Mr. Speaker, I move without notice—

Mondays and Wednesdays

14h15 to 18h30

20h00 to 22h30

Tuesdays and Thursdays

14h15 to 18h00

Fridays

10h30 to 12h45

14h15 to 17h30;

1. (2) that the House at its rising on Wednesday, 26 May, adjourn until 14h15 on Tuesday, 1 June; and
2. (3) that Saturday, 12 June, shall be a sitting day and on that day the hours of sitting shall be:

10h30 to 12h45

14h15 to 17h30.

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

That the Bill be now read a Second Time. With effect from 2 October 1975 the State President entrusted the implementation of the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act, No. 52 of 1951, except in so far as it confers and imposes powers and duties upon and entrusts functions to the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to the Minister of Community Development, after it had previously been administered by the Minister of Justice. Hon. members will agree with me that this was a logical step, for the prevention and clearance of concentrations of squatters are very closely connected with the provision of accommodation, which is a function of the Department of Community Development.

Like the poor, squatters have always been with us, certainly since the days of Jan van Riebeeck. It is assuming serious proportions, however, particularly in the Cape Peninsula and its environs, a tendency which cannot be freely allowed to continue.

The question may be asked: What is the extent of the problem, how does squatting originate, and where do the squatters come from?

Surveys by my department disclosed the following interesting facts:

1. (1) Approximately 21 600 Coloured families are squatters or shanty-dwellers in the Cape Peninsula and its immediate environs, and more than 120 000 people are living in these shanties;
2. (2) Approximately 25% of the squatters in certain concentrations of squatters came from the rural areas; and
3. (3) more than 60% of the squatters in the concentrations of squatters in which a survey was made, previously lived in municipal scheme dwellings but moved away as a result of non-payment of rent or because they could not or would not accept the responsibility or discipline associated with the occupation of a proper scheme dwelling.

We have heard of a sub-culture of poverty, but here we find a more specific phenomenon, where the way of life of the squatters also tends to degenerate into a sub-culture or custom out of which people are unable to extricate themselves. Consequently it is clear that the provision of housing alone is not the only answer, but that other control measures are also necessary.

Unfortunately there are persons who encourage squatting, for example, the so-called “squatter-mongers” who lease a piece of land to a prospective squatter, relatively speaking at very high rentals, and then allow them to put up a shanty dwelling on that land. In virtually all cases no basic services such as water or sanitation are provided, but the lessor collects large amounts in rentals every month. Of course such a squatter-monger will not admit that he is allowing squatting and collecting rent. These practices must be actively curbed. In addition there are those who always take the part of the squatter who prefers such a way of life and in that way, for reasons which only they understand, encourage squatting.

Apart from the fact that squatter spots create an extremely poor impression and are a discredit to our country—and some of us are concerned about this—they also constitute a danger to the safety and health of the squatter himself. The gastric fever cases at Mamre and Sir Lowry’s Pass village a while ago testify to this. Such spots, particularly if they increase in size, are also breeding grounds for crime and vagrancy, and ought therefore to be cleared as quickly as possible.

The solution to this squatter problem should be tackled in two ways. The first, and in my opinion the most important, is the provision of a sufficient number of proper dwellings with the necessary services in which existing shanty-dwellers can finally be accommodated. Secondly, there has to be strict control over the erection of new squatter huts. As far as the first and the positive stage is concerned, I should like to furnish hon. members with further information.

In order to deal the final death-blow to the squatter problem in the Cape Peninsula and its environs my department has reached an agreement with the City Council of Cape Town and the Divisional Councils of the Cape and Stellenbosch to launch a crash building programme according to which approximately 10 000 dwelling units for Coloureds will be constructed annually as soon as the building programme gets under way. During 1975, while the programme was still in the process of getting under way, a total of 4 546 dwelling units were completed, while 4 355 units were under construction by the end of 1975: At one juncture, therefore, a total of 8 901 dwelling units had therefore been completed or were in prospect. Not all the completed units are allocated to squatters. But since 1 August 1974 a total of 2 675 squatter families have been accommodated in proper houses. As from this year a considerable acceleration in the pace of the re-accommodation of squatters is being envisaged, and the housing programme has been phenomenally expedited. In Mitchell’s Plain alone contracts for 12 000 houses will already have been awarded by August 1976, unless something very unforeseen happens.

In order to expedite the re-accommodation of squatters, my department reduced its 50% reservation on completed dwellings for resettlement purposes to 25% last year, and reached an agreement with the local authorities concerned to apply at least 37½% of all completed dwellings for the clearance of concentrations of squatters. Centres elsewhere in the country where similar problems exist are also receiving preferential treatment of course.

Here I should like to elucidate what I have just said concerning reservation further. Approximately two years ago 80% of the houses which were completed were utilized for resettlement, and 20% for the purposes of local authorities, inter alia, to clear shanty areas and combat over-population. With effect from November 1974 it was decided that only 25% of new dwellings would be used for resettlement and that 75% of the dwellings would be utilized for the purposes of local authorities. Of the 75% which local authorities obtain, half, i.e. 37½% will be utilized only for the accommodation of squatters.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members will realize that in the present financial climate not even housing was able to escape the pruning of the estimates of departments. However, the Government allocated such a high priority to the provision of housing for Coloureds, inter alia, owing to the squatter problem, that funds for Coloured housing were pruned by the absolute minimum. Of the total amount of R112 million which was placed at the disposal of the National Housing Fund for 1976-’77, more than 60% has been allocated to Coloured housing only. This indicates a special concession with a view to the elimination of the backlog here and the termination of squatter conditions.

I should like to elucidate this aspect further. Last year an amount of R112 million was made available to the Housing Fund. Of that amount R60 million was employed for Coloured Housing, and of that R60 million an amount of R50 million was employed in the Cape Peninsula and Stellenbosch. Stated in another way, during 1974 a total of 3 339 dwelling units for Whites, 8 243 for Coloureds and 1 482 for Indians were constructed out of the housing fund. In 1975 these figures increased to 5 580 units for Whites, 13 172 for Coloureds and 1 650 for Indians. This shows how the Government and my department senses where the need is most pressing, and this applies in particular to the Coloureds of the Cape, which is where the squatter problem exists. I want to put this in another way as well, for if we want to conduct a fruitful debate on this matter, it is necessary that what we are doing on the positive side to deal with this problem should be known. In 1974 an amount of R44 million was spent on White housing, and although the Coloureds number less than half of the White population, an amount of R41 million was spent on them in this regard, and an amount of R12 million on the Indians. In 1975 an amount of R78 million was spent on White housing, R70 million on Coloured housing and R13 million on Indian housing.

Once again I want to put it in another way, because I want everyone to realize what is happening. Since the establishment of the National Housing Fund in 1920 one house has been built for every 61 Whites; since that time one house has been built for every 15 Coloureds, and one house for every 14 Indians. [Interjections.] I am doing my best to bring home the facts of the matter to hon. members. This just shows how the problem was neglected under previous Governments. [Interjections.]

