I just want to announce the business of the House for next week. It will be more or less as follows: After the debate on the Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, we will proceed with the Transport Vote, then with the Water Affairs and Forestry Votes and the Health and Coloured Relations Votes. I just want to inform the House that on 14 May we will discuss the proposals in connection with the consolidation of the homelands.

Mr. Chairman, I indicated yesterday evening that the Bureau for Market Research had established where Black people in the urban areas spent their money. I shall mention only a few items. In respect of clothing, 77% of the total amount spent was spent in the White shops, as against only 7% spent at Black dealers. Of the expenditure on furniture and household requirements, 86% went to the White dealers as against only 5% to the Black dealers. As regards total expenditure, 43% of the total amount spent by Black people in the urban areas went to White dealers, as against only 37% to the Black dealers. As yet the true cause of the fact that the Black people buy more from the White dealers has not been determined scientifically. It is alleged by Black people, however, that the Black dealers exploit them. I repeat that this is being alleged, but if this allegation is true, it is probably fitting for us to give these Black dealers the friendly advice not to kill the goose that lays the golden eggs. Sir, with the new rights and privileges for the Black people in the urban areas in respect of ownership rights and trading, licences, as announced here yesterday by the hon. the Minister, new doors are now being opened for the Black dealers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, let me say at once that the announcement made by the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development yesterday in respect of the urban Bantu, is regarded by many of us as a major step forward, and I want to express my unqualified gratitude and appreciation in regard to the changes which were disclosed to us yesterday. It may be said that we may perhaps go further still—I shall come back to that later—as far as some of these things are concerned, and I should like to devote this part of my speech to a few further constructive implications of the proposals announced here yesterday.

By way of repetition, I want to say that the intention to allow Bantu to rent premises and to build their own houses on those premises, houses which they may dispose of and which they will also be able to bequeath to other qualified Bantu, is a step in the right direction which I heartily welcome. We must obviously see these proposals against the background of the truly desperate position concerning urban Bantu housing, especially in the light of the achievements in this regard of a few years ago, for which all of us had much appreciation, when the Bantu housing problem was tackled in this energetic fashion. Sir, From the year 1948 to 1963, 248 000 houses were built for Bantu—virtually a quarter of a million houses in approximately 15 years, a truly magnificent achievement. There is no reason why we cannot have a repetition of that achievement, especially in view of the really slow, alarming tempo at which houses in urban areas have been built for Bantu during the last few years.

In the most recent annual report of the department, we find on page 46 that whilst 24 285 dwellings were built in 1960-’61—I have to point out that the term “urban Bantu” is used here, and I do not know whether this relates merely to the residential areas in the so-called White areas and whether it also includes the urban residential areas in the homelands—the number decreased to 5 000 in the year 1968-’69; to 12 000 in the year 1969-’70, to 8 500 in 1970-71, to 6 700 in 1971-72, to 5 100 in 1972-73, and to 7 500 in 1973-74. Within one year’s time, when Soweto was under the control of the Johannesburg municipality, that municipality built 11 000 houses, an average of 60 per day, whilst the tempo during the past year was approximately four per day. The fact is that a minimum of 17 000 houses are required in Soweto alone. The normal population increase in Soweto requires a minimum of 2 500 houses per year.

The need probably is far greater than we know as a result of the well-known over-occupation which occurs in Soweto and other urban areas and which is apparent, inter alia, from the contribution which board and lodging fees make towards the income of Bantu families in these urban areas. When we look at the report of the Bureau for Market Research—and here I want to reply to the hon. member for Kimberley North at the same time—and at the contribution made by board and lodging fees to the income of Bantu families in urban areas, we find that in the five principal urban areas, the contribution of lodgers amounted to 5% of the income of the family in 1970 in the case of Pretoria, as against ,60% in 1960. In Johannesburg it was ,60% in 1960 and it increased to 3,80%. In Durban it was ,90% and it increased to 4,80% in 1970. In Port Elizabeth it increased from ,80% to 3,50% and in Cape Town from 1,40% to 4,20%. This means a tremendous increase in the number of people who stay with Bantu families as lodgers, both legally and illegally. As regards the hon. member for Kimberley North, may I also just say that the figures he furnished probably are somewhat outdated. According to the most recent report of the Bureau for Market Research, the 1973 report, in which the figures for 1970 are given, the ratio of the amount spent on alcohol to the amount spent on other commodities, is totally different and gives a totally different picture to the one the hon. member for Kimberley North gave us here.

May I just say in passing that the two items which could be regarded as luxury items, viz. expenditure on alcoholic beverages and cigarettes and tobacco, are indeed luxury items, but the other items he mentioned here, viz. personal care and patent medicines, can surely not be regarded as a luxury item. Those two items, i.e. alcoholic beverages and cigarettes and tobacco, came to 9,4% in 1970 in the case of Pretoria as against 14,3% for clothing. In Johannesburg it came to 8,2% as against 14,3% for clothing; in Durban, 8,6% as against 12,55% for clothing; in Port Elizabeth, 7,2% as against 11,65% for clothing; and in Cape Town, 5,55% as against 17,2% for clothing. In other words, a major shift occurred between those years for which the hon. member for Kimberley North quoted figures and the most recent data which was made available.

I just want to say that the housing problem in all the urban areas is an extremely serious one, with all its attendant social and other implications. I want to say once more that I am grateful for these concessions having been made. I said, with regard to the various proposals made here by the Minister, that I would come forward with positive additions, if I may use this term. I want to say at once that I associate myself with the appeal addressed here by the hon. the Minister to employers that they should make it possible for their employees to build their own houses, if need be by means of long-term loans. I just want to say in passing that I think we should give some Bantu the opportunity once more to own their own land in the urban areas, as the position used to be. But I shall come to that later. I deduce from what the hon. the Minister said, that a 30-year term will be considered in respect of the lease of the sites, in view of the fact that the hon. the Minister announced that when Bantu wished to buy those houses from the local authority or from the Bantu Affairs Administration Board, a loan with a term of 30 years would be allowed. I hope an immediate start will be made with releasing adequate numbers of vacant sites on which the Bantu who want to do so may then start building their own houses. In other words, it is essential that the Bantu residential areas be extended immediately. I also assume that provision is to be made for the necessary social and economic stratification so that we do not have the situation once more which we unfortunately had with the Group Areas Act, i.e. that a mere uniformity will be maintained. In other words, I think Bantu residential areas will have to be developed which makes provision for those Bantu who fall into the higher social and economic groups, and attendant upon this is the size of the sites. I also hope that negotiations will be entered into with the building societies and other financial institutions to see, in spite of the fact that the land will not belong to the Bantu, whether a way cannot be found in which the finance of these establishments can be made available to the Bantu to build their own houses. As I said earlier on, I would welcome an investigation by the department into the possibility of making building materials available to Bantu. This could make a tremendous contribution towards alleviating the pressure brought to bear on the State to provide housing. As I indicated earlier on, this had been done on a large scale by the Bloemfontein municipality and it worked wonderfully well there. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to say in regard to the speech of the hon. member for Edenvale that it is one of the more moderate speeches I have heard the hon. member make. He also made his speech with a reasonable amount of responsibility. I was a little worried that the hon. member would not come back to the debate we had under the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, because the hon. member said only this morning that he wanted to come back to the question of land ownership in the urban areas. When he refers to land ownership in the urban areas, I take it he means the urban Bantu areas.

We have had a very peculiar day yesterday. The hon. the Minister made an announcement here in regard to practical matters affecting the way of living of Bantu in Bantu townships. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana and the hon. member for Houghton immediately saw something in the hon. member’s announcement which we, in terms of the National Party’s policy, did not see in this announcement at all. These two hon. members adopted the premise that with this announcement the National Party acknowledges a permanency as regards the presence of different ethnic groups within White South Africa. I would like to say something about this aspect. This is the difference between the hon. members on that side of the House and the hon. members on this side of the House, and I am grateful that this difference exists. I think the word “permanent” should possibly also be scrapped from our vocabulary as far as these debates are concerned. Tust as the word “discrimination” has acquired a certain connotation, so hon. members on the other side of the House are also interested in giving a certain connotation to the word “permanent”. On the i basis of section 10 of the Bantu Urban Areas Consolidation Act, Act No. 25 of 1945—with which hon. members are quite familiar—I want to deal with the idea of permanency today. I want to reject categorically the fact that we can read some permanency or the intention of permanency in the hon. the Minister’s statement, as the hon. members on the other side of the House have tried to do. The major difference lies in the fact that the National Party was not in power in 1945, but that the official Opposition was in power at that stage. When we discuss influx control, the Opposition still uses that Act today as if the spirit of that fine flower child created by that side of the House at that time is still valid. Section 10(1)(a) and (b) extended certain privileges to the Bantu in the White areas, which amounted to a distinction being made at that stage between the inhabitants of the so-called reserves of that time and the Bantu in the White area. A distinction had to be made and measures had to be taken to establish facets of influx control to make it possible even for that party to implement their policy. I want to say today that the appearance of permanency which is attached to the presence of the Bantu or the Black man in White South Africa today loses sight of one factor. Here I am not only referring to the Bantu in the urban areas, and I want to cross swords with the hon. member for Edenvale, because that side of the House never gives any attention to the Black man on our farms. They are also in White areas, and those same people are also subject to certain provisions as regards their physical presence in White areas. The appearance of permanency springs from the provisions of section 10. We should however not lose sight of one thing. Section 10(1) reads as follows—

Then follow four provisos. The premise, even of that party, in 1945 was not that there would be any permanency as regards the physical presence of the Bantu in South Africa. That was admitted by that party itself in 1945, and it even indicated the exceptions, i.e. that such persons will be present here, without their having to comply with other requirements, for example if they were born here or after they have been employed here for a certain period, and that they are also allowed to have their wives and unmarried children here under certain conditions. However, section 10(1)(d) was also added, which provided for what is today the standpoint of the National Party with regard to citizens of non-White peoples within the borders of South Africa, i.e. that those people are allowed to come here and that they may come and work here and are allowed to enter South Africa in terms of section 10(1)(b). It is precisely this appearance of permanency, which is embodied in section 10(1)(a) and (b) which compelled that side of the House, especially the United Party, to change their standpoint practically every year and which compelled them to accept a federal form of government for the people of South Africa. This is not the premise of the National Party. The appearance of permanency which may exist in regard to the physical presence of Bantu people in South Africa will not compel us also to accept a federal form of government. We act from the premise that those people are citizens of another state. The hon. member for Port Natal yesterday furnished figures according to which, in a place like Soweto, there were only 12 000 people who did not range themselves with their particular ethnic groups. In general the Bantu ranged themselves with their ethnic groups. I think the policy of the National Party has already developed to the stage where we can say without qualification that the Whites of South Africa have citizenship in White South Africa and that the Bantu in our midst have citizenship in their homeland. I know what I am talking about, and I know we should do it in a responsible manner, i.e. namely that this content of pretence permanency embodied in section 10(1)(a) and (b) should be removed because we have now reached the stage where we are dealing with peoples next to one another. Because we are dealing with peoples next to one another and those other peoples, the Black peoples may be in South Africa at a given time and under given circumstances, be it for a longer or a shorter period—may be generations—he is here as a citizen of that nation. He is here as a citizen of that nation to sell his labour, and we should link the sale of his labour to the possession of a certificate of citizenship. The fact is that he is a citizen of another country, and that may give him the right to come and work in South Africa and to stay to do that work. I think this idea also links up with the idea contained in the statement made by the hon. Minister yesterday. This is only possible in terms of the policy of the National Party. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Schweizer Reneke referred to the fact that until now no attention has been given to the Bantu on farms in the White area. It is about this subject that I would like to say a few words and more specifically about a few things which happened during the past few years.

It is quite clear to me when I look at the Press reports of the past years that one can come to the conclusion that the Press and the Opposition are not satisfied with anything less than complete integration in all fields. In this process the relations between Whites and non-Whites …

Unbelievable nonsense.

The relations between Whites and non-Whites—the hon. member has never condemned it, but I shall come to him—has been bedevilled by it to such an extent that our people in the rural areas are today not properly informed about the real state of affairs and about what this National Government is actually doing for the non-Whites. The millions of rand which are voted every year for Bantu administration and the millions of rand which are voted for the acquisition of land, which is then given to the non-White peoples as a present, are never mentioned. What is mentioned, are things such as the following. When the International Labour Federation became interested in the wages of the non-Whites and when people became interested in this matter, I asked myself where they heared about it and why they were suddenly interested in this matter. I have here in front of me reports, which started in 1973, on the so-called ill-treatment of the Bantu on farms. A very unsavoury article appeared in The Sunday Tribune of 15 July 1973 under the heading “Men who work for nothing.” Notice has to be taken now of the problem which arose since the publication of that article, which covered an entire page in this newspaper and in which it was broadcast how these poor non-Whites were supposed to have been beaten with sjamboks. Reports such as these about how they were supposed to have been beaten with sjamboks and how they have to work for nothing, were broadcast to the outside world. When we wanted to check the report we were informed that it was actually a recording which was made by a student of the University of Natal together with a non-White interpreter because the student concerned was unable to speak Zulu. He therefore obtained the services of the interpreter and questioned every person they met along the road. We followed the trail of that interrogation and each one of these allegations was proved to be a blatant lie. I have it in writing, substantiated by sworn statements, that the reporter had never been told that which was published in the newspaper, in other words that which the interpreter was told and which was conveyed to the reporter. I do not really want to deal with the facts of the case, but I want to point out that a newspaper which is published in Natal The Weekend World published the entire article two weeks later. In the same newspaper it was then said under prominent headings: “Buthelezi warns of rebellion.” He was so impressed by the article which appeared in the Tribune—and I take it that the outside world was also impressed by it because it was actually meant for their consumption —to the effect that the Bantu on the farms are ill-treated to such an extent that the farmer on the farm found that his Bantu were leaving one after the other i.e. those who wanted to leave while those whom the farmer wanted to remove of his own accord did not want to leave. Instead of encouraging their people to work and maintain good relations with their employers the Bantu homeland authorities started to claim higher wages. With all the responsibility at my disposal I say that the Bantu were priced out of the rural market completely on account of a constant rise in wages. I do not want to go into the cost structure of the farmer but I say that after these Bantu were completely forced out of the rural market, they left for the cities and the towns, which resulted that the Government had to take steps to provide them with the necessary accommodation there. Those Bantu were quite happy on the farms; they worked there under pleasant circumstances and even accumulated live stock. They were earning enough to support their wives. On my farm there was a Bantu with seven wives and he supported all of them. The article I referred to, created the impression that we do not pay the Bantu enough. I told this Bantu to find himself another place to live elsewhere. He then left.

Mr. Chairman, may I put a question to the hon. member?

Is the hon. member prepared to reply to questions?

No, Sir.

The hon. member did not even notice that it was a Friend who wanted to put a question.

Never mind, you were not one of those seven. In that way a situation developed where those people went to the cities and towns where they are sauntering about without work today. They are now making demands, which are supported by the Progressive Party and the United Party, demands in which the Government is urged to provide employment to those who are unemployed and who have nowhere to stay.

If it is not inopportune, I want to put a question to the gentleman Buthelezi. After all, he is a great democrat. The hon. the Minister might be able to furnish me with an answer. I read in a newspaper recently that the gentleman Buthelezi asked the hon. the Minister not to permit political parties in KwaZulu. The hon. the Minister refused to comply with such a request. But the matter has not yet been settled because our people do not know why the request was refused and we also do not understand why the gentleman Buthelezi made such a request. Has this request been made because he is afraid? Does he no longer support the Western democracy? The whole matter is quite vague to us.

What we do know, is that although the Bantu are supposed to be unhappy on the farms, we simply cannot get them to leave. Even after the repeal of the former master and servant Laws they still remain on the farms without rendering a service. They refuse to leave: they do not move; they do not want to go anywhere. Because they do not work, theft is the order of the day. The Police are kept busy with cases concerning State security and consequently they cannot investigate complaints about a few maize cobs that were stolen here and there. It is however a fact that if every inhabitant of a Native village picks six maize cobs on a farm every day, an enormous number of cobs are picked, and that before the maize is ripe and can be harvested. In Northern Natal the situation has become so desperate that some of the farmers now institute civil proceedings against Bantu to get them to leave the farms, the same farms on which they were supposed to have been beaten so much and was never given enough to live. In the Tribune a photograph was also published of a few young Bantu who were felling trees, work which was supposed to be too difficult for them to perform. This photograph was also sent overseas. Just to indicate how neatly matters fit into each other I should also mention that the SABC carried out a survey last year. In the course of the survey a few unfortunate cases were revealed and these were seized upon as proof of what the Tribune had published the previous year. The Tribune was very pleased about it and in a report on the front page the Tribune then declared that the SABC had given proof of the complaints lodged against the farming community, i.e. that they ill-treat the Bantu and do not pay them enough. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I shall not reply to what the hon. member for Vryheid said. I want to return to the speech made by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. The announcements which were made by the hon. the Minister, will be welcomed throughout South Africa and I feel that, on behalf of South Africa as a whole, a word of thanks should be extended to the Government. However, the steps which the Government intends taking are limited. The course the Government is following in South Africa is still far from being the right one. But, Sir, they are at least moving in the right direction, and we are grateful for that. These announcements have generated a new interest in the political debate. For the first time during this session there is a definite relevance as far as the debate on racial matters is concerned. It is interesting to note that it also gives a clear picture of the fundamental dilemma the Government has to deal with. Here we see a clear picture of the Prime Minister, with his Cabinet colleagues, who would very much like to move in a verligte direction, and who would very much like to bring about the necessary adjustments and reforms in South Africa. But we also see—and this is where I get to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke—that there is a powerful, conservative group of reactionary politicians in the Nationalist Party, who are now assiduously counteracting the limited steps which the Government is prepared to take.

Where?

It is clear. It is not necessary for us to look inside the National Party caucus at these fundamental differences which exist, because for every verligte announcement and statement that is made in this House by the Prime Minister or his Cabinet, there is within minutes a right-wing reaction from the ranks of the verkramptes in the National Party. I do not know why this is so, but here we are saddled with a massive conservative group on the opposite side of the House. The fundamental dilemma of the National Party Government, and the core of the racial problem in South Africa, has now been brought up by the National Party members themselves. Inter alia, it deals with the urban Bantu, his existence, his rights of existence and his future. The National Party Government will have to admit at some time or other that the urban Bantu are permanent inhabitants and citizens of the so-called White urban areas of South Africa, to whom civil rights should be granted. The Government will have to admit that these are people to whom human rights will have to be granted. This is the core of the problem with which the National Party Government is faced today. In the first instance the Government consistently refuses to admit that they are permanent citizens of the urban areas, although speakers on that side admit that they are living there permanently, and admit that many of them have been living there permanently for decades. A speaker on the opposite side of the House also said that they will always be there, but in a casual capacity. What that means, nobody knows. The hon. the Deputy Minister can sit there and sneer as much as he likes. The fact remains that they are permanent inhabitants and citizens of the urban areas, with the right to permanent rights. This is what the National Party will have to admit. What the National Party will also have to admit—and this also applies to the hon. the Deputy Minister who tried to create the impression yesterday that the numbers are not increasing as rapidly as the figures and the statistics prove—is that by the year 2000 there will be between 20 and 25 million permanently urbanized Black people in the so-called White area of South Africa.

A lost soul is usually confused.

These are the basic things to which the Nationalist Party would be well-advised to pay honest attention at this stage. In the first instance it is a step forward to giving them the right to own their homes. It is however, not the whole answer as regards the aspirations of the Black man himself. The steps which the Nationalist Party are taking, do not satisfy the reasonable aspirations of the Black man, nor do they serve the real interests of the Whites. The Nationalist Party should realize that until such time as they satisfy the reasonable aspirations of the Black man in South Africa, they will not in any way be able to maintain or guarantee the White man’s existence and his future either. Here I am referring not only to home ownership rights, but also to freehold rights. It is a basic and fundamental right of the urban Bantu, and that because of many reasons. It gives people security, real security and many other benefits as well. It helps the person and the family to combat the effect of inflation; it offers geographic and economic security, to the husband and his family. I believe that the Government might just as well display the honesty and the courage now to grant the Bantu in the urban areas of South Africa freehold rights in addition to home ownership rights. If they were to do that, it would be a courageous step. It would not be half a step. It would satisfy the reasonable aspirations of the Black man and it would be a real and substantial contribution to the security and safety of the White man in South Africa.

There are a few other things I should like to mention. Together with freehold rights security and permanency, there are other interests of the Black man which the Government will now have to guard. One of them is economic rights. In this House we have already debated the aspects of work reservation, etc., many times. I want to mention another aspect. Every economic area, i.e. commercial and/or industrial area in South Africa, is an area which can be clearly demarcated. These are areas which do not include residential areas. One result of modern city planning is that clearly demarcated industrial and commercial areas exist, and this is where the Whites, the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians work. To give meaning and value to the real and significant economic rights of the Black man, to develop them, the Government ought to proclaim the following step: The clearly demarcated industrial and commercial areas will be thrown open to the participation of all the racial groups in South Africa, without the existence of any measures to obstruct the participation of the other racial groups.

You are now echoing the United Party.

I shall never echo the United Party. It is an easy and simple step which can be taken and which will foster goodwill towards the Whites in the ranks of the non-Whites and which will be a clear demonstration to the Blacks, the Coloureds and the Indians that they are being accepted as an important part of the community of South Africa, and that the prospect of opportunities is being held out to them, opportunities which they did not have in the past. It also affords them the opportunity to enjoy a meaningful part in the economic life of South Africa. [Time expired.]

