try to save existing houses in the Salt River and Woodstock areas and even in District Six itself. As you drive along De Waal Drive you can see on your left a ribbon development of houses, one of the reasons why we had a Ribbon Development Bill before this House. These were very nice houses when they were originally built. However, they have since been acquired by the department and are due for demolition. This cannot take place overnight, however. If they are not due to be demolished, then I would ask the department to keep these houses in a first-class state of repair.

At the moment they are deteriorating. We get that all over the place houses that can be saved by effecting the necessary repairs. However, the owners do not have sufficient money. These owners ought to be able to apply to the Government for loans in order to enable them to save their properties. At present some houses are falling to pieces for want of repair. This has happened as a result of the uncertainty which existed over the future of this area for years. This is a matter which the Government should really get down to. It cannot be delayed until next year, or the years to come, but something must be done immediately and the Government ought to give an indication how they are going to set about it. Let us face it that we do not have enough houses for the lower income groups. The Minister may well ask: “Bring me a person who hasn’t got a house." But in my area there are houses which house two or three families. I know the Minister's department here in Cape Town is doing its best. People who have been living in garages have been fixed up. [Time expired.]

I do not want to take up any standpoint on this morning’s spectacle, when hon. members left further suggestions hanging in the air. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is a fair person and will not allow his back benchers to leave such a matter hanging in the air and he will therefore react to this himself after the lunch break. Consequently I shall not make any further reference to that.

The hon. member for Salt River said in regard to the slum clearance work of the Department that the Department should be careful not, as he put it, to create new slum conditions. This kind of statement is not only being made by responsible people, but is also being generally made outside, mostly in pursuance of what is said in this House. To the hon. member for Salt River I want to ask where these people who are now being resettled came from? The other day we did in fact have an opportunity of seeing where they came from. What must always be borne in mind with the resettlement of these people is that they are being provided with residential units which they can afford. You will recall what a fuss was kicked up about the people in the Valley of Plenty, and that the hon. the Minister relinquished the priority given to Hanover Park so that the people from the Valley of Plenty could be accommodated.

The next agitation in the English- language Press was then that the Government was supplying houses to those people which they could not afford. This, therefore is a factor which we should not lose sight of. Quite recently we witnessed the spectacle of a stage actor, Limpie Basson, expressing an adverse opinion in the letter column of Die Burger on Bishop Lavis township. At that time, when the National Housing Commission asked the Citizens Housing League to develop their housing there, a survey was made of the number of Coloureds who were to be settled there. The findings disclosed that 5 per cent of the Coloureds were unemployed, 15 per cent were earning R20 per month, 20 per cent between R20 and R30 per month, 10 per cent between R40 and R50 and 10 per cent between R50 and R60. Only 20 per cent of the families that were to be resettled there, were earning R60 and more per month. The housing which was to be supplied to them had to be adapted to their needs, or they would not have been able to afford it. To come and say here that we are creating new slum conditions is the height of irresponsibility. The houses which are being provided for these people are excellent and clean, but surely the State or the local authority cannot be expected to maintain gardens for these people in order to give the township a better appearance.

Sir, today we have reached the situation where the average voter is, as a result of encouragement, beginning to be of the opinion that the provision of housing in South Africa has become the exclusive responsibility of the State. I want to slate today that even the Opposition probably cannot deny its instrumentality in the creation of that psychosis. The reason they are doing this is because there is in fact an eroding self-reproach amongst that party because they left us such a miserable inheritance in respect of housing. Sir, still hanging over the Opposition today are those dark shadows of mixed residential and slum areas, which they cannot get away from.

But, Sir, I want to go on quickly to another aspect. I want to pay tribute today to those organizations which, in the crisis years, made a tremendous contribution in the field of housing. They are still doing so today. I am referring specifically to the utility companies which, are very strongly welfare-orientated. Perhaps it is also fitting that I pay tribute today to one specific utility company, the Citizens’ Housing League, since they have just celebrated their 40th anniversary and since they have during that period constructed 10 000 houses. Sir, the formation of this company is in fact an indication to us of what is needed, i.e. a community effort in respect of housing. It is interesting to note that it was in fact a body like the A.C.V.V. which in the past called a conference to discuss housing conditions in the Cape Peninsula, in particular, and that this company should have had its origins in that. Subsequent moving spirits in that company were a D.R. minister’s wife, Mrs. Zerilda Steyn, later Dr. Zerilda Steyn, and the then Deacon of Cape Town, Bishop Sidney Lavis

Sir, the zeal and dedication of these people to the cause of housing reads like a fairy tale today. These are people who made sacrifices and who did not stand around demonstrating on street corners wearing sour expressions and black sashes, or who tried to make contributions to the situation simply by making critical speeches in this House. It is also important to note that a man like the late Dr. H. F. Verwoerd, when he was still professor of psychology at the University of Stellenbosch and a director of this company. together with others, helped to establish a policy within this company by means of which welfare staff were maintained as an integral part of the task of housing, and the upliftment of our people in the widest possible sense. Sir, as far as I am concerned, it is from this that what is probably the most important achievement of this League arose, i.e. that it not only supplied thousands of families who moved from the rural areas to the city during the depression years and the war years with houses, but also helped them with welfare and other services so that they could adjust, in sound environmental and social conditions, to city life. Sir, this settlement I am referring to, took place for the most part in Epping Garden Village, which today still exists with 1 850 subeconomical units, which probably makes it the largest village of its kind in the Republic.

On 16th April of this year the hon. the Minister of Community Development announced the final details at a public meeting in Epping of a comprehensive redevelopment scheme to turn this subeconomic village into a balanced community. Since I have now paid tribute to the founders of this village, I also want to express my deep gratitude, not only to the hon. the Minister, but also to the Department for what they want to establish there. Epping stands there today as a symbol of the actions taken by dedicated persons in the crisis years, and it will continue to stand there in future as a symbol of the basic functions of the Department i.e. that of community development, and not merely the mere provision of houses. In the creation of that symbol, that company stands shoulder to shoulder with the Department in carrying out a full-fledged project.

In the few moments left to me, I should like to make a practical proposal to the Minister. It concerns in particular the present restrictions which is being imposed on purchasers who make use of the economic purchasing schemes of the Department and the municipalities. In terms of this restriction, a purchaser’s monthly instalments may not exceed 25 per cent of his income. This is so for very good reasons, but in practice it means that if a person is not able to purchase one, he must inevitably rent a house in the private sector, and his rental can often amount to as much as 50 per cent of his income, Today I do not want to ask the hon. the Minister to increase this 25 per cent considerably. I merely want to advocate that a degree of discretion be left to the regional offices if such an instalment should exceed the restriction of 25 per cent. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by associating myself with the remarks made by the hon. member for Tygeryallci. I should also like to pay a tribute, from this side of the House, to the excellent work that has been done by the Citizens Housing League.

I wish to refer this afternoon to the question of housing old people and pensioners. I should like to take as my example the case of Central Johannesburg. My own constituency, Von Brandis, falls within this area. I do so not because I wish to deal with this matter in a parochial way, but because it is a situation which I know well. I have had contact with the people concerned, and I think it affords a particularly striking example of the problems faced by impoverished old people and pensioners in a modern city. The housing problem which faces old people is a compound of many factors. The main factor is, of course, an economic one. Many of these people have, in fact, during their working lives made due provision for their old age. These people, during their working lifetimes, exercised thrift and saved. They set aside money for their old age, and although an amount of, shall we say, £600 or R1 200 a year, appeared fifteen years ago to be adequate for their declining years, this money has become so eroded that these people are no longer able to exist. They can make a bare existence if they live in the old buildings in which they were originally installed, and if they are allowed to continue living there with controlled rental, but the many problems of urban renewal have in fact caused a great many of these buildings to be demolished. These old people then have to find other places in which to live. They have to find new ways of fitting themselves into the society of a modern city. They are quite unable to do so. For example, a person living on an income of R80 to R100 per month would possibly be able to exist at a reasonable level if he or she enjoyed accommodation at a rental of something like R20 a month. When these old buildings are demolished, this advantage immediately falls away. These people then find they have to go out and look for new accommodation at a cost seldom less than R100 a month, whereas their whole income is perhaps R100 a month. I have personally visited the flats and rooms of people, and I have seen an educated old woman, accustomed to better things, living in a room with furniture which consisted only of one bridge table, which served as her table for work, reading and also as her larder because she kept her food on that table. The only other furniture in that room was a ramshackle bed. Now, this woman was not a slut. She was trying to maintain a decent standard of living and she kept the room clean, but she had been reduced to that standard of living through forces beyond her control. When these people are evicted, or they are served notice to move because of the need to demolish their building, they simply have nowhere to go. They cannot find any solution. I have seen these old people sitting in Joubert Park in the morning. I have spoken to them and I have found that they were crying, weeping in the sun in Joubert Park. If you ask them why, they say they have had notice that their building is to be demolished and they do not know what is to become of them. I do not blame the Minister for this problem. The problem of urban renewal obviously is a matter which goes far beyond the Minister’s responsibility or his powers to control. There are problems for all parties concerned. There is the problem of the landlord who may in fact be the owner of a building which is giving him a completely uneconomic return. His costs go up and his rates go up and the value of the rents he gets is entirely inadequate to meet his costs. He therefore seeks to redevelop. There is the problem of the developer himself who must seek an economic return, and who is therefore bound to seek higher rentals. There is the problem of the tenant which I have described, and of course there is the problem of the Minister, which no doubt he will be able to account for himself. But we cannot deal with old people in an ad hoc way. We cannot shift them around from one building to another without making some specific provision for this special purpose. It is not as though one can treat old people like dust to be shunted around by an untidy housewife from room to room, and while she tidies one room it simply settles in another room. Old people cannot be treated like that, and therefore we need a more active approach to this problem.

Recently a survey was done of the new flats built in Johannesburg, and it was found, on a survey of 3 262 flats which had been built during the last four years, that the average rental for the furnished flats, which normally are bachelor flats, was R105. This is in Johannesburg, in Von Brandis, Hillbrow and the rest of the central area. For an unfurnished flat the average rental is about the same, about R80 to R105. These rentals are obviously quite impossible for people who are living on the standards I have described. They are quite impossible for old-age pensioners. I think what we need is an entirely new approach to this problem. We must recognize that the old people, the pensioners, have fulfilled their obligations to South Africa as a State. The modern State we have today was built on their efforts. The fact that they are old and no longer employable does not absolve us from the duty of doing something for them. They are part of the responsibility which we bear and I think they deserve a higher priority than they get. We spend a great deal of money on public works and on the development of this country. I think we also have an obligation to the old people who are not passengers but who have made their contribution and who have a right to live and a right to be protected against the erosion which we ourselves engineer by our way of life and by our way of running the modern Slate. I believe that these people should be offered sub-economic housing as a duty, and not as a sort of privilege. It should be our duty to provide this, and not wait for them to come to us, cap in hand, for aid. It should be their right to be supplied with decent accommodation in the places, as far as possible, where they wish to live. It may be asked why do these people wish to live in a place like Von Brandis, in the heart of Johannesburg, in this high-rental area. The fact is that these people cannot afford to live in suburbs because this involves transport such as, for example, motor cars; and deposits on houses. They just cannot afford that. They also cling to life, They want to enjoy life, they want to see the amenities of life around them and they want to be able to go to the cinema with their friends. These amenities are only available to them in the heart of the city. If this is their wish, why should we drive them into asylums in the distant countryside? I know that there is the economic problem of obtaining land at reasonable prices but, as opportunities arise, I believe the State should assist or encourage developers to provide at least a portion of new housing for old people at sub-economic rentals. It must be something which is not an asylum, which does not drive them out of society, does not deprive them of the life they wish to see around them, makes them feel part of our community, enables them to stay with the community in touch with their friends and, above all, enables them to maintain their dignity. It should therefore be regarded as their right to live in such conditions. They should not be suppliants begging for alms and aid from the State. I repeat and conclude by saying that I believe it the duty of the State to give a high priority to the position of old people in order to assist them to live out their lives in dignity, leisure and ease.

Mr. Chairman, I think this is an appropriate moment to reply to the questions which have been put so far. I want to start off straight away with the hon. member for Von Brandis. I agree with him entirely that the housing of the aged is a very important problem. I will be very pleased indeed if he, when he returns to Johannesburg, will express the same views which he has addressed to my department to the Johannesburg City Council. Initially it is their job to deal with this problem; we assist them only financially. I must add that I have no complaints about the Johannesburg City Council as far as housing is concerned. As far as supplying houses for the sub-economic and economic groups and for the aged is concerned, I have really very little to grouse about. I think they are doing a very good job. The hon. member referred to the urban renewal schemes pointing out that these old people must not be removed. I agree with him entirely and can just tell him that with all the urban renewal schemes special provision is made to keep the elderly people there, to house them properly and to find alternative accommodation for them. I would like to tell the hon. member that we have made quite some headway as far as the housing of the aged is concerned. Concerning the White people, in 1962-’63, which is now seven years ago, we spent R322 000 on housing for elderly people. In 1969-’70 we spent R1½ million for the same purpose. I want to concur with the hon. member for Boksburg in thanking the local authorities and also especially his local authority for the way in which they assist us in housing the old people. I have no quarrel with the plea made by the hon. member for Von Brandis in this connection. As a matter of fact, I agree with everything he said.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Green Point. Firstly, with regard to our annual report: It is up to date because the 1969 report is out and the 1970 report is in the process of being translated. I think that it will still be tabled during this session. I do not see a great necessity for getting this report out before my Vote comes under discussion, because there is quite enough in the 1969 report for which I can be criticized. I do not want to put another report in their hands, because I will then be criticized in 1971 for the 1970 report as well.

Concerning District Six, I must say I am a bit surprised that the hon. member does not welcome the development there. Not only luxury accommodation is going to be provided. It is true that we are going to accommodate 15 000 people there. In other words, it will be a high density area. But the hon. member will remember, when I discussed high density areas such as Hillbrow, Sunnyside, parts of Sea Point and so on, the position was that these were high density areas without playing fields and provisions of a similar nature. As the hon. member could see this morning from a report concerning District Six, although it be a high density area, a terrific amount of space is being made available for playing fields, swimming baths, halls, theatres, etc. I must say that I was very impressed with the planning of District Six.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is the report incorrect in saying that this area will provide for luxury and semi-luxury accommodation?

Yes, it includes luxury, semi-luxury and sub-economic accommodation.

Il does not say so in the report.

The planning is in accordance with the whole policy of the Government to have balanced communities and not to put the poor people aside in one area. As I have previously said, we do not like the idea, and are consequently putting it aside, of having “White locations”, although I do not like using that name. We do not intend doing this in future. The City Council did not, of course, agree with us that it should be a White area. This plan was discussed with all the people interested in this, town-planners, engineers, architects, etc. The fact that the scheme is now rather enthusiastically accepted by the City Council of Cape Town, is to my mind, enough proof that the scheme will be very successful. Therefore1 was rather at a loss to understand the criticism of the hon. member for Green Point.

What about the people who will be moved?

I will come to the people who will be moved from this area. But I cannot discuss that with the hon. member for Houghton, because she does not believe in group areas. However, I can discuss it with the United Party, because they do believe in group areas.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point that this scheme has been financed up to now by the Development Board. We buy out all the properties and so forth. We also pay the architects, the planners, etc. But after it has passed through the provincial administration, the Cape Town Municipality and the Development Board will be jointly responsible for it. They will then put the different development areas out on tender.

Does the profit go to the local authority, or to the department?

It is unknown at this stage whether there will be any profit. We buy up these places and it will obviously increase in value. However, if one takes into account the amount that will have to be spent on streets, playgrounds and so forth, there may not be any profit at all.

The profit will then be used for the development?

Yes. The work will be put out on tender and the private sector will then develop it further.

As far as the delay in the proclamation of townships is concerned, I agree with the hon. member entirely. But I want to say that that is a matter for the provincial authorities. It is a provincial matter about which I can do very little. The Niemand Commission has made certain proposals. Mr. Niemand is at the moment discussing it with the provincial and local authorities to see whether we can get any improvement in that direction. I only hope that we may get an improvement in this regard. I may just add that Mr. Niemand is very optimistic that the situation will be improved.

The Transport Commission is to be blamed for the delay in the planning of roads.

You blame me for everything.

Yes, the hon. member for Green Point must quarrel with the hon. the Minister of Transport about that matter. The hon. member also put other questions to me in regard to Coloured housing. In this regard I can say that I will make a statement about the question of Coloured housing a little later.

I now want to come to the question of the Rents Act. I must tell the hon. member that I agree with him to a very large extent. It is very difficult to apply the provisions of the Rents Act in such a way that we get what we really want, namely enough housing units at a reasonable price. The Nationalist Party Community Development group and I discuss the question of the Rents Act at practically every meeting we have. Such a number of ideas have thus far come forward that I agree with the hon. members for Green Point and Musgrave that the time has now come to appoint a commission to go into this matter thoroughly. I am quite satisfied that because there are so many aspects to consider. I as Minister will not be able to get a solution for this. I think this must be done by a committee of experts. They can get the advice from all the different and interested parties and I will recommend that to the Government in the very near future. As far as Alphen Court is concerned, they applied to be freed from the provisions of the Rents Act. We made an investigation and we found that the rents of this luxury building were more or less the same as the rents paid in the surrounding blocks of flats. In other words, there was no reason why they should be kept under rent control. The hon. member talked about the restored properties. I could not find the cases he mentioned. He mentioned the case of a man who applied to the Rents Board and who paid something over R100 and that the Rent Board then fixed the rental at R54 per month. I believe that that is a very old case.

It was in 1968.

It might have happened before the law made provision for these people to restore these buildings. The hon. member must give me that reference and I will investigate the case. All I want to tell him is that we all agree that people who want to restore these old buildings and these old houses of over a 100 years of age, must be free of rent control. However, I do not have the slightest hesitation to say that if any misuse is going to be made of this and if any case comes to my attention and I am satisfied that exploitation has taken place, I shall not hesitate to put those buildings under rent control, I think that deals with most of the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point.

The reference is MC 4 for departmental purposes.

Yes, I shall go into that case.

*The hon. member for Germiston said we should diversify more and make cheaper houses available to the people. He said this because there are people who even fall outside the sub-economic groups and who cannot pay R5000, R6 000 or R10 000 for houses. I agree with him entirely. We are doing everything in our power in order to provide those people with housing. The hon. member for Musgrave, too, pleaded for cheaper houses to be made available to these people. The hon. member for Germiston himself brought this to my attention, and I want to say to the hon. member for Musgrave now that he may consult page 8 of the department’s booklet. A perfectly decent house is depicted on that page; a two-bedroomed house for which the rent is R23-40 per month. The selling price of that house is R2 760. I must honestly say that if we are able to do this, I cannot see how we can still be accused of not building houses for the lower-income groups. The idea that houses cannot be built under R15 000 or R20 000, is completely wrong. For example, I want to refer here to an article which appeared in The Natal Witness of 18th January. According to this article, a firm called Ilco Homes, builds a three-bed roomed house measuring between 900 and 1 100 square feet according to a new method and then sells it for between R4 900 and R5 700. Furthermore, I just want to say to the hon. member for Germiston that, as he knows, we are constantly negotiating with new developers and new builders. We have consulted the Building Research Institute and the Agrément Board, which are constantly trying to find new methods of putting houses on the market at a lower price. His idea that we should encourage housing in the form of State villages, is a very good one. I think that in view of all these matters I have mentioned now; we may work all the harder in that direction.

†Now I come to the hon. member for Musgrave. I do not want to talk a great deal about Queensborough, but what we did there was the only possible thing that we could do, A large number of Indian families were living around Queensborough. They had to pay rates to the Queensborough local authority. Those people could hardly make a living there. We simply bought up that land. Let me tell the hon. member that the taxes the local authority received from those Indians were really a drop in the ocean. They had to prosecute most of them to get any money. It was then declared a White area, and we had to buy up all those areas. I think it was something like 400 ha. that we bought. That is now in the process of development. We are in the process now of selling some of these areas for industrial and other development. The problem of the Queensborough local authority, with which I have a certain amount of sympathy, will be solved within the next year or three, when these areas are sold to private people and when they then again can levy taxes on them.

I think it was the hon. member who mentioned the fact that we assist Pretoria and Cape Town by making grants to them, but that is not so. It is the Central Government that made a grant to Pretoria became we do not pay rates on Government buildings. A certain amount was given to the Pretoria local authority I think about half of that amount was given to the Cape Town local authority. But that has nothing to do with Community Development—it was decided by the Central Government.

Mr. Chairman. may I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Will the hon. the Minister not consider discussing with his colleagues in the Cabinet some form of grant to the Queen 'borough Municipality to cover this interim period? Several years could elapse before these sales are completed.

I can tell the hon. member that representations have been made to me by the Queensborough local authority, but their account does not show that they are in such great need. I am quite willing to discuss it with him again. Does Queensborough fall in your constituency?

No.

Anyway, I am quite willing to discuss it with the member in whose constituency Queensborough falls.

It is Winchester’s.

Then I will not discuss it. Anyhow, I will go into that matter again. As far as rent control is concerned, I think the hon. member must be satisfied with what I told the hon. member for Green Point.

*The hon. member for Langlaagte said that in the southern parts of Johannesburg, adjoining his constituency, there was land which he thought the department should buy for future housing schemes. I may just tell him that we are paying advances to the City Council and to the Housing Commission. They are purchasing land to an increasing extent, in the very direction he suggested. As regards the Bantu cemetery, I am afraid it is a matter which he will have to raise with the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, because this is a matter which comes under his exclusive jurisdiction. However, I agree with him. I do not think it ought to be established there, but he should rather discuss it with my colleague.

He is chairman of the Bantu Affairs Committee.

*The MINISTER Well, in that case he should consult himself as well as the Minister.

I want to thank the hon. member for Innesdal very sincerely for the fine summary he gave of urban renewal and the renewal which is at present in progress. I do not think our people realize what this whole process of urban renewal in places such as Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, East London. Durban. Johannesburg, etc., means. I think that in five to ten years’ time our urban renewal schemes would have eliminated slum conditions to a great extent. It would then be possible to house thousands of people within a short distance of their places of employment and this is, of course, one of the main reasons why these urban renewal schemes should be tackled. I want to thank the hon. member sincerely for what he said in this regard and for the thorough way in which he dealt with this matter.

I want to thank the hon. member for Boksburg, too, for his summary of what the department is doing in respect of housing for the aged. Of course, we are not doing enough yet. It still remains the duty of local authorities but we are at least giving them all the money needed for building these houses. I also want to express a word of thanks towards all local authorities that are giving us very fine co-operation in this regard so as to provide housing to the aged as well as to make buildings available to other people in need of care, such as alcoholics and orphans. The hon. member also raised a matter which really is a problem, i.e. the allocation of houses by local authorities, houses which they build with money obtained from us. He said they received more applications for houses than the number of houses available. He said furthermore that these houses were being allocated to certain persons in an unfair and unjust way. The allocation of houses is a difficult matter. I want to accept readily that there are certain local authorities, or all of them, that allocate houses to their friends, etc. In general, however, I think such cases are exceptions and that this does not happen throughout. The department wrote to all local au horities and told them how they should allocate houses. They must take into consideration not only the date of the application, but also the position of those people, their age, how many children they have, etc. His suggestion that a representative from the department should be a member of committees which allocate houses, is one to which I shall pay careful attention. If it is practicable and will have any beneficial effect, I shall have this done, The hon. member raised another important matter as well. A person applies for a house and on the day he applies his salary is such that he qualifies for a house. However, he waits for a year of 18 months before he obtains a house, and in the interim his salary has been increased and he does not qualify for such a house any longer. It is a pleasure for me to inform the hon. member that the Housing Commission has decided that the income of a person on the day of his application will be the prevailing one.

Will that apply to all communities?

Yes.

Coloureds as well?

Yes. Representations were made to me by certain municipalities on the West Rand in this regard, and I cannot see that one principle can be applied to White people and that the same cannot apply to the Coloured people as well. I think it is a sound principle. I do not want to reply to the remarks made by the hon. member for Salt River now. At a later stage during this debate I want to make a few statements and the main points he raised will be covered by them.

*Finally, I want to deal with what was said by the hon. member for Tygervallei. I should like to thank him for the very levelheaded account he gave of the question of housing for the lower-income groups. The department is continually being accused, as was done by the hon. member for Green Point, of building houses which can develop into nothing else but slums. This is simply not true. Whether or not such a residential area will develop into a slum, will depend on the particular local authority concerned with that area and on how well they look after it. The hard fact of the matter is that there is a group of people who simply cannot afford to buy a house above a certain price. These include Coloureds, Indians and Whites. This department subsidizes the houses, but in the long run the only solution is that houses should be built which fall within the economic means of these people. The department has already done this at Bishop Lavis, Bothasig, Epping and at other places as well. In my opinion there is no need for them to degenerate into slum areas if they are looked after properly. The hon. member made the point that we should keep the 25 per cent of the income which must be paid in rent, somewhat flexible, I just want to say to the hon. member that according to world standards one should not spend more than from 20 per cent to 25 per cent of one’s basic income on rent or on interest and redemption; if one spends more on these things, one cannot provide for the other needs of one’s family. But I just want to say to him that in practice this 25 per cent is not a definite figure. It is flexible, and locally that is how it is being applied.

Sir, I appreciate what the hon. member said in regard to the Housing League. I want to add to this the Garden Cities people, these utility companies, which are doing such a tremendous amount in respect of housing here in Cape Town for the Whites as well as for the Coloureds. I have nothing but the greatest appreciation for what they are doing, and I also want to pay tribute to Dr. Zerilda Steyn for everything she has done. Her son, the Judge, is at present hard at work in this regard, and they are doing very good work in regard to the housing of needy families.

Sir, with this I think I have replied to all the questions which have been raised up to now.

Sir, this morning we again witnessed a demonstration here of what happens when a mouse wants to conceive and bear a mountain. I am referring to the allegation made by the hon. member for Port Natal. Sir, the United Party again had a great deal of criticism here. I just want to point out a few things for which they ought to be grateful and of which they should have taken cognizance. I want to point out that the income qualification of families in the economic category has been increased with effect from 1st April. In the case of families without children the amount has been increased from the existing R225 per month to R270 per month. In the case of families with one or two dependent children, from R250 to R300 per month; in the case of families with up to four dependent children, from R300 per month to R360 per month; and in the case of families with more than four dependants, from R300 per month to R400 per month. Sir, we want to go further and want to compare what was spent in the year 1962-’63 on elderly persons, who pay one-twentieth per cent interest, with the amount which was spent in 1969-'70, and we will then sec that the amount has increased fivefold over these seven years. If we consider what has been spent during the past two decades on housing, as compared with the amount spent on housing during the previous 28 years, then we find that during the past two decades this Government has spent five and a half times more on housing than during the previous 28 years. Sir, these are the things one should take cognizance of, with much gratitude towards the Minister and the Department; and then I am not even mentioning slum clearance, nor the resettlement which has increased at a very rapid tempo since 1962.

Sir, I want to return to the hon. member for Musgrave. He raised two matters here in which I happen to take a considerable interest. He said that the Minister had once said amongst other things that young people should not expect to begin where their parents left off. He then said that he was not in complete agreement with this. I do not know how old that hon. member is, but I just want to tell him that I was a young man under the United Party Government who also had to find a house for myself. I want to tell him that I had to get along without a motor car. I had to save for all I was worth, and in that way I was able in the end to provide myself with housing. The young people of today will also simply have to do without a motor car and save, or if they do not want to do that, they must manage without a house.

The hon. member mentioned a second point in which I was very interested. He said that the shortage of labour and building material caused the cost of housing to increase all the time. That is true. Then he asked that something should be done about this. I just want to tell him that one of the most important measures which helps to curb this increase was taken by the Cabinet as long ago as 1964 when they decided that there should be building control. In February 1965 a committee was established as a result of that decision by the Cabinet. It was the duty of that committee to advise the Minister on housing, and from that date the position has developed as follows: In 1965, 638 projects were considered, of which 426 were allowed at a cost of R131 million. Two hundred and twelve projects, at a cost of R44 169 000 were postponed. In 1970 231 projects were considered, of which 144 were allowed, at an amount of R90 389 000. Eighty-seven projects, at a cost of R162 882 000 were postponed. As the housing and/or the labour and building material position improves or deteriorates in the Republic, the construction of luxury or less essential buildings is from time to time intensified or relaxed. This is what the Government is doing to prevent the construction of less essential buildings. I must add to that building control has a restrictive effect on those who want to erect luxury and less essential buildings. However, one must take into account the fact that these people who have to apply to the building control committee, need only submit a sketchplan and not working plans. It is of course much more expensive and it takes up far more lime if working plans have to be submitted.

Sir, I want to return to the question of rent control. There were pleas today for a commission of enquiry or a Select Committee to investigate this matter. We are aware of the fact that it is receiving attention from the hon. the Minister and the Department, and that they are in earnest about finding some basis or other on which this problem can be solved to the benefit of the lessee as well as the lessor. In this way the hon. the Minister has on various occasions requested those of us in the group to discuss this matter to see what can be done. I want to tell you today, Sir, that I should like to see rent control being gradually relaxed as soon as possible, where this is necessary, because we have a few evils under rent control, a few problems. Inter alia, the developers are afraid that rent control will be introduced on buildings rented after 31st May, 1966. What is more, something else has now cropped up, devious subterfuges are now being employed in regard to buildings. People say that they cannot afford to maintain those buildings under rent control in regard to which they only get 8 per cent on the valuation of the building and 6 per cent on the land. Then there is addition the inflation rate of 4,5 to 5 per cent per annum which causes them problems. Then these devious subterfuges are applied. The buildings are not maintained. There are some of these old buildings where people told me that they would have put in electric stoves, but it was not worth the cost and the trouble. What do they do then? They sub-let the building. The sub-lessee no longer leases flats; he leases rooms. Suppose the flat would bring in R35 per month; now he leases every room for R25 to R30, and that is where the problem lies. Then there are two persons in a room and then he obtains from R50 to R60 per month for that room. This is something which should definitely be looked into. We know the hon. the Minister is giving attention to this matter, but we would be pleased if he would give serious consideration to the gradual relaxation of rent control.

The hon. the Minister has said that he does not want to discuss the principle of group areas with me, and he is quite right in that regard. No point would be served by it. He knows that I disapprove entirely of the whole principle of the Group Areas Act. So I do not want to discuss the principle with him, but I do want to discuss the method of removals with him and I want to make an urgent plea to the hon. the Minister to stop the mass removals which are going on under the Group Areas Act, particularly of the Coloured people in the Cape at present, (I will come later to the Indian people in the Transvaal), until the urgent shortage of housing for the population as such has been overtaken.

Now the hon. the Minister knows that there is a tremendous shortage of housing for Coloured people, even leaving aside Group Areas removals. The whole situation is intensified because half the housing that is built by the local authorities is immediately taken by the Department of Community Development and used for housing people who under Government policy have got to be moved because they are disqualified. Many of these people are living in perfectly adequate houses. Many of them are living in slum dwellings, but they are housed. For the hon the Minister to move these people before he has provided accommodation for people who have no accommodation at all is, I believe, causing tremendous friction and a great deal of misery among the Coloured people. The hon. the Minister did a very sensible thing last year. Having seen, after considerable press publicity on the subject, the conditions under which people were living in the Valley of Plenty, this dreadful shanty township on the Muizenberg stretch of the Cape Flats, the hon. the Minister immediately took some of the houses in the Hanover Park area, which had been meant for group area removals and he used those to house the people from the Valley of Plenty. I would suggest that this is the sort of priority he ought to be setting.

There are a large number of people still to be removed under group areas, according to this glossy little pamphlet we all received today. There are still 54 000 families, namely 37 000 Coloured families and 17 000 Indian families, and a handful of White families who still have to be resettled. The brochure goes on to say, and the Minister echoed these sentiments when he opened the Republican Festival exhibit earlier this month, that the intention was to resettle at the rate of about 8 000 families a year and that it would all be finished by 1978. Now, I would suggest that he leaves those people where they are, because there is no enormous hurry for this, and rather concentrate on the people who have no housing at all. It is in any case the non-White people who have had to bear the full burden of group area removals. This pamphlet gives a completely misleading picture when it says that there are about 100 000 disqualified families in all that have had to be resettled, excluding Bantu. In fact, there are more than 108 000. It then goes on to say that this represents ½ million people or roughly eight per cent of the White, Indian or Coloured populations. Now, what impression is created by that? It is that there is a more or less equal spread of families among the three different population groups that have had to be moved. If he wanted to give a real picture of the situation …

I do not get that impression.

Well, it is the impression, namely eight per cent of White, Coloured and Indian families throughout South Africa. The truth of the matter is of course that out of the 108 000 odd families that have had to be resettled, there are 68 900 Coloured families, 38 500 Indian families and I 380 White families. I think this pamphlet gives a very misleading picture. It is a half-truth if you can even call it as much as a half-truth! I personally do not think you can. But let us leave that aside. The plea I am trying to make with the hon. the Minister is that he does not worry about this gigantic chessboard that he is busy moving around so enthusiastically. Let us first resettle people who urgently need resettling in the existing overcrowded Coloured and Indian townships throughout South Africa.

The existing housing shortage, according to the hon. Minister’s own figures, is as follows. I do not envy him this task but I think he is making his task much more difficult by concentrating on what I call the provision of ideological housing instead of resettling people according to need. According to the hon. the Minister’s figures, the shortage for Coloured people at the end of 1970 was 21 590 houses and 11 360 for Indians. This is just the top of the iceberg. Very many Coloured and Indian families who need housing where sons or daughters have got married do not even bother to put their names down on the waiting list. They know it is hopeless and that people have been waiting for six and seven years for houses. It is estimated that something like 43 000 Coloured families in the Bellville/Parow area and Cape Town alone were not adequately housed According to the Chairman of the Cape Town City Council’s Housing Committee, there is a waiting list of 11 000 for council houses as at the end of 1970. According to the Port Elizabeth City Council, it is estimated by their Director of Housing that there is a backlog of 9 000 houses for Coloured people, I do not need to mention that the conditions at Gelvandale were cited by the Director of Housing as being directly responsible for the riots and the terrible feeling of grievance which exists among the Coloured people there. The hon. the Minister knows that if the local authorities have to give up 50 per cent of the housing that they provide it is going to intensify enormously the problems which they have to face as far as the provision of houses for Coloured and Indian families are concerned.

