Mr. Chairman, I want to say to the hon. the Minister this afternoon that he and his Government are being far too complacent over the housing situation in South Africa and that it is time they looked at the facts as they are and not as they claim them to be. I want to deal firstly with the economic and sub-economic categories and then I want to say something about the other categories of housing, viz., the housing of the middle and lower middle income groups. Let us take first of all the economic and sub-economic groups. The hon. member for Port Natal has quoted figures to this House—he did so yesterday—which showed that this Government is not keeping pace with the demand for housing. I would be interested to hear what the hon. the Minister has to say about these figures. In answer to a question which I put to the hon. the Minister early this year regarding the waiting list that he has for the three race groups which fall under his control, viz., Whites, Coloureds and Indians—I refer to the waiting lists for economic and sub-economic houses—he told me that the waiting lists showed a total of 78 530 families.

What did I then say

Yes, I am coming to that; please just give me a chance. I accept the qualifications which the hon. the Minister mentioned, viz., that there is a measure of duplication, that people put their names on several lists and that this is therefore not a realistic figure. But I shall criticize him, as I propose to do in a moment, for not having produced an accurate statistical record of the actual demand for this housing. However, I shall come to that in a moment; this is another matter altogether. The fact of the matter is that there is a waiting list which is quite substantial. It may not extend to the total amount shown in these figures, viz., 78 000-odd, but it must be accepted nevertheless that there is a waiting list and that it is quite substantial. If, however, the hon. the Minister does not like figures, then I believe that there is irrefutable proof for him that he is not keeping up with the demand for this type of housing throughout the country. This irrefutable proof lies in the fact that in all the main cities of South Africa there are growing slum conditions, particularly amongst the Coloured and Indian peoples, but also amongst the Whites. He can be taken to areas in South Africa where White people are living under conditions which can only be described as slum conditions. So if the hon. the Minister is not prepared to accept figures, I believe he must accept the facts, and the facts show the growing slum conditions in the major cities of South Africa, and this, I submit, is irrefutable proof of the fact that he is not keeping pace with the demand for economic and sub-economic housing throughout the country.

The position becomes even more worrying if we look at the future. South Africa has a higher rate of urbanization than many Western countries. The fi ures have already been quoted in this debate. At present 84 per cent of the White population is urbanized. This figure is expected to grow to 93 per cent of the White population by the end of the century. In numbers, this is about 6,6 million. The same high rate of urbanization is taking place amongst the Coloureds and the Indians, and although this Minister is not concerned with the Bantu, it is very interesting to note that this very reliable source from which I have quoted states that by the end of the century, 75 per cent of the Bantu population will be urbanized. The source is no less a person than the. Chief Director of Physical Planning of the Department of Planning, Dr. J. F. Otto, in a paper presented earlier this year to the South African Property Owners’ Association. We on this side of the House would like to see proof that this Government is being realistic about the future housing needs of South Africa. It is all very well for this Minister to quote in speech after speech that South Africa is going to have to build as many houses between now and the end of the century as have been built in the last 300 years.

That is a very nice, interesting statistical figure but, Sir, we expect more than that from this Minister; we expect to hear from him what precisely are his Government’s plans to cope with this tremendous housing demand in the future, having regard especially to the fact that this Government is not even able to keep pace with the present demand, let alone this future growth. Sir, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that it is high time he produced accurate statistics of the housing needs of South Africa. He has been in this post for several years, but neither he nor his predecessors have made any attempt to produce accurate statistics of the actual housing needs of the population. I believe it would not be too difficult, for example, to produce accurate waiting lists in respect of the economic and sub-economic groups. It would not be too difficult, I believe, to have one authoritative list for a region, a list on which a person’s name is put down and. next to his name, his requirements, so that one then has a specific housing unit on that statistical record. The position, as has been explained by the Minister already, is that a man puts down his name for hiring or for buying; he puts down his name in different local authority areas, so there is a tremendous duplication. Mr. Chairman, this gets us nowhere. It helps the hon. the Minister perhaps because he is then in a position to say that these figures are not accurate and that therefore the housing position is not as bad as people seek to make out. I say it is high time that he and his Government produced accurate statistical records.

Let me now come to the other categories who do not fall within the economic and sub-economic groups. Sir, I believe that the Government has not even started to assist the lower middle income groups in their housing needs—the young married couples and so on. The hon. the Minister of Finance introduced a house-owners’ saving scheme in this Budget. If I have time later in the debate, I should like to mention some criticisms of this scheme. I see that the hon. the Minister of Finance is in the House. I am glad, because I would like to address these remarks to him also. I believe that it is high time that this Government stopped playing around, each year giving a little crumb towards the amelioration of the housing situation. They must adopt a forthright and ambitious programme which will meet the housing needs of the people, and the hon. the Minister of Finance should do a great deal more thinking on this matter, because this house-owners’ saving scheme is just not sufficient. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. member who has just sat down asked me to make a statement on the report of the Niemand Commission. I will do so in the course of my speech. He also asked me to make a statement on the symposium on high density housing which we are going to have in Johannesburg, I think, in September. I wish to make the following statement in that regard.

A symposium organized by the National Building Research Institute of the CSIR will be held at the Wanderer’s Club in Johannesburg on 26th to 28th September, 1972. Following that symposium, a separate seminar on the legal aspects of ownership for high density housing will be held on 29th September. The Sectional Titles Act will come under close scrutiny, and the seminar will be conducted by a panel consisting of representatives of, inter alia, the Department of Justice, the Department of Community Development and city councils and developers. The symposium on high density will also be attended by eminent experts from overseas countries, and the whole Republic is looking forward to the event, which will be of the utmost value to especially the local authorities and the private developers.

I have extended an invitation to the Community Development groups of both parties to attend that symposium.

Sir, the hon. member says that we are not keeping pace with the housing needs in South Africa. He wants me to supply figures. Sir, I have supplied those figures, not waiting list figures, which are completely inadequate, but figures worked out by sociologists and scientists, as to the housing needs of the White population group in South Africa, as well as the housing needs of the Coloured people, and what we are supplying at the moment.

You do not need a scientist for that.

I will give those figures later on again. The hon. member says that we must be realistic about housing and that we are not keeping pace with the present demand. What nonsense, Sir! Where does he get that from? Then he says that there are increasing slum conditions in South Africa. Where does he get that from? It is just a foolish statement that there are increasing slum conditions in this country. We have never had less slum conditions in South Africa than we have at the moment. I have seen all the slum areas in South Africa. I have been right through South Africa; I have visited all these areas. Iknow what the previous position was and I know what the present position is. [Interjection.] I was there five years ago and I was there again last year. Today, in every city in South Africa, we have less slum conditions than we had previously, and the hon. member for Kensington, who made that interjection, can ask every local authority whether that is so. Sir, I challenge the hon. member for Kensington: He has a United Party city council in Johannesburg. I challenge him to get from the Johannesburg city council a statement to the effect that there are more slums in Johannesburg today than there were two years ago. Will the hon. member get that statement from the Johannesburg city council?

He has offered to show you these conditions. Why don’t you accept his offer?

Show me what? Sir, this is the test. What does the city council of Johannesburg say? Are there more slum conditions today, or less slum conditions? [Interjection.] Of course there are slums; we have not solved the whole problem yet. After all, the Nationalist Party is a good party, but we are not so good that we can solve every problem within five minutes. I am saying that there are less slum conditions in Johannesburg today than two years ago, or three years ago, or five years ago, and I call as my witness the United Party city council of Johannesburg.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Would the Minister deny that he has had warnings from the Johannesburg city council that the housing position for Black people and Coloured people in Johannesburg is reaching crisis proportions there?

No, I have not had a warning like that at all. I do not want to express any opinion with regard to the housing conditions of the Black people, because it does not fall under my department. All we do is to supply the money. Bantu housing falls under the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. As far as the Coloured people of Johannesburg are concerned, I want to say to the hon. member for Yeoville that he is talking utter nonsense. I challenge him to get a statement from the Johannesburg city council that the position of the Coloured people in Johannesburg, as far as housing is concerned, is deteriorating.

I will get it.

I am telling the hon. member that he cannot get it. I ask him to get up now and to go and phone the Johannesburg city council.

Go and telephone them and let them send a telex.

I say that the position in Johannesburg, as far as Coloured housing is concerned, is improving all the time.

When were you last in Durban?

Not so long ago.

And what was the position there with regard to Indian and Coloured housing?

The housing position of the Indians and Coloureds in Durban is far better than it used to be, and the reason why it is not better than it is at the moment is that we have a United Party city council in Durban; that is the only reason.

May I ask a question? Does his statement refer also to conditions in the Kliptown-Kliprivierpoort area? Has he had no complaints about housing conditions in the Kliptown area near Johannesburg?

There were no complaints whatsoever.

Then you do not know your job.

I say I have had no complaints. Do you want to tell me I am lying? I tell you I have had no complaints. What do you want to say now? Am I not telling the truth?

I would like to ask the Minister whether he has had a complaint from the Durban City Council in regard to Duranta Road, near Wentworth?

Yes, I have. The hon. member for Musgrave talked about waiting lists. Does he honestly want to tell me that he looks upon waiting lists as an accurate barometer of the housing needs in South Africa? [Interjections.] It is absolutely nonsensical. In the reply which I gave him in 1971 about waiting lists, I pointed out how inaccurate waiting lists could be. I pointed out to him that the waiting list in Kimberley was 600, while we have established scientifically that the need for housing in Kimberley was only 100 houses.

*Now I want to come back to the hon. member for Green Point in regard to a few matters, and I hope he will listen now. Yesterday I accused the hon. member of having laid an absolute untruth at my door. He charged me with having said—and these were his words—that in 1969 the housing shortage in South Africa for Whites was 4 860, and that in 1972 it was 12 165. Yesterday I proved to him from Hansard that it was totally and completely untrue that I had ever made such a statement.

It was a lie.

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

I withdraw it.

He said I had said that in 1969 there was a shortage of 4 860 houses, and then he ostensibly quoted to me from Hansard that I had said there was a shortage of 12 165 in 1972. I am telling him that this is untrue. He can see from Hansard that this is untrue. If he were to read what I said on these two occasions, he would know what I said and that what he accused me of is untrue. At the time I asked him to put the matter right. He did not do so. He said other members would speak on the real needs and waiting lists. Nobody spoke on those matters.

You did not listen.

I am telling the hon. member now that when he said I had said that in 1969 there was a shortage of 4 860 houses for Whites, and that I had said there was a shortage of 12165 in 1972—I am telling him now to his face that it is not true that I said so. Now it depends on the hon. member whether or not he wants to put the matter right. I think he is in honour bound to put it right, but if he does not do so, I shall know in future what to think of this so-called honourable member.

What is the shortage? What is the difference?

I have said what it was in 1969, and in 1972 it was much less! It was most certainly not 12 000. Now I want to say this to the hon. member for Green Point. By that cunning question of his he is now trying to get out of a position which violates his honour. I am telling him it is violating his honour; but I shall leave the matter at that, and I leave it to the hon. member for Green Point to rise when I resume my seat and to say exactly what he meant. But I am telling him now that he will not.

†I now want to deal with the details brought to my attention by hon. members before I deal with the housing position as such, the housing position of the Whites, the Coloureds and the Indians. The hon. member asked me to make the report on the Rents Act available immediately the commission reports to us. That will be done and it will be considered as soon as possible.

Then the hon. member for Green Point said that persons to be resettled are uncertain of their position and that they cannot repair their houses and do not know how long they will be there still. That is nonsensical. These people are given notice. They are given three months’ notice and they are given six months’ notice and they can repair their houses if they want to, because once they are resettled and their houses are bought by the Community Development Board or by the Housing Commission or by the department, they are paid out what those houses are worth. So there is no hardship whatsoever in that connection. Then the hon. member asked about the land at Blouberg. He asked me whether that land was going to be put to future use or whether it was available to the public now. No, of course it is not available to the public now, because we bought that land and there is no township there as yet.

For how long have you been sitting on it?

It does not matter. That land was bought for future housing use and we do not sit on it.

You are sitting on it.

No, we have plenty more land than the land at Blouberg. We have land all over the Cape Province and all over Natal and Transvaal. Why do we buy this land? To prevent the increase in land prices for future housing. We buy this land to keep it in reserve for future use for housing in South Africa, so that we are not caught up in the spiral of continually increasing prices, and what is wrong with it? What is wrong with us keeping the land at Blouberg? After all, we kept the land at Bothasig for over 12 years, and what is the position today? The position today is that at Bothasig we can supply housing and we can supply erven at a cost so low that it is practically unbelievable, because we bought that land at a very low price and we do not sell it at a profit; we sell it without profit and therefore at Bothasig today we can provide erven and houses for as little as R4 000 and R5 000 and R6 000.

Is that a change of policy?

What change of policy?

Not selling at a profit.

We have never sold land at a profit. Land that we have bought for housing has never been sold at a profit. We are planning for the future. It is absolutely a wise policy to follow. It is a long-term policy. We buy up as much land as we possibly can and keep it in reserve for future use. And that is why I encourage local authorities to do the same; I think it is a very wise policy, and a policy we shall continue with in future.

Then the hon. member for Green Point talked about my difference with local authorities, and he mentioned Stellenbosch, Pretoria and Mossel Bay. Sir, let me say this. The co-operation between my department and local authorities is as good as it can possibly be.

And with the Minister?

And that includes the Minister. Of course I have differences here and there. I had differences with Stellenbosch. And what was the outcome?—That we got Cloetesdal today, where we house over 30 000 Coloured people in ideal conditions.

Because you gave way.

No, I did not give way; the Stellenbosch municipality gave way, but my relationship with the Stellenbosch municipality today is as good as it can be. But let us talk about Pretoria. What is wrong with my relationship with the Pretoria city council?

R40 000.

Don’t be stupid! Do hon. members think I will run away from that? I can reply to that fully if necessary. Today there is the area which is known as the frozen area in Pretoria, where I and my department co-operate with the Pretoria city council, and the co-operation is of the very best. The fact that I had a difference of opinion with Mr. Nel, the chairman of the Management Committee, has nothing to do with my co-operation with the city council of Pretoria. My co-operation is of the very best. The same applies to Mossel Bay, which the hon. member wanted to blow up as if there is a crisis between me and Mossel Bay. A mistake occurred, and it was one which could easily have occurred. It was said that they could not get the R300 000 while one of the civil servants said that they could get it. It was simply a mistake which was removed and today my co-operation with Mossel Bay is as good as can be.

It was all right before you interfered.

Where did I interfere?

The Housing Commission approved and then you said …

The Housing Commission did not approve. You do not know what you are talking about. You are talking so much nonsense it is absolutely unbelievable. You make me think that you are Winchester.

Then the hon. member asked me why no sub-economic housing could be supplied to the Bantu in South Africa. Bantu housing is being provided by the Department of Bantu Administration. We only supply the money. No sub-economic houses are being supplied to the Bantu for the simple reason that the present houses for the Bantu which are being built by semi-skilled and unskilled labour are very cheap. There is therefore no need for sub-economic houses for the Bantu.

They are of a very poor quality.

No, they are not of poor quality. I do not think the houses in Soweto are of a very poor quality. For the price which those people can afford I think those houses are of a very good quality. But this hon. member would like us to supply houses which those people cannot afford which would mean that they would have to be subsidized. Those people can afford those houses. I want to tell the hon. member that housing of the Bantu people in Soweto and the other urban areas in South Africa has never been better in the history of this country.

I will deal with the whole housing position raised by the hon. member for Green Point at a later stage. He asked me what the latest position was in regard to the Niemand Commission and how they were progressing with their negotiations with local authorities, the provinces, etc. I should like to read the following statement in this connection—

This is as far as the Niemand Commission is concerned.

*The hon. member for Germiston commented on the rising land prices in the urban areas. I agree with him that this is a tremendous problem in South Africa today. That is why I want to request local authorities to purchase as much land as they can possibly get hold of, and keep it in reserve for future housing. For the rest, the increasing land prices in South Africa leave us no choice but to build skywards.

I come now to the hon. member for Port Natal. His fulminations against my department and against me leave me absolutely cold. He asked for a commission of inquiry into my department, but he did not say what it should investigate. What should it investigate? Everything that is done by my department, is done in public, and there is no reason whatsoever to hold an investigation. The hon. member is being quite childish as far as this matter is concerned. I want to tell the hon. member for Port Natal without beating about the bush now that he knows nothing whatsoever about community development. He does not know how the machine operates; he does not have the least idea of what goes on in the department, and he does not have the least idea of what the relations between the department and the local authorities are. Nor does he have the least idea of how the Community Development Board functions. To tell the truth, I am not even sure whether he is even aware of the existence of the Development Board.

He is not.

I do not think he is.

He told me himself he was not.

He knows nothing about the Housing Commission, nor does he know anything about the urban renewal schemes. The hon. member also said that we were the largest estate agent in the country. So what? What is wrong with that? Of course we own a great deal of land. In the first place, the department owns a tremendous amount of land so as to make provision for housing in future. What is wrong with that? We would be neglecting our duty if we did not own that land and if we did not acquire as much as possible of that land to protect ourselves against rising prices in future. Of course we have to purchase expensive land when we are engaged on urban renewal. How can we effect renewal in cities without purchasing land? How can we develop District 6 without purchasing land? How can we develop Jeppes, Riverside in Natal and South End in Port Elizabeth without purchasing land? Of course the department sometimes has to pay an expensive price for that land, but what is wrong with that? The hon. member knows nothing about urban renewal. He does not know what it means; he knows nothing about slum clearance. That is why he is so surprised because we are purchasing land in urban areas. How else does one clear a slum but by purchasing land and ensuring that the slum conditions do not develop further?

You make slums.

That is merely another statement the hon. member is making. He speaks the greatest nonsense imaginable; he speaks like a backward child. Of course we must purchase this land, and sometimes we sell it at a profit. Of course one must sell land one has purchased and kept for a long time at a profit. What is wrong with that?

But you just said that you don’t make a profit on the sale of land.

I said that we do not make a profit on housing land. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must not talk nonsense. Other land, again, we sell at a loss. With urban renewal we need a great deal of land, inter alia for streets, parks, schools, churches and community centres. We pay a lot of money for that land. It is true that when we sell land to private developers we do so at a profit. As far as I am concerned, the greater the profit the better, and the more I like it. This gives us more money for the development of that urban area. But the hon. member has not the foggiest idea of what all this entails. I say that there was not logic in his fulminations against my department. I shall simply pay no further heed to it. He spoke of people living in ghettoes. I shall deal with Coloured and Indian housing in South Africa later on. I just want to inform him that the Indians in the new areas are not living in ghettoes. They are living in highly developed and model townships in South Africa. Lenasia in Johannesburg is one of them; Chatsworth in Durban, another; and Laudium near Pretoria is still another. These are residential areas which are as attractive as one can find in any part of South Africa, or the world. If the hon. member knew anything about the world, he would also know this. They live in well-organized towns. No, those people are not living in ghettoes, but they all came from ghettoes created by his party when they were in power in South Africa. I need not get out of my Cadillac to see this, for I visit these areas more often that the hon. member does; I even visit Chatsworth more frequently than he does. Since I have been Minister. I have visited all these areas every year, and I shall continue to visit them in order to see what development is taking place there. The hon. member cannot tell me anything about that. To tell the truth, if he tells me that Chatsworth is a ghetto, then I cannot help wondering whether he has ever been in Chatsworth. I do not think he has ever been there.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister said that he had visited the tin-town in Durban in Duranta Road. Can he tell me what he found there?

Yes, the conditions there were not very satisfactory. There are many other conditions which are not satisfactory either.

Ah!

So what? Are all the conditions in South Africa satisfactory? We are a wonderful government, but we are not all that wonderful.

What a foolish question.

Yes, what a foolish question. Of course, there are still Indians who are living under unsatisfactory conditions. But we are solving this problem in a brilliant way. I shall have more to say about resettlement at a later stage. I do not want to pay very much more heed to the row that hon. member is kickin up in this House and outside. I just want to give him this piece of advice: Go and make a study of community development and everything it entails. Once the hon. member has done that he will talk considerably less nonsense.

The hon. member for Parow advocated here that the employers should do more for the housing of their Coloured employees than they are doing at the moment. Well, at the moment they are doing nothing. I am in complete agreement with the hon. member. I sometimes wonder whether it is not time a special levy was imposed on employers to assist in the provision of Coloured housing in the urban areas. They are, after all, the people who benefit from Coloured labour. If the farmers have to provide housing for their people. I see no reason why other employers should not also have to supply housing for their employees. Thus I am in complete agreement with the hon. member in regard to this matter.

To the hon. member for Port Elizabeth North I just want to say that I appreciate his acknowledgment of what we have done in Korsten in regard to the clearance of the slum there, and the resettlement of the Coloureds in Bethelsdorp. I am aware of the fact that there are still Coloureds in that area. But I can assure the hon. member that we are at present hard at work on the resettlement of those Coloureds.

The hon. member also put a question to me in regard to the 310 flats which are bein built near Sidwell, just below the railway line. His objection is that the rentals of those flats are too high. Those flats are quite luxurious flats, and I agree with him that the rentals are too high, and that certain lower income groups will not be able to occupy those flats. But there are already indications of a tremendous demand for those flats at the higher rentals: there will be no problem in letting the flats.

The hon. member also requested us to make better provision for the middle and lower income groups. I am in complete agreement with him. The Housing Commission studies this problem every year. The hon. member will recall that the interest rates and the income of the lower and middle income groups that are able to acquire certain houses was rather low until two years ago. The Housing Commission then went into this matter and reduced certain interest rates, and also raised certain income groups. This problem will simply have to be dealth with from time to time by the Housing Commission. I promise the hon. member that I shall bring the request he made and the idea he su gested to the attention of the Housing Commission. They will have to make the final decision in regard to this matter.

The hon. member for Algoa also thanked us for the housing we have provided in Port Elizabeth. He raised certain other difficulties. The one was the question of washing lines at flats. I can give the hon. member the assurance that this is one of the problems we are trying to cope with, and that it will not be so easy to solve it. The problem is that people have to wash and dry their washing in such a way that other people cannot see it. Attention is being given to this matter; attention will definitely be given to his idea of a central washing and drying area. He then requested that no further increases in the rental of the flats in Algoa Park should be allowed. I just want to say that the increases in rentals which were introduced were the result of higher local taxes. I hope that there will be no need for further tax increases. We will o out of our way to ensure that there are no further rent increases. He then requested that a few of those flats be classified as sub-economic dwellings. This is a possibility which the department can go into. Of course there is a need for this, and they can go into the question of whether this can be done, or whether we may perhaps have to consider building other sub-economic flats. Either of the two will have to be done.

The hon. member also said that the building limit of R6 000 for the middle and lower income groups was too low, because one simply cannot build a proper house for R6 000 today. I might inform the hon. member that this limit of R6 000 has already been increased to R7 200. In our housing schemes on the Witwatersrand, in Cape Town,—here it is the most difficult of all— in Port Elizabeth, and throughout the Republic we find that houses can in fact be built for R7 200. The interest and redemption. or the rental, will then be in the region of R40 to R45 per month. So we are, after all, succeeding in doing this.

May I just ask the hon. the Minister a question? The amount for the individual borrower has not yet been increased; that is in fact the problem. That is, as far as I know; am I right?

The amount for the individual borrower has been increased. The combined building society and community development loan can be as much as R15 000. Thus the amount for the individual borrower has in fact been increased.

†The hon. member for Jeppes asked me about Triomf. I dealt with this question of Triomf very fully in replies as given to questions he had in the Order Paper. I do not know what I can add to it. Unfortunately there were certain houses built by a certain contractor which showed very grave defects. We asked the contractor to restore those houses to a proper condition, and at the moment we have a court case going. However, we are doing everything in our power to solve the difficulty in Triomf, to get it over and done with and to get those contractors to attend to those houses. They must attend to those houses and put them in the proper condition they were supposed to be in after they were built.

Could I put a question to the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of the rentals for houses acquired by the department, which have been increased over and above the rent determination which existed. I would like to know the hon. the Minister’s viewpoint on that.

No, I know nothing about any increases beyond the rent determination.

*The hon. member for Gardens referred to District Six and said that we should consider keeping the historical areas there more or less as they were in the past. When we restore and rebuild in that area, we must ensure that this is done according to the patterns as they were in the past. He mentioned certain areas which I cannot remember off-hand. I just want to assure him that when he mentioned those areas I was already well aware of them. What we are doing coincides precisely with what he desires. We know that the railings and wrought iron work are being stolen from some of the houses there. These are houses which people have vacated without notifying us. Consequently these houses are standing empty. The hon. member knows that as soon as a house stands empty in District Six the vandals converge on it and steal all those wrought iron railings, ornaments and so on. We are trying to prevent this as far as possible, but I must agree with him that this is in fact happening. We shall in future try to eliminate this. However, I want to say that we have approached the Simon van der Stel Foundation, and various other organizations, to ensure that we conserve and restore the historical part of District Six in such a way that what is of historical value may be preserved. We are doing this, as far as we are able, in consultation with those people. I just want to tell him that no one from District Six or any other area is resettled without being offered alternative accommodation.