Just to indicate that the process is continuing, I want to point out a few aspects as far as the appropriation of funds for this current year is concerned, funds in respect of which we have been limited. Here there are a few interesting facts. In Johannesburg, an amount of R6 500 000 has been appropriated for Coloureds from this year’s estimates for housing, and an amount of R500 000 for Whites. In the municipal area of Cape Town alone an amount of R24 500 000 has been appropriated for housing for Coloureds, and for Whites an amount of R345 000. In Durban—and here the Indians come into the picture on a large scale—an amount of R6 million has been appropriated for housing for Indians, R1 830 000 for Coloureds, and R260 000 for Whites. In Pretoria an amount of R420 000 was appropriated for Indians, R1 million for Whites, and for Coloureds—there are not many of them—R580 000. In Port Elizabeth an amount of R1 500 000 was appropriated for Indians and R3 500 000 for Coloureds. Apparently all the Whites in Port Elizabeth have houses, and it was not necessary to appropriate anything for them. In Pietermaritzburg an amount of R120 000 was appropriated for Coloureds, R40 000 for Whites, and R1 300 000, in round figures, for Indians.

It does not matter, therefore, how one looks at it. An honest person, a person who has respect for the problems of South Africa, a man who has insight into what is being done to deal with the problems, can only be grateful for and proud of what is being done, what is being done with dedication, enthusiasm and a true realization of the need to deal with this problem. However, we are constantly being told that those people who are consequently being “resettled”, already had accommodation. I stand by what I am now going to say. It can be proved. Although it will be difficult for some hon. members in this House to believe, I want to tell them this, because it is the truth. Resettlement in terms of the Group Areas Act is repeatedly being blamed for the shortage of Coloured housing and the squatter conditions, but the fact remains that approximately 90% of all disqualified persons who are resettled, were previously living in dwellings which did not comply with health requirements and which had to be demolished in any case. They lived in slum areas which were unsuitable for human occupation. In practice the Group Areas Act has contributed more to putting an end to squatter and slum conditions than all the other measures put together. For that reason I, in common with my friends of the United Party, am pleased that we never voted against group areas in principle. [Interjections.]

A further encouraging aspect in regard to the provision of housing is that offers are received from time to time, from abroad as well, in terms of which private organizations wish to make capital available for carrying out housing projects in our country. Usually such a source of finance is consequently interested in participating in the construction contract or in undertaking the project itself. My department has investigated these proposals with enthusiasm and I find it very gratifying to be able to announce now that the Treasury has approved in principle that such foreign capital may in fact be utilized for the provision of housing, but on certain conditions.

The first is that the total amount involved may not annually exceed 10% of the amount appropriated for the department in its estimates for the provision of housing to the public. Last year, for example, it could, then, have been R11 million which we could have repaid to people who lent money for housing in South Africa from private sources. In reality this means then that the R10 million which is available, is multiplied five, six, seven or eight times as far as the immediate provision of houses is concerned. The second condition is that the Treasury may at any time within the loan period make cumulative amounts indicated in the first condition available to the department. The third condition is that if the source of finance is interested in undertaking the construction work itself, it will have to tender against other people on a competitive basis.

There have been offers of this nature which are now being considered. At the moment we are giving our urgent attention to working out the conditions. As soon as the conditions have been finalized and, it is hoped in the present year still, put into operation, this will give great added momentum to the provision of housing in general and the re-accommodation of squatters in particular. For example the scheme will make it possible to make a start with between 6 000 and 8 000 additional Coloured houses in the Cape Peninsula in I976-’77, apart from those which will be financed from the normal sources.

While I am on the subject of housing now, I want to avail myself of the opportunity to rectify a Press report on a speech which I made in the Senate and which was unfortunately taken over by other newspapers. The report in the Rand Daily Mail, which appeared in good faith in other newspapers as well, quoted me as having said that the housing backlog would be eliminated within eight years, and that I staked my political reputation on this in fact happening.

But in this House you said that it would even be eliminated within seven years.

It is possible that I said that. In fact, it is possible that I set it at an even shorter period.

What did you say?

I shall explain in a moment. First I just want to point out that my political reputation does not belong to me, but to the public. Therefore it is not something I can wager, and I did not do so either. What I did say was that my department, in cooperation with the local authorities in South Africa, had with great difficulty and over a long period, created the machinery, the infrastructure in the building industry in particular, which could enable us to eliminate the housing backlog within eight years—provided adequate funds were made available. I stand by this statement, because it is a fact that, on the initiative of the Department of Community Development, the machinery—that is, the physical machinery, the manpower and the materials—has been established to eliminate the housing backlog in South Africa within seven or eight years. What I said, was incorrectly presented, but the figures which I have quoted today are surely sufficient proof for any impartial person of the truth of my statement.

I can state the matter in another way as well. During 1975 13 000 houses were completed for Coloureds, with a further 12 000 under construction. Perhaps this does not appear to be many if one states it in this way, but it is difficult to picture to ourselves what 25 000 houses look like if you put them all together. Over against that only 32 000 houses for Coloureds were built in the whole of South Africa during the preceding 40 years, from 1920 to 1960. In those days they built 800 houses per annum, while we are now building 25 000 houses for Coloureds per annum. We are therefore building 30 times faster than in the years between 1920 and 1960. One should really be fair now and admit that this is a great achievement. It is only petty people who will fail to appreciate and who will belittle this:

Let us for a while consider the squatters in particular, their incomes and what can be done for them in particular and for accommodation in general, by employers as well. It has been found in the past that the incomes of many squatters were only just too high to allow them to qualify for sub-economic dwellings, but that they could hardly afford economic rentals. Hon. members will recall that I was able to announce at the opening of Mitchell’s Plain that the sub-economic income limit for Coloureds had been raised from R100 to R200 per month to put it on a par with the White income limit. At the same time an interim interest rate of 3½% for leasing purposes was also introduced in respect of the breadwinner whose income was between R200 and R250 per month. We introduced that rate as against the economic interest rate of 8½%. With these concessions this problem of excessively high rentals for squatters and others ought soon, for the most part, to be something of the past.

In passing I want to say that some people were impressed last year with a kind of core house which was propagated and advertised here in our country. This core house was built at a low cost by the earthquake victims of Peru themselves, and according to newspaper reports this type of house was seen as a solution to the squatter problem. Those newspapermen were entitled to their opinion, but we attach more value to the opinion of experts. Consequently I asked the experts of my department to investigate this matter, and they came to the conclusion that this core house is little more than a shelter, and that it will not be suited to our weather conditions at all. The core house may mean something in the desert, but definitely not here. After all, if it does not rain, it does not leak. In the Cape Peninsula, it rains a great deal, particularly in the winter months.

The department is itself engaged in an investigation into the possibility of building an exceptionally cheap dwelling which will still be a proper, permanent house and which will meet the needs of that type of squatter and other persons who have a very low or no income. However, I want to confirm with great emphasis what the hon. the Prime Minister said at Mitchell’s Plain, i.e. that the Department of Community Development will not allow inferior houses which could degenerate into slums.