The other reason why I asked the hon. the Minister to take things a little easy and not to go at this whole problem like a bull at a gate in his enthusiasm, is that families are being moved before facilities are being provided, that is before the new Coloured townships are properly provided with all the necessary facilities. Do not uproot settled communities until the areas are properly provided with schools, recreation halls, mosques, churches and playing fields, etc.

You are being unreasonable.

Am I unreasonable?

We do not even do that for the White people. Schools, playing fields and so forth do come afterwards.

Schools?

Schools are usually provided. There I agree.

At Hanover Park there were no schools when people were moved from District Six. 400 families were moved from District Six. I am not talking about the Valley of Plenty People whom I would have moved the next day under any circumstances. I agree with the hon. the Minister’s action in this regard. Put these 400 families were moved from District Six before there was a school available at Hanover Park. They were moved before there were street lights, I believe that that is an essential because of the crime that results when people are moved to townships where no light is provided, There were other facilities which perhaps are not quite as important, but there was no police station. I consider that as an essential. There was, at the time, no bus service and there was no adequate train service. All right, let us leave aside recreational facilities and mosques and churches, although I think that in a civilized community, these are considered as essentials. However, I agree that they are not priority one. Priority one is certainly schools, a police station and lighting. Before these amenities are provided, I do not think any communities ought to be moved from areas where they are already more or less adequately housed. District Six, however much of a slum part of the area is. certainly has schools, street lights and plenty of police stations in the vicinity. This is the plea I want to make to the hon. the Minister, Never mind about his target of 8 000 families per year. That is not the important thing. The hon. the Minister is. after all, the Minister of Community Development. I consider it utterly ironical that the hon. the Minister who carries the title of Minister of Community Development, in fact is the man who is responsible for disrupting settled communities.

We do not disrupt settled communities; we disrupt slum areas.

No, you are disrupting them under group area proclamations. A tremendous amount of resentment is engendered. I can tell the hon. the Minister that the people who have been moved from District Six do not have the same lyrical reaction as the hon. the Minister when he describes the new plans for District Six. They are bitterly resentful of the fact that they have been moved from an area where they lived for decades and which was near their place of work. District Six was a traditional Coloured area.

If you go down to the Tommy Boydell office now, you will see Coloured people standing in rows asking for accommodation on the Flats.

That is because they have no option. What else are they going to do? They know that they will be moved any minute and they want to get themselves in the queue. The hon. the Minister is surely not so naive as to believe that they do this because they are anxious to clear out of their houses.

Most of them are anxious.

No, they are not anxious to do so. I can tell the hon. the Minister that they resent the fact that they have been moved. You could have done urban renewal on the spot for the Coloured people. Why should he now plan for luxury houses for Whites? There are plenty of Coloured people who have high incomes who could afford to buy decent houses. We could have had urban renewal on the spot in an area which was traditionally a Coloured area. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton has now discussed overcrowding and has said that preference should be given to the resettlement of these people who are staying in overcrowded houses. Overcrowding occurs in slum areas. That is where we find the most overcrowding. It is those slum conditions which should be cleared up. But that hon. member has not advocated the clearance of those slum conditions, because she takes great pleasure in that because she knows that they are the breeding grounds of communists. She wants those conditions to continue, in fact.

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, is the hon. member allowed to say that? It is a very definite insinuation.

Yes, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, it is after all the ideal of the Progressive Party that those conditions should continue. But the hon. member must remember that it is this Government which placed the Group Areas Act on the Statute Book. It is the accepted policy of the Government that there should be separate residential areas. We shall continue with resettlement and with the clearance of those slum conditions. It is within the provisions of the Act, and it is the policy of this Government.

But I should like to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to have recorded on film these slum conditions we inherited. When we get television, we can exhibit this to posterity. We will then be able to say to our youth: Look, this is what conditions looked like when the United Party was governing. Those slum areas have now been converted into new residential areas with wonderful residential units. We must not allow this to be lost to posterity. It must form part of our history. It is very clear to me that the fact that we are making a break-through in South Africa and that we are doing away with these slum conditions, is a thorn in the flesh of the United Party. That is why they come forward with these ridiculous things we have had recently. First they come forward with the gossip about the Land Bank. Then they came forward with the gossip about the fishing industry, and now they have found some gossip about the Bester Brothers. Surely that shows that we are making progress. I think that we must do everything in our power to clear up the situation and that we must do so as quickly as we possibly can. However, we must also record it on film so that when we get television one day, we can exhibit it to the young people of South Africa.

I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Innesdal said today when he referred to South End. We are engaged in urban clearance in South End. Hon. members will know that South End is the dirty hole we inherited from the United Party in Port Elizabeth. We are making tremendous progress with the clearance there. Then I also understand that progress is being made with the clearance of District Six. We and hon. members of the United Party must simply accept now that where slum conditions are prevailing today, wonderful residential areas will spring up in future.

Then I should like to have a few words with the hon. Minister in regard to a few matters which are of importance for my constituency. Before I come to that, I just want to say that I expressed my thanks to the Government for the new stipulated condition with which one must comply before one can obtain a house. I think the hon. the Minister and the Minister of Finance have made an extremely realistic concession to us. I feel just a little concerned about an allocation of houses. Unfortunately we now have the situation that the rental of the new subeconomic houses is higher than the existing economic housing schemes. The old housing scheme rentals are cheaper than those of the new economic schemes. I feel that it is no more than right that when some of those old economic houses become vacant, those houses should be given to the lower income groups. I want the hon. the Minister to make it his policy that we should also have the co-operation of the municipalities so that this policy may be applied to their housing schemes as well as to the housing schemes of the Department. Where such houses become vacant, preference should be given to the lower income group. I also think an allocation committee should be appointed in every city. I am not saying this because I think that irregularities are taking place, but because I feel that one should be protected against any possible criticism which could be expressed.

Then there is another point I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. It relates to the open spaces to be found in the existing municipal housing schemes, as well as the departmental schemes. Large pieces of open land has been left which were to have served as playgrounds for the children and to add to the attractiveness of that residential area. We now find that those pieces of open land today are nothing more than places where rubbish is being dumped. This rubbish accumulates in piles. One finds this particularly in my constituency in a place like Holland Park, which is a subeconomic housing scheme. Nothing is being done to clean up those areas so that the little children can also have somewhere to play. It is unsightly and it is too terrible to see what those open areas in the subeconomic housing schemes look like.

But surely the local authorities are to blame for that.

Yes, it falls under the municipalities. However, I am now asking the Minister to compel the municipalities to do this since the housing schemes were after all established with public money. This must be done so that the Little children will again be able to play happily there.

Then there are all the accusations levelled at the Department because it is competing in the open market. However, I am in favour of the Department of Community Development purchasing even more land. I cannot see why the Department of Community Development, or whoever will be responsible for the housing of the future, should stand idly by and watch while land is being purchased. The more land the Department of Community Development purchases, the greater the opportunity it will have of supplying accommodation for our people in future. I am in favour of that, and I am asking the Minister to give special attention to this matter. Then I want to make a suggestion to the Minister, not because any irregularities may perhaps be taking place, but simply to protect the Department against any possible criticism as regards the system of business sites which are being purchased by way of closed tender. I feel that business sites should be sold by the Department at a public auction. Then it would not subject the Department to unnecessary criticism.

I differ with my hon. colleague from Hercules, who asked for the relaxation of rent control. Unfortunately I am not one who is in favour of that being done. I believe that if we do away with rent control, we are going to have exploitation such as we have never had in this country before. We cannot afford to do away with rent control and in that way leave the lower income groups and the middle classes in the hands of land speculators. There is no reason for the developers to say that because we do not want to do away with rent control, they are unable to undertake development. The Minister has repeatedly and emphatically stated that new buildings will not be placed under rent control. It is only those old, established buildings, which still fall under rent control. There our people must be protected. I want to ask the Minister to see to it that we act very carefully in this case.

Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with the so-called 201C;reply201D; of the hon. the Minister, He dealt with the questions that had been put to him in a very cursory and vague manner, I think we must get down to certain fundamental questions that were put to the Minister and ask. for a direct answer.

I want first of all to deal with Alphen House. I want to put one point to the Minister, Are the exemptions under section 33 of the Act dealt with by the Minister personally, or are they death with under delegated authority by some other official? The Act puts that responsibility on the Minister. We are dealing with a block of flats. Alphen House, i am not querying the rightness or wrongness of the decision. But when I asked the Minister why that block of flats was exempted—obviously under section 33 (g); that is because he thinks it should be—he said “because the rentals are equal to rentals in the neighbourhood”. But does the hon. the Minister know what happens to the tenants? Does he know that every tenant in a rent-controlled block, almost without exception these days, is a monthly tenant? When once rent control is removed without any lime factor being attached to it, those tenants are subject to one month’s notice, and they are at the mercy of the landlord as to what rents they are going to pay, or else they must get out. The hon. the Minister says “1 exempted it because the rentals were the same as for similar accommodation in that neighbourhood" I want to ask him to tell us quite clearly what he regards as the yardstick for luxury. That is our complaint with him. He is going to administer the Act for a long time, until the Commission of Enquiry into the Rents Act, which he has agreed to appoint and which we welcome, reports and there is amending legislation. Is he just going to act ad hoc because somebody comes along and asks for exemption to be granted.

I will obviously have it fully investigated.

Is he going to do it? Surely, if the hon. the Minister is carrying out his duties under section 33, he will know that there are not many exemptions. I think there are four or five groups of houses. That is all that have been exempted under section 33 (h), and, as far as I know, one or two blocks of flats under paragraph (g). Now, when we are debating this Vote, the Minister merely says, “Well, I will investigate it and see whether it is in order”.

I did not say that. I said that I will obviously not exempt them before having a full investigation.

And what is the full investigation that the Minister has done? On what grounds has he exempted it? Purely because the rentals are the same in that neighbourhood? Because they are the same now, he says “You need not charge the same rent any more; you can charge what you can get on the open market”. That is the effect of withdrawing the rent control.

But now I want to come to the other point which I raised with him, in regard to specific matters which we believe would assist in home ownership. Does the hon. the Minister agree that there should be some income tax rebate in respect of money paid for home ownership? Does he agree and has he made representations to his colleagues that transfer and stamp duties are exorbitant at the present moment and that there should be some relief? Has he made any representations in this regard? Has he made any representations in regard to extended bonds and periods whereby young property buyers can pay interest only and not redemption? The Minister has not answered these questions.

I now want to come to the other properties he knows nothing about. I have a letter in my possession in regard to these properties at Mowbray owned by the company Town and Country (Pty.) Ltd. This letter is dated 26th April, a month ago, and reads as follows—

The hon. the Minister, however, says he knows nothing about it. Let me remind him …

I deal with hundreds of these cases every day.

You do not. With the greatest respect to the Minister I want to say that he does not grant hundreds of exemptions. He has granted exactly five according to my information. Let me remind the hon. the Minister, as I read out this morning, that this is a company in which the wife of one of his colleagues, Mrs. Waring, is a director. Now can he remember that company?

What are you insinuating?

I want to know if he can remember this company?

Which company?

Town and Country (Pty.) Ltd.

I deal with hundreds of companies and I cannot remember them all.

Do you remember Town and Country?

If you want that type of information there is nothing to prevent you from writing me a letter. I will then give the hon. member all the information ne needs. But to expect me to remember every single detail of my department which deals with hundreds of companies, is quite ridiculous.

I want the hon. the Minister to tell us why a rent determination was delayed for three years in regard to these properties. An application for a rent review was made to the Rent Board. On what grounds did he apply Section 33 in order to grant exemption from the provisions of the Rents Act for these particular properties? They are neither period buildings nor are they historic ones. They are old semi-detached buildings which were constructed in the Mowbray municipal area on mud foundations. They have now been converted into Chelsea type cottages which the Rent Board regarded as not being worth the R110 rent per month, but only worth R54 per month. The hon. the Minister, however, now says that he is satisfied that these are buildings which fall under the provisions of this section of the Act. He is now satisfied that these are buildings which have now been faithfully restored according to tradition. I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is no good saying that he cannot remember this case. I have asked him before and I want to know. I want to repeat the query I put to the hon. the Minister: Does he agree that the provisions of Section 33 must be applied only where there is restoration of a period building or a historic building. I see no reason why this exemption should have been granted and why the Minister says that he cannot remember the case. It was only one month ago that I was advised of this decision. I asked for it in correspondence, as I have been doing for months while this matter has been pending before the Rent Board since 1968. I again want to ask the Minister to please tell us on what basis he applies section 33 (g) in regard to blocks of flats as he has done so far as Alphen is concerned and on what basis he applies section 33 (h) in respect of these buildings which are being restored? Last year when we debated this matter we said that we welcomed this section because it dealt with the restoration of old buildings such as they have at Stellenbosch. The exterior of these buildings is restored to the old form, but the interior is changed to become habitable. We welcomed that provision in regard to period buildings which could be restored. We do not, however, welcome it in regard to the conversion of cottages into so-called Chelsea-style houses. I have read the report of the Rent Board; when a few brass fittings and iron rails are put up they regard such premises as entitled to exemption from the Rents Act.

Actually, Sir, the hon. member for Green Point put his question directly to the hon. the Minister and it would be presumptuous of me to reply to it, but he did nevertheless make one remark here which I cannot allow to go unanswered. It has a bearing on the entire morning's debate here. It seems to me as if there is a race on between the United Party and the English-language Press in South Africa. They are seeing who can do the most demolition work and who can commit the most character assassination. The United Party was challenged here this morning, and I notice that not one of their frontbenchers is present this afternoon; they are apparently drawing up a policy so that they can reply to the questions put to them here and so that they can get out of their difficulties.

They are running away.

Yes. Perhaps they have run away. Sir, the hon. member for Green Point came here again with a neat, subtle, underhand reference to the wife of the hon. the Minister of Sport and Recreation, who is supposedly a member of a company that supposedly did some work or other …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word 201C;underhand201D;.

I withdraw it. The hon. member knows what I am referring to. This is the typical way in which …

The Minister said that he did not recall this matter. Help him to recall it.

Sir, the Opposition and their Press are continually committing character assassination. I wonder what they will do if the ball is sent into their court. Do they perhaps think that they are so pious and sanctified that it is not possible to undertake demolition work from this side? But, Sir, we would not be doing the country a service by doing that.

Discuss housing.

We are in this House to discuss matters of policy and matters of national importance, and as soon as one departs from those spheres, one ends up by making personal remarks. I leave it at that, Sir. I have actually risen to my feet today to pay the greatest measure of tribute one can pay to a Minister and a department to the hon. the Minister and the Department of Community Development. As you know, Sir. it has throughout the course of history been one of the most difficult tasks to move and resettle large numbers of people. This was usually done with the most extreme coercive measures and enforcement, and where it was in fact done, it was accepted extremely reluctantly by the people involved. There are well-known cases. Outside Athens there are squatters’ camps which have been there for 50 years already. In Israel there are refugee camps which have existed for 23 years already. Absolutely nothing is being done about them. But here in South Africa we find, according to the brochure we received this morning— which is a fine one and one on which the department may be congratulated—that very large numbers of disqualified people have already been resettled. It is strange that the Opposition does not discuss that matter any more. Last year hon. members of the Opposition went to visit Limehill every week-end; they stood on each other’s toes to get there, and linger there. [Interjection.] Sir, that hon. member was not yet here then. He will not know what I am talking about.

He was still in that mudhole.

In any case, they then found fault with the policy of resettlement, and what are they doing this year? They do not want to touch resettlement with a barge-pole, which is proof that this policy is succeeding. Sir, usually I do not like doing this, but I want to tell you about a “first” in South Africa. This is the first time in the history of this country that resettlement on this scale is succeeding. This is so important that I should like to say this to the Opposition again: This is the first time that resettlement is succeeding on this scale, and hon. members who went on that excursion last year to visit the resettlement areas, will know what I am talking about. But what is the Opposition using this resettlement for, as the hon. member for Houghton did a moment ago? They want to drag South Africa’s name through the mud; they want to besmirch South Africa as much as they can, both at home and abroad, and then they put on a pious expression, as if they know nothing about it. Sir, I want to congratulate the department on the speed and. one could almost say the military zeal with which this matter has been tackled, despite all the problems which had to be overcome and despite the attitude of the Opposition, and on the way in which they have carried this through.

Sir, then there are a few other matters I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give his attention to. I should appreciate it if he would give his attention to these matters. Here I am simply taking the two departments of the Minister together, i.e. the Department of Community Development and the Department of Public Works. There are quite a number of people in these departments who are qualified artisans. They have been employed there for many years in a temporary capacity. Perhaps there was a possibility in earlier years that these posts would be abolished, but this no longer appears to be the case. There is so much maintenance work which has to be done that it seems they will remain in the employ of the departments. Because they are temporary they do not enjoy the benefits people who are permanently employed in the Public Service enjoy. I can mention to you two examples to support what I am saying. Permanent people can, for example, belong to the Public Service Pension Fund, while these people who are temporarily employed belong to the R.W.O. Fund. Upon retirement they receive a round sum, and since a year or two ago they also receive a small amount each month. But the benefits they receive compare very unfavourably to the benefits people receive under the Public Service pension scheme. The same applies to the medical benefits. But where these temporary people lose out most, is under the subsidy which is paid for housing loans. The subsidy, as you know, is now 5 per cent for amounts below R3 000; between R3 000 and R7 000 it is a little lower. These temporary people do not qualify for that subsidy.

Order! The hon. member must not digress too far from this Vote.

Some of these temporary workers are also employed in the Department of Community Development, but I agree with you, Sir, that most of them are in the Department of Public Works. It would be a major concession for these people if they could be appointed in a permanent capacity. I know that there are problems in this connection, such as medical examinations, age qualifications, etc., but perhaps with a soft heart and a generous spirit these problems may be overcome.

There is another little matter which I should like to mention which affects Pretoria West directly, and that is the Indian section quarter, Laudium. The problem with Laudium, just as with all other group areas, is that it is developing too rapidly. The people are very satisfied there, and because they are so satisfied, they are streaming to Laudium even from rural areas. The result is that that area is now becoming too small for all the people, also as a result of the Indian college which is going to be erected there. There is still land available but in the foreseeable future it will be quite insufficient, if one takes into account the natural increase and the influx. Then there is another part of Laudium which has been proclaimed under the Group Areas Act, but there may possibly be sinkholes there. There are many Indians who would like to live on top of sinkholes, particularly the East Pakistanis. They would prefer to live here on top of sinkholes, instead of in East Pakistan. Sir, I am saying this by way of a joke. Of course one does not want it to actually happen. The actual argument is that the amount of land is very limited. The inhabitants of Erasmia feel very unhappy, because as soon as the name Laudium is mentioned the representatives of a local English newspaper come to them and say: 201C;You are living in a suburb of Laudium; this area as well is shortly going to be proclaimed a group area201D;. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pretoria West, and the hon. member who spoke before he did, made two interesting contributions to the debate. I must say that it is pleasant to find that the discussion can take place in such a calm atmosphere. The hon. member for Pretoria West made four very important points, and he stated all four of them forcefully. Firstly he thanked the hon. the Minister. He did very well as far as that is concerned. Then he devoted himself to what he calls gossip. Thirdly, he repeated himself. He did so twice, and fourthly, he deviated from the point. The hon. member who spoke before he did, the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, did even better. He said that a film should actually be made of the black spots and the slum conditions so that we can show our future generations what the estate looked like that this Government inherited from its predecessor. Sir. the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North accompanied us the other day when we drove to visit the Cape Flats. He was also present at Elsies River. The Nationalists have now been governing for 23 years, and Elsies River, in modern-day South Africa, still looks as it did 23 years ago, and this in a country which, in the words of that side of the House, is experiencing prosperity and development as never before. It therefore does not befit the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, or any other hon. member, to refer to slum conditions. We still have such conditions in South Africa today, and I think that the hon. the Minister of Community Development is very much aware of the situation. I want to express the hope that he will go out of his way to clear it up.

Sir, there are just two points I want to bring to the hon. the Minister’s attention. I want to mention the first point in connection with what took place this morning. A lady phoned me and said that she needed a house urgently. This is not a fabrication, it is true. She said that she has been looking for a house for three months. She now only has three days left before she is turned out of her own home. I then told her: “But, Madam, where did you apply for a house?" Now hon. members must listen to how that lady had been struggling for three months. She was sent from pillar to post in a endeavour to find her a house. The moral of the whole story is simply that these people do not know any better. I continually find that people have a tremendous amount of worry because they cannot obtain houses. This is all happening because the necessary information is not available. When we obtain television, the hon. the Minister will be able to address the people of South Africa from time to time …

Does the Minister look like a house agent?

Sir, that hon. gentleman has only just woken up with a start. He should go on sleeping. When the hon. the Minister devotes himself to housing in front of the television cameras—if he is still Minister—he will, of course, be able to inform the people, but at the moment, the difficulty is simply that people just do not know where they must go to in order to obtain a house. It is particularly those people in the fixed economic categories that do not have the information. They do not buy a newspaper every day and they do not regularly listen to talks on the radio, and the fact is that we simply cannot get the information across to them. I asked myself how we could do this. In the first place we could do it by transmitting the information by means of the radio, newspapers and perhaps pamphlets and publications, but there is definitely something we need in the Peninsula, and that is what I would call a central housing bureau, a bureau that will control all applications and housing offers in the whole Peninsula. It makes no difference to me who builds the houses, whether it be the hon. the Minister’s department or National Housing and the city council. But somewhere in the Peninsula there must, on a regional basis, be a central point to which the people can go and apply for a house, knowing full well that that application will be forwarded to the places where houses are available.

Do you not think that the local M.P. is a sufficient link?

The hon. the Minister and his department are paid by the people of South Africa to inform individuals about housing. I do not want to be funny, but I believe that it is a service the department could very profitably furnish on a regional basis.

What are you paid for then?

The hon. the Minister knows that I have enough trouble with housing. He does not have to worry about that.

In the last six years you have only brought me six cases.

Does the hon. the Minister now want to tell me that he does not believe that such a situation exists in the Cape? Why is the hon. the Minister so dissatisfied? Why is he so bitter?

What am I bitter about?

But you look very bitter. [Interjections] The hon. the Minister says it is his father and mother’s fault, but his father and mother made a much better job than that. [Interjection.] The hon. the Minister grew up looking lovely, but he grew ugly as an adult. But so much for that.

I say again, I believe that, on a regional basis, one must have a central housing bureau at a central point, particularly here in the Peninsula, where one has various bodies offering sub-economic and economic housing, a bureau where everyone needing houses can apply and will be served. I do not care whether the Minister does it through the city council or through his own office; I leave it at that. But I should like the people to know that they can go to a central point and not be sent hither and thither to numerous places in an endeavour to obtain a house.

Where are the M.P.s?

The hon. member will, of course, know that before I took over Maitland, his party did not even have an office there to serve the people. It is no wonder that they lost.

I want to make a second point, and the hon. the Minister also knows what I am speaking about. In the Peninsula houses are being offered by various bodies, in the first place by his department and in the second place by the local authorities, Citizen’s Housing League and the divisional councils. These bodies all offer houses for the sub-economic and economic categories. The Minister and his department also know that in all these houses there are people living today whose salaries or wages are actually too high for those specific houses, but they have been living there for a long time and no one blames them for doing so; and the hon. the Minister also finds is extremely difficult to evict them, because where would they go to? But the fact of the matter is that these people are occupying houses today which could be occupied by other people that do, in fact, fall into those categories, but they simply cannot get in.

The hon. the Minister is aware of the problem, and I should like to recommend to him that through a central housing bureau he could perhaps slowly but surely warn these people living in such houses, whose salaries or wages are too high for those particular houses, that they must make their own provisions, and secondly that the city councils, the divisional councils, the Housing League and the hon. the Minister’s department will co-operate in slowly but surely transferring these people from sub-economic to economic houses, and later from economic houses to private home ownership. [Time expired.]

The majority of the complaints I receive are specifically because people are asking where they must go to.

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me the hon. member for Maitland learned nothing during the five years he spent in the wilderness, but forgot a great deal. I want to inform the hon. member, since he referred to the slum conditions which still exist in Port Elizabeth North, that since the National Party came into power we have resettled no fewer than 47 000 Coloureds—Coloureds only. Where they were living in slum conditions we resettled them and gave them proper housing. What did the United Party do in that time? They created these conditions. They were the greatest creators of slums that ever governed in South Africa. Their record in respect of the creation of slums cannot be compared to any other in the world. I also want to inform the hon. member, since he pleaded for a so-called Central Housing Bureau, that he wants to turn the Department of Community Development into a rent collecting agency. Surely what he was talking about was a glorified rent collecting agency.

The service they will be able to render will be an outstanding one.

The Department of Community Development is not there to render a service like that. Each of the separate bodies such as the various local authorities, the Citizens’ Housing League, the utility companies and the Department, do their own work and do it well. I do not know anyone in the Peninsula who, if he wants a house, does not know where to go to get one.

I should also like to refer to this brochure which has been made available. I think it is no more than right that we should felicitate the Department on this brochure. During the course of the morning hon. members have had an opportunity to take a closer look at this brochure. I want to recommend this type of publicity by the Department very strongly. The Department of Community Development is far too modest about what it is doing in South Africa. It is one of the Departments fulfilling one of the most important tasks in our society, and I am not certain that we are not far too modest in regard to the functions of this Department. When we publish such brochures, they do not merely comprise promises we are making, but consist of things we have accomplished. Every one can see these things we have accomplished, because the work of the Department stands as monument throughout our country in every city and in every town today. What magnificent monuments they are!

If the National Party were to go out of office in a century or two it will always be remembered for many things but in particular for what it has done to supply housing to all the race groups in this country. We must not urge the hon. the Minister on to lay his reports upon the Table in time, but we must give our public more information in regard to what we have already done in this respect. Then there would be fewer unenlightened people who know nothing, and who go about criticizing and gossiping about the Department left, right and centre. I want to felicitate the Department on this brochure they have made available.

I want to say to the hon. member for Houghton, since she made such a terrible fuss about the fact that we have to accept the principle that our people must be re settled on the land where they are living, that this is in fact being done as well. If the hon. member would only become acquainted with the facts, she will find that this is being done in an excellent way. It is being done in the Peninsula, for example, at Elsies River and at Florida. Hon. members saw the other day in what a wonderful way this was being done. Where it is possible, in those areas where people are qualified to live, this is being done in an excellent way. But this cannot always be the case, because there are such a large number of people in South Africa who are disqualified and who cannot live in the areas where they are now living. They must be removed to qualified areas.

Now her party is making propaganda to the effect that they should not be resettled in their own areas.

I now want to come to the hon. member for Salt River as well. It seems to me that he can sometimes make such stupid statements. The hon. member for Salt River, believe it or not, wanted to urge on the hon. the Minister here today in regard to District Six. He said that we had really been waiting too long now. He pointed out that there was mention of District Six as long ago as 1950. Did the hon. member conveniently forget how we had to discipline the City Council of Cape Town, and him, in order to get their co-operation so that a start could be made in District Six? Did the hon. member forget how stubborn they were and how he gave them ideas? Now he is urging on the hon. the Minister and saying that it is being done too slowly. But I can already see what the United Party and the hon. member for Salt River have in mind. The United Party now realizes what we are establishing in cooperation with the city council-yes, the city council is now co-operating. I would not be surprised if the hon. member for Salt River who represents this area, were to come to this House one day and claim this work of the Department of Community Development and the National Party as something which he accomplished for his constituency. This is work which the hon. member opposed and which he did not want the Government to tackle.

I want to mention that the Slums Act was placed on the Statute Book in 1934 by the United Party. But that is also as far as they got. They never made use of that Act in any urban or town area to clear up one single slum area.

That is of course completely untrue.

How can it be untrue? If it is untrue, the hon. member must rise to his feet and prove the contrary. Despite the fact that that side of the House placed the Slums Act on the Statute Book in 1934, and established slum courts, they never applied it. It is the National Party Government who incorporated the new idea of urban renewal in the Community Development Act and who made positive use of the Slums Act to create these conditions in South Africa and to introduce the reforms we have today.

I want to agree with the hon. member for Germiston that we have made tremendous progress with the provision of housing. If only our people were better informed in this connection, a great deal less nonsense would be spoken. A tremendous amount has been done in regard to the supply of housing to our Whites, but a great deal has also been done for the non-Whites. So much so that our own people are levelling the reproach at us today that they are doing such a great deal for the non-Whites. When the United Party find themselves in the rural areas, they exploit this fact too and say that we are doing such a great deal to furnish the non-Whites with decent accommodation. But although we have already done so much, there are still backlogs today. One of the most important backlogs is that in respect of inexpensive purchasing schemes. Those who have an interest in these matters will have to learn that they will have to make more inexpensive houses available. I do not have a solution for how this could be done, but houses will have to be built more cheaply, The middle-class person simply cannot afford a house of R15 000. They cannot do justice to their families if they have to pay that much. There is also a backlog in respect of rental schemes. These will have to be encouraged.

But I actually want to come to another matter. One of the reasons why such expensive houses generally have to be built, is because our land prices are so extremely high. A division of the Cape Provincial Administration established in December, 1970, that in the Western Cape there were 38 500 vacant residential sites. These are sites which have already been approved and registered and do not include plots which have already been purchased in an estate which has not yet been registered. If we were to accept the fact that there are 120 000 plots in the Western Cape, then we have the situation that virtually a third of the available plots have not yet been built on. Then one asks oneself how it is possible that land prices can be so high, particularly since there are so many plots available. The Government realized the position and they then appointed the Niemand Commission to go into this aspect. However I do not want to give hon. members a lecture now on the Niemand Commission report. The hon. members who are interested in it, have all read it. However, there are a few factors which are important in this connection. We must mention these factors. One of these factors is the high cost of services which have to be supplied when townships are being laid out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the Nationalist Party has quite a short memory. They speak about slum clearance now. Have they forgotten that, when they published a pamphlet in 1966, they had to search high and low before they could find a photograph of a slum area and blame it on the United Party? Eventually they published this fine pamphlet, which was supposed to depict slum areas prior to 1948. Unfortunately the motor car on the photograph was a 1953 model. They found it so difficult to get hold of a photograph that they had to use a falsified photograph to be able to depict a slum area which existed under the United Party Government. Have they also forgotten that Hansard was full of their complaints when they were the Opposition because ex-servicemen were being given priority in the magnificent housing schemes we had built? [Interjections.] I am thinking of a place like Sandringham in the constituency of my colleague, and also of a place like Woodlands in Durban. We established beautiful new townships there, and hon. members should also keep in mind that we did this at a time immediately after the war when everything was in short supply and when one was unable to obtain any building material.

†But I do not want to waste my time on the type of argument as to who did what in nineteen voetsak; what matters to me is 1971. I want to come back to the question of the problem of finding housing. It is all very well to say that the department is not an estate agency, but there are two groups in particular which suffer, one of which my colleague, the hon. member for Von Brandis, has very ably dealt with. The other group which has the problem of finding houses, is the young married couple. It is particularly in the case of the younger people of South Africa that we have an impossible problem.

Worse than ever.

Yes, worse than ever, because the cost of rentals is rising month after month and year after year. Today the young couple trying to find a flat to Live in, let alone a home with a garden in which they can raise a family, find it impossible to find one they can afford. So, we find that the young wife has to go on working so that she can add to the income so that they will be able to afford to keep a roof over their heads. It is for that group, for the young married couples and for the aged, that a solution has to be found.

I want to develop the plea which has been made by the hon. member for Von Brandis. He made a plea in regard to the effect of demolitions on the availability of housing. I accept and I have discussed it often with the hon. the Minister that many of these old buildings must go. Pure economics make it impossible to preserve them. We sometimes find buildings on very valuable ground where the rates and taxes alone on the ground amount to far more than that building can bring in in rentals. Every time one of these buildings is pulled down, whether it is justified or not, people are displaced, and have to find some other place to live. The Minister can talk as much as he likes—members on the Government side know, as we know, that a housewife will walk from estate agent to estate agent, day in and day out, week after week, pleading with the estate agents: “Haven’t you got something for me?", putting their names down wherever there is a waiting list, until waiting lists become meaningless. Waiting lists do not mean anything now, because everybody who is looking for a house or a flat puts their name on the waiting list. These people in the middle and lower income groups who are looking for a home today simply cannot find it. J want to put to the hon. the Minister the proposal that the time has come that the financial aid which the Government now gives in low interest finance for sub-economic and economic housing should be extended to building flats. When a block of flats comes down, it is replaced by a modern luxury building. The simple economics of building today, the cost of land and buildings, means that a single flat comes out in the R60 to R80 category —more than what the average young couple or old-age pensioner can pay.

I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that in the same way as housing is subsidized, in any development scheme for flatlands finance be made available and the co-operation of the local authority be sought, so that cheap land can be made available and private enterprise be brought into the picture so that there can be in new flatland development a percentage of flats built with low interest finance and thus available at low rentals.

He said this morning that provision was being made for those people.

No, Sir, it is for housing. I listened very carefully. The Minister said it would be for housing; not for flats. I am talking about flats, which will require the co-operation of local authorities and private enterprise. Those flats can then be let according to a means test, so that they go to the people who really need them. I suggest that the Minister should insist that a percentage of any new building complex that goes up should be in that category, and not out in the bundu, not somewhere way out where transport becomes a problem. I take my own constituency. Many people stay in my constituency because of the proximity to Addington Hospital, because they have to go in for weekly or twice-weekly treatment, and they seek a flat where Addington Hospital is within walking or convenient bus distance. Many people have to attend the out-patients department. Because of the need for social life, they tend to come to the flatland area. We cannot simply say to those people: “You must go out into the distant suburbs”. I know when Cato Manor is developed there will be ample space there, but that does not solve the problem of the old people. It may solve the problem of the younger people who can travel, provided the houses are within their reach.

In the moment or two I have left, I want to deal with the problem of the conversion of flats for other purposes. Certain steps are being taken—I appreciate it; I thank the Minister for what has been done —to deal with abuses. What happens is that an old flat may not be bringing in a rental income which satisfies the owner. Then he converts it or, usually, sells it to someone else. Nine times out of ten it is a new buyer who does it, and they then start converting it into holiday flats. I have nothing against holiday flats, but I think it is unfair to compete with the genuine holiday flat, with its restaurants, lounges and other facilities by simply converting an ordinary old block of flats and saying that it is a holiday flat. In the process they keep the flats empty until they have most of the building cleared. I want to ask the hon. the Minister if he will not use his discretion … [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply at length to what the hon. member for Durban Point said. One can bring a horse to the water, but one cannot make it drink. One can advance all the arguments in the world, but if a person does not want to be convinced, nothing will convince him. If the hon. member for Durban Point, or any other hon. member, wishes to deny that the National Party inherited slum conditions, then he never visited Moroko in Johannesburg and he never saw what District Six looked like in Cape Town and why it was a dreaded place for both Whites and non-Whites. I need not even mention the numerous other places which have been cleared up. If someone wants to be blind, no one can make him see; one could rather try to make a blind person see.