†The hon. member for Walmer asked me when the rebuilding of South End will commence. The detailed planning of the area will be finished as soon as the land surveyor has prepared a diagram indicating the boundaries of the area. The detailed planning will be submitted in about two months’ time for the approval of the Community Development Board, the city council and the Minister. In the meantime, steps are being taken to instal the services and complete the excavation for Walmer Road. It would be possible for rebuilding to commence within about 18 months, but we are hoping that it may be sooner. Then he asked me how the land will pass into the hands of private developers. Private developers will be afforded an opportunity to obtain the land for development by tender. He asked me whether only private developers will be responsible for the development. The answer is: No, but private developers will be predominant. The board, however, will also undertake redevelopment on a large scale. Then the hon. member asked me whether the Lotus Building, which we built there for the Indian traders, has been sold. Yes, it has been sold to an Indian by way of tender. We accepted the highest tender. As far as the tenants are concerned, they will rent those premises on the same basis as they are renting them now, until their contract runs out. What will happen after that, is impossible for me to say. All I can say is, if there is any exploitation of those tenants, I will have no hesitation whatsoever to put the building under rent control. That will be the remedy. I may also tell the hon. member that we sell these buildings all over the country to Indians to own those buildings. We have no objection to that whatsoever.

*The hon. member for Pretoria West said that Laudium, there near Pretoria, is becoming too small for the Indians and that it should be extended. We realise this and we asked the Department of Planning and the Group Areas Board to make a recommendation that that area should be enlarged. The hon. member’s idea that high-rise buildings should be erected there because the area is too small is a sound one to which we will give attention.

†The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District asked me about Oribi. Sir, Oribi is a military hospital complex. It was used for ex-soldiers on a temporary basis. There are no ex-soldiers staying there any more, and we are using the houses there to rent to poorer people, mostly in the sub-economic group. The structures as such cannot be made permanent; that is impossible. I hope that the time will come—and we are now contemplating this very seriously —when we can change the whole set-up in Oribi so that we can have proper housing units in that particular suburb. The hon. member asked for a committee to control Oribi. I do not see any necessity for that. Is that not what the hon. member asked?

Mr. Chairman, I was referring to the last paragraph of the Minister’s letter, where he suggested that such a committee should be formed.

Did I?

All I ask is that you go ahead and form it.

No, I am not forming it; I do not think it is necessary. After all, we control thousands of houses right through the Republic without such committees.

*Now, Sir, I should like to say something about the general housing position in South Africa. Firstly I want to deal with White housing. After that I shall deal with Coloured housing, and then the resettlement of Whites, and particularly of non-Whites in South Africa. I want to say that the position in regard to White housing in South Africa is extremey satisfactory. I am pleased the hon. member for Musgrave is here, for he will now hear a few figures. I have said that it is extremely satisfactory, and to speak of a crisis in respect of housing for Whites in South Africa, is simply absurd. Sir, sitting on the Opposition side are the last people who should talk about poor housing conditions in South Africa. We inherited the most deplorable slum conditions which ever existed in South Africa from that side of the House. It is not I who say this; it is one of their own reports in 1945 which does so. Here I have the Summary of the Report, No. 8, of the Socio-Economic Planning Council of South Africa, 1945. That was when they were in power. What did these people say about housing in South Africa, as it was at the time?

That was before the rinderpest.

It was not before the rinderpest; you were the rinderpest. It was in 1945, when those hon. members were in power. Let us see what the housing situation was like then.

Then you were still on this side.

Yes, but that was the reason why I left you. I quote from this report—

That is the position which was prevalent under their Government. Then it goes on to deal with housing accommodation—

From what are you reading?

It is entitled “Summary of the Report, No. 8, of the Socio-Economic Planning Council, 1945.”

It could just as well have been the Kruithoring.

No, he tells as many lies as the Kruithoring under his control.

I quote further—

That, Sir, was the situation in 1945, when they were in power, they who are complaining so much now. What is the situation today? They say there is a housing crisis in South Africa. Here I have the Property Mail which is most certainly not well-disposed towards this Government. This is a supplement to the Financial Mail, dated 22nd October, 1971. This is what they say about the housing situation in South Africa—

That is what their own people are saying.

That is old news.

Yes, it is old news, but it is none the less good news. Their own people say that to speak of a housing crisis in South Africa is simply ridiculous. That is the position we inherited, but what is the position today? Now I want the hon. member for Musgrave to listen. We had projections made by two professors, Prof. Sadie and another professor from the University of Stellenbosch, as well as by the Building Research Institute. They had to make a projection for us in respect of the housing requirements in South Africa from 1970 to 1975, from 1975 to 1980, from 1980 to 1985 and from 1985 to 1990. They concluded that the dwelling requirement between 1970 and 1975 would be an average of 26 000 residential units per annum. But in 1970 we, the Housing Commission, local authorities and the private sector, built 30 000 units. The projection for the period 1970 to 1975 was an average of 26 000 per annum, and in actual fact we built 30 000 units in 1970. In other words, we are eliminating the possible housing backlog at a rate of 4 000 units per annum. The backlog is therefore being eliminated rapidly. That is why I want to say that the position in respect of White housing in South Africa is the most favourable it has ever been in the history of South Africa. I go further and say that the housing position of the Whites in South Africa is the most favourable in the entire world. And then they talk about a housing crisis. I want to ask the hon. member for Jeppe: If he wants to tell me there is a housing crisis, why are there so many flats standing empty in Johannesburg?

Where?

It has been estimated that there are 4 000 flats standing empty in Johannesburg, and the hon. member can go and ask any agent or developer about this. There are flats standing empty here in Cape Town.

Only the expensive ones.

No, it is not only the expensive flats. Here in Milnerton there are flats standing empty which may be rented for R50 per month.

Where?

I will show you where they are standing empty in Milnerton. There are four blocks of flats where flats, with rentals of between R50 and R75, are standing empty. The hon. member for Maitland should not say anything. He should not talk about a housing shortage.

Mr. Chairman, …

No, wait a minute; you can ask questions just now. I first want to finish what I am saying. I will show him where there are flats standing empty. Sir, he is the last person to speak. He came here two years ago and said that there was a tremendous housing shortage in his constituency. I then said to him: “Bring me the people in your constituency who do not have houses.” He brought four people, three of whom said that they did not need his help. I want to ask the hon. member: Is that, or is that not true?

May I put a question to you?

I am asking the member whether it is true, and whether it is not true that he brought me only four cases in two years’ time? In two years he brought me only four cases of people who did not have any houses, but he says there is a critical housing shortage in his constituency.

Could the hon. the Minister indicate to me across the floor of this House where the four blocks of flats are standing, where the rental is R50 per month?

I shall go and show the hon. member. Everywhere in Cape Town flats are standing empty. In the Old Mutual block flats are standing empty. Next to me there is a block of flats in which a number of flats are standing empty.

And in Blouberg.

Yes, in Blouberg almost half a block of flats is standing empty.

Because the rentals are too high.

No, the rentals are not all that high. You can get flats there for R60 per month.

R140 per month.

Yes, there are flats the rental of which is R140 per month, but there are also flats available at R60 per month. Hon. members on that side now want to create the impression that there are no flats standing empty. Sir, the hon. member for Green Point should not say anything either. He also came to complain to me that there was such a housing shortage in his constituency. I then asked him to bring me the people who were unable to find housing, and to this day he has not yet brought me a single person. I challenge the hon. member for Green Point to bring me a single person or a single family in Green Point that does not have housing.

Now he is sitting as quiet as a mouse.

Sir, I went through the Saturday evening newspaper to see what flats and houses were being offered; these are flats the rental of which is R40 per month and more. The flats and houses offered in that newspaper occupied a full three pages, but the demand for flats and houses only occupied 1½ columns. That is the position in Cape Town, where there is supposed to be such a tremendous shortage of housing. But, Sir, how could it be otherwise, in view of what we have spent on housing during the last ten years from State funds? I am referring only to Whites now. During the past 10 years the local authorities have built over 25 000 houses; the Housing Commission 6 500, the Group Areas Development Board 1 256; official quarters, 1 505. A total of 34 441 residential units during the past 10 years, at a cost of R209 355 000. Sir, let us consider the various complexes in South Africa. It has been worked out that the housing requirements on the Witwatersrand for the four years from 1971 to 1975 will be 10 851 per annum. But in 1970 they had already built over 10 000 residential units, and there were over 4 000 residential units under construction; in Pretoria the requirement is 3 044, and the other figures are almost 4 000 and 352; in the Cape Peninsula the requirement is 2 307, and almost 4 000 residential units have been built. I can in this way go on to mention the figures for the Durban complex, the Port Elizabeth complex, East London, Pietermaritzburg, Bloemfontein and Kimberley. Everywhere more houses are being built per annum than are required to meet the need.

Will the hon. the Minister advise us what provision he has made and intends to make for the housing of the Chinese community in Johannesburg?

We are not talking about the Chinese now. That has nothing to do with these matters. I shall inform the hon. member at a subsequent stage what the position is in regard to the Chinese, but at the moment I am dealing with the housing position of the Whites.

But he wants to know nothing about that.

No, he wants to know nothing about that; he is far more interested in the Chinese. Very good provision is being made for the Chinese. I get along well with the Chinese; the hon. member need have no problems on that score. I shall reply to his question later.

Sir, that is the picture as far as White housing in South Africa is concerned. I say that it is a position of which we can be proud. I am proud that I am Minister of a department which is taking such good care of the housing of our Whites in South Africa. But Sir, we are not a welfare State. The idea which hon. members on that side want to promote, that the Government should provide every person who asks for one with a house, is absolute nonsense.

Who said that?

That is the impression hon. members on that side want to create. Is there no pride left in our people? Do our people no longer have that pride in wanting to provide themselves with houses? The standpoint of this Government is that every man who wants a house, must provide himself with one. The Government will help as far as possible, but we are not a welfare state, and there is still that pride among our people that they want to look after themselves in this connection.

There are people who want to build houses and who are unable to do so.

You have no idea of what is going on. I do not take it amiss of you either.

As far as housing for the aged is concerned, the department, in collaboration with the Churches and in collaboration with welfare organizations, is building homes for the aged which will place our elderly people in South Africa in a tremendously favourable position. The same applies to youth centres in South Africa.

So much for White housing. I come now to the question of Coloured housing in South Africa. Let me say at once that I am not all that satisfied with the position of Coloured housing in South Africa. Butthe plans we are working on at present, and the planning for the next seven years, will improve the position of Coloured housing in South Africa tremendously. During the past 10 years we have erected 75 710 residential units for Coloureds, at a cost of R103½ million. I just want to mention what we are at present working on here in the Western Cape. At Kraaifontein and Brackenfell an urgent scheme of 643 terrace houses is at present under way. For the squatters of Elsies River and vicinity 1 093 terrace houses are being provided at Kleinvlei, and for the Hottentots-Holland basin 528 houses have just been erected at Macassar. The Bellville municipality is working on a scheme to provide 749 units in Bellville South. The Parow scheme comprises approximately 540 houses in Parow South and Florida. The Cape Divisional Council is working on an extensive slum clearance scheme at Elsies River. A total of 1 000 sub-economic houses have already been completed at Uitsig, and a contract for 600 economic units has been concluded. The Cape City Council has a scheme in progress for providing 2 000 houses for Coloureds at Lavender Hill to accommodate, among others, the squatters along Prince George’s Drive. The city council ol Cape Town is annually building approximately 2 750 houses for Coloureds. I have already mentioned Wolwefontein. At Kleinvlei we are working on 1 093 residential units, under construction there. I have already mentioned Elsies River; and then there is Mitchell’s Plain, which is at present being planned by the Cape City Council, where housing will be built for ¼ million Coloureds. The scheme has already been planned. Building activities will commence within a year, and it is expected to be completed within seven years, and that 45 000 Coloured families will be accommodated at Mitchell’s Plain in economic housing and flats, and also in sub-economic housing. Sir, this is what is happening at the moment. I expect the position in regard to Coloured housing in South Africa to be at least as favourable in seven years time as the White housing position in South Africa is today.

Can the Minister tell me in regard to the figures he has just read out, by how much they exceed the requirements for the population increase of these areas? I have just added them up and find they may cater for the population increase, but they will not do anything to wipe out the backlog.

I think it will cover the population increase completely.

But the backlog is 21 000.

Where do you get that figure from? I do not think it is correct.

*In any case, I am quite convinced that the housing backlog will have been wiped out completely, for thousands and thousands of houses are going to be built there.

Then I want to conclude by referring briefly to the position of the resettlement of Coloureds and Indians in South Africa. Initially, when the Group Areas Act came into operation, there were 115 000 Coloured and Indian families that had to be resettled. To date, and this has been a period of approximately eight years, we have resettled 67 493; 115 000 had to be resettled, and 67 500 have already been resettled. For the Coloureds this figure is 76 544, of which 41 199 have already been resettled, and of the Indians 38 561, of which number 26 294 have already been resettled.

Families?

Yes. At the moment we are resettling Coloureds and Indians at a rate of approximately 8 000 families per annum. Of that number 67 000 remain to be resettled; we therefore expect, if nothing happens and the position carries on in this way, that we will within the next eight to nine years have completed the entire resettlement programme of the Government. In other words, they will all by then be settled in their own group areas. Sir, I now want to level this accusation at the Opposition, they who are always saying that they are in favour of separate residential areas in South Africa. I say to them it is mere lip service. They are not in favour of separate residential areas. They are not in favour of separate group areas in South Africa, and every time a group area is established and we resettle Coloureds or Indians, it is said that we are throwing them out into the veld. No, they are not being thrown out into the veld. Those Coloureds and Indians go to better housing than they ever had before. But every effort we make is opposed by this Opposition. Therefore, to sum up, just this. The White housing position in South Africa is more favourable than it has ever been before. That of the Coloureds is not all that favourable, but we are working on schemes which will, within a reasonably short period of time, make the position a favourable one. The same applies to the Indians, and as far as the resettlement programme is concerned, if we make the same progress we have been making up to now, this ought to have been completed within the next seven to eight years. I am proud to be in charge of such a department, and I shall, as long as I am there, continue to cope enthusiastically and energetically with these problems.

What about the Chinese?

I want to congratulate the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department on what they have done in recent years. While listening to the hon. member for Musgrave I thought how fitting it would have been if he had personally come to my constituency to contrast the position that existed during the late forties with the position that exists there today. In the whole of Cape Town I doubt whether there is any comparable place where a greater stigma attached to the name of a town as a result of slum conditions that prevailed in certain spots. I am referring here to the old area known as Goodwood Acres. Since I am involved with a municipality that can sometimes be difficult, I want to say thank you to the Minister today for having intervened at a certain stage and for having extended an invitation to the municipality to establish a State Committee for the replanning of the old Goodwood Acres. All that has remained today of that slum is the name. I want to ask the Minister whether he cannot already tell us what the new name of the Goodwood Acres area is going to be. I know that the work of the committee has virtually been completed, and I believe that by this time next year the stage will perhaps have been reached when thought can be given to the sale of plots in this new urban area.

While I am speaking about the question of slum clearance I should also just like to leave the hon. the Minister with this thought. If one travels overseas today and looks at the residential areas where television services have been introduced, one finds the cities virtually enveloped in aerial cobwebs. I always find those masses of aerials on the roofs of the houses throughout European cities one of the most unattractive of sights. This department, of course, does not only deal with the provision of accommodation in our urban areas. It is most certainly also involved in the appearance of our urban areas. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister cannot devise a plan, with the establishment of new towns and the clearing of slums in South Africa, so that there will be more communal aerials in South Africa when television is introduced.

When it comes one day; it will still take years!

I wonder specifically whether a model cannot be made of the new towns, the names of which I do not know yet, making proper provision there for a new aerial receiving system where the service can be utilized collectively by all the inhabitants of the relative area.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister to ensure that municipalities do not allow individual aerials above houses in our existing residential areas either. We must see to it that we obtain communal aerials for blocks or certain portions of towns, so that we do not have here in South Africa in future the conditions that developed in Europe and other countries.

I now want to refer to the last sentence in the latest report of the Secretary for Community Development. There he makes the following statement—

In his report the Secretary states that the housing position in South Africa is as satisfactory as one could possibly expect it to be. But he says it is particularly those in the middle income group who are finding it difficult to own houses today because of the high prices of stands and buildings. It so happens that I serve on the board of directors of two of the best-known utility companies providing housing in South Africa, i.e. the Citizens Housing League and Garden Cities. Both these utility companies operate in Cape Town. Each of them has a long record of excellent service in the Cape Peninsula and vicinity. However, the stage is now being reached when it is becoming increasingly difficult for a company like Garden Cities, which will be 50 years old next year, to carry out its task, i.e. to supply housing to the middle income group in Cape Town. It so happens that by looking ahead this company has made provision for enough land for at least the next three decades. Fairly near Cape Town they have purchased the old historic 2 000 morgen Blouberg farm at a relatively low price. I do not think their activities will be handicapped as a result of a shortage of land. In the Maitland constituency, where this company also operates, and has just begun the Edgemead urban area, about 2 000 plots can be built on.

It has consistently been the policy of Garden Cities in the past to do its own building on at least six out of every seven plots because this company can build at least 25 per cent cheaper than the price at which housing can thus far be furnished in Cape Town by the private sector. Not only do they not build with a view to profits, but they do not make any profits out of their land either. In this way not only are the prices of stands in Cape Town kept low for the middle income group, but also the building costs for the middle income group are forced down. The present position is that Garden Cities is only able to obtain six housing loans per month from all building societies. They themselves can supply relatively little from their own resources, so that they are not able to build more than a maximum of eight to ten houses per month for the inhabitants of Cape Town.

At the same time the demand is still such, particularly as a result of the special service this company gives, that it cannot supply more than 25 per cent of the demands made upon this company. I personally believe that the approximately 100 houses per year that can be built in the Edgemead area can most probably be increased to 300 houses per year if the necessary loan facilities were available for individuals buying houses from this company.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether it is not perhaps possible for the State also to make a contribution in this respect. This would, in particular, overcome the problem the Secretary for Community Development mentioned, especially in the Cape Peninsula. I want to request that the present R9 000 maximum loan that can be granted by building societies with State aid, i.e. a 90 per cent loan for which the State contributes 30 per cent, must be increased to about R12 000. I also want to ask that the present maximum income limit of R5 000 must be increased to R6 000 per year. The position is that this specific urban area is only an example of what was done in the past and what can still be done in Cape Town in the decades to come. The position is that in that area the plots are firstly sold at cost price. The houses are then built at cost price and in this way the middle income group is supplied with quality housing, probably unequalled anywhere else in South Africa. But at the same time this company tries to maintain a reasonably high standard. They make provision, in particular, for people falling into the R400 per month income group who perhaps hope to be earning salaries of R500 or R600 per month at a later stage. At this stage they are supplying houses at about R14 000. These houses would otherwise have cost about R20 000 in other urban areas. This company envisages a further reduction in the building costs of these houses during the next few months, and envisages supplying the same quality houses at no more than R13 000 per house. This means that if the buyer himself provides 10 per cent, he must be able to obtain a loan of R11700. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I agree with what the hon. member for Vasco has said about the last sentence in the departmental report, that the middle class Whites in South Africa do have the worst of both worlds. They are too well-off to get State assistance, and they are not well enough off not to require that assistance, so that in practically every field they do have a very difficult time. But I want to come back to the hon. the Minister and his department and to the statements he has made. It is just as well that the hon. the Minister has the ebullient character that he has, because I do not envy him his job. I believe it is a formidable task that he has to tackle and anybody with less resilience than himself, would probably have faltered in this enormous task long ago. But the hon. the Minister is full of self-confidence and optimism, although I must say that it sometimes leads him to make very exaggerated statements. In this regard I think of a statement he made not so long ago, in November last year, when he said that South Africa “leads the world so far as community development is concerned”. I think that is rather an exaggerated statement, although I must admit that if the hon. the Minister is talking about the extent of uprooting of communities that his department has had to do, I have no doubt that we do lead the world. Certainly, he has done more than anybody I know to carry out literally the uplift clause in the Malan Cape Town agreement about the Indians when one thinks of the number of Indian families that have been uplifted by his department over the years.

The hon. the Minister has stated that something like 115 000 Coloured and Indian families were due to be removed, were disqualified people under the Group Areas Act and that he has already accomplished a good deal in resettling these people. He has certainly done so. During 1970 alone, according to the departmental report, something like 4 900 Cape Coloured families were removed and 2 497 Indian families were resettled under the Group Areas Act. There is an interesting sideline to this, namely that of the White families that had to be removed—there were not very many of them—only 12 required some assistance from his department in resettling. This shows, of course, that the White families have a far wider range of areas for residential purposes to choose from than the other two racial groups. A formidable task still remains to the hon. the Minister. There are still over 35 000 Coloured families that have to be resettled under the Group Areas Act, the majority of whom, 23 400 roughly, are in the Cape while 6 900 are in the Transvaal, and over 12 000 Indian families, of whom 6 986 are in Natal, still have to be removed. That leaves a grand total of 47 000 families that still have to be resettled under the Group Areas Act.

I say that it would have been difficult enough under normal circumstances of natural increase in the population, ordinary urban renewal, ordinary slum clearance, to keep up with the supply of houses. But when one in addition considers what I believe to be the Government’s positive obsession about resettling racial groups in a sort of chessboard formation of black and white squares, the hon. the Minister and his predecessors have undertaken a really gargantuan task. The result has been, unfortunately, what could only have been expected. That is to say that we have had inferior housing, because the expense and the size of the task have not made it possible to build houses of decent standard for Coloureds, Indians or Africans, the Coloureds and Indians under the sub-economic scheme and the Africans under the so-called cheap building scheme, which is not sub-economic. And, of course, we have had the development of slum conditions, whether the hon. the Minister likes it or not. The Cape, of course, has suffered particularly, because I think 50 per cent of the houses that are built by the local authority to deal with the normal population increase, are promptly grabbed by the Community Development Board in order to rehouse people under Group Areas proclamations who are being shifted from where they are already accommodated, some adequately and some, admittedly, inadequately.

It is 50 per cent.

Yes, I say that 50 per cent is being grabbed by the Community Development Board. This has added enormously to the creation of what one can only call instant slums on the Cape Flats. There are areas known as Japhta’s Farm, Mont Kreef and Hudson’s Bush which have arisen, replacing areas like the Valley of Plentv. which the hon. the Minister has gradually cleared. Those people, I think, have mostly been rehoused in Hanover Park. They have taken much-needed houses from the ordinary Coloured population which was not living in these instant slums. By natural increase with young people getting married, these houses were badly required to house those people and also to house people who, as I say, were being cleared out of these areas. I think that these conditions have led to an acute shortage of housing. The hon. the Minister has planned a seven-year plan to overcome the situation which, I believe, should never have arisen. It is very difficult to get it across to this Government, that although it is true that areas like District Six and at Simonstown have very bad slum areas, many of the houses in those areas were perfectly reasonable houses. For a minimum of expense these houses could have been improved and, what is more, slum clearance could have been done in situ. It is not necessary to uproot entire communities and to plant them miles away from where they used to live. For the Minister of Community Development to be busy breaking up communities, is to me one of the ironical features of this Government’s policy. It is not only in the Cape that we have this tremendous housing shortage, particularly for Coloured people; on the Witwatersrand there are 3 000 Coloured families waiting for housing. Some of them have been waiting for four or five years already. Johannesburg’s difficulties are increasing all the time. I do not know when the hon. the Minister last visited areas like Kliptown in Johannesburg, and Noordgesig. All these areas were supposed to be due for urban renewal. They are the most appalling slums today and the situation is constantly becoming worse by the fact that thousands of Coloured people from the Cape, particularly from rural areas, are pouring into Johannesburg, where, of course, employment opportunities are much greater.

This brings me to my next point. That is what seems to me to be an abysmal lack of liaison between the hon. the Minister’s department of Community Development, the local authorities and employers—if you like to put it that way. With the declaration of industrial areas there never seems to be any anticipatory intelligent planning, so that where huge industrial areas are declared, areas are set aside at the same time for residential areas where employees can be housed. Unless some form of co-ordinated liaison is engaged on, I see a continuation of the situation of slum development despite all the efforts, and they are genuine efforts, by the department to do something about clearing up the existing slums. I do not know why it is not possible for the local authorities and the Minister’s department to liaise and to see that there is anticipatory planning so that housing is built, more particularly sub-economic housing for the lower income Coloured people. The hon. the Minister does claim that he is on very good terms with the local authorities, and I do not for an instant question that, but something is lacking in the planning of his department. He has complained that he has inherited very bad slum conditions from the previous Government. I agree with him. Slum conditions were appalling. There had been no building during the war years, either in the African townships or in the Coloured and Indian areas. For that reason the Government did inherit bad slum conditions. I might mention that that hon. Minister was an M.E.C. for the Transvaal province at that time, and that he was a member of the United Party. Therefore, he could have used his not inconsiderable influence to see that something was done about this appalling position.

We both have a black past.

Yes, I must admit we both have a very ugly past. The hon. the Minister perhaps was a little quicker on the draw than I was, because he got out a few years earlier than I did. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, by this time we are accustomed to the type of speech made by the hon. member for Houghton such as the one she has just made in this House. When it comes to the question of the implementation of the policy of apartheid and the settlement of people in properly declared group areas, the hon. member always makes the type of statement she made a moment ago when she said we were engaged in the “uprooting of communities”.

That is true.

It is not true. What is happening here? What is happening in a city like Johannesburg? Surely the hon. member knows that different group areas have been declared for all the various race groups in South Africa. Where those people are unsuitably placed in their areas, they are removed in a very orderly and civilized way. Moreover, they are settled in other declared areas in accommodation which is 100 per cent luxurious in comparison with what they have been used to. The hon. member knows this. Take an area like Lenasia. The hon. member did not talk about Lenasia today.

I had no time.

She did not talk about Lenasia today because she is beginning to feel ashamed about what she said in the past in regard to the housing in Lenasia. She is ashamed of it.

It is still bad.

Order!