Repeated appeals have been made to employers to participate more actively, in their own interests, in the provision of accommodation for their employees. Employers could for example be allowed to obtain land in the residential areas of their workers on a long-term lease basis and erect houses for their workers there. In addition there is a scheme in progress at Belhar, near Cape Town, in terms of which members of the Chamber of Commerce are making financial assistance available to their workers to construct dwellings on a joint basis. Other employers or employers’ organizations could also apply to set to work on similar schemes. I should like to request employers to make use of those schemes which are at their disposal and not always simply to look to the Government and local authorities for accommodation for their employees.

I repeat that we are very strongly opposed to the establishment of temporary squatter camps. True, there are certain advantages attached to this, inter alia, the regulation of uncontrolled squatting and the provision of basic services where these did not previously exist; but on the other hand there are disadvantages which weigh heavily against these, inter alia, the attraction of even more squatters, the incurring of fruitless expenditure in regard to the provision of services, and the tendency of temporary camps to become permanent, with all the evils which go with that. The hon. members who recently accompanied me on a visit to the housing schemes of the Cape Peninsula will recall that we also paid a visit to Elsies River. Elsies River was originally a site-and-service scheme. Perhaps it provided a need at the time, but Elsies River has tended to become permanent. Now matters have to be rectified, because it is a disgrace. Elsies River is a terrible disgrace. Today, however, it will cost us R68 million, just to clear that one slum area, a slum area which originated in accordance with the desire of people who thought that they should strive for temporary solutions. But those temporary solutions offered no way out of the real problem.

Far rather than perpetuating squatter areas—and I want to emphasize this—proper, permanent houses with the necessary services must be provided as rapidly as possible. The Department of Community Development is providing those houses as rapidly as possible, and sometimes even more rapidly than seems possible.

When my department reached an agreement with the City Council of Cape Town and with the Divisional Councils of the Cape and Stellenbosch on the launching of the crash building programme in respect of Coloured accommodation, it was decided that the erection of squatters’ huts which had been completed prior to 15 November 1974, would be condoned. However, hon. members must again listen carefully now. What I am saying here might compel some hon. members to change their speeches if they intend running after what I read in the newspapers from the mouths of certain so-called authorities, who, incidentally, know nothing about this problem. In addition to the decision that the construction of squatters’ huts which had been completed prior to 15 November 1974 would be condoned, it was also decided that any shanties which were established after that date would immediately be demolished.

Squatter control officers have been appointed by the abovementioned bodies, and wide publicity has been given to the matter in order to warn prospective squatters after 15 November 1975 that, if they continue with their squatting, they will immediately be removed. That publicity has already produced sound and good results.

The Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act—as it reads at present—cannot be effectively applied to combat illegal squatting, particularly in cases where an owner gives people his consent to squat on his land. Such owners are frequently squatter-mongers and lease land to squatters under undesirable circumstances, as I have already described. However, when investigations are made, they deny it. In order to cope with this problem an owner or a lessee of land is being prohibited in the Bill from allowing squatting to take place on his land. The Bill also states that, unless such owner or lessee of land proves the contrary there shall be a presumption that he allowed squatting on his land. If such an owner or lessee of land is found guilty he shall, unless the court orders otherwise, demolish the shanty or shanties on his land at his own expense within seven days after conviction.

As I have already mentioned, it is essential that the uncontrolled influx of people from the rural areas to the urban areas in the absence of proper accommodation should be counteracted. Of course formal influx control, except with regard to Bantu, does not exist at all. Moreover, I do not think that any of us would want to extend this to other population groups. At the same time people who occupy scheme dwellings or other proper accommodation have to be discouraged from leaving their dwellings and becoming squatters. In order to achieve this object the immediate demolition of newly-erected shanties is essential. If this is not done, dozens of other shanties spring up overnight in the immediate vicinity, something which could vastly aggravate the position. If it were possible to dispose of the normal legal procedures just as quickly I would prefer—I can assure hon. members of this—to comply with those procedures, but I am afraid that, in view of the unavoidable delays which are attendant upon such procedures, we would not be able to deal with the problem effectively. Consequently the Bill empowers the owner of land, or the local authority, or the Department of Community Development, or the Bantu Affairs Administration Board to demolish new shanties as they arise without a court order. It is the duty of the owner of the land in the first place to ensure that squatting does not take place on his land. My colleague, the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, feels just as strongly about this matter as I do. The measure concerned will enable an owner to meet his obligations in this regard. He will no longer be able to get away with excuses that it happened without his knowledge or consent. I do not expect that there will often be a need to use these powers. In fact, I do not think they will be necessary, for as soon as prospective squatters see that drastic action is being taken, it will prevent them from resorting to squatting. Then, too, owners will refuse to make their land available for this purpose. This has been our experience already, and is not merely an assumption.

I have already mentioned that the presence of a large percentage of squatters may be attributed to the fact that employers employ labourers from the rural areas although proper accommodation is not available for them. Some employers apparently prefer their workers to become squatters so that those workers are able to live cheaply and the employers are then able to pay them lower wages. Such cases are in the minority, but they do nevertheless occur.

Since influx control cannot be applied in respect of population groups other than the Bantu, the only way of dealing with this undesirable state of affairs is to require the employers, in such areas and in respect of population groups as declared by the Minister by notice in the Gazette, to prove by way of a certificate from the local authority that their workers who are being brought in from elsewhere have been provided with proper accommodation or that the employers themselves will provide their workers with proper accommodation. Provision is being made for this in the Bill. Hon. members will recollect that I mentioned the possibility of the provision of housing by employers in consultation with, and with the assistance, of local authorities and my department earlier in my speech.

I hope therefore that hon. members will perceive that the clearing up of shocking conditions, such as these which have been to our discredit now for generations, require drastic measures, and I trust that the proposed measures in the Bill will receive general support from hon. members who really have the interests of these unfortunate people at heart.

The other clauses in the Bill are self-explanatory and I am therefore not going to deal with them, for we shall have sufficient opportunity to do so during the Committee Stage.

In conclusion I want to say that we are facing the challenge of solving the squatter problem just as we were jointly faced, 20 years ago, with the challenge of clearing the deplorable slum conditions of the former Sophiatown and other shocking conditions in and around Johannesburg. Through the rapid construction of dwellings and the necessary control measures we succeeded in doing so. We can succeed in doing so with the squatter problem as well. I hope that in future all hon. members and all parties in this House will, together with us, be able to claim the credit of having had the courage to tackle the problem in a positive and firm manner.

Mr. Speaker, before I get to the Bill and its implications I should like to deal with four matters which were raised by the hon. the Minister. Others I shall deal with in the course of my speech. Firstly, I agree entirely with the hon. the Minister when he says that a squatter problem has been in South Africa since the time of Jan van Riebeeck. I want to go further and say that the squatter problem is not unique to South Africa. It also exists in countries where there is a homogeneous population. I think some of us have seen them at various times outside Paris and outside other cities in Europe, apart from cities on the American continent. It is a problem which is universal and not restricted entirely in South Africa as the result of the composition of our racial communities here. In South Africa it is of course so that our White community is economically in a more privileged position than the non-White people and this places the responsibility for this problem upon us. I will deal with this later.