Sir, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was such a jumble of liberalistic ideas that I hardly know where to begin with him. But let us begin with the last point he made, viz. that we should throw open all industrial areas in South Africa for participation by the Black people on an equal footing with the other population groups. Sir, this just shows you how absolutely ridiculous that hon. member’s arguments are. The Blacks trading in the Bantu urban areas are the very people who would complain the loudest if one were to throw open those privileges in the Bantu areas to Whites, because one would then be laying them open to competition which they could not stand up to. That is the basis of our policy, that we not only want to separate people, but that we also want to protect them and provide them with development opportunities. The hon. member for Bryanston states that what has now been announced satisfies neither the aspirations of the Black people nor the interests of the Whites. Sir, it is on that fundamental principle that we differ with them so radically. What are the interests of the Whites? In terms of their policy, they are not interested in what the political interests of the Whites will, in fact, ultimately be here in South Africa, and consequently they are able to come here and argue about the aspirations of the Black people on a different basis to ours. Ultimately, the matter at stake is what they want to channel to politics by means of economic integration and integration at other levels because they want to use it against the National Party. In fact they, too, are unable to satisfy the aspirations of the Black people. The hon. member for Bryanston states that what the Minister announced in regard to house ownership was insignificant; that we should go further and that we should also permit the Bantu to own land. Sir, that hon. member is absolutely ignorant about the Black people in South Africa and in the whole of Africa. Let him go to any Bantu homeland in South Africa, apart from the urban Bantu towns that are being developed there, and consider the Black man’s conception of land tenure and then ask himself whether the concept of individual land tenure is really so important in the aspirations of the Black man. To the hon. member it is important, because to him it is all part of a series of political instruments he wants to use against us.

Why do you not ask the urban Bantu what he wants?

Sir, I do not want to dwell any longer on the hon. member for Bryanston. I want to come back to remarks made by the hon. member for Houghton in the debate on the Prime Minister’s Vote. I am in a somewhat difficult position, Sir. The hon. member for Houghton was wearing a red dress yesterday, and at the time it was extremely difficult not to see red. I note that she is dressed in black today, just as beautifully as yesterday, but I fear that she does not excite one quite as much as she did yesterday. Sir, I want to refer the hon. member for Houghton to a remark she made in the course of the debate on the hon. the Prime Minister’s Vote while referring to liquor consumption by Black people in the urban Bantu residential areas. She referred to R5 million spent on liquor in Soweto and stated—

A little later she states—,

Mr. Chairman, that is the whole basic problem. The whole socio-economic position of the Black people in the urban areas revolves around two things; it revolves around the influx, which we are trying to halt, of vast numbers of Black people to those areas which they are overrunning. It also revolves around the finances necessary to administer the Blacks that are there. The hon. member is just as well aware as the rest of us that the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have two sources of finance. The one is the sale of Bantu liquor and Bantu beer, and the other is the source of accommodation fees and also the contributions from the employers. She is just as well aware as we are that each of these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards has difficulty in rectifying conditions owing to the lack of funds. We know, too, that there are only two options open to us. We can stimulate further the sale of liquor, but I honestly want to say that it is my moral conviction that we shall really have to reconsider this aspect of the financing of Bantu Administration in urban areas, because we cannot simply try to stimulate liquor sales, viz. Bantu beer and Bantu liquor, in order to obtain sufficient funds to do what must be done. Truly, we should eventually have to reap the consequences of doing so. But now this is an historic reality that we must take into account. People do drink, and we must utilize that source of funds, we must utilize the profits to subsidize losses in respect of housing. The hon. member knows how the cost of providing services, water, sanitary services, streets, lights and all the things which she is so fond of complaining about, is escalating. But when the rent tariff, which includes all those other services, is increased, then they maintain here that that is the last straw. In Heaven’s name, Sir, how on earth is one to deal with this problem with people who, in fact, pillory the White people in this way? I really believe that if there is one thing that should occur in this House during the next few years, then it is that the hon. member for Houghton and those sitting behind her over there should come to light with practical and realistic ideas in view of the prevailing circumstances. They should remove, just for a moment, the spectacles of liberalism, and look at economic realism and facts through the spectacles of patriotism. When I say this, Sir, I do not mean for a moment that they have no patriotism, but I do want to say that one cannot approach all these matters from a liberalistic point of view. For example, there is the influx of Black people about which the hon. member for Houghton again made a big fuss yesterday. The hon. member states that we should not demand these people’s documents. In essence she is opposed to the entire policy of influx control. I have before me a number of annual reports issued by the U.N., Report on the World Social Situation. I could quote to her from each of these reports, but I shall not have the time for that. Let me just read this from this report published by the U.N.—

The same theme occurs in each of these reports. One cannot have vast and uncontrolled influx without there being negative socio-economic effects. Sir, in this book, African Aims and Attitudes—and the hon. member for Houghton and the members behind her would do well to read it—President Kaunda refers to “two nations that are being created in Zambia,” one in the cities and one in the rural areas. Sir Seretse Khama also contributed to this book and perhaps they will listen to him. He states—

The whole issue concerns a total, major economic development. The Progressive Party states that it recognizes the homelands. I am addressing the hon. member for Johannesburg North specifically. Sir, are they really being honest when they say that they recognize the Bantu homelands? Are they being honest when they say that they would like economic development to be stimulated and generated in those homelands, too, for the benefit of the Black people? I want to ask him that, because he belongs to an organization and has contacts with the whole business world. They are people who can play a part in this revolution we need here in Southern Africa— not a revolution of integrationary political ideologies as they, in fact, foresee for Africa—I do not say what they want, but the way they foresee it. In 1964, Chou En Lai said that Africa was ripe for revolution. Sir, I agree with him. Southern Africa is ripe for revolution, a revolution of ideas, a revolution in the growing awareness of Black people, aided and generated and stimulated by what we—and that includes the Progressive Party—can do in regard to the homelands, which they disparage as being under-developed, backward and incapable of achieving anything. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to follow up some of the aspects which were raised by the hon. member for Innesdal. He said the problem of the urban Blacks was basically a problem of influx, the availability of capital and of coping with the influx to the urban areas. I must just say in passing that I am sorry that the hon. member again found it necessary to mention patriotism. I think the hon. member must realize that patriotism, like love, is a non-negotiable human commodity. If one does try to make it a negotiable one, one ends up with prostitution.

I want to become very concrete because the hon. member has challenged us to propose specific measures to cope with the problem. I want to refer to the problem of squatting. We read in the newspapers this morning that the people who are squatting at Crossroads were given a fair warning by the department that they will be removed. Notices were delivered, but they did not move. Eventually they were arrested and taken away. I just want to ask the hon. the Minister’s assurance on one particular issue before I carry on with the debate, i.e. whether the hon. the Minister can assure us that there is no separation of children from their parents. If there are such cases I want to know whether something can be done to improve the situation.

Squatting, as the hon. member for Innesdal would concede, is a universal problem in developing countries. It is part of the problem of urban influx and basically relates to the human drive to provide shelter for themselves. People want shelter, they want to look after themselves and they want to go to a place where at least they have the expectation that they can find some employment, or some way of looking after themselves and their loved ones and where they can have a roof over their heads. There is no way in which we can frustrate this human drive. We can try to cope with it and try to direct it in a certain way, but there is no way of frustrating it. If one tries to frustrate it, one simply ends up by trying to stop an avalanche with a shovel. This cannot be done and therefore we must accept the reality of urban migration in Africa, Latin America and in India. It is, in fact, a universal problem.

We must ask ourselves how we are to cope with this problem. I am convinced that we cannot cope with this problem by simply ignoring it or simply trying to get people away from the urban areas by endorsing them out, or by using legalistic arguments and saying that they are illegal and therefore ought not to be here. That is a “Catch 22” kind of argument, to say that we make a law which declares them illegal and when they come here nevertheless, they have to go away because they are here illegally. The problem remains exactly the same. It is basically a problem of urban migration and of how does one cope with it.

The hon. member for Innesdal says that if that is the case we can reduce the problem to the question of capital expenditure because it is always a problem of being able to provide adequate housing, and we do not have enough funds, etc. I want to make certain suggestions to the hon. the Minister or to his Deputy Minister, and make them in all seriousness and if possible. I want to response to these proposals. I think these proposals do not involve a great deal of capital expenditure. I do not think that they involve a great deal of labour for people with technical skill at all, but I do think that if these proposals are accepted we would have a stabilized situation and we would have the possibility of a community of squatters which is able to develop into a viable community and which has some form of security. I want to argue this in terms of six proposals which I want to make to the hon. the Deputy Minister.

The first point is that we must synchronize action on all governmental levels. By “governmental levels” I mean the Central Government, the provincial Government, the divisional councils and the city councils. There must be some synchronization of action when it comes to squatting. There must be a common policy. At the moment the divisional council takes one kind of decision and flushes out squatters like human guinea-fowl and pushes them onto the property of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. The department then chases some of them back to the homelands and others go to the city council. This is what happens. We have a circulating squatter population which has become so adept at erecting shacks that they can do it overnight. There is what one may call “a squatter culture”.

That is the case in the whole of Africa.

Exactly, I accept that and now I am prepared to put forward some proposals. In other words, my first proposal was that there must be a common approach on all governmental levels to the problem of squatting.

The second proposal I want to make is that one basic aspect of this policy should be that we must then demarcate areas where people can squat legitimately. I know that the reply from the Government will be that the moment we do that we accept responsibility for the fact that these people are squatting. If we do not do it, we accept responsibility for exactly the same situation we have at Crossroads. We are responsible in any case, and this responsibility can be used either to stabilize the situation or to create a situation of instability. The only solution is to work out beforehand on a synchronized basis, or on an integrated basis with the different levels of government, where people can squat legally.

Thirdly, once one has demarcated this area, one must provide basic site and service facilities. I know all the arguments for and against this, but there is no way one can get away from the facts. Basic site and service facilities have to be provided there, as has been done at Crossroads and Lourdes Farm and places like that. Once one has these basic site and service facilities, at least people will have the minimum infrastructure for a community and work on it from there. Fourthly, after these facilities have been provided, one should have officials there, one official per squatter community, who should have a relative degree of expert knowledge to advise the people where they can erect their shacks so that there can be a physical structure of sorts that will not be washed away with the first rains, and some kind of rudimentary community planning available for these people there. Fifthly, one should provide the minimum health services for both humans and animals in that particular area. By “minimum facilities” I have in mind that a mobile clinic could perhaps visit the area once every two months, and there could perhaps also be a veterinary surgeon.

But what about all the children?

Exactly, the children are there in any case.

But what about all the other people you say are living so badly?

Once we have done all this, my sixth point is that we then have to rely on the ingenuity and skills of the people in the particular area to provide their own shelters. They are doing so in any case.

In terms of the points I have outlined, they could provide their own shelters under more orderly conditions. At least one would then have a more stable situation, some form of stability and a form of co-ordinated planning, albeit at a very rudimentary level, which would be far more effective than simply trying to catch up with the backlog in the housing. For the information of the hon. member for Innesdal, research has shown, in fact, that in well-established squatter communities there is a much lower serious crime rate than in urban slums and urban communities. There is also a relatively high rate of employment. The people generate their own forms of employment in these squatter communities, for those, that is, who cannot find employment elsewhere.

There is, in fact, some way in which they can integrate themselves more or less into a community. I am convinced that the Government of the day is going to be forced—whether it be now or in 20 years’ time—to do this, whether they like it or not. If it is not done now, the problem is going to become far more serious than it is at the moment, because as sure as the sun will shine tomorrow, there is going to be an increase in the squatter population. The Government is using an influx control policy, is endorsing people out and follows a system of migratory labour. Despite all this, we have had an increase in the squatter population only in the Western Cape, and it is going to go on for the very simple reason that people who come here are looking for work, for a place where they can find work. That is the one reason.

Another reason is that they come here whether they can find work or not simply because they assume that an urban environment has some facilities that they cannot get in the rural areas. I know the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to say there are children there at Crossroads who cannot go to school here whereas they can go to school in the homelands. The parents in the homelands, however, can pay for the children to go to school up to Std. 2. We know what the figures are. The children then drop out. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the outset I should like to furnish a few replies to statements which were made here and to questions which were put here. The hon. member who has just resumed his seat will pardon me if I do not reply to his six proposals in detail I first want to have a look at them. I just wish to say that his proposals may be summarized as follows: “Let them all go where they like with as many to accompany them as they like.” With this we cannot agree. When there are positive suggestions, for example, on how to solve a very difficult problem, it would be irresponsible of any Government body not to pay attention to it. Now, in the course of this debate—not only in the course of this debate, but also in the course of our action—things were said and done which destroy, in a speech of only half an hour or only ten minutes, all the fine sentiments that have been expressed. The structure is simply demolished, and I am sure the majority of South Africans and Blacks living in South Africa, want to see this promoted. I do not think that this is a humiliation for me, but it is a humiliation for a person, when he is a member of Parliament, to insinuate that a person who differs from him politically, is a bully who does not care for his fellow-man and who only wishes to trample him underfoot. I am getting tired of being accused of this. The National Party has principles which it adheres to and I, because I also believe in them also adhere to those principles. Through all the years it has been in office, from the day Dr. Malan assumed office and spoke over the radio, and when he met his own people at the Union Buildings, the National Party has, through all its leaders, said that no one should ever try to understand or interpret this policy as one which suppresses anybody, because it seeks exactly the opposite. Now, we can differ on methods. If we have regard for the hon. member for Houghton because, for years, she has expounded what I regard as a totally wrong philosophy here, but because she stood by that policy, I should like to tell her at the same time that She owes it to herself—also as far as her reputation is concerned—not to put words in one’s mouth which are not worthy of her.

†I am going to quote. The hon. member said last night in regard to the statement that was made by the hon. the Minister—

Do not blame me!

I interjected that that was not correct and that she knew it.

*Unfortunately I could not obtain the English Hansard yet. I am quite prepared to accept responsibility for the things that I say. I want to quote in English what I said in column 134 on 5 February 1974, as a result of a speech by the then hon. member for Johannesburg North—

Then I went further and said that those who believe that home ownership will create this utopia, I should like to invite to look at places where there is home ownership and where this utopia does not exist.

†I never said that home ownership lead to slums. To accuse me of that is definitely not true.

I think you went further than that.

I will leave judgment to any fair-minded person to interpret my words the way they want to, any fair-minded person. Apart from that I will leave it to the conscience of the hon. member.

There are other speeches that you made.

*In the second place, I wish to say that I differ greatly from the people on the other side of the House, and that there are certain matters we have to iron out among ourselves.

†The hon. member who has just sat down, for instance, mentioned that he read certain things in the newspapers this morning which he accepts as being the truth, but you know, Sir, in a court of law you have to speak the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. The hon. member could as well have mentioned that on my invitation the hon. member, together with others accompanied me—and I thank them for doing so—on a visit to the squatter camp. He knew about the facts and need not therefore have read in the newspapers about them, because I said here in Parliament—and I was followed by the hon. member for Maitland—that we would provide the services for which these members have been pleading, but I also said that the people who were squatting there illegally, knowing that they are squatting on other people’s ground, should understand that they will not be allowed to break the law knowingly. I said too that people who encourage them to do it, must accept responsibility for the misery caused when we have to evict those people and have to take children away from their mothers. Where does the trouble start? Does it start when we begin to remove them or does it start when people go and tell them in the Ciskei, “Never mind about what is happening in Johannesburg; never mind about what they are saying in Cape Town; you move in and let them remove you”. One gentleman, according to a newspaper report, said, “Let them bulldoze my shack; I shall rebuild it as quickly as they bulldoze it”. I want to say to that gentleman: “Please do not take up that attitude; I want to make you a happy person, but do not try to put a pistol to my head, because you will not succeed.” I want to warm the people behind this whole affair. I am not referring to any hon. member of this House, because I do feel that people who are elected to become members of this House will not be so irresponsible as to incite people. I hope that, leaving incitement aside, we shall never find an hon. member of this House or a responsible person outside even encouraging people to break the laws of the country.

*1 have been told that I can solve this problem by saying that we have to abrogate these measures. I should like to ask hon. members who suggest this, why they do not tell that to Chief Minister Mangope. The other day Chief Minister Mangope told his fellow-homeland leaders—

†Did I read the wrong newspaper?

You read the wrong column in Hansard.

I should like to listen to what was said in the other column later on. The hon. member will have an opportunity to quote that, and I shall gladly listen.

What did Chief Buthelezi say?

What Chief Buthelezi then said was not reported in Hansard, but if he was reported correctly in the newspaper, he appealed to the Government to stop the influx of people from Swaziland and from the Mozambique border. Perhaps the hon. member for Umhlatuzana will know about that. Why did Chief Buthelezi ask that? Because if you allow people just to move about freely and to settle anywhere, you will have slum areas developing.

I now want to extend an invitation to the hon. members of the Progressive Party. Perhaps they will he joined by the hon. members of the Reform Party. I know that there are more sensible members in the United Party benches. I want the Progressive Party to tell the voters in Sea Point that it is not going to discriminate against people—this beautiful new phrase “not going to discriminate”—by asking them to settle at Crossroads where there is sand and no proper services and no proper view of the sea, but that they will invite them to settle in Sea Point. Are the hon. members prepared to do it? [Interjections.] No, the hon. members need not worry about my assistance; they are most welcome to invite any person to stay there for the 90-day period which is allowed by permit. Will they invite those people to settle with their squatter camps in front of the hon. member’s lounge in Houghton?

[Inaudible.]

Is the hon. member prepared to tell that to her constituents?

You sound like Jaap Marais.

Do I sound like Jaap Marais? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I arise merely to give the hon. the Deputy Minister the opportunity of completing his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member. Because I have spent so much time to deal with negative matters, I shall now rather react to positive contributions. I think we can make some progress with this problem if we do not, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana and also other hon. members said quite rightly, make a political game of this. I think if there is one thing, apart from the détente reached in Africa and all the other things for which we can be grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister and this hon. Minister, then it is that we, on both sides of the House, have reached the stage where we can sometimes discuss these matters calmly. I shall not discuss matters with the Progressive Party any further for the simple reason that even if I could have regard for them as people—and I do have regard for them as people—I want to have nothing to do with their policy, because I want to tell every young South African and every minor and those who are 25 years old, to whom the hon. member referred, that what the Progressive Party is saying, means only one thing, viz. commit suicide or leave South Africa. [Interjections.] I know that, in any case as far as the National Party is concerned, we refuse to do this. I also know that this is also the case as far as the conservative South African in this country is concerned, although I differ from him as far as method is concerned. We refuse to commit suicide or to leave.

The hon. member for Umhlatuzana referred to what the position will be like in 25 year’s time. I also wish to consider what the position will be in 25 years’ time and not only 25 years’ time, but even in 250 years’ time, for this is the spirit in which we on this side of the House are trying to do our work. I want to say that we have extended the vision to 250 years in the future.

Apartheid ought to become a monument.

That little member at the back over there gives his cynical laugh again.

The tikoloshe.

One of the most pleasant sounds I have heard in the Bushveld—one only hears it at night—is the shrill laughter of a jackal who does not know what it is all about. I think it is time the hon. member behaved himself. Personally I do not mind, but he plays his tricks even when the hon. the Prime Minister and other members are speaking. If he continues in this manner, he will soon be on his way to becoming the most unpopular member in this Parliament, irrespective of his capabilities.

I was agreeing with you in respect of the Progressive Party and was not laughing at you.

I want to say that, as far as the policy of the Progressive Party is concerned, we must accept for once and for all that they write finis to the whole of South Africa. I can only hold out this one single challenge to them—not a challenge in the unpleasant sense of the word, but rather the invitation: Say this to South Africa, the Afrikaner son who has just sat down and also the other Afrikaner sons on the other side, that the heritage for which we have fought through the years must now be shared with the Bantu, that this is the only way and that no White civilization will survive in South Africa, but that we shall have to leave Africa and South Africa. I want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana has said and in this regard I appeal to the hon. members on the other side: There are problems which we on all sides of the House simply have to face.

†Criminals are not always born with a defective mind; they are also made through circumstances which we can try to prevent.

That is the first sensible thing you have said.

Please do not interrupt me. I want to say—and I am saying it to myself and to my own department—that through environmental causes people can become rapists, robbers and murderers. Those conditions prevailing on the Cape Flats and in many of our Black cities, cannot be allowed to continue. I say without fear of contradiction, and if I am contradicted I am prepared to stand up to the consequences, that I want to affirm the words of a former Minister of Finance that this party will bend the economy to have this policy of the Nationalist Party succeed. We have to bend the economy to develop the homelands so that 22 cities can as easily be established in the homelands as in other parts of South Africa. We have to bend the economy to provide housing for people so that they do not turn into robbers, rapists and murderers. We have to create conditions where people will not live in the filth and dirt so many of them are living in today. I am not now appealing to the Government; in view of the measures announced by the hon. the Minister I am appealing today to those people who will now be allowed to erect houses for the Black people of South Africa. I want to say to them: “Take advantage of it. Do not ask for formal securities because by providing houses for these people you will secure the future for your children, for all the children—Black and White—in South Africa.”

Who must build them?

I want to say to them: “Build those houses and do not only look to the Government to do it.” I want to appeal to them to provide facilities for recreation and the other things that are needed for any happy community. I want to appeal to them not only to look to or point a finger at the Government to do these things, but to assist us in this matter. They must assist us in providing the schools and the necessary training facilities.