I come now to another aspect, and I should like to discuss two matters with the hon. the Minister briefly. The first matter concerns something which was specifically dealt with by the Minister, with great sympathy. All credit is due to the National Party and the Government for having dealt with this matter in such a humane manner. I am referring now to the removal of Indians, as was promised by the National Party when it accepted office in 1948. I do nevertheless think that over the years it has become apparent that there are shortcomings. I do not think the blame for this can be laid at anyone's door, but I do nevertheless think that it is time attention was given to this matter. I want in all humility to suggest, as I previously suggested to the Minister in private, that this matter could perhaps be the subject of a commission or a committee of enquiry. I am referring specifically to the removal of Indians in the rural areas, particularly in the Transvaal. In the first place I want to say that when removals of these people who have lived there for years take place, it should comply with the demands of Christianity and morality. One cannot deprive a person of his house without giving him something else in its place. I think all of us agree with that. One thing is also certain, and that is that many Indians in the rural areas of the Transvaal, are actually there unlawfully. This is not an offence which I want to lay at the doors of the Indians themselves, but at the door of circumstances. I want to explain the statement briefly. There is an urgent wish among our people in the rural areas that Indian dwellings and shops be removed from those communities to their own group areas. This is in the interests of the Indians themselves. There are no school facilities for the Indians when they remain so isolated in the rural area. Now other facilities as well which are not available for them in the rural areas. It is in their own interest that they be removed to areas where school facilities and other facilities do in fact exists. However, it has become apparent over the years that as a result of circumstances such as long term leases, difficulty is being experienced with the removal of the Indian. In particular, where these permits have led to annual renewals, this has already resulted in great dissatisfaction among the people of that area. I want to repeat that I am aware of the Minister’s standpoint, and share it, i.e., that one should approach this matter in a humane manner and on a basis of fairness and justness to the people affected. However, I do think that there is a degree of duplication at the moment between the Departments of Planning and Community Development, which both deal with this matter. There are additional difficulties such as the Companies Act and other circumstances which make it difficult to effect this necessary removal and this promised removal, and that is why I want to make this plea this afternoon that this part of the task which the National Party undertook years ago, should receive attention to the view to some solution or other, so that the rural Indians who are living in isolation among the Whites, can be taken away there and removed to their group areas. A second factor which counteracts this and which makes things difficult, is the fact that some of our towns and cities where group areas have been proclaimed, are not only hesitant, but also very unwilling and sometimes stubborn about receiving there people. I should like to bring this to the attention of the hon. the Minister and ask whether something cannot be done to compel these authorities to accommodate such Indians who have been removed in those areas where the Department of Community Development is in any case supplying the funds for the provision of services and housing and the other things which go hand in hand with that.

I want to leave it at that, Sir, and just touch upon a second matter for which I request the friendly attention of the hon. the Minister, and that is the question of the provision of housing for the aged and also the provision of economic and sub-economic housing. Sir, I speak as a representative of a community where people have every right to be proud of what has been accomplished in the field of housing when I speak of the City Council of Witbank. The schemes which exist there have more than once been mentioned as an example of the finest and most efficient schemes in the entire Republic, but I must also say that it is felt on the part of the House, the officials and the public that as far as the standards are concerned the heights which were achieved in the beginning have not always been maintained. I know that there are such factors as building costs which have increased as well as other factors which have contributed to that, but I do nevertheless want to ask that we recognize this one danger and that we do not merely build quantitively, but that the quality of our work as well should redound to the credit of the Department and the credit of the Government in years to come when we look at this work which was done. For example, I want to mention that in the construction of a home for the aged in Witbank and also in Bronkhorstspruit, in my constituency, attempts were made to remain within the limits as estimated by the committee to whom the calculation of the costs involved in such a scheme was entrusted, but with the best will in the world that committee was unable to achieve these high standards with the estimates made by the Department. The difference between the Department’s calculation and the estimates of the architect was R136 000 as against R176 000. I therefore want to request that with a view to the marked increased in building costs over the past few years in particular, this per capita allocation for the construction of housing for the aged and juveniles should be reviewed more regularly and that increased amount per capita should be allocated so that the standard of the building work of our homes and of our dwellings will not decrease, but will rather increase.

Sir, it is not often that I am able to support something that the hon. member for Witbank says, but I would like to do so this afternoon, because I believe, like him, that it is essential, if we are to maintain reasonable standards for our various communities, to pay particular attention to the quality of housing and make sure that in our efforts to maintain quantity we do not allow standards to drop. I would like to support the hon. member for Witbank in this regard.

Mr. Chairman, I want to deal with another matter. I want to revert to the problem of housing that is facing this country. I believe that if we are to look at the picture realistically in order to see what faces us in the years ahead, we must relate the question of housing to the population projection for the future. When one does that, one finds a very worrying picture indeed, because of the magnitude of the problem. I should like to quote some figures to this House so that we can see exactly what faces us in the future. Let us assume that the present rate of population growth will, in the next 30 years, give us a total population of, say, 40 million people. I may say that the Department of Statistics is at present working on a population projection for the year 2000 which is 30 years hence. According to their figures we shall then have a total population of 50 million. However, I shall use the conservative figure of 38 million, which will be broken up roughly as follows: 6 million Whites, 5 million Coloureds, I million Asiatics and about 26 million Bantu. An expert has estimated the number of houses that will be required to house that sort of population. According to his calculations, during the period 1970 to 1975 the following numbers of new housing units per annum will be required: 22 000 for Whites and 16 600 for non-Whites, excluding Bantu. This means a total, for the five-year period, of 38 600 new houses per year. During the period 1975 to 1980 23 400 houses will be required for Whites per annum, as against 18 900 houses for non-Whites, making a total of 42 300 new houses per annum. All this means that a total of 1 500 000 new housing units will be required during this 30year period, and these figures are based on a more conservative projection of a total population of 40 million and not 50 million. An additional 1 500 000 new housing units will have to be built during this 30year period, excluding the housing units required to accommodate the increasing Bantu population. When one has regard to such figures, one wonders whether the Government appreciates the problems that is facing it. If it does appreciate those problems, one wonders what realistic plans it has to meet a problem of this magnitude.

When one has regard to figures of this sort, it is quite obvious that the Minister’s department must consider the use of new methods of financing which will assist the private sector, because two things are obvious in this regard. Firstly, the Minister’s department, through the National Housing Commission and the other board which has to do with sub-economic housing, cannot possibly cope with the problem which faces us in the years ahead. Private enterprise is going to have to build a very large number of these dwellings. With increasing costs all round it is impossible for private enterprise to build at a figure which will enable a sufficiently large number of our future families to afford housing unless the Government is prepared to provide new methods of finance. Now, I do not expect the hon. the Minister to have the answer to this today, but what I do think is necessary is that the Government should give very serious consideration to this problem and to the type of assistance which private enterprise will have to be given, in order to cope with this.

Sir, this is not a new thought. Throughout the Western world over the past years, and in some cases over the past 20 years, various countries have found it necessary to provide cheap finance to private enterprise in order to cope with their housing problems. They have not been able to do it in any other way. I believe that the Government will be foolish if it thinks that it can cope with this problem in any other way.

Now, what type of finance do I have in mind? I believe that what the Government has to do is to make large sums of money available at very low interest rates. How it goes about making this available is a matter for discussion and consideration. This could possibly be done through the building societies; it could be done in two or three other ways which one can suggest. But the important thing is, I believe, to accept the principle that this is necessary if we are going to try to solve this problem satisfactorily. Hon. members on this side of the House have suggested ways in which families can be assisted to overcome the problem which arises from the high cost of building and of labour, etc. Various methods have been suggested and I believe that the Government should give serious consideration to these. Various other suggestions are made from time to time. I have here one made recently by the chairman of the Omega group of companies, suggesting ways in which the building societies could be assisted. He suggests raising the ceiling for tax-free deposits with building societies from R10 000 to R12 000, increasing the rate of interest on tax-free deposits from 6½ per cent to 7 per cent and removing the ceiling imposed on individual deposits, which is at present R250 000. These are all methods which will help, but I believe that we in South Africa will never get to the crux of the problem unless the Government is prepared to make some form of cheaper finance available to private enterprise for housing; and here I refer not only to dwelling-houses but also to flat development. I emphasize that this is done in many countries throughout the world and that in different countries different methods of providing cheaper finance have been found. It is a matter of investigation and discussion to decide on what is the best method for South Africa under our conditions. [Time expired.]

This afternoon the hon. member for Musgrave put the question whether the department was aware of the tremendous shortage of housing which would arise in the years ahead, and he added that he wondered whether the department would be able to eliminate that shortage. Sir, I have here an article which appeared in the German Tribune of 22nd April. 1971. It deals with facts and figures in the building trade. The following is said in this article—

Such conditions do not exist in the Republic of South Africa yet. I am convinced that this Minister and his department will never allow such conditions to develop. The article continues—

Where is this?

These are the conditions prevailing in Germany. The article appeared in the German Tribune of 22nd April, 1971. We can say many things of this hon. Minister, but there is one thing he has done, i.e. to ensure that there is proper housing for all income groups and all races in the Republic of South Africa. We must accept this. And he is still engaged in this. We who deal with these things every day, know what efforts are being made in this regard. We know what is being done in that department in order to provide the necessary housing for our citizens.

The hon. the Minister and his department have probably been congratulated often today. Unfortunately I was unable to be here all the time. I also want to express my thanks and let someone just ask me why. I want to express my thanks because the hon. the Minister has increased the sub-economic income limits. This has brought much joy to many families in the Republic of South Africa. Now they know that they can get a house. I want to say to the hon. member for Musgrave that in this very regard the Government is already assisting in subsidizing rent. Rent is being subsidized on a very large scale. It has been reduced from 5 per cent to 3 per cent. This is a marvellous concession and no fewer than 23 000 families will benefit by it. But if the hon. member has another system by means of which houses may be built at lower prices, I agree with the hon. member for Parow that we would appreciate it. because at present the middle-income group is still unable to get houses.

This afternoon I want to discuss another matter with the hon. the Minister. As regards these large development schemes and housing projects in which we are engaged, I feel that much time is being wasted before finality is reached with such projects. I should like to mention an example from my own constituency. We have been engaged in a scheme of 821 houses for almost three years. It is nobody’s fault that there is a delay. The delay is due to the method being followed. The scheme first has to be approved by the local authority. From there it goes to the district office, then to the head office and only then does it come before the Housing Commission. If there is anything wrong, it is returned by post through the same channels. It has to be brought to the attention of the local authority again. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived, in cases where a local authority is engaged in a housing scheme of 100, 200 or 400 houses, for a meeting to be convened immediately at which the various bodies concerned in the scheme, be it the town council or the housing committee, could come together in order to iron out the various minor matters? If problems and matters were to crop up which should be rectified, they would be able to go back and rectify them immediately. These negotiations should not take place by post. It takes up much time. If a minor problem crops up, all the plans are returned to the local authority. The local authority then has to return the plans to the various bodies concerned. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether this matter cannot be investigated so as to establish whether a shorter way of dealing with these larger schemes cannot be found. It often happens that the townships board or the provincial administration wants no more than a small change to be made, in which case all the plans have to be returned. This gives rise to tremendous delay. Sometimes this delay extends even over a period of years. For that reason I am asking the hon. the Minister to see whether the time has not arrived when it is possible for something to be done in this regard.

Frequent references have been made to the way in which the local authorities are allocating these houses. Certain local authorities allocate the houses according to a points system. As far as I am concerned, this points system has been formulated on a very unfair basis. In spite of what is laid down in the Act, certain local authorities make use of a points system which they themselves have formulated. The consequence of this is that many people fail to qualify for a house. I am asking the hon. the Minister to be so kind as to give his attention to these two matters.

Before replying to the points raised by the various hon. members, I just want to make a statement in regard to the prevention of physical decline in cities and towns. This is a matter which was also raised by the hon. member for Salt River.

Over the years house ownership has been encouraged by all Governments in our country, and attempts hay constantly been made at providing financial aids in order to enable more and more families to acquire their own homes. House ownership not only provide a family with housing, but also creates a feeling of security and stability when one lives “under one’s own roof”.

Furthermore, house ownership inevitably entails certain responsibilities. Although it is essential for one to meet regularly one’s obligations in respect of monthly instalments on a housing loan and municipal rates and taxes, etc., it is also absolutely essential for one to meet one’s obligations in so far as the maintenance of one’s dwelling and/or property is concerned. Just as a human being grows older, any building also grows older as the years go by, and if the necessary maintenance services are not carried out regularly, we can be sure that these buildings will not only show signs of age, but even fall into disrepair and become unsightly after a while.

Now I should like to pause at the question of the physical decline in our cities and towns as well as measures for the prevention thereof. A special committee was appointed to inquire into the causes of physical decline in towns and cities and to make recommendations on how such decline could not only be combated, but also prevented as far as possible.

This committee, which was in the first place appointed to report to me on this matter, recently completed its investigations and made certain recommendations. This committee was constituted on a very representative basis, was headed by an officer of the Department of Community Development, and included, amongst others, representatives of the Department of Planning, all four of the directors of local government and prominent persons from the private sector, including engineers, architects and town planners, as well as a sociologist and a representative of the United Municipal Executive. In addition, it consulted approximately 80 local authorities. This committee, having examined and analyzed carefully a large amount of information that had been secured and having made a study of existing legislation, financial aspects, etc., suggested the following comprehensive definition of the term “physical decline”, which seems acceptable to me and which I should like to explain here.

"Physical decline” implies, therefore, that a building or a neighbourhood does not meet the accepted or stipulated standards of habitability or proper town planning and/or town development, as a result of which the health and/or safety of the inhabitants is threatened or the attractiveness and acceptability of the area are affected and reduced to such an extent that restoration is essential. In other words, “decline” implies defective standards in the physical surroundings of the area in which man finds himself and—as reflected in a slum area, for example—where the surroundings, buildings, services, etc., are inadequate, unsightly, unattractive and, in extreme cases, even unhealthy.

Decline is not determined in terms of one single factor only, but a series of circumstances and conditions in an area, such as the condition of buildings, their uses, their immediate surroundings and the genera) nature of development and the state of such development. Measured in terms of decline, the areas of a town may usually be divided into three groups, namely (i) re-development areas: i.e., where the degree of decline is such that the entire area will have to be replanned and/or redeveloped; (ii) rehabilitation areas: i.e., areas which only fall short in respect of certain factors and can consequently be rehabilitated by effecting the necessary improvements, and (iii) conservation areas: i. e. areas (the rest of the city) in which decline is not evident but precautionary measures are nevertheless taken in order to ensure that the process of decline will not start there in some way or other. As a matter of fact, it is in areas of this kind that early attention and steps are required in order that conditions as outlined in (i) and (ii) may be prevented in good time. I shall also pay particular attention to this matter in future, and I hope that I shall obtain the wholehearted co-operation of local authorities in that regard. I have no doubt that I shall obtain it.

The committee also found that the following factors could, in some way or other, play a role in the process of physical decline, and I should like to mention them here for general information, so that everybody who is in any way concerned with urban development, beautification etc., may be mindful of this, for it is clear that although the degree of decline is not the same everywhere, physical decline to some degree or other is to be found in virtually every city, town or township. Town clerks and town councillors can, each in his own way, make a special contribution by identifying such conditions in good time and giving attention to them in order that improvements may be effected.

The reasons for the decline of certain areas or buildings differ widely, but may be summarized as follows: (i) Decline is caused as a result of the infiltration of practices irreconcilable with urban zoning or planning in certain areas, or as a result of exceptional, undesirable factors, such as excessive population densities; (ii) decline results from poor control over buildings and a lack of standards for buildings; (iii) decline occurs in cases where there is a general downward trend in human activity as a result of stagnation or even deterioration of the economic, physical or social conditions; (iv) decline results from areas being inhabited by various race groups on an integrated basis—this is intended especially for the ears of the hon. member for Houghton; and (v) decline is also experienced in areas where the inhabitants, especially members of the lower income groups, are not house owners.

I also instructed the committee to inquire into the extent to which existing legislation could deal with the tendency towards decline. In this regard the committee found that the existing statutory powers— as contained in the Slums Act, the Community Development Act and the respective provincial ordinances and regulations —are to a large extent too limited to deal with areas which have already become slums or fallen into decline, to clear up such areas and to bring about complete urban renewal. Through the joint action of the State, provincial administrations and local authorities existing slum conditions can therefore be eliminated, and reconstruction can take place once decline has become an accomplished fact. To a small extent measures for the prevention of decline are contained in provincial ordinances, but as they cannot be enforced by local authorities for practical and special reasons, the committee found that they had become a dead letter. In this way local authorities have found that owing to local pressure brought to bear upon them, they simply cannot proceed to implementing these measures, especially in cases where owners make their lack of financial means an excuse for not renovating their buildings. The tendency towards the decline of areas in many cities and towns in the Republic, is in any case proof of the fact that the existing powers are inadequate and ineffective.

According to the committee entirely new legislation for improving the condition is unnecessary, and the committee found that minor amendments to the Community Development Act would provide the necessary statutory machinery for passing preventive measures to deal with physical decline. During the recess I shall pay attention to the preparation of the necessary legislation for giving effect to the committee’s recommendations in order that measures may be provided for preventing physical decline in cities and towns. This legislation will be submitted to Parliament for consideration in 1972. Of course, I cannot say exactly what form it will assume, but for the information of the House I shall outline here the general drift, as the committee and I myself see it at the moment. Whereas the four directors of local government served on the committee and the United Municipal Executive was also represented on it, we may accept that the proposals are acceptable to the provinces and local authorities.

I can briefly summarize the committee’s recommendations as follows:

I. Stricter implementation of existing powers:

The existing provincial ordinances and regulations are inadequate for preventing and combating physical decline in conservation areas in an effective manner, but local authorities should nevertheless implement the existing measures more strictly in order to clear up conditions which do not justify complete slum clearance and urban renewal and which are found in rehabilitation areas. The Slums Act, which was specifically enacted for the clearance of slum conditions, should also be implemented more intensively and more effectively.

2. Creation of new legislation:

According to the committee new legislation should be enacted for the purpose of preventing processes of physical decline in conservation areas, and it is being proposed that the Community Development Act of 1966 be amended for that purpose by empowering the Minister of Community Development to designate as conservation areas or buildings certain areas or buildings which, in his opinion and after consultation with the local authority and the provincial administration, are in a state which may give rise to physical decline, and in respect of which the local authority, the provincial administration or the State may take the necessary steps for putting into operation measures for preventing such conditions of decline from setting in, i.e., for preventing such conditions.

If an area or a building has been designated by the Minister, the local authority must take steps against owners of properties which are in the process of physical decline, and tell them to renovate or improve their. properties in order to prevent such abuses from developing. Therefore, the local authorities will, in the first place, have to take the responsibility for the prevention of physical decline within their towns or cities, and at the same time the provincial administration and the Community Development Board are empowered, in cases where for some reason or other local authorities are unable to control these processes by themselves, to take steps in order to control and eliminate such conditions. Provision will also have to be made in the said Act for making regulations relating to the procedure of such schemes, financial assistance, etc., in connection with the physical decline in towns and cities.

3. Financial aids:

Provision will also be made for a scheme for making available loans and funds on a limited scale for the renovation of dwellings and buildings, and what is envisaged in this respect, is a scheme based on the loan scheme in terms of the Housing Act of 1966. so as to enable local authorities to negotiate, in terms of prescribed requirements and conditions, loans with the Community Development Board in order to assist owners in deserving cases by granting them loans for the purposes of improving their properties. This scheme, if accepted and approved by the bodies concerned, will of course be limited to persons who cannot raise the money themselves, i.e., such as the needy. Of course, the heart of the whole matter is that in the future money will be made available to local authorities, just as it is being made available to them at present for the purpose of building new houses, to ensure that houses do not fall into disrepair. To my mind this will be a tremendous step forward and something which will save us a great deal of money in the future. This loan scheme must also make provision for the acquisition of land for communal amenities and the properties of persons who are not prepared to renovate their properties.

4. Technical aids:

As it is not being envisaged to lay down absolute standards which will have to be complied with as far as buildings are concerned, the discretion to take steps against owners and to provide guidance in regard to preventing decline ought to rest with the local authorities and, eventually, with the Minister, and there ought not to be any need for technical aids or guides. However, if local authorities experience any problems in this regard, the assistance of the provincial administrations and the Department of Community Development may be called in.

5. Guide plans:

Guide plans, as envisaged by the Niemand Commission of Inquiry, ought to be introduced as soon as possible. However, a guide plan may never be an ultimate object. but may only serve to co-ordinate detailed planning and to identify problem areas. Only detail planning or town planning schemes can solve these problems, and attention to these aspects is also imperative, As I have said. I am studying the legislation at present and I want to convey my sincere thanks to the committee for the positive and constructive recommendations made by them. I think this is a tremendous step forward in the maintenance of our urban areas. I am most enthusiastic about it, for I think that in years to come it is going to save us millions and millions of rands. The hon. member for Salt River said that if the department and the local authorities had to carry out these urban renewal schemes by themselves, it would take many years before they would be completed. I agree with him, and that is why I am in the process of submitting to the Cabinet a scheme which will also authorize private developers and private enterprises or consortiums to undertake urban renewal by themselves. I may just tell the hon. member for Salt River that there is already a consortium which, at the moment, is investigating urban renewal in Observatory and Salt River. According to the Bureau for Economic Research of the University of Stellenbosch the building industry is entering a slack period at the moment Consequently it seems to me that within the next six months or year I shall be in the position to implement building control somewhat less strictly than is the case at present and, at the same time, to channelize enough buildings works in order that enough dwelling units may be built. Finally, I want to announce that, after consultation between the Minister of Planning and myself, it was decided that a portion of the area known as Mitchell’s Vlei, roughly 2 000 morgen in extent, could be utilized for Coloured housing and development. The hon. the Minister of Planning will make a more detailed statement in this regard at a later stage.

Where is it?

Mitchell’s Vlei is in the Cape Flats.

How much land is there?

Two thousand morgen. The land will be sufficient to meet the present demand. At the moment the divisional council and the city council have virtually used up all their land. They have to plan for new housing schemes now, but do not have any more land. These 2 000 morgen are now being placed at their disposal in order that they may provide for another more or less seven, eight or nine years.

I should now like to deal separately with the speeches made by hon. members. The hon. member for Hercules referred to the abuses that existed in regard to rent-controlled flats let as rooms. Of course, this is illegal, and such a matter must be brought to the notice of my department or that of the Police. Another important question put by the hon. member, was whether the rent fixed at 6 per cent in respect of land and 8 per cent in respect of improvements, was not a little too low. I am inclined to agree with him. I have already discussed this with my department, and we are now in the process of determining whether it would not be better for us to raise it to 8 per cent in respect of land and 10 per cent in respect of improvements.

As far as the relaxation of rent control is concerned, I agree with him that we should relax it as far as possible. On the other hand I agree with the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North, who said that if we relaxed it too much, we would have a very great deal of exploitation, and for that reason we must be very careful.

It would lead to rent increases right throughout the country.

That is why I said this morning that I think we have reached the stage where we must appoint a commission to investigate this whole question of rent control. The ideal thing, of course, would be to abolish it, but the hon. member knows as well as I do why we cannot abolish it.

I now come to the hon. member for Houghton. She objects very much to half of the housing being provided being used for the resettlement of Coloured and Indian people. She pleaded with me to do the same thing that we did in the Valley of Plenty, but it is impossible. We find that where you have Coloureds and Whites and Indians living together, you always find a position of utter deterioration. I agree with my hon. friend that there are a number of squatters who should be housed, but I say that all the housing that we provide cannot be used for those people only. We must use the houses for both sections so that we can eventually completely eradicate the squatters, clear these areas and get these people resettled, and we have succeeded in doing that to a very great extent. Sir, look at District Six. The hon. member wants those people to stay in District Six. The conditions there are absolutely filthy. The position there is just as bad as it is in Goodwood, Brackenfell and other areas where you have people squatting under trees. The conditions are absolutely slum conditions. It is a dirty, bad area, and the sooner all those Coloured people are resettled, the better I will like it.

I just want to give the hon. member an idea of what we are doing in connection with Coloured housing in this country. In 1970 we completed nearly 11 000 houses for the Coloured people, and over the next three years another 29 000 houses will be built for them. I wish to make use of this opportunity of especially thanking the City Council of Cape Town and the Divisional Council of Cape Town for what they are doing for Coloured housing. At the moment I have no criticism of the way in which they are getting about it.

*The hon. member for Port Elizabeth North said that we had to film these slum conditions in order to show future generations what we had inherited from the U.P. Well, I think this is a very good idea, but unfortunately my department does not have the necessary equipment for doing this. We shall have to ask the Minister of Information to do it. [Interjection.] That is why I left the United Party; they did not want to do what I had told them to do. Sir, I thank the hon. member for the tribute he paid in regard to the new income limits; I think it was high time the income limits were raised, and it is very clear that this step was welcomed everywhere. I am afraid I must agree with the hon. member that there are, of course, a number of old economic houses which were built in the thirties and forties at very low interest rates and which are cheaper today than are the sub-economic houses. I agree with him, but before we can let those houses to other people, he should suggest a plan to me as to how we can get those people out of them.

When they become vacant.

Then I agree entirely with the hon. member. As soon as those houses become vacant, we can let them to people in the sub-economic group. I see no objection to that whatsoever.

Then the hon. member said that we should purchase as much land as possible. Of course, the Department of Community Development buys as much as land as its funds permit. The hon. member knows that the General Laws Amendment Bill contains a clause, in terms of which we now place an obligation on local authorities to purchase land for the purposes of housing for the future.

†Then I come back again to the hon. member for Green Point with his never-ending talk about Alphen House. I do not exempt blocks of flats from rent control just for the pleasure of it. I get a full report from the Rent Board. They give the reasons why it should be exempted from rent control, and then after fully investigating the matter I decide whether a block of flats should be exempted from rent control.

What is the test?

I use my common sense. How do you decide what is a luxury block and what is not a luxury block? Sir, this is part of the report which I received on Alphen House—

Why should I place a building of that kind under rent control? I do not worry about people who can afford to pay such a high rental. The report goes on to say—

Why should I keep a place like that under rent control? It is silly—

I do not see why they should be under rent control. The report goes on further—

I do not see therefore why we should give State protection to those people.

Will you consider all the others now?

As far as the Waring property is concerned, I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member a full answer, but I will get the full facts and write to him about it. I cannot give the full facts at the moment.

*The hon. member for Pretoria West referred to the temporary artisans. There are no such artisans in the Department of Community Development. The hon. member should therefore raise this matter once again on the Public Works Vote.

As far as Laudium is concerned, I agree with him that this is a real problem, but the development of Laudium is no concern of the Department of Community Development, and the hon. member should raise the matter when the Vote of the Minister of Planning comes up for discussion.

What the proposal made by the hon. member for Maitland amounts to, is, as was said by the hon. member for Parow, that he wants to make house agents of us. Surely that is quite out of the question. After all, the hon. member's voters know that he is their Member of Parliament, and if they have any needs, they should approach him or their Member of the Provincial Council. They may then furnish these people with the necessary information, i.e. that they should either approach the city council or my regional office. What other information can one give such persons? We give radio talks all the time, and from time articles are published in newspapers in order to tell people what we can do for them, what is at their disposal and where they can obtain further information. I fail to see how this proposal made by the hon. member could serve any useful purpose whatsoever. I want to add that it is definitely not for the hon. member for Maitland to talk about poor conditions which are still obtaining today. He knows very well what conditions prevailed in Johannesburg, Cape Town and in other parts when the National Party came into power. Shanty towns existed everywhere, on a fantastic scale.

That is still the case.

That is not true. In a moment I shall tell the hon. member how many houses we are building and what amounts we are spending on housing.

I want to thank the hon. member for Parow for his congratulations in regard to this brochure. I want to say that I agree with him that we are far too modest about what is being done by the Department of Community Development. These things are not done by me but by my officials of the Department of Community Development. Hon. members who toured Johannesburg, Pretoria, Pietermaritzburg, Durban, Port Elizabeth and Uitenhage two or three years ago, will know what a tremendous amount of work is being done by the department, not only in regard to housing, but also in respect of the resettlement of non-Whites. I therefore agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member that we should make more propaganda in this regard. I also agree with the hon. member that we should make available as many cheaper houses as possible. He said that he did not know how this was going to be done and that it was a difficult problem I can tell the hon. member that not a single week passes by without our studying new methods of building houses in order to see whether it is not possible for us to build cheaper houses. As I told him in an earlier reply, we are already building houses with three bedrooms for less than R3 000. I should say that that is not bad. However, the point he made, is quite correct.

The hon. member for Durban Point said that we should not allow flats to be converted into holiday flats. He also said that we should implement rent control in such cases. The hon. member knows what happened in Durban in a few cases of this nature, for this is a matter we discussed with each other. He also agreed in those cases that we could do it there. I must also add that I recently agreed to two cases of this nature in Port Elizabeth. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if an application is made for the conversion of a flat into a holiday flat, and if it is at all evident that any tenant is going to suffer any hardship as a result of such a conversion, I shall not permit it.

The hon. member also referred to the shortage of houses for young, married couples. This is a general complaint that we hear, and to a certain extent it is true. However, I just want to draw the hon. member’s attention to this: The Institute for Planning Research of the University of Port Elizabeth recently carried out research in Port Elizabeth, and they found that in Port Elizabeth there was no shortage of flats at all. They also arrived at the conclusion that the average rentals for these flats was between R60 and R69. That is within the means of young, married persons, and these flats can definitely be afforded by the lower middle income groups.

Do you provide money for blocks of flats?

Yes. The fact of the matter is that we have to pay 8¾ per cent interest on the money we receive from the Treasury. We grant certain amounts, at subsidized interest rates, to local authorities for housing, and those amounts are also used for flats. Consequently this applies to both flats and ordinary housing.

The hon. member for Witbank made inquiries, in the first place, about the standard of housing for the aged, I want to say that in that respect Witbank is to my mind in a rather unique position. I think that at present building costs in Witbank are higher than is the case in any other part of the country as a result of the major industrial explosion that has taken place in that area. We should like people to adhere to the prescribed standards, for if they do it will be possible for us to build the maximum number of houses for the aged with the limited funds we have. But wherever there are exceptional cases, as apparently there are in Witbank, I am quite willing to listen to representations we raise the standard somewhat and give additional funds for that purpose. The position is not entirely inflexible.

As far as the Indians are concerned, the hon. member has often spoken to me in that regard. We are of course resettling the Indians in the rural areas of the Transvaal, with very great success. In most of these towns we now have separate Indian group areas where all the Indians are living. I do not know whether we have made so much progress in Witbank; if not, we shall do so shortly. The places that are next on the list are Ermelo, Witbank, Bethal and those towns. But in Klerksdorp, Vereeniging and quite a number of other towns in the Western Transvaal all the Indians have already been resettled residentially in their own group areas. As regard the small Indian shops on farms, I am afraid that we have no authority over them. They are situated in controlled areas, and in that respect he should lodge his complaints with the Minister of Planning. I think this covers all the points made by the hon. member for Witbank.

†The hon. member for Musgrave pleaded for cheaper money even for private builders. As I just said in Afrikaans, we now have to pay to the Treasury 8¾ per cent on the money we get for housing. Then we subsidize it by ½ per cent or ¾ per cent or something like that, but he can appreciate that when we get money at this high rate of interest there is very little that we can do to supply private builders and developers with money at a cheaper rate. It is absolutely impossible.

Will you discuss it with the Cabinet?

Then the hon. member for Musgrave raised the interesting point of housing for the future. I just want to point out to him what we have done in this respect. We have asked Prof. Sadie of Stellenbosch and the Building Research Institute to find out for us what the requirements will be for European housing up to 1985 or 1990. Prof. Sadie’s investigation showed that we would need from 1970 to 1975 27 000 housing units a year, the National Building Research Institute found that it would be 26 399. which is almost the same figure as Prof. Sadie’s. Then from 1975 to 1980 Prof. Sadie says 30 000 units will be needed a year, and the Building Research Institute says nearly 28 000 a year. I just want to point out to the hon. member that in 1969 my department, the Housing Commission, the local authorities and the private sector built 24 500 houses, and in 1970 we built 28 693, or nearly 29 000, housing units. So it appears from this that we are actually catching up with the backlog. In other words, we are building more houses than there is presently a demand for, and so we are catching up with this backlog. And this does not take into consideration the houses built by the Railways, which amounted to 642 last year, bringing up the total number of houses built during 1970 to 29 355, which is 3 000 higher than the projection of houses which will be needed.

Are these for Coloured people also?

These are for White people only. I have the figures here for the Coloured people, but I cannot lay my hands on them at the moment.

*I want to thank the hon. member for Brakpan for the information he furnished in regard to the state of housing in Germany. He is absolutely correct, for in regard to housing for Whites there is no other country in the world, including America, which has a more favourable record than has the Republic of South Africa. I also want to thank him for what he said in regard to the raising of income limits. This is being welcomed.

Then the hon. member asked for the time between lodging an application for a housing scheme and granting such an application, i.e. when building operations commence; to be shortened as much as possible. He suggested that we should eliminate negotiations by post as far as possible and that we should hold joint discussions. I shall give him the assurance that I shall speak to my department about it and see whether we cannot shorten that process.

I want to conclude by just telling the hon. Committee how much progress we have made in regard to housing in South Africa: In 1962-’63 an amount of R2¼ million was spent on economic housing for Whites; in 1969-’70 an amount of almost R14 million was spent. Therefore, over a short period of seven years the amount was increased from R2¼ million to R14 million. As far as the sub-economic group is concerned, the amount was increased from R194 000 to R2 110 000. That is what we spent on housing over the short period of seven years by way of housing loans which we made available to local authorities. Then I also want to mention what was spent on housing as a whole, i.e. in respect of Whites, Coloureds and Indians: In 1960-’61 we spent R14 600 000; in 1970.’ 71 we spent R52 400 000. We should add to that the amount that was paid back to the Housing Commission. In 1961 capital repayments amounted to almost R8 million. and in 1971 it was RI5 million. In other words, in 1970-’71 we in South Africa spent R67 400 000 on houses, and we did not pay back one single cent to the Treasury. To my mind this is a tremendous achievement, for which I thank my department, the Housing Commission, the Development Board and the local authorities for having succeeded in spending this amount on housing, which is actually a fantastic amount. In a difficult building situation I think that this is an achievement of which all those bodies may be very proud.