The second point I want to make is that the hon. the Minister need not ask us to appreciate the work that has been done by the Department of Community Development, with the very valuable assistance of local authorities, in attempting to deal with the housing problem over the years. But this must not blind us to the problem as it exists today. Thirdly, I was very glad that the hon. the Minister—there is no doubt that he was thinking of his predecessor and the year 1978—took considerable time to ensure that he was not being pegged down unconditionally to seven or eight years for the solution of our housing problem in South Africa. I want to put it this way for the record so that the hon. the Minister will know exactly what we expect of him and of the Government. On 20 February 1976 the following question was put to the hon. the Minister—

The hon. the Minister replied as follows—

The hon. the Minister is now sitting on a Treasury seat on that side when it comes to the asking for funds and we take it that he will see to it that adequate funds are made available so that he can fulfil this undertaking.

The fourth point I want to raise is in connection with the standard of housing. The hon. the Minister is quite right when he says we would all like to see everybody living in good and solid houses, with separate rooms, interleading doors, and all the other frills good homes have. From a scientific analysis of the position of the squatters in the Cape Peninsula, I gather that at least 25% of them have a salary income of less than R60 per month. Seen in the light of this, one cannot talk of high-standard housing, unless it is to be free housing, and I am entirely against free housing, but I shall deal with that later. One cannot talk of a higher standard of housing and of denying something which is better than the “Pondoks” they are living in at the moment, to people who cannot afford to have it, because they are “unhouseable” even in the sub-economic group.

When one looks at the Bill, one realizes that it touches on a problem of large proportions and of various aspects. It is a problem that has been with us and will probably be with us long after the seven years have elapsed in so far as basic housing requirements are concerned. Basically it deals with the plight of people and their needs. I believe that the public at large in South Africa are not sufficiently aware of the circumstances of poverty and lack of hygiene in which large numbers of these people live. The public conscience is not sufficiently orientated to the responsibilities of finding a solution to this problem. For that reason I suggested in a previous debate in this House that SATV should be used to show people who are sitting in the luxury of their homes under what conditions other human beings lived in this country. The hon. member for Welkom …

I said nothing about that.

One of his colleagues said that we must not display too much of the unpalatable side of life on TV. I believe we must not sweep these things under the carpet, but must show them to the public because I believe it will have a very good effect on the public at large to know what the problem is. It is a human and every-day problem we have with these people. It is a reality in the lives of these Coloured and these Black people which they have to survive. Certain questions have been put during this session and unpalatable facts have emerged from the answers given by the hon. the Minister of Community Development and his colleagues. I want to confine myself solely to the involvement of the Coloured people at this moment. It is, after all, the responsibility of this hon. Minister. The problem of the Bantu is the responsibility of the Department of Bantu Administration and my colleagues will deal with that aspect.

I am hopeful that in the course of this debate, because of the situation and the circumstances of places like Crossroads, the hon. the Minister or one of the Deputy Ministers of Bantu Administration will tell us what they see as the solution with regard to these Bantu people. I welcome the takeover of responsibility under the legislation dealing with squatters by the Department of Community Development from the Department of Justice, but when it comes to the position of the Bantu, we must realize that there are large numbers of Bantu persons in these squatter areas who are legitimately and legally entitled to be in the Western Cape. They are not people who are here without licence or without permit.

There are very few of them.

The hon. member for Tygervallei says there are very few of them, but even if there is only one of them, what is the hon. the Minister doing about it? When we asked in this House what housing had been provided for Bantu in the Cape Peninsula in Guguletu, Langa and Nyanga last year, we were told that the total was 550 units. As I have said, I shall not go any further into that question. The question of the Bantu will be dealt with by another hon. member on this side.

That was far too many.

In reply to a question, the Government’s estimate of the number of Coloured squatters in the municipal area of Cape Town and the Divisional Council areas of Cape Town and Stellenbosch was 21 600 families, or some 108 000 souls. The hon. the Minister this afternoon put the figure a little higher. He mentioned a figure of 120 000 people. I accept this figure. It is obviously an estimate and cannot be accurate. These people have got to be housed. What are the housing needs at the present moment? The hon. the Minister, in reply to questions, said that during 1973 3 642 families, or 18 939 individuals, were moved in terms of the Group Areas Act, and that 11 690 families, or 60 788 souls, still had to be moved. Now, I welcome the announcement made by the Minister this afternoon. We have pleaded in the past that the allocation of 50% of all new houses for removal purposes under the Group Areas Act be stopped. I think the hon. the Minister pleaded for it as well when he was on this side of the House, and now he is in the position to carry that out. I welcome the hon. the Minister’s statement that is now to be reduced to 25%. I take it that 25% will now be used for persons who are removed from slum areas, and not merely for persons who happen to be living in decent houses in the wrong position. And, Sir, may I say to him in passing that the best place where he can start with that is at Somerset West. He should see to it that those people stay there and that he does not make them take over new houses which could be available for squatters. [Interjections.]

The Government estimates that there is a shortage in the Cape Province of 45 000 housing units. I will readily concede, as I have said earlier, that the department, with the financial resources available, has achieved a great deal in recent years with the aid of local authorities, and here I want to pay particular tribute to the present Secretary of this department for his enthusiasm in regard to housing. I know it is hoped, as the hon. the Minister has pointed out, to catch up on this backlog in seven years, but according to a figure he has just given us, they will be building 10 000 houses a year, with approximately 37% being allocated to squatters. Sir, 3 700 houses per annum is not going to sort out the problem of the squatters. Amongst the squatters there is already a population explosion. They are growing up, they are getting married and new families are starting. If I remember the figure correctly, it has been estimated by the Divisional Council of the Cape that merely to deal with the population explosion within the squatter population, something like 3 000 to 4 000 houses a year will be required. I hope it can be done. But to think that this 37% of the houses is going to solve the squatter problem by rehousing them in seven years, is stretching the hon. Minister’s optimism a bit too far, and I know he is always optimistic about everything.

When discussing what has been achieved in regard to housing, we in this House must today—and I wish to do so—pay particular tribute to the Cape Town City Council for its work and drive in regard to Mitchell’s Plain. I may add that the council had to drive that department to approve of that scheme. There was great hesitancy on the part of the department to support that scheme, but I am very glad now that they had the glory of the opening day because they put up the cash. The success of this scheme was due to the drive and determination by the former city engineer, Dr. Morris, and by city councillors, and it is something of which all of us in this House can be proud of because of the small part we contributed to the success of the scheme in approving the Votes.

Tributes must be paid to the Divisional Council of the Cape as well.

The second achievement as far as housing is concerned concerns the Cape Divisional Council, and here the hon. member for Moorreesburg always smiles, and I wish to refer to that council’s achievement as far as Atlantis is concerned. I believe that it is a remarkable undertaking, an undertaking which has been received with great enthusiasm by the Coloured people. May I draw the hon. the Minister’s attention to the fact that, when he talks of housing, that I understand from the Coloured contractor who has the contract for the erection of the housing there, that he is able to sell three-bedroomed houses with the land for something like R12 500. This is an achievement which can be followed in other schemes which are being undertaken in other parts of the country. The hon. the Minister mentioned Elsies River. It is true that Elsies River was originally virtually a site-and-service scheme, but what happened in Elsies River was that it was allowed to drift on and on until it degenerated into a state where more than one family lived on an allocated plot. That was due to lack of control and not because the principle was wrong. The normal thing that can be done with any site-and-service scheme to obviate it degenerating into what happened at Elsies River, is an urban renewal scheme under which people’s homes are renovated, rebuilt and improved where they are. They do not have to move from that locality to some other place. The scheme then becomes a better type of residential area.