Who are you referring to?

I agree 100% that we will have to have consultation on a local level too. This was not only said yesterday by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. It was also said by the hon. the Prime Minister and by the hon. the Minister. The following is an extract from the minutes of the meeting held between the hon. the Prime Minister and the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development with homeland leaders—

These things have been discussed. It is not necessary always to stand and point accusing fingers. These things are being done, The hon, member said that we must also have détente in South Africa. I could not agree with him more. We will be rubbing shoulders together in this country, Black and White, for many, many years to come [Interjections.] You can take your pick in regard to the question of time. There is one thing that I am adamant about and that is that we want those people to settle as quickly as possible and as happily as possible in their own fatherland, in their own country. However, we will still live side by side south of the Limpopo. We will still meet in the streets and the cinemas and elsewhere. [Interjections.] What is new about it? Dr. Malan said it and Dr. Verwoerd said it, the present hon. Prime Minister has said it and my hon. Minister has said it ever so often. We will meet them and we will work together but not in the sense that I have to forfeit my identity because I want to live with these people. That we on this side of the House are not prepared to sacrifice. We want to remain here and we have promised our people and our generations to come that we will work so that the White nation will always be here. I want to tell hon. members something which may perhaps not even be known to hon. members on this side of the House. During the course of last year we did not have only one conference. The hon. the Minister, who bears one of the heaviest tasks on his shoulders, had 81 meetings with homeland leaders and homeland Governments at the highest level.

May I ask a question? In regard to the question of the Black squatters here in the Cape Peninsula that has been raised during this debate, will the hon. the Deputy Minister tell us what is going to be done in the Cape Peninsula, apart from removing them, to provide housing for these Black people?

I want to say immediately that as far as this portfolio is concerned, it will in future be handled on Deputy Minister level by Mr. Cruywagen. But we will be assisting each other, you need not worry.

*Sir, I wish these people would stop trying to create dissention among people who are 100% in agreement. We shall co-operate. We have already said that houses and services have to be provided. I said that employers now have the opportunity of co-operating with us in order to provide these.

†Mr. Chairman, I want to conclude by quoting a final paragraph out of the minutes of the meeting that we had with the homeland leaders. This was the last paragraph of the minutes of that meeting which I do not think has been read, especially not by the Progressive Party. I quote—

He appealed to those who attended the meeting to act responsibly.

Why?

I, in my turn, want to appeal to hon. members who know everything that happened at that conference to do likewise: Heed the warning of the hon. the Prime Minister and all those who attended the conference.

Mr. Chairman, we are always very pleased to listen to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. I want to begin with a few points which he raised and say that I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister that a great responsibility rests on each member of this House to refrain from making speeches which will be to the detriment of colour relations outside this House. However, I also want to say that the hon. the Deputy Minister must also address these words to some of his own people in this House. I am referring more specifically to the sort of speech which we heard this morning from the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, to which I shall return in a moment. I want to add that in this House we have general respect for the attitude which the hon. the Deputy Minister displayed in his concern at this situation. I want to tell you that there is a growing conviction that the hon. the Deputy Minister expects other people to do the work alone, to provide the housing, to provide the sports facilities, and the recreation facilities, while he and the Government, who have the power, are apparently not prepared to take steps which fall within the capacity and the power of the Government in this sphere. All that I want to say, with appreciation for the attitude of the Deputy Minister, is that it is still the task and the obligation of the Government to take the lead in this connection. Sir, we cannot get away from the fact that many of these squatters who are here in the Peninsula and elsewhere, came here because the economic circumstances in the Bantu homelands are not of such a nature as to offer them a livelihood, and as long as we fail to accept that fact as our basic premise, we shall not be able to solve this problem.

Sir, I referred to the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke. Obviously the hon. member is completely misinformed about this matter. The 1945 Act was purely a consolidation measure, as he ought to know. This section 10 did not appear in that Act; it was first placed on the Statute Book in 1952. As the hon. member knows, section 10 replaced the old section 5 of the Act, and that section 5 provided that the State President could declare an urban area, by proclamation to be a closed area, to which Bantu would not be allowed. Sir, I want to issue a warning in this regard, with all the earnestness at my disposal. The few rights which the Bantu think they have in our urban areas are incorporated in section 10, and I can think of no greater irresponsibility than a proposal made from within this House that they also be deprived of those rights under section 10. I say with all the earnestness at my disposal that if we ever want to create circumstances through which dissatisfaction will be rife in our urban areas on a scale which we cannot foresee, then we must tamper with the limited rights of those people under section 10. Sir, in a subsequent speech, I shall come back to the ideological basis of the kind of attitude which was displayed here by the hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke, the hon. member for Innesdale, and others. I should like to come back to the proposals made yesterday. There are certain positive proposals which I should like to make to the Government in this connection. In my last speech I was saying that consideration should be given to making loans available to Bantu in the form of building materials. I also want to express the hope that few restrictions will be imposed on the negotiability of premises, because it is essential that we establish a decent middle class among the urban Bantu, wherever they may be. Furthermore, I want to suggest that the relevant authorities, i.e. the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards in this regard, should make building plans available to Bantu—this happened in the past, and I can see no reason why it should not be done again—-with complete specifications and costing, so that the prospective Bantu builder will know precisely what it will cost to build a specific house. Obviously I agree that since we are going to allow the Bantu to build their own homes, arrangements should be made timeously in those areas for the provision of the necessary services in the form of water, electricity, sanitation and street lighting, so that we shall really get urban areas in which these people will be proud to live.

But in the final analysis it will depend on the Government. In other words, what I want to say is that this measure will not be sufficient to solve the extremely urgent need which exists for urban Bantu housing. More specially, energetic steps will have to be taken by the Government, probably through the Bantu Administration Boards, if we want to meet the housing needs of the urban Bantu areas. In this connection I want to say that I am convinced that it will sometimes be necessary, probably here in the Peninsula as well, to reconsider the introduction of a site-and-service scheme as it existed in specific cases in earlier years. Furthermore, I want to say in this connection that it will be essential to begin once again with the re-introduction of building teams. You know, the tremendous progress which was made with Bantu housing in the ’fifties was only possible because the municipalities developed their own large building teams. Those building teams, however, disappeared with the course of time. They disappeared here and they disappeared elsewhere as a result— let me say this immediately—of the policy of the authorities.

Where were those building teams?

Everywhere, here as well. The Cape Peninsula also had its own building teams to build Bantu houses. I feel that if we are really going to tackle this programme, it will be necessary for the administration boards and the other bodies to approach it in this way again. Then I want to add to that the necessary provision of capital will have to be made by the State in this connection. In this connection I want to reaffirm my standpoint that I think that it is wrong that the profits which are made from the sale of liquor— I am speaking of White, Western varieties of liquor—are not being utilized in the urban areas, and I want to appeal to the Government to reconsider its standpoint in this connection, because it seems obvious to me that those profits should be utilized in the area where the profits are made.

That has already been decided.

Thank you very much. I was not aware that an announcement in this connection had been made. But I am very grateful. We are making progress. Then I want to say that we welcome the concessions to the Black trader, especially the elimination of uncertainty about the annual renewal of licences, which was announced yesterday by the hon. the Minister. But we do want to recommend very strongly, with reference to the motion which we discussed here earlier, that Bantu traders be allowed at the same time to carry on a trade in more than one set of premises in a Bantu residential area and also in more than one Bantu residential area. The restrictions which exist at the moment appear to me to be completely unnecessary and unjustified. We also asked here, when we discussed the private motion, that consideration be given to the introduction of supermarkets, perhaps in partnership with Blacks, in the Black urban areas to protect and to help the Bantu consumer. As far as that is concerned as well, I want to ask that it be seriously considered by the Government. I also want to eypress my appreciation for the concessions concerning professional Bantu, but I want to ask whether it is not obvious that those professional Bantu should also be allowed to open branch offices in the so-called White parts of the urban areas. Let us consider the case of doctors, dentists, advocates and attorneys. If they are to have offices only in the Bantu residential areas, one can understand what it will mean for a Bantu to go to those people. It will mean at the very least that he will have to be absent from his job for the whole day, and to me it seems unnecessary to act to the detriment of the Bantu in this way. I also want to associate myself with what the hon. member for Houghton said yesterday in connection with section 10(1)(b). [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to turn at once to the hon. member whose name you have just mentioned, the hon. member for Bryanston. If an hon. member wants to be so noisy in this House and even wants to make cutting comments about my appointment, I want to give him the good advice that if one is a searching political soul, then one is usually reasonably confused, because then one does not actually know where one should link up. One should first find oneself a basis or a standpoint from which one can onerate and not expound United Party policy at one moment and Progressive Party policy the next. Decide where you stand, before you seek to give advice to other people.

He does not have a policy yet.

From what basis does the hon. member really speak when he gives us such noisy advice? That is all I want to ask him.

Then I want to rectify something which the hon. member for Jeppe said yesterday. He referred to the annual report of the department and said that, in his opinion, it contained far too little reference to the work done by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards. The hon. member should read the report a little more fully. He will find that there are not specific chapters about that, but that there are many references to the work which they are doing.

Where?

I shall mention two such places to him forthwith and also give him the page references. On page 46, mention is made of their contributions to housing and on page 6, mention is made of the contribution which they are making in respect of Bantu beer. The work of the department is a unit, and the work of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards is woven into the whole report. The hon. member must not merely read the headings of chapters; he must also read the contents of the chapters. If he does that, he will find plenty of references to the work done by the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards.

I want to come back to some things which the hon. member for Edenvale said. I think that the Administration Boards can help with the plans and specifications to which the hon. member referred. I merely refer to the fact that I had a meeting with some of the chairmen of the Administration Boards in respect of new building methods. We are going to carry out an experiment of using a method of building with modules—i.e. completed units which can be joined in various ways. We are going to build a few houses as an experiment and see whether these are acceptable to the Bantu of the various ethnic groups. These methods may possibly produce plans which can be used by the people on sites which will be released. As far as building teams are concerned, I can say that there are building teams. Johannesburg still has its municipal building teams, the Resettlement Board still has building teams, and some of the Administration Boards also still have building teams which usually continue with the work as was done in the past. In connection with supermarkets and the provision of shopping centres, I have a few ideas, but I do not want to elaborate on that now. Possibly the hon. member and I can even discuss this matter over a cup of tea some time—I seldom drink anything stronger— so that I can hear what his plans are in this connection.

The hon. member for Schweizer-Reneke said that we have had a strange debate up to now. I want to agree with him. Hon. members who have been sitting in this House through the years, are witnesses to the fact that through the years we have managed to make the hon. gentlemen on the opposite side gain at least some insight and understanding. [Interjections.] I want to remind the hon. member who has just made that grumbling noise that they view homelands in a different light now and that these now form an important element of their policy. Before they would not even listen to the matter. The homeland leaders who were denigrated by them earlier on are now elevated to some lofty status and before long we shall still hear that the idea of homeland leaders was actually their brainchild and their creation.

An hon. member who surprised me yesterday, is the hon. member for Houghton. Now, after so many years, she, too, came forward with positive proposals which fall within the framework of the policy. I ask myself what the result would have been if the hon. lady, who has been sitting here for 14, 15 or 20 years—or however long it might be—had made positive proposals for at least half of that time.

I have tried hard.

She often sounded quite enthusiastic in respect of the latest proposals. Therefore, it seems to me as if we are making progress, even if our progress is only gradual as far as the benches directly opposite me are concerned.

I want to get one matter off my chest. That is to tell the United Party that they are making one mistake. They do not see the policy of the National Party in its totality, i.e. as one great whole. From the level of personal relations to the eventual aim of our policy—the aim of independent states which can exist inter-dependently and peacefully alongside one another—our policy is one great whole. The United Party singles out the urban Bantu as if he is not part of that policy, with its aim of peoples who can eventually exist independently alongside one another. All our actions in respect of the urban Black are woven into this final aim of our policy of having independent, inter-dependent states existing alongside one another in South Africa. All our arrangements, whether in connection with housing, labour or ultimate political authority, form a part of this. The announcements which the hon. the Minister made yesterday do not upset the policy of the National Party. They merely reflect the development of the policy, which can be accommodated easily. We do this from day to day, and even if more announcements do come, perhaps in respect of what the hon. member for Edenvale asked for as well, they will not upset our plans either. These things fit into the great whole of National Party policy. However, we are also reproached for not treating the urban Bantu correctly in respect of certain standards, including standards of housing. The reproach is made that we do not show understanding—inter alia, that we do not make provision for a better type of house for a Bantu middle-class, as the hon. gentlemen call it, which is arising. The Government takes a great deal of trouble in this connection in respect of family housing and also as far as single accommodation is concerned. We look after these people from the point at which they are normally engaged in their daily existence. As I have said, I have already had discussions with the chairmen of Bantu Administration Boards about the building of prototypes according to new building methods. However, there are also other proposals in connection with Bantu housing, in respect not only of family housing, but also as far as hostels and schools are concerned. I shall not elaborate any further about schools. As a result of rising Bantu wages, the rise in their general standard of living and the development of a sophisticated taste among these Bantu, it is necessary to see to these things. The department asked the Department of Community Development to institute an enquiry into a better type of housing Subsequently it was asked that that enquiry be extended so as to include schools. It is in the hands of my hon. colleague here next to me. Perhaps he can elaborate on that later. We know the type of house which has been built up to now. It is a standard four-roomed house, the 51-6A type with a cost limit of approximately R500. The Bantu Housing Board has already increased this limit as a result of increased costs, to R750. Community Development calculates the real cost at almost R1 000. There have been new proposals, and I want to mention a few of them. In cases where water sewerage facilities are available, the following is provided in that same original plan: Indoor bathroom with a water closet and a small bath, a sink in the kitchen, shelves in the kitchen, a pantry, inside doors to bedrooms and still four rooms as before. The unit cost in this case will be R200 more—in other words, the full unit cost will come to approximately R1 200.

Mr. Chairman, I just want to refer to the allegation which the hon. member for Bryanston made at the beginning of his speech, when he said that the actual problem with the approach to the urban Bantu is that this House, the nation and the country is stuck with a number of verkrampte National representatives.

Are you one of them?

I just want to tell the hon. member that the House and the nation is stuck with a little party with a head and no body, which sits in the back-benches and hangs in the air and which is neither here nor there as far as a policy is concerned. That is what they are stuck with. The United Party was stuck with them previously, and I want to warn the Progressive Party that if they are perhaps to take them in, they will also be stuck with them. Those people are confused in their thinking. To get an idea, from the attempt which he made, of their approach to the urban Bantu, I can only come to one conclusion and that is that the hon. member’s view is that—and I believe that in this respect there is similarity as far as the views of the different parties on the opposite side is concerned— there should be complete socio-economic, educational and political integration between the Black man in the cities and the Whites. From that must be created one vast entity on which the future must be built. The pattern is not separate structures in which each population group will retain its identity and in which the ethnic groups will remain linked to their homelands, but a co-ordinating or unitary structure, in which everyone will be herded together under one roof. That is their approach and point of view.

I want to come back to the picture which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana painted for us here yesterday. He held out to us a grim picture of the position—as he put it—of seven to eight million Bantu working and living in our urban complexes today. He said that the fact that they are still there is proof that the National Government has failed in its policy of separate development. That is so far from reality and the truth that it shows a total lack of understanding on his part and he is the leader of Natal—and also one of the people who strives for the national leadership. Separate development and the presence of urban Bantu as such— whether they be six, seven or eight million—are as far removed from each other as the east is from the west. Separate development is a recognition of the identity of every population group which has to develop to its full status and which must be led to maturity within the guide-lines which are followed by the policy of the Government. One can talk a great deal about the urban Bantu and I have much experience of the interaction of labourers between the homelands—the Bantu areas of that time and the cities. I worked among the Bantu for 30 years; I was in the Transkei for many years and in Pretoria for a long time as well, and an attitude which I have noticed throughout— and I can emphasize this here today—is that the urban Bantu has always maintained his ties with his homeland. If I had the time, I could quote to you a series of examples of how the Bantu maintains the cultural ties, the language ties and the family ties. The love of the Bantu for his homeland, for his cattle, for his way of life, remains strong even after generations in the cities. If one speaks to the older generation of Bantu and even with the younger ones in the cities, who have been there for two or three generations, there is still the desire and hankering for his homeland. It is proved by those in the urban areas, that blood is still thicker than water. One will find that a group of Bantu who worked together today and who consists of different ethnic groups and who were playing dice or who were cheerfully gathered together a moment ago, will clash and will grab each other by the throat the moment one of their tribal members is being so much as touched. If one of their members of a specific group is dealt with to his detriment or if a delicate quarrel is getting out of hand a little, a bloody battle can ensue. That proves how close their ties are. I want to try to refute the arguments of the United Party that the urban Bantu has been westernized and has adopted the Western forms of civilization to such an extent that he will no longer take any notice of tribal or homeland ties in future, because there is a great difference between the acceptance of Western forms of civilization and tribal customs. A Black man can put on the clothes of the White man and he can live in a house such as that of the White man, but in bis heart, in his bones and in his being, he remains a member of the tribe from which he comes. In this viewpoint, I am supported by people who have done important research in this connection. I read in The Passing of Tribal Man in Africa, an article of Colin Legum, in which—this can serve for the edification of my friends on the opposite side—he makes the following important statement—

To point out the superficiality of the acceptance of Western forms of civilization as against the depth of tribal ties, he says—

In the same book there is an article by Leonard Plotnicov in which he writes, inter alia—

That is the basic premise of the National Party in respect of its whole approach. Plotnicov even made a study of the Xhosa in South Africa, and what does he write? The following—

Therefore it is of no use the Opposition trying to paint a picture of the future in which the urban Bantu will gradually be integrated. Their idea of permanency differs from the idea of permanency of this side of the House. This idea of this side of the House of permanency is based on the fact that there will always be Bantu but only as long as we need them in our industries. On that basis, therefore, there will be permanency, but not in the sense of permanency which ends in political integration. The picture which the hon. member for Umhlatuzana painted, is really the dark picture of the future we will be heading for if the policy of the opposite side were to be realized, viz. that the Bantu will be in our urban areas on a permanent integrated basis. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to begin by taking a phrase from a speech made by the hon. member for Innesdal a few days ago. I, as a young member—I think I speak at least on behalf of all young members on this side—am sick and tired to the bottom of my heart of the fact that we as young members are continually admonished and given advice to the effect that we should know our places, by hon. members on the opposite side. I want to remind this House that all members of this House are equal. The Ministers merely bear greater responsibility. That is the only difference. I shall not allow my constituents being discriminated against because they had the insight to elect a young man to represent them. [Interjections.]

I should like us to discuss together, in this House, this whole matter with which we have been dealing this morning. I believe that all of us in this country realize that we are faced with a dilemma in respect of our race relations. The one horn of the dilemma, which we in the United Party accept completely, is that there are different communities in our country, that people want to retain their own identities, and that it is the right of every community to plan its culture, its identity and its own progress itself. That we accept. That is the one horn of the dilemma. The other horn of the dilemma—and it is also a fact—is that we in South Africa have the situation that we all live together in one economy and in one country, that we are dependent on one another, that I am dependent on a Black servant at certain times of the day to look after my child, that I am dependent on my farm on Black tractor drivers, and that we are all dependent on one another in some way or other. That is the position, whether we want it that way, or not. The problem now is to bring about a reconciliation. The Progressive Party seeks this reconciliation, on the one hand, by standing for our becoming a mixture, our becoming an integrated community. That we do not accept. The National Party adopts the traditional 1948 standpoint, which they impose on everybody, that every community should have its own FAK, its own academies, etc., so that every community should have a sort of colonial appearance of the Afrikaner Nationalism. The result is that we continually have this extreme emphasis on apartheid. Sir, we must try to reconcile these things. Allow me to say that we agree with the hon. members on the opposite side that the homelands should be developed. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana said last year that the Minister would tell us about the development there, about how many bridges and dams had been built, etc., and that is precisely what he did. But, as the hon. member for Umhlatuzana also said, the actual point is that of political rights. As I have said, we are agreed as far as the homelands are concerned. We want them to be developed. We do not want rural slums here in our country. But, Sir, the actual problem is the urban Bantu, and hon. members on the opposite side must be honest about this. I do not think it helps us if we get the sort of nonsense which we have had from the hon. members for Vereeniging and Schweizer-Reneke.

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

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

No, I can answer no questions, because I only have 10 minutes. We are dealing with 80% of the population, and we only get eight hours for that. Sir, suppose we were to apply the thinking of the hon. member for Vereeniging in South Africa. In the first place, the hon. member for Waterberg would be affected. Where is the hon. member for Waterberg’s homeland? It is against the slopes of the Piketberg mountain range. He must come and stay here in the Cape, because that is where he was born and grew up. What is he doing up there in the north? He must come and stay here in Piketberg, because that is his homeland. That is where his culture and his community are. And what about the former hon. member for Worcester? Where is he? What is he doing in Middelburg in the Transvaal? He should come and stay here in his birthplace together with the hon. member for Tygervallei. And, Sir, what about the hon. member for Johannesburg West? What is he doing up there in the north? Is he of any use up there? I do not know, but he comes from Bellville. Then we come to the hon. member for Rondebosch. Where is his homeland? His homeland is in Pietersburg, and here he is sitting in Rondebosch. So we can continue. The point is that the urban Bantu still have strong links with their tribes. We all know that. We do not say that the urban Bantu is another nation. Of course we do not say that; we are not so stupid, but the point is that the urban Bantu are also entitled to a dispensation which is just, which gives them permanence and which accepts them as people able to realize themselves fully. If the urban Bantu cannot have his family with him, how can he do this? If we want to prevent the situation which developed in the Western Cape recently in respect of the urban Bantu, from developing, we shall have to do what the East German Government in Berlin did, because no single person will stay in the rural areas and starve while he knows that there is a possibility of work here in Cape Town.