I must admit that in regard to Coloureds I am not at all satisfied as far as the housing position in South Africa is concerned. In regard to the Indians I am much more satisfied. I think that Indians are at present in a very good position, and that we are making rapid progress in this regard. However. at the moment I am paying special attention to the housing of Coloureds in the Western Cape, because there is a tremendous influx of Coloureds and because there is a tremendous natural increase in their numbers. I think I have more or less replied now to all the questions and said more or less everything I wanted to say.

When I spoke earlier this afternoon, I discussed the problem of the older people, particularly in so far as their housing situation in consequence of demolitions is concerned. I dealt particularly with the case of those old people who are pensioners or such people as have been impoverished by the rising cost of living. The hon. the Minister was good enough to say that he was in general agreement with me when I pleaded for a higher priority for the treatment of these cases and for a generally more compassionate approach to this problem. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. the Minister, but I have had another careful look at the brochure issued by the Department of Community Development. I am not quite sure that the hon. the Minister and I are entirely ad idem in regard to this problem.

I feel that the question of the old people covers a much broader sector and is a much wider problem than appears to be contemplated by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I say this because the chapter in this brochure which deals with the problem of old people concentrates mainly on those old people who are in need of care, that is, those old people who go to old age homes and are looked after. This is an important part of the problem, but it is by no means the whole problem.

In our modern urban society—and it is a rapidly growing urban society, because urbanization is proceeding apace in South Africa—we will have an ever increasing number of old people living in our cities. These old people are not all people broken down in health or intellectually incapacitated. These people very often still see themselves as being active, in the prime of their life. They happen to be well over the age of 60, but they participate fully in social life or want to do so. They are intellectually active. They belong to clubs. They like to go to the pub. They want to keep contact with their friends and with the activities of the city all round them. These people do not wish to be segregated in old age homes. In fact, their great desire is to retain contact with young people and with the life of the city that goes on about them. These people do not need the kind of aid which is offered to old age people through the availability of low interest money for the purpose of building old age homes. What they need is assistance in acquiring homes or retaining the homes they have. They wish either to stay where they are or if, because of urban renewal, they are driven out from where they are, they require assistance to obtain a new dwelling in the area where they are active, where they are interested and which they do not wish to leave.

I should now like to take up a point which. I think, was briefly mentioned by the hon. member for Durban Point. When money is made available for the building of flats in cases of urban renewal, would it not be possible for some of this money which is earmarked for the relief of old age distress cases, to be made available for individual buildings or even for parts of buildings erected in these areas of urban renewal? I have in mind that apart from individual buildings to be occupied solely by old people, something which they often do not really wish, it might be possible, where money is made available for urban renewal, that a portion of the money advanced could be done so under the heading of “old age relief”. A developer who is prepared to make available, shall we say, 20 per cent of the flats in his building for people above a certain age, possibly subject to a means test, should be allowed to borrow money from the National Housing Fund for the purpose of providing flats in his building for this proportion of old people. In other words, suppose such a developer had to raise 80 per cent of the cost of the building of the block of flats at economic rates, he might nevertheless, on the undertaking to provide 20 per cent of that block of flats for habitation by old people, be able to acquire the additional 20 per cent at favourable interest rates from the department because of his guarantee that he would keep that percentage of flats for occupation by old people. It may sound a little complicated, but the problem is really a large and urgent one.

Already now, most South Africans live in cities, but before long a much larger proportion of South Africans will occupy dwellings in the cities. We cannot abandon the old people. They want to come with us. They want to move with the society in which they live; they wish to accompany us. It is necessary, therefore, that where cities become greater and greater, where urban renewal schemes take place, deliberate provision should be made for the old folk. I am not speaking of the old folk who need care in old age homes, but of old folk who are active, who want to participate in life so that they should have an opportunity of living in these areas of urban renewal. I would be most grateful if the hon. the Minister would consider ways and means whereby some of the money which is available for the relief of old age people in distress, could be applied to urban renewals either in respect of individual buildings, or even of parts of individual buildings.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to tell the hon. member in brief that his idea, one which was also raised by the hon. member for Durban Point, of reserving a certain portion of the moneys for urban renewal for the housing of old people, is one which may be considered. I want to give him the assurance that it is a matter which will, in fact, be considered. I want to tell the hon. member, however, that what he has asked for, is already being done. He should not be under the impression that when I speak of old age homes, I mean homes occupied by old people who require medical services and nurses. We divide the old people into three groups. There is the group to whom he referred, i.e. the group who is virtually self-supporting. Then there is the group who requires only one nurse for all of them, and, finally, there is the group who is bedridden and who constantly requires medical services. If the hon. member turns to page 26 of the brochure, he will see one of the old age homes that was constructed for old people. This building is a modern block of flats. We constructed buildings like this in different cities. For example, individual houses of various sizes were built for the aged in one whole area in Germiston. I do not have all the particulars here with me, but I shall furnish the hon. member with a list of all the old age homes under our control. I shall give him information with regard to those buildings which were erected for those who are independent, those who need not receive subsidies or care. In addition I shall inform him of how many we have of the other group and, finally, I shall inform him of how many we have of those who constantly require medical services. I shall forward this information to him. In principle, however, I agree with the hon. member.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32.—“Public Works”, R49 500 000, Loan Vote B.—“Public Works", R57 000 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 17.—201C;Public Works", R2680000:

Mr. Chairman, these Votes which are before us now, as you have indicated by announcing the amounts involved, cover a considerable amount of Government expenditure. In fact, they cover 41 pages of the Estimates which are before us this afternoon. When we deal with these Votes we deal with the requirements of some 19 different departments. We have had a capital involvement of R57 million during the current year. Quite obviously, we cannot discuss all these matters and we cannot go through all the details. Therefore I must confine myself solely to certain general observations. I will only point to one or two specific points in so far as it concerns these figures. Last year when this Vote came before the Committee, I suggested that the time had perhaps arrived that we should have a standing Select Committee which could deal with the Public Works capital expenditure. The hon. the Minister did mention that he considered this matter as a matter worthwhile giving his attention to. Perhaps he may be able to indicate to us whether progress has been made in that regard.

What appears from the information before us is that the decade 1960-’70 was one of phenomenal spending in so far as it concerns Government buildings and Government requirements. I suggest that the examination of that expenditure will expose one of most real contributions to the inflationary spiral which has taken place in South Africa. If one looks at the report of the Franszen Commission, one will find that the commission has commented on public expenditure. First of all I want to refer to paragraph 72 of the Third Report. I quote

They go on to give certain figures which also appear in the report for I968-’69 of the Department of Public Works. It says that the expenditure of the present decade has in effect equalled 62,5 per cent of the total expenditure since Union. It says that during the latter half of the present decade R212 million …

There is a later report available.

I am talking about the report which was tabled in 1970 and which has been issued by the Department of Public Works.

No, you said …

We are dealing with Public Works, that hon. member is still on Community Development.

I think you are fast asleep. I am referring to Public Works.

I am talking about the report tabled in 1970. These are the 1970 figures. During the latter half of the present decade R212 million or 42 per cent of the total amount of R504 million was expended. In effect, the 1951-’60 expenditure of R88 million increased by more than 350 per cent during the 1961-’70 period. The result of that, I suggest, is a factor which has contributed very greatly to the spiralling inflation trend in so far as our country is concerned. This matter has also been the subject of discussion by Assocom. A summary was made of the decisions taken at a meeting only this month in Assocom. I want to refer to one aspect of it only, namely the decision of the executive of Assocom regarding Government spending. I quote

If one wants to query the need for such control, I would just point to three factors in the Estimates before us. Let us first of all look at Loan Vote B on page 7. We find for instance—this is what appears right throughout the Estimates—that the original cost estimate for the customs warehouse and offices at Durban was R270 000. The approved and now reviewed cost is R489 000. If one looks at the estimates for the Department of Prisons, one finds that the original estimates of R22 267 000 are now R55 862 000. They are the same undertakings, the same works. I wonder to what extent there is an adequate measure of control of this increase which is taking place in these particular items which appear year after year on these Estimates and Loan Estimates. Finally, if one looks at page 45 of the Loan Estimates, one finds that in total what was originally envisaged and approved as undertakings and works which involved R196 574 490 was in 1970-’71 approved at R290 670 000 and has now gone up to R357 225 350. Those are figures which I believe need the attention of this Committee.

As I have said, it is quite impossible in this debate to go further than merely to scratch on the surface of this particular Vote. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether the recommendations of the Franzsen Commission in regard to a standing committee to check on these matters are being implemented and whether we cannot have some progress in finding the opportunity or the method of dealing with this Vote in a more satisfactory manner in that one can get down to the individual items in so far as it is necessary to discuss them. One finds, for example, an item such as a new magistrate's court or a new departmental building of some sort and there is no opportunity for members in this House to deal with it, to investigate and to sec to what extent it meets the requirements of the particular representative of that particular constituency. I do not want to take the time of the Committee further in dealing in any more detail. But I merely wanted to make these general observations and I hope that the Minister is giving some thought to the problem as to how we can adequately deal with the Public Works Vote, and particularly with the capital requirements in the course of the debates in this Committee.

I am not going to reply to all the points mentioned here by the hon. member for Green Point. He talked about estimates and said the previous estimate was R196 million whereas the present amount was more than R357 million. The hon. member served on the Executive Committee for years and, surely, he ought to know that when one is dealing with this kind of thing, provision has to be made for rising costs. This is most probably the reason for this increase.

But I want to mention another matter here, and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister in a benevolent spirit. I should like to deal with Marks Building and the other properties we own here in Plein Street. It is a fact that at the present time the H F. Verwoerd Building is rapidly approaching completion and that Marks Building will be vacated. The Ministries and other Government Departments will then move into the new building. Last year we had the opportunity of looking at the plans for a new complex which is going to be built on the site of Marks Building. When one looks at what is happening in Cape Town, there is one thing which discourages one. In Adderley Street, for example, there is very little which still reminds one of the old Cape Town, The big developers have stepped in and the old buildings have simply been demolished and other luxury structures have been erected. Now it is the position that Marks Building and other adjoining properties in Plein Street are going to be demolished and that the erection of a new structure on that site is being planned.

A final decision has not been taken as yet.

But that is, in fact, being considered. I want to plead with the hon. the Minister this afternoon for another look to be taken at this complex. When one looks at a plan of old Cape Town, one sees that these Houses of Parliament used to be surrounded by a large and beautiful garden. All that is left of that is the Avenue on the western side as well as the small garden on the northern side between the Senate Building and the S.A. Cultural History Museum. This afternoon I want to plead for serious consideration to be given to laying out a park on this site which will now become available. I am in complete agreement with the suggestion that Parliament Street should be closed. Additions are being planned to the side of the Houses of Parliament facing Parliament Street, which will lead to the elimination of the steps and the erection of a library complex. This planning may proceed, but I think the rest of the site up to Plein Street should be retained as an open site on which a park should be laid out in order to do full justice to this building. If a very large building were to be erected on the site of Marks Building, it would simply contribute to completely concealing and dwarfing the Buildings of Parliament which, to a certain extent, is already the position because of the H. F. Verwoerd Building. The generations to come may decide what they want to do with the property. I want to plead that the complex to be erected on this site be erected in the vicinity of the Belvedere Hotel instead. The State owns a considerable amount of property there, and I want to plead that this complex be moved to that site instead, and that the whole area from that site, from the present Stalplein, along with the Louis Botha Square, be developed into a beautiful garden which will link up with the complex of buildings here and the State President's Residence behind it, which is being renovated beautifully at the moment. Sir, I should like to leave this to the consideration of the hon. the Minister. I do not think it is too late to change those plans. I understand that only the sketch plan stage has been reached. I think that if we can ensure the preservation of this square, it will most probably be worthwhile to incur that small amount of fruitless expenditure.

Sir, I want to say immediately that the hon. member for Langlaagte has introduced some very interesting suggestions and proposals into this debate. I do not at this stage want to start a discussion on the architectural or other requirements. I think a certain amount of what he has raised here is a matter for the Internal Arrangements Committee of this House, in due course, but I want to support him in one thing. I do not think it is necessary for this whole scheme to remain in a state of suspended animation indefinitely. Now that the work has been completed at Government House at the top end of Parliament Street, I should like to know whether steps cannot be taken immediately to place underground the unsightly parking area which is commonly referred to by hon. members as the “duck pond” and to convert that area into a park as soon as possible. It is not a very extensive undertaking, and it can eventually fit into the whole redevelopment scheme. To the extent that parking is required there, it can easily be provided underground, thus allowing the top area to be beautified and the fence to be removed. This would improve the whole area.

I would also be interested to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with the completion of Government House. It has been a long and difficult job. One appreciates the degree of care that has been taken by the commissioned architects to restore it to its previous prestige state. I would be interested to know when this job is likely to be finished. It has taken a long time, and one understands that it does take a long time, but I became a little distressed when I found that they had not yet started with the planting of grass. That means another year at least because the lawn must be there before it can be occupied.

Sir, there is one other matter that I want to discuss with the hon. the Minister and that is the position with regard to professional staff in the Public Works Department. The hon. the Minister gave us some figures in reply to a question on the 11th of this month, which showed what I think can correctly be described as an alarming shortage of architects, engineers and quantity surveyors in his department. As the hon. member for Langlaagte has said, we have not had the experience, of course, that the hon. the Minister has had in dealing with works of this sort, but I find that there is sometimes a tendency amongst permanent officials, permanent architects on the staff, for instance, to spend too much time supervising the work of the commissioned architects. These permanent architects of the staff of the department spend an awful lot of time checking up on the work of the commissioned architects, and I think one could probably speed up the work that has to be done by commissioned architects if that supervision was kept down to a minimum. I notice from the report before us that there has been a very large increase in the number of private architects and professional men who have been commissioned by the department, and I think there again it would be interesting to know on what basis this work is allocated to the various professional people. The Minister’s department may have a list of approved firms of architects to whom this work is allocated by rotation in the areas in which they are operating. I take it that there is no confined or limited list of outside professional people who are employed by the State and whoever makes the appointments gives an opportunity to various firms to participate in these Government commissions. It would be interesting to know how this work is apportioned to the professional firms concerned.

The other aspect which does arise at this stage is the point which was referred to by the hon. member for Langlaagte. I appreciate that it is the increasing costs of building that make the original estimates so unrealistic by the time the jobs are completed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to give us the assurance that in the case of each of these items which appear on the Loan Estimates, the approved revised figure which appears here is checked each year to bring it up to a more realistic or more appropriate figure at the current cost of building. I did point out, as the hon. the Minister knows that the revised figures show a substantial increase over the original estimates.

Sir, in order to be able to see to what extent these increases are due to variations of plans and not merely to increased building costs, it would be of assistance if these estimates could be drafted in such a form that the year of the original estimate is indicated. If there is an indication of the date on which the item first appeared on the Estimates, one could then see to what extent the work has been completed, without having to make a large number of enquiries, and where there are delays, one could then obtain some explanation as to the cause of the delay. What I am suggesting is that in the first column of the capital estimates where the original estimate of the total costs is given, there should be an indication in the printed Estimates as to the year in which provision was first made for that item in the accounts. It would explain some of these increases which would appear to be phenomenal increases. It may be that they have been on the Estimates for a long period of time and they have lost their priority for attention.

Sir, in the first place, I, too, want to congratulate the department this afternoon on this annual report which contains a great deal of valuable information. We also want to congratulate the department on the prestige projects in which they are engaged at present. We find they are engaged in some project in virtually every province of our country. We are all proud when we see what is being done by the department. For example, at Jan Smuts Airport an international airport is now being constructed under the supervision of the department. When one looks at the Westville Indian University and at the various projects in Pretoria, one feels very proud of the fact that all this work is being done by the Department of Public Works. One realizes that problems crop up and that at times it takes longer to complete projects.

Sir, there is another matter with which I want to deal. This afternoon mention was made of the complex surrounding the Buildings of Parliament. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned the residence of the State President as well. At present many improvements are being affected to these buildings, and we agree with them. Enormous capital expenditure is, however, being incurred in this respect. For quite a number of months, however, the residence of the State President, or Government House, is unoccupied. One wonders whether more use cannot be made of it. Every mayor of a city has a mayor’s parlour in which to entertain his guests. Now, what is the position of the Prime Minister of our country? His residence has very limited space for entertaining guests. If there is a large number of guests they are entertained in a tent. Therefore, I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the Minister of Public Works to go into the matter. Here we have a beautiful building such as the residence of the State President, and I wonder whether certain of those facilities cannot be made available to our Prime Minister. I do think the time has arrived for seeing to it that our Prime Minister be given better entertainment facilities.

Sir, I want to proceed. At the beginning of the year there was a sudden wave of curiosity as to what was being spent on the residences of Ministers. A great deal is written about that in the press, and many questions were put in this regard. The hon. member for Green Point put a long question in this regard on 9th February this year. In reply to his question the Minister gave a very thorough explanation of the position. This afternoon I should like to give this House further information in this regard. Most of the houses renovated in Bryntirion were purchased or built in 1903. Repairs were made to the houses at Bryntirion, 10, 11, 12, 15, 17, 18, 19 and 20. Now hon. members must realize that only in the year 1970 could the Ministers concerned get round to having barbecue facilities built for themselves. For all those years they had to do without those facilities. Moreover, one must realize that there is not one swimming pool in Bryntirion. This Government has not built one swimming pool at any ministerial residence. Every one of these Ministers of ours is young, and all of them have children. [Interjection.] I am referring to those which have not been built. That Minister has one which was purchased with the house. Today there are five swimming pools at all ministerial residences put together. These are swimming pools which were purchased with the houses. Let us look at tennis courts. Hon. members will know that it is a matter of prestige for every home in a suburb to have a swimming pool today. No-one looks at a house which does not have a swimming pool. Sir, in what kind of house does the Opposition want the Ministers of our country to live? In what does the Opposition expect them to live? Then, in Die Burger of last Saturday, we saw that the British Embassy bought a house for R92 000 for one of its officials, and yet the Opposition launched a major attack on the Minister of Public Works because a house was bought for him at R60 000. I feel it is unreasonable and unfair of the Opposition, and particularly of the Press, to make such a fuss about the houses in which our Ministers live. Take Highstead. It is more than 80 years old. Therefore, improvements have to be effected to these houses. This is not because the Ministers want to live in luxury. But we do not want to be ashamed of the places in which our Ministers are living, and for that reason improvements have to be effected.

But why spend so much money on new flats?

It is probably because of alterations which have to be made. Is that the only objection you have? I want to state today that the whole country should like to see our Ministers living in residences which are a credit to the positions they occupy.

The debate has changed from what we had earlier today. I am glad that we have now seen the softer side of the Minister’s split personality. I find myself agreeing with what was said by the hon. members for Langlaagte and Brakpan. The hon. member made a very responsible speech. But I also wholly agree with the criticism in the Press. I want to say this to him, that we are very glad that these improvements are being made in preparation for the new occupants who will take over those houses in a few years’ time. But I want to say this about the Prime Minister. Surely his official entertainment is mostly done at the Castle; however, I am sure the Minister will inquire into the representations made by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Green Point made certain representations to the Minister in connection with the use of private firms of architects and I want to add to that the question about the use of private firms of quantity surveyors. I want to ask the hon. Minister what use is being made of quantity surveyors by his department. There is a disturbing factor in the latest report of his department, where we find that on 31st March, 1970, there were 24 posts for quantity surveyors, of which 20 were vacant, which meant that only four were being employed by the department. That was at 31st March, 1970. I sec there are now 36 posts, and I should like to know how many posts are now vacant. I believe 19 are still vacant. The position has therefore improved, and I am glad to hear it. Just how much use is being made of these quantity surveyors? Their work in terms of the report is not only to help with the calculation of costs in initial tenders and to check tenders and so on, but also to control the building once it has been started with. The point that I am coming to is this. If there has been this shortage of quantity surveyors in his department, has the hon. the Minister used outside quantity surveyors? Is he satisfied that sufficient control has been exercised over the costs of building, particularly over the last few years? As has been pointed out by the hon. member for Green Point, with these escalating costs where the final cost is so much higher than the original estimated cost, one wonders if sufficient control has been exercised by quantity surveyors. This is especially so when we find today that more and more buildings are being built not on a fixed price basis but on a negotiated cost plus basis. Buildings are being erected with payments based on the amount of steel, timber, etc., used. Here only a quantity surveyor can really give us sufficient control over State expenditure.

I do not understand you clearly. Is your only question whether we are making use of outside quantity surveyors?

No, that was incidental. I was just supporting the hon. member for Green Point. I am worried about the question of control. Is the hon. the Minister satisfied that with the shortage of quantity surveyors he has …

We use outside quantity surveyors.

That is fine. In one way or another, either by the use of departmental quantity surveyors or by the use of outside quantity surveyors, we should ensure that we have sufficient control over State expenditure and that we are in fact paying for what we have received and not for services which have not been rendered.

I am very glad to see that my constituency has done very well out of these Estimates. I should just like to ask a few questions in regard to certain items. There is provision for a police station at Thornville. The specification merely provides for a police station. I do hope that this is going to include accommodation for the staff. The staff accommodation position is terrible, really shocking and I have made representations for this on a previous occasion. I am very glad to see this item on the Estimates.

That is not for us to decide.

I also see that a police station is at last going to be established at Hammarsdale. I am very glad to see that the hon. the Minister is getting on with that.

There is another aspect of these Estimates which perturbs me. I should like to refer to one particular item, namely the new magistrate’s offices at Camperdown. These offices I know are nearing completion at a final estimated total cost of R213 000. R20 000 is estimated to be expended during this year. This is a very small amount and leaves to be expended a small amount of R12 000. We anticipate occupying these premises this year and I should like to know why this small amount of R12 000 is left over. What does it represent and is it going to be expended? This is just an example. If the hon. the Minister will go through the Estimates he will see that this happens in many cases, that pro vision for small expenditure is made in the last year, while a smaller amount is left to be expended in future years. Surely these buildings can be mopped up and cleaned up by the end of the year and I fail to see why only R20 000 is being spent during this year.

Then we come to Richmond in Natal where R5 million is going to be spent in the Richmond district on a farm gaol. We have just recently occupied new magistrate’s offices in Richmond. The old offices are at the moment standing empty. If I understand the position correctly, these old buildings when vacated revert back to the control of this hon. Minister and his department. My question is, what is going to happen to that old building? We face the same thing in Camperdown where the gaol has already been vacated. The old magistrate’s office will be vacated during this year when the new offices are occupied. What is going to happen to these old buildings? I know that representations have been made by the Town Council of Richmond for the demolition of the old magistrate’s offices and the gaol in Richmond when the Department of Prisons gives up the gaol. They have a point. These buildings were constructed nearly a hundred years ago. At the moment they are an eyesore. They are situated in the village, in the heart of the commercial zone and the leading hotel is directly opposite this gaol. The gaol is used primarily for non-Whites and the conditions generally are not good.

Are you referring to the gaol in Richmond?

Yes, in Richmond. The same thing applies to Camperdown as well. and I am sure that the same thing applies elsewhere. Could the hon. the Minister tell us what is the policy of his department in cases like these? I know that the Richmond Town Board has made representations to the Government for them to be allowed to take over the premises. They gave the undertaking that they would renovate, alter or demolish and re build this gaol into civic offices. Actually they only wanted a section of it, because obviously the Town Board cannot use the whole building. What is the policy of the Minister with regard to this building? I want to ask him in particular whether any decision has been reached with regard to Richmond. Is the town board going to get this building?

In Pietermaritzburg R4 million is going to be spent on a new gaol complex. Let me tell hon. members that this is none too soon. Unfortunately it has been delayed and we have come to the stage where Pietermaritzburg is destined to get a new gaol. I am very glad to see that we are getting on with this at last although unfortunately only R80 000 is going to be spent this year. At least we are getting on with it. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister has any idea of the timetable for this gaol at Pietermaritzburg. I know that it is of interest to the people of Pietermaritzburg and I would be glad if he could give us some idea of the timetable for the building of this gaol.

When the hon. member for Brakpan was talking about the prestige buildings which have been built during the last ten years or which are presently under construction, did he intend to support the hon. member for Green Point in the argument that he had made? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to commence by referring to what was said by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. I may tell him that we do, in fact, use quantity surveyors from outside the department. I am perfectly satisfied that all the buildings are under the necessary supervision and that nothing is being wasted. In fact, to give the hon. member an idea of how strict my department is in respect of buildings which are being erected by subcontractors and other contractors, I may just mention to him that our Chief Architect was to have gone overseas on a very important visit, but that his tour had to be cancelled so as to enable him to see to it that certain important work was carried out at Jan Smuts Airport. I think this is very clear proof of how seriously the Secretary for Public Works and his staff take their work. For that reason I say I am perfectly satisfied that we do have sufficient control. The hon. member asked me today whether we had accommodation at the police station at Richmond

At Thornville.

I am afraid I cannot give the hon. member a reply to that question. My department is a service department, and it does not decide where a police station is to be built. We do not decide what kind of accommodation is to be provided. We receive a request from the Minister of Police for a police station to be built at a specific place and the Minister of Police tells us what he wants to have at that place. He states the number of offices he wants, the dimensions of those offices, and whether or not he wants accommodation. The hon. member should consult the Minister of Police with regard to these matters, because my department is merely a service department, as I have already said. This also goes for Prisons and all the other departments.

May I ask a question? This was raised as an example of what the hon. member for Green Point had asked the hon. the Minister. We have asked before that such a Select Committee should be established where members can get this information. Is the hon. the Minister in favour of such a body?

The hon. member may obtain that information from the Minister concerned. It is not necessary to appoint a Select Committee for that purpose. The hon. member also put questions to me concerning the amount of R5 million which is to be spent on the farm prison in his constituency. I am afraid, however, that I cannot give him any details in this regard. I can ascertain what progress has been made with the building, and if building operations have commenced, I can tell him approximately when the work will be completed. Why the prison is to be built there, is no concern of ours. The hon. the Minister of Justice has to decide where the farm prison has to be built. This goes for all these buildings. I am afraid the hon. member should have raised those matters on the Vote of the Minister concerned. If the Votes still have to be put, such as the Vote of the Minister of Police, the hon. member may raise the matter again in that Vote.

The hon. member went on to ask what we did with the buildings when they become vacant. To a large extent this depends on circumstances. If necessary, they are demolished or sold. Otherwise we try to use them for different purposes. We inquire from the different departments whether they do not have any use for them. In most cases we find that some of the departments do have use for them. If they do not have use for such buildings, they are usually dilapidated, old buildings which may be demolished and the land sold, or they may be used for something else.

Before coming to the hon. member for Green Point, I should like to reply in brief to the hon. member for Langlaagte. He spoke of the new parliamentary complex. I am afraid I cannot argue the matter with the hon. member. The plans have not yet been approved finally by the Cabinet. At present the department is engaged in the detailed planning of the complex. Subsequent to that those plans will again have to be submitted to the Cabinet. I am afraid I do not have the knowledge to discuss this matter, but I shall most definitely bring the hon. member’s misgivings to the attention of the Cabinet when the matter comes up for discussion again. I just want to tell him that we lend an ear to these ideas. For example, we had plans for Church Square in Pretoria. In that case the Cabinet decided, as a result of representations which had been made to it, that a special committee be appointed to investigate the whole question of Church Square. I understand the committee has completed its work. But as yet I have not received its report.

The hon. member for Brakpan raised a matter which I regard as fairly important. He dealt, in the first place, with the entertainment facilities of the Prime Minister at Groote Schuur. I may tell him that I dislike it as much as he does that the Prime Minister has to entertain in a tent when he has to entertain on a large scale at Groote Schuur. I have raised this matter with the Prime Minister, and I am quite determined to see to it that proper facilities will be established for the Prime Minister which will permit him to entertain guests properly, I would be in no position to say whether we could let the Prime Minister have the facilities of the State President. I think this is something which falls completely under the State President, and I do not think we have any right to interfere. All the work at the Presidency has been completed. At present the gardens are being laid out, and it is expected that all the work will still be completed this year.

Build it at Fernwood.

What must I build at Fernwood?

The place of entertainment.

We shall discuss it next Tuesday at the meeting of the Sports Committee.

I now come to the hon. member for Green Point. I want to tell him that I have gone into the idea of a Select Committee on Public Works, but that my department has fully convinced me that it is unnecessary to have such a committee. All the services, except the new services, which appear in the present Estimates, appeared in previous Estimates. Therefore, they could have been discussed before in the different years. To me it seems to be a good suggestion for us to add a “yes” when a service has been approved of. I should say that if this was practicable, it would be done. But, in this year’s Estimates, for example, there are only 63 new services. In other words, all the new information which the hon. member desires, is in respect of these 63 buildings. This information he may obtain in the course of the Budget debate on the Votes of the various departments. For that reason I am of the opinion that it is not necessary to appoint such a Select Committee. I think we have more than enough control over these things.

The hon. member went on to say that expenditure had increased considerably over the past decade. There is no doubt about that. This increase is due to the extremely great needs of the various departments. It is due to the rise in building costs. If the hon. member takes into account the fact that building costs rise with between 1 per cent and 1½ per cent per month, he will realize why our estimates cannot be so accurate and why it may be necessary, when a certain amount has been decided on, for that amount to be increased later. This happens because of the enormous rise in building costs. The hon. member went on to ask according to what system we gave out work to private engineers, architects, quantity surveyors, etc. Any of these people may apply to be included in our official list. If any fully qualified person applies to be included in our list, his name is put down on the list. The work is then assigned to these people. Sometimes it is assigned to individual architects, etc., but when a major work has to be carried out, such as the one at Jan Smuts, it is assigned to consortiums. We are perfectly satisfied that we are giving fair treatment to all the different people included in our list.

Who takes the decision?

The department makes recommendations to me and then I simply approve of them. For example, we are going to erect a building somewhere in Cape Town in the near future, and the department has suggested certain people to be our advisers, others to be our architects and yet others to be our quantity surveyors. My approval is virtually automatic, because how am I really to know how good or bad the people are? The department deals with these people daily.

I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Brakpan said with regard to prestige buildings. I myself was a businessman before I became a Deputy Minister and I have some knowledge of business. Therefore, I want to say that there is no large undertaking in South Africa which builds as efficiently, as well and as cheaply as the Department of Public Works. I want to express my most sincere thanks to the department for the way in which it is co-operating with me and for the way in which it is spending the money of the country. The department is fully aware of the fact that it has to spend extremely large sums of money, and that a wastage of only 1 per cent will make the country suffer a great loss. For that reason the department is so accurate. Now I think I have replied to all the questions put by hon. members.

Votes put and agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress.

When I raised the matter of G.A.T.T. and the E.E.C. with the hon. the Minister last year, we were told that while there were problems there was nonetheless no reason for pessimism and that the Minister was busy negotiating with these two organizations. We were told that the Government was leaving no stone unturned to protect South Africa’s interests and that it was unlikely that Great Britain would do anything to protect us in the event of her entering into the E.E.C. despite the fact that we are a party to the Ottawa Agreement. His remarks seem to be borne out by the remarks of the Deputy Prime Minister of Australia who seems to feel that Australia’s position will also not be protected in the event of England going into the E.E.C. It seems, Mr. Chairman, that we are going to be alone in this issue. Indeed, there is a lot of concern about this at the moment because following the meeting of the Prime Minister of Great Britain and the President of France it does seem that England’s entry into the E.E.C. will not be long delayed.

Since last session the Government have been completely silent on this matter of G.A.T.T. and the E.E.C. So I hope that we are going to get a complete statement from the hon. the Minister today. We want to know from him whether, in the light of what has transpired since we met last, there is still no need for pessimism and we want to know what the result of our negotiations with G.A.T.T. and the E.E.C. are as far as these negotiations have gone. Furthermore, we should also like to know what the Minister and his department are doing generally to protect the interests of South Africa.

Allied directly with the question of G.A.T.T. and the E.E.C. is the problem of our own exports and imports, i.e. our lack of exports and our over-abundance of imports. The figures for the first four months of this year are certainly disturbing. Imports total R964,7 million as against R773,7 million for the first four months of last year. Against that, exports for the first four months of 1971 amount to R446,6 million, a drop of R57 million compared with the corresponding period of 1970. The trade deficit for the four months was R498 million compared with R249,9 million in the previous year—an increase of R248 million. It is true that imports came down in April in comparison with March although I do not know what significance this has. Perhaps the hon. the Minister can enlighten us in this regard. However, one thing is clear and that is that if it were not for the fact that South Africa at the moment is, fortunately, experiencing an unprecedented inflow of overseas capital, our balance of payment position would really be beginning to look silly. What we would like to know from the hon. the Minister is what is happening in regard to our exports. We know that exporters are getting certain incentives, like tax incentives, and we know that we have an Export Promotion Council. However, the long and the short of the situation is that we are not getting the exports. World exports are expected to rise between 8 per cent and 10 per cent in 1971, but our exports are at best remaining static. If you look at other countries of the world, you will see that South Africa is really lagging far behind. I just have a few examples here. Ghana’s exports for the three months up to May increased by 94 per cent, Kenya by 15 per cent, Uganda by 29 per cent, Zambia by 21 per cent, Brazil by 12 per cent, Chile by 17 per cent, Colombia by 21 per cent, Ecuador by 53 per cent, Guatemala by 20 per cent and Peru by 13 per cent. But we do not seem to be able to make any progress in our exports. We want to know from the hon. the Minister what results we are getting from the subsidized S.A.F.T.O.; what is happening with the Export Promotion Council? What are they doing? Are they doing anything to help us along? What is the hon. the Minister doing about the suggestion we made to him last year as to how we could improve our exports, when we suggested to him that he should remove from those organizations which were export-orientated the Physical Planning Act and allow them to expand to their full potential? What is he doing about making labour available to those companies that export? What is he doing with the railways and the harbours to see that when we have the products to export, we can get them out of the country?