The need and urgency of housing is particularly vital at the present moment and we have to deal with this problem on a far wider basis than saying that in seven years’ time we will have enough houses. I will deal with the Government’s proposals as embodied in this Bill later. I want first to deal with what can be done and what is being done in the present circumstances without this legislation. I want to deal with what the Cape Divisional Council has done, and I wish to pay tribute to them for the way in which they have tackled this job. The Cape Divisional Council has established a squatter control unit. They posted a senior person from their engineers’ department to be in charge of a unit of 10 responsible men as inspectors and they set about dealing with the squatters in the divisional council area. The council resolved on 14 June 1975 that they would apply a policy of pegging squatters. Shacks erected after 1 August 1975 would be removed. The removal of shacks was effected and has been effected in terms of the council’s building regulations in so far as they relate to unauthorized structures. They do not need this legislation. We know that every local authority has its building regulations which provide that buildings must be approved in some form or another in terms of the regulations and that if buildings are put up without approval they can be demolished by the local authority.

One could take these regulations further, at least in the Cape Province, and say they entitle the local authority to recover the cost of demolition from the owner of the property concerned. The council’s squatter control section, which has special offices situated on the Cape Flats, deals with the whole of the council’s area except certain areas in the north of Elsies River and Belhar. The section has not yet dealt with Grassy Park, but this is being undertaken at the moment. It does not deal with Crossroads either, as that is mainly a Bantu squatter camp. The total number of shacks in existence and under the supervision of the squatter control section by the end of April of this year was 3 176. Between 31 July last year and 27 April this year 523 shacks had been demolished and the families had been rehoused by the divisional council. Demolition takes place as the families go out. The shack is demolished and the material is put together and is available for the owner to take where he wants to and do with whatever he wishes. The shacks are not bulldozed, but are taken down in an acceptable way.

Why I say this is essentially a Coloured problem is because only approximately 204 of these 3 176 shacks are occupied by Bantu throughout this divisional council area. Re-housing, of course, goes on from day to day as the possibilities for rehousing present themselves. We went out to see members of the divisional council pegging shacks in a certain area. In the control office there are plans on which each shack is marked with its number. There is a file for that shack and the file contains a diagram of the shack indicating its outside dimensions.

A second phase of the operation was also undertaken. For every one of those shacks a social survey is done by the divisional council. The information obtained embraces the names and relationships of the people living in those shacks, their incomes, where they are working, what kind of jobs they are doing, etc. That can be done when one involves one local authority and they see there is a possibility of providing the housing to deal with the problem. That takes care of clause 1 of this Bill. We do not need clause 1 of this Bill because the powers are already there at the present moment.

When it comes to the other echelons and the intended imposition of compulsion on employers, might I remind the hon. the Minister of what is being done by the Cape Town Chamber of Commerce on a purely voluntary basis. They realize the need and they also realize that it is in their own interest to do something. According to the 1975-’76 annual report of the Chamber of Commerce—

This is being done. We therefore do not need the proposed new section 3B of this Bill. If one motivates the public, these jobs will be done by the people concerned.

A little bit later I shall come to the pondok farming to which the hon. the Minister referred. However, these actions do not help in the case of the Bantu.

I am sorry that I exaggerated when I stated the number of units constructed in 1975, because I now see that “for legally authorized Bantu in the Western Cape” the total number of residential units constructed during 1975 was 221. Those units were constructed in the three townships Langa, Guguletu and Nyanga. What is more important, when the hon. the Minister was asked what the housing need was, this reply appeared in Hansard—

We are now being asked to give powers to the department so that it can have control over squatters, but it does not have a clue as to what the housing needs of the Bantu in the Western Cape are. I see that there is one Deputy Minister present who deals with the Bantu. I refer to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development and I hope that he will participate in this debate because perhaps he can explain why there is no knowledge in the Department of Bantu Administration and Development as to what the housing needs are of Blacks …

They should not be here.

They are legally here in terms of section 10. Does the hon. member want to have section 10 repealed? [Interjections.] I want to know from the hon. member for Stilfontein where those Bantu will go if their shacks are bulldozed down. I suppose he will merely say that they should not be here and they should go somewhere else, because when I asked what the position was in relation to housing for the Blacks, he replied that they should not be here.

I now want to raise a matter over which the hon. the Minister has some say, at least in collaboration with the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. In years gone by I attempted to obtain permission to finance a building to house a legally employed Bantu within one of these Bantu areas. However, I was told that it was not Government policy to permit that to be done. I was told that a scheme like that of the Chamber of Commerce could not be legally applied in so far as Bantu people were concerned. I believe that point of view is wrong and that it should be looked into.

In so far as the Bill is concerned, I regard it as something which is intended to apply some palliatives to a situation which we know is serious. We all accept that it is a serious situation and that it needs attention. However, the Bill provides no solution whatsoever. We can pass this Bill and apply it tomorrow, but there will not be one iota of difference in the situation of the squatters whom we find in Cape Town, Stellenbosch or anywhere else.

What appals me is that this Bill should have been introduced at all at this time. Surely, one of the subject matters which the Erika Theron Commission must have investigated is the socio-economic problems of the Coloured persons. I know that they have inspected the squatter camps and I know that they have been around to look at similar camps in various parts of the country. I know that they have been to Diep River and Johannesburg. However, here we have a Bill which deals with squatters before the Erika Theron Commission’s report has been tabled. I believe it is a rather impolite act—if I may put it like that—towards the chairman and members of that commission that this legislation should be introduced before we have seen what their recommendations involve. Certain other hon. Ministers also have treated the commission in a similar fashion. We know that the hon. the Minister of Coloured, Rehoboth and Nama Relations, for instance, also found it necessary to declare all manner of policies before the commission had reported. It is also true that the hon. member for Vasco is sitting on a committee of his party to investigate what it is going to do about the Coloured population. This committee was appointed before it had seen the Erika Theron Commission’s report. I wonder why the commission has been appointed at all.

You have done so well up to now; why spoil it?

But this is so; this is a fact. Because they are not palatable, the hon. the Minister says I should not raise certain matters. I know it is unpalatable to the hon. the Minister. If he were on this side he would have been fuming by now, not speaking as quietly as I am, in saying what he thought of a Government that did exactly what he is doing at the present moment. That is why I raise this matter; it is an important matter.