Where are these people starving in the rural areas?

No, wait a moment. I am not referring to the Free State. Rather let me say the homelands. I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but everything is so compartmentalized on the opposite side. Let me put it this way: Nobody will stay in Cofimvaba, in Mahlabatini, in Lebowa or in Gazankulu to starve there. They will come to the cities. And, Sir, we are not going to stop that, unless we introduce the same sort of entrenchment that the East Germans did. This Government must accept that. Every year half a million offenders come before the courts as a result of this very problem. As a result of influx control, half a million people are prepared to be fined every year, and now I am not even speaking of those of whom we do not know. Of course these people will come to the cities, and we shall not be able to stop them.

What can we do in this connection? What is the solution? Recently, over the past 15 months, we had an excellent example of how such a situation should be handled. Over 10 000 Portuguese streamed into this country. Where are they now? The whole problem has virtually been solved. A few hundred, who were not acceptable, have apparently been sent back to Portugal, but over 10 000 people have been treated properly, looked after and accommodated within a year. Why can we not have the same sort of approach in respect of the non-Whites? I want to remind this Government that our Black population is going to double over the next 18 years. The hon. member for Umhlatuzana speaks about a period of 25 years. In 25 years’ time I shall be 56, and if I am possibly still in this House, or in any other House, I hope that we shall still have to struggle with the very problems which we have now. But, as I have said, the Black population of this country will double itself over the next 18 to 20 years, and I can assure you, Sir, that they are not going to remain in the homelands. The squatters’ problem which we have here in the Western Cape, will grow purely as a result of the population explosion, let alone the drawing power of economic circumstances. What is going to happen to all these people? Are we going to develop Saldanha without Bantu? Of course not, Sir. They will all go there. We solved the poor White problem properly in the ’thirties. Where is the White population of the Free State rural areas today? They are all in the cities. They have decent houses. They do not live in slums. Why can we not do that for our Black people? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, that hon. member is typical of a young child that does not want to listen to sound warnings. Perhaps with the passage of years he will, in fact, listen to them. At the moment he is on the horns of a dilemma. His dilemma may have a horn, Sir; at this stage we do not have that problem.

Before we adjourn for lunch, I want to put a question to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration in regard to the independence of the Transkei. Recently we have not been very well informed about developments in that sphere. Therefore I want to ask whether the hon. the Minister could not avail himself of this opportunity of putting us in the picture in regard to what the department and the Government are doing in that regard, with a view to preparation for the eventual attainment of independence by the Transkei.

Mr. Chairman, you will excuse me if I mark time a little now until a quarter to one so that I may start on the point I really want to make this afternoon.

Business suspended as 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.15 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I did not do the hon. member for Pinetown the courtesy of replying to his speech before lunch. I think I could best reply to it by merely quoting from a speech he made last year in this House, although I hesitate to quote what he said. He said (Hansard, Volume 51, Col. 3281)—

I just want to say that today, things have been going the same way with the hon. member. I do not want to start a fight with the Opposition just before the weekend. Actually, by Friday afternoon we are reasonably peaceful.

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

Sir, I do not have time for children now.

I want to turn to a subject concerning which there should be a high degree of consensus among us, viz. the development within the homelands. I want to refer in particular to the enormous role played by the Xhosa Development Corporation in the development of the Transkei and the Ciskei. Towards the end of last year, a few members of each party in this House had the opportunity of visiting industrial and agricultural projects of this corporation. Now, I do not want to single out the role of the XDC today at the expense of other bodies which have also carried out major tasks in the other homelands, but it is natural for me to discuss the XDC because I was able to observe it in practice and therefore had the opportunity of forming a better idea of what was being done in those homelands. Consequently I do not wish to pepper my observations with statistics today. Suffice it to say that in my opinion, all the members of the various parties were enthusiastic about and impressed by the tremendous development that has been achieved in so short a period by the XDC. Since it is the avowed policy of the Government to establish similar corporations for the various homelands, this really inspires confidence that, as regards the future of the development of the Bantu homelands, we are going in the right direction.

I want to say without fear of contradiction that one of the biggest single factors to which the success of the XDC may be ascribed is its human material—in other words, the staff of the XDC. I think you will allow me to say that under the inspired and dynamic leadership of Mr. Franco Maritz the managing director of the XDC, and Mr. Frans Meisenholl, the general manager, we have a team of absolutely dedicated people as far as the development of the homelands is concerned. I think that the person who will be the first to acknowledge that I am right will be the hon. member for Parktown who also had the opportunity of seeing this. Apart from this sphere, these men have now done well in another sphere, too, in advertising their products, the opportunities they create, etc., at the Rand Show. I am told that up to Saturday evening, 373 000 people visited the Rand Show, 146 000 of whom visited the XDC pavilion. In other words, 40% of the visitors viewed the pavilion. This year the XDC won six gold medals at this show, plus one of the first merit awards in the history of the Rand Show for their contribution to the success of the show. I think that there are probably many members who would agree with me when I congratulate the XDC on this exceptional distinction.

Basically, one can summarize the task of the XDC in three main points: In the first instance, their aim is to create employment opportunities in the homelands; secondly, they are concerned with the provision of training in a very wide series of occupations and trades; and thirdly, they attempt to ensure a higher income and an improved way of life for every individual in the homelands. You would be justified in asking whether the Corporation succeeds in achieving these three objectives.

The initial investment of R1 million in 1967 has grown to R15 million in 1974. The employment opportunities that have been created amount, at this stage, to 11 000 direct employment opportunities for Xhosas. At Butterworth alone, which, seven years ago, had a Xhosa population of only 300, there is today a population of 25 000, all of whom have a regular income. Take, for example, the name Dimbaza, which has been used as a term of abuse against South Africa. Do you know that on 27 February this year there were only 60 unemployed persons registered in Dimbaza, many of whom were women? From being a term of abuse, Dimbaza is becoming one of the shining examples of industrial development in the Ciskei. Already there are employment opportunities for 400 men, 842 of them are working at King William’s Town, 17 km away, where they are conveyed by bus. 470 women are working at King William’s Town.

A large number of pensioners are also living at Dimbaza. Those of us who were there noted that the Bantu children at Dimbaza shine, and that is always a sign of prosperity. 3 000 of them are already accommodated in seven schools there. Each simple and humble little house has a small vegetable garden, and where the people are unable to afford the seed, the Corporation provides the seed. The pattern one finds at Dimbaza is also to be found at Sada. At Umtata, too, vast industrial development is taking place. In the sphere of agriculture, too, I could almost say, in the sphere of agriculture in particular, the Corporation, under the inspired leadership of Louis Steyl, the district agricultural manager, is showing tremendous progress. If we take into account that these people have to deal with traditions and customs and prejudices among the Black people that have to be overcome before certain projects can be made to succeed, one realizes what a difficult task this is.

I also want to mention to hon. members a project such as Occupation Post near Queenstown, which the hon. member for Transkei, too, might find worth a visit. At the moment there are 450 ha under irrigation there. There are already 200 milk-cows in a dairy industry there that will eventually be capable of meeting the dairy requirements of the entire Transkei. I want to refer, too, to the Tyumie citrus farm where they are also engaged in the fattening of cattle on a large scale. At the moment there are still only 130, but eventually they will be able to fatten 600 there.

Alex, what is the population of the Transkei?

Oh, really, Vause, busy yourself with something else. Lante is another of the Corporation’s farming projects. It has 308 ha under irrigation. It is a fact that the Bantu farmer’s average yield from irrigation is only in the region of R70 per ha. Here the Corporation has proved that with an ordinary crop such as cabbage, they can earn up to R2 600 per annum per ha. Agriculture plays a cardinal role in the economic development of the Transkei and the Ciskei. I think that Chief Minister Lennox Sebe and Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima are probably very well aware of this, so much so that Chief Minister Sebe has said on occasion that economic progress must not only be measured against smoking chimneys as a symbol of progress. The point of departure there—and the XDC is helping to create that tradition—is that the homelands must meet their own food requirements, not only in order to create employment opportunities in these farming projects, but also to meet their own food requirements. Experience shows that it costs between R700 and R900 per employment opportunity in the agriculture sector, whereas it costs between R7 000 and R9 000 to create a single employment opportunity in the industrial sector. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, there is considerable talk at all times about the problems which Black people experience in respect of their incomes, and appeals are repeatedly being made to employers to pay their workers more—I think correctly so. I should like, in the initial portion of what I have to say, to refer to the present consumer price index and to indicate that in our view the consumer price index gives no indication whatsoever as to the position of the Black people in this country. Sir, the consumer price index should relate to all the people in South Africa. It seems fairly clear that the consumer price index is calculated on the basis of the requirements and the needs of the White population. To give you an example, Sir, if you refer to the basis of calculation, you will find that when the loading is worked out we take into account the White population in the major urban centres only. We do not take the Black population in these areas into account whatsoever. It is fairly clear also that when reference is made in a survey of income to determine the consumer price index to an income of R6 999 per annum, that figure does not refer to the average income of the Black community at all, or to the average income of the community of South Africa as a whole. When we compare the loading that is contained in the consumer price index with the actual expenditure of Black people who are living on the poverty datum line, we find an even more serious position. In the last survey done in November 1974 by the Johannesburg Chamber of Commerce in respect of Soweto, it was found that the basic poverty datum line requirement would be an income of R99-50, and that taking into account certain additional expenditure, that figure would be lifted to R110-78. Of that amount R58-45 has to be spent on food alone. The loading which is used for the consumer price index, which is the guide for people as a whole in South Africa, is 23,9%. But for people living on the poverty datum line that figure is about 50%. Sir, there are other examples which I could give, but it is quite clear that the consumer price index is entirely unrelated to the needs of the Black population in South Africa. It gives the employer no guide as to what he should do in respect of the Black people employed by him. The appeal that I want to make to the hon. the Minister—I do not know which of his Deputies deals with this, so I appeal to him—is that he and his department should see to it that there are statistics available which indicate how the Black man is affected by increases in the cost of living, so that this can serve as guide to people who have to determine salaries and wages. I think one of the problems which arises and which is demonstrated by this attitude towards the consumer price index, which might be regarded as a non-contentious matter, is the attitude which is displayed in South Africa towards the Black people as such. Sir, we had the announcement which was made here yesterday by the hon. the Minister and which is acclaimed as a dramatic breakthrough, when all it does, with regard to home ownership, for example, is to go back to 1967. It is now regarded as progress in South Africa in the year 1975 if you go back to what the position was in 1967. Nobody has given an explanation, for instance, as to why there was a change in 1967 and why in 1975 the hon. the Minister has to go back to where he was in 1967. The concept which has been adopted by the Nationalist Party in South Africa is that they are entitled to decide for other people what should happen in respect of their destiny. They apply a consumer price index which applies to White people only, and they ignore the existence of the Black people in the determination of that. They are the ones who decide that a man who is a South African citizen today should become a citizen of another country tomorrow. They are the ones who are deciding that; he who is affected is not deciding that. They talk about self-determination, but they are the ones who decide how in fact they should determine and where they should determine their own future. They are the ones who decide that there should be Bantustans. It is not the Black man who has a say in the determination of whether that is to be his policy. The question that has to be asked is whether it is in fact the Black man’s desire that unilateral decisions made by a party which represents admittedly the majority of the White electorate should be applied to him without his having a say in the making of these decisions. This is not a matter of concensus; this is a matter where the Nationalist Party decides that self-determination means “we will decide for you where you will determine your future and how you will determine it.” There is a fundamental difference of approach in regard to the attitude towards people in South Africa. Is it enough, as I think has been indicated by other speakers that we make small gestures as we go along, that there are small changes, that there are a few palliatives, and that there are a few tokens which are in fact made, while essentially South Africa remains the same in respect of the relation-chip between Black and White in the future? Sir, we as White people in South Africa take for granted a particular way of live, but must we not also accept that other people are entitled to the same sort of life and the same quality of life? Is it correct that we should take running water for granted when in Soweto only a quarter of the people have running water; that we take hot running water for granted when in Soweto only 3% of the people have hot running water; that we take electricity in our houses for granted when only 15% of the Black people in Soweto have electricity in their houses? So we can go on. We take baths and showers for granted, and yet only 7% of the people in Soweto can enjoy those benefits. Our attitude towards the Black people of South Africa is that while we have one way of life, we regard those people quite differently. The issue which I see in South African politics is the issue that we have one set of values which applies to us as Whites in South Africa, and that we have another set of values which we apply to other people in South Africa who are of a different colour. While that exists in South Africa, while we engage in tokenism, while we engage in small gestures, there will be no solution to the problems of South Africa in so far as the relationships between Whites and Blacks are concerned.

Let me come back to the announcements which the hon. the Minister made yesterday. In regard to home ownership, we go back to 1967. When we talk about trading, it is a dramatic breakthrough in South Africa to say that these people need only renew their licences once a year in the same way as Whites, instead of accepting it as a reality. But not a word is said about the fact that there is still a limitation on the number of businesses that you may have there, and not a word is said about the size of the businesses which may in fact be owned in these places. [Interjections.] I not only listened, but I checked it in writing. The Minister said that they could enlarge the scone of their businesses, but not the size, and there was not a word on the question of whether they can now have supermarkets or whether they can now extend to two or three stands. Not a single word was said in regard to the matter. We can only hear what is said; we cannot hear what is perhaps in the hon. the Minister’s mind. When it comes to influx control, we are told that there is going to be talk about it, but not a word is said as to whether the separation of families is going to be put an end to. The simple issue is that this question of tokens, of gestures, offers no solution to the problems of South Africa. The real situation is that you have to accept that the quality of life that you want for yourself is what other people are entitled to as well. Sir, the price that White South Africans must be prepared to pay for their survival in South Africa is to allow Black South Africans to enjoy the same quality of life, and that everybody who, is prepared to make a contribution towards society should enjoy that quality of life. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Yeoville came here with a lot of objections without trying to penetrate to the basis of his arguments. We on this side of the House recognize that the quality of life is important and that ultimately, the quality of life for each population group in South Africa can only be determined if each population group is put in a position to govern its own people. If this is not done, then the quality of life will likewise be threatened, and we want to prevent that on the basis of separate development, the pattern in accordance with which we not only want to give every population group a say over its own people, but in accordance with which we also want to develop the homelands for the various population groups to the maximum extent.

It is in view of this that I should like to express a few ideas this afternoon. The programme of land purchases and consolidation is probably one of the most comprehensive programmes ever tackled by this Government. Its execution is going to keep the department intensively occupied for many years yet. In a certain respect we could say that this programme has now just about reached its peak. The heat has left it, the emotion has left it and I get the impression that even the United Party is starting to vote for this programme. I therefore want to plead that the second programme, viz. homeland development, which is going to be of a far greater scope than the programme for consolidation, should now be taken up and imparted with a spectacular degree of momentum. Everyone is aware that the hon. the Minister and his department have already been intensively engaged in establishing a development programme for the homelands for a number of years and that they have already made phenomenal progress in that sphere. Time does not allow me to mention various facts in order to spell out the scope of the project, nor does it allow me to give an indication of the successful progress already made. However, the fact remains that through this department, the Government has already attempted to expedite this matter in various ways. It has also been announced recently that a new and improved formula on which the budget of the homelands is to be based has been drafted, a formula which I believe will greatly benefit the various homelands. Undoubtedly this, too is an aspect deserving of further discussion in this House.

The Government has attempted to set in operation various programmes to develop the homelands further. There are the BIC, the XDC and the various national corporations that are now being envisaged. Then, too, there is the Bantu Mining Corporation and various councils and corporations which have as their object the further development of the vast potential of the homelands. What a vast potential they have! The hon. member for Tygervallei has already referred to that this afternoon. Just consider the agricultural sphere. In this sphere the homelands are not only capable of providing their own people with food, in future years but will also be capable of providing the whole of South Africa and Africa with food. To mention but a single example…

A few dairies with 300 cows to meet the requirements of 2½ million people!

The hon. member does not take note of what has happened around him. One need only consider the possibilities of a homeland like Bophuthatswana with Africa at its doorstep and with a railway line from the middle of its territory to the north. I can also furnish the hon. member for Durban Point with amazing figures indicating the progress that has already been made in the spheres of agriculture, mining and industry as well. The fact is that the Government is engaged in a comprehensive development programme. This includes the establishment of towns, the provision of housing, the establishment Of an infrastructure, the provision of water, electricity, transport and so on. The training of the vast reservoir of human potential, the utilization of natural resources, the exploitation of minerals and many other factors are of importance here. In fact this programme embraces so many diverse activities that, taken together, it is often of so complicated a nature that the organization and particularly the co-ordination of the various projects are of decisive importance for the success of the enterprise as a whole. To mention only a few: There are for example, various Government bodies involved at various levels of these projects. One calls to mind the Departments of Health, Water Affairs, Transport and many others. In the second instance, there is the large number of Government bodies or councils concerned with this development at various levels. Here one calls to mind the Decentralization Board, the Growth Points Committee of the Department of Planning, Escom, the provincial councils and so on. Then there are the homeland governments themselves, too, which are starting to play an ever-increasing role in the development of the homelands. Surely it is of vital importance to bear in mind that the development must be effected in co-operation with the various Black communities and homelands governments, and not merely on their behalf. Consequently the homeland governments are also consulted in regard to these projects, and there is co-operation with them. The Bantu Affairs Commission, with its economic committee and its agricultural committee under which B.E.R.B.D.—the Bureau for Economic Research into Bantu Development— and also C.O.R.I.B.A.—the Co-ordinating Committee on Research into Bantu Affairs —also forms part of this whole picture. Each of these diverse ramifications is concerned with homelands development at some level and is doing outstanding work in this regard. However, I want to ask the hon. the Minister this afternoon to give serious consideration to establishing a development board for the homelands, a development board in whose hands the diverse ramifications may be united, a board which could give this whole project even greater momentum in that it could co-ordinate the various aspects of development, a board on which the private sector, together with experts from the public sector, could be represented, a board that would aim in particular at co-ordinating and tackling the development of the homelands in such a way as to capture the imagination of the whole of South Africa.

What percentage of the Bantu workers are working in their own areas?

I do not have the time to go into that now. I do not want to venture many ideas concerning the composition and operation of such a board this afternoon. However, we could look at various other boards in order to find an example. The Resettlement Board could be mentioned in this connection, and even the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Council. Perhaps a very well-known and good example is the Tennessee Valley Basin Authority, which formed part of President Roosevelt’s so-called “New Deal”. The fact remains that the Government, under the able leadership of the hon. the Minister, his deputies and the department, laid the foundation for homeland development courageously and across a broad front. I am convinced that now is the time to throw everything into the struggle in order to tackle this task further in a spectacular fashion, with daring and determination, and to make it one of our highest priorities in South Africa, because it is in the interests of all the peoples in South Africa that the homelands, too, should be made vigorous. I do not think there is any doubt that although prophets of doom and alarmists often maintain that the homelands cannot be made vigorous, there is ample evidence—for the hon. member for Durban Point as well—to prove that these homelands are in fact viable and will, in fact, be capable of growth.

Give me the percentage.

To me on this side of the House, it is something to be thankful for that there are so many facts and data which I could make available to the hon. member for Durban Point, too, to prove that this Government programme has already made great progress. I now want to ask the hon. the Minister, too, to give serious consideration to tackling this matter in this way so that by means of a board of this kind he could be assisted in uniting the many ramifications of the department’s activities and developing them into dynamic development of the homelands.

Mr. Chairman, with reference to the speeches by the hon. members for Johannesburg West and Tygervallei, I should like to discuss this report of the Commission of Inquiry into certain matters concerning the Bantu Investment Corporation, the BIC, this afternoon. The BIC was established in 1959 and commenced its activities in the subsequent year. Thus it has been in operation for almost 16 years now. The aim of this Corporation was to promote, to maintain and develop the economic viability of the homelands—in other words to help the people there to help themselves. All efforts are aimed at economic progress in the homelands. What, however, has occurred since the beginning of last year? Since the middle of last year there has been a campaign of suspicionmongering directed against this Corporation. To start with, it was confined for the most part to the newspapers. Some of our newspapers tried to give the public a distorted image of the BIC, its staff and its activities. For example, in the Sunday Times of 28 July 1974 we had headlines like “BIC man lent R15 000 to Heyns”; and “Top official aided dagga smuggler’s curio business”. In Oggendblad and Die Transvaler of 29 July 1974, too, we had banner headlines concerning the BIC and its activities. All these reports reflected a negative attitude. The same goes for a report in the Sunday Times of 11 August 1974. In the Rand Daily Mail of 11 September 1974 we read “BIC inquiry—another top man quits”. At that stage a commission of inquiry had not yet been appointed, but the public began to ask questions. They wanted to know what was wrong with the BIC; what was the reason for all these newspaper reports concerning the BIC? Had there been embezzlement of funds, had there been corruption: in fact, what was going on in the BIC? It was very clear that these reports were sensation-seeking. The matter was put to the public in this way in order to create the impression that large-scale corruption was taking place.