These are things the country wants to know, because we have for years now been hoping and hoping that we will see an increase in exports from South Africa and we are just not seeing it. We have been told that this is largely due to a lack of agricultural exports and because there has been a recession overseas. Therefore, for example, diamonds are not being purchased to the same extent in America. But this is only half the question. What is the answer to the fact that our manufactured products are not going overseas? We have to get down to this problem of exports, and get down to it on a realistic basis, because time is running out. If we are having problems with our exports with England not in the Common Market, what will be our position when England goes into the Common Market? Then we will really find ourselves faced with a tragic situation.

Linked up with this, because it is indicative of the Government’s attitude, I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is happening to the question of iron ore. Here is something we can export, but we do not seem to be getting anywhere. If this is the way the Government is going to handle the problem of exports generally, we will never export enough from this country. We discussed the question of iron ore under the Mines Vote, but we got no reply whatsoever. We have discussed it now on two or three occasions in this House, but we still do not know what is happening. My information is that subject to a number of reports which are expected to be completed in June or July, and all of which are expected to be favourable, the Japanese will sign a contract for the export of iron ore through St. Croix and that the contract will have the blessing of the Railways.

I am also told that Iscor has been negotiating a sample contract in Europe, also to be exported through St. Croix, and that there is a possibility that if they negotiate the sample contract there will be a larger contract to follow. We also know that the Railways is in favour of St. Croix. Apparently Iscor is still running around in Japan, trying to get a contract and not being very successful, while in the meantime the iron ore position is getting softer and softer. I want to warn the Government that they are playing a very dangerous game. The Cabinet appears to be unable to make up its mind on this issue. They have obviously not had the business experience to know that when you negotiate a contract, time is of the essence of the contract, because if you do not clinch it when the clinching is possible you can lose the contract altogether. That is what might well happen here. We know that the demand for iron ore at the moment appears to be lessening.

I want to say this to the hon. the Minister. If we find that as the result of these delays we do not get the anticipated contracts, the blame will lie squarely at the door of the Government because of its continual dithering. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister this afternoon exactly what the position is. We had a date given to us, the 31st March, on which we were going to be told what was happening. It is now the beginning of June and we still do not know anything.

Then I want to raise one last matter, and that is the question of import control. About two years ago import control was almost removed and permits were given fairly freely. This year there has been a change. Permits have been tightened up again but on a different basis. Instead of import control at the moment, we now seem to be having commodity control; in other words, the hon. the Minister and his department, while not applying import control generally, are, through the issue of permits, selecting those commodities which they believe should be allowed to come into South Africa, and they are not giving permits in regard to those commodities which they believe should not be allowed into this country. I have had representations from a number of wholesalers and importers who a year ago got permits quite freely for a particular type of product, but who now tell us that they are finding it impossible to get anything like the quantity of permits that they require from the department. We would like some explanation for this position.

Sir, I really am amazed when I listen to the hon. member for Parktown. He wants to know from the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs this afternoon what the position is in regard to the contract between Iscor and Japan. The hon. member knows concluding a contract is not one of the easiest tasks in the world. Such a contract is not simply concluded overnight. There are many problems which must be ironed out, but I can give the hon. member for Parktown the assurance that this Government will see to it that we obtain the contract if it will be to the advantage of the Republic of South Africa. It is this Government which has brought about our economic prosperity in the past ten years, which we may regard as the ten golden years in the economic life of South Africa. Sir, this afternoon I am going to call as my witness none other than Mr. H. S. Mabin, the Executive Director of the Association of Chambers of Commerce. What does he say? He says—

Sir, is this not a wonderful feat which has been achieved in the past ten years? But I want to go further; I call as my witness Mr. De la Harpe de Villiers, who said the following—

Is this not a great achievement? I go further; tourism in the Republic of South Africa has exactly doubled in this period in which the National Party has been governing.

Sir, these are all very fine achievements which we have gained over the past ten years, but I want to agree with the hon. member for Parktown that it is a foregone conclusion that sooner or later Britain will become a member of the E.C.M. Seeing that it is a foregone conclusion that Britain will also become a member of the E.C.M., I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon what the position of the Republic of South Africa is. We know that this Government appointed the best legal team to put our case in the World Court, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon, although I am convinced that much is already being done and that the position is being watched closely: Seeing that we appointed the best lawyers to look after our interests before the World Court, has the time not arrived that we should also assemble the best team of economists to look after the interests of South Africa and to gain the best advantage for us from any negotiations which may take place as a result of England’s entry to the E.C.M.?

But, Sir, there is a second matter which bothers me and this is the tremendous unfavourable trade balance of the Republic of South Africa. If we look at the tremendous increase in the imports to South Africa and at our shrinking exports, we must lay the blame for this state of affairs at the door of many of our own people in the Republic who prefer imported goods to goods manufactured in the Republic of South Africa. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to consider applying price control in respect of the products brought into the country by importers and merchants, and on which they are at present making a tremendous profit. I also want to appeal to our own people in the Republic to use the goods manufactured here. But I go further. We are concerned about our exports, I want to say that not only the Department of Commerce and Industries should be concerned about this; it should be a matter of concern to every individual in the Republic of South Africa.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon whether the time has not arrived that we should establish an organization to take the lead in research work in South Africa in order to determine how we can be of service to the industrialists in the Republic of South Africa, in the same way as the I.D.C. played a very important role in the development of industry in the Republic of South Africa. It should not be left only to the Minister and the Department, but every institution in the Republic should be made export-conscious. Once we have established such an organization to promote exports, the industrialists should register with it. When such an industrialist indicates that he is only going to manufacture articles for export, the local authorities must make concessions to that industrialist and give him cheaper electricity and water and tax reductions. The industrialist should also receive preference in regard to housing. The provincial administration must also be able to offer assistance; for example, the licence fees for the vehicles of the industrialists may be subsidized. As far as the Post Office is concerned, the industrialist who concentrates on export articles, should be granted special rates in order to help him make contact with the outside world. Even as far as our Airways is concerned, the industrialists should be granted special concessions if they want to go overseas or if their staff want to go and do research work. Furthermore, I want to appeal to the State to consider exempting such an industrialist from the payment of duty on his vehicles and to allow him to purchase his vehicles, motor cars and lorries at the same price which the State pays. They should not have to pay the duty on petrol, fuel, oil, etc. All of us in South Africa should accept what was Britain’s motto at one stage, namely “Export or die”. If everyone in the Republic of South Africa, from the local authorities to the Government, does not pay positive attention to the export market, this unfavourable trade balance is going to continue. It will not help simply to expect the State to grant subsidies, if these other people do not assist.

And labour?

Yes, the State will examine the labour question as well. The Riekert Committee was appointed for that purpose. I want to go further. If it would be more advantageous for such an industrialist who concentrates on export, to obtain land in Cape Town, East London or wherever, the State, the province or the local authority should help him obtain that land at a reasonable price. All of us in the Republic of South Africa —it does not matter who it is or what institution it is—should come forward now, and not merely sit and look to the State. We should all help to ensure that our exports gain a much better position on the world market. We must ensure that the article we are going to export can compete on the world market as far as quality is concerned. If all of us in the Republic help the State—I am convinced that the State will contribute its share—I see another ten golden years lying ahead for the Republic of South Africa.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Parktown raised a great variety of matters, probably half a dozen or more. I think it would be well if we were to discuss, as far as it would be possible to do so, one subject at a time. For that reason I thought it fit to rise at this early stage so as to give Parliament a report, as it were, on our negotiations in respect of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C, The hon. member for Parktown spoke as though Britain's entry into the Common Market and G.A.T.T. were linked. Well, there is some link, but not to the extent the hon. member gave us to understand.

At the start I want to confine myself to the E.E.C. The subjects which were raised here, are very wide ones, and naturally it would take much time if one were to discuss them in detail. For that reason I shall comment only in broad outline on the various subjects.

In the first place I want to say, as the hon. member for Parktown also said, that ever since the first negotiations between England and the E.E.C. countries concerning Britain’s entry, this Government has always kept its ear to the ground and conducted the necessary negotiations where it was necessary to protect South Africa’s interests. Even as far back as July, 1962, the then Minister of Economic Affairs was conducting negotiations with his opposite numbers in the various E.E.C. countries and also in England concerning the possibility of Britain's entry. The entry did not take place at that time and at a later stage in 1962 negotiations were again conducted in this regard. When Britain made renewed attempts after 1966, the Minister of Economic Affairs again made contact with the various member countries of the E.E.C. in 1967. At the council of Ministers of the E.E.C in April, 1970, it became clear that a different atmosphere prevailed in regard to the possible entry of Britain. In October last year I made it my business to visit the various countries, as hon. members know. Actually, I want to give a short report on that visit. But I have outlined the background to this matter merely in order to indicate that from the earliest times the necessary contact has been maintained and the necessary attempts made in order to protect South Africa’s interests if this were to happen.

Let us consider for a moment what the consequence of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. would be, because in my opinion this problem should be discussed with that background in mind. In the first place, I think, one should have regard to the fact that most of our exports go to Britain. In spite of the fact that today our exports are much more widely distributed over the world than in the past, 33⅓ per cent of our exports still go to Britain. It is important to take cognizance of the fact that the South African economy—and this is how we should regard the matter—has been built up to a large extent by virtue of our trade links with Britain. Take, for example, our canning industry. The development of this canning industry would in all probability not have taken place if we did not have free access to the British market. Our economy has developed as a result of our ties with Britain and as a result of the advantages of access to the British market which we are enjoying. We shall lose the treatment we are receiving in respect of tariffs and all the preferential tariffs we are enjoying at present if Britain enters the European Common Market. This is by no means all that is going to happen. Not only are we going to lose our preferential treatment in Britain, but subsequently we shall be obliged to pay the high customs duties applicable to the E.E.C. countries today. However, this is not all. All the countries associated with the European Common Market as well as the associate members of the E.E.C. will have free access for their goods to the British market. In other words, on the one hand we shall lose our preferential treatment and on the other band there will be a large number of E.E.C. countries and associate countries that will now obtain free access to Britain’s market.

From the nature of the case the implications which Britain’s entry will have for us, are major ones indeed. There is not the least doubt about this fact. Our competition on the British market will naturally be much more difficult than it has been up to now. There is a further implication, and this is that on its entry Britain will have to follow the agricultural policy of the E.E.C. This will make matters even more difficult for us in view of the nature of the products we export. When I went to Europe last year to have discussions, I spoke to the Ministers of Economic Affairs and to other Ministers concerned in Britain’s entry into the E.E.C., in the various countries. In Britain I had a very long and a very sympathetic interview with Mr. Rippon who is the chief negotiator in regard to Britain’s entry into the European Common Market. In addition, I had an interview with Mr. John Davis, the present Minister of Commerce and Industries in England. Similarly, I had interviews with the Ministers of the Netherlands, Belgium, Luxembourg, France and Germany. I had interviews with their Ministers there and also with other persons concerned in this matter.

The only member country of the E.E.C. I did not visit—because of other problems I could not have discussions there—was Italy. Subsequently I had occasion to pay a visit to Geneva as well. There I had talks with, inter alia, the Secretary-General of G.A.T.T., Mr. Long. These discussions, loo, were very valuable to me. The general picture I must draw, is that our reception was a very friendly and good one. The general impression I gained was that our problems were understood. Understanding our problems is, however, something completely different from doing something about them. I should like to add that the purpose of my visit last year was not to submit formal requests to the E.E.C. group or to Britain. At that stage the purpose of my visit was to have frank discussions. From the nature of the case I am of the opinion that this is the way we go about this. One should first have frank discussions concerning one’s problems.

For that reason we had frank discussions and in each member country of the E.E.C. I visited, we emphasized one matter, i.e. the problems we are going to experience in future. Furthermore, we also discussed the detrimental effect Britain’s entry into the European Common Market would have on us if something were not done to assist us in one way or another. When we held discussions here last year, it was said that it was not necessary to be pessimistic. For the most part the hon. member for Parktown and I agreed about the fact that we in South Africa could speak forcefully about these matters. We can speak forcefully about these matters because the South African trade with all the various members of the E.E.C., and especially with Britain, was definitely not to be despised. All the countries with which we had discussions, and especially Britain, have substantially large exports to South Africa.

In 1969 our exports to Britain were slightly more than our imports from Britain. Last year, however, Britain overtook us and its exports to South Africa were in excess of our exports to Britain. In the past few years, however, the two have been more or less equal, and therefore it is obvious that our trade is of great value to Britain. This was my experience over there as well, and the various Ministers discussed the matter with me in that realization. I think we may say without hesitation that the same circumstances are prevailing in respect of the other E.E.C. countries. We have strong trade links with countries such as Germany, Belgium, Holland and France, and these are countries which have a high regard for the value of their exports to South Africa and their trade relations with South Africa.

In this spirit, we spoke from a strong and not a weak position. We realize that these various countries attach value to their trade relations with South Africa. We pointed out that it was obvious that economically South Africa herself would lose as a result of circumstances in Europe. If economically South Africa were in a weaker position, it would go without saying that we would not be able to buy from our trading partners to the same extent or be able to import as we would have liked to import. We conducted the discussions in this spirit and throughout, as I have already said, there was a great deal of sympathy for our circumstances. We adopted the point of view that Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. was their affair. It was not a matter on which we should express an opinion and it was one which should be discussed only by Britain and the member countries concerned. I fully realize, and this is my personal opinion as well, that it is desirable for Britain to become a member of the E.E.C. This, however, is my personal opinion, and Britain’s entry is a matter to which Britain itself should apply itself or otherwise.

Our approach was that we had certain problems and that we had to find means of meeting those problems. The general reaction to our standpoint was that our fears were exaggerated. I often heard from the various Ministers of member countries, and especially in England, that our problems, in as far as problems were going to be created for us, were of a short-term nature only and that the large and more prosperous European community which would result from Britain’s entry into the European Common Market, and probably these of other countries whose applications were being considered, would bring about a greater, more powerful and, in the economic sense, stronger Europe. This greater and stronger Europe, in the economic sense, would afford us a better and more fertile field for our exports than had been the case up to the present time.

Furthermore, it is the general feeling that Britain will benefit greatly by its entry into the European Common Market. The standard of living in Britain will rise as a result of this. It is generally accepted that costs will increase above the normal level, if their latest increases can be regarded as normal which I doubt, and that as a result of this we shall obtain better prices for our products than we have up to now. The improved prices we shall obtain for our products, will compensate us to a large extent for the losses we shall suffer as a result of the tariffs which will be imposed on our exports to Britain.

The general expectation is that the prospect of special concessions cannot be held out to us, to Canada or to Australia. All there remains for us is together with Canada, Australia and other comparable countries to effect the necessary adjustments during the transition period of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. Mr. Chairman, I am aware of the fact that this is not such an easy matter. We have concentrated on certain industries in South Africa. One does not like elaborating on this, but where one has vineyards today, one cannot simply destroy them and cultivate something else on that land for which one may be able to find an easier world market. Climatic conditions and other factors do not make this possible. Apart from that, if one had to destroy apple and pear orchards and cultivate something else on that land, one would be destroying an industry which had been built up over a period of years. It takes seven years for an apple tree to bear fruit after it has been planted. Therefore, it is one thing to talk about this, but to carry it into effect, is another. What all this amounts to, is that special arrangements cannot be made, not even for the developed Commonwealth countries.

I should like to emphasize that in previous negotiations. Britain’s special attempts at making provision for the Commonwealth countries which would be affected by its entry into the E.E.C., were a cause of the failure of the negotiations in the past. For that reason I am afraid that in this case similar attempts will not be made for and on behalf of the Commonwealth countries as in the past, in the fear that it would again play a role in respect of the possible failure of the negotiations. The deduction which I may justifiably make, is that the only arrangement which will probably be made will, in the first place, be for developing Commonwealth countries in Asia—developing countries, as opposed to developed countries, as we, inter alia, are regarded to be. In the second place, there will probably be limited arrangements for New Zealand in respect of its dairy industry. In the third place, there will be an agreement with the Caribbean states in respect of their sugar exports. In the last place, Commonwealth countries in Africa will obtain associate membership of the E.E.C. However, Canada and Australia, together with South Africa, will receive no special concession, except, of course, the advantages, in as far as there may be advantages in the transition period.

It is my personal opinion that Britain’s entry will have economic advantages as well as political advantages. We realize, of course, that Britain is promoting its own interests in its attempt at entering the E.E.C. For that reason it is understandable, as the hon. member for Parktown, too, rightly said, that we are in fact standing on our own legs in this regard and have to see to our own interests on our own. It is very clear that at the moment the climate for Britain's entry is much more favourable than it was in the past. One almost feels inclined to say that, although there still is a number of problems. Britain’s entry is in fact only a matter of formality. Political unity in Europe is probably one of the main reasons for the enlargement of the E.E.C. When one thinks of the E.E.C., one is inclined to place the emphasis on economic considerations: but I think the time has arrived when political considerations are probably playing a larger role in the greater Europe and the E.E.C. than economic considerations do. It is obvious that as Europe becomes larger through the agency of the E.E.C., a greater and stronger Europe will arise, not only in the economic sphere, but also as regards being able to discuss and negotiate world affairs.

What is our position at present; what is the present position in regard to the negotiations? As I said a moment ago, I think there are indications that the negotiations for British entry will succeed, and I am also of the opinion that even the British Prime Minister has already indicated his seriousness as regards Britain’s entry to the E.E.C. In fact, at this stage I think it is very important to the British Prime Minister and his party that the negotiations should succeed. Much progress has been made, but there still are a few very important points which have to be settled, inter alia, Britain’s contribution to the funds of the E.E.C.; the British change-over to the agricultural policy of Europe; the special arrangements which have to be made with New Zealand in respect of its dairy industry and with the Caribbean Islands in respect of their sugar; the introduction of a monetary unit and matters connected with that, such as, of course, the role which sterling as an international monetary unit will play in the whole set-up. It is my personal opinion that the final decision will be taken on the highest level and that not only economic matters, but also political considerations, will probably play the main role.

Now we ask ourselves what further steps we are taking against this whole background that I have just outlined. In January this year I held a very enthusiastic meeting with our exporters here in Cape Town, at which about 70 of our most important exporters to Britain were present. We sketched the background and said we were there to listen to proposals on how to meet our problems. Let me tell you now, Sir, it is easy to say we have many problems, but it is much more difficult to say what the answer to our problems is. Since questions have now been put in this regard, I want to say I would welcome it very much if opinions could also be given to us as to what we should do and what attempts we can make, things which others and I have perhaps not thought of yet. The points raised at this conference in Cape Town on 23rd January were—I shall mention only a few—firstly, that we should seek associated membership of the E.E.C. Theoretically this is probably possible, but in practice it would have fatal consequences for us. If we were to obtain associated membership of the E.E.C., and had to throw South Africa open for the exports of the whole of Europe and England, without any tariff adjustments, surely it is obvious that it would have a fatal effect on us as a developing country. Although we are now regarded as a developed country by many people, we are in fact a developing country as far as industry is concerned. With our limited market and our limited manufacturing in the various industries, it would be fatal to have to throw open our doors to all manufactured goods because of associated membership. Our development and expansion in the industrial sphere would be fatally harmed by that.

The second suggestion that is made is of course the most obvious one that is usually made, namely that we should negotiate tariff preferences. This is just as unrealistic in view of the background I have already outlined. We cannot do this either. The third suggestion is that we should conclude a tariff preference treaty with the E.E.C. This would of course be in conflict with the terms of the G.A.T.T., of which we are a member.

It actually boils down to the fact that there is not much one can do. However, we agreed at that conference that we should strengthen our representation at the E.E.C. We have an ambassador in Belgium and up to now he has represented us at the E.E.C. as well. Then we decided that we should have a special ambassador to represent South Africa at the E.E.C. For this purpose the Government has deemed it desirable to appoint Dr. Naudé, who was in Geneva, and who I think is still there, as our special representative at the E.E.C. With a view to the new post he was to occupy, he was also present at the conference we held in Cape Town in January, and he will now be our ambassador at the E.E.C. I think the strengthening of our representation there by the appointment of a person such as Dr. Naudé. with the wide experience he has, especially in respect of these matters, can only be to our advantage in the future. It is very difficult to say what more should in fact be done about the matter.

Apart from insisting on the retention of tariff preferences, which, as we all know, we cannot retain, there is much more that can be done, For example, I am thinking of a greater measure of liberalization of the E.E.C. towards parties outside the community itself. Such a solid economic wall has been built around the E.E.C. that it is very difficult for third parties from outside to enter the E.E.C. sphere with their goods; it is an almost impenetrable wall. This applies particularly to the agricultural industry. If we can succeed in bringing about a measure of liberalization, I think we may perhaps be able to gain something for South Africa. There is no doubt that Britain’s entry to the E.E.C. is going to create problems for us and that we will have to do everything in our power to reduce the disadvantages for South Africa. Our exporters themselves will have to adopt a more dynamic attitude in respect of exports, and this does not apply only to the manufacturing industry; it also applies to our fruit industry and to everybody who is intent on exporting to Britain and to Europe; they will have to be more dynamic and more aggressive on the world market. We will have to find means of competing more effectively.

Hon. members may perhaps ask me what my next endeavour is going to be. Apart from the fact that the Government goes out of its way at all times to co-operate with all bodies and persons in order to meet these problems, I intend first holding discussions with our ambassadors in the E.E.C. countries and with our ambassador in England. Sir, I should like to assure the Committee that our ambassadors mean a very great deal to us in this field. If I have to judge from the reports coming through on matters concerning the possible entry of Britain to the E.E.C., I cannot but draw the conclusion that they are paying attention day and night, as it were, to this problem which we have to face. My first step will be to hold discussions in London next week with our ambassadors in the E.E.C. countries and with our ambassador in London. At that conference we shall formulate a procedure according to which we will be able to remain in contact with one another and to co-ordinate our actions in respect of the E.E.C. countries and the possible British entry and achieve a greater measure of concerted action in order to meet this problem. After these deliberations next week, we shall consider requesting an interview with the Council of Ministers of the E.E.C.

At this stage I should like to reply to what the hon. member for Brakpan said. We shall apply every means and pool all experience and knowledge in order to solve this problem. It is also my intention to have close co-operation with the South African exporters, not only exporters to England, but also exporters to Europe. As I have said, it is my intention to maintain the closest form of contact with them and I shall try to take them with us in our negotiations and in the attempts we make in order to overcome the problem.

I shall rather reply later to the other matters raised here.

We are glad that the hon. the Minister has given us a review of South Africa’s position in regard to the negotiations of Britain to enter the E.E.C. We do not underestimate the problems that will be created by such entry. There is also no doubt that as a result of Britain’s entry into the E.E.C. the pattern of our exports will change. This underlines the need for taking every possible step to encourage our exports into other markets and at the same time the export of new commodities. With that in view, we look to the Government to remove the obstacles which exist impeding our exports, particularly in so far as the infrastructure of our country is concerned. At the moment this is preventing the optimum development of our exports.

I shall now deal with quite a different subject and I am afraid that I shall have to be critical of the way in which the hon. the Minister handled certain aspects of import control for 1971. When on the 19th November, 1970, he issued his policy statement on import control, he started off on the wrong foot. That statement to my mind contained a number of unsettling remarks, remarks which, as a matter of fact, I can only describe as irresponsible. Let me quote certain of these remarks to help hon. members to understand what I mean. The hon. the Minister on that occasion said—

He said further that he was also aware of the fact that—

As far as the first category of importers were concerned, he stated—

He also pointed out, as far as the second category of importers were concerned, that—

He added—

In that statement the hon. the Minister is making two accusations against importers: The first accusation is that importers are using their import permits to import absolutely non-essential items and thereby irresponsibly wasting the foreign exchange reserves of the country. I think that a good case can be made out that as long as we need import control for the protection of our foreign exchange reserves, those reserves should not be used to import absolute non-essentials. What are non-essentials? Do we regard Cadillacs and Olds-mobiles as being essential or non-essential when such good motor cars as Mercedes and Jaguars are being partly made and fully assembled in this country? Do we regard French champagne, German wines and Spanish sherries as being essential or non-essential when we have such excellent products of our own? I would like to emphasize that no importer has been breaking the law by using a valid import permit issued to him by the hon. the Minister’s department, if he has used that import permit to import non-essentials. Surely it is completely wrong to castigate and threaten importers that corrective steps will be taken against them, when they have in fact been acting perfectly legally and within their rights? If it is in the interests of the country to slow down the importation of nonessentials—and I think a case can be made for such a step—then the hon. the Minister and his department have the power to do so by the promulgation of regulations in the Government Gazette. Castigation and threats such as were contained in the Minister’s policy statement can only create uncertainty and importers just do not know where they are.

The second accusation made by the hon. the Minister in his policy statement was levelled against those importers who allegedly have been selecting goods with a view to importing them and making excessive profits on them and, according to the Minister, thereby disrupting the operations of local manufacturers of similar merchandise. I find that a contradictory statement in itself. If the importers of these vines had not been making the so-called excessive profits on them, they presumably would have sold them more cheaply with the result that these goods would have posed an even greater threat to the manufacturers of similar local merchandise. But surely it is wrong to try and protect local industry by making threats in regard to import control against importers? The machinery for the protection of local industry exists in the customs tariffs which, subject to G.A.T.T. limitations, can be applied on the recommendation of the Board of Trade and Industries after careful examination of each case. As to making excessive profits on these importations, in any society which practices free enterprise importers are obviously in the game for profit. It is my experience that, even with imported goods, competition exercises very strict discipline on profit margins and in the commercial distributive trade competition is very keen indeed.

I regard the hon. the Minister’s statement as being irresponsible. In fact, I go further. I would say it is an arrogant statement. I think, not having been a businessman, the hon. the Minister does not appreciate the uncertainty and harm which a statement of this kind can cause. Uncertainty is bad for business. It causes a scarce resource, such as our foreign exchange reserves, not to be used in the best manner. I do hope that when the hon. the Minister issues his policy statement for import control for 1972, the statement will be a factual one, a helpful one, and that it will be issued in plenty of time so that importers will be able to plan their importations to the best advantage of the country.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Constantia referred chiefly to a statement that was made by the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs. I do not want to reply to that today. Like the hon. member for Constantia, I should just like to refer to the first statement the hon. the Minister made, i.e. laying down as a guideline to importers that they must not use their import quotas for importing non-essential goods, particularly those goods in a very high price class, and that they should rather use them to import essential goods. In this connection I just want to say that I do not think that any right-minded South African will find any fault with this. What probably bothers one the most, if one look’s at what goes on in the shops in Adderley Street and in many other shops throughout the country, is that one sees expensive imported goods in these shops that can as easily be equalled in quality by South African products. In a situation where South Africa needs foreign exchange more than ever, where it is more necessary than ever that everyone should make an effort to reduce the gap between imports and exports, it disturbs one that there are merchants who, in spite of this big problem that is common to us all, still import expensive handbags, certain kinds of shoes and many other goods that could very easily be manufactured in South Africa, and then sell them here at prices that are much higher than the prices at which the South African product of equal quality is sold. I do not think the hon. the Minister could have done better than to appeal to these merchants to make better use of this foreign exchange than to compete at keeping this gap as wide as it is at present.

In his reply to the speeches of the hon. members for Park town and Brakpan, the hon. the Minister said that he is aware of the problems that will develop with respect to our exports, particularly to Europe. after Britain's entry into the Common Market, and asked for ideas in preference merely to further problematic statements. In this connection I think we would do well not only to look at the short-term problems, but also to direct our gaze for a moment at the long-term position. We must not emphasize the negative side of the question too strongly, because if one looks at what really happened with respect to our imports and exports from and to Europe, with the European Common Market now having been in existence for several years, it is gratifying to note that there has specifically been a big increase in our exports to Europe in recent years. Europe is today virtually equal to the United Kingdom in its importance with respect to imports and exports. One now wonders whether the mere entry of Britain into the European Common Market, with a view to the greater prosperity which would then prevail in Europe and, we hope, in Britain itself, would not perhaps be advantageous, in the long run, not only to imports, but also to our general export position with respect to this bigger market. I should also just like to focus attention on the fact that perhaps we always think only of drastic new things that have to be done to improve our position in this respect. It is nevertheless a fact that the greatest success one always achieves in commerce or industry is specifically achieved by concentrating on those things in which one’s true strength lies. We chiefly export those goods that we cannot market in South Africa. Our gold, diamonds and agricultural products that are exported, are all products for which there is an insufficient market in South Africa. One wonders whether the real answers to this big problem of reducing the gap between exports and imports does not perhaps lie in the fact that we should rather try to encourage greater production in our own industrial set-up in South Africa. As a person coming from the Western Cape, I should particularly like to advocate, in this connection, that attention be given to the position of the Western Cape region. According to a recent speech made by Mr. Human, chairman of the Afrikaanse Handelsinstituut, we shall have to find additional work in the next two or three decades for about 105 000 Whites that will enter the labour market. In the same period additional work will have to be found for about 733 000 Coloureds alone. This means that for every White person for whom work must be found here in the Western Cape in the next 20 or 30 years, work will have to be found for seven Coloureds. It is also a fact that there are certain industries, situated in the Western Cape, that have made a significant contribution to our general export position. I am thinking, in particular, of our clothing industry. The mere fact that the major portion of the clothing industry in the vicinity of Cape Town is already established, makes it necessary for us to look to this industry for further expansion.

Today I specially want to advocate that we give renewed attention to the problem of general industrial settlement in South Africa. We must specifically do this because a region, where industries and the skills of labourers and entrepreneurs are concentrated, cannot only make a name for itself in its own country as an industrial region or as a region where a specific product is made, but can also do so more easily on the international market as far as a specific product is concerned. Therefore, if we look at new industrial growth in the Western Cape, we must look, in particular, at those industries in which the Western Cape has already made a name for itself in South Africa. We must then also look at the industries in which it has made a very big contribution to our exports abroad. I do not think that we need to go further, in the first instance, than specifically this industry. For years now I have served on the board controlling the Cape Technical College, where all our Coloureds, who receive higher education, are given practical training. In this connection I had the opportunity of discussing this problem with the biggest manufacturers of clothing products in South Africa. They are people who have already established factories in the United States and in Britain. They told me that, in their honest opinion, this industry was capable of much greater production in the Western Cape. With the results they have already achieved in exporting clothing to Britain and the United States, they are convinced that by encouraging this industry in the Western Cape, so that it concentrates itself increasingly in this area, the Western Cape will not only offer a better livelihood to the men and women who must inevitably live here in the future, but it will also be able to make a much greater contribution to our export position.

Another industry that we can perhaps view again in a different light is the diamond industry, which was mentioned in this House this afternoon. It is a fact that the price of uncut diamonds has decreased by about 50 per cent. Last year, under this same Vote, I advocated that in South Africa we would perhaps have to give special attention to the extent to which we cut our own diamonds. I advocated that we should cut more diamonds of one carat and less in South Africa. Those who have already established themselves in this industry in Cape Town, are convinced that this can be done. I want to add that these are people who have a very good knowledge of the international market. They are people who were in this business in Is real, Brussels and those places where most of the diamonds are cut today. Here in the Western Cape, and particularly in Cape Town, there ought to be room, not for 1 000 diamond cutters, but for at least 10 000 to 15 000. The value of our cut diamond exports ought not only to amount to more than R50 million per year, it ought to go up to about R100 million per year, provided we are also prepared to cut these stones in South Africa. This can be done, in particular, with the aid of Coloured labour. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Vasco pleaded for the establishment of more industries in the Western Cape, and I want to join him in his plea. However, I want to raise a matter which concerns the Eastern Cape very closely, and the hon. member will therefore pardon me if I do not follow up his argument.

†The great importance and the urgency of exporting ever-increasing quantities of ore and minerals cannot be overemphasized and I make no excuse for once again referring to this matter. Here I think is the key to the immediate improvement of our balance of payments problem. It will be remembered that Iscor was given until the 31st of March this year to furnish proof that it would, firstly, be able to raise outside South Africa the capital needed for the development and construction of the Saldanha Bay project and. secondly, that it would be able to secure firm contracts for the export of adequate tonnages of iron ore to justify this huge undertaking. According to Press reports Iscor had been unable to meet this deadline although it seems, according to Press reports once again, that there have been subsequent developments. I must plead with the hon. the Minister to give a clear and unequivocal answer to the question: May the interested parties forthwith proceed with the St. Croix project in Algoa Bay? I want to stress that the crux of the controversy between Saldanha and St. Croix has always been the total iron ore tonnage which South Africa as a whole may reasonably expect to export up to 1980, plus the capacity of the Railways to handle this volume of trade. Japan has indicated very clearly that she has no intention of buying more than approximately ten million tons of iron ore from South Africa within the foreseeable future. The total tonnage which Europe is expected to buy may reach five million tons per annum by 1980. That is a total of 15 million tons per annum. The Chamber of Mines has predicted that South Africa’s iron ore exports could reach 15 million tons per annum by 1980 and about 50 million tons by 1990.

It is therefore essential that we decide on the correct order of priority between the three major export schemes which Africa today wishes to undertake, namely that at Richard’s Bay, at St. Croix and at Saldanha Bay. This order of priority must be determined against: (1) the total capital outlay of each scheme; (2) the availability of finance; (3) the availability of labour; (4) the anticipated completion date; and (5) the optimum railway capacity utilization. The Government has already given permission for the first stage development of the Richard’s Bay harbour. The construction of the necessary railway and harbour facilities, initially for the export of coal, is expected to amount to about R160 million. If this scheme were to receive priority it could be operational by 1975. South Africa could, economically speaking, find the capital and labour for the Richard’s Bay and the St. Croix projects simultaneously, because the R160 million for the Richard’s Bay project would be spread over a period of about five years. The St. Croix project which could be operational by 1973 would cost an estimated R33 million, plus an additional R6 million for four tugs. The Sishen/Port Elizabeth line must be improved and will cost about R12 500 000. The Railways have indicated that they would bear that expense. There would also be additional rolling stock and locomotives, to the tune of about R70 million, but that also would be necessary for the Saldanha project and therefore I do not bring these figures into account. Now if St. Croix becomes operational by 1973, it would be able to handle the export of iron ore as well as coal until Richard’s Bay becomes operational, and these two schemes could earn for South Africa about R1 000 million in foreign exchange up to 1980. St. Croix is designed to cope with iron ore exports of about 15 million tons per annum. According to the S.A. Railways, the capacity of the Sishen/Port Elizabeth line after improvements would be about 20 million tons per annum. This would be adequate to cope with the iron ore and manganese exports were to increase to 50 million tons by 1990, it would be imperative that another iron ore export harbour be developed for the 1980s.