There are other people of good will who are trying to assist and who are investigating this problem and trying to find solutions. However, they have no opportunity of being heard in this House. I am speaking of people who are intimately concerned with this question. I think of organizations such as Cafda, Shawco, Sanca (the South African National Cancer Association), Kupagani and Nicro. These are not organizations to be ignored when we are dealing with a problem of this sort. Where have they an opportunity of putting their views before this House as to what attitude we should adopt on this Bill? They have made a number of proposals which have been published in the Press and which, no doubt, have been submitted to the hon. the Minister. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will tell me whether he has received this memorandum from the Cape Flats Committee for Interim Housing for Coloured People? These are people who are directly concerned with this sort of problem. I want to mention some of the proposals they make. These are proposals that need to be looked at, considered and weighed up to determine of what value they are. They suggest, for instance, that local authorities should continue to make available land where on the homeless may exercise their own initiative in creating temporary housing. They suggest further that shack-dwellers should be assisted to improve their houses. This is done in other countries at very low cost. Doorframes, doors, windows and window-frames are supplied so that the people can improve the dwellings in which they are forced to live because there is nowhere else for them to live. The hon. member must not shake his head. I have seen this myself in other countries and I know that it works well.

The hon. member has seen a lot, but maybe he does not understand it.

No, I understand it. The hon. the Minister has already indicated that he is not interested in core-type housing. He thinks it is just a “dop”. He calls them “dophuise”. Those are being used elsewhere in the world. They do not have to be just useless shells. They can provide for the type of person I have mentioned, viz. the person who is sitting with an income of less than R60 per month. It is a start; it is something solid.

Will the hon. member not accept that we ourselves are trying to find a cheap type of housing?

Yes, I accept that, but that has been going on for donkeys’ years. I spoke to Dr. Webb of the CSIR about this many years ago. The trouble with this cheap type of housing has been that the Government has not been able to make the necessary arrangements to level out the peaks and troughs of demand in the building industry so as to make it worthwhile for a company to undertake to provide a cheap prefabricated type of housing in this country. That has been the problem. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows that.

As I have mentioned, there is also the question of subsidization or providing material so that houses can be erected that are suitable for occupation. This can be done. I can tell the hon. the Minister that site and service schemes can work. If the hon. the Minister has time and has not been there yet, I ask him to go and look at the farm next to Crossroads where the divisional council, in an effort to alleviate the situation, has constructed a type of hard road and has supplied some water pipes and latrines. However, the divisional council was doing this contrary to Government policy. If one looks at the camp there, one finds it an entirely different place from the other squatter camps where none of these site and service provisions have been introduced.

Is that Lourdes’ farm to which you are referring?

Yes, it is. Sir, I believe the hon. the Minister must look again in at the question of the site and service scheme. I really believe it is a scheme that works. I have mentioned in the House before that it is being applied in some of the developing Black African countries. In Malawi, for instance, they have provided an area with site and service provisions in their new Lilongwe township layout. They know that people will come to the towns. We know that the farmers in the Western Cape cannot go on and on building for, accommodating and employing the populations which increase year after year on their own farms. Those Coloured people must go and look for employment elsewhere. If they connot be employed on the farm next door, which may already be overcrowded, they will go and seek employment in the cities, which is quite a natural thing for them to do. This Bill does provide for emergency camps. Research that I have done, or tired to do, as to whether emergency camps have been provided by anybody since 1951, indicates that about half a dozen or more were established on the Orange River. Elsewhere, emergency camps have not been established. This Bill now empowers the hon. the Minister to establish emergency camps. It also empowers the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration to establish emergency camps. But who locates them? Does the particular local authority locate them? Does the hon. the Minister locate them? Does the Department of Bantu Affairs locate them? Who is going to manage them? Who is to finance them? These are just some of the questions that arise.

These are not only my own suggestions about these site-in-service camps. The same appears from the findings of the Chamber of Commerce. They too believe that this is a way in which one can deal with this matter. In fact, in their report they say that body has drawn the Government’s attention to the seriousness of the situation and has asked them to make land and finance available for development by local authorities in properly controlled areas where small sites and basic services can be provided to squatters on reasonable terms, including some permanency of tenure. Has this really been investigated? This is what is being offered by people using the best brains they can to investigate these problems. They came up with this decision.

Sir, we do have the …

Do you not think that the uncontrolled population growth amongs the Coloured people is an aspect which is basic to the whole problem?

Sir, I agree entirely with the hon. member for Carletonville. What can happen, if one has site-in-service camps where one has some control of the situation of these people, one can start to see these people and to deal with them, through health visitors and other people, and also to deal with the problem of birth control and similar problems. One can, for instance introduce them to and educate them in matters of birth control. I am sure that this is another matter with which the Erika Theron Commission will deal. I am sure there will be something in regard to that, because this is a problem which is known to all of us in the Western Cape. However, we must now go on with this Bill before the Theron Commission has reported. When it comes to the other aspects of this Bill, I believe that, instead of site-and-service being rejected out of hand—as the hon. the Minister has done—it could be regulated. It could be dealt with under clause 4 of this Bill, for instance, which provides for emergency camps. Surely that is what is intended by an emergency camp. It is not a camp for refugees run by the Department of Community Development, I am sure. It is an emergency camp for homeless people.

What is better than to have that, properly laid out, properly controlled, with services which can form a safety-valve against infective diseases and other evils which can abound?

As I have said before, I believe that the control of erection and demolition, and the demolition of unauthorized structures, are sufficiently in the hands of the local authorities. They have inspectors, they have local knowledge. They know where these places are and they know how to deal with them. Is the hon. the Minister going to have a corps of inspectors who will have to find out where these “pondoks” are? The divisional council or the local authority knows what can be done. They have their inspectors going round. They have their health services. We do not need this legislation. It is not going to stop “pondok” forming either.

One of the other points in this Bill which I might just mention as one which is also not acceptable to us, is the restricted access to the courts. I noticed the embarrassment of the hon. the Minister when he referred to this. He said that, if the delays could be eliminated, perhaps this measure would not be applied. Of course, the hon. the Minister is embarrassed when he has to propose something of this sort. The sole, limited rights of protection which a person has when his home is to be demolished, is to go to court if he feels he has some legal ground on which to prevent such demolition. This Bill raises questionable presumptions against the accused person, presumptions with which we do not agree. Clause 3(c)—whatever else the hon. the Minister wants to say about it—imposes a form of influx control on Coloured people, and in a subtle way imposes control on the movement of people who are entitled to move freely anywhere in the country, or the Minister is trying to shift the responsibility for housing for these unfortunate people from the Government and local authorities to industry. The hon. the Minister knows that the president of the S.A. Federated Chamber of Industries has complained about the hasty nature in which the Bill has come forward. According to a report in The Argus of 5 May 1976—

Obviously they wanted to make representations. The hon. member for Moorreesburg spoke about the Coloureds and the Whites, and I am quoting from a newspaper published over the weekend—

This is what must be done. It is not going to be done by ordering demolition or without taking into consideration the people involved when finding a solution to the problem. As I have said, the position as far as the FCI is concerned, is that they believe that they have not had ample opportunity to consider the implications of the Bill.

How long has the Bill been on the Order Paper?