She is ashamed in front of the world, because what she said here in this House, did not come true. Today Lenasia is developing into one of the finest Indian residential areas in Johannesburg. Let me say that I am in contact with these people—they are in my constituency. There is much gratitude, appreciation and praise for what this Government is doing for those people. Go and look at those houses. When we started with this project, this hon. member said we were taking these people 18 miles out of Johannesburg and dumping them at a remote place. What is happening today? Those people are grateful to have that housing. They have everything there which they could wish for on God’s earth. There are beautiful houses. They have wonderful schools. A fine technical high school is being built for those people now. They have all the facilities a community can hope to have. But what did this hon. member do? She spoke of slum conditions. Did the hon. member speak for one moment of the slum conditions still existing in Page View? She remains as silent as the grave about that. Did she talk of the slum conditions still existing in places such as Fordsburg and Ophirton, which we are clearing up? No, Sir, she is the spokesman here for the rich slum landlords of Johannesburg.

Nonsense.

She knows that when she pleads here …

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

But it is true. Surely the hon. member knows how those people were exploited by those slum landlords.

[Inaudible.]

Order! The hon. member for Houghton must stop making interjections.

He is insulting me.

Order!

We are creating order out of the chaos which existed at those places. I want, to agree with her that the conditions in Kliptown are shocking. Everyone here, even the Minister, will agree that this is so. But that does not mean the position in Kliptown will remain as it is. We are busy. The Minister and the Community Development Board have bought land in that area. The chaos there is being cleared up. This, too, will be done.

The hon. member spoke here of Noordgesig. Sir, whose responsibility is Noordgesig? Who established Noordgesig? Who has been pleading for many years that the Coloureds living among the Bantu there, should be moved? Who are the people here who declined to do so? It was none other than those Progressive members, members of her party, who always put up a fight against the removal of the people of Noordgesig.

Clear it up.

Shame on you!

Yes, shame on you. You had an opportunity all along. Why did they not turn to the City Council of Johannesburg? They are as responsible as this Government for clearing up slums and for creating decent conditions in their areas. Primarily—this is what everyone fails to see in this regard—the maintenance of order and the creation of decent conditions in a city council area is the task and responsibility of that local authority. Does the hon. member want us to take over the local authorities and take that responsibility away from them? The Government is only an aid. The Government makes available the funds and the aid in order to facilitate this.

But do you provide the local authorities with adequate funds?

Sir, let me say this to you: If the local authorities put forward schemes for clearing up these conditions, the funds are available. The funds will be made available for that. But if the local authority does not come forward with schemes for clearing up these conditions, how is the Minister to do so? In that case he must intervene as he did intervened in District Six, in Page View and ! those areas. Then he must do this, and when he does they must not allege that this Minister and this Government deal harshly with these matters. No, Sir, I cannot agree. We also travel through the country and see what is going on. As far as this matter is concerned, this Government has a record of which the heavens would be proud. We need not take a back seat to anyone in the world as far as this matter is concerned. Our country and our people live in very good circumstances. It has been said here that there is a short-age of housing. I do not think there is anyone who can allege today that thereare people in this country who do not have a roof over their heads.

Yes, but what kindof roof?

Where?

Come to my constituency.

If it is in your constituency, I want to say that the shortage of 1 230 houses in Natal which the hon. the Minister mentioned, must probably be in your constituency. But, Sir, let me say this to you: I have lived in this country under a United Party Government as well. In those days my constituency included areas such as Fordsburg. Braamfontein and Vrededorp, and you should have seen where the people lived at that time. Those people lived in shanties in backyards. That was the accommodation they had at that time. I challenge any member on that side to show me where people are still living under those conditions today.

But, Sir, let us be honest. As far as our young people are concerned, particularly the young married couples living in flats today, there is a need for a house of their own. Although they do have a place in which to live, there is a need among those people to have their own house and their own piece of land. I want to associate myself today with others who have also pleaded for those younger people. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Germiston said and bring this matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister once again. I did so last year, but I want to do so again this year. In the southern parts of Johannesburg there are still huge pieces of vacant land which may be purchased. I want to say that no matter how difficult it may be to do so today because of our financial position, the Minister should include this matter of purchasing that vacant land and reserving it for future housing, particularly for our lower and middle income groups, on a list of priorities. In this regard I have in mind especially the young man who has to start a family today. Let us give him a small house there with a piece of land as well. It should be a house which is planned in such a way that as his family grows, he may enlarge that house so that he canrear a larger family there eventually. I want to plead for that with the Minister.

Then I want to say I am very grateful to see what is being done for the Coloured community, especially in my constituency. We know that as yet everything is not as perfect as we should like it to be; streets still have to be made, etc., but those people have much gratitude and appreciation for the houses that have been built and that will still be built. Generous provision is also being made for all sorts of other facilities, such as schools, etc. There is much appreciation among those people. That is why I say that this Government is a government which cares for all sections of the population. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise to deal with some of the matters raised by the hon. the Minister. One finds it somewhat difficult to assess and to try to concentrate on the matter he raises when he addresses this House like a threshing machine. He threw out a lot of chaff, and I do not know how much really good grain was left behind when he had finished speaking. First of all, he challenged us in the course of his speech to refer to slums in the Johannesburg area. That has been done; it has been done by the hon. member for Langlaagte. I interjected and asked the Minister whether he had not heard about Kliptown and he had never heard of it. He also asked whether we would get a report from the Johannesburg City Council. I shall give him the report now; we do not have to wait to get it. We have it in our possession, and that is the reason why we raised this with the hon. the Minister. I quote from the report. This is referred to as—

* Where are the available funds? The hon. member for Langlaagte said that if schemes are submitted for the clearance of slums, the funds would be available. But they are not available to the Johannesburg City Council.

†Mr. Chairman, I raise this because it is all very well to sit here and blame the Johannesburg City Council. The Johannesburg City Council is doing what it can; it is asking for support, and then the Minister says: “Where are the slums?” Well, here is one.

I did not say that; you are talking nonsense.

You did. You asked us to bring proof from the Johannesburg City Council. You asked us to bring a statement from the Johannesburg City Council. Do you not remember saying that? But let me go further and refer to Rapport of 23rd April, 1972. It refers to the Coloured community’s reaction to certain new houses being built by the department. We have already warned this Government that they are creating new slums with the housing being constructed in many cases. I quote from Rapport—

The hon. the Minister of Information is the member for that area of Randfontein, and this is what he says—

The Minister of Information himself has become convinced that this is merely a slum which is being built in his constituency of Randfontein.

They do not know what is going on outside.

Yes, they do not know what is going on. Sir, let me refer to the hon. the Minister’s statement about the improvement in housing. I said in my speech—and he will see it in my Hansard—that I concede that there has been considerable improvement in certain respects. I believe that there has been an improvement, and I said so in my address yesterday to this Committee. But when he speaks about flats being vacant, does he realize what he is talking about? There are plenty in Green Point just on the outskirts of the City of Cape Town, in Somerset Road, but what is their rental? It costs R110 for a bachelor flat, or R120 for a two-roomed flat. Three-roomed flats are available at R169. Who can live in those flats? We are concerned about the person in the R5 000 bracket—referred to. I think, by the hon. member for Vasco —the man who is earning R400 to R500 a month, and has to keep a family. According to standards he should be able to have a house at between R80 and R90 a month, a complete house, and not one or two rooms. That is the problem that we are not solving, with all our arguments about figures. I have nothing to retract of what I said earlier this session. I gave the hon. the Minister references to the answers which he had given, upon which I based my assumptions as to what the housing needs are. Those housing needs still exist, and there is nothing for me to apologize to the hon. the Minister about.

There is.

Sir, the hon. the Minister must not start being noisy; it does not impress anybody. I want to ask him a question which he has avoided. He has avoided the question regarding the profiteering which is going on in Indian declared group areas. I told him of the price which is now being asked for land in Rylands. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he and his department and the council have, as far as I know, in the last five years built nothing more than approximately 50 houses in the Rylands Indian area. There is a vast number of Indians who have to go there, seeking accommodation. They have to pay what is being asked there by private landlords, Indian landlords who have taken possession. Where is the control of this property to ensure that accommodation will be available at reasonable prices to those who need it? No wonder we have Lenasia cases when the temptation of bribes is placed before officials by people who want to get a little priority so that they can get a house. Sir, that emphasizes the urgency and the need of accommodation.

Finally, Sir, the hon. the Minister made some rather amazing statements. He first of all said that his department never sells property, which it has purchased for housing, at a profit. Well, there are vast numbers of instances which have come to light in reply to questions in this House—for instance, the property bought at Somerset Strand for R6 000 and sold for R100 000; that, of course, is not selling “at a profit”; then there is the fact that the hon. the Minister’s department recently acquired a house in Jeppes and told the tenants that they could remain there, but the department put up the rent which had already been fixed by the Rent Board, and said that the return which the department required was 12¼ per cent on the money invested, which is more than a landlord can get from the Rent Board on his capital.

And they do not pay rates.

The department, as my hon. friend says, does not pay rates, but it gets 12¼ per cent. These things are continuing, and the Minister is not doing anything to curtail them.

Finally, I want to refer to Blouberg. In the middle of last year the hon. the Minister took me to task because I queried the purchase of this ground for R750 000. His statement to the Press was that he had refused to sell this ground to property developers “because we want the land for much-needed housing development”. When I ask him when he bought it, how long his department is going to keep this land, and when they are going to sell it, he says, “That does not matter; we are going to keep it for some time in the future.” But in the meantime, while he sits on that area of ground, the price of land in the neighbourhood is going up and up, because there is not enough to meet the demand. If the hon. the Minister put this 1 000 morgen on to the market and turned it into a township, he would do a great deal to stabilize the price of land in that area of the Peninsula, and he could do that also in other areas instead of sitting on land. We have told the hon. the Minister that we accept that he has an enormous task, but he must not come to this House with generalities and try to get away from the fact that there are difficulties which are still not being tackled and which are still not being overcome. The major difficulty remains, and nothing is being done by this Government to assist the man earning R5 000 a year to be able to acquire a house without having his house mortgaged for the rest of his days. That is where something can be done. We have suggested means whereby it can be done over and over again, but this Government turns a deaf ear to every one of those proposals, which have come not only from us, but from the building societies, from financial institutions and from property developers. This Minister just turns his deaf ear to those proposals and does nothing about them.

Sir, I must say that up to now one has had to exhaust oneself hunting amongst the speeches of members of the Opposition to try to find something constructive and positive in them. All I could find up to now has been a reproachful compliment which the hon. member for Green Point gave the hon. the Minister about the fact that at least he had now appointed a commission to go into the question of rent control, an aspect the Opposition has allegedly been advocating for so long. I want to ask the hon. the Minister today whether he would not give us the assurance that he will see the evidence the commission gathers against the background of the silent majority, i.e. those thousands upon thousands of tenants of properties in South Africa who are not organized into associations and consequently did not give co-ordinated evidence before this commission either. This perhaps sounds unnecessary to the hon. the Minister, but it is nevertheless necessary for us to give the repeated assurance from time to time that the whole object of this total investigation into rent control is not the rapid abolition of rent control. It surprises me that the hon. member for Green Point expressed the wish here—actually demanded—that he hoped that when that commission’s report became available the Cabinet would immediately announce its standpoint in connection with that report. We are used to that hon. members opposite being, as a rule, terrible sticklers when it comes to the functions and the powers of this House, particularly with respect to reports of this nature and their implementation. One wonders whether it is perhaps because they do not want to express their own standpoint on the question of rent control that they are now so anxious for the Minister to announce the Cabinet’s standpoint, even if he does so in the recess. Here we are dealing, to an increasing extent, with the fact that on the one hand there are continual allusions being made to rent boards and the action they take, while on the other hand the hon. member for Durban Point comes along, and I do not blame him for that, and continually advocates more control measures in respect of housing. Let us now for once say a little more than we do by merely mentioning this magic formula each time, i.e. that the supply and demand must determine the price. Then we can surely discuss this matter.

I want to come to the hon. member for Port Natal and tell you, Sir, that as a member of this House I was really ashamed yesterday at the conduct of that hon. member in the House. To remind you of what he said I just want to quote one paragraph from his speech. He said:

[Interjections.] Sir, do you see why this hon. member is already known to the Indians as the “darling” of the extremists? He must apparently come and earn his curry here with that bitter gossip-mongering of his in this House. Meanwhile this hon. member merely demonstrates to us his frustration, which emanates from that nagging ambition of his within his own party framework in Natal, and in that frustration of his he does not scruple to come and fan up the flames of reckless hate in this House. What are now the facts in connection with these so-called ghettos the Government is establishing? Do yon know that with the resettlement of Coloureds from Goodwood Acres, to which the hon. member for Vasco has also just referred, a survey of the situation of those people a few years ago showed us the following: That 5 per cent were without employment, 15 per cent earned up to R20 per month, 20 per cent between R20 and R30 per month, 20 per cent between R30 and R40 per month, 10 per cent between R40 and R50 per month, 10 per cent between R50 and R60 per month and the rest earned more than R60 per month. Fifty per cent of the families had fewer than four children, 30 per cent had four or five children, and 20 per cent had six or morechildren. I now want to ask that hon. member in his bitterness: Should the Government have established houses there whichwere adapted to the financial capacities of the people or should it have established houses which were absolutely beyond the financial capabilities of the Coloureds? Hon.members will remember the recent public outcry by the lounge liberalists of his kind and the English Press about the squatters’” position in “The Valley of Plenty”. And what happened when the department said that the municipality could give preference to the resettlement of these people in Hanover Park? Then their next cry was that the people are being placed in houses that they cannot afford. They now have a roof over their heads but have to go to bed on empty stomachs. What must the Government do to satisfy such people, who are the spiritual allies of that hon. member? I want to state here that he does not want to be satisfied. In that hon. member’s blind hate against this Government he is out-bidding the agitators in South Africa. He is playing this reckless game to unleash amongst the Coloureds as much hate as possible against this Government. Does the hon. member not realize that in that consuming bitterness of his he is fanning flames of a fierce hate against the Whites in South Africa as a whole? Unfortunately this hon. member is not the only one who is guilty of this offence.

The hon. member for Parow referred yesterday to slum conditions which this Government inherited and had to clear up. Then there was a chorus of voices on the opposite side which asked: What about Elsies River? Let us now test this Government against the Opposition as far as Elsies River is concerned. Are hon. members opposite conveniently unaware that re-development in Elsies River has already begun? This re-development will take place at an estimated cost of R50 million over a period of 10 years. To be able to do this effectively from a departmental point of view that area has been frozen. Do hon. members not know of the agitation and incitement in Elsies River against these steps? Even the Fire Brigade was pelted with stones in the normal course of its duties and water pipes were cut. Who are the biggest agitators in Elsies River today other than the Opposition’s political playmate, i.e. the Labour Party? Why only this year that same labour party took hon. members on that side on excursions through the Peninsula. Have we ever heard a sound from that side condemning the agitation that exists there? It is all very well to shout: What about Elsies River? But what do we hear from hon. members on that side? Have hon. members heard any sound in that connection from the hon. member for Wynberg. the hon. member for Newton Park or the hon. member for Johannesburg North who received Mr. Currie of the Labour Party and his lieutenants with so much of a swagger and a holier-than-thou air? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is quite remarkable that when there are complaints here about housing shortages they are specifically made by the representatives of the United Party city councillors. They ought to know by this time that the provision of housing, whether economic or sub-economic, is an obligation that rests in the first place on those municipalities. They must make that land available, and they surely know that if the land is available the Department of Community Development will make the necessary funds available. Now there is continual talk of the waiting lists that exist. It is understandable that there will be a waiting list for economic houses in South Africa. Those houses can be bought at the deposit of R200, and where else in the world can one buy a new house at the deposit of R200? I think that is one of the reasons why there is a waiting list for such houses. We are also grateful that our people are, in fact, properly aware of the possibility of owning their own property. But even it there were an abundance of those economic houses standing empty the United Party members would again complain and accuse the Government of wasting money. On this occasion I should like to convey my personal thanks, and the thanks of Boksburg, to the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his department for what has been done in respect of housing in Boksburg. Having said this, I immediately want to add that in the past few years we have obtained a total of 220 additional sub-economic dwelling units. This is in the form of a fine block of flats in which the majority of our aged are being housed. In addition 900 economic houses have been completed in the past two years in one single suburb, i.e. Vandyk Park. It is truly a garden city, and I am glad the hon. the Minister had the opportunity of paying it a visit, and I think that if all municipalities followed the example of the Boksburg municipality, which is a National-controlled municipality, by giving attention to the layout of a residential area, as was done there at Vandyk Park, we would obtain residential areas of which not only the inhabitants, but also South Africa, can be proud. Although these are economic housing schemes, they compare with the best of our other most expensive residential areas. There is also a happy group of people living there. I want to say to the credit of the Department of Community Development that there we have lovely tiled-roof houses, some of which are four-bedroomed houses, built at an average cost of R6 000 or a little more. The repayments people have to make there, including those for the stand, are no more than R45 per month. The Minister and I made inquiries there and we could not find any person who paid more than R45 per month for his house and the stand. What an achievement this is! But then there are still complaints about expensive housing. I think it is a snobbistic attitude being adopted by some of our people, because I would not mind living in one of those houses. If there is ever to be a monument erected to the National Party, it can be said to have been erected there in Vandyk Park in Boksburg with that economic housing scheme.

I should like to mention another local matter to the Minister. It concerns Reiger Park, the Coloured area of Boksburg. At present about 12 000 Coloureds are housed in this township. Those Coloureds have already been in Boksburg for eight or nine years. When the group area for Coloureds was established there at Boksburg, a group area for Indians was established at the same time at Benoni. The understanding was that the Coloureds of the East Rand would go to Boksburg and the Indians to Benoni. I want to say at once that I think the Boksburg Municipality met all its obligations, under difficult circumstances, in respect of those Coloureds. Unfortunately one cannot say the same for the Benoni Municipality, which is a United Party-controlled municipality. As far as I am concerned it looks more like a case of obstreperousness there. Adequate provision is not being made for the Housing of those Indians. Though we have this Coloured area at Boksburg, there are still numerous Indians and Chinese merchants, and this is creating problems for our Coloureds. In all fairness to the Coloureds of Boksburg I want to say that the situation there is promoting friction against those Indians and Chinese. Not only that; it is also creating frustration, because in their own group area they are being deprived of the opportunity to fully realize themselves in respect of the establishment of businesses by the presence of other race groups.

While I am speaking of the Indians in the Coloured area, I should also just like to ask the hon. the Minister whether attention could not again be given to the Indian merchants in Boksburg. I know it is not the Government’s policy to deprive anyone of his livelihood, but I think the Benoni Municipality has had long enough to also do its duty in respect of the obligations entrusted to it and which it undertook to comply with. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he does not want to take a serious look at Benoni and ensure that they do what they ought to be doing there. If they do not want to, the hon. the Minister must use his powers and himself develop that area for the housing of the Indians there.

There is also another matter I want to refer to, a matter which has already been discussed on previous occasions. This concerns Indians that enter our White areas by surreptitious means; they manage this because unscrupulous Whites take out licences for them so that there are business undertakings which are registered in the names of Whites, but which actually belong to Indians. I know that this matter has already been discussed on previous occasions, and the hon. the Minister told us that it is difficult to ascertain ownership at all times, and that the Police have a special division dealing with those matters. Since the Department of Economic Affairs is now drafting a new Companies Act, I would like to ask the hon. the Minister whether a plan cannot be devized to plug those loopholes so that those Indians will be prevented from obtaining business undertakings by those means.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Tygervallei challenged this side of the House in regard to the investigation of the rents Act. I want to record firmly and unequivocally that this side of the House has never pleaded for the abolition of the Rents Act. We have never pleaded for the abolition of rent control. Obviously it is impractical in a country with a shortage such as we have of low rental accommodation, simply to do away with rent control. We have never ever suggested it, and let that stand on record without question. We have said that it could be looked at, that there are aspects that could well be considered. That is now being done. But I do not think he needs to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take into account the tenants, because the hon. the Minister would not last one minute in this House if he came with a Bill to abolish rent control. His own side and this side will slaughter him immediately. I am quite sure and I agree with the hon. member that the silent majority must be looked at.

I want to return to the hon. the Minister who had a lot to say about the slum conditions under the United Party.

Yes.

Yes, so much that the Nationalist Party even went to the trouble of publishing photos of some of the slums. Now say “ia” again! The hon. the Minister knows this propaganda photo of a slum, headed: “remember the squatters hovels and those disgraceful slums”, “races all mixed up—living cheek by jowl”. This is a Nationalist Party propaganda booklet. They published photos to show the slum conditions under the United Party. Here they published another one, but what is in the background? In 1948 the United Party fell out of power, but in the background there is a 1952 model motor-car. That hon. Minister is a member of a party responsible for a false, a lying and a fake photograph, purporting to show slums in the days of the United Party, but the Nat. organizer was not quick enough to get his car out of the way when this photo was taken. That is the notice we can take of the hon. the Minister and his reference to slum conditions under the United Party. It is worth just as much as that photo.

The hon. member did refer—and this is important—to a report by a planning council set up by the old United Party Government, a socio-economic planning council amongst whose tasks was the collation of the data that is required for housing. His Government, however, abolished that council. Our complaint is that that Minister does not know what the needs are. He is not planning ahead but is trying to score cheap debating points between waiting lists and shortages, both of which he arbitrarily draws up himself and which he says cannot be compared. The hon. Minister says a waiting list is meaningless and that it is difficult to establish what the real figure is. Therefore, he says, he must take an arbitrary figure of actual housing shortages. I test by the facts. I have been trying for two years to house one person, one Indian person, who, with his wife, his three children—there are now five—were evicted in 1966. They have been living in a garage ever since. I took it up in 1970 and I took it up again last year. I find that this person’s number on the waiting list with the Durban City Council is 28 199. That is his number on the waiting list. I challenge the hon. Minister to find out what number on the waiting is now being allocated; I challenge him to do so during the discussion of this debate—it is a pity that it is too late now. I challege him to deny that it will be somewhere over 8 000 or in the vicinity of 8 000.

Where?

In Durban. What does the City Treasurer say? He says, and I quote from a letter of the 8th September last year:

That is the test that I apply. I do not refer to the number of figures that are on the waiting list, but to how long you have to wait if you do not have a roof over your head. I have taken up case after case on behalf of Indians with responsible jobs. This man has worked for 20 years for one firm and he is now living in a garage. Because he has not been displaced to make room for somebody in a pretty blue-print, he has no right to a house and he can go on living in a garage until they have shifted another 70 000 or 80 000 people. What the Minister is doing is making the shortage greater. He is adding another 70 000 or 80 000 to the shortage that does exist. Then the hon. Minister says that there is no shortage for Whites. He referred to the Old Mutual flats in Cape Town. I notice that he did not refer to Mutual Beach Centre in my constituency. He did not refer to that. He does not know about it. This is an uncontrolled building that I have been negotiating about for a long time. This building has been sold and the flats are now being sold. The flat does not fall under rent control. The owners gave me an assurance and they have given his department an assurance that they will not evict anyone so as to sell their flats. They do not need to. They just put up the rents, time after time. Tenants have applied to the Minister’s department and they say that there is nothing abnormal about the rent. The last increase was something like R18 per month; and it means that the rent has gone up by R39 during less than a year. For a two-bedroomed flat people now have to pay R144 per month.

Are they under the rent control board?

No. but when the tenants apply for consideration, the Minister says that there is no exploitation in this case.

You are talking utter nonsense. I have never said that; I refer it to the rent board.

Well, then his department says that this is not exploitation and that there is no case to justify …

In every case it is referred to the rent board and they must decide whether it is exploitation or not.

Obviously I cannot quote extensively from this letter in a ten-minute speech but the conclusion of his department is that it is not exploitation. Of course they are not evicting people, but they do not have to. These include the people, some 20 or 30 of them, who were the victims of Kangelani where they were victimized and intimidated.

It is against the law.

Now the law has been changed to deal with that. What does the Minister do? He exempts the empty flats in Kangelani from rent control. It is the very building which led to the introduction of the intimidation section into the Rents Act. When I took up the matter, the Minister said it was to provide holiday accommodation for the lower and middle income groups. They say in advertising, “If you sublet your flat five months of the year at current holiday flat rentals, the revenue received could comfortably meet your total year’s repayments of bonds and loans”. Yes, Mr. Chairman, at R80 per week in season and R60 for a four-bed apartment— holiday flats for the lower and middle income groups! Surely what comes first is housing people who need homes. Here I give an example of where people by pressure had to leave one building and move into another. Now, with rents going up and up, they have had to move out of that one as well. That is. I believe, far more important that shuffling people around like on chess board, so that you will have neat lines and everybody can live smartly and cleanly within their defined area. Let us house people first. When I took up the Question of the conversion of buildings from residential accommodation into holiday flats, the Minister said it was no problem. I listed 20 buildings in my constituency alone that have been converted or demolished recently; but there is no problem to the Minister.

While I am dealing with this, I want to ask the hon. the hon. the Minister something. I give him full marks for this: Before he gives a demolition permit, he makes it a condition that the existing tenants must be offered resaonable alternative accommodation. I ask him to go one step further and to make it a condition of the permit that the tenants be advised of that. The tenants are not told; the landlord simply sends them a letter, saying, “We have got a demolition permit; you must be out in six months’ or a year’s time” or whatever the period is. I accept the period is reasonable. I ask for a warning to the tenants. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, when people prove geometric theorems they usually write “quod erat demonstrandum”. The hon. member for Durban Point’s quod erat demonstrandum was lacking when he referred to the photograph and tried to prove that there were no slum conditions under their rule. The big resettlement in this country in actual fact only began in 1962, because there was such a huge amount of work that had to precede it. I am thinking of the things they allowed in their days. Does he no longer remember the squatter camos of all races and colours around the big cities? There is nothing funny, surely, in presenting a photograph of slum conditions in which a 1955 motor-car features. In any case, I like his sense of humour.