It is estimated that the Saldanha Bay scheme would cost about R350 million to R450 million. Leading civil engineers have estimated that the realistic completion date for this scheme would be about 1980, but the most optimistic assumptions are that Saldanha could become operational by about 1975, If, therefore, the Government decides on the development of Saldanha and has to finance this scheme wholly or partly, it would mean that the two major schemes, namely Richard’s Bay and Saldanha Bay, could not be tackled simultaneously, due to the shortage of labour. The result would be the postponement of Richard’s Bay. If this were to happen, Saldanha could earn about R500 million in foreign exchange for South Africa up to 1980. If priority is given to the St. Croix and Richard’s Bay schemes, South Africa would be earning foreign exchange white Saldanha is being constructed. I would therefore plead with the hon. the Minister to give the go ahead for the St. Croix project, because its feasibility has been proved. It will provide the immediate answer to the need for a terminal to accommodate large vessels to convey our anticipated ever-increasing exports of ore until the 1980s.

Then I want to tell the hon. the Minister that in his reply to the debate last year in September, (Hansard Column 4517), he said—

And in Column 4518 he said—

Sir, the statement that the swells change from nothing to 30 feet is an impossibility. If the hon. the Minister had only telephoned the port captain at Port Elizabeth, he would have ascertained the incorrectness of this statement. The St. Croix Island is about 650 metres long. The length of a 350 000 ton vessel is about 365 metres. Therefore the statement that some of the ships will be longer than the island is not correct. My advice to the hon. the Minister is that he must change his advisers.

One of the world’s leading firms of consulting engineers, Soros Associates of America, said that the feasibility of the Port Elizabeth scheme had been proved and that further studies of waves and wind would only be required to refine the design and not to prove feasibility. Then they go on to make this rather interesting observation, that storms at Port Elizabeth tend to be of relatively short duration and that the study of wave and current conditions near St. Croix, which were completed at the request of the S.A. Railways, proved that the requirements of the Japanese steel industry could be met, and that suitable berthing conditions at St, Croix would be available for about 80 per cent of the time. The S.A. Railway’s and Japanese experts regard ships of 150 000 tons to be the maximum practicable for Saldanha Bay. St. Croix could accommodate ships of 250 000 tons and after additional dredging, vessels up to 350 000 tons, [Time expired.]

For obvious reasons the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, lodged a plea with respect to the shipment of ore in the vicinity of Port Elizabeth. Let me say at once that I actually do not blame him. That is his part of the world; he probably has his interests there, and his constituency is there. Inevitably he must look for subtle arguments with which to defend this project in his area. But I must point out that as far back as the end of 1969—I think it was 6th December, 1969—a very definite statement was issued about this matter, on behalf of the Government, by the then Minister of Economic Affairs. In it the following appeared, inter alia. (translation)

And then further—

Please note, Sir: “Drawn up by Iscor and the South African Railways”—

This report then also contains the following, inter alia—

And then the following—

In other words from this statement at the very outset, three things most definitely came to the fore, and these are contained in this statement: In the first instance the necessary contracts must be concluded. Secondly the necessary money must be obtained. The third important fact is that the Government had already taken a decision at that stage about the point from which the shipping of this ore must take place. It is clear from this statement that the Government had decided that Saldanha should be this point.

Sir, in spite of this, there is probably no prospective project about which so much has been written and about which there has been so much speculation as there has been, since this statement, about this possible project, particularly on the part of my United Party friends in Port Elizabeth. I think that there was, in actual fact, an unnecessary amount of insistence about that area after the Government had adopted a very definite view about this matter; I actually think it unfair on their part. They speculated left, right and centre, and at one stage I saw a report in which they claimed that the Saldanha area did not fit into this picture at all; in fact, that the harbour there would be too shallow.

I am not going to examine this detail, but I want to point out that the announcement of this intention by the Government created very far-reaching expectations, also within the Western Cape growth pattern. The hon. member for Vasco advanced certain arguments in which he pointed out certain problems we would have in respect of the future growth pattern in the Western Cape. I think that, viewed basically, this intended protect means so much more to us in this respect because, in the first place, it can be the beginning of new growth possibilities in this particular area with its future growth problems. Apart from this, here lie the old great north western parts of our country, the area between Saldanha and Sishen, a world that has been dormant over the past few years, but one with tremendous possibilities. I see no other possibility than that this intended project can be a handy starting point in the creation of new life and a new growth momentum in this area. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that dreams have already been dreamt. New attitudes to developments have been created in this specific area which, to my mind, justify the fact that this project should be tackled in that area, as the Government decided.

Now I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to again emphasize and clarify certain basic aspects for us on this occasion, in the light of these wild speculations that took place and in the light of the importance of this project in a specific geographic context. I noticed in the week-end newspapers that there were reports about Iscor having succeeded in obtaining the necessary money. I do not know whether those are speculative reports, but they are, naturally, encouraging. I now realize that with these very subtle negotiations—because there is a tremendous amount at stake—it is probably impossible for the hon. the Minister to go into too much detail. We cannot expect this of him. As a result of this speculation and the expectations that have been roused, I do want to ask the hon. the Minister to again give us the facts of the matter very clearly on this occasion.

The second matter I should like to refer to here concerns our marine industry. Our marine industry is going through a difficult period at this stage. The marine industry, with all its various facets, is a very colourful one. It is one that has its risks. Just as one experiences droughts inland from time to time, so this industry also has its difficulties at various times. But it is a colourful industry, and it has been a good source of foreign exchange for South Africa in past years. There is one matter that J am very sorry about today, i.e. that the hon. member for Simonstown has specifically chosen a period such as this lean period in our marine industry to go out of his way to break down its image as he has done in recent months. I do not want to react in detail to what he has said, but I want to tell him that I think it lamentable. I can tell him that the fishing public reproaches him for the fact that he has tried to break down this industry's image as he has done in recent months. In fact, Sir, I gained the impression that he was engaged, on a fulltime basis, in conducting a campaign against, and spreading gossip about, the generally fine image this industry has had. I have a small, old white schipperke. He is a dear little dog. He has grown old—I think he is now about seven or eight years old — but as lovely and cute as the little dog is, there is one habit he has never broken himself of throughout his life, i.e. the habit of carrying everything with a bad smell into the house. The hon. member reminds me of him.

May I ask a question? Are there any misrepresentations

You will have your chance. That is the way in which this hon. member has tried, virtually on a fulltime basis these past few months, to break down the image of this industry. I leave him at that. I am not going to react to it any further.

I want to say that in the past few years the State has done more than its share for our marine industry. The Minister and senior officials of the department have now recently had the opportunity of visiting only one section of our 2 000-mile long coastline, the part within which my constituency lies. Through Fishcor the State has really gone out of its way, in the past number of years, to support this industry. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Moorreesburg has, as did other hon. members opposite, criticized me, being both rude and personal. However, nowhere did they react to the specific allegations I made. I have made certain allegations in this House and I have challenged certain hon. Ministers, the last one being the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs earlier last week. He said that I misrepresented the position. I challenged him then and I challenge him again now to prove it. I have sent him my Hansard and have challenged him to point out to me where I had misrepresented the position. I shall be only too glad to apologize to him as well as to members on both sides of the House if he can find any substantial error in any of the speeches I made.

I do not concern myself with rubbish.

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them, Sir.

In the Fishcor report which has just come out, the rock-lobster industry is dealt with. This is what it says—

In Port Nolloth the industry is being subsidized On the 14th of May the Minister, in reply to a question I put to him, told me that because of the service the two companies concerned rendered to Port Nolloth it was found necessary to subsidize them to the extent of R10000 per annum. I do not want to go into details now apart from pointing out that the question was replied to on the 14th of May.

Let us deal with the present rock-lobster catches in South-West Africa as well as in South Africa. The position in South Africa is that 3 500 000 lb. tails have so far been caught this season, almost a fulfillment of the quota. This sounds very good indeed. However, let me remind hon. members that the existing quota is one that has been substantially reduced from the quota which was in existence a couple of years ago. Three years ago there was only an export tail quota while there was no limit whatsoever on the local rock-lobster market. Let us deal with the position of catches in 1965, for instance. Then the export catches of rock-lobster amounted to 6 800 000 lbs. tail weight. In 1969 this had dropped to 2,1 million lbs. There was, as I have already said, no restriction on the catching of rock lobster for the local market. On the East Coast in 1965 615 000 lb. tail weight was caught. In 1969 it had dropped to 3 000 lbs.

These things add up to the fact that the present quota is completely unrealistic unless related to previous catches. So, when the Minister pointed out to me that the quota had almost been filled, he meant the present quota which had had to be reduced after the rock-lobster industry had been over-exploited over the years.

Let us deal with South-West Africa now. In the Minister’s answer to me in May he said 1 259 000 lbs. tail were caught up to the end of April. I want to ask him what the present picture is at Lüderitz. There is no mention of the South-West African rock lobster industry in Fishcor’s report. Are they also being subsidized like Port Nolloth is being subsidized? I want him to tell us whether the 2½-inch length still applies to rock-lobsters being caught off the South-West African coast, whereas the 3-inch length is imposed on rock-lobsters being caught south of the Orange River. Does the hon. the Minister realize what happens? I am now addressing my remarks particularly to the hon. the Deputy Minister. Boats from Lüderitz, and South-West Africa generally, come down to South Africa and take 2½-inch lobsters which they then offload in South-West Africa. That is what is happening. I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister when he is going to introduce uniform legislation concerning the fishing industry of South Africa and South-West Africa. A different policy to that applied in South Africa, appertains to South-West Africa.

My time is terribly limited; so I must move on to the pelagic fishing industry. Here we have a very sad story. Let me again deal with the Fishcor report. Here it says, as regard the pelagic fish in South Africa—

This is a pattern which has repeated itself throughout the West Coast and the South-West African pelagic fishing industry, in spite of warnings to the Government.

I now want to deal briefly with the Cape Cross Survey, which is the most recent authoritative statement on the fishing industry of South-West Africa which has come to hand. In a summary on page 5 of the survey's report, it says—

On page 6 it states—

They omit to say “and the fall”.

On the next page, in conclusion, it states—

These are very serious aspects of the Fishcor report and of the Cape Cross research programme. They also make various recommendations. I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister—it is for him to say—which of the recommendations in the Cape Cross Survey have been put into effect and what is the present position of the pilchard industry off South-West Africa. Do not forget that the Cape Cross Survey recommends that there should be further reductions of pilchard quotas if the resource is to be saved. In the light of the Fishcor and Cape Cross reports, the majority report of the Fishing Commission that the South-West African fishing industry can sustain an annual catch of 1 million tons of pilchards is absolutely laughable. What has the Government done? The hon. the Minister said recently in a speech in the House, according to Die Burger—

I want to ask him what actual steps he has taken.

Let me move on briefly to Dr. Lochner. In reply to a question I asked the other day, the hon. the Minister said that they are considering closing down for pilchard fishing the area between Palgrave Point and the Kunene River. I want to ask him whether that has been done and if it has been done, then let him admit that Dr. Lochner was right. Because if it has been done, the effect will be exactly the same as if they had originally accepted Dr. Lochner’s theory and Dr. Lochner’s warnings. If that is the case, why did they not test his theory and accept his findings in the first place? What about Dr. Lochner's recent warning? His most recent warning was made about 10 days ago, in Die Oosterlig. He says—

These are serious warnings, and I should like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he is going to heed or ignore these further warnings. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown is now almost making a habit of attacking the hon. the Deputy Minister and the Executive Committee of South-West Africa about certain allocations in South-West Africa. There are predictions at every turn, as has now been the case again, about the collapse of the pilchard sources. Tremendous importance is attached to Dr. Lochner’s theory, but there is no reference at all to our own Division of Sea Fisheries, which has been doing excellent work for years. Apparently the hon. member is not interested in the facts he can obtain from them. In actual fact, one is left with the impression that the hon. member and the Opposition are overjoyed at the problems being experienced at present. I want to tell the hon. member that if by this conduct he thinks to make an impression on the fishermen of Walvis Bay, he is making a very big mistake.

I have the privilege of knowing those people much better than he does. They are hard people, but also people of faith and honesty. I have the privilege of sharing the same language and culture with those people. I want to tell the hon. member that he is making a big mistake if he thinks he is going to get any sympathy from those people in this way.

Sir, the hon. member for Simonstown phones people in Walvis Bay at every turn. I want to tell the hon. member that those people again phone me and tell me about it. If one stays the night on the banks of the Kavango River in the north of South-West Africa, one is woken early in the morning by a deafening noise. That noise is caused by a little bird, known as the fishing eagle, because it lives on live fish. However, when one lives on dead fish, I think one must then be granted the dubious honour of being called a fishing vulture.

I want to refer very briefly to the allocations in South-West Africa, about which such a tremendous fuss is now being made. When the National Party accepted the reins of government in South-West Africa in 1950, no research had been done up to that stage. Only four fish factories existed, with an average annual quota of about 31 000 tons of fish. In co-operation with the Division of Sea Fisheries of the Republic, the National Party then immediately began to do research. On the recommendation of these researchers, our marine biologists, they step by step and year by year granted more quotas and increased the quotas. Those biologists are the people who undertake research in connection with the living resources of the ocean, their ways of life, quantities, food supplies, migratory habits, etc., and on the basis of that they determine the maximum economic level of exploitation. I now ask: What more can a Government do than to appoint such people to do all this research, and then act according to their advice?

What are you going to do with the factory ships?

We shall ask you United Party M.P.s to sell the shares you have in those factory ships. Sir, hon. members are laughing at the moment. There is shouting and screaming because the two additional licences, issued in 1963, were allocated to Afrikaans institutions.

Which two?

Angra Pequena and South Kunene. The hon. member attacked Federate Volksbeleggings, Bonuskor, Volkskas and Trust Bank. These are, strangely enough, all Afrikaans institutions.

That has nothing to do with the matter.

If it has nothing to do with the matter, the hon. member must tell me why he never objected to the latest allocation, i.e., that made in 1968. Is it because the hon. member knows that not a single Nationalist has any interests there? If that is not the reason, the hon. member must please tell me why he singles out Angra Pequena and South Kunene, but is quite happy with the allocation made five years later.

Are you now speaking about the White Fish Consortiums?

No, it is a licence for 90 000 tons of fish, just like all the others.

For whom?

For their own consortium. I do not have the time to go into that now. I just want to tell the hon. member that it is as plain as a pikestaff that this is a matter of Afrikaners who hold shares. [Interjections.] The hon. member is just like a dog: if he gets hurt, he whines. The United Party always reminds me of the Wafra. They are on the rocks, and just like the Wafra they are polluting and besmirching everything and everyone. The hon. Opposition and its newspapers, supported by the Hertzog newspaper, succeeded in scratching out the names of 100 Nationalists from amongst the names of 2 800 shareholders. But the hon. member has never told us if he agrees with the fact that supporters of the hon. Opposition also have shares there. Does the hon. member agree that that is in order?

I was speaking about the factory ships.

Is it in order that hon. members on that side of the House should hold shares in factory ships? The hon. member must tell us if it is only a question of Afrikaners. It is, after all, the National Party that brought prosperity and progress to this country. Must the Afrikaners now always remain the hewers of wood and the drawers of water?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Simonstown again referred to the theory of Dr. Lochner. He is trying to get at the Fishing Commission and that commission is not here to defend itself. I am not here to speak on behalf of the Fishing Commission. I am not going to venture into the potholes. I just want to tell the hon. member that as a fellow member of the commission I do not propose to cross swords with Dr. Lochner. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has taken the trouble to read the December issue of Shipping News?

It contains Dr. Gulland's article.

No, the hon. member is wrong. It contains Dr. Lochner’s article. Dr. Gulland’s reply appears in the February issue. If the hon. member has read it, he will have seen that Dr. Gulland reacts very briefly to it and that he says he would like to see the theory. One fact he mentions is that if Dr. Lochner’s theory is correct, he is of the opinion that a pilchard can live to be 100 years old. The hon. member has probably also taken note of that. In the March issue of Shipping News, Dr. Lochner replies and says that Dr. Gulland, whom hon. members opposite probably acknowledge as an authority, does not understand his theory. With reference to the comments of the chairman of the commission of inquiry into the fishing industry, which appeared in the same issue, he says that the Fishing Commission does not understand his theory either. I concede that I am not a scientist. I want to ask the hon. member if he has studied Dr. Lochner’s bulky theory?

Yes.

Does the hon. member understand it?

Not quite.

In the Fishing Commission’s third report, which was tabled. Dr. Lochner himself, in his minority report, quotes the words of the Fishing Commission—

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. member a question? Why did they not have Dr. Lochner’s theory tested.

The answer to that is very simple. It is not the task of the Fishing Commission or the Government to judge the work of any scholar. It is the right, the privilege and, what is more, the duty of the author himself to have his work judged. In this issue of the Shipping News one reads that the chairman of the commission of inquiry into the fishing industry again invited Dr. Lochner to publish his work or to submit it to Dr. Gulland or any other authority. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Omaruru will forgive me if I switch from the crisis in which the Government has landed the fishing industry and deal with another and more serious crisis, the one which now faces the motor industry in South Africa. I have a report in front of me which says that 45 000 new cars wait to be sold. The ineptitude with which the hon. the Minister has handled this, the largest industry in his portfolio, is typified by a comment coming from the Cape Times, where he is reported to have said—

He mentioned that he had called for a detailed report on the situation. Sir, the motor industry is a rugged one. It controls the lives of almost every one of us in this country. Its total number of employees is some 113 000, of which some 45 000 are concerned with the manufacturing industry. Surely, if the hon. the Minister had followed the comment in the financial and industrial Press, he would have known and would have foreseen that what is happening now is merely the result of the Government having tampered with the free market mechanisms of the motor industry, he and his department having introduced severe hire-purchase measures this year and last year, and the hon. the Minister of Finance having clamped down excessive sales taxes at a time when the industry could not bear it. If the motor industry was used as a catalyst in 1962 in order to reinvigorate our then stagnating industry after Sharpeville and after we had just left the Commonwealth, it may well be that the same industry today, in the situation in which it is placed now, could well lead to an explosive situation which will affect the whole of our industrial life. We will see that this will trigger off a chain reaction.

Already, only last week, we see that a major car ferry firm is in financial difficulties. The manufacturers of motor-cars cannot be seen in isolation. There will be ripple effects on the component manufacturers, on the foundry industry, the tyre industry, the plate glass industry, the battery industry, the service industry, and on sales personnel. The Minister is treading on dangerous ground. Not only is the whole economy involved, but our workers’ careers are also at stake. Families will suffer. There will be unemployment with the approach of winter.

Sir, we had the same signs in America when the Pennsylvanian Railway Company crashed, and we had the same signs in Britain when the Rolls Royce Company collapsed and brought down with it many ancillary branches of the industry. One does not play with an industry of the size of our motor industry. One does not set it up like skittles and knock it down and then put it up again. The hon. the Minister must realize that according to Dr. Kuschke, the total investment in all the facets of the industry involves some R10 000 million. In the motor industry long-term planning is involved, not merely the putting together of motor-cars but contracts for the supply of parts and raw materials and labour are placed with other ancillary industries months beforehand. Delivery schedules can be as far as six months to a year ahead. Short-term cut-backs of the nature now envisaged can well result in long-term delays, and the policy of this Government at the moment may well bring this, our third major industry, to its knees. The hon. the Minister is bringing ridicule upon his department by his handling of the panic hire-purchase measures which brought the furniture industry into chaos last year and which may well have the same, and even worse, repercussions on the motor industry as things stand at the moment.

In the brief time at my disposal I want to put certain propositions to the Minister and I hope that he will reply to them in some detail as I will motivate them more fully later in my address to the House. Firstly, the plight in which the motor industry now finds itself, was anticipated by Opposition speakers during the no-confidence debate, by the Leader of the Opposition himself, and in the Budget debate, and by the motor industry as early as March of this year. Secondly, the present position is the result of the Government’s having introduced unnecessarily harsh hire-purchase measures and curbs last year, excessive sales taxes on motor vehicles and the untimely enforcement of phase III of the local content programme upon the motor industry in January of this year, in spite of rigid warnings from the industry. I challenge the hon. the Minister to react to a plea by this side of the House that (a) he should halt the implementation of phase III now; (b) that he should abandon its implementation for the foreseeable future; (c) that he should revert to the 1970 phase II local content situation; (d) that he should repudiate the Franzsen Commission’s third report recommendation favouring the recognition of only one popular utility family-type vehicle per manufacturer; (e) that he should repudiate the recommendation that there should be a drastic reduction in model numbers; (f) that he should re-state existing Government policy that the choice of model numbers will be left to the free market influences as reflected by manufacturers’ decisions and public choice; (g) that he should comment upon the effect on the prosperity of the motor manufacturing industry of the disproportionate number of light commercial vehicles today entering South Africa in either C.K.D or C.B.U. condition; and (h) that he will come to the rescue of the component manufacturing industry by introducing provisions for light commercial vehicles components to be phased into the local content programme at an early date.

I also challenge the hon. the Minister to prove that the Government’s local content programme has effectively and realistically resulted in a material saving of foreign exchange to South Africa. I challenge him to refute the Opposition’s contention that the Government’s present policies calling for the implementation of phase III and the introduction of harsh sales taxes and hire-purchase curbs are responsible for the high cost of motor cars, resulting in higher transport costs and higher cost of living for the man in the street. Sir, if the Cabinet’s decision to enforce the implementation of phase III in the motor industry in January of this year is not causing concern to the hon. the Minister, then it should be. The Leader of the Opposition in the no-confidence debate this year, warned that the implementation of phase III would add fuel to the fires of inflation, and the hon. member for Yeoville, taking part in the Budget debate, called on the hon. the Minister of Finance seriously to consider postponing the third phase of the local content programme in South Africa because of the pressures which were being exerted on the supply of skilled labour and our limited and expensive supplies of capital.

Now we come to the Franzsen Commission, a Government-appointed commission. In its Third Report the commission calls upon the Government to delay the implementation of phase III as a matter of urgency, and recommends that the whole issue of the local content programme be investigated by an inter-departmental commission, comprising representatives of the Departments of Finance, Industry, the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, and the Board of Trade and Industry, and that this commission should have due regard to the representations of both the industry and the consumer.

Sir, in quick succession during the last few weeks the motor trade itself has reacted. One has only to study the headlines in recent papers—

One must realize that phase I which was introduced in 1962 was to be a catalyst to an industry which was then stagnating. It was introduced to enable our economy to be revitalized by making the maximum use of the then surplus supply of skilled labour, raw materials and capital. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to reply to the speech made by the hon. member for Gardens, because I want to react to the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. However, I want to tell the hon. member for Gardens that if he had been more knowledgeable about this fishing industry, he would not have found it so easy to make the statement that the Government had plunged the fishing industry into a crisis. If he had been more knowledgeable he would have known how difficult it is to determine when over-exploitation is taking place, and how difficult it is to discover this in time. He would then have known, for instance, that to this day people are quarrelling and arguing about the reason for the disappearance of pilchards in the Californian waters. To this day there are many people who do not want to accept, or are still not convinced in their minds, that this was caused by over-exploitation and not by other causes. I think the hon. member’s statement was rather wild and meant to be cast to the winds and to be blown away.

Now I want to refer to the speech made by the hon. member for Simonstown. I want to express my satisfaction at the fact that the hon. member acted in a more positive manner today. He acted more positively and did not arouse any suspicions here, as he did in the past. I think the hon. member for Simonstown has probably found out that his source of information, his political associates in South-West Africa, are not as reliable as he may perhaps have thought. I am referring here to the hon. member’s spiritual associates, but what the actual position of these people is today, I do not know. As far as I know, they are living together as two parties, but they are not lawfully married. It would there appear to me as though they are living together in sin, and what may emerge from their living together in sin, any person can but surmise. In the short time at my disposal I want to reply to the points raised by the hon. member. As regards the position of Port Nolloth, I may tell the hon. member that the subsidy granted, is not an annual subsidy of R10 000, but a non-recurring subsidy, which is only meant to help the company during the transition period.

As far as the sizes of rock lobster in South-West Africa are concerned, I may tell hon. members that it is still 2½ inches.

Did the hon. the Minister refer to “quota”?

The hon. member for Simonstown asked me what the size was that was going to be permitted in South-West Africa. The size will still be 2½ inches. I want to tell the hon. member at once that in my own mind I still have many misgivings about what happens to rock lobsters that are thrown back into the sea. I have my misgivings in that regard, the simple reason being that it is not possible for the Sea Fisheries Division to exercise proper control over each of those boats. What I am concerned about, is that many of those rock lobsters which are thrown back into the sea, are actually in such a poor condition that they cannot recover again. If this were the case, I must tell the hon. member that I do not attach so much importance to the size restriction. If they are going to die in the sea in any case, it would be better for us to bring them ashore instead, for then the number of bigger rock lobsters that are caught, would be relatively smaller. I shall accept that catchers from South-West go further south than the Orange River. My information is that this happens. However, it also happens just as often that catchers from the Republic, in turn, go further north than the Orange River. It is difficult to control this situation, and since a measure of reciprocation does apparently take place in this manner, I do not think it can be regarded as being serious. The hon. member also wanted to know when similar legislation was going to apply to both territories. The intention was to do so during the course of the present session, but lengthy negotiations had to be conducted with local authorities in South-West Africa in order to reach agreement. It is being expected at present that it will be possible for this consolidation to take place next year.

Must the legislation come before this Parliament?

Yes. I expect this to happen next year. The hon. member also wanted to know which of the recommendations of the snap investigation had been accepted. I think the hon. member is familiar with them, but if I have to name them from memory, they are, firstly, that because of the results of the snap investigation, the catching season was not curtailed by one month, as was the original intention, but by two months; secondly, nor was the pilchard quota restricted to 45 000 tons, as was originally intended, but to 30000 tons. We shall have to wait until the end of the present catching season in August to see how these measures have worked out in practice. We shall also have to assess the results in the light of the second phase of the scientific investigation which is being conducted there at present. At the moment serious attention is also being given, and I hope to be able to implement this, to determining a northern line—I cannot remember the exact degree of latitude at the moment—the intention being that, with a view to protecting young fish in the north, South African catchers will not go beyond that line. Another step that has flowed from the first phase of the investigation, is that negotiations have been entered into with the Sarusao Development Corporation in order to freeze for the time being, in view of the possibility of overexploitation, the development which would have commenced there this year. Those negotiations have as yet not been finalized completely, but progress has already been made in that regard. In the meantime the operations there have been frozen and discontinued until such time as we have more clarity on what could happen there in the future. I may just tell the hon. member that in my own mind—not on scientific grounds, but pursuant to information and communications that have reached me—I nevertheless take the very optimistic view that even if it would not be possible to exploit a pilchard industry there, it may in fact appear to be possible in the future to start a horse-mackerel industry there. It is possible to catch horse-mackerel without catching anchovies and pilchards as well. However, these are matters which are still being investigated, and in the meantime further operations there have been frozen. Then the hon. member also said it was ridiculous that South-West Africa could supply one million tons of fish. However, these were the findings which were arrived at on a scientific basis, and I am not in a position to add anything to them. With the knowledge at my disposal I cannot say that that scientific finding is ridiculous. Furthermore, the hon. member once again referred himself to Dr. Lochner’s point of view, but I think that we have really thrashed out that matter sufficiently. I said in the past that I had respect of Dr. Lochner. We are good friends and we keep up a regular correspondence. However, we may not cast our own scientific research to the winds before Dr. Lochner’s theory has been proved with absolute certainty and in a satisfactory manner. We may not expose our fishermen in this manner to the serious financial position in which they must necessarily be landed as a result of further curtailments. They already have problems, and further curtailments cannot be made merely on the strength of information for which there is no conclusive scientific proof.

Mr. Chairman, I think the time is opportune for me to deal with just a few topics which have already been discussed here. The topics I should like to deal with now, are matters relating to our negotiations with the G.A.T.T., followed by a few thoughts on the exports and our large volume of imports. Having done that, I could perhaps, with further reference to our attempts at increased exports, take the opportunity to deal with the question of Saldanha and the export and promotion of other minerals.

May I put a question to you? Are you also going to discuss my “misrepresentations”?

I would rather not reply to the hon. member.

Precisely. In that case, do you withdraw your words?

I shall discuss the hon. member’s misrepresentations, but I shall do so when it suits me. The hon. member says here whatever he pleases, and then he expects to be able to get away with it.

You made the allegation, not I.

I have enough information on the hon. member’s misrepresentations, and I shall deal with them when it suits me, and not when the hon. member tells me to do so.

I said I would like to discuss matters relating to the G.A.T.T. I think we are very familiar with the background in this regard, but I just want to refer to it in one or two sentences. If we go back to 1947, when we entered into our G.A.T.T. tariff agreements, we shall appreciate that at present the circumstances are quite different. In fact, we find ourselves in a very difficult position. Circumstances in South Africa have changed tremendously, and one could perhaps say that the negotiations in 1947 were short-sighted, especially in view of the fact that it should have been foreseen that South Africa’s economy would change over the years. However, I think these are facts which we simply have to take into account today and on which it is unnecessary to speculate further at the moment. We experienced problems in 1949, and at the time we obtained permission to apply import control. We applied it from 1949 until recently, i.e. 1969. At that stage we were informed that we could no longer obtain the exemption under section 12 of the G.A.T.T. agreement to apply import control. At the time we said that we ourselves preferred to grant protection by way of tariff determinations. On the other hand, however, the tariffs to which we are committed, are such that they do not provide us with the necessary opportunities for protection which we should like to have. Therefore, until such time as we have conducted negotiations on the necessary tariffs, we shall continue to apply import control in respect of certain matters, especially in respect of those particular commodities over which we do not have the necessary tariff control. In this regard I merely want to reply to the reference made by the hon. member for Parktown when he spoke about commodity control, i.e. those articles over which we have no tariff control for making the necessary adjustments in that regard. But, to cut short a long story about the G.A.T.T., I merely want to say that we are in the process of conducting negotiations with various countries where we should like to have better tariff enforcement in respect of the present circumstances. But I should also like to mention that this is not an easy passage. In fact, these are very difficult and complicated negotiations. I think the negotiators of the United States of America are arriving here in South Africa today. In Pretoria they will proceed with their negotiations with us in regard to the tariff determinations between us and the U.S.A. These are extremely difficult negotiations. Whenever one asks for a concession in regard to the tariffs on certain commodities, one is expected to make in return concessions which are equal in value. Now, if one does not have much, naturally one cannot offer much either. That is the case with us. That makes it particularly difficult for us. But we are carrying on with our negotiations in order to secure the protection we want by way of tariffs rather than by way of import control, as it was done in the past.

All of us are concerned about our large volume of imports and, as against that, the fact that our exports are not increasing in volume. In the past year our imports have reached the record figure of R2 545 million. This is, of course, a tremendous amount. If I have to mention the reasons for this, I must accept that the relaxation of import control was one of these reasons. One could perhaps add to this the fear amongst importers that import control may be re-introduced, but as far as that is concerned, I want to make it very clear here today that it is not the Government’s intention to intensify or extend import control again. I hope with all my heart that in so far as there has been obscurity in this regard, it will now have been removed. Furthermore, our large volume of imports is also attributable to the particularly high level of domestic spending. Another reason is the particularly favourable facilities which importers have been able to obtain.

As far as our exports are concerned, a number of factors are involved. In the first place, there is the fact that we are still to such a large extent agricultural exporters, and that such exports are, in turn, subject to climatic conditions in this country. The hon. member for Vasco also mentioned a reason, namely the downward trend in the foreign demand for diamonds. Another factor is the downward trend in the price of wool. Wool used to be a very good earner of foreign exchange, but during the past year there has been a downward trend in the price of wool. Another factor is the fact that to a certain extent there has been a shortage of transport and port facilities, especially as far as the export of mineral ores are concerned. Another factor in regard to our exports, is the high level of domestic demand. That has been the cause of fewer goods having been available for export.

The hon. member for Parktown referred in particular to minerals, and wanted to know what we were doing in that regard. He referred to the export of iron ore and also to the Saldanha and Port Elizabeth schemes. Other hon. members also referred to these matters. Before dealing with specific matters, such as the Saldanha project, I should like to emphasize that the question of exports is not only the responsibility of the Government. It ought to be a joint effort between the Government and the private entrepreneur. I think one may just as well refer to the fact that it is the industrial sector which in fact carries the major responsibility for our large volume of imports, as so many of our industrial materials which are processed, are imported for the benefit of our industrial sector. Recently I made some kind of analyzis of our imports. It appears that out of the grand total of approximately R2 545 million, which I mentioned as being the total of our imports for this year, approximately R400 million only was in fact in respect of consumer goods. The major part of our imports consists by far of raw materials, components of vehicles which are assembled, etc. In fact, the imports for the industrial sector, to which we must look for export purposes as well, play a major role in our large volume of imports. The task of importing is the task of the Government along with the private entrepreneur. As far as the Government is concerned, it will provide the necessary specialized auxiliary services for promoting the exports as far as it is at all possible to do so.

The hon. member for Parktown spoke to me and referred to what he had said here last year in regard to what we had to do in connection with our exports. Amongst other things he referred last year to the expected adverse effect on our export trade to Britain as a result of its entry into the Common Market. He put forward certain proposals on the basis of which we could promote our exports. In the first instance, he said that the Government had to remove all factors which could hamper the full utilization of the country’s export potential. Then he referred inter alia to the infra-structure, the facilities essential for the export of our products, and to our labour position. I doubt whether it is necessary to explain once again why we did not do what he had asked us to do in regard to the labour position, for the matter has already been discussed so thoroughly. Hon. members on that side of the House want us to open the doors more widely to the employment of non-Whites, but that is something which cannot be discussed in isolation. That is something which forms part of the greater economic development as a whole, which involves a variety of facets of our society. As this has already been thrashed out to such an extent, it is probably unnecessary for me to refer to it any further.

As far as our infra-structure is concerned, I think that a great deal has been done in recent times. The hon. member is probably aware of the fact that the large-scale export of refined coal was recently decided upon. For this purpose it was decided to build a special railway line from the Witbank area to Ermelo. We hope that this will earn for us millions of rands in foreign exchange. In so far as it is my department which has to contribute a share and do something in regard to the promotion thereof, I just want to tell the hon. member that in the negotiations my department acted as the co-ordinator and tried to co-ordinate the various departments and bodies. To be quite honest, this one under taking alone occupied my department for months in tying up the various loose ends in order to conclude the contract for the export of coal. Negotiations had to be conducted with the Railways and with the private bodies in regard to the export, etc. I make bold to say that if it had not been for the kind offices of that department in regard to this case, it would never have been possible to carry this undertaking into effect. So, this is our task, and, indeed, it is also our endeavour to promote export from time to time.