The Bill on the Order Paper has a few harsh provisions and some good provisions. I concede that to the hon. the Minister. There are some matters which can be expanded upon. What is meant for instance by an emergency camp? The hon. the Minister did not deal at all with what he meant by an emergency camp. I believe that there are some people who are seriously concerned with the problem and who would like to assist in dealing with it and that these should be given an opportunity to be heard. We in this House should particularly not take decisions and pass legislation at this stage until the Erika Theron Commission’s report has been considered.

Mr. Speaker, for that reason I move as an amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I shall react in a moment to what the hon. member for Green Point said. To begin with, I should like to say that the hon. the Minister dealt so extensively with the whole problem of squatting in his introductory speech, including the background and to what degree it can be controlled by this legislation, that it does not leave a great deal to speak about. I want to compliment the department on the fact that, although the administration of the legislation was only entrusted to them in October 1975, they nevertheless succeeded in such a short time in submitting to the House the comprehensive legislation serving before us now.

The hon. member for Green Point elaborated on the Second Reading of the Bill for almost 40 minutes. At the start I experienced a great deal of difficulty to determine in which direction the hon. member actually wanted to move, and whether he is for or against the legislation. I listened to him with great sympathy. After last week I actually listened to him with great compassion, because he is certainly on the way to becoming a political squatter. That is probably why he was treading water a little about this matter.

I believe that other hon. members will react extensively to the question of Bantu squatters at Crossroads to which the hon. member for Green Point referred in passing. I can only tell him in passing that the question of the legality of Bantu squatters is an aspect which he is over-emphasizing completely, because the position at Crossroads is that there are approximately 541 contract labourers who are in the area legally, but are inhabiting Crossroads illegally. The situation is that the people have permission to work in the area and have single quarters in the Bantu residential areas in the Peninsula. What happens is that they bring their families into the Cape Peninsula illegally and then go and squat illegally in an area like Crossroads. The figures with respect to the women indicates this tendency very clearly. Today there are only 50 women in the area legally, while 1 341 are there illegally. One hundred and twenty children are legally in the area, while 3 723 are in that area illegally. This should give hon. members the whole pattern of the way of life of this so-called legal Bantu in a White area. Over the past year we did provide for Bantu housing requirements. For instance 183 housing units were provided in Guguletu and Langa and approximately 38 in Nyanga. The Government’s policy in respect of Bantu labour in the Western Cape is quite clear. I do not think that it can be rightfully agitated that the existing housing facilities of Bantu in the Western Cape—which is a reserved area for the Coloured population—be expanded to a greater degree.

In order to appreciate the full extent of the squatting problem it is perhaps a good thing to note, for the sake of interest, where it originates and what it really involves. During the past war this problem began to assume alarming proportions. This resulted in War Measure 31 of 1944 being introduced to try and control the matter. The Government inherited that situation, to its full extent, in 1948, so much so that this war measure had to be incorporated into the existing legislation. The word “squatting” probably originated from the idea that the people simply squatted in a certain area. Today there are still a variety of reasons why people prefer to squat. On the other hand there are only a few reasons why they are forced to squat. Apart from other factors which lead to squatting, it is really an undeniable truth that a considerable percentage of the squatter families who cannot be housed due to economic reasons fall into a category which is not able to comply with socially accepted norms. In other words, they are the people who do not want to live under better conditions than squatting conditions. I think the hon. the Minister was quite correct when he said that this has become part of these people’s philosophy of life. A disturbing fact which the hon. the Minister expounded, was that 60% of the squatters had previously been housed in municipal housing schemes. They moved away from there because they failed to pay rental or because they did not want to or could not accept the responsibility and discipline of renting a home. I have already said so on a previous occasion that these people are the first exponents of the freedom cult. They can be compared with the Biblical concept of the lily of the field which neither spins nor weaves. The hon. member for Rondebosch spoke about this matter on one occasion. He made the statement that although these squatter camps look like rubbish heaps, for instance when they are seen from the air just before one lands at the D. F. Malan Airport, a social community nevertheless exists in those camps. He said that a community like this functions in a manner which we are unable to understand, and that the people there have a social system of their own. I admit that this may be the case, but the hon. the Minister did not introduce this legislation in order to demolish those squatters huts for whatever the reason may be while the people are still living there. He introduced the legislation in order to try and solve that problem in a positive way by means of an imaginative housing programme.

Sir, it is generally accepted that the natural growth rate of Coloureds in and around greater Cape Town is approximately 5 000 per annum. During 1975 approximately 4 546 dwelling units were completed in this particular area, while at the end of that year 4 355 dwelling units were under construction. The projection which has been made for the year 1976-’77, indicates that the Cape Town City Council will complete 4 500 units, the Cape Divisional Council 2 500 and the Stellenbosch Divisional Council 3 000. This gives us a total of 10 000 units for the year 1976-’77. For the year 1977-’78, the projection is that the Cape Town City Council will complete 5 000 dwelling units, the Cape Divisional Council 2 500 and the Stellenbosch Divisional Council 3 000. This gives us a total of 10 500 for the year 1977-’78. For the year 1978-’79 the projection is that the Cape Town City Council will complete 5 000 dwelling units, the Cape Divisional Council 3 000 and the Stellenbosch Divisional Council 3 000. This gives us a total of 11 000 dwelling units for that period. In the last year in respect of which a projection exists, namely 1979-’80, the projection is that the Cape Town City Council will build 5 000 dwelling units, the Cape Divisional Council 2 500 and the Stellenbosch Divisional Council 3 000. This gives us a total of 10 500 dwelling units for that year. Apart from the fact that the annual growth rate of 5 000 will be cancelled out by this, approximately 5 000 or more additional dwelling units will be erected. These additional units, if I may call them this, will, from the nature of the case, not all be made available to squatters. However, as the hon. the Minister indicated, at least 37½% will be made available for the clearance of squatter concentrations in future. The general statement which is so easily made from time to time, i.e. that these Coloured houses are only being erected to comply with the Group Areas Act and that they are only used for resettlement, is in other words absolute nonsense. The department’s own allocation for resettlement is only 25% at the moment. I wish the hon. member for Green Point would reach the stage where he would accept that it is only 25%.

Therefore it is only 50% nonsense!

Sir, I can tell you from experience today, on the basis of the conditions prevailing in my own constituency, where group area resettlement is being carried out, that all the people who are resettled from those areas come out of the most miserable slum areas. From the projections I mentioned, it is clear that it will be possible to solve the squatter problem within the next few years, if the necessary funds are available to do so. However, there is a very explicit condition, which in my opinion is a very important one, i.e. that people will then not be allowed to flock to an area in an uncontrolled way and thus aggravate the squatting problem. People must not be allowed to squat further without any restrictive measures and aggravate the problem we are struggling with. Therefore the whole essence of this legislation is to restrict squatting so that the problem can be solved in a positive way, inter alia, by means of the provision of proper housing. The hon. member for Green Point mentioned some of the bodies which still want to be consulted. This is the reason why he recommends a Select Committee. The bodies charged with the immense task of housing, namely the local authorities, stated their case in no uncertain terms as far as this problem is concerned. The United Municipal Executive and the directors of local management of the various provinces have been consulted on this legislation and have given their full support to the legislation. These are the bodies which are important when the provision of housing is being negotiated. In the process of the solution of the squatting problem the Government has so far enjoyed the full co-operation of local authorities in and around greater Cape Town. Were it not for this co-operation, such significant progress could not have been made. Since August 1975 the further co-operation of local authorities has been obtained so that squatting has been frozen and new squatters are controlled. This legislation now grants the necessary powers effectively to apply the control which is now already being applied to a certain extent. The hon. member for Green Point knows this only too well. He knows that the measures which are now being taken by local authorities are effective to a degree, but that they cannot be applied to their full extent without the legislation before the House today.