Sir, I want to come to another matter. The hon. member for Green Point said that the middle income group in our country is experiencing difficulties. This is true to a certain extent. I conscientiously believe that in respect of housing the department has done as much as could possibly be done under the circumstances. I want to congratulate the department and the Minister on what has been done. To come back now to the middle income group—the Franzsen Commission actually found years ago that municipal services were becoming extremely expensive and that this is an encreasing trend, because the services are being provided to a decreasing extent by local authorities and to an increasing extent by private developers. Mr. Chairman, subsequently the Niemand Commission found in its report in 1970, findings absolutely independent of those of the Franzsen Commission, that the tremendous price increase was an aggravating factor in respect of the sale prices of plots. The reason for that is the following: Because the private developer is developing these residential stands and providing the services there, he wants to make a profit and also cover the costs he incurred in respect of those services that were furnished. These people must pay 43 per cent taxes and then they expect a return of 60 per cent. That is what such a person wants on the money he spent on these services, plus the interest on that money, plus a certain additional risk levy. This means that in some cases the purchaser of such a plot has to pay as much as twice what the plot cost the developers. The average cost of supplying services to a plot of about 12 000 square feet is a net R2 000. If one now doubles this it works out at about R4 000, which is added to the purchase price of the building site. The Niemand Commission’s recommendation is that the local authority should itself supply the commercial services, i.e. the provision of water, electricity and sewerage installations. Those costs must be recovered over a period of 20 to 30 years, by way of levies on the owner. In this way each new urban area pays for its own services without an extra levy on the rest of the taxpayers in such a municipality. It would then become so much cheaper to obtain these stands.

In order to obtain successful results from the Niemand Commission’s report, and obtain these results quickly, it is absolutely essential for local authorities themselves to jump in to develop towns, thus making stands available at reasonable prices, particularly to the middle income groups. The Slums Act was specifically amended in such a way last year as to entrust to local authorities the duty of providing not only dwellings, but also residential stands to the inhabitants of these local authority areas. The urban local authorities, except that of Johannesburg, have a great deal of undeveloped land, so much so that they can meet the needs for five years. This bottle-neck that exists can very easily be overcome by means of the provision of plots within the reach of the middle income groups, and this problem can really be solved very quickly if local authorities only have the will to do so in accordance with the findings of the Niemand Commission. The Transvaal urban areas in particular are the ones that have major objections. They state that they themselves do not have the money to provide these commercial services for new towns. One actually gets a bit jealous, particularly when one looks at the northern areas of Cape Town, where extensive development is taking place. They have overcome this problem by applying a system whereby developers lodge deposits with local authorities. They then obtain a guarantee that they will receive repayments as the area develops.

As far as the establishment of towns by local authorities themselves is concerned, this is probably not an insurmountable problem either, because if they can find no help anywhere else, they can still always turn to the Department of Community Development for assistance. The Pretoria City Council is in the privileged position of being the delegate of the Community Development Board, and it therefore works with the department’s loan capital in any case.

I want to appeal to our local authorities to find a way—and this can be done—to make land more readily available at prices which the buyer can afford. These individuals from the middle income group are the ones that really need help. If our local authorities work along these lines they will be able to solve this problem to a very large extent. I believe the Niemand Commission has the solution to these problems, and I believe that if these findings were made applicable we would have much fewer problems with respect to expensive land.

I want to come to another matter, and this matter is of a more local nature; it concerns Lady Selborne. The Pretoria Municipality has various areas, which have been vacated by non-Whites, which they can develop, and Lady Selborne is one of these areas. I want to ask the Minister if he knows what success the Pretoria Municipality has had in carrying out the planning, and if there is something we can do to expedite matters with respect to the development of Lady Selborne. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I hope to deal with the hon. member who has just sat down, and other members who have spoken on that side of the House, during the course of my speech. I should, however, like to refer at once to the hon. member for Tygervallei, who is unfortunately not here at the moment. He had much to say and he seemed very pleased with himself, but I want to say that the most terrible conditions exist in his constituency. I know that these people I refer to are not his voters, but they are his responsibility. The conditions in which the Coloureds adjacent to the D. F. Malan Airport live are, I think, indescribable. One has only to go past there, especially after the rains, to see the conditions in which these people have to live.

I should like to return to the question of District Six. I am glad to see that there is a new Deputy Minister, the hon. member for Germiston, taking notes in the Minister’s bench. Urban renewal is taking place in District Six, and, as I have said before, the hon. the Minister finds himself in a cleft stick as far as this area is concerned. He is trying to apply an urban renewal scheme and the Government’s colour ideology at the same time. He is, of course, finding it difficult and, in fact the situation is becoming impossible. At the present moment I think we have reached a stalemate; things are not moving at all. The hon. the Minister said he would be able to settle the Coloureds in seven years, but it has been estimated by those in the know that at the present rate, it will take between 25 and 50 years. The point I should like to make here, is that we should face up to facts and see what is happening today, as a result of the Government’s policy. When one goes through the area, one finds a condition of deteriorating housing. The buildings are deteriorating to such an extent that they are becoming unhygienic and dangerous. Most of the buildings there are built of a sun brick, and with the demolition of the adjacent buildings, the buildings which are still standing there are becoming dangerous. They are just a haven for loafers. I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to do something in this regard, because the position has got out of hand. These buildings must either be demolished or something must be done about them. It would be completely uneconomical to try to save these buildings because they have been allowed to deteriorate too far. I shudder to think what these buildings will look like in seven years’ time. The Minister has told us here this afternoon what the department’s plans are for the future, but we find that as far as capital expenditure is concerned there has been a reduction in his Vote of something like R12 million this year. But he still has to carry out his policy of developing housing and removing slums. The Minister has told us that the plans for the development of Mitchell’s Vlei are ready, but it will still take some years before the infrastructure is ready. What is going to happen there in the meantime, Sir, we must look at this question of housing from another angle. I see the hon. the Minister of Defence sitting here. I remember that when he was still Minister of Coloured Affairs he made a speech in this House in which he said— I think he was sincere—that his aim as Minister of Coloured Affairs was the socio-upliftment of the Coloured races.

We have gone a long way since then.

I think the hon. the Minister of Defence has lost touch with the housing position since he went to the Department of Defence. Many of the Coloured people have been moved to the Cape Flats, where the conditions under which they have to live are such that you cannot expect any socio-upliftment there at all. Although they have a roof over their heads, the general conditions there leave much to be desired. My hon. friend here from Durban talked about the danger of removing people from one slum to an area which, because of the poor conditions prevailing there, is likely to develop into another slum. That is the great danger. Sir, we are not the only country facing this problem. Unfortunately I have not got the article in question here, but the same thing has happened in the United States and it has caused the American Government great concern. They have asked their rehousing people to watch the situation because they are finding today that they are moving people from old slums to what are virtually new slums. People can say what they like about the conditions under which the Coloureds lived in District Six, but District Six was not always what it is today; there were some very nice homes there. But they have been allowed to deteriorate over the years. These people have now been put out in the bundu, where the necessary infrastructure still has to be completed. Sir, in the socio-upliftment of our Coloured people there is another aspect that we have to watch. As a result of the social conditions under which they live, one finds that their health deteriorates. I may say that at one time I had a great deal to do with the hospitals here. One finds that the vast majority of the patients at our hospitals are Bantu or Coloured. It is not that they are more liable to become ill than the Whites, or that they cannot afford hospital treatment. When you talk to medical people, they tell you that 50 per cent to 60 per cent of the illnesses of these people result from the conditions under which they have to live. The hon. the Minister finds himself in this cleft stick that not only has he got to carry out an urban renewal scheme, but that he also has to carry out the Government’s ideological policy. The result is that he is in a terrific muddle. On top of everything else, the Minister is faced with the fact that there has been a substantial cut-back on capital expenditure this year, and one wonders what is going to happen in the circumstances.

Sir, I would like to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister. The general feeling, as you know, Sir, is that most Coloured families are sub-economic or barely economic, but in point of fact a very substantial section of the Coloured community in Cape Town are quite well-to-do people in a fairly high income-tax bracket. These people are embarrassed by this removal scheme, because they have the greatest difficulty in finding sites on which they can build. The Indians in Johannesburg have been able to build very substantial houses. Unfortunately there are no roads there, but at least they have been able to build good houses. Down here in the Cape, however, you find that the average, moderately well-to-do Coloured man has great difficulty in finding a site on which he can build. He does not want any Government assistance. All he wants to be told is where he can buy a site. He does not want to have to buy a site just anywhere. I do not say that he is snobbish, but he should like to be selective. The hon. the Minister tells me that he can go to Mitchell’s Vlei. He is just condemning the man to go along with the masses. Why cannot he be selective, and why does the hon. the Minister not tell these people where they can go? They are not asking the Government for any money; they can afford to build their own homes. Sir, we have heard a great deal here this afternoon about housing for Whites from hon. members on the other side. They showered praises upon the Minister, but at the same time they were also criticizing the Government indirectly because of the shortage of housing for the middle-income group amongst the Whites. The hon. the Minister has asked hon. members on this side to tell him how many people they have in their constituencies who are still without housing. As far as my constituency is concerned, the Minister’s own department will tell him that I have had to approach them on many occasions with regard to housing for Whites in my constituency. There is definitely a shortage of housing for the middle-income group. The hon. the Minister talks about waiting lists. I would like to ask him how he draws up these lists.

I do not draw them up at all.

How does the Minister establish what the shortage of housing is?

By means of scientific inquiries.

Sir, the figures that the hon. the Minister has produced here are not reliable. If everybody who wanted a house, had to come to his office and register …

There are many ways of working it out.

I can produce dozens of young people in my constituency whose names do not appear on any lists, because they are completely frustrated. They live from hand to mouth, and when they are put out of their houses … [Time expired.]

I do not know whether hon. members opposite are perhaps feeling a little anxious, because they are expecting the Brakpan result within a few hours, and I really think they are going to get a fright. The hon. member for Salt River, who has just resumed his seat, used two sentences here which I cannot allow to pass without comment. He criticizes the Government’s so-called “social upliftment of the Coloured people”, as he calls it, and then states: “We are sending them to the bundu”.

Now I want to quote something said by Mr. Horak, one of their leaders. He wrote this in a letter to the Cape Times on 17th August, 1971—

Those are the words written by one of the leaders of the party opposite, and now the hon. member for Salt River comes along and says: “We are sending these people into the bundu”. I do not think so much was ever done for housing for our Whites and non-Whites as has been done since the Group Areas Act came upon the scene. I think that with this legislation for separate group areas this Government made a positive contribution by virtue of the fact that it looked scientifically at the housing needs of our non-Whites. I now want to ask the hon. member for Salt River whether he is not in favour of the people who lived in District Six in absolute slum conditions being taken to better housing areas. They are so willing to trot along with the local English newspapers when those newspapers write article upon article about the so-called injustice done to these people, and then those newspapers even print photographs of the slum streets and conditions that prevailed there; and then they speak of the good old days. I have never heard the hon. member for Salt River, the hon. member for Maitland, or any of them say that the people who lived there are now living in better houses and that they now at least have a good roof over their heads. [Interjections.] We read in the newspapers of the poor health conditions in District Six. We read of how some of the Coloured mothers who lived there complained that at night the rats bit their children, but there where they are now living this cannot happen because they are living under clean hygienic conditions.

I should like to come back to the hon. member for Port Natal. I just want to tell him this. He is either very jealous of the work this hon. Minister and his department are doing; he is either jealous and frustrated, or he hates this Minister with an intense hatred. [Interjections.] With his propagandist speeches I think that hon. member is doing a great deal of harm to the sound relations that exist between the various population [roups. I think he is damaging this striving of the Government in South Africa for sound relations between the various population groups. I wonder whether that hon. member ever tells those people who. according to him, live under poor conditions: “Do you not also want to make a contribution with proper family planning so that we can give you proper housing? ” We have never heard him speak along those lines. I should like to join a previous speaker on our side in asking the Minister to consider this case very seriously. [Interjections.] If the hon. member for Houghton would give me a chance to speak to the Minister I would appreciate it very much. You know, Sir, she likes talking very much and she talks very readily. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously the idea raised here this afternoon in connection with a levy on employers for the housing of their employees. I represent a rural constituency with many farmers, and we as farmers must pay levies on many of our products, and we ourselves must provide housing for our farm labourers. That housing must comply with certain high Divisional Council standards. I really think the time has now come for this Minister, whom we know can stand firm, to tell the employers that it is high time they made a contribution to the housing needs of all their employees.

The Opposition is continually telling us we cannot make up the backlog that exists. Looking back for a moment at what our Government had to take over, at what we inherited. I can point out the conditions beside the road as one drives to Paarl. There were the biggest ever hovel and slum conditions. And do you know. Sir, that a previous Minister of this Government had to take the Cape Town Municipality by the throat and say: “This is now a threat; you must now do something about these poor housing conditions or else I shall do so at your expense”. They had to be forced and threatened before they did anything. Now we have the beautiful housing conditions along the National Road on the way to Paarl.

I want to come back to my own constituency and tell the Minister that I only have praise for him and his department for what they have riven us, particularly in Worcester very recently. If I may furnish the Minister of Community Development with a testimonial I want to say that I regard him as a very open-hearted person with a very true feeling for those who are less privileged and do not live in good or comfortable houses. We had the privilege recently of spending a short time there with him, and we travelled through the town. I want to tell you, Sir, that his heart rejoiced when he saw what that municipality is doing, not only for our Whites, but also for the Coloureds. In the same breath I cannot but also pay tribute to that municipality which is now engaged in a scheme involving 2 000 dwelling units for our Coloureds, a very big economic housing scheme for our Whites and a very big sub-economic scheme. It is right for us also to pay tribute to many of our local authorities who really go out of their way to provide housing. It is strange that many of the local authorities that play such a big role in the creation of good housing conditions are in the hands of the National Party. I think one cannot but pay tribute to those people and thank them very sincerely for what they are doing, in co-operation with the Government, to provide decent housing for our people, Whites and non-Whites. [Time expired.]

As the hon. member for Worcester is wont to do, he once again made one of his days of yore speeches here, and yet he tried to say that the hon. member for Port Natal made propagandistic speeches in this House. But I am going to leave him at that. I want to say to the Minister I know he is aware of the fact that there are lairge areas in my constituency, Durban Central, which used to be occupied by Indians. In my constituency there are also large areas which fall in the same group as those areas described very nicely as “urban renewal”. Where these factors are present, it is virtually automatic to find that the Department of Community Development is extremely active. They are active to such an extent that one can say that as far as housing is concerned, they have the whip-hand utterly and completely. I know the hon. the Minister takes it amiss of us if we say that his department is one of the largest estate agencies in South Africa, and he asks, “What of it?” I want to say to him it is a state of affairs which I do not want to wish even on one of the Nationalist Party members in this House. It is definitely not a state of affairs which I wish on the tenants of houses and flats. This department is not only a large estate agency, but also a fickle agent. This is the problem with which we have to contend. From time to time it perpetrates things which are inexplicable yes, even reckless, in respect of tenants of buildings. Tenants are exposed not only to inconvenience but also to dangers. I shall mention specific examples from my constituency. In the first place, I want to point out cases of tenants who have been exposed to unprecedented rent increases as a result of the action of the hon. the Minister’s department. Then I want to mention cases of buildings which are so dilapidated that after the first downpour of rain, some rooms are virtually transformed into siwmming pools, of course, the hon. the Minister would say that this was one of the advantages, namely that if one obtained a house from him, one obtained a swimming pool inside the house at the same time. This is the type of problem with which I have to contend in my constituency. I even had the classic case recently of a building on which demolition work had been started while people were still living there. Can one imagine a more dangerous state of affairs?

Shortly before Christmas last year, the Department of Community Development sold two buildings in my constituency. They were buildings which had been built approximately four years before by the Community Development Board. I am referring to Strelitzia Court and Abelia Court. What was the result of that business transaction, or should I rather ask: What was the Christmas present which the hon. the Minister and his department gave the tenants? Strelitzia Court consisted of 36 flats which were occupied mainly by public servants and their families. It was sold to a private company and the rent for two-bedroomed flats was increased by 83 per cent. It was increased from R65 to R110 per month. For three-bedroomed flats the rent was increased by 74 per cent, i.e. from R72 per month to R125 per month. In Abelia Court, where there are only three-bedroomed flats, the rent increased by 86 per cent, i.e. from R65 to Rill per month. According to a letter from the hon. the Minister, these buildings were erected as part of an emergency programme in order to provide housing for the middle income group. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister if this is how he treats the middle income group? I know what his excuse is. He will say it is not the object of the Community Development Board to provide houses on a permanent basis. Buildings are constructed and sold later, and in the way it realizes its assets. But how does this department realize its assets? Abelia Court was built in 1967 for an amount of R58 732. Four years later it was sold for R58 500. in other words, there was a loss of R200. Strelitzia Court was built for R286 000 and sold for R300 000, in other words, at a profit of R14 000. The attempts of the tenants to have the buildings made subject to rent control failed completely. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he thinks it was a good business transaction to sell these buildings. Was the game worth the candle? In view of the increase in building costs from 1966 to 1970, he cannot build anything similar with those amounts of R300 000 and R58 000 which he received. In other words, it was a retrogressive step and even if he were to use the money for other urban renewal projects …

I have no authority

over the Development Board.

The Minister says he has no authority over the Development Board. This was a transaction which fell under the Minister’s department. The buildings were controlled by the Minister’s department and the tenants had applied to his department.

However, one finds other cases in my constituency as well—and in this regard I have put questions to the hon. the Minister and have sometimes received unsatisfactory replies—where everything is not right. It is not his fault, but something is wrong somewhere. The hon. the Minister often tells us that nobody is homeless and that everybody has a roof over his head. However. I can take the Minister to streets and buildinrs in my constituency in respect of which I have already put specific questions to him. The tenants of these buildings complained to me that they had lodged complaints with the department in regard to leaking roofs. However, when one goes to the Department of Community Development, they say they have received no complaints. Somewhere there is something wrong. I want to suggest to the Minister that his department has become so large that this type of situation is necessarily developing. There is too much work for the staff of the department to handle. In other words, there is a manpower problem. It is not a case of their not recieiving complaints, In reality they receive too many complaints, and in this regard I am referring particularly to certain buildings in Leathern Road in my constituency, about which I have put questions. I have personal knowledge of one building where the people told me that the roof was leaking and that they had lodged complaints with the Department of Community Development in that regard. However, when I asked the Department of Community Development about it, they said they were not aware of such complaints.

That a member can talk such nonsense. Should the Minister go and repair the roof? Are you mad?

Order!

It is not nonsense. The hon. member should go to these buildings and see what the conditions are. Then he would not say there is no housing emergency in South Africa. In some of those houses people are living under extremely dangerous circumstances. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I said earlier in the debate that I wanted to deal in greater detail with the Government’s new house saving scheme, and I want to do so at this stage. Last night when I dealt with this subject briefly, I said that two spokesmen from companies who are engaged in the construction of housing for the lower to middle-income groups have described this scheme as being inadequate, unrealistic and likely to prove a monumental failure from the outset.

Who said that?

Two spokesmen, one from Omega Construction and the other from Gough Cooper. It is as well that the hon. the Prime Minister is in his seat, because I think he ought to take note of what I am going to say. There are two fatal flaws in this scheme. These are related to the scheme’s income and house price limitations. I want to deal, firstly, with the house price limitation, which is R16 000. It must be borne in mind that that includes the land as well. It is the land plus the house on which there is the limitation of R16 000. The position is that it is already difficult today for private house-builders, and I am not now referring to the sort of housing the department constructs for the sub-economic and economic groups, to build houses which can be sold, together with the ground, for R16 000. The two spokesmen from these companies that I have mentioned have said that they consider that it will be impossible to go on providing houses for as little as R16 000 in major urban areas for much longer. It must be borne in mind that under this scheme, persons who wish to make use of it, must save for at least 18 months. That means that they will not be making use of the scheme for a minimum of 18 months. By that time, I suggest, it will be quite impossible to produce a house of a reasonable standard for this figure.

But one must go further than this and one must bear in mind that most people who will be making use of this scheme will have to save for a great deal longer than 18 months in order to put aside the minimum deposit which is required, viz., R4 000, especially bearing in mind that the income limit is only R5 000. In dealing with the income limit, I should like to say that if the wife is not also earning and in that way increasing the total income to beyond R5 000, it will be virtually impossible for any young family whose total income is R5 000, to save at all, let alone to save sufficiently to put aside R4 000 within a reasonable period of time. There has been some confusion as to whether this R5 000 income limit applies only to the breadaawinner, the husband’s income or whether in fact it is the total income of that household. If it is the total income of the household, in other words, the income earned by the wife as well as the husband, it of course becomes an even more unrealistic limitation. But I understand that the Government has stated since this was announced in the Budget that the R5 000 income limit is intended to refer to the income limit of the breadwinner, the husband only. The hon. the Minister nods his head in agreement. I would suggest that the hon. the Minister again repeats this, because there is still some confusion over it. I would reiterate that, even if it is the case that that applies to the income of the husband only, unless the wife is earning as well, it will be impossible for a couple to put aside money under this proposed scheme.

Let us see how this works in practice. The Government is not giving any rebate on transfer and stamp duties to people in this category. The effect of this under the present rate of transfer duty is that on a R16 000 house the transfer duty will be R700. That means transfer duty will be R700. That means that the young couple is being given a benefit which on the other hand is being taken away to the extent of R700. This side of the House and several of the speakers on that side of the House have pleaded with the hon. the Minister to give further consideration to the young couples and the middle income group. The hon. member for Germiston, for example, did so, and I think one or two other members on that side of the House also pointed to the difficulties which people in this category are having. If the Government is realistic in wishing to assist them, I believe they must improve this scheme a great deal. They must increase the house price limitation beyond R16 000. I would say that it should be increased to at least R20 000 for this category, but possibly even higher. They should also consider increasing the income limitation beyond R5 000. R6 000 would be a more realistic figure. In addition they should introduce other, what I may call, fringe benefits such as have been suggested by the hon. member for Green Point and which I do not wish to repeat. There are others, for example the Government could consider giving some form of tax concession to companies that wish to invest in housing schemes for their employees or who wish to assist their employees in obtaining houses. At the moment there is no incentive whatsoever for any companies to do so. The hon. the Minister made the point that farmers provide housing for their employees, and he expects the business community, commerce and industry, to follow suit. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that if a farmer provides housing for his employees, he is able to get the benefit of this against tax. Such expenses come off his taxable income, but there is no similar benefit for commerce and industry. I believe that the Government should seriously consider this. It would assist in making more housing available to this group.

Then I would like to deal briefly with two statements made by the hon. member for Germiston. He referred to the urbanization crisis—he used the word “crisis”—and he said that it is more a problem of management. I would agree with him up to a point, but I believe it becomes a problem of management only when adequate provision has been made for the projected urbanization growth. If the statistics are wrong and if the provision which is made for growing urbanization is wrong, no amount of good management will overcome the problem. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Musgrave complained about the home-owners’ saving scheme and said that certain institutions had major objections to it. That may be so. I am not saying it is a perfect scheme, but I must be guided by the building societies. All the building societies co-operated in the development of this scheme and up to now none has suggested any amendments to this scheme. In other words, I must accept that the building societies are completely satisfied with it. As long as they are satisfied with it, I see no reason why I should intervene. If the building societies were to find that certain changes should be made, I would be perfectly willing to listen to them. The hon. member’s idea that R16 000 is too little for a house is foolish. Now I know …

It is not my idea only.

I may say that at present the Saambou-Nasionale Bouvereniging is building very good houses in Klerksdorp which cost R11 000 per house, including the land. Therefore I do not agree with him in that regard.

The hon. member for Durban Central complained about Strelitzia Court which had been sold by the Development Board. In the first place, I want to say to him that I have no authority at all over the Development Board. The Development Board is a statutory body and I cannot tell them what to do. They are completely independent of me and I may not interfere with what they do. They can tell me to get lost if I want to interfere with them. The only thing I can do, is to try to use my influence with them. How much influence I have with them, I do not know. What is the difficulty with Strelitzia Court? The place was sold at a small profit, after which the rent was increased. The rent was low because the Development Board could not fill Strelitzia Court. The rent has been increased now. If the rent becomes too high, surely the solution is obvious. If those are being exploited, that building is simply placed under rent control. In that case they need merely apply to have the building placed under rent control. If I receive an application for a building to be placed under rent control, I refer the matter to the Rent Control Board who must then investigate the matter. They must determine whether the rent is too high and must compare the rent payable in such a building to that payable in buildings in the area. Then it is up to them to recommend whether or not the building should be placed under rent control. I do not know of any other method whatsoever for dealing with this matter. Nor is there any other method for dealing with it.

The hon. member for Worcester spoke about the levy on employers in regard to housing for Coloured workers. In my reply to the hon. member for Parow I said I was in favour of it; I support it and shall give it my serious attention.

The hon. member for Salt River complained about District Six and said we should demolish some of the buildings there sooner because they were becoming dangerous, etc. I agree with him; we should demolish them as soon as possible. Some of those buildings are dangerous but the demolition work is being done as rapidly as possible. The hon. member also complained about the low quality of sub-economic houses for Coloureds. Sir, what does he expect as regards sub-economic houses for Coloureds, some of which cost as little as R600 and R700? The more luxurious—if one can call it this—one makes those houses, the fewer sub-economic houses one can build. I just want to point out to him that the sub-economic houses are at least of such a standard that in an interview conducted with the Minister of Coloured Affairs and I recently, the Coloured Persons’ Representative Council made serious representations to us to allow those sub-economic houses to be sold to the Coloureds. I will not be told that they want to buy them if they are so dissatisfied with the standard.