On 10 September 1974 the hon. the Minister issued the following statement (translation)—

This request, therefore, came from the chairman of the BIC, but in spite of that the hon. member for Houghton—I am very sorry she is not present this afternoon —also tried to foment this suspicionmongering. She commenced with a series of questions which she asked in this House. The hon. the Minister furnished very clear replies to the questions and in some cases, where he did not want to mention names, invited the hon. member to pay a visit to him at his office and look at the names herself. However, all the hon. member’s efforts were aimed at sowing suspicion and in spite of the fact that she had the opportunity to clear up these matters, she continued with her suspicionmongering. In fact, she made allegations in a very amateurish way without making sure of the facts. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to what the hon. member said in the House last year. Among other things, she said of the hon. the Minister that he ought to have been honest enough to have said that he knew that he was instituting the investigation because—listen carefully now—

What is wrong with that?

This is an allegation that has been made; it does not constitute positive criticism.

But what she said was true.

We shall defend the right of any hon. member to exercise criticism, but that was not criticism; those were allegations, a blatant undermining of the BIC. If the hon. member had come up with positive, responsible criticism, we should, of course, have welcomed it, but that she did not do. In point of fact, she further discredited the BIC and caused people to entertain doubts in that regard. The worst of all is that all her accusations and allegations were based on mala fide hearsay evidence. She had no concrete facts to submit to the commission of inquiry. All she had was a few newspaper cuttings. I do not think that that is the degree of responsibility that should be displayed by a hon. member of this House. The Commission’s terms of reference were very wide. I want to read to you what the Commission felt about them. Chief Magistrate Prins was the chairman and only member of this Commission. He said, inter alia, the following (translation)—

1. (A) whether allegations which

1. (1) have already been made,
2. (2) have been made in public, and
3. (3) concerned

1. (a) alleged irregular conduct on the part of serving and ex-officials of the BIC,
2. (b) irregular practices in the BIC, particularly with regard to possible irregularities in connection with

1. (i) acquisition of business interests by officials of the BIC, and
2. (ii) awarding of tenders by the BIC,

were well-founded, viz. whether there was a strong likelihood that they were true in view of the known facts; and

1. (B) into any matter which, in the opinion of the Commission, was connected with (A).

What is important is what the findings of this Commission of Inquiry were. I should like to read them to the House. The Commission found, inter alia, the following …

Order! I can hear the hon. member but I cannot see him since the hon. member for Vanderbiljpark has broken the line.

Now that the line is open again, I should like to read to hon. members what the Commission’s finding was. I consider this to be very important since we must clear the air around the BIC, this well-meaning corporation with such fine aims. The findings were the following (translation)—

In my opinion it is no less than fitting that at this point, after the report has been published, the hon. member for Houghton should come and tell us whether she is now satisfied that there is nothing irregular about the management of the BIC or anything connected with the BIC. I think that the officials, viz. Dr. Adendorff and his staff, deserve the highest praise and credit for the sound and able way in which they manage the affairs of the BIC.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask the hon. member for Potgietersrus to excuse me if I do not refer to the problems of the BIC. I would rather prefer to leave it to the hon. member for Houghton to do that. I would like to assure him that we on this side of the House definitely appreciate and recognize the need for the BIC and that we are fully aware of the work which it is doing in the Bantu areas. We sincerely hope that it will grow from strength to strength. In this particular regard, I would like to refer to the comments which were made by the hon. member for Tygervallei and also the hon. member for Johannesburg West, when they talked about the work that is being done by the XDC. I was fortunate enough to have been on that trip last year during the recess and I must say that I was impressed with what I saw happening in certain parts of the Ciskei and the Transkei. There is no doubt that the XDC is progressing with the agricultural development of these areas and also in the field of industrial development. I would, however, like to submit that the work that is being done, is really—let us face it—a flea-bite in comparison with what is developing in South Africa as a whole. If it is this Government’s honest intention to use these development corporations to project these Bantu areas into modern industrialized States, so as to make them viable States, I firmly believe that these particular corporations are going to have to be given a lot more support than they have been given in the past and I sincerely hope that this will happen. One thing that bothered me as far as the XDC is concerned was that, with the exception of one business, everywhere we went we found that all the management personnel and most of the people who were doing the planning and the thinking were not Bantu, but were White South Africans. The only person we found that was managing his enterprise, was the manager of a hotel in Umtata. I must say that it was a pleasure to be entertained by this gentleman, to be told what he was doing and also to find that he had travelled overseas to learn about the hotel work in the United States. I think that all members on this side of the House—in this party at any rate—will agree and sympathize with and support the Government in this particular work. In fact, I believe that I can speak for my colleagues when I say that we sympathize with the hon. members on that side with the problems which they are facing in trying to develop the Bantu homelands and also in trying to solve our urban problems as far as the Bantu are concerned. I would like to assure the hon. members on that side that we on this side of the House are aware of these problems. We are not stupid and there are lots of people on this side of the House who have had experience of having to cope with urban slums, of having to deal with underdeveloped Blacks and of trying to get these people to project themselves into a modern industrial or agricultural community. I would like to assure the hon. the Minister and the hon. members there that we on this side would like to solve these problems which are facing South Africa. However, the only area where we differ is in the matter of direction and of attitude as to how we should go ahead in this particular campaign. We are extremely sympathetic with the hon. the Deputy Minister, who I see has just come in, in the manner in which he expressed himself earlier on today. In fact, if I read the feeling or emotion correctly, I would say that that hon. Deputy Minister is experiencing a great degree of frustration with the problems which he has on his hands at the present time. There are problems not only with the Bantu, but rather with those members of his party who are unable to grasp the problems and the reality of the situation which is facing this hon. Deputy Minister at the present time. I got the feeling towards the latter part of the hon. the Deputy Minister’s speech that he was not speaking to us, but rather that he was speaking to the other members on his benches … [Interjections] … especially when he made the comment about the changes that have to come and how South Africans will have to start rubbing shoulders with people in the cinemas and on the streets. The dilemma and frustration which that particular hon. Deputy Minister is facing results, I think, from his inability to come to terms with the feeling of, let us say, another of his colleagues like the hon. the Minister of Labour. I would like to quote from the hon. the Minister of Labour’s Hansard when he said on 5 May 1972—

I would like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister now if this is one of the things that is frustrating him. Is this the problem which he is running into? Is it on his side of the House, because I can assure him that he need not worry about the hon. members on this side of the House. We will support him when it comes to “rubbing shoulders” with the Blacks in South Africa in order to make a greater South Africa.

Dr. Malan said so in 1948. [Interjections.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister also happened to say that he would have to bend the economy in order for South Africa to achieve the objectives which it has to achieve in the near future. I would like to suggest to him that it is not the bending of the economy that has to be done but rather the bending of the Verwoerdian dogma which is hamstringing that particular party. [Interjections.] In fact, I would like to suggest to the hon. the Deputy Minister that he bends it to the point of breaking so that we in South Africa can have a whole new look at the whole problem which is facing us.

I believe this is extremely necessary if we are ever to achieve what the hon. member for Innesdal said we have to achieve in Southern Africa, namely a revolution. I agree with the hon. member for Innesdal that Southern Africa is requiring a type of revolution to project it into the situation where we shall be able to meet the needs and aspirations of all our people. I believe that the hon. member I referred to is correct when he says that a practical and realistic approach is needed to the problems of Black development. That is exactly what we are trying to project here. In order for him to appreciate this—I do not think he was here when the hon. member for Pinetown spoke—I would like to ask him to read in Hansard the speech which the hon. member for Pinetown made here earlier today.

Until what he said is accepted, we are just skirting around the issue; we are not facing the reality of South Africa. What is the result of this situation which has been created by hon. members on that side? The result is petty politics. That is what is going on in South Africa today. We are not facing the real issues which confront us in South Africa at the present time. I honestly believe that we have to face the realities of this situation today. We have to face them as the hon. the Minister has done, but we must go further and do more than what he announced here yesterday. In fact, we find that the Government is now going backwards to 1967. I believe this was to be expected. I am afraid that this Government will have to go backwards before it can go forwards. It has to get rid of a lot of hang-ups which are now out of date. It is a pity that, in so doing, some of the hon. members on that side have to hide their own deficiencies by trying to project our policy in the wrong light. I refer now to the comments of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development on what the hon. member for Umhlatuzana had to say yesterday. I believe he was just setting up a smoke-screen behind which to hide the deficiencies of the National Party’s policies in respect of the Bantu.

I have got to know the hon. the Deputy Minister and he is not a fool. He knows our policy. He understands our policy. He knows that our federal policy accepts and can accommodate the ethnic differences of the people in this country. He knows that our federal policy accepts the idea of a self-governing regional community. It also accepts regional self-development and regional self-expression. He knows that this is entrenched in the federal policy of the United Party. He also knows that we are not committed to multiracialism as the Progressive Party is. I believe it is a pity that we have to waste so much time in this House on petty politics. It is a pity we cannot get down to some of the basic problems which are facing us.

I believe hon. members on that side are beginning to think along our lines, although they may not admit it. I would like to refer to an article by the hon. member for Klip River which appeared in the Sunday Tribune a few weeks ago. He said—

That is what he said about three weeks ago. I would like to suggest to the hon. member for Klip River that it will not take 50 years. We know what is happening in South Africa. We know that the Government has now gone back to 1967 with respect to home ownership in the Bantu townships. I am quite sure that the verkrampte elements in the benches on the other side are really going to get a shock when they find out what is going to hit them in two to three years time, and it will come largely from the hon. Ministers here because they are beginning to see the truth of what the United Party has been saying all these years. This has got to happen if one considers what is happening on our borders and what happened recently in the Far East and elsewhere in the world.

There is one last matter I should like to raise, namely the question of pay discrimination. I should like the hon. the Minister and his deputies to follow the example set by an industry in my constituency. I have a cutting here that states: “Black workers get pay boost. Some Africans now earning R348 per month at African Explosives.” This is because that company is following the policy of paying the rate for the job. The problem as I see it is within the hon. the Minister’s own department with some of his own employees. I should like to talk about the present Black manager who is running KwaMakuta township. This township was managed by a White administrative officer who was earning between R5 340 and R7 380 per year. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti spoke about petty politics. If ever there was a party that has indulged in petty politics over the past 27 years, then it is the United Party. [Interjections.] I just want to refresh the memory of some of those hon. members over there. When we were trying to do something about homeland development those hon. members went to the platteland and spoke about the “kafferboetieregering”. [Interjections.] That was petty politicking. Those were the petty politics in which they indulged.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to come back to the hon. member for Edenvale. The hon. member for Edenvale spoke of section 10. Having listened to his speech on the provisions of section 10, one is surprised at the change for the worse that has taken place in him, because in 1961, when he adapted radio talks on the provisions of section 10, he still understood the positive connotation of section 10. At that time he still realized that section 10 was in fact aimed at making the Bantu homeland orientated and not city orientated. The conclusion to which the hon. member came in connection with this accurate and positive interpretation of section 10 was (translation)—

The hon. member for Edenvale went on to say (translation)—

This was what the hon. member for Edenvale said in 1961, when he still understood the positive meaning of section 10 and had not been confused by the propaganda of the United Party in this regard. This propaganda has poisoned the real meaning of section 10. For this reason my plea to the hon. the Minister is that he should consider rewriting section 10 so that the Bantu will understand that section 10 does not give him those few rights to which the hon. member referred, but that section 10 makes him homeland orientated. He should realize that he is a citizen of the homeland and not of White South Africa. At this stage he is really to some extent not making proper use of the provisions of section 10, and this is due to the type of propaganda and arguments used by hon. members of the Opposition.

We do not make progaganda, we just furnish facts.

When we speak of the urban Bantu, it is important that we emphasize the good work being done by the Bantu Administration Boards. While the population increase has been so phenomenal, particularly in the five growth points, and where we speak of a growth factor of 6% for the whole country one can really say that the growth factor in the urban growth points is round about 20%. This is why the work of the Bantu Administration Boards is so important, and this is why it is in the interests of everyone, White as well as Black, to regard the urban Bantu boards as a great connecting factor, as a bridge which can be built between White and Black in South Africa. Sir, where I am concerned with the Bantu Administration Board for the East Rand, one of the two major Bantu Administration Boards, I think that some emphasis should be laid on what this board is able to achieve. I think, for example, of its budget for this year, which amounts to more than R41 million in round figures. Very few local authorities have a budget of this magnitude. Expressed in percentages, these two special grade boards, the East Rand Board and the West Rand Board, control 21% of the total number of Bantu in White South Africa, 36% of the Bantu in White urban areas, 39% of the total operating revenue of all 22 boards, and 29% of the White population of South Africa lives within these areas. Sir, I just want to outline to you what this board does in various spheres of the community. I think, for example, of schools, where this board is jointly responsible for the erection of schools within its area of jurisdiction. From a careful survey conducted there it has appeared that there are 1 541 class-rooms in the area at present and that there is a shortage of 394 class-rooms at the moment. In the course of this year, the Bantu Administration Board of the East Rand will be spending R500 000, in round figures, on supplying additional class-rooms.

As far as accommodation is concerned, they are budgeting for an expenditure of more than R2 million in the new financial year on accommodation for single Bantu persons. Two old locations, Charterston and Payneville, have been evacuated without any fanfare and the inhabitants have been peacefully resettled in Dunduze and Kwa Thema respectively. In addition, satisfactory progress is being made with the removal of the Brakpan location. Sir, I want to comment these boards very highly for the good work they are doing in order to implement our policy successfully. They are also helping the farmers to build decent housing for Bantu farm labourers. Sir, R1 million is being spent on the provision of electricity this year; this is a matter which must receive serious consideration in the fight against air pollution. But, Sir, I am coming to another very important factor in the activities of the East Rand Bantu Administration Board, and this is the assistance it is rendering in the establishment of Leboa-Ghomo. An amount of R4¼ million is being appropriated this year for the continuation of the Leboa-Ghomo project. The access road from Zebediela is being tarred. Water and sewerage services for a further 2 000 residential plots are already being completed there. The necessary steps are being taken to finance the provision of 20,45 million litres of water a day from the Olifants River, for which permission was recently granted. Sir, the hon. member for Amanzimtoti described the work already completed as “flea-bites”, but does he realize that this city which is growing near Pietersburg will be twice as big as Pietersburg? More than R100 million is going to be spent on the establishment of Leboa-Ghomo, 360 000 people will be housed there in a total number of 72 000 houses. When this city, which is being built on the area of 18 farms, has been completed, it will possess 120 primary schools, 80 higher primary schools, 20 secondary schools, eight high schools, 20 community centres, 40 trade centres and 20 academic buildings. Sir, this is only one project which is under way in one homeland. How much more tremendous a project it is when one sees it in the light of all the homelands which are being developed to the same extent! [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as the hon. member for Brakpan rightly said, one almost concluded from the speech of the hon. member for Amanzimtoti, when he spoke of “flea-bites”, that unduly disparaging remarks are still being made about the set-up and the development in the homelands.

This morning we had another performance by the hon. member for Bryanston. He wanted to speak for the whole South Africa, and one got the impression that he would do so in his capacity as the temporary, acting, assistant deputy leader of that party. What one could infer from his speech was that he advocated a White area, Black areas and mixed areas. I think it is time he realized that it is simply a fact that there is already total political separation in South Africa. That is an accomplished fact. Total geographic separation of the Bantu homelands has already been mapped out and is in the process of being finalized. The separation of the various peoples has already been accomplished, and it is no use for him to keep moaning about it any longer, because this Government will persevere in the course it has adopted.

I should like to express a few thoughts about the set-up of the department. This department is really a public service within a public service. In actual fact it handles and administers everything which is dealt with in terms of national economy. The set-up of this department is particularly interesting. It is divided into what I want to call four main sections: firstly, Bantu affairs administration; secondly, homeland affairs; thirdly, departmental administration; and fourthly, finance. These sections are not suspended in a vacuum, but deal with practical matters every day.

I want to refer in particular to one main section of the department, the one which deals with homeland affairs. Apart from a section for political planning, there are five branches in this particular main section which deal with, firstly, development work; secondly, homeland territories; thirdly, community affairs; fourthly, agricultural advisory services; and fifthly, ethnologists. I shall give a brief analysis of the various branches. In the branch dealing with development work there are seven subsections: firstly, civil engineering services; secondly, electrotechnical and mechanical services; thirdly, surveying services; fourthly, agricultural services; fifthly, quantity surveying services; sixthly, town planning services; and in the seventh place, drawing services. The branch dealing with homeland territories has two main sections, the first being planning with a metropolitan and regional planner, and two subsections, namely area planning and area potential. The second main section deals with land matters, with a subsection for land tenure. The third branch is community affairs, and this has three sections, namely (1) political development, with subsections for Bantu authorities and homeland liaison; (2) social development; and (3) health services. The fourth branch is known as the directorate for agricultural advisory services, and this covers economics and marketing, extension services and training, crop production and livestock production. This is apart from the work which is done by the BIC, the XDC, the Bantu Mining Corporation, etc.

From the foregoing it is clear that in all facets of a national economy the department is supplying guidance, training and advice which will enable a homeland to be truly self-sufficient, so that when it achieves full independence, it will really be able to operate on its own. In this way, as progress is made, services are continually being transferred for which the homelands accept full responsibility. It must also be kept in mind that there is not only one homeland, but eight, each of which is in a different stage of development. The homelands are not all progressing to the same extent; their needs also differ. Each one has its own priorities and, of course, each homeland government is sharing to an increasing extent in the development of its area. Every day the department creates and constructs in a positive way, in the process of withdrawal as well. Although the Whites are being withdrawn, advice and information remain available. Matters are not taken up to a point and then just left in the air as happened in other African areas.

I want to refer in particular this afternoon to the important tasks performed by the officials on the various levels of this department. We keep hearing from the other side of the House that there is not enough consultation with the Black people. Almost 90% of the department’s activities must consist of advisory services, and precisely on the basis of consultation. It is not being done by way of instructions, but by way of guidance and advice. Every day our officials are engaged in some form of consultation in the various fields. Every day consultation takes place between the officials of the department and those of the homelands. There is constant interaction between the officials of the department and those of the homelands. This consultation penetrates to all levels of the national economy. It reaches the individual in the homelands and is of value to him. It does not only reach the homeland governments or the officials, but directly or indirectly it reaches every member of the population. I firmly believe that great appreciation should be expressed to the officials, not only for the work they do, but also for the way in which they promote the relations between people and nations and for the way in which they help to train people, to prepare and advise them, so that they may be able in time to govern their own countries quite independently. They also help to make each person in a homeland a full and economically active citizen of his country. Guidance is continually being given to those who ask for it. The best people are obtained to guide these people. More and more in-service training is taking place to enable the people to replace the White man in their areas in the future. In respect of ordinary staff, various courses are offered regularly, and these are followed by others, so that their value may not be lost. The people are not left to their own devices, but are trained in the skills which will enable them to accept and to practise self-determination in the full sense of the word. In fact, there is permanent consultation, to use that word. We are satisfied, too, that these attempts are producing results. The growing enthusiasm of the Black man for his country can no longer be suppressed and pride in his own heritage has already become a source of great inspiration to the Black man. In this way, as we have heard from other hon. members as well this afternoon, we may look at the results which appear from the annual reports of the department, of the BIC and XDC.

The homelands and the Black people may rest assured that they will always be able to depend on the advice and the guidance of this Government, as in the past, and that they have and will always have a reliable adviser in this Government and its officials.

Mr. Chairman, I do not wish to follow the arguments of the hon. member for Klerksdorp except to say that I shall perhaps differ with him in the course of my speech on the matter of consultation with non-White people. The hon. member for Brakpan accused this side of the House at the beginning of his speech of making petty party politics out of these matters. I should like to ask that hon. member which party published the Black Manifesto? I should also like to ask him which party it was that rode the slogan Apartheid” to victory in an election. The hon. member accused this side of the House …

Who spoke about a “kafferboetieregering”?

The hon. member accused hon. members …

You quote Dr. Malan everytime and now admit that it was he.

He accused this side of the House of sending candidates to the platteland to talk about a “kafferboetieregering”. I say that if there is or was such a person, I repudiate him categorically. I also want to say that they most probably would have been Reformist Party people. Like the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, I should like to express my extreme displeasure at the lateness of the report which arrived in my office yesterday at precisely 3 p.m., whereas I had to prepare for a debate which was due to begin at 3.30 p.m. I shall be coming back to this report later on.

I wish to deal primarily with one of the classic ideological snarl-ups caused by the policy of separate development. This classic situation occurred in my constituency, and being severally critical of it does not mean that I am playing petty politics. It was one of those classic snarl-ups involving three departments, the Department of Community Development, the Department of Planning and the Environment and the Department of Bantu Administration and Development.

You’ve got three chances.