In regard to the proposals made by the hon. member for Parktown, I want to mention, finally, that he said we had to strengthen our foreign trade representation, especially in the Scandinavian countries, I may just add that our office in Stockholm is within reach of Copenhagen, Oslo and Helsinki. Of course, the hon. member will appreciate that the necessary manpower is not always available to such an extent that we can provide with such offices all the various cities where we should like to have trade representation. Recently the establishment of new trade offices in Teheran, Taipeh, Beirut and Los Angeles, and also in Wellington, New Zealand, was approved in principle by the Government. As soon as the necessary manpower, the trained people, are available, we shall staff these offices in order that we may by those means do the necessary in that respect as well. I may add that that hon. member is not the only person whose aim it is that our trade representation should be strengthened; it is definitely mine as well.

In respect of mineral exports and, more specifically, the question of a choice between the Saldanha scheme and the Port Elizabeth scheme, I should like to mention a few points. It is by no means my intention today to weigh these two schemes against each other and to compare their merits once again. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central championed the Port Elizabeth scheme, and the hon. member for Moorreesburg, in turn, stated the merits of the West Coast. What I want to try to do in respect of this matter today, is to remove as far as possible every uncertainty. The uncertainty which has been prevailing recently in regard to the choice between Port Elizabeth and Saldanha, and about which so much has been written, has undeniably caused damage to our case. I do not have the slightest doubt in that regard. In the minds of those people with whom we have to negotiate and with whom we have to enter into long-term contracts, in which millions of rands are involved, we caused damage to our case, because so much was written about this matter and because the impression was gradually created that there was no certainty in this regard. Why this was taken up in that manner, I cannot quite understand, but the impression was created that the Government had not taken definite decisions in terms of which steps could be taken. The unambiguous truth is that on 16th July, 1970, the Government decided that the Saldanha scheme had to be developed, that a railway line had to be built from Sishen to Saldanha and that Saldanha had to be developed as a harbour for the large-scale export of iron ore. That was done subject to two conditions. The first condition was that the necessary financing had to be arranged by Iscor. I do not want to enter into the details of the matter now. The second condition was that the necessary contracts had to be obtained in order that the scheme might be viable. As far as the progress of the scheme is concerned, I must inform the House now that, according to information that was made available to me, Iscor has already succeeded in making the necessary financial arrangements for the implementation of that scheme. I do not want to elaborate on the details at all, for it is not my task to do so now. Nor would it serve any useful purpose; it would only take up our time. Over the past week-end a report in this regard appeared in the newspapers. The full particulars of that report were not brought to me first. What it amounts to in broad outline, is that the necessary financial arrangements can be made. This is also the information that was given to me by Iscor before the weekend. As far as the viability of the scheme is concerned, and especially the date to which the hon. member for Parktown referred, i.e. 31st March, which will be the final date, I should like to furnish the following explanation. My personal view is that we have already made a fair amount of progress. I feel fairly optimistic about the progress that has been made in regard to obtaining this viable contract with Japan. But at the moment we are also conducting negotiations with certain steel mills in Britain and also in Europe in regard to sending our iron ore there. Japan is particularly interested, because at the moment is importing, on a large scale, its iron ores from Australia, South America and India, and it is anxious and keen to branch out as far as its iron ore supplies and provision are concerned. Japan is keen on obtaining a fourth source of iron ore as well. Hon. members are probably aware of the fact that in recent times the steel industry in the world has gone through a difficult time. Indeed, I would say that these negotiations had come a little late in the day. If they had taken place earlier, our progress would probably have been easier than was our experience at the time. Because there was a downward trend in the world demand for steel and the planning and expansion of the steel producers throughout the world was upset as a result, these negotiations did not proceed very smoothly. But Japan has nevertheless shown a great deal of interest. It asked Iscor for a tender to supply steel on a large scale. That was given in December, 1970, and the return date—in other words, the date to which the hon. member for Parktown referred—was 31st March, 1971. That is to say, before or on that date Japan had to say whether it accepted that offer. Before that date, before 31st March, the negotiators asked for an extension of time on behalf of Japan because of the uncertain conditions which prevailed and to which I referred a moment ago. They asked for the due date to be extended to October or December of this year, and because we were aware of the problems experienced in the world and especially in Japan, Iscor felt favourably disposed to the due date being extended to October and, if necessary, perhaps to December of this year. We take the optimistic view that further progress will be made in this regard and that the necessary contracts with Japan will be obtained.

Now I should just like to refer to the British and European interests in our iron ore. The British have asked for tests to be conducted in regard to our iron ore, and subsequent to that it was agreed with steel mills in England and also in Europe that certain tests would be conducted in blast-furnaces in Germany. Some of our iron ore was sent to Germany for this purpose, and it is expected that these tests will be conducted in July or August of this year. This does not cause us any concern, because we know; that our iron ore is probably the best in the world. Our iron ore has already been tested on a large scale in Japan, and there is no doubt about the fact that we have good iron ore. As far as the merits of the various schemes are concerned. I discussed them last year, and the hon. the Minister of Transport, who is of course concerned to a large extent, also furnished on 18th March of this year a very full explanation on the merits of the various schemes that had been considered. But as the Government has now decided on the Sishen-Saldanha scheme, I should like to make the position very clear today, for it seems to me that there is some confusion in that regard as well.

In the first instance, this does not mean that if the Sishen-Saldanha scheme is carried into effect, the existing exports through Port Elizabeth, which may be extended, will be discontinued. In fact, this is one of the conditions on which the Government agreed to the Saldanha scheme, namely that Port Elizabeth, with its exports, should not be prejudiced by this scheme. In other words, the exports going through Port Elizabeth at the moment, must be continued.

There is a second consideration which I stated very clearly in the Press statement I issued. In that statement I explicitly said that others would also be able to avail themselves of the Saldanha scheme; that is to say, as soon as the Saldanha-Sishen railway line has been built, not only the exporters of mineral ore, but also the exporters of other metals will be able to avail themselves of the railway and other facilities of Saldanha. Sir, personally I doubt whether South Africa can at this stage afford two schemes for the large-scale export of iron ore or minerals, i.e. schemes of the magnitude of the one envisaged in Saldanha. In the light of all these circumstances I think that, whereas the Saldanha scheme has now been decided, upon, it goes without saying that the Saldanha scheme for the large-scale export of iron ore should be proceeded with, and that it would probably not be economically justifiable to bring about at the same time extensions to Port Elizabeth for the large-scale export of minerals.

As far as this matter is concerned, I should like to say that negotiations of this nature, in which millions of rands are involved, are protracted and difficult. It is not something which can be completed within a few days. The hon. member for Parktown gave me the impression that he thought that we should strike while the iron was hot and settle the matter now. In the first instance, these negotiations in respect of major contracts are not being conducted by the Government, but by Iscor. On the other hand, we realize that major problems are involved and that time is needed for carrying such a scheme through. Articles and statements by uninformed persons appear in various publications from time to time. I want to ask these persons to stop this and, instead, to cooperate with us in our efforts to bring this matter to finality. I hope with all my heart that the few explanations I furnished here will help to remove all the speculation that existed in respect of this matter.

In conclusion there are two more points which I should like to emphasize. I think I can say without any hesitation whatsoever that the Government is in earnest about carrying the Sishen-Saldanha scheme into effect. The Government regards it as a scheme which, if it is at all viable, must be carried out. Speaking for myself as the Minister of Economic Affairs, whose involvement in this matter is probably greater than that of any other person, I am enthusiastic about the implementation of the Sishen-Saldanha scheme. My personal view is that with such a scheme one should be prepared to take risks. I have asked myself what should come first: should one first be placed in a position to deliver the goods through a scheme such as that one, or should one obtain the contracts first and then proceed with the implementation of the scheme? I do not think that the latter alternative is feasible. We shall be obliged to take some risks in regard to a major undertaking such as this one, and I think we shall simply have to content ourselves with taking some risks. My personal view is that soon as we can get our iron ore to the harbours and load the ships—in other words, when there is certainty about the delivery of the goods—there will be no lack of the necessary contracts for making this scheme a viable one. From the nature of the case it is, however, extremely difficult to negotiate for contracts and sales when one may only be able to deliver the goods in five or six years’ time. However, from the nature of the case one cannot be reckless, but I am afraid that we shall have to take some risks.

The second point I should like to emphasize, is that we should actually aim at exporting our ores in a semi-processed or semi-refined form, be it in the form of cast iron or in the form of steel. No matter what scheme we may have in view, we must equip ourselves in such a way that the necessary provision will exist for processing our ores halfway in order that everything will not be exported in the form of raw materials, as we have been doing for so many years.

I want to conclude by telling the hon. member for Parktown and those who are interested in this matter that this is the state of affairs as fax as the negotiations are concerned, and that I still take the hopeful and optimistic view that we shall be able to conclude viable contracts when we proceed with that scheme.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the plight of the South African motor industry. To the extent that the Government was right in introducing phase I in 1962 during a period of slack economy it was irresponsible and seriously wrong in its implementation of phase III in January of this year. This is borne out by a comment of the Franzsen Commission, which was detailed to give serious thought to this matter, when it reported that the commission found that it could not accept that from the national viewpoint, the capital involved in phase III, that is R160 million over the six years, was being utilized in the most advantageous way. If we have regard to the original concept of dr. Norval which appears in report No. 613 of the Board of Trade which initiated the first concept of local industry content, we find that the main purpose was and still is, to increase the local content of motor vehicles progressively without affecting the country’s economy or the cost structure of the motor industry detrimentally. Just how detrimental it is we all see today from the high price of motor vehicles. Then we have dr. Kuschke, who again, speaking to an audience in Johannesburg said:

That is from a man who is a proponent of phase III, but a purely subjective one, because dr. Kuschke, as chairman of I.D.C., merely wants to push his ferroform casting industry irrespective of the cost either to the motor manufacturing industry or to the man in the street.

The hon. the Minister has been guilty of arrogance. The Government must now stop pushing around the motor industry. It must stop pushing around the car user. It must stop pushing up transport costs, and it must stop pushing up the cost of living for the man in the street. In fact, the Government is in a complete mess over its present policy for the motor industry. Too many of its spokesmen, too many of its departments are at sixes and sevens. The hon. the Minister knows very well that we can only have a viable motor industry if those manufacturers on the market can have reasonably long runs and reasonably infrequent model changes. But what do we find? The hon. the Minister enforces phase III implementation, concomitant to which is the necessity for long runs, and high capital investment. Profitability is possible only if there are long runs. But the hon. the Minister of Finance comes in February of this year and says that the consumers must be disciplined, we must cut down consumer demand. We must not buy motor cars. So what have we? This fantastically large industry is told to go ahead in one breath and to stop in the other. The result is the chaos which we have today.

The fact is that phase III of the local content programme in the motor industry can only result in excessive cost escalation forcing up car prices, transport costs and the cost of living unwarrantably. The following is a comment from paragraph 565 of the report of the Franzsen Commission. It is stated that capital is being employed wastefully through unnecessary in-plant manufacture of items such as bodies, axles, gears etc. and through costly tooling for uneconomic runs. I put one plea and that is for the public of South Africa. Because it we must have long model runs, then we cannot take advantage of the tremendous technological advances which are taking place in the motor industry in Britain, America and on the Continent. Let us not rob the public of the tremendous technological advances which are taking place in the motor world today. Let us rather insist more on the quality and finish of South African manufactured cars delivered to the car buyer with special reference to safety of design and technical efficiency.

I put forward what may be a novel concept. With the assistance of the Bureau of Standards and the C.S.I.R., would it not be possible to introduce the concept of a vehicle star rating similar to the existing hotel star rating, whereby the car purchaser could be reasonably protected against shoddy finish and mechanical defects in new cars? Then we could have tough supervisory regulations which could be policed by the South African Bureau of Standards. Then I want to put forward another concept which may appeal to our pollution-minded Minister. Would it not be possible, and could we not well give thought to the introduction of a surcharge on the price of each new vehicle at the time of purchase of R5 or R10? This could provide for the automatic removal of any abandoned or derelict vehicle. Thereby we could introduce a very necessary protection against the disfigurement of our countryside by the many motor graveyards and individual vehicles which litter our landscape to present.

The Franzsen Commission has recommended that there should be a drastic reduction in the number of models. It has introduced the concept of a popular utility family car or a car we could call a box on wheels, in other words, an absolute austerity car. They suggested that each manufacturer should be allowed to produce only one such car for local manufacturers. I submit that in this the commission has erred grievously and that it has taken no account of the fact that in 1962 the Government, the motor industry and the Board of Trade and Industry rejected this concept of a limited number of models in favour of the market mechanism influencing decisions on how many models should be produced at any time or by any one plant. I put forward a plea that we should allow the motor industry in this country to be guided only by the free market mechanism. The choice of the consumer and the decision of the manufacturer should dictate the number of models which should be available to the public. If this is not done, many quality vehicles may vanish from the scene. Vehicles with an annual production of 4 000 units may in that case vanish from the scene and these could include some of the highest quality cars. I do not want to mention trade names, but many users would then be without the vehicle of their choice. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to reject the concept of a popular car which is tantamount to the licensing of the industry and which is anathema both to the public and to the motor manufacturers.

Then I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to halt phase III, in other words, to accept the recommendation of the Franzsen Commission in that regard. He should revert to the 52 per cent concept arrived at by 1970 and he should allow a five year moratorium which would allow all parties interested to reassess the enormity of the problems involved in bringing the total component content from 52 per cent up to 66 per cent, largely through 201C;in-plant201D; manufacture. I ask the hon. Minister to reject any in-plant manufacture which involves an uneconomic waste of capital and which is high cost inducing.

Finally I would ask that these recommendations which I have put forward today be given serious consideration. It is the public which is not represented in talks concerning the motor industry. The motor industry is, the Government departments are, Dr. Kuschke, the Chairman of the I.D.C. is, but the ordinary consumer has no say whatsoever. He is seeing the cost of living going up exorbitantly through no fault of his own. We must realize that in this country the motor industry provides a basic necessity for the man in the street.

In Conclusion I would like to refer briefly to the impact of increasing light commercial vehicle sales on the profitability of the motor manufacturing industry as a whole. The hon. the Minister’s department has not been able to supply up to date figures, but I would submit, and the Minister may correct me, that between 75 000 and 95 000 commercial vehicles were sold last year of which some 65 000 were light commercial vehicles. How many of these vehicles were imported on their wheels or CKD, free of import duty, free of sales tax and free of H.P. restrictions, I do not know and the hon. the Minister does not know either. I do understand that this trend is having a tremendous impact as these light commercial vehicles are so cheap in relation to the vehicles manufactured by the motor car industry, with the result that this industry does not stand a chance; hence the short time the industry is working today.

The hon. member for Cape Town Gardens devoted two speeches to the motor industry. He elaborated on that topic at very great length, but I think I am correct when I say that he did not succeed in really diagnosing the state of the disease as it should be seen. What he did in fact do, and there can be no doubt about this, is that he uttered a whole series of sweeping statements.

Oh, no!

That hon. member was not here when the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens made his first speech. The first sweeping statement made by the hon. member I want to deal with is his allegation at the beginning of his first speech that as a result of the tremendously difficult position in which this industry now finds itself, there is going to be great unemployment. He also referred to other crisis situations which are now going to arise as a result in the decline in the sales of motor vehicles. In the same breath the hon. member advocates, however, that phase III should be postponed, and if I understood him correctly, what he actually wanted to sec was phase Ill being abandoned completely.

Of course, yes.

Phase III is in fact calculated to create greater opportunities of employment.

Nonsense!

Let us see what Dr. Kuschke said. He said that phase I would require a further investment of R80 million.

But the Minister said RI60 million.

So much the better. The greater the investment the greater the number of opportunities for employment that are going to be created must also be. The hon. member’s allegations were merely intended to chase up a hare, but there were really no hares. On the other hand it is also true that although there are problems, and I shall indicate in a moment why those problems have arisen, and there has been a decrease in the number of motor vehicles sold, it is nonsensical to think now that there is going to be a total cessation of sales and that no more motor cars are going to be sold. No one will deny that there are problems. It is also true that the motor industry is a very important enterprise in this country. When one considers what Dr. Kuschke said, one sees that 14 per cent of the total industrial investment in this country is represented by the motor industry. As the hon. member said, the motor industry provides 113 000 people with work, of which 43 000 are in the manufacturing sector. It is also true that the investment in motor component plants increased from R20 million in 1964 to R150 million. The total investment in the 14 assembly plants amounts to R180 million. It is therefore true that it is a very important industry, but we may not lose sight of the fact that there is another side to the picture as well. What is disturbing is the fact that the annual sales since 1954 have increased more or less sixfold. In 1970 alone the total number of vehicles sold was 202 000. Almost R1 500 million was spent in 1970 on the purchase of new and second-hand motor cars, spares and repair services. This is alarming in the sense that it was one of the greatest contributory factors to the tremendous inflation we are faced with today. I do have a little contact with the motor industry. The standpoint of those people has been throughout that they do not mind about these measures having been taken by the Minister. All that they say, is that the Minister could have done it sooner, because then they could have recovered sooner from the shock. The public has in fact become accustomed now to continually purchasing new motor cars in this luxurious way.

I want to mention another disturbing fact. Something drastic will have to be done to reduce the number of models on the market. There can be no doubt about that. There are far too many models. I want to advocate at once that the hon. the Minister should give consideration to taking other steps besides those which have already been taken in order to rectify this matter. I think that if the number of models were to be restricted, the increase in the number of vehicles sold would also be restricted.

But it is not enough to discuss the problems being experienced by the industry. One should also discuss the problems the public are experiencing with the industry. These problems are very seldom raised. I want to say immediately that I realize that in the retail trade the profit margin on vehicles is very limited. I understand it is only 16½ per cent, from which certain deductions still have to be made. However, if we look at the profits made by the retail trade in motor vehicles, one is astonished at the extent of those profits. Listening to the jeremiads one cannot but ask oneself whether it is possible to make so much profit. I want to allege this afternoon that it is only possible to make those profits by means of what I want to call the shameless exploitation which occurs in the workshops in this country. I want to say at once—let there be no doubt about this—that it is not the employee who is responsible for that. It is the employer, the man who eventually pockets that money. Do you know what happened recently here in the Cape? To quote only one example, in a particular case the wheel alignment on a motor car had to be adjusted. What happened? After the work had been completed, there were two figures on that work card which I want to quote this afternoon. It said there that the time allowed for that work was 3½ hours. The time taken, which had been entered there, was 1½ hours. I do not want to discuss that now—it was far less. But when it came to paying, those 3¼ hours’ work had to be paid for. I say it is a disgrace that the public of South Africa should be exploited in this way. I want to advocate very seriously to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that steps should be taken by his Department to put an immediate stop to this kind of exploitation of the public, which contributes to the soaring cost of living in the country. I think we owe it to the public of South Africa. I want to say again that I do not blame the worker—I blame the employer because he is the man who, after all, exercises control over that work and who pockets those profits.

Mr. Chairman, I want to plead with the hon. the Minister that he should take the House and country into his confidence about the attitude of the Government to the phase III programme for the motor industry, the programme to raise the local content of cars even further. This matter was first raised during this Session by the Leader of the Opposition during the no-confidence debate. I raised it during the Budget Debate. It has also been raised today. But we are still awaiting an answer. I do not think that the hon. the Minister will ask us to accept the contribution of the hon. member for Springs, who did his best in the circumstances, as an answer to our arguments. I think the hon. the Minister should seriously consider whether it is wise and advisable that for reasons of prestige only—and those are the only reasons we can find adduced for this policy—we should continue with the phase III programme at a time when there is inflation, at a time when the Government is deliberately trying to reduce consumption and is forcing the sellers of motor cars to accept a reduced turnover. That is a simple question that we should like to put to the hon. the Minister. We can find no merit for it in the present circumstances, however much our patriotism and desire to achieve things in South Africa may counsel us to accept phase III. We can find no advantages in the present circumstances in this policy. We can only see that it must increase inflation because at a time when other factors as well are inducing inflation the Government comes with a deliberate policy to have motor cars constructed up to almost 70 per cent by using components which have to be produced in short uneconomic runs in South Africa where the sales of motor cars must necessarily be small.

I will show the House the effect of this. I have given the House certain information before, but I now have later figures. I again would like to remind the hon. the Minister of the tremendous difference in price between motor cars in South Africa under the phase II programme and the price users pay in the countries of origin. I have here a few examples in various price classes. I repeat that the price of those cars manufactured in Germany does not include the German purchase tax which is about 11 per cent. It does not, however, alter the tremendous differences. For the two-door Opel Kadet sedan the German retail price is R1 114. If that car is landed in South Africa—and this is a just comparison and the cost of shipping, insurance and South African taxes are added, we find that it could sell in South Africa for R1 364. We pay for the South African model R1 652 The Ford 20M sedan, a medium priced car, landed from Germany and subject to our taxes, etc., would cost R1 960. We, however, pay in South Africa R3 009. There is an increase from R1 960 to R3 009, or of more than R1 000. Let us take the little Volkswagen 1300. This car can be landed in South Africa and sold here including the necessary costs, for R1 284. But if you buy the South African made model without phase III, the price is R1 598. The Audi Super 90 if imported and sold in South Africa will cost R1 861. We, however, pay for the South African assembled model R2 880. A car in the luxury class, namely the Mercedes, imported from Germany, would be sold for R4 140. The South African consumer, however, pays R6 055 for that car. That is the present position. It is a high price to pay for the achievements under phase II. But South Africa is willing to pay that; we are facing an accomplished fact. It does give us satisfaction that so much of motor cars can already be manufactured in South Africa. But phase III, which will now put up these prices further and which will deprive South Africa of important developments in the motor car industry, does not make sense.

If the Government can succeed with its policies to restrain and eliminate inflation and inflationary pressures, a new situation would arise and we could talk again, but to continue with it now does not make sense,

Before I go further, I have here also the price of the Volkswagen 1300 in Germany, with sales tax. In Germany it costs R1 147, with sales tax, and in South Africa it costs R1 750. There is R600 difference on a small car like that, and in view of that a further increase in price for the sake of prestige only cannot be justified. Sir, what advantages can we get? We are told that the plan is not of strategic importance, and indeed it is not. It is not of strategic importance at all because passenger vehicles are the vehicles least used in times of emergency and in times of war. If you had strategic considerations, you would concentrate on trucks and chassis which can be used for armoured cars, tanks and things like that. You would concentrate more on commercial vehicles which could transport armaments, and passenger cars would be restricted. But the commercial vehicles and the other things are excluded from phase III.

It does not make sense. This will not mean that prices will come down. It is not of strategic importance. It will not save currency, because with our limited resources, if we want to have any sort of motor car which complies with modern requirements, frequent and vast investments of capital will have to be made and the machinery and the capital goods required to make these cars will have to be imported. So what are the advantages? But look at the disadvantages.

One of the most important disadvantages is to increase inflation. The other is that it will limit the number of models. By some strange quirk of thinking which I cannot explain, there are some so-called experts who advise a limitation of models in South Africa, but what will the result be? Here I have in this afternoon’s newspaper a speech by the chairman of the Schus Motor Organization at his annual general meeting, in which he says—

It is very nice for them, Sir—

What does this mean? Because as the result of Government initiative and Government compulsion, the number of models will be restricted, prices will be increased, and components will be more expensive because of the short runs. The Government is going to be under pressure from the remaining car manufacturers to exploit the public even more than is the case today because the Government cannot deny responsibility for the fact that we have fewer and more expensive motor cars. That is what we are getting.

And, more important, the South African public will be denied the full benefit of modern developments in the technique of manufacturing modern motor cars. Already I have this example, that a Volkswagen 1600 in South Africa is a motor car inferior to the one made in Germany. The Volkswagen 1600 has a completely changed body and a technically far more advanced and considerably more expensive front and rear suspension. It is a safer car; it is a better motor car, but we do not get those benefits because of the phase III programme. They cannot afford the new tooling and the new machinery to give us these immediate benefits. But, including taxes, the superior model sells in Germany for R.1 233 and the inferior model sells in South Africa for almost R2 000. That is what we are being landed in.

We are on the eve of tremendous developments in the manufacture of motor cars. Anti-pollution measures are going to change the whole concept of the internal combustion engine. Already we know about the Wankel rotary engine, which may revolutionize the motor car industry. What we are doing now in terms of phase III may have to be redone in a year or two. The whole investment may have to be made over again. It is therefore not only the question of an inflationary period which counsels against the continuation of this scheme; the possibility of major developments in the engineering technique of motor manufacture tell us that the Government would be stupid to go on with this. Therefore, hoping against hope that for once the Government will not be stupid, I beg them to delay this plan until we have conquered inflation and until we know more clearly what the future developments will be in the manufacture of motor cars.

Sir, I do not want to talk about Volkswagens; I should like to return to the general economy of this country. In this connection I want to refer to a statement made in a survey by Union Acceptances Limited (UAL) in which they say that the signs for our economy, generally speaking, are now favourable (translation)—

Sir, we are grateful for this, but we are also grateful for the fact that over these past 10 years this country has, under the care and management of the National Party, risen to heights it had never known before. We need only in passing refer to reports such as that of Mr. S. R. Back, president of the Federated Chamber of Industries, who states—

Then there is the statement by Mr. W. B. Hotels, general manager of the S.A. Foreign Trade Organization—

Then there is a statement by Dr. Frans Cronjé. He was a United Party man in his day; I am aware of that, but even be could not endure staying in that United Party and that is why he moved in another direction. His statement reads—

It is clear therefore that during these 10 years of the Republic our economy has progressed in this wonderful way.

I know that we are now facing bottlenecks. The hon. the Minister posed the question of what we should now do. I am aware of the fact that the entry of Britain to the European Common Market is going to constitute great problems for us; we are aware of the fact that it will result in bottlenecks for us. Precisely for that reason I think it is our task—and the hon. the Minister asked us to turn our thoughts in this direction—to establish what course we should follow in the absence of those benefits which we will have to forfeit in the process. I think that in this connection our country should think of a broader economic community. In fact, there are very clear indications that our economy and our economic boundaries already extend much further than our political borders; we are thinking of the trade it is already possible for us to conduct with satellite and other states around and with us here. We realize that the entry of Britain to the European Common Market is merely a materialistic move, that it is not a sentimental move. That is why it is also our duty and task to find new clients for ourselves, to open up the prospects of new resources for ourselves.

It is correct, as the hon. the Minister said, that this European Common Market idea is primarily economic; that is so, but secondarily, it also constitutes a politico-economic idea in the more general sense. That is why I think that we in South Africa, with this brilliant economy of ours, must also think and give substance to the idea of the establishment of a South African Common Market here at the southernmost point of Africa. Sir, on that score I agree with Minister M. C. Botha who was quoted in the Argus, when he spoke along these lines, as saying—

I want to suggest that we in South Africa, in this sphere, already have at our disposal a common basis in relationship to our neighbouring states. When I speak of neighbouring states, I am thinking in particular of our immediate neighbouring states, such as Swaziland, Lesotho, Botswana and others. When I speak of a common basis, I am referring to the Customs Union Agreement which was concluded in December, 1969, which is also know in common parlance as the “toll agreement”. This agreement provides in very specific terms for quite a number of matters of common importance in the sphere of the economy between these areas and the Republic. Inter alia it is clearly accepted in this agreement that there will be no inter-State restrictions in regard to local products which are cultivated, produced or manufactured in the common area.

This ensures that we have an unlimited flow of our goods which are produced in this country to these areas, because there are no real customs borders. This will, and this must stimulate our industries. 1 think that we can extend this idea on a much wider basis than it is on at present. I am saying this particularly in regard to Swaziland where there is a tremendous amount of White capital, and also because Whites in that area already have rights of ownership. I think that it is a completely natural deduction that the economy of the area of Swaziland, for example, can be totally integrated as being dependent on an interstate basis with the economy of the Republic of South Africa.

We recall that recently the hon. the Minister of Forestry told us that we were heading for a tremendous shortage of timber, and we are aware of this. We are thinking of the potential resources which exist in Swaziland which we could incorporate with our marketing of timber, and of the great benefits this could bring us. with a view to the shortage which is going to arise, we could spare our own supplies in this way. I have read in financial journals that there is already talk of a possible power link, with Swaziland. There is talk of a possible rail link with Swaziland. I want to support this idea. I think it is a sound idea because it can be comfortably implemented. In this way we already have good and convenient tarred roads, etc., and in my opinion, if we think in this direction, i.e. the supply of electricity and of rail facilities, will probably constitute great benefits not only for that area but also for us as the principal partner in this constellation.

I now want to conclude. It is necessary, when one has interests in common, to have common protection. Inter-dependent economic ties create in their turn sound relationships. These countries adjoining and near us will not for many years be self-supporting, and this could lead to something very interesting and of major significance in the interests of the Republic of South Africa,

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ermelo made a number of interesting remarks concerning a South African common market. In general that proposal has considerable merit in my opinion. It is a matter which may well be discussed further to great advantage, if not in this debate, then, indeed, on national level.

I have two matters I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. The first will probably come as no surprise to him, because it concerns television and the task entrusted to him and his department. As he will recall, he was asked on 29th April to nominate members of the Departments of Commerce and Industry to serve on the technical advisory committee. This committee is going to be a kind of management committee for matters concerning television. I want to know whether he has done this, and who those persons are.

†One of the more important tasks of this committee will be to safeguard the public against exploitation through the manufacture of obsolete television sets. In this connection the Cabinet, according to the Minister of National Education, gave the hon. the Minister a directive on the 27th April that he should promote, in cooperation with other interested parties, the establishment of a local industry for the manufacture of television receiving sets. I do not necessarily agree with that directive. As a matter of fact, I find some ominous overtones in it. The hon. the Minister must have applied his mind in the meantime, during the past month or so, to this important directive which he has received, and I should like to know what steps he contemplates along these lines. We would have no objection if he were to lay down certain standards of safety and specifications for the manufacture of such sets, but he has now been given the task, with interested parties, of establishing what is almost a television set manufacturing system in this country. One would like to know how far he intends going, because we on this side believe in the free enterprise system. We would not like to countenance anything which would interfere with that system, a system which has been working well in the past. I am thinking, for instance, of some arrangement which might give to the Industrial Development Corporation or an allied body almost monopolistic power in the manufacture of television sets. The hon. the Minister must have applied his mind to this matter, and I hope that we shall have a reply from him in this regard. It is almost a Gilbertian situation, and it is almost ludicrous to think that this Government, which attacked television at one time as one of the greatest evils and menaces of the modern civilization, is now to go into the manufacture of these little evil black boxes. It is almost the same as a church going into the business of drug peddling. All the same, Sir, the hon. the Minister has a task, and I do not want him to do nothing. He has the task of helping to make the introduction of television easier by laying down certain necessary specifications and by opening the way for free enterprise in the manufacture of these television sets.

Another subject I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister is the whole system of subsidies paid to local film manufacturing companies, and the conditions under which these subsidies are granted. I agree with some of these conditions, which are excellent. For example, the first condition is that the company must be a South African one, for the purposes of income tax payments and so forth. Secondly, some 75 per cent of the wages paid by such a film company, apart from certain high wages which might be paid to an imported star or producer, must go to South African subjects. What I do find strange, however, is the way in which these subsidies are calculated at present. The subsidy is not based on the cost of the film, on the wages paid or anything of that nature. The subsidy is based on the gross receipts at the box office, and that is what I find strange and in certain respects, almost indefensible. A condition has been laid down that no subsidy is to be paid to a film company if the box office receipts of the film it has made do not reach R50 000. This means that if a film grosses R49 000 at the box office, the company receives no subsidy. On the other hand, if the film raises R51 000 at the box office, the company can receive a subsidy of R27 000. Once a film gains gross box office receipts of R50 000, the film company receives a subsidy of 44 per cent of the total box office receipts, including that R50 000, if the film is in English and 55 per cent of the box office receipts if it is in Afrikaans. Then, for some inexplicable reason which I should like the hon. the Minister to explain, it receives, in the case of an English film, 56 per cent of the box office receipts in the Cape Province and 70 per cent of the box office receipts if the film is in Afrikaans. Why is there the difference between the box office receipts, as a basis for the calculation of subsidies, in the Cape Province and that in the other three provinces?

I will now show hon. members how strange this subsidy is. If the costs of the manufacture and distribution of an Afrikaans film plus the wages were R60 000 and the box office receipts were R250 000, that film costing R60 000, is subsidized to the amount of R137 000. That is apart from the box office receipts of R250 000. In other words, the film costing R60 000, gets a total income including the subsidy, of close on R400 000. Of that amount, R137 000 is being paid by the taxpayer from money that we vote in Parliament. There is something wrong with this system. I think it should be revised. I am afraid that this system, at the moment, is encouraging the making of cheap, popular and low grade films. I admit that we have made some excellent films. But this type of subsidy is encouraging the making of unsatisfactory films. It can also lead to large interests which control production, theatres, cinemas and other distribution points breaking a producer by refusing to show a film or limiting its distribution in order to gain these huge and strangely calculated subsidies for their own products.

There has been another development in regard to the film and distribution industry in this country which I should like the hon. the Minister to go into. I do not want to mention any names, but a company has been formed in South Africa which is an associate of a huge American film distributing organization. This huge organization and its affiliate have been buying South African films for distribution on foreign markets and, as a quid pro quo, they obtain the right to distribute those films locally, In other words, this big American combine now has the right to distribute these films locally in return for the right of distributing them abroad. It means that this big company is getting much of these very large subsidies which are being paid in respect of those films, because these subsidies are paid on the gross box office receipts. Those moneys go to the distributor and not to the person who made the film and sold it to this distributing company.

I mention these matters because I feel they do need investigation. Basically I do think it is essential that the whole basis on which the subsidies are calculated should be investigated. There should be an immediate revision of them. It is strange that a subsidy is paid on an article without taking into account what it cost to produce that article. It is based on an entirely different factor, namely the gross box office receipts. The greater the gross box office receipts are, the bigger the subsidy. The less need there actually is for a film manufacturer to be assisted, the greater is the help that we as taxpayers give him. I believe in the encouragement of the South African film industry. We supported that. We still support it. If there have to be subsidies, I agree that there should be. But let us please consider the way in which the subsidies are calculated and let us see whether a more logical and more economical way cannot be found in which these subsidies can be calculated than basing them simply on gross box office receipts as at the moment.