The hon. member for Hercules put a question about Lady Selbome. I just want to say to him that the city council had to struggle for a long time to get the province so far as to determine the route of the throughway. That is why there was much delay in the development. Towards the end of last year we exercised a great deal of pressure. Now the route has been determined and now the planning of Lady Selborne will be proceeded with.

The hon. member for Hercules also placed serious emphasis on the Niemand Commission’s recommendation that local authorities themselves should develop townships. I fully agree with him. We encourage them as much as possible to develop townships and to implement the Niemand Commission’s recommendations.

The hon. member for Durban Point also complained about flats which had been removed from rent control and had then been converted into holiday flats. He spoke of flat dwellers who were being bothered by the owners in all sorts of ways. As he knows, this is against the law.

The rent is simply increased.

Very well; if they simply increase the rent, the remedy is obvious. The tenants must apply for that building to be placed under rent control again. I cannot determine whether there has been exploitation. The only method of determining whether there has been exploitation, is to refer the matter to the Rent Board. In that case the hon. member for Durban Point may go and give evidence before it. He may go and try to convince them that there has in fact been exploitation. If he convinces them, they will recommend that the building be placed under rent control and then the matter will be rectified in this way.

But here is the letter.

What letter?

The letter to me to tell me that there has been no exploitation.

But I did not say there had been no exploitation. I said the advice of the Rent Board was that there had been no exploitation. After all, I did not go and investigate the matter personally; surely I cannot investigate each of these cases individually and on my own. The reason I said there had been no exploitation was that the advice I received from my experts was that there had in fact been no exploitation. They are the people “on the spot”, as the hon. the Minister of Justice says.

There are United Party supporters on that Rent Board as well.

Yes, there are many United Party supporters on the boards.

The applications were refused.

The applications were refused because it had been established that there had been no exploitation. How do they determine that? They establish what the comparable rent is in the area, etc.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Boksburg that I agree with him that we have done a great deal in recent times in regard to housing in Boksburg and I hope we shall be able to comply with other requests as well. Everything depends on how much money we have at our disposal. As far as the Coloured area of Reiger Park is concerned, there still are Indian traders; that is perfectly correct. We are doing our best to resettle the Indian traders there. I want to say to the hon. member that the question of the Indian traders on the East Rand, i.e. from Germiston as far as Springs and Nigel, will enjoy our very serious attention during the recess. Benoni cannot absorb all the Indian traders; it is quite impossible, but this whole question of Indians on the East Rand and of moving their businesses, will receive our serious attention this recess, and I hope we shall find a solution to that problem this year still.

The hon. member for Tygerberg requested something here to which I think the commission of inquiry will in fact give its attention. Recently I had a discussion with one of the members of that commission of inquiry. He told me they regretted receiving very little evidence from tenants. Well, that is obvious. The tenants are not organized, while, the owners of flats, on the other hand, are well organized. The commission receives little evidence from tenants, but I do not have the least doubt that they will pay very serious attention to the position of what the hon. member called the silent majority.

The hon. member for Green Point also said that the standard of sub-economic housing for Coloureds was too low. But the trouble is that as soon as one sets standards which are too high, it simply means that one can build fewer sub-economic houses, because one’s money is limited and if the standards are raised, one simply has to build fewer houses for the same money.

Have you seen the sub-economic houses in Randfontein?

I have seen some of the sub-economic houses in Randfontein; I have seen sub-economic houses in Stellenbosch and everywhere else. They are not luxury houses, but I say that it is perfectly good housing for sub-economic Coloured families.

One half of them.

Sir, this is simply not the position. Go and look at Cloetesdal, where there are hundreds of those houses, and go and look whether there is any sign of a slum area there. There is no sign of a slum area; it is a decent, clean, neat Coloured area, and the idea that these areas will develop into slums because the housing simply consists of small rooms, is the biggest nonsense in the world.

The hon. member for Green Point, who is being so clever now, said that only luxury flats were empty. I have this afternoon’s Argus here.

Do you believe what is in the Argus?

I believe the advertisements in the Argus; that is all I believe. Listen to this advertisement—

How many rooms?

Three rooms, a modern kitchen, bathroom, two bedrooms, and R90 per month.

It is a long way out of town.

It is not a long way out of town. With these lovely roads, Blouberg is as near to the centre of Cape Town as Parktown is to the centre of Johannesburg, or as Woodland is to the centre of Pretoria. The hon. member for Green Point says that only luxury flats are standing empty. Here is another advertisement—

But according to the hon. member for Green Point, it is only luxury houses and flats which are empty. The hon. member must not talk such utter tripe.

*I am glad the hon. member for Langlaagte spoke about Lenasia; I appreciate it. He was perfectly correct in saying that Lenasia is as close to a model residential area as one can come. As far as the streets are concerned, I can only say that in Vereeniging, too, there are streets which become flooded in times of heavy rain. As yet all the streets there have not been tarred either. Everything cannot be done in one day, but more and more streets in Lenasia are being tarred.

As far as Page View is concerned, we are clearing it up. The hon. member’s suggestion that we should purchase land to the south of Johannesburg, is definitely something which may be considered. I shall definitely discuss it with my department.

In actual fact the hon. member for Houghton only had one major objection. She said, “we are resettling people who are already in good housing”. Sir, this is the old argument of people who are not in favour of separate residential areas. It is the old argument of people who are not in favour of group areas. Sir, we must preserve the balance. I fully agree that we must house the squatter as soon as we possibly can, but at the same time we should also go ahead with our policy of resettlement, which we will in fact do. The hon. member for Port Natal may fuss as much as he likes; District Six has been declared a White area. Those Coloureds will be settled elsewhere, and they will be given better houses than those in which they are living at present. Sir, it is always said that people who are resettled, are put into the veld. What nonsense! Not a single Indian or Coloured who is resettled does not receive a better house than the one in which he is living at present.

That is tripe.

Sir, I am grateful for what the hon. member for Vasco said about the Goodwod Acres and about what we have done there. As far as these communal television aerials are concerned, I agree with him. I, too, have seen these television aerials abroad, which look like crows’ nests and cobwebs. I do not think we have any authority in that regard. It is mainly a matter for the local authority.

As regards Crown Garden Cities, the hon. member himself said it had sufficient land for the next three decades. Therefore they already have cheap land at their disposal. The hon. member went on to ask us to make more money available in regard to this joint building society scheme. He said that at present they had money to provide only six or eight houses for the middle income group, and he requested that we should make more money available. It is difficult to say whether we can in fact do so. I can only promise the hon. member that we shall investigate this matter in the recess. We have discussed the matter with Mr. Meyer, the manager of Crown Garden Cities. He put forward certain proposals to us which we shall consider very seriously.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 32.—“Public Works”, R53 746 000, Loan Vote B.—“Public Works”, R54 625 000, and S.W.A. Vote No. 17.—“Public Works”, R2 548 000:

Sir, I think I could do no better than start by saying that one appreciated receiving a report from this department yesterday. May I quote the foreword of this report—

If that is not sufficient to indicate to the hon. the Minister of Public Works what is necessary and what should be done and what is wrong with his department, I do not know what is. But when one looks at the report itself and considers the details, I think one must compliment the Secretary of the department for producing a report which gives equal attention to both favourable and unfavourable aspects in the department. One of the most alarming aspects is the staff shortages in so far as technical posts are concerned. I want briefly to refer to paragraph 11 of the report. It is extraordinary how this department even functions when one finds that the vacancies as at 31st March last year were the following: For civil engineers there were ten out of 19 posts; for electrical engineers, six out of eight posts; quantity surveyors, 19 out of 24 posts; and architects ten out of 30 posts. That is the staff position with which this department is attempting to operate. When one notes that fact one can understand why during the year under review here there were an additional 456 leases—at least there are now 456 leases—of property for Government use. On a rough calculation, the average rentals being paid throughout the country is 15 cents per square foot. I do not know whether that is a reasonable rent in the overall position. I want to ask the Minister in regard to leases: Who settles the rent? Is there a committee or a commission and, if so, who are the members of it? Who settles the details when the department enters into these leases? Because the rental which is being paid and which we are being asked to vote, is an increase from R7 553 000 last year to a figure of R10 187 000 this year for hire premises. The time has come that there should be a stop to this lavish spending in so far as the Government is concerned. But I want to raise one matter in the short time available to me and that is in connection with the design of Government buildings. I do not believe that there is a better example of the non-maximum economic use of building sites than one finds in the case of every Government structure that is put up. Are we getting the best out of the sites? I want to refer as an example to the new structure just across the way. In this building neither the ground floor in the side street or in Parliament Street is utilized for public purposes, and if one goes up a few steps one comes to another prestige floor which is on the level of the square and is not used. In fact, as one has found in visiting that building, it is either a chute for the South-Easter or a funnel for the rains which settle on that building. These buildings which are erected kill dead the locality in which they are erected because we have with the faade of these buildings the cold stone frontage on the pavement. I agree that if one looks at a building like the Verwoerd building from a nice distance, or if one could have it in the centre of a place like the Parade, it will be a most attractive building, but there is not the maximum utilization of the ground which is available where it has been built. Then there is a scheme for the development of Plein Street here in Cape Town. It would be a shocking thing if that development is going to result in what will really be an unbroken stone or marble wall from the top of Plein Street down to Spin Street. What use can be made? Surely when one looks at the area of properties which are hired for Government purposes, particularly for offices to which the public has access, surely the ground floors of Government buildings should be used for these purposes. Let me give some instances. Is it not possible to incorporate one of these smaller district post offices on the ground floor of these State buildings? Is it not possible to provide in these State buildings for revenue offices where people can make their payments and take out licences? Is it necessary that persons who want to apply for a passport, must go miles in any one of the cities and then go in a lift up to various upper floors? Those offices should be on the ground floor. Not only will it be a service to the public; it will also enliven the neighbourhood in which these State buildings are. It would enliven the neighbourhood and it would in addition to that not only create a convenience to the public, but above all it would mean the maximum economic utilization of sites by the State. I hope this matter will be taken into consideration. There are other buildings to which one could refer, which are of the same nature.

The other point which I am pleased to note in this report, and which I hope is being pursued, is the check on the demands made by the various departments for accommodation. I was pleased to note that there has been a possible saving by the reduction in the areas allocated to various departments, who have asked for more space. But if one looks at the schedule of spending, one can realize where some of the chronic difficulties of the building industry in South Africa have arisen. If one looks at the five-year period between the year 1966–’67 and the year 1970–71 one finds that the tenders accepted by the head office of the Public Works Department, which were R15,4 million in 1966–’67, rose to R70,6 million five years later in 1970–71, an increase of 460 per cent. Even in respect of the departmental and regional work which was undertaken, one has the same position. In 1966–’67 there was an amount of R3,8 million for regional work, which by 1970–71 had jumped to R7,99 million, or by over 200 per cent. There are signs that this spending in the public sector is being curtailed and I hope it will be further curtailed, and my plea at this moment to the department is to ensure that they look at the sites and the property which the Government owns and which it utilizes to see that there is, as is sought by every developer, the maximum economic utilization of those sites, which I do not believe is the case at present.

The hon. member for Green Point complained about the high rentals that are being paid for Government purposes and, if I understand the hon. member correctly, what the hon. member probably means is that instead of paying rent the Department should at some time or other provide buildings for those sections or departments in question. We very often find it difficult to understand the Opposition because one day they attack us because Government spending is supposed to be too high, while in this instance, they complain that we do not erect enough buildings and initiate sufficient activities. But I want to leave the matter at that.

I want to come back to the reference made by the hon. member to the building across the street over here, the Hendrik Verwoerd Building, the official opening of which we could attend earlier this year. I must point out to the hon. member that this building costs many millions of rands and I believe that, on the part of the department, the services of only the best experts were used as far as the design is concerned, and not only the functional design, but also as far as the appearance of the building is concerned. Now, the front elevation of the building is not to the hon. member’s liking, but when one considers the parking space and everything that has been provided, the front elevation of the building, seen from a particular angle, might not be to one’s liking but I think that when one looks at the building from a functional point of view and when one considers the purpose for which the building has been planned and all the thin s it has to provide, we have a very fine building in the Hendrik Verwoerd Building.

We must also bear in mind that this building is not situated in a business area, but that the building is situated here where it must fit in with this complex. Now, the buildings do not fit in, but I believe that the activities which have to be carried out here were among the basic considerations, i.e. in what way this building would fit in best with the functional activities. To my mind these considerations are always taken into account as far as Government buildings are concerned, particularly in the case of the larger complexes such as the one we are dealing with here.

I also want to refer to the foreword to this report. The hon. member for Green Point also referred to it in passing. I am not going to quote all the parts the hon. member has read out. The first paragraph reads—

I looked up some of the previous annual reports to make sure whether they did not also contain a similar foreword. However, I could not find any. For that reason this foreword was of particular interest to me. Since it is being said that this state of affairs is not a healthy one and that we should set ourselves an ideal, we find here that the wish is expressed on the part of the department that we should merely strive to achieve that ideal but that such ideal will never be realized.

This is the same with apartheid.

Or is this a polite but firm warning to other departments, the activities of which are of a widespread nature, that they should prepare themselves because this department, which is equipped to carry out concomitant activities, is slowly gathering matters under its wing? It seems to me that this is the tone conveyed by this foreword. We should do it in this way, if necessary. We are living in modern times and if there are people whose wings have to be clipped for an excellent service that may be rendered, their wings will simply have to be clipped.

This report also contains one other very important matter. Reference is made to a study or a survey which has been carried out to determine or assess the housing requirements of Whites. This we find in paragraph 7 (a) on page 1, in the second column. Reference is made there to an investigation commenced in November 1970 and carried out in the Pretoria region in particular. We have this problem of having to make a proper assessment of the housing requirements of Whites. We have waiting lists, and so forth, and during the discussion under the previous Vote it was pointed out that waiting lists are, in fact, unreliable and of little practical use. Here we now have a study on a very important matter. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister what progress has been made with this study, whether it has been completed and whether satisfactory results have been obtained with this study. What I mean is whether a set of principles may not be established in terms of which, for example, the housing requirements of Pretoria could be assessed, but which would be applicable to another area as well. If this could be done, we would have made tremendous progress and we would have obtained a reliable instrument on the basis of which assessments could be made as far as housing requirements are concerned. We shall be glad if this information could be made available to us so that we could see what it is all about. There may be quite a number of concomitant facts which may be used to assess the housing requirements. As I have said, if this is the case, we would have made a major break-through on a matter in respect of which we have some problems, and we would have found an instrument we have been looking for for many years.

The department has fulfilled a major task again this year. However, there is one matter which worries me and which I should like to refer to in conclusion. This concerns the backlog in Government accommodation and related services which at present amounts to approximately R1 164 million and which, according to the report, will be impossible to make up in the foreseeable future. I want to ask whether this figure is not misleading and I want to illustrate my statement. If I should decide to buy a particular article during this month and, owing to certain circumstances, am not in a position to buy such article, would I be justified to add the price of this article to some list or other and say that I am falling behind with my purchases? At a particular time in the course of the year I want to buy another article but owing to circumstances I am once more unable to buy it. I write this amount down for a second time and say that I am falling behind with my purchases.

Are we not multiplying this amount in this very same manner? If we cannot provide Government buildings and if a Government department or a section still has some accommodation somewhere, I do not think we can write down that figure and say that that is the extent to which we are falling behind as far as the provision of State accommodation is concerned. This figure, as it appears in the report, is an impressive one. and when one considers that it is a backlog. I feel that we do not have the correct picture of what the situation really is. I think that generally, except in a few cases perhaps, our Government departments are quite reasonably accommodated. We are also making some progress in providing the necessary accommodation in future for those Government departments which are not satisfactorily accommodated. We must do this without making these calculations and then saying that we have a backlog.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston has dealt with the report of the Department of Public Works and has mentioned the housing requirements of Whites, which is receiving attention. However, we must bear in mind that this only deals with the position as far as Pretoria is concerned. We hope there will be an official report dealing with other aspects of the housing requirements. If one considers the question of the shortage of housing and industrial buildings, one can see that there is particular scope for this aspect.

I wish to deal with sub-head (15) of Loan Vote B—Social Welfare and Pensions—and I want to say immediately that we appreciate that the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions is present for this debate, so that certain items affecting his department may be raised at this stage. I want to deal with the item “Accommodation for drug dependants” at Cullinan, amounting to R130 000, R30 000 of which is to be voted this year, and also with the item “Refuge for White males” at Cullinan, a new item of R230 000, for which a token amount of R50 is to be voted this year. I would like to know from the hon. the Minister the manner in which these rehabilitation centres for drug dependants are established.

The hon. the Minister officially opened the rehabilitation centre at Cullinan on 26th April, 1972, and gave a rsum, to an extent, of the rehabilitation provisions and other provisions of the Act which was passed last year by this House, namely the Abuse of Dependence Producing Substances and Rehabilitation Centres Act (Act 41 of 1971). Here we a ree that the position as far as rehabilitation is concerned, is indeed a vitally important aspect of the administration of that Act. However, it appears that although this Act has only been in operation for a short period of six months, certain difficulties are arising as far as rehabilitation is concerned and the direction of drug addicts to the accommodation that is provided in terms of this Vote. It appears from replies given by the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in this House that these rehabilitation centres have considerable vacancies. Indeed, the one rehabilitation centre situated in Bloemfontein for under 18 year-olds, which is administered in terms of the Children’s Act, is empty. I would therefore like the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions to give some indication to this Committee as to what the position is at the present time at the rehabilitation centre at Cullinan and to indicate to what extent accommodation is available, the maximum accommodation available, and perhaps also how many persons are presently receiving rehabilitation at these centres.

Therefore, I do not want to dwell on the question of the administration of the Act concerned, under which persons are committed to these rehabilitation centres, as we will have an opportunity of raising this matter under the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions at the appropriate time.

The other question deals with this refuge for White males at Cullinan which, as I say, is a new item showing an estimated expenditure of R230 000, although there appears on the Estimates only a token amount of R50. I should like the hon. the Minister to give an indication of the reasons for the necessity of this type of institution in view of the position as it now stands and to indicate what type of White males will be accommodated at this proposed refuge. I must say that I think it is an unfortunate term to use when one describes any form of institution as a “refuge”.

The other question to which I should like to refer is the question of the Norman House Place of Safety, at Edenvale. Here too only a token amount of R50 appears on the Estimates, but there has been a considerable alteration in the original Estimates. A swimming bath and sports facilities and accommodation for educational purposes are to be provided. Places of safety and detention have been in the forefront of publicity. Fortunately, it is not a matter that falls under this Minister, but under another Minister, because it affects Coloured children. However, we should like to have some information in regard to this accommodation for educational purposes which is to be provided at this place of safety. The hon. the Minister should indicate to this Committee in what manner these premises will be utilized and whether it will be possible for all children who are accommodated at a place of safety, to receive educational instruction whilst they are so accommodated. This accommodation is regarded as a transitional period while being cared for under the Children’s Act. I see that an amount of R20 000 appears on the Estimates in respect of the place of safety at Pinetown. It would appear that this place of safety is now about to be completed. The hon. member for Berea and I visited this place of safety. I should like to say that the type of institution which is being established there we consider to be an excellent one, an ideal one. The type of building that is being erected lends itself to the specialized work that has to be undertaken whilst these children are so accommodated.

The other aspect, another item under sub-head (15), deals with the purchase, conversion and renovation of a property to serve as a home for the aged at Dunnottar. The original estimate was R325 000 and the present estimate is R800 000, of which R30 000 is to be voted. Here, I think, a principle is involved in that this appears to be a State institution in view of the fact that it appears on the Estimates. This is a deviation from the normal policy of the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions for the provision of such homes for the aged to be made through the agency of welfare organizations. I hope the hon. the Minister can give some information in regard to this particular project and indicate whether this is to be a State-run institution or whether it is the aim of his department to hand this home for the ased over to a welfare organization at a later stage so that it can be administered in the normal way that most homes for the aged are administered in South Africa at the present time.

In referring to the position of the rehabilitation centres for drug dependants, I feel that the hon. the Minister should also give consideration to encouraging the welfare organizations to establish registered rehabilitation centres where they consider it necessary. I think the welfare organizations to a great extent have an indication of the needs and the requirements as far as this is concerned. As we know, they have administered various registered rehabilitation centres for some years and have gained valuable experience.

I feel that it would perhaps be wise if the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions would consider this suggestion, which will mean that the Government itself will not be directly involved with these rehabilitation centres. The rehabilitation centres, the old retreats or work colonies, as they were known under the previous legislation, dealt mainly with parsons who were alcoholics and dealt with the problem of alcoholism. It is necessary, of course, that this good work should continue and that the basis of this work should be built upon. Therefore I hope that the hon. the Minister will give some indication to the Committee of the manner in which the welfare organizations are able to assist his department in making provision for the accommodation of persons who are alcoholics, drug addicts, or drug dependants, and also those persons who are requiring accommodation at homes for the aged where this has been the practice in the past. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could give some indication as to whether he intends to carry on with that practice or whether this is merely a measure which is to bring about a more expeditious provision of accommodation, accommodation which his department has considered necessary and which will be required as the practical application of the Act that was passed last year gains momentum. As the Act gains momentum more persons who are considered to be addicts—not those who are convicted in terms of the legislation as dealers or pushers—and who are seeking assistance and those persons who are compulsorily committed to these institutions should receive treatment in order to be rehabilitated so as to find their place again in society. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise at once to reply to the request made by the hon. member for Umbilo and to furnish the required information in that regard. A far more fruitful discussion of the whole question of the rehabilitation of drug addicts may be conducted under my Vote, which will come up for discussion within a day or two. Then we may go into the whole method which is followed. In this instance we mainly want to go into the question of the buildings erected with a view to serving as rehabilitation centres. I want to tell the hon. member that in order to put the Act into operation, my department would have to be able to provide rehabilitation centres and rehabilitation. If, in terms of the provisions of the Act. a person were to be committed to a rehabilitation centre by the courts, my department would have to be in a position to accommodate such a person immediately, otherwise the Act could not be promulgated and implemented. For that reason we asked at the time for the amount of money as indicated here, i.e. R130 000, for the erection of two rehabilitation centres at the Magaliesoord site, which we already own and where we have other buildings as well. This complex has now been completed.

For males and females?

Yes, for males and females. There is accommodation for 36 males and 36 females in the beautiful centre, which, as the hon. member said, I opened in April. I am no prophet, but Ido not think we shall use the full amount that was requested. I think we are going to save a little on the amount, but at this stage I do not want to commit myself by saying how much the saving will be. I think we shall get off with a smaller amount than was originally voted for that purpose. This is the position as a result of very neat planning and the very friendly co-operation we obtained. The same applies to the institution at Bloemfontein, where we have accommodation for 36 youths under the age of 18 years. At that institution we also have accommodation available. In other words, I can say with an open mind that we do have accommodation available for durg addicts committed to institutions. In all three of these centres accommodation is available, and therefore provision can be made for the necessary in this regard.

The hon. member asked whether we would also encourage private initiative, and whether we would proceed with the idea that private initiative should also do welfare work in this regard. My immediate reply is that this definitely is the policy, and that, as is done in the case of other welfare work, we should like to see private initiative carrying on with this work and that the State will not only supplement it. In this regard, however, whereas I have statutory instructions to do rehabilitation work when people are committed, I could not rely completely and exclusively in private initiative. The State must see to it that there are centres. We encourage private initiative, and we shall go further to encourage them to complete this task for us.

Then the hon. member also asked me—I am following the sequence as I have it in front of me—about the conversion and renovation of the hospital at Dunnottar. I may tell at once the hon. member that he is confusing two concepts in his mind. In the same vicinity we have Struisbult, where private initiative is in fact busy with a hospital and where we are paying them. That is not the same project as the one for which provision is made here. The item “Dunnottar” is an old mine hospital which was bought by the State, and which is excellently suited for conversion into a home for the aged. This old hospital, which was left after the mines had closed, was purchased and will be converted into a home for the aged which will be fully controlled and run by the State. It will be a State institution and not a private one. In other words, in his argument the hon. member confused the place with the Struisbult, which is situated in the same vicinity and which is in fact a private institution. But this is “Dunnottar”, and this is an entirely different situation. The amount of money which is provided, is for the conversion of that old hospital into a modern home for the aged, in so far as this is practicable. The idea is that this service will be covered by the loans we are negotiating here.

Then I come to the item “Norman House Place of Safety”, under which “Swimming bath and sports facilities” and “Accommodation for educational purposes” fall. We have experienced problems in the department with the education of these children who are kept in these transit houses in the meantime. These children do not find it easy to adjust to existing schools. It is not always easy, because of numerous problems, of which the hon. member is aware, to send them to existing schools. Consequently I have decided to make education facilities available at these schools, as far as this is possible, so that these children may receive instruction at the home itself. It is for that purpose that we have now requested this amount under this item. The date for tenders is 1st January, 1973. This accommodation is to be completed over a period of 15 months at an estimated cost of R296 000. Only R50 is budgeted so that a start may be made with inviting tenders at the given date. That is the first amount. The total amount is for the provision of education facilities in this case.

As far as the Excelsior Place of Safety and Detention is concerned, to which the hon. member for Umbilo and the hon. member for Durban Berea also paid a visit, I may say at once that this amount is requested for filling up the swimming bath, which was made too deep originally. The hon. member will agree with me that it was dangerous. Furthermore, it comprises the fitting of burglar-proofing, as well as retention moneys for the existing work which is being done there. That is what this amount is requested for.