This classic snarl-up involved the proclamation of the Fingo village in Grahamstown, one of the last areas of freehold for Blacks in South Africa, as a Coloured group area, and the apparent subsequent planning of a new Bantu township at Committee’s Drift some 32 km from Grahamstown. The proclamation of the Fingo village came with Machiavellian timing, in the middle of a crucial by-election which I was fighting against a member of the Government party, when the constituency was not represented in Parliament and without consultation with any of the people involved, except a handful of misguided city councillors who hoped that by playing ball with the Government, the Governmental goose would lay the proverbial golden egg. These people bitterly regret their actions today. On being elected with an increased majority. I found that the web of interdepartmental red tape and legislation had created a puzzle so wrapped in enigma and disguised by ideological rigidity that it was almost impossible to comprehend in relation to the Fingo village and its proclamation as a Coloured group area. There are no legal means, once a Black area has been declared for another race, to redress a wrong which has obviously been done. I agree that there are faults in the Fingo village. I agree that there were slums in Grahamstown; I also agree that there was a shortage of housing in Grahamstown; but the fact is that the building of new houses in Grahamstown location and the Grahamstown area was frozen by this Government in 1961 and not a house has been built since. Having reached this impasse, we began to get reports of the proposed model town at Committee’s Drift and the people of the Fingo village, the people in Grahamstown and the Ciskeian Government became concerned and began making representations, originally through Dr. Koornhof, the then Deputy Minister in charge of townships, and subsequently through the hon. Punt Janson, who took over from him. The former visited Committee’s Drift and the Fingo village and just as he was beginning to see how tragically impracticable the whole scheme was, Mr. Janson took over from him in a Cabinet reshuffle. Mr. Janson was twice prevented by circumstances from visiting these areas, and just as he was becoming sympathetically and realistically involved in the situation, having announced a review of the whole matter, he was relieved of the responsibility for new townships and the hon. W. M. Cruywagen was appointed in his place. Mr. Cruywagen almost immediately became seriously ill, and I cannot blame him for that. During his illness it was announced in the Press that the Committee’s Drift township would be proceeded with and that R2 million had been voted for this purpose in the current financial year. I sincerely hope that this hon. Deputy Minister will come and visit this site before beginning to spend this amount. I can state categorically—and I know a little about road building and bridge building because I have served on bodies that do this sort of job— that this amount of R2 million will not build a decent road with proper bridges even halfway to the site of the proposed township. I doubt whether it will be sufficient to build a bridge capable of carrying commuter traffic over the Fish River alone. Without an adequate road and bridge link with the main Grahamstown/Fort Beaufort road, the construction costs at Committee’s Drift will be trebled and the costs were estimated last year at R48 million (Hansard, vol. 53, col. 43). Where is the industrial area which, it was alleged would be planned at Committee’s Drift in a letter written at the direction of Dr. the hon. P. G. J. Koornhof on 3 March 1972?

Pie in the sky.

The hon. the Minister of Planning and the Environment knew nothing about that when questioned by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth Central in August 1974. This can be checked in Hansard, vol. 53, col. 47. Where are the rights under section 10 of Act 25 of 1945, which are spoken of so glibly in this same letter written under his direction? The Deputy Minister, the hon. Punt Janson had forgotten them on 13 August 1974. When asked by me who would be moved to Committee’s Drift, he replied (Hansard, vol. 53, col. 42)—

Most of the people in the Fingo location, and most of the industrial workers in Grahamstown, have rights under section 10. Does this mean nothing and must they be moved? The letter concluded by stating that the Bantu would be happier living in the area of their own government and thus enjoying the rights not afforded them in the White areas. Whom did the hon. doctor consult? No Fingo villager will be happier at Committee’s Drift. The Chief Minister of the Ciskei is totally opposed to this scheme as is his representative in Grahamstown. So too are all thinking White people in Grahamstown. Furthermore, the hon. the Minister announced similar rights in the White areas yesterday. This is going to make these people even more unhappy to move. It has been proved by means of questions put in the House that this is bureaucratic and unilateral departmental planning of the worst possible kind as it is obvious that no other departments were consulted before the planning of this township. There are two options open to the Government. Either they scrap the Committee’s Drift scheme and build the minimum requirements of 3 000 houses at Grahamstown immediately or they must commit themselves unequivocally to spending at least R200 million within the next two or three years to create the necessary infrastructures and industrial development at Committees and Grahamstown. Without this the scheme is utterly worthless and can be dumped on the dumping ground of ideology.

However, to return to the report which was tabled so timeously, I want to say that I note on page 16 under the heading “Ciskei” that the drafting of a socio-economic plan of the Ciskei is to be undertaken by Prof. Page of the University of Stellenbosch. I have nothing against either the professor or the university. They have done excellent studies in regard to the Coloured people. They do very good socio-economic studies. However, we have an adequate university in Grahamstown and we have an adequate university in Port Elizabeth and there is a Bantu university serving the Ciskei and the Transkei. I want to mention that Rhodes University at Grahamstown had a very eminent economist at the head of its department, Prof. Hobart-Houghton, who served on the Prime Minister’s Advisory Council and who drew up many papers on the socio-economics of the Ciskei and particularly on the Fingo village and Committee’s Drift. He was succeeded in that department by an extremely able young man who is now a Senator, none other than Prof. Denis Worrall. Let us give these jobs to the people in the closest proximity to the problems. Let us give them the chance; they also have the ability and the desire to serve South Africa.

Also under the heading “Ciskei” on page 17 of the report, I note this—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, although I am rising to speak now, I shall probably not be able to discuss all the matters I should like to discuss, and the rest will simply have to stand over until Monday. Consequently I only want to discuss certain aspects now, aspects which have been raised so far in the debate. Right at the outset I want to say that for two reasons it is very easy to reply to this debate. The first is that apart from a few extravagant statements here and there on the opposite side, the tone of the debate in general was far more pleasant and perhaps even far more constructive than it has been in the past. This applies to both sides of the House. Perhaps this was because my hon. friend, the hon. member for Griqualand East, did not speak first. I do not know what the reason was which played such an important part on the opposite side.

The hon. the Minister is more friendly.

The hon. member should wait just a moment. However, there is a second reason as well. This time, a little differently to the procedure I have adopted on previous occasions, I concentrated on every hon. member on our side and tried to write down the essence of his speech in a few sentences. Apart from the three Deputy Ministers who participated in the debate and who naturally, as very competent people, made very positive contributions which I do not even wish to comment on, 13 other hon. members on our side have up to now participated in the debate. Each of those 13 speeches was a positive speech in that the activities relating to the vast programme we have to carry out were spelt out to this House and to the public in general in each speech. It was a splendid contribution from this side which, as I have said, spelt out our work and alleviated my task and that of the Deputy Ministers because it is not necessary for us to say the same thing over again. I have here a long list of things I wrote down, but to save time, I am not going into details, since I assume that hon. members listened to the hon. members on our side who spoke. In each of these speeches, from that of the hon. member for Lichtenburg, who began, to that of the very last member, the hon. member for Klerksdorp—incidentally, while I am mentioning his name, I want to say that I am very fond of Klerksdorp since one of my children is there, although that is not the only reason, but I want to say thank you very much to the hon. member, before I perhaps forget, for the fine words about and references to my department. I can testify that every official of the department deserves every word of appreciation which the hon. member expressed for the department. Unfortunately the Opposition did not achieve the same standard today as far as the contributions of individual members were concerned, although there were individual contributions on the opposite side of the House to which one could listen and from which something constructive could perhaps result. I want to refer at once to the first speech made by the hon. member for Edenvale—not to his second speech. The hon. member’s second speech was on the wrong wavelength.

What about the third one?

The third one will probably be below ground. The first speech was useful and good, but the second one, I fear, was not. Then, too, there is the tragic case of the young member for whom I feel very sorry, precisely because he is young. One was waiting to see what his potential would be, but the speech made by the hon. member for Amanzimtoti a moment ago was merely one great bombastic spate of words; that was all it was. [Interjections.] It was exaggerated political sentimentalism.

I should like to say a few words with reference to the speech made by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. This hon. member raised quite a few matters which speakers on this side of the House have in fact already dealt with. However, I should like to refer more specifically to two aspects of his speech.

†The hon. member for Umhlatuzana as well as a few other hon. members on the other side had much to say in connection with our departmental report which was available yesterday or the day before. [Interjections.] All right, yesterday; I accept it. I already had mine before yesterday. [Interjections.] Well, make it today, if it suits the hon. members better. I wish to point out that this is a most important report on the activities of a very, very big department, as the hon. member for Klerksdorp has pointed out. Hon. members must realize that for the report to be a meaningful one, the department accepted that the figures which should go into this report, should be for the period under review. That means that everything concerning the whole financial year should be included. It is of no use publishing a report very soon after the financial year has ended, if it does not include vitally important statistics. The report contains financial and other statistics which usually are not available until after it has been audited and not before permission is given for the closing of the books. That comes about approximately in July or August, after the financial year has come to an end. I inquired about these matters and am not talking just out of the air. In addition the report contains a summary of homeland development. We had to get information from all the various homelands including those in South West Africa for this purpose. It takes quite a while to get that information, because these people also have to wait for certain statistics and particulars to become available. The department has also attempted to improve the appearance of the report and will in future always endeavour, as was the case in the past, to expedite the publication bearing in mind the foregoing facts which I have given and also remembering that a period of about two months is needed to translate the report and another month or more to print it. The hon. members on the other side must make provision for these matters. Nevertheless, I can give the assurance that from our side we wish to do as much as possible to expedite the appearance of the report because it is an important report.

You should give us 48 hours after the appearance of the report to prepare for the debate.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana again posed the question in his speech yesterday whether the Bantu were permanent in the White areas, in view of the statement I had made. I would like to reply to that question. Another member by way of interjection also asked me the same question to which I replied that it was not a question which could be answered with either “yes” or “no”. I told the hon. member yesterday that I would give a proper reply and that is what I want to do now. I wish to say that what I am going to say here is not new. Indeed, I am going to read out what I have already written in a published document with regard to this matter. Naturally, I shall supplement it.

First of all I wish to stress that it must be appreciated that Bantu persons are allowed in the White homeland, the White area of South Africa …

Now we, too, are in a “homeland”.

We have been that since 1910 and even before that.

*Let me give the hon. member for Hill-brow a piece of advice. If he is not interested, he should rather go and have a cup of coffee. I shall pay for it if he does not have the money. In any case, I would be pleased if he would leave me in peace for a while. I would appreciate that. [Interjections.] Yes, the hon. member for Houghton can go with him.

†I say, Mr. Chairman, it must be appreciated that Bantu persons are allowed in the White homeland to do work which they can do here and not because they have equal claims with Whites to be present here. That was written by the hon. member for Edenvale when he was still a professor many years ago. It was written in a brochure which I have here.

Well, he has changed his mind since.

I proceed. Conversely, the same principle applies to Whites in the Bantu homelands. Equally, they are not there because they have equal claims with the Bantu persons. In so far as the Bantu have been admitted into the White areas for employment, provision has therefore been made for the separate Bantu communities with due allowance for their ties with their own nations and homelands and for the well-known different ways of life. The Bantu persons who have been admitted into the White areas are here in terms of our policy of separate development. They are secondarily here in the White areas in an unattached or a casual capacity.

They are temporarily permanent.

“In a casual capacity” are words I have used here many times. They are therefore not integrated with the Whites into a unity of equals or potential equals.

There is just economic integration.

Permanently temporary.

They only do 90% of the work.

Who is speaking, Sir?

You are.

Oh! May I also ask, Sir, who is in the Chair in this House? [Interjections.] Mr. Chairman, they are in fact present here in the White nation’s homeland for limited purposes and mainly for the work which is available to them. That is the kernel of our policy. These Bantu workers in industry cannot advance as apprentices, as journeymen, as technicians, as managers and entrepreneurs to equal status with the Whites …

Why not?

Because it is our policy which is being applied and not that of hon. members opposite.

That is not a reason. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members must please give the hon. the Minister a chance to finish his speech.

Mr. Chairman, if only they will listen, they will get a reply. However, they do not want to listen. Let me repeat what I said. I said that because these Bantu workers in industry cannot advance as apprentices, journeymen, technicians, managers and entrepreneurs to equal status with the Whites, there can be no talk of integration.

May I ask a question?

No. That is to say, of their incorporation as equals in a common society or context. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point may put his question later. In the same way those Whites who render important services to the Bantu in the Bantu homelands are not permanently placed in a position of equality with the Bantu in one context. Instead, suitable Bantu are systematically trained and assisted to reach the topmost positions in all the areas affected and to replace the Whites there. There can therefore be no question of discrimination because a distinction made between people who do not have identical claims in a particular area constitutes differentiation and not discrimination.

I think you are living in an Alice in Wonderland world.

After all, discrimination means making a distinction between people who have identical claims in one and the same context. Something along the same lines was written some years ago by my hon. friend on the other side, the hon. member for Edenvale when he was still a professor at Stellenbosch. The hon. member for Green Point may now put his question.

When the hon. the Minister says that the Blacks cannot achieve the positions he mentioned, does he mean that they are not able to reach them or that they are not permitted to reach them?

They are not permitted to do so in terms of our policy.

Are they quite able to?

They can do so in their own homelands. In fact, many of them have done so already. However, in terms of our policy they are not allowed to do so here.

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to the question that was asked. The question was: Are the Bantu permanently in the White areas? As I said just now, it will be very superficial simply to reply “yes” or “no”. Against the background of what I said just now, it is very clear that Bantu persons in the White areas are secondary to the Whites. [Interjections.] Also, as I said just now, they are here in a casual capacity. Therefore Bantu persons as groups are not permanently connected with our White area. Bantu persons cannot therefore enjoy all the rights of permanency in the White area as these apply to the Whites. Therefore, although it may be so, and we accept it, that there will always be Bantu persons in the White area—of course, not always the same individuals—it will not be on the same basis as the Whites who as a group are definitely permanently connected with this, our White area. In principle, of course, the same thing applies to the Whites in the Bantu homelands.

What’s fair is fair!

Mr. Chairman, I have said these things many times before. Many of the hon. members on this side have also said them. What I should like to see is that hon. members opposite understand these things properly. There is a mistake which my dear friend, the hon. member for Umhlatuzana, makes every year. I have told him this before. The hon. member does not do what the hon. member for Houghton tried to do yesterday, viz. to argue with us in terms of the outlines of our policy. Fundamentally the thinking of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana is integrationistic throughout, and then he calls us to account because certain things which have to take place in terms of his integrationistic approach are not taking place. Sir, these things have to happen in terms of our approach of multi-national development. I said in parentheses a moment ago that the hon. member for Edenvale, in earlier years, displayed this same kind of approach in his writings. The hon. member should simply be prepared now to accept responsibility for the things he was responsible for earlier. For example I can quote from a Sabra publication, of which he was a member. Sir, I have never in my whole life, before I entered politics or since, and particularly since I have been working in this Ministry, said that the Bantu are temporary people here. But what did the hon. member for Edenvale write? [Interjections.] Yes, I say that they are here in a casual capacity. The hon. member for Edenvale wrote (translation)—

Sir, it sounds as if I took my words of this afternoon from him. This is the hon. member who now thinks the opposite. It reminds me of what happened when the late Gen. Smuts said something in the course of a speech in the Eastern Transvaal. A person stood up and asked him: “But, General, you said so-and-so today, and last year you said the opposite somewhere else. General, in all fondness, did you lie today?” Gen. Smuts’s reply to him was that: “My dear friend, who says I was not lying last year?” Now I wonder whether the hon. member was telling the truth today or whether he was telling the truth in 1953. What standpoint does the hon. member wish me to accept as his real standpoint—this standpoint of 1953, or the standpoint which he is adopting in this year of Our Lord? Sir, I have quite a number of the writings of the hon. member here—useful writings, as well as writings on discrimination and land tenure and matters of that kind.

Mr. Chairman, I now want to reply to certain points which were raised in the course of the debate by hon. members here. I think the hon. member for Umhlatuzana may be satisfied now that I have replied properly to his question.

†I want to reply to just one point raised by the hon. member for Houghton. She raised the question of the rights of Bantu women in South Africa. In this connection she referred to the Natal Code and to the position of Bantu women in the other provinces.

Inter alia.

Yes, but that is the only point to which I would like to refer. Other hon. members on this side have already dealt with the other points. Perhaps I could come back again to these points on a later occasion. Sir, I have said before and I want to say again that the question of the status and the rights of Bantu women is a matter for the Bantu nations and the Bantu Governments themselves. I am not going to define the rights of the Bantu women. That is a matter for the Bantu chiefs, the Bantu tribes and the Bantu Governments. They all have their own Governments. It is for the Bantu Governments to make their own legislation with regard to the status and the rights of Bantu women in South Africa.

*The hon. member for Jeppe had a good deal to say about the greater powers which the boards should have, the boards which the Bantu elect in the urban areas such as Soweto. For a long time the hon. member was a leading member of the Johannesburg City Council. That is where I met him for the first time, in the Johannesburg city hall, when he was a member of the Non-White Affairs Committee. Subsequently he became mayor, a bigwig, but the hon. member was probably, I think—I am speaking under correction, because I cannot remember in which years it was now—still a member of the City Council when the Urban Bantu Councils Act had already become law in 1961.

I had already left.

Oh, but other loyal companions of the hon. member remained behind. Sir, until the moment we took over with the Bantu Administration Board of the West Rand, the Johannesburg City Council had not lifted a finger to give those urban Bantu councils more powers, although the Act empowered them to do so.

I discussed that matter. It is recorded in Hansard.

Please keep quiet now. The urban Bantu council of Johannesburg has just found its feet, and yet attention is already being given to these matters. The question has also been put in this regard, I think, inter alia, by the hon. member himself. During the conference of leaders we merely raised this point, and the Bantu had in fact thought of it. This is a very drastic and perhaps even a difficult process, but we are now devoting attention to it, together with the Bantu. Naturally the Government will consult them in this regard to see to what extent it is possible to reform the council system which exists in the White areas for the Bantu, so that the urban Bantu council and the councils of deputies, i.e. the councils which the Government representatives may establish, could perhaps be united into a council with other and more powers in the White area. But this is a matter which will require time, and we shall give attention to it.

The hon. member for Edenvale was quite constructive in his first speech and he enumerated matters to which we could give our attention. Inter alia he mentioned the question of financing for housing for Bantu who wish to build their own homes on the land which belongs to the local authority. This is an important point and we shall certainly give attention to it. Actually it goes without saying. I may just say here, by way of interruption, that I should really like this matter to be rectified. Yesterday I took a great deal of trouble to state the matter as precisely as possible. It deals with the possession of houses on the land which belongs to the local authorities. Now, I have already been reading in certain newspapers this morning, and I heard it over the radio, and people have been telephoning me and have been making inquiries and saying that mention is now being made of possession of property. Sir, the word “property” is a dangerous word to use, for it is as all-embracing as God’s mercy; it includes everything. Therefore, do let us define these things precisely. It is not that hon. member who made the mistake. I am speaking in general now.

The hon. member for Vryheid put a question to me in regard to the political parties in KwaZulu. He asked whether I could throw any light on the reports which he had read to the effect that the Government of KwaZulu, under the leadership of Captain Gatsha Buthelezi, had asked us to play our part and contribute our share in a proclamation being drawn up, or in legislation being introduced by them, to prohibit political parties among the Zulu people. I caused the matter to be discussed with them and also replied to that in writing, and I should like to quote the relevant portion of my letter here to demonstrate what our standpoint in that regard was, i.e. the request of the Zulus to the effect that at this stage already, even before they have held an election there—and to my mind there is also a little uncertainty here as to why they do not want to hold the election now—they want to prohibit political parties. At present, of course, one other political party, as far as I know, has already been established there. I wrote the following in my reply to him—

Why did you banish Mtshizana?

Oh, … I almost said “shut up!” I quote further—

I think that all the hon. members in this House—it seems to me with the exception of one perhaps—will agree with me that it was right that I did not want to help to prohibit political parties, which were not going to be subversive, in the Zulu area. I would not want to do this in any Bantu homeland, for I think that our tradition is a democratic one. Even our Western democracy can be adapted beneficially to the Bantu democracy, as this developed traditionally among them. We have proved this in the Transkei in particular.

Then I want to correct the hon. member for Edenvale a little as far as section 10 of the Bantu (Urban Areas) Consolidation Act is concerned. The hon. member referred to this in his second speech. He was discussing section 10 and he ostensibly warned us about this. Now I want to warn him in turn. The hon. member might as well read section 10 again, although he has probably read it many times in his life.

Yes.

Yes, I know that, and I am not going to argue about it. He probably quoted it more often to students than this Opposition has alleged that I have adopted a pedantic attitude towards them. Section 10 is not a section which grants civil rights to people, for if it had granted civil rights, why should these be granted only to people in prescribed areas and not to people living in urban areas which could be larger than the prescribed areas, and why not to the people in the entire magisterial district, which could be even larger? Why then only in prescribed areas? Section 10 deals with one matter, and one matter only, viz. a concession and a large-scale exemption from influx control on certain conditions. That is what section 10 is. I have told the hon. the Leader of the Opposition and other hon. members before, and I am doing so again, that if they continue to present section 10 as though it grants civil rights, then they are provoking us into a fundamental reconsideration of section 10.

That is kragdadigheid for you!

It makes no difference what kind of “dadigheid” it is. It is in any event not complicity (aandadigheid) in the destruction of White authority, as the hon. member advocates.

I should like to compliment the hon. member for Tygervallei on the splendid reference to the activities of the XDC. The hon. member, together with other hon. members, acquired a knowledge of the activities of the XDC, and he also referred in very fine words to the XDC exhibit at the Rand Easter Show. I saw this myself on Monday, and I can inform the hon. members that it was really first-rate. I also want to associate myself with everything the hon. member said in congratulating them.

The hon. member also asked me a question, in my opinion quite a good question, relating to events at this time. He asked what is happening in regard to independence for the Transkei, which they have requested. A preparatory framework has been constructed in regard to independence. In addition a working committee has been constituted which consists of three persons appointed by us and three persons appointed by the Transkei. It is under the chairmanship of the Secretary for Bantu Administration and Development. A substitute was appointed for the chairman, if that should be necessary.