Mr. Chairman, I am really not equipped to follow up on what the hon. member for Orange Grove said. My knowledge of films is limited to the few films one goes to see. I must agree with him that there is little that satisfies one in the films one sees.

However, the subject I want to touch upon is one that has repeatedly been raised by the hon. member for Simonstown. The hon. member for Simonstown and I have got to know each other well over a number of years because we have opposed each other in elections. Because I would willingly lose to a man I respect, I should very much like to accept the fact that the hon. member made his remarks in this House with the object of promoting this industry, and that the hon. member intended to make a contribution here in the interests of the nation and to find a solution to the problems we are faced with in this fishing industry. I must concede that this afternoon the hon. member conducted himself with greater responsibility in this House than he has done previously. But if I look at the way in which he tackles his crusade, it appears to me that his motive is not always in the interests of the nation, in other words his motive is not always the promotion of our fishing industry. It seems to me as if his motive is rather to get in a few jabs and to unburden himself of a bit of gossip about fishing. The hon. member must forgive me, but that is the impression I gained from his first three speeches about this subject in this House. This afternoon the hon. member challenged the Minister to mention a few misrepresentations to him. I want to tell the hon. member that in the process of delivering his speeches, and in the remarks he made here, he was guilty of quite a few half-truths and untruths. I hope I shall have enough time to get around to them and point them out. I think that this conduct on his part was solely intended to offend leaders of the National Party, leaders on this side and a previous Minister, and to try to place them in a bad light. However, one thing upsets me, and that is that his colleagues in the United Party allow him to continue in this vein without contradiction. In precisely the same way the hon. member for Port Natal was allowed to make a lot of offensive remarks last week. He was, to tell the truth, encouraged by his gallery behind him. Such conduct is apparently regarded as being heroic by the United Party. I should like to know how the United Party feels about such offensive conduct in this House. Where does the hon. the Leader of the Opposition stand in this matter? He did not reply to the hon. the Minister of Community Development's challenge last week, and this causes me to wonder where he stands in respect of this particular matter. We should like to hear about it, because we want to know what the United Party’s attitude is in respect of remarks that are solely meant to be offensive and are solely meant to be gossip.

But let us go on. The hon. member for Simonstown has apparently set himself the task of getting at ex-Minister Jan Haak in his penultimate speech. He succeeded to such an extent with his remarks that he gained a broad, front page heading in the Cape Times of 15th April, 1971. It reads: “Diedericks, Haak accused by Wiley.” I must say that he gained good newspaper headlines. However, we must now look at this complaint he had against my predecessor in the Bellville constituency. What is his complaint based on? In passing he simply mentions, inter alia, and this is one of the untruths he uttered …

Is the hon. member reading from the report of the debate?

No, but I could quote from the debate, because I have the report here. In passing he simply mentions, inter alia, that Mr. A. J. Marais is Mr. Jan Haak’s partner in a firm of attorneys. This is devoid of all truth. The hon. member could easily have ascertained the facts, because he could have asked me. After all, I sit here with the hon. member and he and I know each other. Mr. Marais is my partner and not Mr. Haak’s. Mr. Haak left that firm as far back as 1958. Since 1958 Mr. Haak has had nothing to do with that firm. Now the hon. member comes along and blatantly creates the impression in newspapers and in his Hansard that this is still a fact today. It is, admittedly, not a very essential fact, but I nevertheless want to say that by these misrepresentations and distortions of the truth, the hon. member creates an impression that could well have been avoided. After all, he could have ascertained the facts from me. In column 4376 of Hansard of 14th April of this year, he accuses Mr. Haak of the alleged over-exploitation of our fishing waters. The best evidence he can cite in support of that statement is the simple fact that Mr. Haak was the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs during the years 1961 to 1964. That is the only evidence he can cite to this effect.

I now want to say at the very outset that except for a small quota of 10 000 units of crawfish that was granted to live crawfish exporters in the 1969-’70 season, Mr. Haak never allocated any crawfish quota during his term of office. The hon. member has to concede this, and I think he will. However, he is trying to create the impression that it is Mr. Haak who allowed the over-exploitation as far as fishing is concerned. I also want to say that the fish meal concessions that were granted to Paternoster, Suid-Oranje and National Fisheries…

No, Orange River Fisheries.

Yes. These concessions were granted at a time when Mr. Haak was the Minister of Planning and had nothing to do with Economic Affairs. However, the hon. member is trying to create such misrepresentations. In fact, during his years of service as Minister of Economic Affairs, from 1967 to 1970, Mr. Haak did, in fact, take cognizance of the representations that were forthcoming during 1965-’66 for a proper investigation. In 1966-'67 the basic work was done in connection with the consolidation of the fishing industry, in respect of both South-West Africa and the Republic of South Africa. On 16th August, 1967, during his term of office, the commission of inquiry into the fishing industry was appointed and the first report was available by the second half of 1969. Immediately the very first report was received, the quotas were changed. The quotas, which were always granted on an annual basis, were changed and the balance of the quotas which had not yet been used at that stage, was cancelled and a new quota was then allocated for the 1969-'70 catching season, as it still applies today for a catching season. As the hon. member himself admitted, that quota was reduced to 280 000 units in the light of the report of the commission of inquiry. While the quota was previously 345 000 units, it is now 280 000 units. In the 1970-'71 season, that quota, as the hon. member knows, was reduced to 175 000 units. This was done in the light of the information that became available as a result of the commission’s investigation. What is more, the local market, which was previously estimated at 50 000 units, was included in the new quota from 1969. A further restriction on the catching of crawfish. In the meantime the export quotas to Africa were revised to such an extent that the 5 000 units of 1969 were reduced to 400 units.

I regard this as the responsible conduct of a Government and of a Minister. What did they do? They appointed a commission of inquiry and acted in terms of the recommendations of that commission. In terms of the recommendations of that commission there was a reduction in the quotas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to reply to what the hon. member for Bellville has said, because I am sure that the hon. member for Simonstown will deal with his speech at a later stage. I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to border industries and to inquire from him what is his policy in regard to border industries, What criterion does he apply when he decides that an industry must go to the border? The industrialists are very concerned about the border industry policy, particularly old established industries. Many industries have established themselves over the years, some over 50 years. Over the years they have trained their staff in highly skilled techniques. They have a certain measure of non-European Labour although not a very high ratio. They get concerned when they contemplate any expansion plans, especially in regard to additional machinery or alterations to buildings. When they contemplate these operations they come up against the department's lengthy questionnaire asking them their number of employees, what they export, what their potential is, how many Coloured employees, how many Indian, how many European and how many Bantu employees they have. A long time usually elapses before they get a decision, and if they do get a decision it is generally made quite clear to them that they may be destined to go to the border eventually. It is a very serious matter if an industry has to dig up its roots and go to a border area, particularly an industry which has been established in one of our cities for many years, because not only do they have to transfer their capital and their capital assets out to the border areas, but they may have to realize assets and replace them at enhanced cost. For example, a factory which was established 40 or 50 years ago has its assets, buildings and land at a very nominal value in its books, but when they have to consider transferring those assets out to the country and realize their assets in the city, it is a matter of quite considerable moment to them. They are concerned with the cost of transferring their capital assets and transferring their employees and in many cases the employees refuse to go. A highly skilled technician, if he realizes that he has to go to a border area, must think of his family; he has to dispose of his house and endeavour to get a house in the border area, and he must arrange new facilities for his children. In some cases it involves taking the children away from school and sending them to a boarding school, all because of the fact that the factory concerned moves out to the country. On the border of my own area we have the border area of Hammarsdale, which has virtually been closed to further development. There are a limited number of industries there, but not 20 miles from Hammarsdale there is Pinetown, with over 170 factories, but Pinetown is not a border area. Although Pinetown on both flanks has large Native Reserves, it is not regarded as a border area. The City of Durban, which has two large Reserves on its border, is not regarded as a border area either, but Pietermaritzburg, which is some 40 miles from Pinetown, is regarded as a border area. So when an industry in Pinetown or one in Durban contemplates development and increasing its size, they are faced with a departmental query which in many instances gives small industries the jitters and they have to decide what they will do next. Building up an industry is a lifetime’s work. We have seen the clothing industry, which was mainly White, become virtually Black today. And what concerns industry is the fact that lower standards are applied in the border areas. Lower wage rates are paid, and in consequence an industrialist is faced with the problem of deciding whether to remain where he is and take the chance that he will be able to live through the difficult days ahead, or to uproot his factory, go to the border areas and face the consequences of losing many of his best friends.

There has been more than one case in this country where the best men have chosen not to go out to the country, and I know of more than one case where they have left this country and gone overseas. Sir, we cannot afford to lose technical people; we cannot afford to lose artisans, and it is essential that the country gets some indication from the Minister of what the policy is with regard to forcing industry, not encouraging it, to the border areas. I can understand the Minister’s desire to get industries established in the border areas in those cases where new industries are to be established; I can understand it where it is done by mutual agreement, where it is considered advisable to move an industry away from a big city out to the country. But we had the case in Durban of a very large industry, the Dunlop Company, which has been manufacturing tyres in Natal for many years, where pressures were brought to bear on the company. It was indicated to them that their ratio of Bantu labour to White labour was such that if they contemplated any further extension it would be advisable for them to go to the Ladysmith area. They complied; they decided to divide their manufacturing and to move certain of their key men to Ladysmith and to keep the rest of the labour in Durban. But, Sir, that involved many hours of negotiation with the essential workers, workers who had acquired specialized techniques over the years. One gets the impression that the department regards workers in factories as labour units. They do not realize that it is essential, if industry is going to march forward in this country, to have a long period of training and the building of pride in the industry concerned, so that the worker in the factory will encourage his son to come and work in the factory. Many of the best industries in Europe have thrived because they have been there for many, many years, and there has been local pride in the industry. Today there is the tendency to break down that local pride because of the Government’s colour policy to force industry to go to the borders of the Reserves. One fails to understand how the Government comes to define a border area and a non-border area, particularly where, as in the case I have illustrated, we have towns which are flanked by border areas and these areas are no different from the reserves in the rural areas. There is no difference between a Bantu Reserve on the borders of Durban and a Bantu Reserve on the borders of Maritzburg; yet as far as tariff concessions are concerned, the Durban area is not regarded as a border area, whereas Maritzburg is regarded as a border area, and industrialists in Pietermaritzburg get all the benefits of low and special tariff rates. I suggest that it is high time the hon. the Minister made it clear to all concerned what criteria he follows in determining whether an industry is regarded as a border area industry or whether it is regarded as a non-border area industry, because we are having two standards in industry, border standards and a city standard. We have two standards with regard to labour and two standards with regard to factory organization. They are much slacker in the border areas than they are in the towns as far as factory requirements are concerned. We are having different wage standards. There is a lower wage standard in the border area, and if this continues over a period of years, the industries in the cities will eventually be killed. You will have a lower standard in the border areas, and at the same time the industries in the border areas will be at the mercy of the Bantu across the borders, who will be able to hold them up to ransom with regard to wages when they find that they are in a position to do so.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pinetown will pardon me if I do not follow up on what he said. You criticized the “kitchen”, but honestly, we cannot hear the hon. member speaking here. I therefore cannot follow up on what he said, and he will simply have to pardon me. I also want to say that the question of the fishing shares has been dealt with so thoroughly now and that the reply has been so adequate, that we on this side should now very much like to hear the reply promised us three days ago to the question of the shares of Ministers in public companies. I think we should like to hear what the reply of the Opposition side is going to be.

I should like to broach a matter today which gives me cause for much concern as representative of the wine industry and the wine farmers. It is the danger of a monopolistic trend in the liquor trade, which has clearly emerged during the last few years in particular. We are aware of the fact that there is a law which can control and prevent this phenomenon in the business life, but I do nevertheless want to try to show you that in the liquor trade a trend has developed during the last few years which is causing the wine farmer, the co-operative seller and the K.W.V. a certain measure of concern. It is true that as a result of the conditions prevailing in the liquor trade today, the lot of the wine farmer and the consumer of the product of the vine could fall into the hands of one or two major commercial groups. I read here in the 52nd annual report of the K.W.V. that the chairman of the K.W.V. has already expressed his concern about the fact, not only that the producer and the consumer may be harmed by this monopolistic situation, but that it has already been said that even the hoteliers are concerned about the possibility that they may become the victims of a cartel of wholesalers, and that this makes the question of price determination and price and other arrangements in the wholesale trade of real importance to the producer as well as to the consumer. I know that Act No. 61 of 1956, as I interpret and understand it, already places a prohibition on the acquisition of liquor licences by producers and manufacturers. The purpose of this Act was of course to impede the expansion of the so-called “tied house system”. I think that the legislature did this at the time to prevent this tied house system from developing further. But this absolute prohibition of 1956 was amended slightly in 1957 and 1965. After these statutory amendments a producer or manufacturer may in fact, with the consent of the Minister, obtain a licence now. After these statutory amendments a major change occurred in that very important take-overs in the liquor trade occurred. These take-overs were such that the Board of Trade and Industries expressed its concern, in its report No. 456M of 26th September, 1958, at the monopolistic conditions in the liquor trade.

Since 1965 we have experienced a process of take-overs and group formation in the liquor trade, which resulted in the formation of particularly strong and influential groups in the liquor trade. These groups have and control a large number of outlets. With this group formation something else occurred which gives rise to concern, i.e. the disappearance from the scene of quite a number of other wholesalers. Fundamentally there are only two strong predominant commercial groups left in the liquor trade today. The one has a predominant interest in distilling wine and the other in good wine. I say therefore that the possibility for monopolistic practices in the liquor trade are unlimited. This is a fundamental problem as far as we are concerned. May I refer again to the report of the Board of Trade and Industries. I am quoting from paragraph 78 as follows—

The hon. the Minister of Justice said something last week which did the hearts of our wine farmers good, i.e. he praised the good qualities of our natural wines and asked the northern provinces to make greater use of them. In addition to that, the hon. the Minister of Justice also said—I think I am quoting him correctly—that he thought the consumer prices of our natural wines were too high. I have already said that the hotel industry is worried about the possibility of its becoming the victim of a cartel of wholesalers, and that the question of price determinations as well as price and other arrangements in the wholesale trade is of real importance to us. This creates problems for us. The problem is such and so great that the chairman of the K.W.V., who is in fact the spokesman of our wine farmers in the Western Cape, posed a few questions. I should like to deal with three of these questions. On the occasion of his address to the K.W.V. annual meeting he asked (translation)—

His second question was (translation)—

The third question he asked was (translation)—

I think that those are very important questions which we as wine producers, and which the consumers are asking. In the past, for example, there were always various buyers who bought their wine from the wine cellars. Now there is the additional danger that the situation may arise here that the co-operative wine cellars will always have to try to remain in the good graces of one single major buyer of good wine. If they cannot succeed in doing so, they will have no alternative but to sell their produce to the K.W.V. as distilling wine at a reduced price. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend following the hon. member for Worcester. I feel pretty certain that the hon. the Minister is quite competent to reply to him. In any event, he probably has more experience of the wine industry than I have.

I see that the hon. member for Springs is not here. I am sorry about that, because I should like to reply to the charge of generalization which he made against the hon. member for Gardens, a sin which he in fact himself committed. We have heard this in the House before. I do not know whether it came from the same hon. member. Whether it is done with a view to cheap publicity I do not know. When the hon. member makes a statement about the motor trade to the effect that the public is charged for three hours in respect of one and a half hours’ work actually done, I want to say to the hon. member that unless he can bring the facts to the hon. the Minister we must reject such a statement. I think it is irresponsible and not the type of statement we ought to make in this House. The hon. the Minister's predecessor has told us about the set-up in the industry. Any motorist with a complaint has the right to go to the Minister with that complaint. The Minister in turn can pass it on to the industry. The industry itself has a complaints committee which deals with these matters. When you hear these irresponsible statements, such as that made by the hon. member for Springs, one wonders just what is behind it. Is it done for a bit of cheap publicity? Is it intended to damage the industry? Would he make the same statement about a member of the medical profession who charges a patient R20 for a visit lasting 10 minutes? Would he say that that patient was overcharged, He would not do those things, but because the hon. member wants to get a bit of cheap publicity he makes such a statement about the motor industry. I would say that every profession and every trade has its black sheep. We in the motor industry are very jealous of our position. We have tried to build it up to a very much higher standard than it was in the past. If the hon. member wants to substantiate his statement let him produce those invoices which he talked about in order that the Minister may investigate the matter. I am pretty sure that he will not be able to do that.

I should like to support the hon. members for Gardens and Yeoville in their appeal to the hon. the Minister to slow down on the Phase III production process in this country. I had a lot to do with the initial negotiations when the Government, in order to save overseas currency, encouraged local manufacturing of components for motor vehicles in this country. It was pointed out to the Government at that stage that unless there was a large overseas market for these components this would of necessity put up the price of vehicles to the customer in this country. I think the Government appreciated that at that stage. We felt that with the Government's efforts and if the climate was right, there would be a large overseas export market for the components manufactured in this country. It must be remembered that motor manufacturers are not philanthropists. While they have the interests of this country at heart, they are at the same time business men mostly controlled from overseas. They are here not for their health but in order to make money. They have the interests of the country at heart in that they would like to see South Africa prosper. Now, manufacturers of any item in the world today shop round for component manufacturing. Thousands of components are manufactured in countries miles away from the place of the final assembly of the unit, such as computers for instance. Computers may be assembled at certain centres on the Continent and in the Americas, but we know full well that the components for those computers and other intricate electronic equipment are not manufactured there. The manufacturers shop round where the market is cheapest. That forms the basis of their manufacture and production. In this country we should be in the same position. The hon. the Minister is no fool and knows that with the restrictions we have here we could probably become the greatest component manufacturers on this continent. The hon. the Minister knows that in Cape Town and in the rest of the country they are manufacturing highly technical components to assist in the defence of this country. The volume of orders that they receive makes it economical. They are also able to export these components. Unfortunately, as far as the motor industry is concerned, the runs are so small that it does not pay. Therefore the price must go up. The suggestion that we should cut down to a few models is a highly technical matter. This is something that should not only suit the factories, but should also suit the customer. We should not forget that it is the buyer who decides what you can do.

I should like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to have another look at this matter and to slow the introduction of third phase down. At this stage the buying public and the industry are not in a position to absorb the extra cost, Let us delay it. The greatest priority that we must have in this country is to increase our export markets. The hon. the Prime Minister referred to it in his address yesterday. The gap is too wide. We have to look around to see how we can do it. We do not accept that the market is saturated all over the world. I do not believe that the overseas markets are saturated. But what is wanted is an intensive sales campaign overseas, assisted by the Government. The hon. the Minister is going to spend a very small amount on overseas shows this year. We are being asked to vote the small amount of R416 000 in respect of “trade and publicity exhibitions”. It is a mere pittance when one takes into account that one country spent over one million rand to have a stand in Japan at the World Expo. I know we cannot afford such an amount of money, but R416 000 is a mere pittance. In order to survive in this country, we must export. We have been spoilt in this country by our gold reserves, our copper and our diamonds. But we have a vast mineral reserve in the form of iron ore, coal and other minerals. It is pleasing to see that the hon. the Minister of Transport has sanctioned the building of a line to open new Copperfields in the Prieska district. Next week we will deal with a Bill to this effect. All this copper will probably be exported. When I heard the hon. the Minister talking about the plans for the export or iron ore, it was pleasing. But what is happening in Australia? There they have dynamic plans for the export of iron ore from their vast iron ore mines. We should take a leaf out of their book and get on with the job. Do not let us plan for 1974, 1975 or 1976. Let us plan now. We must plan for 1971-’72. In Australia railway lines over a distance of something like 256 miles were built in 18 months by private enterprise, for the export of ore. In Australia docks are being built for the export of their vast mineral wealth, namely iron ore, not only to Japan, but also to the Continent of Europe. When we see all this, we realize the dynamic planning in Australia. But it does not only go for mining, it goes for everything. We in this country lack one thing, namely unity amongst our population and the will to get on with it. Let us please drop our ideologies and build our country to what it could be.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to follow up on what the hon. member for Salt River has said, for although he spoke at great length he said very little to which one could really react.

Since the hon. the Minister has already referred to the iron ore transportation project between Sishen and Saldanha today, I want to tell him that we in the Northern Cape, and I think the people along the West Coast as well, are grateful to have heard from him that he is optimistic about this major project which is being contemplated. We want to tell the hon. the Minister that we are delighted that he indicated to us that Iscor, as we also saw in Rapport, had found a loan of R143 million in Europe for the establishment of this Sishen-Saldanha iron ore export project. It was envisaged by the former Minister of Economic Affairs that iron ore would to an increasing extent in future have to earn foreign exchange for South Africa. That is why this wealth of ours deserves to be closely watched. Although no intensive geological surveys have yet been made in the ore bearing areas of the Northern Cape in order to establish precisely what the full potential of our iron ore resources are, it has been announced that Iscor has almost 4 200 million tons of high grade iron ore available to it in the Sishen-Postmasburg area. Since South Africa is at present making preparations to export iron ore on a large scale, there are two problems which hamper South Africa when it wants to compete on the international market. Firstly, there are the high railage costs, and the harbour facilities which are inadequate for shipping ore on a large scale. Secondly there is the economic ore stopping methods in order to compete with international prices on the international market. For this reason we are grateful to hear that Iscor has made such excellent progress with their negotiations as to obtain funds for the establishment of facilities for the export of iron ore. Therefore we pray that they will be just as successful in their further negotiations with Japan and the other states the hon. the Minister mentioned today. Our prayer is that they will be successful so that the Sishen-Saldanha project as announced by the Government, will become a practical reality.

I think that this unique project which is being envisaged will in future be a massive monument, together with the Verwoerd scheme and other major projects, to this National Party Government. It will contribute a great deal to the economic prosperity of South Africa. Once this project takes shape, the first-mentioned problem, i.e. the too high transport costs and inadequate harbour facilities will fall away. However, I should like to express a few ideas on the other problem, i.e. the economic iron ore stopping methods so that it can compete on the international market with international prices. At present iron ore can be economically exploited in the Northern Cape provided the stripping proportion is 1 to 1,5. That is to say, 1 ton of iron ore as against 1,5 tons of waste. At such a stripping ratio it means that only a quarter of the aforementioned 4 200 million tons of ore can at present be economically exploited for international competition. That is to say, only plus-minus a thousand million tons can be economically exploited. Every ton of ore stripped, has a clean yield of 75 per cent which can either be sent to domestic foundries or exported. At present, therefore. 25 per cent of the low grade ore is lost at the place of exploitation. We must turn our attention to the 25 per cent of the ore which is at present being lost, and to the great amount of ore which is at present not economically exploitable. We shall have to begin planning at this early stage already so that this may in future be of great benefit and value to South Africa.

Why should we, at this early stage already, give our attention to this matter? It is estimated that the quantity of iron ore which will have to be exploited annually for domestic use and exports, will be approximately as follows. Plus-minus 15 million tons will be required for export and plus-minus 10 million tons for domestic use. To obtain the abovementioned quantity of high grade ore means that plus-minus 35 million tons have to be exploited annually. Approximately 10 million tons are at present being lost in the process of mining and exploitation. This is the waste which is at present not being used, and in regard to which we must devise plans for processing it so that it can in fact be used. The result of this will be that this approximately 1 000 million tons of ore which can be exploited at economic prices will be depleted within the next 25 to 30 years. Then there will still be plus-minus 3 000 million tons of ore supplies left, and I am inclined to think, that there is far more than this. These ore supplies will then have to be exploited at a high cost and this will automatically have a negative influence on our own steel industry. It will also have a negative influence on the export of our ore. For this reason I feel that we should devise plans even at this stage to deal with the situation. During the past 15 years much has been written and said in the world about the refinement of iron ore, or the prereduction of ore to produce high grade crude products for the blast-furnaces and steel works. I am grateful that the hon. the Minister referred to this today and also gave his blessing to a great deal of attention being given to this aspect in future. Now I want to advocate that South Africa and the Minister should take the lead in regard to the refinement of iron ore; that South Africa should take the lead in the creation of a refined product which has no internationally competitive price and which will most certainly, with a higher profit margin, be able to earn much exchange for South Africa. If it should become a reality now that iron ore can in fact be refined, the 25 per cent of the ore which is at present lost, as well as the million tons of low grade ore which are present at greater depths and cannot at the moment be economically exploited, may be utilized.

Then I want to advocate to the hon. the Minister to consider the establishment of such a refining process at Sishen, the place where South Africa’s greatest ore resources are to be found. Here iron ore with a content of 65 per cent FE or a 40 per cent FE, that which is much deeper underground, may be refined into a product with an iron content of 95 per cent. From hence a far greater concentrate can at the same transport cost be brought to the blast-furnaces and export harbours. This will entail a saving and we would then have a product which is not internationally tied down to competitive prices. This would also entail that large quantities of ore which are at present being lost, will be utilized. At the moment there are four competing companies in South Africa exporting iron ore. Each one bids on the world market for its own price for ore. This prejudices South Africa and its competition on the international ore market. Now I am asking whether it would not be beneficial for our iron ore industry and for South Africa if a co-ordinating council were to be established by the Government which could bring about co-ordination between ore producers, which could formulate a uniform export policy and price, and which could co-ordinate this with the view to domestic consumption. That, I think, will result in the necessary planning and co-ordination in order to place this product, which has in future to earn much exchange for South Africa, on a sound basis.

I must say I find a great deal of gratification and satisfaction in listening to hon. members opposite talking about the export of iron ore. I remember so well in this House not so long ago that the then Minister of Economic Affairs or the Minister of Mines debated in this House whether we should give consideration to the export of iron ore, whether we should use this natural heritage of ours for export, or whether we should not keep it in this country for our own use in future. Well, even the Nationalist Party sometimes gets with it, and they have begun to realize that the export or iron ore can be something profitable for South Africa.

It makes me happy to hear that at least we want to export ore now, but I must say that I get very little happiness from what the hon. the Minister himself has told us this afternoon and the picture he has painted. That picture is rather a dreary one, and the reply he has given us to some of our problems which we have discussed we do not find very constructive. You see, Sir, the hon. the Minister, like the Nationalist Government, will not come to grips with the realities of the problem. The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do what our problems are in regard to exports, but he skirts around them all the time because the policy of his Government will not allow him to face up to what are the basic problems. I will come back to those problems in a few moments. For example, the hon. the Minister tells us that it is very easy to identify a problem. That is true, but he says it is very hard to find the correct answer. I think what he means to say is that it is very hard for him and his party to find the correct answer. But surely the role of government is to find the answer to these problems. What have we got a Government for? They are supposed to be a Cabinet of geniuses. Let us have some of this genius exhibited to us. Let the hon. the Minister tell us what the problems are and then let us see what answers the Government can find, because we are getting no answers; we have had none from the hon. the Minister this afternoon.

I was dealing with the E.E.C. Have you any suggestions for us?

The hon. the Minister referred to the suggestions which I made last year. I am going to compare those with what he suggests should be done. The hon. the Minister mentioned amongst other things that he did not believe that associated membership of the E.E.C. would be in South Africa’s interests. I agree with him. I said so last year. I thought that the state of our own industries was such that we could not afford to reduce our tariffs to a level which would open our market wide to other countries of the world. But I think the hon. the Minister must also take cognizance of another factor, which he did not mention.

That is that in terms of the Treaty of Rome there are certain labour provisions with which you have to comply once you become a member or an associate member of the E.E.C. In terms of Government policy one might suspect that the hon. the Minister is a little concerned about this as well. But there is another factor with which I think the hon. the Minister should have dealt and I hope he will deal with it. That is the position of Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana in relation to the E.E.C. if the United Kingdom becomes a member. What is the position of these three countries on our borders? Are they going to be associate members? Are they going to be full members? Are they not going to be members? Will the hon. the Minister tell us what the position will be of these three old territories which are now independent countries because this might affect our position very considerably.

Mr. Chairman, we welcome the information from the hon. the Minister that we are sending an Ambassador to the E.E.C. Of course, we have only been pleading for this for about six years, I think. I remember when the previous Minister of Economic Affairs, Dr. Diederichs, eventually after nearly three years, said that he was going to send an official to the E.E.C., I said to him: “Please tell me what plane he is going to catch because I want to be at the airport to see that he really goes." This is how serious the situation was. But I do believe the hon. the Minister that he is going to send a representative to the E.E.C.

Frankie Waring.

Oh no! We also think, Sir, that there is some merit in a meeting of our Ambassadors in London, with the hon. the Minister, and I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to persuade the Ministers of the E.E.C. to allow him to present his case to them. But I do not believe that these are the answers to our problems. What the hon. the Minister seems to be doing, as the Government does so often, is to take the line that if he goes on talking long enough something is going to happen; that the answer is going to fall from heaven into his lap. Because he can address the Ministers of the E.E.C., he can hold a meeting of our own Ambassadors in London about the E.E.C. and he can address the Minister of the E.E.C., but it is really not going to take his problem an awful lot further. I predict that he will still be left with his problem after all these things have happened. I want to ask the Minister what he is going to do then, because if he is going overseas now with only these three things which he has mentioned in mind, he may come back a very bitterly disappointed man. He should have another line of attack up his sleeve, if he is a good Minister of Economic Affairs.

Sir, the hon. the Minister has not told us this afternoon whether he is satisfied with what Safta is doing. We subsidize Safta to a considerable extent. I stand to be corrected, but I believe the figure is something of the order of R90 000. What has happened to the Export Promotion Council? Is it still in existence? I am told that it has been wiped out already. Is this still in existence? Is it operating? What is it doing? What advice is it giving the hon. the Minister? He has not told us this. These are the things that we want to know—the practical things, not about chats overseas, however important they may be. You see. Sir, it is no good telling exporters that they have to be more aggressive. It is no good at all. The hon. the Minister knows that appeals to people do not really produce results. Why should they be more aggressive?

Why not?

It is very simple. Because they can sell everything they produce in South Africa. That is why, and if the hon. the Minister thinks that he is going to get the businessman in this country to take the hard line of promoting sales abroad when he can sell everything the easy way in South Africa, he does not understand human nature, because this is not going to happen. It is no good blaming them. A businessman is in business to make money and as long as he has the local market to absorb all his production this is what is going to happen. Despite the enormous imports coming into this country, although only 25 per cent or one- third are consumer products, local output is still fully taken up. What we have to do is really very simple. We have to give the manufacturing sector of our community the tools to increase production. If production is increased two things will be achieved. You immediately have a hedge against inflation by more goods being available and secondly, you have a surplus of products which you have to export. These are the things we have to do —not have meetings, however useful and valuable they may be. We have to see that there is the right climate in this country so that the entrepreneurs and industrialists will invest in new capital goods and aim at greater production. We have to see that the climate is right for an expansion of existing businesses and that the basic incentive to export is present. What is the basic incentive to export? An overproduction of goods for the local market. This forces you to export. When you have goods that the local market cannot absorb, and they are exportable—and we have many—you will have to get on with the job of exporting. This incentive is not present at the moment. Whichever way we turn or twist we always come back to the one basic fact, namely that unless we increase our production, we are never going to solve the problems that are facing us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should now like to discuss a few matters which were raised by hon. members in the course of the debate. Right at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Brakpan mentioned the possibility of price control on imported goods. The hon. member for Constantia elaborated on that and criticized me because I had at one stage warned about the large profits which were being made on imported goods. It is all very well to say that a relatively small percentage of our imports are consumer goods, but I am quite convinced that those imports, even of consumer goods, could to a large extent be decreased if we take greater care to buy South African. Any person who is indifferent to the idea or to the appeal that we buy South African manufactured goods, probably does not mean it sincerely with South Africa. In fact, I do not think there is any one of us here who does not want to support the idea that we should make a definite attempt to purchase our own manufactured goods. However, what happens in practice? It is as clear as daylight to me that imported goods are subject to a very high profit. I am convinced of the fact that in many cases the profit made on imported goods is 100 per cent, and more, and may even be as high as 200 per cent. This is of course guess-work, but I am convinced of one thing, the mark-up is exceptionally high. In our local business enterprises imported goods are to be seen on all the shelves. What is indicated on these goods, apart from the price? ‘‘Imported —Ingevoer201D;. In other words, disclosing the fact that it has been imported is regarded by that shopkeeper as an attraction, as if that would be something which would influence the client to purchase that article. That is the frame of mind which exists among our people. It is an unfortunate situation and it is a pity that this should be the case. I feel that South Africa is probably not the only country in the world where that psychological impression, of thinking that something which has been imported, is inevitably better than the local products, exists. Sir, this is not the case. Our South African manufactured goods are today probably just as good. and in many cases better than the imported article. But now those shopkeepers, whom the hon. member for Constantia mentioned, are as it were putting the South African goods away.

Nonsense,

How can the hon. member for Umlazi say that? After all, it is not his province. With respect, he and I may have something to say to each other tomorrow. But this is the position. You can go and see it for yourself. I have put it to the test. I have gone to local shops here in the city and asked for good South African towels. The truth is, I could not find any good South African towels there. I found imported towels yes, at twice, three times, even four times the price one would have to pay for a good South African towel. That is why I say that it is an encouragement for the shopkeeper to present the imported goods and neglect the South African manufactured goods. The profit he makes on the imported goods is so much greater than the profit he makes on the South African goods.

There is some merit in the argument by the hon. member for Constantia that, if one were to restrict those people to make the price so much higher, it would mean that the imported article would become more attractive to the client to purchase than the South African article. That is probably true. That depends on what profit one allows the shopkeeper to make. If he were to make that same profit on the South African manufactured article, he would probably not take the trouble of importing others. I do not know what his attitude would be. But I am aware that disturbing circumstances are being caused by the fact that an article is being made attractive for our people to purchase because it has been imported. I am aware of the fact that you can pay R12 or R14 for ordinary sports shirts, simply because it comes from America or some other country, while a shirt just as good which has been manufactured in South Africa is available at R7 or R8. These are the hard facts of the matter which one must take into account. We shall have to consider this matter. I do not want to say at this moment what we are able to do about it, but I should like to avail myself of this opportunity of making our shopkeepers, our importers of consumer goods, a little more aware that they must do something about this. I also agree with the hon. member for Parktown. Of what use would it be if I were to do this? For to them there is only one consideration, and that is to make as much as possible out of the transaction. It seems to me therefore that the only thing that can be done, is that something definite should be done in this connection by the Government.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No, 23.