Then there is the construction of the Magaliesoord Rehabilitation Centre for males, in respect of which provision is made for R50 only. In this case the idea is that the centre will be erected at an estimated cost of R168 000. Now, this centre is the one for drug addicts, alcoholics, at Magaliesoord, where we want to effect certain improvements, such as single rooms, etc.

Finally, the large amount which appears under this item, is in respect of the “Refuge for White males”, as it appears in the book. The hon. member is conversant with the facts. At the moment we have a refuge for males near Nelspruit, a refuge called Swartfontein. The entire complex of buildings at that place is a little antiquated, and the circumstances are not favourable. Furthermore, I find it very difficult to provide psychiatric services at a place as far removed as Nelspruit is, whereas we have psychiatrists available in Pretoria and Johannesburg. The object here is to build a modern centre, then to close down Swartfontein, and to move the people to Magaliesoord, where these persons may then be accommodated in one large complex. This would be better for the purposes of administration and psychiatric treatment. It would be an improvement in all respects. Ithink if we can spend these amounts in this way, they may be utilized profitably in the interests of the entire division. I think Ihave now replied to all the questions.

Mr. Chairman, on behalf of my colleague, the hon. member for Umbilo, I must say how much we appreciate the answers given by the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions and the fact that he was here to answer the questions. I am sure that, if the rest of the debate can be conducted in this spirit, we are going to do very well.

I want to come back for a moment to the question which was first raised by my friend, the hon. member for Green Point, namely the question of the Hendrik Verwoerd building. The hon. member for Green Point was making the point to the Minister that the Government had missed a golden opportunity here, particularly with the Hendrik Verwoerd building, although all his comments apply equally to other Government buildings which are being erected throughout the country, particularly the prestige buildings. Can the hon. the Minister just think what he could have done with the ground floor of the Hendrik Verwoerd building? Cape Town is the gateway to South Africa. Just think of the number of people who first arrive in South Africa here in Cape Town. Just think what could have happened if we had our tourist offices on the ground floor or the offices of the South African Airways, or information, immigration and passport control, to draw the people to the centre of Cape Town. This is our prestige building. When I say “our”, I mean South Africa’s prestige building. This is the prestige building of the country, of the Government. They have missed this opportunity of using this building for that purpose. It would have been the show-window of South Africa; but instead of that, in the words of the hon. member for Green Point, it is going to be the “centre of a dead area”, because the Government is not doing anything to encourage the people to come to this particular area.

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

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I wish to refer to those items under Loan Vote B which apply to the Department of Defence. I start by saying that the Defence Vote, as it is totalled in the Revenue Votes, does not give a full picture. Therefore, unless one considers the Loan Votes, not only those under Defence for which R8,7 million is appropriated for shares in the Corporation, but under Loan Vote B as well, you do not get a full picture. What concerns me, is firstly that if one looks at the total under subhead 5, one finds that estimates of R14 812 million have now grown to R34 896 million. In other words, what the Department of Defence estimated originally would cost them R14 million is now going to cost them nearly R35 million. The Department of Defence works on a five-year programme, a budgeting programme on schemes. If this is the picture of budgeting under the Public Works Vote, how much value can we then attach to the estimates under other votes of the Department of Defence? If the hon. the Minister would look on page 14, he will find that the first column shows, as I have said, an amount of R14 812 million. This amount has grown to R34 million

What worries me secondly is not only the inefficient budgeting, budgeting which is nearly three times above estimates, 2½ times as high as was originally estimated for the various services, but that over the years only R10,2 million of it has been spent. Only R3,2 million is to be spent this year and there is R21 million remaining to be spent in the future. In other words, this is not in fact a clear picture of what is being spent on capital works for Defence. I want to start with housing. In 1969 the hon. the Minister gave this House an undertaking that his target was 100 per cent housing for married members of the Permanent Force.

We do not provide for housing under this Vote.

But housing must come out of the Loan Vote. If I compare Defence with Prisons, I find that on every item under Prisons there is a prison budgeted and with it there is the amount to be voted for housing to house the personnel at that prison. This seems to me a sound principle. I should like to know why the Department of Defence cannot follow the same procedure. Where a base is to be established, where it is known that RX 000 or RX00 000 or RX 000 000 is to be spent on a base, why does the Department of Defence not link the housing required for that base to the capital expenditure as it is originally planned? But what happens? We build a base and then there is no housing for the people who will have to operate the base. The hon. the Minister says that it is not under this Vote. I ask him to tell this Committee tonight what progress he has made in the provision under the Loan Votes which we have before us for married quarters for members of the Permanent Force. I have gone through them from one end to the other. I find plenty of engineering services. There are engineering services for married quarters and for different military construction work. My point is that the Department of Prisons has set a good example. When it plans its capital budget, it plans for both the requirements of the department and the people who must work there.

The Department of Defence works haphazardly and it builds as and when it can a few houses there and a few houses here without tying its building programme to the requirements of the specific projects on which it is working. Let me firstly take the question of the military hospital at Tempe. We have here an acceptance of this principle. We have “conversion of existing buildings” and then a “nurses’ home”. That is sensible. I am referring to page 11, right at the start of sub-head 5. You have the concept there of converting buildings and creating a nurses’ home at the same time. What do we find? Talk of this has been going on for many, many years, but we find that of a total of R460 000 only R46 000 has been spent, R21 000 is to be spent this year and R392 000 is still unspent. This is the pattern. I gave the globular total of R10 million out of nearly R35 million which has been spent already. Then we get these continuous R50 token amounts which are meaningless. People have to live under roofs, not under token figures.

Then we look at the question of protection for vehicles, covered accommodation for vehicles. I have raised this year after year.

The Controller and Auditor-General raises it year after year in his report. Millions of rands’ worth of vehicles are lying outside in the sun, the wind and the rain rusting and deteriorating. I cannot discuss the administration of this aspect, but I believe that these vehicles are not always correctly serviced. We find five different items for protecting vehicles. What are the items? I am referring to page 12. At Devon R50, at Ellisras R50, at Mariepskop R50 and at Simonstown there is at least R7 000. I am sorry the amount of R7 000 is for the construction of the new tidal basin.

At various centres you get the same thing —totalling R400 000 out of R1,3 million. So one can go on—I do not have time to deal with them all. One sees this item “covered accommodation” at various centres— with a token R50. Except for one item the amount allocated is R50 per centre. However, we are voting millions of rands in this House for vehicles to be bought, put out in the sun and allowed to deteriorate. What are the priorities with which we are dealing? Surely, if we are to spend millions of rands on equipment, the priorities should be to ensure firstly that your men who work then are housed and secondly that that equipment is protected. However, when one looks at these estimates, neither is there a clear picture of a housing programme nor is there a clear picture of the protection of the vehicles themselves.

I now turn to another aspect, that of recreational facilities. Again we find this picture that where an amount is voted for recreation, it is a small amount. I find that on page 13 provision is made for the one reasonable amount for recreation and other facilities. There provision is made for R423 000, but for the rest we find that the amounts are piffling. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to tell this Committee how he does his planning. I have not got time to deal with the engineering Vote which follows, but I want him to tell us how he does this project planning, relating his manpower requirements to his security or protective requirements, against the overall vote of R2,3 million that we are being asked to vote tonight, out of a total amount of R34 million, representing the total value of projects. If the hon. the Minister can satify us on that and tell us how closely he is approaching his target of 100 per cent housing for married permanent staff, then we will be able to accept that perhaps these figures do not give the full picture. [Time expired.]

Sir, I am not able to reply in detail to the questions put here by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. But since we are now discussing the Public Works Vote, I think it is necessary, in the first place, to tell the Minister concerned and his department that this House is not only completely satisfied, but that we are sincerely grateful for the work that is being done, and what is being done is apparent from the report that has been tabled here and is available to all members, including the hon. member who has just resumed his seat.

What about the foreword?

I am also speaking about the previous reports. I want to point out that the Department of Public Works is actually an executive department for numerous other Government departments. In some respects the department acts in an advisory capacity; in other cases it does the work itself, but it nevertheless does the work for numerous other bodies. I think the report for the past financial year speaks volumes for the first-rate work done by the department, and I personally want to express my appreciation to Mr. Howard, the Secretary, and his officials for the work so efficiently done, under difficult circumstances involving a staff shortage, increasing building costs and other related difficulties. But having said this. Sir, I want to add that I think it is high time, particularly in the light of what has recently been broadcast in public by the Press and by that party, that this House should record its appreciation to the Minister, who handles this department, for the way in which this work was done in the face of criticism on a scale which has assumed extraordinary proportions in recent years. Sir, the tactics of people who do not have a policy—others have already pointed that out—is to adopt the policy I have encounterd in the Bushveld. There one finds predators that want to attack one’s livestock, and if they cannot attack the whole herd, they chase one to divert him from the rest and then they try to destroy him with the object of thereby harming the whole herd. That is precisely what has happened here recently, as is apparent from all the actions of the Opposition. I need not refer to examples, but if there is one target that has become a main target of the Opposition recently, it is the hon. the Minister who is in charge of his department. Aspects such as those the hon. member for Durban Point also tried to drag in here, are always being dragged in by every possible means. We are discussing here the Vote of the Minister of Public Works. The obvious tactics evolve around trying to lay the blame at the door of one Minister, thereby placing the Government and other Ministers under suspicion in an attempt to sow dissension. I want to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that if he has any knowledge of the procedures of Parliament—and he has more experience in this connection than I have …

Much more.

Yes, much more but let me add that he has used his much longer time here much less profitably than I have used mine, because if he knows anything of the procedures of Parliament he would know that to investigate the way in which the budgeting is done and the way in which overspending or the non-spending of amounts voted is accounted for, there is a Standing Committee of this House that can regularly check up and ask questions, and that Committee is the Select Committee on Public Accounts, on which not only members of the governing party, but also members of the Opposition serve. If the hon. member for Durban Point wants to express criticism and ask questions about the way in which this important Defence Vote has been handled in recent years, he can go and look at the report of the Select Committee on Public Accounts for the past few years.

Do you know what you are talking about?

Sir, I know exactly what I am talking about, because I listened to what the hon. member said. If it hurts I want to advise him not to show that it hurts. The hon. member referred to certain amounts in this programme for which provision has been made and which have not been fully spent, and he also referred to the Department of prisons which made provisions in a different way. Sir, provision can only be made on the basis of a five year projection, as stated with the utmost clarity in the report of the department for the past year. Planning is done five years in advance, but it is impossible for any department to say whether a start is going to be made on those works. It is impossible to determine what the pnorities will be during those five years. One of the specific achievements in recent years has been that preplanned works could be included in a five year programme. If a certain project is approved in principle, the procedure is that a small amount of R50 is set aside for it. If the work can then be continued with, there is at least provision for it in the Estimates. That is the reason why these amounts are listed here. If, in the next year, there is so much progress with the planning that the Department of Public Works can take over the works, these supplementary amounts are voted. But if, for practical reasons, the work cannot be tackled, the nominal amount still remains there to confirm that the work can be tackled at any time. The hon. member for Durban Point is one of the people who ought to know this. If he wants to level accusations at any department, to the effect that proper planning is not being done, I should like to refer him to the fact that in recent years hon. members of the Oposition and members of the Government have always been given the opportunity to ask why amounts that were voted, were not spent, or why there was overspending. There is someone else, who is far more competent than I am, and who has a full department at his disposal, who keeps an eye on this, and that is the Controller and Auditor-General and his department, which can pose questions about these matters, and if the hon. member examines the reports he will see that the questions are in fact asked. But this method of sowing suspicion, as if planning is simply being tackled, to use the English expression, in a “haphazard” way, and no progress is being made with the actual work, is an accusation that has become so general by now that it has become monotonous. I want to add that such stories that attempt to single out some or other Minister or department, thereby trying to do harm, have become so jaded as far as the public is concerned that no one believes those stories any longer. To come back to the Department of Public Works, the work that has been entrusted to this department has been carried out in such a way in the past year that I want to submit here, with the utmost responsibility, that during the years I served on that Select Committee, this department, under the Minister of Public Works, has had the honour of so few inquiries that this really ought to be mentioned with appreciation. [Time expired.]

That was obviously not the best speech the hon. member for Witbank has ever made in his life. At the start of his speech he spoke about a bushveld policy and then began speaking so haphazardly about planning and other matters that I eventually felt it was no longer the member for Witbank making the speech, but the member for the Bushveld. The minister in charge of this Vote asked me the other day to participate in this debate because he wanted to take me to task on a certain point.

I did not ask you.

I want to submit four points to the hon. the Minister this evening. The first two are fairly easy. Firstly, there is the old gaol at Grahamstown and. secondly, the upkeep of the 1820 settlers’ Monument. Thirdly, I want to discuss military buildings, particularly in regard to messes. If the hon. the Minister had been here when I spoke on defence matters, he would know what I am talking about now. The fourth point is in regard to certain secret tactics which I may perhaps reveal here this evening.

I have had correspondence with the hon. the Minister in regard to the old gaol. This is a historic building, and the hon. the Minister’s Department is building a new gaol there at the moment. I shall be very pleased if he can tell us this evening when it is anticipated that the new gaol will be completed and when the present staff can be transferred to the other place. The hon. the Minister knows that the provincial museum at Grahamstown, is particularly interested in that old gaol. Nobody is quite sure who built it. Some think it was Piet Retief and some think it was somebody else. However, it is just across the street from the museum and it could fit in very well with the Grahamstown museum. The hon. the Minister is agreeable in this regard, but we should very much like to know when this old building can be handed over to the Cape Province and, through the province, to the Grahamstown museum.

Secondly, there is the question of the 1820 Settlers’ Monument, which is perhaps be a very important monument in the history of South Africa. That is where the hon. the Prime Minister has so much to say about national unity. We shall be pleased to receive further information in connection with the future upkeep of this monument. I have corresponded with the hon. the Minister in this regard as well. If he is unable to give us full details this evening, I shall be pleased if he can give the authorities in charge of that monument some indication in this regard to that they can plan ahead and continue with the building operations.

I come now to the question of army messes. In regard to messes—I am speaking now particularly about Grahamstown, but I understand that this is the case in other places as well—the Department of Public Works now controls military buildings in Grahamstown. I know that the three messes in the camp there, the officers’ mess and the other two messes, had to be renovated for health reasons. The walls had to be tiled and new stoves and windows had to be installed. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he cannot appoint an official to his regional office who is a diplomat and who will be able to enter into agreements with the messes and with the military forces so as to avoid arguments. The argument in Grahamstown was in regard to how high the tiles should be for health reasons— whether they should be three feet or five feet high. In my opinion, for health and maintenance reasons I would have tiled right up to the ceiling because then it would not have been necessary to paint. However, the difference between three feet and five feet had to be paid for out of regimental funds, and I think that was an injustice. I want to extend an invitation to the hon. the Minister. Let him come to Grahamstown with the hon. the Minister of Defence and pay a visit there and see what the regiment paid for. If he does so, he will feel sympathetic and the Department will then rectify the matter with the men of that regiment. If the Minister does come, I can assure him that he will be warmly welcomed and that he will have an enjoyable time there, and I am sure that he will become very soft-hearted towards those officers and men. I also want to say that I was pleased to see a new building being erected at the military camp at Grahamstown. It is a special building, and I am pleased to hear that the hon. the Minister made a concession in this regard and was not small-minded about it. This is a building where the parents of the national servicemen can be entertained, so that they will no longer have to sit under the bluegum trees. I think that this idea should be taken further and extended to every camp in South Africa. If one goes to visit one’s son at the camp, there should be some place where one can sit down peacefully to enjoy a cup of tea with him. We are grateful that that building is being erected. I should think that by this time it would have been completed.

In conclusion I want to say that this is the Minister who is experiencing a great deal of difficulty in regard to his buildings. Buildings are constructed in one place and then the people disappear and turn up somewhere else, and so he has to start erecting buildings there, with the result that he cannot keep pace with all the buildings. I shall tell you what the difficulty is. It is the United Party members on this side of the House, because you see, Sir, we have a secret policy. I shall conclude on this note. All those United Party supporters who disappeared from Oudtshoorn are in Brakpan today. [Time expired.]

I shall not detain the Committee for very long. The hon. member for Durban Point could have had all these replies had he raised these matters on my Vote. In that case I would have replied to him in detail. But if only the hon. member had done his homework, he would have seen that provision for operational buildings for defence is made under Loan Vote B, and under Loan Vote K he can find all the particulars about housing, particulars about single and married quarters.

That is child’s play.

No, it is not child’s play. This year’s Budget makes provision for housing to the value of R4 million but that item has just been disposed of and the hon. member does not know we have done so. He should do his homework. Now, if the hon. member looks at page 62, he will see what appears under the Defence Vote, and then he can turn the page to pages 62, 63, and 64, and the hon. member will see that we are making R3 919 000 available for housing this year. The Department of Defence has already obtained two concessions from the Government. In the first place, 100 per cent housing is made available to the Defence Force over a period of years.

How many years?

As many years as money is available for. The Department of Defence cannot dictate to the Government how much money it is to provide. We must share in a large Budget which is apportioned every year. Does the hon. member not understand that?

What is the target?

The target is that we submitted a 10 year programme to the Government which it approved. In the second place, I may tell the hon. member that members of the Defence Force share in the same benefits in which other persons share under the Government scheme, i.e. 100 per cent housing loan schemes. We have made so much progress that it was possible to state in the Departments’ report to me this year that in this field remarkable progress had been made in the provision of housing for married members of the Permanent Force. As far as single quarters are concerned, I want to tell the hon. member that he should go and have a look at Simonstown where one of the most beautiful places available—and the hon. member for Simonstown will concede this—was bought as single quarters for officers.

And high time too.

But we did buy it.

Of course.

So what is it now?

We waited years for that to be done.

Those hon. members have not even been there. In the second place, at the Danie Theron military school we have one of the finest officers’ clubs, which has just been completed. The hon. members should not come and talk non-sence.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

No, wait a minute; let me finish talking. The hon. member could have raised these matters. At the moment we are dealing with Public Works and not with housing. Housing has been disposed of.

But this is Community Development.

We are not dealing with Community Development now. We are dealing with the Department of Public Works which does not spend funds on housing for the Department of Defence.

You are not talking to the Press now, but to Parliament. *

If that had been a fish, the hon. member for Simonstown would already have been there.

The hon. member also spoke about the question of covered accommodation for vehicles. An amount of R2 million is provided under the fifth continuation part of this programme for the provision of covered accommodation for vehicles. We have a specific plan in terms of which we shall, with a view to mobilization, provide covered accommodation at various points, so that we shall be able to decentralize. The hon. member asked: “In what way does planning take place?” Let me tell the hon. member in this regard that the Quartermaster-General draws up a programme of priorities. That programme of priorities is approved and submitted to the departments providing housing and operational buildings. As and when an amount becomes available to the Department of Defence from the overall Budget, so this programme of priorities is disposed of. We cannot dispose of the programme more rapidly than funds are made available. If the hon. member had wanted to raise these matters earlier on. I would have given him a detailed reply; I want to tell him that I am not going to do so this evening. We are wasting the time of my colleague now.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question now?

As far as recreational facilities are concerned …

How can you play the fool like that?

Order!

May I take a point of order, Sir?

Hon. members can do as they please, but they cannot blot out their defeat at Oudtshoorn. They are welcome to the little malicious joy they are having at my expense this evening; I mauled them badly at Oudtshoorn. [Interjections.] And we shall maul them some more. Methods of this kind will lose them even more votes.

Order! The hon. the Minister must proceed with the Vote.

Yes, Sir, I shall return to the Vote. If they want to fight, I just want to say that I, too, can fight. Now I should just like to tell the hon. member for Durban Point that we have an arrangement with the Department of Public Works. There is a section for fortification and military works within the Defence Force. We have an arrangement with the Department of Public Works in terms of which certain services which we are able to carry out through that section, may be carried out by us. We cannot keep up with the work. However, we are definitely not going to build prestige buildings and the kind of buildings which the Department of Public Works alone can build. The work we do is more in the nature of maintenance and the erection of prefabricated buildings; temporary buildings are erected at certain bases. Accordingly, this work which is being done is reflected in the Estimates. However, if the hon. member wished to have full particulars about this work, he could have had it under my Vote and not this evening.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? What percentage of the main amount for housing, i.e. R46 million, was voted under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development? Was it less than 10 per cent?

Under the Vote of the Minister of Community Development, the hon. member can see what amount has been set aside for Defence, i.e. R3 919 000 for this year.

Less than 10 per cent.

It also reflects what we envisage. Moreover, in addition to this we have a pro ramme for the improvement of bases and we are improving one basis after another. Never in history has Voortrekkerhoogte been improved to the extent it has been improved now. Tempe has never been so well provided with housing as it is at present. Potchefstroom has never been so well provided with housing as it is at present. We are improving these bases one after another. It is also reflected here that we are going to improve the Windhoek basis, as we are doing in the case of the basis at Simonstown.

When are you going to start there?

We have already

started, and if the hon. member likes, he may go and have a drink in the single quarters. The only thing is he must not take any fish along because they do not admit people with fish.

You have fish on the brain, man.

Order!

I want to tell the hon. member for Albany that the mess will be built according to the list of priorities. At Grahamstown priority was given to housing. Married quarters had to be built there and it was accorded priority. As far as the provision or improvement of messes are concerned, I already said in this House that the Permanent Force spent more than R1 million on the improvement of messes out of their own funds over the past six or eight years. They are proud of the fact, and I myself am proud of the work they have done. I do not think we should feel anything but gratitude for the fact that these people have gone out of their way to improve their own facilities in this way. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, things in this country do change. Could you have pictured me a couple of years ago getting up here to thank the hon. the Minister of Community Development? But this is exactly what I am going to do tonight. It looks as if the Minister is not grateful.

No, I am not. We are discussing Public Works, and that has got nothing to do with me personally.

It is only the other side of the hon. the Minister. It is just the other portfolio of the same hon. the Minister. I would like to thank him for yielding, after so many years of propaganda, agitation and pleadings by the hon. member for Green Point and myself to assist us to get a new Police station in Sea Point.

Where? [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, there is something wrong here. The hon. the Minister of Public Works has presented us with this and he does not even know that it is in here.

Where do you want this Police station?

Where you are going to build it. No, the hon. the Minister did not indicate in the Estimates where it will be built but he said that he would give us a new station. Now I am getting worried. I see that the hon. the Minister has stated in the Estimates that a new Police station will be built in Sea Point, which will cost R565 000. According to the footnote this is an approximate estimate in the absence of full particulars. For that I wanted to thank him but he now makes it impossible for me. I am becoming a little doubtful, because I see that the amount that will be spent over the next year, will be only R50. Now he does not even know where the Police station will be built. Something has gone wrong between here and Brakpan. I am not thanking the hon. the Minister any more. I will thank him later on. For the time being, I will just say that I have noted the fact, namely that he is providing R50 towards the establishment of a new Police station for Sea Point. [Interjections.]

Order!

For that one is of course grateful in principle.

Is this now to keep Sea Point White?

Mr. Chairman, one can spend money on many things, but how one can spend money in an attempt to make this hon. Minister of Defence a sensible and responsible person, I do not understand. It is not possible either. His Vote is not under discussion now …

Order! I think the hon. member must confine himself to the Vote under discussion. That would be far better.

I think so too, Sir,

I am pleased that the requests and representations by Sea Point for the building of a new police station there have been complied with. However, this does not mean to say that the old station is in a very poor condition. I honestly want to convey my thanks to other organizations and particularly to the community which made strong representations to the effect that a home for the aged should be built there. The Department of Police then graciously consented to exchange the land on which the police office is standing today for land which the city council made available for R1 for the old age home. For that reason I want to thank the hon. the Miniser of Police for having consented to exchange the land. I now, in greater earnest than a moment ago, want to make representations to the hon. the Minister to ensure that the construction of the new police station is proceeded with as quickly as possible. It is calculated that if a start is made now on drawing up the plans, this matter will not have been finalized until three years have elapsed. That is, if everything goes well. The House will realize that if it is to take three years for the new station to be completed, and if the Police then have to move from the present station to the new one, that it will take a very long time before a start will be made with the construction of the old age home. I am not promising anything, but I would want to say that if this Government does its duty, we will give them favourable consideration, when they have been lifted from those cushions, to be accepted into that home for the aged. But then they must behave themselves properly, and begin now with the construction of this home for the aged.

Mr. Chairman, I will be pardoned for not replying to the matters raised here by the hon. member for Sea Point. I think those are matters which should be dealt with more specifically by the hon. the Minister. I should like to refer to the report of the Secretary for Public Works, which we have here before us. I want to refer in particular to the paragraph dealing with the question of industrialized building techniques. This appears on page 2 of the Afrikaans text of the report. Therein it is stated that a sub-committee has been established to go into the entire matter of industrialized building techniques and conditions of contract. We are very pleased that this has been done. If we go back and consider the entire matter of building techniques in South Africa, as well as the question of facilitating the … Mr. Chairman, I cannot hear myself speaking. I do not know whether other hon. members can hear me.

Order! The hon. member will just have to proceed.

But it is very difficult …

Order!

Mr. Chairman, I know that it is also very difficult for you to maintain order here, because the people are talking too much.

In my opinion, if we want to expedite our building programme in South Africa, we will have to make use of industrialized building techniques. That is why we are pleased and we are grateful that the Department has caused this matter to be investigated. If we take into account the fact that skilled labour, particularly in the building industry in South Africa, is becoming very scarce, we must realize that we will have to make use of building techniques, techniques where one is able to make less use of skilled labour. The only way in which we in South Africa can do this is to make use of industrialized building techrfiques. That is why we are pleased that so much attention is being given to this matter. We hope that we will receive the report of this sub-committee soon, and that the recommendations of that committee will be implemented.