This committee is working on a full-time basis on all the preparation which is required, for example, preparations in respect of constitutional matters which have to be cleared up, preparations in respect of physical services which have to be there, and preparations in respect of treaties which will have to be concluded between the Government of the Republic of South Africa and the Government of the Transkei. The individual members of this committee are proceeding with their work. On the basis of what the Secretary has told me, they have already had formal sessions. I think they will soon have another formal session in Umtata. In this constellation of preparations, provision has also been made for what we called a joint ministerial committee, to deal with certain fundamental and important matters. That committee consists of the hon. the Prime Minister as the chairman and convenor, and I myself, on our part. On the part of the Transkei there is the chief minister of the Transkei, and I think his brother. Minister George Matanzima. These are the four people who are serving on this ministerial committee.

I can inform the hon. members that I have already, during the past few days, been in contact with the Transkei. Arrangements are being made for a meeting. This will be the first meeting of this ministerial committee, after the provisional talks which we held on ministerial level. It is hoped that this meeting will take place in August. Through the hon. the Prime Minister and I myself on the one hand, and Mr. Kaiser Matanzima and Minister George Matanzima on the other, fundamental matters in regard to independence will be gone into. I do not think it is desirable or necessary for me to comment at this stage on specific matters in regard to independence, because these are matters which are to be dealt with jointly by the Transkei and us. I should prefer to say something at a subsequent opportunity about the questions asked by the hon. member for Johannesburg West and other members.

I now want to confine myself to what was said by the last member who spoke on the opposite side, the hon. member for Albany, in regard to Fingo Town and Committee’s Drift. I just want to tell the hon. member that he is not making any impression, apart from an extremely ridiculous impression, when he comes forward with such fantastic figures here, for example that one requires R200 million just for the infrastructure at Committee’s Drift. He must not come here and tell me things like that. I have not only “heard” of one town which has to be built, I have dealt with more than 100 as Minister for 14 years. Therefore the hon. member should not come and tell us things like that. The infrastructure has to be established. We know that. However, there is not a town in South Africa, from Johannesburg, from Cape Town, our oldest city, down to our youngest town, which began with an infrastructure. This had to be established for all of them. Does the hon. member think Jan van Riebeeck found an infrastructure here in Cape Town when he arrived here —beautifully lit streets and everything? The hon. member must not be crazy. Those are crazy ideas.

Order! The hon. the Minister must rather withdraw the word “crazy”.

Yes, but he must really not be the opposite either. I shall withdraw the word “crazy”. He will simply have to be the opposite then. The hon. member himself described Fingo Town as a slum area, and it is a slum area. We know that. The hon. member said this is the only place in our country where these people still have freehold. That is not the case. All the Bantu homelands are full of examples of people who have freehold. He probably means in the White area.

Yes.

Not a single Bantu person who has freehold in Fingo Town will leave without being offered alternative freehold elsewhere. The hon. member must understand this now.

How far from his work?

That is axiomatic. We simply do not cause a person who has free-hold somewhere to fail to retain his freehold wherever he goes. Whether he wishes to reside where he will have freehold or wishes to do something else with it, is his own choice. The second thing I want to make very clear to the hon. member is that we will not cause anyone who will have to leave Fingo Town to lose his legitimate work in Grahamstown. We do not want to cause anyone to lose his work. That is one of the reasons why the closest possible place is being sought for the alternative town so that, when they are living there, they can still travel to work every day. It is for that reason that a place is being sought where they can live with their families so that there need be no separation of families.

[Inaudible.]

Now just wait a moment. I want to tell the hon. member that he made a great mistake in what he said this afternoon. It is not the intention to remove people who are working in Grahamstown and living in Fingo Town from that place and to cause them to lose their work so that work will have to be sought or made for them elsewhere. I have said this time without number, also in reply to the misrepresentations made in regard to many of the people who were at Dimbaza, Sada, Madikwe, Lime Hill and many other places. People who are dependent and who are not working, are resettled, but the people who are working in Grahamstown, will not, with the removal, be deprived of their work. The hon. member should not, in his zeal to achieve certain objectives, make representations in regard to such basic facts, misrepresentations which could irritate people and could antagonize them unnecessarily.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask a question.

Please.

Will something then be done about the present housing shortage in Grahamstown?

The present housing shortage in Grahamstown will receive the necessary attention as far as the people of Fingo Town are concerned, who have to be assisted with alternative accommodation, and also in so far as other people who are entitled to housing are concerned. I do not want to go into this matter in detail now; it is not necessary. We have already had talks, quite recently in fact. I myself had an appointment with the Government of the Ciskei to discuss this question with them, but then certain unforeseen duties or matters kept me in Cape Town and it was not possible for me to keep the appointment. However, it is still my intention to discuss this matter personally with the Government of the Cisikei and I shall do so as soon as an opportunity presents itself. I shall try to expedite this.

Mr. Chairman, yesterday the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the agricultural potential of the Bantu homelands and emphasized that the homelands had a vast potential. I fully agree with him on that score. The hon. the Deputy Minister added that those inhabitants of the homelands who were not agriculturists should preferably settle in towns rather than occupy agricultural land which could otherwise be more productively utilized. With that, too, I am in full agreement. If we bear in mind that there is an acute world food shortage and that the annual population increase in the Republic alone was 3,06% for the period 1960 to 1970, as against an increase of 2% in the world population, then it is very clear that no agricultural land that can be effectively utilized, may be allowed to remain unproductive.

I want to mention the existing production, the potential for the future and the development that has already taken place in the field of agriculture as far as the homelands are concerned. The homelands have a vast potential which contribute greatly towards their own economy and towards their provision for their own people. Statistics concerning the potential of all homelands are not available, but I want to mention two examples, namely Transkei and KwaZulu. According to calculations, 15% of the arable surface of the Transkei can produce 5 220 kg of maize, 33% of it can produce 3 690 kg per hectare whereas 52% has a potential of 2 070 kg per hectare. This compares very well with the best arable land in the White areas. In fact, I think it is almost better. At present, unfortunately the average yield is still only 446,6 kg per ha. As a whole, the Transkei has a production potential of 526 860 metric tons as against the present production of 193 721 metric tons. Sorghum production is estimated at a potential of 19 530 metric tons as against the present production of 5 135 metric tons. This is the position as regards the Transkei.

As far as KwaZulu is concerned, the present potential and the calculated potential are as follows—I am combining all the branches, viz. animal production, sugar, field husbandry, fruit, vegetables, forestry and fibre: The revenue per annum amounts to R17,1 million as against a calculated potential of R100,7 million. For years a great deal of attention has been given to the planning of agriculture in the homelands. Anyone who knew the homelands 15 years ago can attest to the dramatic progress that has been made with projects very closely connected with this, e.g. soil rehabilitation, soil conservation, the orderly settlement of people, the establishment of an agricultural infrastructure, inter alia the erection of fences, the provision of water, dipping troughs—there are too many to mention. After 1966, when the programme of soil rehabilitation had already been largely concluded, a great deal was done to develop the agricultural infrastructure. Already in 1973, 52 000 km of grass strips had been planted, 7 700 km of contour walls and weirs had been built and 105 344 km of fencing erected. For years, too, intensive attention has been given to extension and training of Bantu farmers. This is a cardinal point, because it serves as proof that this Government is prepared to do what it says it will do. We are not prepared to create the homelands and put farmers there without their knowing how to farm. Thus it can be mentioned, for example, that in 1974 the number of agricultural extension officers in the homelands was 1 008. Today there are already five homelands with agricultural colleges, at which, for the most part, extension officers are trained. Regular courses for farmers are offered and there is tremendous interest on the part of the local communities. The degree of utilization of the arable land in dry land farming in the homelands has increased from 54% in 1968 to 76,7% in 1974. Furthermore, 24 683 ha of irrigation land has already been established in the homelands with an extensive production potential. It is unnecessary for me to say what irrigation land is worth today. In fact it is priceless. I want to refer to the KwaMata scheme in the Transkei which, on completion, will comprise 3 566 ha and on which 1 177 farmers have already been settled. The scheme will cost a total of R8,2 million. I could continue in this way and mention one irrigation scheme after another. Among other things, an irrigation scheme in the Klein Letaba River, which will eventually comprise 6 500 ha, is at present being planned for Gazankulu. Particular attention is also being given to the establishment of agricultural co-operatives, of which there were already 28 in 1973, and also to the establishment of the necessary marketing channels and facilities. For example, I could mention that the establishment of auction pens to assist these people has resulted in the revenue rising from R1,7 million in 1959 to R5,8 million in 1973. Particular attention is being given to the creation of credit facilities in order to make it possible for the Bantu to develop their farming enterprises. The investment corporations, viz. the BIC and the XDC, are major contributors in this regard. I could just mention that in 1973-’74 the budgeted expenditure of the agricultural divisions of the two Corporations mentioned came to R2 131 million. For 1974-’75 it already amounts to R8,9 million. In view of the vast potential of the homelands it is realistic to expect that the Corporations’ activities on this level will soon make a comprehensive contribution towards increasing agricultural production in the homelands. Since local communities are constantly being involved in this dynamic project, it is also becoming possible in this way for employment opportunities to be created for a fairly low investment. I do not doubt, therefore, that the homelands are viable and I want to urge the homeland leaders to seize the opportunities being created for them with both hands and to encourage their people to contribute their share towards South Africa’s production, but also towards their own production and their own benefit.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Ladybrand will not take it amiss of me if I do not react to his very interesting speech. I should have liked to do so, but on this occasion I want to give priority to certain remarks which the hon. the Minister has just made here. In the first place, I just want to say that the hon. the Minister’s explanation of the late appearance of the report is, in fact, unacceptable. If one compares it with the report of the Department of Bantu Education …

They work on a calendar year.

Yes, but this is a report for the period up to the end of the year 1974 and not 1975.

March 1974.

Yes, until March 1974. The explanation furnished for the fact that this report was only available 24 hours before this debate is not one which, viewed objectively, is acceptable in the light of the scope of that report, of which I made a very thorough study last night. We can differ on that score, but I am simply unable to accept it.

In the second place, the hon. the Minister said that he had replied effectively to the speech by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. I want to say that in no single respect did the Minister furnish a reply to the difficulty sketched here by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana concerning the inevitable and inexorable urbanization that is going to take place and the implications of that urbanization.

Is this, now, about his vision?

What he stated here were no visions, but facts. Nor did the hon. the Minister reply to his charge that the policy of independence for the homelands, with the exception of the Transkei and perhaps the Ciskei, have no potential feasibility. The hon. the Minister did not get to that. However, we can elaborate on that later.

As far as the political parties in KwaZulu are concerned, I want to say that I agree with his attitude. I am just very sorry that last year, when we objected here to the powers of detention given to the homeland Governments, the hon. the Minister did not agree with us at that stage that it was a “natural corollary of democracy” that those powers ought not to be exercised.

In certain cases, detention is a “corollary”.

I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but that does not apply in the case of the wide powers granted last year in this regard. I am only sorry that the hon. the Minister did not emphasize democracy last year as strongly as he does now.

As far as section 10, to which the hon. member referred, is concerned, I want to say that it has nothing to do with influx control. Section 10 concerns the presence of people in urban areas.

But that is news.

The original section 5 of the Urban Areas Act which became section 10 in 1945 had to do with influx control, but this section 10 has nothing to do with it. It provides for the right of the Bantu to remain in an urban area for longer than 72 hours without a permit. That is what it means. That is the difference between the old section 5 of the Urban Areas Act and this section 10 introduced in 1952. I am sorry that I had to correct the hon. the Minister, but those are the facts.

I also want to object to the Minister telling us that when we talk about section 10, we are provoking the Government. In the first instance, the Government’s responsibility is not to this Opposition. The Government’s responsibility is to the country and to the urban Bantu population. If the Government is going to act irresponsibly because the Opposition provokes it into doing so, I want to say that the Government ought not to be a government. I cannot imagine any government being so irresponsible as to act in a way harmful to the country merely because an opposition provoked it into doing so.

You need not be afraid.

Thank you very much, but then the hon. the Minister must not come and threaten us in this regard.

I just want to say that I want to convey my thanks and appreciation for the work done by the XDC and bodies of that nature. I agree with the hon. the Minister in this regard. I do want to say that I found the way in which the hon. Minister, as one might say, “lost his cool” when dealing with the speech made by the hon. member for Albany, rather surprising.

What did I lose?

Your “cool”. In other words, the hon. the Minister became unnecessarily emotional and excited.

Are you speaking English or Afrikaans?

The hon. the Minister knows what I mean. It was unnecessary for him to react in such an emotional way. The hon. member for Albany spoke about the slum conditions there, but the hon. the Minister in no way indicated why those slum conditions in Grahamstown could not be improved and why those people should have to be resettled at Committees Drift. If the hon. the Minister objected to the hon. member’s estimate of the cost of the provision of the infrastructure, then it was the duty of the hon. the Minister himself to correct him. It was his duty to say: Really, that is a hopeless over-estimate and it will not cost that much. He should not have reacted as he did.

Unfortunately, the hon. the Minister has the advantage of being able to speak for as long as he likes. I should very much like to reply to the hon. the Minister in connection with the things he said about me personally. I appreciate the spirit in which the hon. the Minister spoke. Thus far, I have been at pains in this House to refrain from replying to that kind of thing, because I hoped that I had a positive contribution to make in regard to these matters. The hon. the Minister accused me of having said one thing then, and that I am now saying another. I hope that, like the hon. the Minister. I possess a reasonable degree of intelligence. I hope, too, that I possess a reasonable degree of intellectual integrity. I make no apology when, in the honesty of my intellect and my conscience, I arrive at certain opinions … [Interjection.] … yes, or change them, and when, in the honesty of my conscience, I expound that standpoint. [Interjections.] Let me finish. I also want to say that I expect nothing different from the hon. the Minister himself because if he is to be honest, he must admit that we are continually faced with new situations, which may mean that we are not always necessarily able to persevere with the standpoints we have adopted in the past. I am being quite honest when I say this. I want to continue. I, too, could have said that there was no change; there was only an “unfolding” of things, a development of standpoints, as is the case with the Government, too. I just want to point out to the hon, the Minister that in 1952 or 1953, when I said those things, the world situation was entirely different. The situation in South Africa, too, was entirely different.

And in 1963?

The hon. the Minister knows it. Yes, I shall come to the hon. member for Brakpan later. We did not have independent countries in Africa then, nor did we have all these other things. The Government itself realizes this and acts accordingly. In 1956, when we had the Tomlinson meeting, the National Congress in Bloemfontein, the then representative of the Minister of Native Affairs, Mr. Daan Nel, refused to address that congress because reference was to be made in a lecture to “The Possibility of Independence for the Transkei”. Mr. De Wet Nel said that that policy was basically so much in conflict with this Government’s policy that he was not prepared to sit at that congress while Professor Sadie said those things. And what happened then? Three years later there was a fundamental change of policy. Again, yesterday afternoon, we had a fundamental development here of the policy of that party. I do not know if it was the present Minister, but I think it was he who said in 1967 that the Government was going to drop that principle of 30-year leases. He himself said that we were no longer going to allow the Bantu to own their houses on premises owned by the municipality. Sir, I did not want to drag this in, because I am grateful for this change. It is a necessary adaptation to the circumstances of the times, and I am very grateful for it. But the Minister must not come here now and state that other people have changed their standpoint as well. Sir, let me add this: In 1952, when those things were said, the Tomlinson Report was under consideration. I want to remind the hon. the Minister that I was a member of the technical staff of the Tomlinson Commission. We all assumed that the Government was in earnest about carrying out the recommendations of that commission.

We are doing far more than that.

Sir, most of the hon. members sitting here were not present at that time when the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission were rejected on every fundamental point. In other words, the entire concept that existed at the time of the development of the Bantu areas so as to meet the requirements of the time, went up in smoke, and for 15 years, until 1969 when there was a change in regard to the activities and the powers of the BIC—for which I give this Government credit—there was a grey patch as regards to the development of the homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I have a great deal of respect for the hon. member for Edenvale, because I was a student of his. It was he who, as an academic, taught me the basic principles of separate development. Admittedly, he did not make me a Nationalist, because at that time I was already one, but that hon. member taught me the scientific principles of the policy which I still stand by today.

At that time he, too, still believed in it.

I find it strange, Sir, that the hon. member should say that times have changed since those years when I was one of his students. Times have changed. The hon. member refers specifically to Africa, to what has occurred in Africa and the attainment of independence and the “Uhuru” that went with it. But. Sir, we on this side have grown with the times. It is those very event in Africa that have assisted the National Party’s policy in unfolding and developing so that today we have reached the point at which we state that the homelands must eventually be granted full independence. Why, then, did that hon. member perform an about-face? I have here notes which he gave me then. I still have all his lectures, too. I have one here which he will remember very clearly, “The political rights of Natives in South Africa.” Sir, do you know what the hon. member said then in this regard? I quote from his introduction on the first page (translation)—

I shall also quote what he said on page 2 (translation)—

He then continues by stating that once there is sharing of political power, this will give rise to social equalization and that the Whites will lose their identity. He ends by saying (translation)—

[Interjections.] I ask the hon. member whether what was true in 1950 is not equally true or even more true in the year 1975? [Interjections.] That is why I say we have grown. We have adapted and developed those things which the hon. member taught me. Now I am unable to understand why the hon. member performed an about face. [Interjections.] The basic difference between our point of departure and that of that side of the House is that we want to apply our policy of separate development like a spearhead of totality throughout the White area and in the homeland territories as well.

Sir, I should like to draw your attention to a vital aspect, and that is the new dimension entered by Bantu administration when the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards were established in 1973.

I want to say today that these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards have tackled their duties in great earnest. These Boards took over the tasks that had previously rested on the shoulders of local authorities as the agents of the Government, e.g. labour bureaux, influx control, registration, the administration of Bantu towns and now, in addition, these Bantu Administration Boards undertake not only urban Bantu administration, but rural administration as well. In fact, therefore, we can now no longer refer to urban Bantu administration; we should now really refer to Bantu administration in the White area as such. The policy which we on this side of the House advocate is one of accommodating the Bantu physically present in the White area as workers and, on the other hand, to see those same workers as citizens of homelands and in so doing, to assist the process of nation building in the homeland. This sounds like a contradiction, but I want to tell you, Sir, that from this so-called antithesis a mighty synthesis will be built and we are already doing this. The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and their officials, to whom I want to pay great tribute, are fully aware of this task. I should like to quote to you, Sir, what the chairman of the Institute of Administrators of Non-White Affairs said recently at the biennial gathering of officials concerned with urban Bantu administration. I might mention that this person is also the chief director of the Central Transvaal Bantu Affairs Administration Board in Pretoria. He said the following (translation)—

This is how these people see their task. In this regard I should also like to refer to an outstanding lecture delivered by Professor B. van As, head of the department of Native Administration at the University of South Africa, at a similar congress held in Cape Town in 1973, entitled “Guidelines for urban Native administration in Southern Africa”. I want to quote the final paragraph of that outstanding lecture. If I remember correctly, the hon. member for Edenvale was also present at that congress. He may therefore remember it. Prof, van As said (translation)—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort attempted to take the hon. member for Edenvale to task by quoting from a document which the hon. member for Edenvale had given him during his student days. It is quite obvious, however, that the hon. member never paused to think that what the hon. member for Edenvale said at that stage was quite consistent with the attitude that he adopts today, because it supported the federal policy of this party which is designed precisely to maintain the sovereignty of each individual group in that federation and to surrender only to the central assembly what is necessary to have a common structure to be able to govern the country as a whole. That is entirely in consonance with what the hon. member opposite read out. I think that the hon. members should go back and think a bit more deeply and attempt to understand what this party has been saying over these years. If he does that, he will realize that it is in fact the case.

I want to come back to the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. Here we have had an hon. Minister attempting to answer the case which was put forward by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana by trotting out again the old mastodon of a policy of the National Party. A mastodon is an antique elephant which walks around with its hair in its eyes, and that is what we have had here today. It cannot see for the problems which it has before its eyes. The hon. the Minister claims that the figures given by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana about the 20 new cities which are going to be created here in our country in 25 years, are not accurate. He maintains that there is not going to be integration even though all those people will toe living here in White South Africa. He says that there is no identical claims between them and that artisans, apprentices, and all such people—Black people and White people—will have no identity and will not be rubbing shoulders with each other. What he does not realize is that the entire economic future of this country is going to depend more and more upon the Black people during the next 25 years. Of course the identity of interest is not going to be the same between Black and White artisans because as soon as there are not enough White people to fill these posts, the Government merely changes the name and calls it something else and then Black people do the job. So there is absolutely no identity of interests between a Black person who works in one particular capacity on the Railways and a White guy who is doing exactly the same sort of work under a different name. The whole scene is one of absolute bluff, an attempt to put something across to the voters of this country in order to create a sort of illusion that in 25 years’ time the 20 new cities which are to be built and which will be inhabited by people who will be living in White South Africa and upon whose shoulders every single effort that we are going to make will depend, are going to be run and staffed toy Black people while the share of the White people is going to get smaller and smaller. If you eliminate the grade and the posts which the Whites are occupying every time there is competition between Black and White, what is going to toe left in terms of the Government policy in 25 years’ time? The hon. the Deputy Minister talks about bending the economy. We have to bend the economy to make sure that the whole future of this country in the field of economic development takes place within the Bantu areas. What sign is there after 27 years of Government policy that this has even started? There are a few growth points inside the Bantu areas whose share of the total gross national product of this country is absolutely infinitesimal. The hon. member for Johannesburg West will agree with me that after 27 years of having this Government in office, the contribution that comes from those areas in infinitesimal. They have only just now started to scratch the surface with the sort of development that ought to have taken place already. They still have a long way to go, a long way to catch up, and they have no chance to do it in the 25 years postulated by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana. The hon. member for Johannesburg West was talking about agricultural development, and I agree that that is basic to the development of the homelands. If foreign exchange is to be built up, and if reserves are to be built up, those homelands cannot afford to spend the money which they have garnered from outside their borders in order to buy food to feed their population. Only now one can see that any sort of momentum is being built up in the development of agriculture in the homelands. Recently, in a debate in one of the Bantu Parliaments, the system of landholdings amongst the Bantu was referred to toy one of their members as “barbaric”, and this after 27 years of having this Government in power. Up to this day they have not yet left square one when it comes to the realistic development of agriculture in those areas. Here we have people who are talking about the food position, the population position and the viability of the homelands, yet they have not even left square one when it comes to basic aspects. They are today not even able to feed themselves consistently; they are today basically still consuming areas because they draw in food from outside, from the White areas of this country.