Then there is another matter which caught our attention. If we look at the Estimates of this department, we are struck by the multiplicity of items which are still in the planning stage. I am referring to the items in which an amount of only R50 is involved. These are items which have been approved in principle by the various departments, and referred to the Department of Public Works for planning. The only reason why work under these items cannot really be proceeded with, is as a result of the capital cutbacks which had to be made. These capital cutbacks had to be made as a result of the lack of capital funds. I want to advocate this evening that an overall amount should be made available annually for the planning of this work. If we do not proceed with the planning of these various projects which have already been approved in principle we would, in my opinion, be making a fatal mistake. If we do not proceed with the planning, we will find that when we reach the stage where the capital funds for the implementation of these projects are available, the planning will not have been done. We must make provision to ensure that we have taken enough of these services right through the planning stage, so that they can be kept in cold storage. One day, when the capital funds for that purpose are available, we can then continue with those services. Those services must then have been finally planned in all their stages, so that when we take it out of cold storage we can proceed immediately with the building programme.

Another matter to which I should like to refer is a matter which the hon. member for Green Point referred to today. He referred to the further development of the site on which the Marks Building is standing today. Hon. members will recall that I also raised this matter under the same Vote last year. It is my conviction that this beautiful building we have here, the Parliamentary Building, will be absolutely dwarfed by these structures which are going to be erected on its eastern side, on Parliament Street side. The Hendrik Verwoerd Building has already been erected; it is an accomplished fact over which we have no further say. But I want to advocate here this evening, as I did last year as well, that as regards the further development of the site on which the present Marks Building is standing, as well as the other buildings fronting Plein Street, further thought should again be given to the utilization of that site. It is my view that for the foreseeable future that site, when the Marks Buildings and the other buildings have been demolished one day, should be laid out as a garden area, which could ensure that full justice is done to the front elevation of this building. An open space on the eastern side of this building will really cause it to stand out. Progress has already been made with the planning of a new structure on the Plein Street side, but it is my humble view that that planning should be held in abeyance awhile so that we can think about this matter again. I want to advocate here this evening, as I also did last year, that that building, which is in fact going to be a utility building for other Government departments which are established here in the Cape, should be moved back and that that structure should be erected on Stalplein, where that old hotel is standing, as a utility building for the other Government departments in Cape Town. I really feel that we owe it to our Houses of Parliament to ensure that they are not dwarfed entirely by other high structures erected on their eastern side.

Mr. Chairman, we have listened to a dissertation by the hon. member for Langlaagte on the procedure as regards the Estimates and how they come about. Being fully conscious of my responsibility to this House and to the occasion, I just want to quote from the foreward of the report of the Secretary for Public Works, dealing with the role that the Department of Public Works should play in the building activities of the State.

Who is the writer?

I am quoting—

That is the understatement of the year, Sir, I can talk with a certain amount of feeling on this matter. This is where I want to know where this department comes in, this department, the Public Works Department, known universally as “Piet se Wa en Donkies”. Here, under Loan Vote B (subhead 13), Police …

Who is the donkey speaking?

I am now talking about things I know about. We have an item “Re-votes”; these old items. There are 42 items, of which R50 each are voted for 14. I have been out of the Police for nearly three years, and I will now mention services which were put up in my time. I am going back six, seven, eight years. I want to mention Hammarsdale. This police station was the question of a tug-of-war between the Natal division and the Port Natal division, as to where it should come. I can remember that it had been put up to the PWD, and we now, after seven or eight years, have R50. This is the dynamic Government we have. Thornville Junction, now known as the Thornville Police station, also has R50. I can remember it as a police station since nearly 40 years ago and it is still standing.

It has a better appearance than you after 40 years! [Interjections.]

Order!

There are 15 “New Services” on this Vote concerning Police and for 11 of these, amounts of R50 each are voted.

Have you finished voting in Brakpan now?

I shall confine myself to the stations I know. There is for instance Hibberdene, a station which was put up years ago. The Howick police station is as old as Methuselah and it is out of date. Pongola is on the Transvaal and Zululand border. That police station has been up for years. The point I should like to make is as follows: Man-hours are spent, not only by district commandants, station commanders, divisional commissioners but so it goes on right up to the Commissioner of Police. I know the Commissioner of Police does his best. He puts up his priorities of major and minor works. I want to know how the liaison works between the Minister of Police and the Minister of Public Works. The Secretary for Public Works—of course he must be proud of his department—has a difficult job and I admit that.

Who?

The Secretary for Public Works. He is carrying you, and you know it. The Secretary for Public Works is carrying you and your portfolio. [Interjections.] Be a man and admit it too.

The Secretary for Public Works works at these plans as well. We therefore have the position that after all these years there is this proliferation of wastage of manpower working out plans, working out priorities and we still come to these—I nearly used an unparliamentary word—very little paltry sums of R50. We get these amounts of R50 after months and years of sweating and the burning of the midnight oil.

On going through these votes I am amazed to see no provision for the complex of the Durban police headquarters, the Port Natal headquarters. I can remember that way back in 1964–’65 I had to give up all my work, get an architect and we then had to draw plans for the new police complex in Old Fort Road. It was a building of about eight or nine storeys—I cannot remember so far back—but that has been blown out. In the meantime a third of the appropriation has been spent on the new magistrate’s court. It is to be conjoined with the whole Police complex with subterranean tunnels and what-have-you and all modern conveniences, but not a word is mentioned here about the new Port Natal headquarters. What has happened to those plans? Has that architect been paid, the man who spent hours and hours on this work? Who was responsible for this wastage? It is not the Commissioner of Police. I say it must have been the Minister of Public Works.

I want to ask another question. We take the prison which is also to be connected with the big complex. What is the position about a new gaol for Durban? We had publicity several years ago that it was going to be put up at Westville, but not a word under sub-head (14)—Prisons! Surely, the Department of Prisons has said something about it, even if an amount of R50 is to be voted. I notice that in the meantime the Durban Point prison is to be repaired and for this purpose an amount of approximately R40 000 is voted for this year. The whole position is that departments work themselves out putting up their priorities, but when those priorities get up somewhere in the higher echelons when they are referred to the Department of Public Works, they seem to fade away.

The Public Works Department quite rightly, points out that it should be left to experts, but I maintain that if we were to leave it to the Public Works Department, we would not even be a tenth of the way on which we are here on this Loan Vote.

Mr. Chairman, just a few remarks in connection with what the hon. member said. I am glad that I can thereby link up with what I wanted to say earlier this evening, i.e. that I should like to express my appreciation, not only to this department, but also for all the proper planning, in co-operation with other departments, and the execution of services to provide for the needs of the various departments. I want to tell the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, that as a representative of a constituency I would also like to have more Government buildings for my constituency. I could also mention examples of buildings that have long ago been planned locally, and in co-operation with departments, which I would have liked to have seen there.

Name them.

I shall name one. I do so with trepidation.

Why?

I do so with trepidation because the responsible Minister is present here, but I also do so with great pleasure because I know that his judgment is much better than mine. I am referring to the hon. the Minister of Transport who said a long time ago that a building would be erected in Witbank. That building was not erected. I think that when speaking about these votes we, as representatives not only of constituencies, but of the whole country, ought to have a non-parochial outlook concerning the needs of our country.

What does “non-par ochial” mean?

The hon. member for Fauresmith asks me what “non-parochial” means. It means that he should not advocate something for Fauresmith which would be to the detriment of the rest of the country.

In all seriousness I want to say I think it has become necessary to take note of the following. In this connection I want to quote from the report of the department. I shall quote paragraph 22, on page 4 of the report, RP 41—’72—

All of us want to advocate what is best for our constituency. However, this can only be done, in the overall planning, in accordance with the needs of the country as a whole. I think it is only reasonable to expect every responsible member to regard the interests of his own constituency as being subservient to the interests of the Republic as a whole. I think that the department of the hon. the Minister of Public Works has, in the past year, made a first-rate success with regard to that object. I think it can rightly be said that these services, for which items of R50 are being placed on the Estimates, with the express purpose of holding out the prospect of something being done in connection with those services in the coming years, can only be planned in accordance with the needs in the rest of the country. If other needs become more urgent, earlier needs become subservient to one which has acquired greater urgency. In this report, on page 4, it is stated—

Sir, I do not think any country, and particularly a country like the Republic, can afford to ad hoc planning and implementation. I think it has become urgently necessary to review the old policy according to which works had to be tackled on an ad hoc basis as a result of the problems of the post-war years. Sir, I think that this experiment that has been put into operation by the Department of Public Works, has been a first-rate success. Earlier in the evening mention was made of the fact which I do not dispute, that we, the State, still make use of a great many rented buildings. In that connection I can just say that the Department of Public Works at present supervises about 7 000 Government buildings, and that there is further accommodation in about 1 400 buildings additionally rented for State purposes. But if one advocates, as I could at Witbank, that there should be new Police offices for the Detective Service, which is at present accommodated in rented buildings, one cannot argue, as hon. members of the Opposition argued earlier in the evening, that we should simply carry on holus-bolus with the erection of buildings. One needs capital for the erection of buildings. The hon. member for Green Point speaks of a rental of 50 cents to R1-50 per square foot that has to be paid by the State. Sir, if the State itself has to erect those buildings, provision must still be made for interest and redemption on the erection costs of those buildings. Not only must provision be made for interest and redemption, and for the necessary capital, but there is also the ground that is necessary; there is the staff necessary for planning and the staff necessary for the implementation of that service. Temporary buildings simply have to be rented. Before buildings are erected it is essential that a decision be taken, not on an ad hoc basis, but on a long-term basis. In this connection I want to mention one example. Just think of the development in the Eastern Transvaal, for example. There is no one who can say at the moment where exactly the centre of that development will be. It would surely be only short-term planning to erect huge buildings, at this stage, at one of the five, six, or seven towns situated in that area. It is surely much better to make provision for an amount of R50, to which hon. members on that side jokingly referred here, and then to wait and see what the developments are before one finally commences with the planning and the erection of a building for a special service.

Sir, I want to conclude by once again referring to the work that has been done by the department. It is with gladness that I can refer to one service in Witbank, i.e. the completion of a post office building, which was tackled after many years, but which was carried out with such thoroughness that it will still fee serving its purpose for years to come. I would rather see the erection of a Government building delayed for a year or two and the later planning of an efficient building that will be serviceable for many years. I can say, if this needs to be recorded, that I do not feel happy at the fact that in the loan programme this year provision is being made for only one item for new buildings in Witbank, the constituency I represent here. But I want to add that I know that the planning is taking place in such a way, and that there is such a degree of co-ordination, that new buildings Which are being erected elsewhere are more urgently needed. With this five-year programme, and the proposed long-term programmes, I am sure that my constituency, and other deserving constituencies, will have their turn next year or the year after. I thank the Minister and his department.

Sir, the hon. member for Witbank appears to be very easily satisfied, and I hope his constituents are going to hear what he said here tonight, and that is that provision has been made on the Estimates for only R50 for one building in his constituency, and yet he still comes and thanks the hon. the Minister and his department.

I am a South African.

The hon. member claims that he is a South African. He is a South African, but first he is a Member of Parliament and he should be looking after the interests of his constituents. I am proud to be able to say that in these Estimates provision is being made for an additional R10 million for my constituency, and I am not going to thank the Minister for it, because this is what we expect and what my constituents expect. I am also a South African, Sir, I do not have to thank the Minister to show that I am a South African, or that 1 am a good South African. Why did the hon. member for Witbank, when he quoted the report on planning and control, stop where he stopped; why did he not go on to the next paragraph, paragraph 24, which reads—

Sir, notwithstanding all these words about “co-ordinated planning”, how much coordination, how much planning has there been in fact? The hon. member for Umlazi mentioned the Hammarsdale police station, which he says—and he corroborates what I said to the hon. the Minister two years ago—was first mooted and put up as a top priority item in 1964; but it first appeared in these Estimates in the 1968–’69 financial year. A sum of R50 was allocated then. In 1969–’70 it was estimated that the total cost would be R170 000. I accept that that was an estimate, in the absence of further details, but again R50 was voted and not a penny was spent. In 1970–’71 we suddenly find that the estimate has gone up to R240 000, and again only R50 is voted but not a penny is spent. In 1971–’72, all of a sudden, the amount goes up to R340 000. From 1969 to 1971–’72 the estimate of costs doubled from R170 000 to R340 000. and it is still only an estimate. We find that R20 000 was voted for this in 1971–’72. and how much was spent, according to the latest record? Not a single solitary cent. Is this planning: is this advance planning? What do we find in the 1972–’73 Estimates? Provision is made for R450 000. At last we have arrived at a figure which is not an estimate. The estimated cost is R450 000. The cost has escalated from R170 000 to R450 000 from 1968 to 1972, and once again, Sir, what is voted? R50. When are they going to get on with this job of work?

When it costs R1 million.

We will start next week.

Are they going to spend the whole of R50 between next week and the end of the financial year, the 31st March, 1973? Sir, all I can say is that I am grateful for small mercies. I sincerely hope that the Minister and his department will get on with the job and do something. I hope, as my hon. friend, the hon. member for South Coast says, they will DO—do something. Mr. Chairman, I believe that this is shocking, and if this is an example of the sort of advance planning that this department has now achieved, can we ever expect anything other than the chaos that we have in this country today? Sir, let us go further with this paragraph I was quoting—

Sir, I wonder what people in the building industry think when they read a statement like that. The hon. the Minister knows that some members of the building industry have become wholly dependent upon him and his department.

You are talking nonsense.

I am not talking nonsense. The hon. the Minister knows that I am right. He knows that they have become dependent upon his department. With the cut-back in building and with the faulty planning that there has been, these building architects, etc. and building contractors today are in a state of chaos because they do not know when they are going to get their next job.

Blah, blah, blah.

The hon. the Minister says, “Blah, blah, blah.” He sits there talking like a child.

We have another classic example of planning here. I am glad to see that the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs is here. Under Indian Affairs, on page 18, New Works, we have additions to a primary school for Indians in Durban (Mariann-hill, at an estimated cost of R210 000. That is the approximate estimate in the absence of full particulars. But again only R50 is voted. Now I want to ask the Minister whether he is serious. Is he going to carry out these extensions to the school and if so, when will he carry out these extensions to the school, or when is he going to get his colleague to carry them out? And does he know what his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Planning, is doing in that area? Because what do we have at this moment? We have the situation that this Minister is planning extensions to the school for Indians but his colleague, the Minister of Planning has deproclaimed the area for Indians and has proclaimed it for Coloureds. In a moment the hon. the Minister of planning will ask the other half of this Minister’s schizophrenic personality, the Minister of Community Development, to move those Indian people out and to move Coloured people in. What sort of planning and co-ordination is this? Is this the sort of co-ordination we have in the Cabinet, where one Minister is not telling the other Minister what he is doing?

On a point of order, Sir, is an hon. member entitled to say that the Minister is schizophrenic?

What does it mean?

I do not know why the hon. member is so sensitive. We also have the question of the police station at Hammarsdale which the Minister says he is going to proceed with, and I would like an answer on this. But we also have the question of the police station at Thornville, which is also in my constituency, a police station for which I fought for four years with the Minister of Police to maintain, because he wanted to close it. I finally won my case and I am now putting it to him that the conditions there are so shocking not only with regard to the housing of the staff, but also the office accommodation. I am very glad to see that now for the second year—we are getting somewhere at last—R50 is being voted for extensions and improvements to that police station. The hon. member for Umlazi has pointed out that this police station was built well over 40 years ago. At that stage it was not built as a police station. In fact, part of the offices were originally built as stables, but it is still being used to this day as the offices. I sincerely hope the Minister will get on and improve this police station and make these alterations which are required.

Then I want to come back to this question of the building across the way, the Hendrik Verwoerd Building. Let me say that we accept that this is a prestige building. I sincerely hope the Minister will take note of the positive suggestions which have been put to him from this side of the House, regarding the use of that and other buildings, and the planning in future. But I want to ask him what was the total cost of this building.

Plenty.

That is the whole point; that is exactly what I wanted to say. As far as we have been able to ascertain the cost was in the region of R7 million, without any finishes, and let me say that I admire the finishes. They are very nice and I am very glad that they used South African products in the finishes. The paving, the granite, the stinkwood and the yellow wood are very nice, but what was the cost of those finishes, and what was the cost of the furnishing, the carpets and the curtains, particularly the furniture, which are of an extremely luxurious nature? I believe that the total cost of this building was in excess of R11 million.

The curtains are of an ordinary type.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us. He says they are ordinary, but we would like to have the total cost of these various items and the total cost of that building. I believe that the people of South Africa are entitled to know this. There is another question which I want the hon. the Minister to answer.

The curtains are about two and six a yard.

You can tell us that just now. What is the area of a Ministerial suite? Because I believe it is larger than the ordinary community development house, which is500 square feet. Can the Minister tell us the size of those Ministerial suites? And, finally, I want to ask him for how long in each year that building is going to be occupied. Will it be occupied for five or for six or for 11 months a year? [Time expired.]

I am just rising to reply to the hon. member for Albany. He put a question to me in regard to the prison at Grahamstown which has to be replaced now and asked whether I was agreeable to the idea that the prison should be handed over to the Provincial Council.

Don’t shout.

He asked whether it would be handed over to the Grahamstown Museum after that. Well, I am not opposed to the idea, but unfortunately the decision does not rest with me. I really cannot do anything about the decision. The point is that if my department vacates a prison, the Department of Public Works immediately has the say over it. They have the say on what will be done with it, and unfortunately I cannot be of any service to him in this regard. Furthermore, he asked me when this prison would be completed. I am afraid I cannot tell him this evening. As he knows, the building work is in progress. At the moment I do not know what the tender price is, but if he wants to come over to me during the week, tomorrow or the day after tomorrow, I shall give him the information. That is the reply to his question.

I just want to say to the hon. member for Umlazi that I thank him for the compliment in regard to the Justice building in Durban. It is a wonderful proposition. I do not know what it is going to cost. Originally, I understand, it would have cost R15 million. There are 14 different buildings accommodating the magistrates and we have progressed so far now that we are erecting this central building. We are making good progress, and the seventh storey has already been reached. But he mentioned something else as well. He asked me about the Durban prison. A tremendous amount of publicity has been given to the matter. The history is that when our former Chief Justice, the late Mr. Nicolaas de Wet was Minister of Justice in 1916, he approached the City Council of Durban for the first time in regard to a suitable site. I can tell you that from that day until some time ago, we could not get any further, until I eventually found a site at Westville. But I did not obtain it as a site which the City Council had allocated to me; I obtained it in co-operation with the Department of Agricultural Credit. I assume it is under departmental planning, otherwise there would have been an amount of R50 for it on the Budget. I cannot say when the first sod will be turned. Then there is the Point Prison, to which he also referred. Briefly, the position there is that improvements are merely being made. The reason is that the climate there is warm and that it is fairly overpopulated there. We wish to make these improvements from a hygienic point of view.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District apparently wants some information with regard to the spending on Indian schools, etc. I do not want to teach him the facts of life—I hope he knows some of them—but I do want to teach him something about the budgeting of the Department of Public Works. The allocation which the Department of Indian Affairs got from the Department of Public Works for buildings is just under R4 500 000. We have a series of priorities on which that money is spent. The R4 500 000 is practically absorbed by the priorities that we allocate. The hon. member made a big thing of the R50 voted in certain instances. The hon. member should know that these are purely nominal amounts that are provided for a proposed or suggested building which at some future date will be built when the funds are available. The reason for putting them on the Public Works roster is so that the hon. member and everybody can see what is intended. The R50 has nothing to do with the building itself; it is a nominal amount. What can one build with R50?

How long does it remain nominal?

Until such time as the funds ar available and the building becomes a priority and takes its place in the Vote. That is the procedure that is followed. All this talk and the attempt to get a laugh or a big sneer out of the Public Works Vote is so ridiculous. This is the whole basis on which finance is run in the country; if there were R10 million available, more would have been built and there would have been fewer nominal amounts. That is the basis on which it is done. All I ask the hon. member is just to make sure of the basis on which he criticizes items under this Vote before he stands up and makes a big speech about it.

Can I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Is he aware that this area has been deproclaimed for Indians and has been proclaimed for Coloured occupation? If then he makes this amount a nominal amount, for how long will it be nominal? Will it only be nominal until such time as the Coloureds have moved in?

Obviously, when it is made a nominal amount and something such as this should take place—I do not know where the member gets his information from; no school building has been or will be built for Indians in that area. That is all it is. The hon. member tries to get a laugh out of the fact that it has been declared a Coloured area, but that is not the point at all. This is a matter of the financing of priorities as far as the Department of Indian Affairs is concerned, and that is how it is done. It has been done for years. In the United Party days it was also done, and everybody accepted it. Now of course, they make a big song and dance about it.

Mr. Chairman. I was interested to hear from the hon. the Minister about the methods of financing in regard to public works. Firstly, it seems that R50 is nominally allocated to certain works on the Estimates, which I accept is the procedure. But there have been so many cases of amounts of R50 being voted and allocated for certain public works in constituencies that one wonders whether it is not a sort of sop to hon. members, particularly on that side, to tell them when they ask for a certain important building in their constituency: “Look, we are going to build you this and we are going to build you that; just watch out for the Estimates; next year you will find it in them.” In the next year it does appear in the Estimates but only with this minor amount of R50 after it. Then the hon. members can go to their constituencies and say, “Look at this wonderful Government; we are going to build you a wonderful new public building; here it is on the Estimates”, but they never mention the fact that it is only R50.

What I found surprising too is the way in which the hon. the Minister to a certain extent let the cat out of the bag when he said that his department is allocated a certain amount—R4 500 000 in his case, he said.

I said I was allocated R4 500 000.

Yes, he was allocated R4 500 000. Then he decided how he was going to spend it. That is not the way in which one should work out one’s public works programme.

Oh?

Surely, one deals with matters on their merit. One does not allocate R4 000 000 to this Minister, R10 000 000 to that one and R100 000 000 to another and say to them: “Well, boys, there are your millions; spend them as you wish”. One works out one’s priorities. One does not give a certain amount to a single Minister and tell him to do whatever he wishes to do with it. That is an entirely wrong system.

There is one matter I would like to raise with the hon. the Minister, namely the whole question of the tender procedure, the acceptance of tenders and the policy followed with regard to tenders themselves. As is realized nowadays, with the growing costs when you have to build an important building, your costs escalate over the years. Very often you find your tenderers tendering for a certain amount and that they then find after a couple of years that they have to increase that amount. It has happened in the case of the P. K. le Roux Dam. Afterwards the Minister of Water Affairs said that he would not accept any tenders and that his department would build the dam themselves. I believe this department is not paying sufficient attention to this factor of escalating costs when considering tenders and when rejecting tenders. Very often they reject tenders which are higher and which are based on escalating costs and afterwards they then have to pay a much larger amount on account of having accepted a lower tender. That is the first point I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister.

The second point I wish to raise concerns the hon. the Minister of Transport. It is in connection with the Jan Smuts Airport. Originally, in 1966, the hon. the Minister told me that the Jan Smuts Airport would cost R16 million. Now we see, although we realize that there have been certain changes in the plans, that it is going to cost much more than 100 per cent more, namely R39½million. A balance of R12½ million will still have to be spent over the next four years. I have no objection to money being spent on the Jan Smuts Airport to make it one of the best airports not only in South Africa, but in the world, a gateway to South Africa, but when these costs escalate and the taxpayer has to pay these huge amounts it is time that we had an explanation from the hon. the Minister of Transport as to what is actually happening in regard to the Jan Smuts Airport, when it is expected that the whole project will be completed and what plans are being made not only for the present development, but also for the Jumbo Jets and later for the Concorde Jets.

*I now come to my next point. What policy is the hon. the Minister following these days in connection with statues that are erected outside public buildings, not only in Pretoria, but throughout the country? We have had very interesting developments in this connection. The hon. the Minister has received letters, complaints and deputations from bodies and persons in connection with certain statues erected in Pretoria and other places.

What item are you discussing now?

These are public works and I take it that the hon. the Minister is responsible for public works and for the statues as well. Or who is responsible for them? Surely not the Rev. Dan de Beer? He receives letters from the Rev. Dan de Beer and I also receive letters from the Rev. Dan de Beer because I praised the Minister once. I think we should establish a club of all the hon. Ministers on the other side who have received letters from the Rev. Dan de Beer. I should like to join that group. I should like to know from the Minister what policy he is following at present in connection with statues of that nature.

†The next matter I want to raise is in connection with the beautiful building across the street, the H. F. Verwoerd Building. There was something in that building that struck me the first time I went there. I was pleasantly surprised when I saw that in these lifts there were no notices segregating them. In effect, anybody of any race was allowed to use those lifts. It is an excellent idea. Can the hon. the Minister tell me whether this is a policy which he will be following and will advocate to his colleagues in regard to public buildings in future? I support that policy. There is a very important policy matter involved in this, not as regards this side of the House but as regards that side of the House. We on this side regard those lifts simply as lifts, but I have an important question to ask the hon. the Minister in this regard and he must elucidate this point. He must give us some insight into the thinking of his party. There we have these lifts which are open to people of all races. Can the Minister now tell us whether those lifts are multi-racial or multi-national? This doubt has been worrying me seriously all along and I trust that the hon. the Minister will elucidate this point and give us the reason for it. If they are not multi-racial, why are they not multi-racial? If they are multi-national, why are they multi-national?

*I went to the libary and consulted our best Afrikaans dictionaries. I searched and searched for the word “veelvolkig”, but there is no such word. I spoke to the hon. the Minister and I take it that he had earnest consultations with the hon. the Prime Minister on a matter such as: “Are those lifts in the Verwoerd Building multi-national or are they multi-racial?”