They have made more progress in the past 27 years than the United Party.

I am not even going to reply to that kind of rubbish. I shall return to it later if I get the time. Of these Black people who are the leaders of the Bantu communities in this country, the only one who accepts the policy of separate development and independence wholeheartedly is Chief Minister Matanzima, and yet he himself has gone on record as saying that he accepts it for one reason only, i.e. because it is the only way in which the Black people in South Africa can obtain recognition of their basic human rights and dignities; it is the only way in which they can do it. In fact, people who have been born South Africans have to become guests and strangers to this country before the thinking of the National Party is able to extend to them ordinary basic human rights. They have to become guests and strangers—people who were born among us and who are part of our country until such time—a time which is still to come— when that hon. Minister, as he has mentioned just now, is going to consult with the Prime Minister and the two Ministers Matanzima about the date of independence for the Transkei. Although the hon. the Minister is not going to talk about details, he owes this House at least an indication of what difference the date of independence is going to make to the status of Transkeians living in South Africa and whether they will then have the status of guests and strangers here, in this country of ours. The other leaders reject the policy, and quite rightly so. They reject the policy because it constitutes a denial by the National Party of what their people’s contributed to the development of South Africa, an outright denial. What is happening today? One sees an attempt by the Prime Minister and other Ministers to cast some sort of tattered mantle of respectability over the basic thinking of the National Party, over the attitude of mind that governs the National Party in respect of the Black people in South Africa. One can sum that up in two words; “Get out!” That is the basic thinking of the National Party in respect of the Black people: “Get out! Get out of our lives, get out of our country, get out of our economy, get out of everything!” That is what the basic thinking of that party is.

Surely that is not true.

Of course it is true. Everything is based on the desire to have separation. There have got to be completely separate identities. How can this possibly be? The Minister has said nothing about it. He has waved his hands in the air and sketched a few pictures, but he has never come to this basic point. He has never yet been able to separate the Black man from the White man in this country, and he never will.

We have not got a Black problem in South Africa. Our problem is not a problem of détente. Our problem is merely the National Party. The National Party is the problem; it is this party with its specific ideology which has become a vested interest in South Africa. That is what is wrong with this country. The National Party is interested only in remaining in power and one sees the shifts, the dodges and the stratagems to which the National Party is being forced to this end. They have got to recognize that things are changing but the Minister says it is not a new policy. Oh, no, this is the “ontplooiing van die ou beleid wat al die jare nog gevolg is”. What happened in 1967 when they decided to buy all the houses back from the Black people? What was that? A de-“plooiing” of the policy? They have had a policy for years whereby Bantu could own houses. Then suddenly they came along and took away those houses. Now again we have a re-“ontplooiing”.

You simply get the wrinkles (“plooie”)!

Will they be taxed on the profits of the houses when they sell them back? This is one of our problems, our basic problem: The Nationalist Party, that professional political organization, has become a vested interest in South Africa. It has to devise ways and means of bluffing the voting public and it is continuing to do so, but one of these days it is going to happen, as sure as Sunday comes, that the people will see through them. There is an onus resting on the supporters of the Nationalist Party to have a look at them, to have a real long, hard, cool look at them and to realize that they are seeing there, masquerading as a political party, the biggest political charade that the world has ever known. Right now one can see them sitting there in the seats of power acting out a part that is meaningless. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I can quite understand the outburst of the hon. member who has just spoken. To me it is the symptom of a party which is getting panic-stricken, together with its supporters, because in one election after another they find their way blocked by the wall of solidarity and the progress made by a dynamic National Party Government. When I say that the Government and the National Party are dynamic, I say this because the Government and the party are dynamic in every facet of the implementation of their policy. The National Party has made phenomenal progress with its Bantu policy over the past 27 years. Within the short period of 27 years—27 years in the life of a people is as a year in the life of an individual— the National Government has given the Bantu peoples an identity of their own again, it has given them pride in themselves, it has given them land and self-government, and now it is leading them to independence in the economic sphere. When I speak of independence in the economic sphere, it must be remembered that every country which wishes to be economically self-sufficient must have industries because industries are so essential for prosperity at home and so essential for earning foreign exchange, and thirdly, which is most important, because industries provide employment for the country’s inhabitants.

There appears to be little industrial development in our Bantu homelands, but if one knows the background as we know it and if one knows that these are young countries, one realizes that the progress being made in the industrial field in the homelands is very good. We Afrikaans-speaking people are able to say this because of our own background, because we know what we are talking about. The Afrikaner, who has been in South Africa for more than 300 years, has only been moving into commerce, industry and mining during the past 40 years. The Reddingsdaadbond was established in the thirties to enable the Afrikaner to enter those fields. For this reason we know the background and the circumstances of the Bantu homelands.

We know that the Bantu homelands are supported by the Government which actively promotes their interests, the Government with its organization such as the BIC and the XDC. In addition there is the agency system, by means of which Whites are doing a great deal to help the Bantu in the homelands with industrial development. I want to dwell briefly on the BIC and the agency system. The agency system has proved to be very successful. Up to 31 March 1974, no fewer than 112 businesses had been established under this system and in co-operation with the BIC. These businesses are distributed as follows among the homelands: Bophuthatswana, 56; Transkei, 17; KwaZulu, 16; and the rest in the other homelands. On 31 March 1974, these 112 businesses employed 11241 Bantu and 364 Whites—an excellent proportion, for the Whites constitute only 3% of the total labour force. Almost 50% of these 11 241 Bantu were employed by businesses at Babalegi. Up to 31 March 1974, the two corporations had spent approximately R19,1 million on buildings, loans and share capital, while the industrialists themselves had contributed R39,2 million. Between March 1974 and March 1975 the growth was remarkable. Twenty-five new concerns were established, which employ 2 543 Bantu. This means that by 31 March 1974, the number of business enterprises had grown to 137, and that they employ 13 694 people.

The greatest provision of employment has taken place in the textile, clothing and leather industries, namely 43 %. Employment provided in the timber industry comes next with 24,8%. The percentage for metal products, machinery and equipment is 18,8%. The rest is in respect of other products. In addition, 97 703 job opportunities for Bantu had been made possible by June 1974 through the approval granted to contributors by the Decentralization Board.

In conclusion I want to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister and the men of his department. I want to tell them that fine chapters are written in the history books of the Afrikaaans-speaking people about the thirties, the days of the Reddingsdaadbond, particularly about the part played by men such as Dr. Nic Diederichs and Dr. Hendrik Verwoerd in uplifting the Afrikaans-speaking people and enabling them to enter the sphere of industrial development, commerce and mining. I want to tell the hon. the Minister and his men: You are engaged at the present moment, as you have been in recent years and will be in the years to come, in writing chapters in the history books of neighbouring peoples. In years to come those peoples, our neighbours, will page back in the history books and will read that the Hon. M. C. Botha and his men were largely responsible for making them politically and economically independent. This side of the House, this National Party, wants to tell the hon. the Minister and his men: “Carry on the great work. You have our support at all times.”

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Meyerton has virtually canonized the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration. For that reason I do not know whether I should refer to the hon. the Minister as St. Michael, although that is what it really amounts to. Really, after 27 years of Nationalist rule we still get this talk thanking everybody! Obviously the Afrikaner people ought to be admired for the way in which they lifted themselves up by means of the Reddingsdaadbond, but, then, everybody was poor in those days. I was a Government servant and I remember what my pay was. In those days the Commissioner of Police was getting what a constable of the Police gets today. We all are happy with the progress South Africa has made but that has been so in spite of the Nationalist Party and not because of it. The hon. the Minister … I very nearly said St. Michael; he must be St. Michael, because if his Vote had come on the day it should have come, this annual report would have been three days too late. For this reason he must be St. Michael.

This report deals with finance and sketchily with sports and recreation, health services, Bantu beer—it is funny that Bantu beer always has to come into this debate —social services, data processing—we had screeds on data processing which I found rather dry. I would have preferred Bantu beer—the reference bureau, the Transkeian High Court and the XDC.

Then, from page 14 onwards, we have the political advancement of the various homelands, with one exception, KwaZulu. I would like to know why KwaZulu was left out. KwaZulu is the biggest of the homelands and has the biggest budget. It comprises the biggest single ethnic group among our Bantu people and yet it is completely ignored. I think that this is a shame. It is something which the hon. the Minister needs to explain to the Zulu people—as to why they were ignored in this annual report, this vade mecum of St. Michael for the year ended 31 March 1974. Then it was late! What happened then? This report does not anywhere deal with law and order, either in the homelands or in the urban Bantu areas; in other words, crime and delinquency which are plaguing not only South Africa but the whole world. Those of us who know what goes on in the urban Bantu townships know that the position there is anything but healthy as far as crime is concerned. This, is indeed a sad admission. I expected this report to make at least some reference to the prevalence of crime or otherwise in the Bantu townships and what is being done to combat it. Without law and order, there can be no peace, progress or prosperity.

That is a fine lot of words! [Interjections.]

The hon. the Minister is viewed by the Bantu people as the Great White Father, “Ngongqoshe”. They call him the Great White Father and he accepts their plaudits, their gifts and their leopard skins “Hau Ndaba-zete”, but what does he do to see that law and order is maintained in their homelands and/or cities in the White areas? He is the man who is responsible for their welfare, progress and happiness. They are over 18 million people—the great majority of the people in South Africa—and he should be the one who should be prodding the hon. the Minister of Justice, the hon. the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions, the hon. the Minister of Health, the hon. the Minister of National Education and everybody else to do at least something about this because upon the safety of our people in the townships depends the safety, future and well-being of South Africa. I am glad to say that the Department of Bantu Administration and Development did have pangs of conscience. On page 22, under the heading “Eastern Caprivi”, we are told—

Then we come to criminal cases dealt with for the Eastern Caprivi which number 45. On page 23, under “Owambo”, we are told—

On page 41—I am now looking for sections dealing with crime prevention and the safety of the people in the towns; I want to see how the hon. the Minister’s men are being trained—I find under “symposiums” on page 41—

1. (a) Crime prevention (misdaadvoorkoming): The number of officers sent was two;
2. (d) Focus on metropolitan areas (fokus op metropolitaanse gebiede), three.

Then, on page 45, all I can see about Police is—

Those police posts were put up by the Police and not by the department. My complaint is that this department is not doing something positive about combating crime in the Bantu areas. After all, apartheid or separate development—call it what you like—is a policy, and a policy must find answers to situations which it creates. Sir, looking back I observe a constant reference by Ministers and by this particular Minister to the mass of legislation which has been placed on the Statute Book affecting the Bantu peoples, and to the fact that each community was to be self-sufficient and independent of the other. Is the Minister aware that according to the annual report of the Commissioner of Police for the year ended 30 June 1973, the report which we dealt with during the short session last year, the authorized establishment of Bantu Police was only 13 260, and the actual strength was a mere 13 128; in other words, one Bantu policeman for every 1 369 Bantu. There were 37 police stations run by Bantu police, and we were told in this report of the Commissioner of Police that in the Transkei there were 587 non-White Police, and that in Soweto there were 1 033 non-Whites. We were not told how many Coloureds and Indians there were. Nowhere do I see that the Minister has decided, in order to combat crime, to bring in compulsory schooling, together with the provision of free books. Sir, schooling would to a very large extent do away with the undesirable situation that children and young people roam the streets doing nothing except to indulge in pocket-picking, shop-lifting and other activities. No wonder, Sir, that gangs terrorize the townships to such an extent that no person is safe on the street or even in his own home. Agitators who do not want to work— and three are many—incite the law-abiding Bantu and exploit him and intimidate him for their own ends. Such is the vengeance of gangs and the influence of agitators that residents of townships are reluctant to assist the Police in the fight against crime. Responsible Bantu welcome the establishment of a reserve Police Force. According to the report of the Commissioner of Police for the same year, the police reserve consisted of 3 695 non-Whites, of whom 2 833 are active. Sir, I make a plea to the Minister to do something through his department to assist the Police to enlist more men for the reserve Police Force. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am always glad to be here when the hon. member for Umlazi gets up to speak. He never disappoints me. There is always action and there is always life when he speaks. Sir, a few weeks ago the hon. member and I travelled together in a bus and we had a pleasant singsong together. I want to tell him that this is what he really does best. He sings far better than he speaks here in the House.

Sir, I want to say here emphatically that while I was listening today to the hon. members of the official Opposition, I was extremely disappointed in their general attitude as far as our homelands and the Black peoples are concerned. I say this because they made every endeavour to detract from the great importance of the development of the homelands. I am thinking, for example, of the hon. member for Pine-town who tried to create the impression that whatever development is taking place in the homelands, is insignificant. We also heard by means of interjections from the hon. member for Durban Point that the developments which are taking place there, are not of great importance. But what the hon. members over there forget is that the economic development is extremely important. They say that it is a good thing that this development takes place, but that is merely lip service without any positive contribution or positive criticism about what the Bantu Investment Corporation or the Xhosa Development Corporation is doing in the homelands. Reference was only made to it in passing and then they spoke with great erudition of the other theoretical aspects and the political developments, but the economic development in the homelands, which they apparently accept, was ignored completely. This development is of the utmost importance, and we must remember that the agricultural activities in the homeland, notwithstanding the low productivity, is still the major contributor to the domestic product in the homelands. This House has heard a great deal from this side about the excellent work which is being done by the Bantu Investment Corporation and by the agricultural departments of the homelands themselves. All this is commendable work.

I want to refer, however, to another facet, a facet which we may welcome here, and that is the contribution the private sector renders to the development of agriculture in the homelands. Here I am referring particularly to the South African Sugar Association. I think we should commend their actions in every respect. The South African Sugar Association, as hon. members will know, had to borrow R16 million in 1967 to stabilize the price of sugar. But fortunately the position improved in subsequent years and they regarded it as their duty to make a contribution of their own. In 1972 this Association established a fund of R5 million, with the purpose of encouraging the smaller sugar growers to raise their productivity. A large portion of this is utilized on behalf of the Bantu sugar growers in the homelands. The fund is administrated by the White sugar millers, and White sugar growers. They do this quite of their own accord and this is an excellent example of good neighbourliness to the whole of South Africa. We should encourage this and at the same time try to do it on a larger scale in other parts of South Africa as well. These White farmers and these White millers spend their free time and money to assist the smaller Bantu producers and growers. This takes place for the most part in the sugar zone in Natal, which adjoins the constituency of the hon. member for Umhlanga. We have already seen that good progress was made during the past 18 months. This is not an easy task, for the Bantu farmer is not always willing to relinquish his traditional agricultural methods, but success is achieved with this to an increasing extent. It takes place on the basis of loans which are raised. For the first four years the money is lent at an interest rate of 3% and for the next six years it is lent at an interest rate of 5%. Therefore, this fund will accumulate and it will be used to an increasing extent for Bantu farmers. The KwaZulu Government welcomes greatly this step taken by the South African Sugar Association. They co-operate most closely with the agricultural department of KwaZulu and it is clearly appreciated that financial assistance alone is not enough, because this is short-term assistance. It is clearly appreciated that the Bantu farmer should also be taught the technical know-how. Consequently this Association decided further to establish three farmers’ centres in the sugar area in order to create facilities where farmers can acquire the technical know-how and where lectures can be given to the farmers not only in the field of sugar cultivation but also in the field of bookkeeping, agriculture economics, the repair and maintenance of tractors and everything related to farming. This is being done by the private sector. It is commendable and it is a matter which should be kept in mind by more branches of the agricultural sector.

Finally I want to refer to the annual report of the department. The hon. member for Umlazi complained because the report did not contain particulars about KwaZulu. I am trying my best to tell him as much as possible about it now. He referred to KwaZulu and if he looks at this report of the BIC, he will see that the BIC has done tremendous work with regard to the livestock marketing scheme, for example, in order to enable Bantu farmers to market their cattle. They employed a method—unfortunately I do not have the time to explain it in detail—the number of cattle which resulted in a 72% increase in the number of cattle sold in 1974 in KwaZulu as compared with 1973; the turnover increased by 171% and the average price per head of cattle by 57%. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, if I were asked what word had been used most in this House since this session of Parliament began at the end of January, I would say, without any shadow of doubt or fear of contradiction, “détente”. It is a word that has stood out in most speeches and discussions in this House. Added to the word “détente” there is the word “dialogue”. I cannot help thinking back to the days when Dr. Verwoerd started with his idea or philosophy of Bantustans, separate independent Black States. I think back to the Tomlinson Commission report. I have looked through the report, having heard so much recently about détente. I see there were 11 members on this Tomlinson Commission, all White. There was not one Black man. After many years of trying to iron out its policies, trying to bring them to their logical conclusion, it is not surprising that today this Government has not succeeded. We have heard the terms “first phase”, “second phase” and now “third phase”. We all know that the Government started with the first phase which was the Bantustans and their development. No Black man was consulted or asked what he thought about the Black man’s destiny, either in the homelands or in terms of separate development relating to the so-called White areas. The Black people were never consulted at that time. No wonder we still have today, after 27 years of Nationalist rule, an incomplete Phase 1. It is nowhere near completion. While engaged in this, we had to deal with Phase 2, which I regard as the phase relating to the urban Africans, a phase we are now discussing. We have also heard so much from members opposite about Phase 3, which was heralded by Mr. Pik Botha’s famous or notorious speech at the United Nations on discrimination or differentiation.

Why do you call it “notorious”?

We heard the hon. the Minister’s new policy statement yesterday. While it is welcomed, it is long overdue. His statement related to urban Africans. He mentioned home ownership or freehold ownership, trading rights and transport. These are all issues that we have raised on this side of the House over the years. We in the United Party accept the fact—and we always have accepted the fact—that Blacks are here to stay in the urban areas; in other words, that they are here as a permanent body of Black people. Having listened to the hon. the Minister’s revealing statements yesterday concerning his new policy, I do not believe the system will work unless or until the Government accepts the permanency of the Black people in the urban areas. Why they still hang on to phrases such as the one used by the hon. the Deputy Minister here yesterday, i.e. “permanent op ’n los basis”, I do not know. Why cannot the Government simply say those people are here permanently and they accept the fact? Why use a phrase such as “permanent op ’n los basis”? These were the words used by the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday. Unless the Government accepts the fact that those individuals are here as a permanent body of people, the Government will not solve the problems we are faced with in relation to the urban Bantu. I remember the years when the late Mr. Blaar Coetzee stood here and said that by the year 1978 every Black man would be either turning towards the homelands or already on his way back there. Well, that is something we know has never materialized; in fact, what he forecast has now been reversed. Hence the revealing policy statement by the hon. the Minister yesterday. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister who said this morning that criminals are not always born and bred. I also agree with his words that some people are made criminals by force of circumstances. Because the Government will not accept that these people are here permanently, we are faced today with many problems. We are faced with the so-called repatriation of the Black people from the urban areas to the homelands or the borders of the homelands such as the Eastern Cape and the East London complex in particular. Many problems have been created by this philosophy. In our area it has created wholesale unemployment. We have had many arguments across the floor of the House with hon. Ministers about the number of unemployed. Some say 40 000, some say 60 000 and a Deputy Minister said in East London not so long ago that the figure was a mere 4 000. It does not matter how many thousand unemployed there are; the fact is that there is unemployment, overcrowding, crime and delinquency in the East London complex. These are all problems that have been caused mainly by this Government and its policies. There are many problems facing us in the Eastern Cape caused, I repeat, mainly by this Government’s policies. If the Government would only accept that the Bantu are here permanently and if it would stop this nonsense of repatriation, we could possibly try to deal with the natural increase of our Black people in the Eastern Cape.

I was looking through some figures a day or two ago on the crime rate in South Africa. The figures were very revealing and, I believe, shocking. At the present time on an average day there are approximately 98 000 South Africans in gaol. Each prisoner is costing the taxpayer and the Government R1-82 per day. The total daily cost of maintaining our prison population is over R178 000 per day. That is a lot of money. We know that of the 98 000 prisoners in our prisons daily, are not all Black people. However, the majority are, and very little is being done to rectify the crime rate throughout the country. The cost of maintaining prisoners is enormous and we are not achieving anything. In fact, the position is becoming progressively worse. Only recently we had the privilege of having two Ministers in East London, namely the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Mr. Janson, and the present Minister of Justice, Mr. Jimmy Kruger. [Time expired.]

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.