The last matter I want to raise with the hon. the Minister in connection with public works is the naming of public buildings.

You are a two-face (tweegatjakkals) and you will not find that in the dictionary either.

The hon. member for Carletonville is speaking of the very matter I want to discuss now. The other day there was talk of a Cas Greyling Park in his constituency.

It will come.

It will come, That is my objection, namely that public works are erected, that State money is spent in connection with public works and that they are often named after hopeless nonentities whose names are forgotten within three or four years. I am not referring to the hon. member for Carletonville now—he will be remembered for longer than that. It is time that the hon. the Minister of Public Works also kept an eye on the naming of buildings. Is there a Blaar Coetzee building or school yet, or something of that nature?

No.

Well then, in that case I congratulate the hon. the Minister that there is no such building yet, and I hope there will not be one either.

*The MINISTER OF PUBLIC

There is not a Blaar Coetzee Building, there is a Barzillai Coetzee Building.

If that is so, someone will ask five years from now who Barzillai Coetzee was. Then nobody will know. It is an impossible name for a building, either to spell or to pronounce or to place on a letterhead. No, I think the time has arrived for the hon. the Minister to keep an eye on the naming of buildings which, to a fantastically uncontrolled extent, are named after people who really do not deserve it. This is an important matter. If the hon. the Minister examines the names of the schools in the Transvaal, he will find that 90 per cent are named after personss. Let him examine the naming of Public buildings and he will find this in the majority of cases.

Such as which one?

I shall mention one. The Barzillai building.

There is no such building. I was simply telling a lie. [Interjections.]

Mr. Chairman, I like the honesty on the part of the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.] I accept that.

To which building are you objecting?

Take all the backbenchers …

To which building are you objecting?

But I am replying. I say that the hon. the Minister should take all the back-benchers and the members in the second row from the back who were provincial councillors, especially in the Transvaal, and see which of them have had school buildings in the Transvaal named after them.

It has nothing to do with Public Works.

Wait a moment. That hon. member says it has nothing to do with Public Works. There is also a school building named after that hon. member.

I always reply to your questions. May I put a question to you now? To the name of which building of the Department of Public Works are you objecting?

I am objecting to the names of the schools in the Transvaal … [Interjection.]

No, I am referring to buildings of the Department of Public Works.

I know these schools fall under the Provincial Council, but the funds for them do not fall under the Provincial Council. [Time expired.]

Mr.

Chairman, allow me to reply in brief to the hon. members for Umlazi and Pietermaritzburg District who spoke a few moments ago about police buildings. [Interjections.]

Surely that is a lie you are telling.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member did not speak.

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

Very well, Sir, I withdraw them but he nevertheless lied.

Mr. Chairman …

Order! The hon. member for Langlaagte must withdraw that.

What must I withdraw, Mr. Chairman?

That the hon. member nevertheless lied.

He did lie, but I withdraw it.

The hon. the Minister may proceed.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umlazi probably spoke with his tongue in his cheek just now, because, after all, he was a policeman for long enough …

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. the Minister may not use the words “he probably spoke with his tongue in his cheek”.

If I may not. I withdraw them. Mr. Chairman, he was a policeman for long enough to know under what circumstances the policemen lived and were accommodated in the days when the United Party was still in power. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District has conceded in almost as many words that it is true, but he expects even more of us than we are giving them at present. On the Loan Votes concerning the Police. Loan Vote B and Loan Vote K, provision is being made for an amount of no less than R11 million.

How much for this year? *

It is for this year. The hon. member should keep quiet now. He has already spoken and should allow me to speak now. That hon. member wants me to reply to him, but he was acting the clown when he was speaking. He cracked jokes and laughed while he was speaking, while he wanted to create the impression that he was serious about the matters he was discussing. On this Loan Vote, R7¼ million is appropriated for buildings and offices. I want to ask the hon. member for Umlazi or any hon. member on that side of this House whether provision has ever been made before for anything like that amount for the construction of police buildings in one year, It may perhaps have been last year or the year before, but never before has it been as much. It is a wonderful sum of money and the consideration here is not whether we need the police buildings. We need them very much. We inherited a tremendous backlog from the previous Government. Recently, a few weeks ago, I opened an office complex in Paarl. The previous police station in Paarl had been there since the beginning of this century. Our backlog was that big. The hon. members pleaded here for this nolice station and for that police station. I want to ask them rather to leave the matter to me, or where buildings are being constructed for the Department of Justice, to leave it to the Minister of Justice, to decide where the need is in fact the greatest. The fact of the matter is that we do not have sufficient money and cannot obtain enough services to meet all the needs in one year. The hon. member for Umlazi also spoke. and I know he is concerned about the political matters, but I just want to say to him that he should ask himself whether an amount of R7¼ million for nolice offices and buildings in one year is a reasonable amount, whether it is an amount which one can expect under the circumstances. I think that if he asked himself that question, he would reply in the affirmative. We have decided that we are going to provide 100 per cent housing to police officers. However, we cannot do it in one year: there has never been anything like this before. Not only must nolice offices be built in Durban, in Johannesburg and in all the other towns and places, but also housing. I am perfectly satisfied that as far as nolice offices and housing on Loan Vote K are concerned we are doing our duty towards the Police. I do not want to elaborate on the amounts of R50 to which reference was made. If a member finds a building in his constituency in these Estimates, he may regard himself as fortunate. He may regard himself as fortunate, because at least it means that the constuction of that project will be commenced. It does not mean that we will commence immediately. Sometimes, as in the case mentioned by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District, circumstances change in the meantime and in the process of planning we decide that as a result of the development, the needs which exist are greater than those we planned for previously. The increase in costs is in all probability due to the fact that a larger building is required than originally planned. The amount allocated to us, will be allocated in accordance with the needs at the different places. As far as I am concerned, I think the Police are satisfied. I, as the responsible Minister, am satisfied and nobody is more eager than I to ensure that proper accommodation is provided for them. I am satisfied that I have received my rightful share in the Budget, and I shall try to apportion this where the need is the greatest.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston referred to the report of the Secretary for Public Works and more specifically to the question of housing needs as determined by the building research Institute in Pretoria. He asked me what had been the result of that research. That research will continue until 1973–’74. There has, therefore, been no result as yet in that connection. That investigation will then be further extended to include the rest of the country.

The hon. member for Green Point referred to the staff position in the Department of Public Works. I readily admit that there is a shortage in certain sections of the Department, as is the case in any other department. There is nothing we can do about it.

Nothing?

No, what can we do about it? We can do nothing about it; we can only advertise for staff and wait for applications. There is absolutely nothing further we can do about it. If the hon. member knows of something we can do about it. I should like him to tell me, but all he does is sit there and make a fuss. He offers no suggestions at all. All he can do is sit there and criticize without suggesting any plan at all.

His next point was that Government buildings were unsatisfactory. There we have the great architect of the century! “The Government buildings are unsatisfactory—all the Government buildings are unsatisfactory! ” That is his opinion—the architect of the century, the man who knows how buildings should be built, where buildings should be sited and all that sort of thing! Where does he get all his knowledge? What is wrong with the Hendrik Verwoerd Building?

Give his name to the building.

If I were to give his name to a building, it would be the “Bloody Fool” building! [Laughter.]

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

Very well, I shall call it the “Fool” building.

The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw the word “bloody”.

Fool’s paradise.

The hon. member for Carletonville has given me a better idea. I shall call the building “The Fools’ Paradise”—the building I name after the hon. member for Greenpoint. Sir, he asked who approved these buildings. There is a special sketch-plan committee in the Department of Public Works under the Chairmanship of the Chief Architect of my Department, Mr. Badnitz, who is one of the most brilliant men in South Africa. That committee approves these buildings.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District also passed certain remarks in regard to this building. He made certain suggestions, namely, that the tourism, airways, baggage and information offices should be accommodated on the ground floor. May I remind him that this is the Parliamentary complex. Can he imagine what the position would be if we were to have all those offices accommodated there? These decisions are taken by architects, people who know their job. I see no reason at all why this terrible amount of criticism should be expressed in this regard.

Is it a prestige building or not?

Of course it is a prestige building. Does that hon. member want the tourism, immigration, information and all the other offices accommodated here in this Parliamentary complex? Is it not sufficient that he is here? No, Sir, that is the most arrant nonsense in the world.

I want to tell the hon. member for Orange Grove that the tenders in respect of buildings are dealt with like ordinary tenders for the erection of buildings. These people tender, and if in due course it appears that the tenders were too low, negotiations are entered into with them. This has been the case over the years in regard to large buildings and large construction works. The normal tender procedure is followed. I know of no other procedure that can be followed.

Did your Department have anything to do with the P. K. le Roux Dam?

No, we had absolutely nothing to do with it. Of course, from time to time tenders are forthcoming which are too low and in regard to which adjustments have to be made at a later stage. This has always been the position in the case of all large works and will continue to be so; it will never be any different.

In regard to the hon. member’s question about statues. I want to tell him that there is no particular policy in regard to statues. If a statue has to be ordered for a certain building, we order it. Once the statue has been completed, we see whether it is up to standard and, if so, it is used; if it is not up to standard, it is not used.

Do you look at the design beforehand? *

Of course we look at the design beforehand. What is the hon. member’s difficulty?

The Rev. De Beer.

Is the Rev. De Beer the hon. member’s difficulty? What has that to do with me? I do not think that the Rev. De Beer is his difficulty; I think that he is the Rev. De Beer’s difficulty.

The hon. member also referred to lifts. What does he want to know about lifts? There are lifts for non-Whites in the H. F. Verwoerd Building. There are special lifts …

Where?

Around the comer. There are lifts for non-Whites in that building.

Are they marked?

No, they are not marked. Why should they be marked? It is not necessary. There are goods lifts; there are lifts for non-Whites. There are alto ether nine lifts in that building. Things are functioning perfectly satisfactorily; nobody has any complaints in this regard. Why are hon. members opposite complaining about it?

If important

Bantu persons like Chief Matanzima enter the building, do they use the lift around the corner?

Chief Matanzima does not need to use the lift. He sees the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development on the first floor; he can use the stairs.

And if he wants to see the Prime Minister?

If he wants to see the Prime Minister he has a choice of at least nine lifts that he can use.

The hon. member also reacted vociferously to the question of buildings being given the names of Ministers, members of Parliament and so forth. I challenge him to give me the name of any building that has been built by the Department of Public Works over the past five years and that has been called after a Minister.

The Albert Hertzog Tower?

That was built by the Post Office, not by Public Works. There is the Hans Strydom Tower. Has the hon. member any objection to that name? Has he any objection to the name Jan Smuts Airport? Has he any objection to the name D. F. Malan Airport? What then is his objection?

To the schools …

We do not build any schools. The hon. member is talking absolute nonsense.

Sir, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District spoke about the cost of the H. F. Verwoerd Building. The cost of the H. F. Verwoerd Building was just under R7 million—R6 696 000, to be exact.

Was that only for the building?

That was only for the building. The furnishings cost R40 000, which is not particularly high for such a large building. The waiting rooms cost R30 000 and the curtains cost R30 000. The ministerial offices have a floor space of about 750 square feet. [Interjection.] What is so strange about that? My house is in excess of 3 000 square feet.

Your house?

Yes. the house I had before I became a Minister was also in excess of 3 000 square feet. A normal house is between 1 000 and 1 200 square feet. What is wrong with a Minister’s having a decent office of 750 square feet? [Interjection.]

Order! The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District must stand up if he wants to ask a question. He must not persist in making interjections.

The office of Jan Marais, or of any big businessman, is larger than the ministerial offices in the H.F. Verwoerd Building. The office of any reasonably big businessman is larger. I do not blame the hon. member. He has never had an office in his life. The first office he had was the one he now has in this Parliamentary Building. So I do not blame him for becoming so terribly upset about the size of Ministers’ offices. I think I have now replied to all the questions put to me.

Will the hon. the Minister deal with the procedure in settling rentals for the hiring of premises?

Yes. There is a special committee of the Department of Public Works which negotiates and determines the rentals of buildings which are rented by the Department of Public Works on behalf of other departments.

Who is the chairman of that committee?

No, I do not know who the chairman of the committee is, but I am sure he is a good chairman.

And the members?

No, I do not know who the members are either. There is a special committee that deals with that matter.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 33.—“Commerce”, R6 383 000, and 34.—“Industries”, R26 726 000, Loan Vote J.— “Industries”, R88 656 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 18.—“Commerce”, R62 000, and 19.—“Industries”, R2 613 000:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour. When the hon. the Minister intensified import control on the 24th November last year, he made a number of very fundamental decisions. The unused balances of 1971 permits were reduced by 50 per cent, the free-import permit list of goods was substantially reduced, the 1972 permits became valid only in March as against the usual procedure of being valid as from January, and local quotas were introduced and pegged at 20 per cent. I think it is generally accepted in the business community of South Africa that these actions by the Minister were a breach of faith against the private sector. Had they been the actions of any other sector but the Government’s, they would in fact have been actionable since every importer in this country had a document from the Government which entitled him to do certain things, but then by the cross of the pen those things were made invalid.

The decision to intensify import control was taken in the face of repeated statements by the hon. the Minister that there would be no intensification, and that the previous volume of imports would not be a factor. The decision was taken in the full knowledge that local importers, through no fault of their own, would be forced to break contacts with overseas suppliers, would have to dishonour obligations accepted under irrevocable letters of credit and it would badly damage the names of South African importers. Intensification of this control brought a great deal of hardship to a great number of people be cause a great number of people had built their businesses on undertakings that had been given by the hon. the Minister and by the Cabinet, that there would be no alternation in import control. Commercial Opinion of April sums up the position very briefly and correctly under the heading “Unhappy Importers”—

We do not know when the second round of permits will take place or to what extent the second round of permits will be issued. What we do know is that the original issue of 20 per cent really did not do importers very much good. Devaluation and price increases have reduced the quantitative value of these permits. In this article, Assocom indicates that in its opinion 20 per cent of the 1969 quota permits is equal to only two months’ supplies. What I want to ask the hon. the Minister is how the manufacturer, the importer, the wholesaler or the retailer is to carry on his business under these conditions; particularly when the hon. the Minister knows perfectly well that today one must place orders overseas at least six to twelve months in advance? Again we have the usual uncertainty associated with any action this Government takes. We were told that the whole policy of import control would be reviewed in May. I just want to remind the hon. the Minister that this is the merry month of May. We know there has been a considerable improvement in the balance of payments position, both on capital account and on current account. The hon. the Minister should now tell us—and I hope he will in this debate—not only that he is in a position to announce a second round, but what his policy is in regard to import control, and, basically, whether it is directed at our balance of payments position or whether it serves as an instrument for the benefit of industry.

In the meantime, we want to know what is happening. In 1970 I think, the Government sent a number of emissaries abroad to try to solve some of our problems with GATT. Last year the Secretary for Commerce and his officials went over to talk to GATT. What has transpired since then? How do we stand at the moment? We have been told extremely little. We have a statement by the Secretary for Commerce in which he said—

This was said on the 2nd May of this year. What is the Government doing? We know what it does, when it cannot find a solution to any problem it appoints a commission. This is standard Government practice. This is what it has done on this occasion. It has appointed a commission. What are the terms of reference of this commission?—

I would have believed that the Government would have solved these problems many, many years ago. After all, GATT was conceived in 1947 and it came into operation in 1948; that is 25 years ago, and now we have a commission to find out what GATT means.

I hope that this commission will get a move on with its work and that we will get some meaningful decision from it. What we want is very clear indeed; we want a programme of protection for some of our industries, a form of protection which will be internationally acceptable. We perhaps in some cases even want import control for certain key industries which are basic to the future of South Africa. We want an adaptation of transport rates that could also be effective. We want special consideration for those industries that can grow in scale. We also want consideration for those industries that have potential as growth leaders. Perhaps most important of all, we want a realization by people that we have to deal in this country with a population of 22 million and that the industries that merit specific and special consideration will be those industries that can absorb large numbers of semi-skilled and unskilled labour. We must go for industries that have the ability to export and for industries that have an international competitive advantage. Of course, to do any of these things we need a crash programme for labour. We have to train and re-train labour, because unless we do that, no scheme that we try to implement can be successful.

A second allied matter is the question of exports. We deal with this problem every year in this House, but we seem to make very little progress indeed. Today I received the statement issued by the hon. the Minister after the meeting of the Export Advisory Council which was held last month, and it merely confirms what we have been saying for many, many years. I want to quote from it as follows—

What we have to realize is that to achieve a growth rate in South Africa of 5,5 per cent per annum, it is estimated that at constant prices merchandise imports will have to grow at an annual rate of at least 5 per cent and that merchandising exports will have to grow at an annual rate of 6,8 per cent to pay for these imports, plus the country’s net debit balance on Service Account. There is an awful lot of loose talk about imports and import control, but I want to repeat what I have said in this House a dozen times: 80 per cent of all imports that flow into this country are for capital goods or for materials for our industries, and only 20 per cent are consumer goods. Import control or no import control, we are basically going to be required to import 80 per cent of what our present imports are, because they comprise essentials. If you stop the importation of these essentials, you obviously adversely affect your whole economic development. The bulk of our imports has just got to continue if we want to have the growth that we all know is essential to help us solve the problems of this country; if we are going to be able to provide job opportunities for everybody, which is our prime consideration. The only way we can pay for our imports is by exports. What we want to know from the hon. the Minister tonight is what he is doing about exports. We know that certain things have been done. We know that limited tax benefits have been granted. There has been the export guarantee corporation; we have SAFTO the Export Advisory Council and now the commission. Nevertheless, I think the hon. the Minister will be the first to agree that none of these have provided the necessary spark to get our exporters going. We do not seem to be able to generate enthusiasm and dynamism; we do not seem to be able to get our exports off the ground. This is our basic problem. When we realize that in 1971 we exported less than in 1970, and that we exported less in 1970 than we did in 1969, the problem becomes very apparent. The hon. the Minister has taken some action. In November last year and in March of this year he sent two economic missions to the major EEC countries. I would like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the business undertakings in South Africa took advantage of these missions that went abroad. Did the missions serve their purpose, and were they successful? Following the experience of these two missions, is it the intention of the hon. the Minister to send further missions to the other EEC countries? On 5th August the hon. the Minister announced the appointment of the Reynders Commission, to which I have already referred, which was to go into the whole question of exports and to make recommendations to the hon. the Minister. I want to know from the hon. the Minister, in regard to the interim report he has received, whether it was discussed with the Export Advisory Council. It was not clear from the statement issued on the 14th. I also want to know whether this first report has been available to those sectors of the private sector that are vitally interested, because I do not believe that we can wait for the final report. I believe we have to take action now, and we have to take it fast. This is what SAFTO said in its February edition—

On 10th September last year the hon. the Minister referred to a Cabinet Committee which, he said had been appointed with responsibility for all aspects of our trade with the EEC as a result of Great Britain’s accession to the Common Market. He told us that full discussions have been held with interested parties, and that the results—I quote—

That was six months ago. What has happened? We want to know what programme of action has been formulated by the Cabinet. What is the programme of action referred to in this statement, where is this programme? What has been said about it? I have heard nothing about it. I hope the hon. the Minister will be able to tell us.

This question of exports is an issue which I regard and, I am sure, the hon. the Minister regards as one of the vital issues before the country. A SAFTO man had this to say on 21st April—

This is what we will be faced with in the years to come. As I have said, we do not seem to be getting our exports off the ground. Year by year our exports are diminishing. Professor Reynders’ first comment, when he was appointed as chairman of this commission, was to stress the urgency of this issue. I want to add my plea to those already made to the hon. the Minister, that what requires to be done has to be done right now. I refer the hon. the Minister to Management of this month, where they discuss this topic and end off with the following phrases—

This is where we now stand.

I now come to another issue, namely that of pyramid or multi-level selling. I have here a copy of an Australian paper, the Advertiser of Adelaide, of 3rd January, 1972. This is what they say—

What is this multi-level selling, this pyramid selling? It starts with a parent organization that supplies the product. Then you have the pyramid. You start with the general distributor, the “general” as he is called. He buys his stocks from the organization. Then he appoints and sells to a master distributor, or master distributors. The master distributors appoint organizers and sell stock to them. The organizers appoint and sell stock to the so-called “girls”. Different firms call them different girls. Each one on the way down takes a commission, but there are often a number of other conditions attached to these appointments of “general” and “master” and “organizer” and “seller”. Here is where the trouble lies. Firstly, each category in the chain is required to buy a fixed amount of stock. In the case of a “general”. I am told it can be as much as R3 600 and in so far as the “girls” are concerned, it can be as low as R35. Secondly, you move up from a lower sales position to a higher sales position by buying your release from the gentleman above you. If you are a “master” and you want to become a “general”, you have to pay the “general” to release you from being a “master.” In one case this costs R2 300. Then there are other conditions as well. In one company, for a “master” to become a “general,” he first of all has to find somebody to replace him as a “master” in the “general’s” organization. He has to pay for and complete a course of instruction and he has to have as part of his organization, at least ten “girls” who will sell a minimum volume of goods each month. This type of operation has as its objective not selling goods; it has as its objective selling distributorships. This is all it trafficks in. It trafficks in appointments, the one selling an appointment to the other in a pyramid until everybody in the country, if you take it ad infinitum, is involved in this situation. Part of the deal is the commitment to high-priced training courses which can cost as much as R500 per course. Another condition is that the goods sold can never be returned to the company so that you can get your money back. Goods have to be sold at fixed prices. Overseas this offends against fair trade practices and in this country— and this I want to bring specifically to the notice of the hon. the Minister—I believe it offends against our retail price maintenance. Sales training is common in this multi-level selling but in some cases I believe this training has a frightening aspect. You are taught the philosophy that the product or the training or the method of selling can never be unsuccessful; you are told that none of these things can ever be wrong,—the product, the training and the method of selling. If you yourself are not successful, it is you who are the failure and the loser. Therefore you are out. I have a letter here from a distributor who lost some thousands of rand. I quote from this letter—

This is the psychological impact they are making upon these unfortunate people. You are taught to approach people completely unknown to you, in the streets and in bus queues. Here is an extract from the Financial Mail of the 3rd March. The footnote reads—

That is what is going on. They give you what they call an opportunity to amass great wealth in a very short time. They try to get you to come to what is known as an opportunity meeting. I am also told that if you try to wash out the deal and say to them that they are no good and that you want your money back, they turn round and tell you that if you decide to tell anybody that you think they are a poor organization and that they are not ethical, you are going to hear from their lawyers and this is going to cost you R100 000. They tell you that they will sue you for defamation; that they will sue you for libel. You are told that you are the failure and not the company, nor the product nor the method. These people get frightened, so we hear nothing about it, except for the few letters that I have had since it became known that I was going to raise this matter. This is the background of a selling plan that has taken root in many countries where unscrupulous people have made millions which have been lost by a host of very decent people. This is what the London Sunday Mirror had to say in its issue of February …

What is your remedy?

I shall give you the remedy in a minute—you must not be in so much of a hurry!

He will make you a general. You will be able to sell things!

I quote from the London Sunday Mirror—

This is the worst aspect of the matter. In this country today we have people selling cosmetics. We have people who are ostensibly selling touring. They tell you if you become a distributor, “general” or “master” in a sales organization for overseas tourists, you get cheaper tours. We have people who are selling discount distributorships. There is a whole list in the Financial Mail of at least a dozen companies—there are more today—who are doing this. I don’t want to be misunderstood. I am not saying that all multi-level, and certainly not all direct, house-to-house selling organizations are bad ones. We have some first-class organizations in this country who for years have been selling house-to-house. They are reputable and everybody respects them. We have some multi-level ones who are doing the same thing. But we have to take some action against the unscrupulous ones. I have had letters—I have lots of them here— from firms who are involved in direct selling to ask for an investigation by the hon. the Minister. They are the ones who want it.

There has also been formed a Direct Sales and Services Association of South Africa. The object of this association is to protect the good name of the reputable firms and to try and provide a modus operandi for protecting the unfortunate people. But there are equally bad cases, as the hon. the Minister knows. People are being robbed through a combination of psychological brainwashing, untruthful presentation of facts, and promises of financial rewards that are quite impossible of achievement. This is what is happening. I believe we have to protect these people.

What we want first, is a complete investigation of the facts. When we have the facts, I believe there are ways in which this problem can be tackled. First of all, some of these multi-selling schemes, where a chain continues and continues, have been held overseas to be lotteries. Heaven only knows, our lottery legislation is tough enough. We should be able to bring these firms within the ambit of our lottery legislation, and they should be declared lotteries. That is number one.

But I believe we can tackle the problem in another way. We should introduce legislation that will provide that no distributor or salesman shall be involved in direct selling, which involves buying a distributorship, or buying stock, or paying for training courses, unless he first enters into a written contract. If there is no written contract, any agreement is void. Now this contract should provide, inter alia a cooling-off period of, say seven days after the signing of a contract. After the man has signed the contract, within seven days he can renege the contract. During this cooling-off period, he can say “I do not want anything more to do with the contract”, and the contract is then void. There must also be a buy-back provision in the contract, in terms of which if a person cannot sell goods within a reasonable period of time, for example six months or nine months, the company must be obliged to take back these goods at a small discount, because something must be deducted for interest, and so forth.

Mr. Chairman, I believe that if we would do these three things—deal with the matter under the Lotteries Act, but more specifically, provide by legislation that if you have to buy goods or a distributorship, or take a training course for which you pay, to get a selling job, that a written contract be entered into, where there is a cooling-off period, and that you will be able to sell back to the company the goods you have bought at a reasonable discount—we will be able to kill this problem overnight. I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with this matter quickly, effectively, and in a way which will give protection to the hundreds and hundreds of people who need it in this country.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.