The legislation basically involves four principles. In the first place people will be prohibited from simply allowing squatting. In terms of the existing Act as it reads now, action can be taken against people who squat without permission. However, if the owner of the ground has given permission, the authorities have no power to prevent squatting. It was this very loophole in the Act which offered the unscrupulous, the so-called squatter farmers of whom we have had such bitter experience, an opportunity in this respect. The second principle is that the owner, or the person who has control over the particular ground, must see to it that he demolishes the illegal structure or causes it to be demolished. The third principle is that bodies which are concerned with housing will now also be given the power to demolish structures. Fourthly, the entry of labourers into the area of the local authority may be regulated and controlled.

Over the past few years the problem has increasingly been experienced in the Peninsula that employers—and here I am thinking of building contractors in particular—go to the rural areas to recruit the necessary labour without making proper provision for housing for these people. In the light of the particular promises which are made to these people and the attractive city lights which are held out to them, they came to the Peninsula without proper provision being made for them. The advice which is always given to these people is that they should simply see to it that they have three sheets of corrugated iron because then they will have a house.

The legal implication of this statement lies in the fact that people are allowed to squat anywhere without anyone having the power to prosecute or remove such people without providing alternative housing. A family even squatted on the Parow golf course. The surest way of being resettled is to squat at the ninth hole. There is a special system of communication between squatters and aspirant squatters and because they knew of the deficiencies of the Act, they flocked in their thousands to the metropolitan area. However, once this legislation is in force, a person will think twice before moving from Calvinia to Cape Town, especially if he knows that there is no provision for housing for him and that a squatter’s hut will immediately be demolished after it has been erected. The bush telegraph will quickly convey this message far and wide. To advance a plea under these circumstances for a site and service scheme, as the hon. member for Green Point and the hon. member for Rondebosch have done repeatedly, is simply to torpedo the solution of properly planned housing. This will result in permanence being given to squatters’ areas. After all, we have had the experience of the old Moroka scheme where squatters were allowed to squat with only the most essential sanitary facilities and welfare services of a kind under the previous Government. We have also had the experience of Sophiatown, Martindale and especially Newclare where 5 129 families squatted on 579 plots. This gives us an idea of the proportions squatting has assumed.

I now want to quote what the spiritual mother of the present PRP said on occasion—

I want to agree with this lady that these conditions are inclined to become permanent.

These squatters camps are breeding grounds for evils. It is no use our elevating our squatters camps to something which they are not really. The greatest instigators who abuse these conditions, are at the same time enriching themselves at the cost of those poor Bantu or Coloureds. The children of those communities are brought up in crime.

The instigators are not the only people who abuse this situation. There are also other people who use this problem for their own ends. I take it the hon. member for Rondebosch will be the next speaker. When visiting squatters’ camps, he does so with the necessary grace, but also with the necessary contingent of newspapermen. Sometimes he even does so without a permit. The local Bantu Administration Board has always been very obliging towards the hon. member when he wanted to enter the Bantu areas on a fact-finding mission. One asks oneself automatically why he had to do it differently this time. He did so because he was not on a fact-finding mission this time. He was merely on a publicity tour when he visited those squatter camps. Did he participate in the Department of Community Development tour to which the hon. the Minister referred?

Then we had the opportunity also to see the positive things which were being done there in connection with Coloured housing. If the hon. member tells me that it did not suit him that day to accompany the tour, I may ask him whether there was a single member of his party on that tour? If they were there, they would have seen the immense achievements in the Coloured areas over the past year alone—I am not speaking of years now. Then he could also have seen that a new community and residential area are in the process of being established from the old Elsies River shanty town. Originally, one was inclined to take note of hon. members like that hon. member, because, with his academic background, he could really make a contribution in this respect.

However, it is a tragedy that the hon. member, in accordance with the whole approach of his party, has become superficial in his approach to this matter, a superficiality which simply amounts to looking for publicity rather than proving that he wants to do something about the problem. Recently the hon. member had the privilege of undertaking journeys in Africa and I believe he also had the opportunity of seeing people trying to exist on rubbish dumps in the greatest misery in Lagos, Nigeria. [Interjections.] The hon. member apparently saw it but now I cannot see how he or any other hon. member can think that there is any other method of solving this problem except through proper legislation.

In conclusion I want to express the conviction that the legislation should be so effective as a deterrent that, in practice, it will practically be unnecessary to implement it. As far as the closer details of the Bill are concerned, we can discuss them fruitfully during the Committee Stage.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened with interest to the hon. the Minister’s introductory speech. I was particularly interested in the figures he quoted on housing. He referred, inter alia, to the number of houses erected for Whites, Coloureds and Indians, respectively, by his Department. If I remember correctly the ratio was 1:61, 1 : 15 and 1 : 14.

These are not my Department’s figures; they apply to the local authorities.

I think the point is that because Whites are materially more privileged than the Coloureds and the Indians, one could have expected his department to have erected fewer houses for the Coloureds and the Indians. However, the two latter population groups are fighting their way up in our community and I am convinced of the fact that the ratios which have been referred to will change considerably in the next generation.

There is a question I want to put to the hon. the Minister. He referred to the great success achieved by his department and the Government during the past 25 years with the removal of squatter areas and the erection of houses. However, he did not tell us why he suddenly found it necessary to introduce the Bill. The hon. the Minister suggested that they have already, by means of the bush telegraph which the hon. member for Tyger Valley referred to, indicated that they are going to deal more firmly with squatters. He added that some measure of success has already been achieved. If this is the case, why is the legislation necessary?

I am very glad to see that the hon. member for Tyger Valley did his homework because I see that he looked up the debate held in 1951 to see what Mrs. Ballinger, among others, had to say. What I find interesting is that the arguments which were advanced at that time, agree to a large extent with those the hon. member is now advancing. It was said that the places are the breeding ground of evils, that wont-works are living there, and that there are loafers, etc. It has already been proved that if decent housing is provided, the standard of the population in the majority of cases is increased. I am not referring now to exceptions such as the small group of people who will always be loafers. We know them and probably they include some of our friends as well.

No, not my friends. I pick my own friends.

The point is that it is no use disparaging these people and saying they are no good. They will not squat somewhere if there is no reason for them to squat. The main reason is that they are looking for work so that they can earn money with which to buy food. Another reason is that they want to come and live with their husbands.

†I think that we all forgive enthusiasts a lot and I think that we have a very enthusiastic Minister of Community Development. He is enthusiastic whatever cause he is supporting. I think that his staff are very enthusiastic as well. I think we forgive enthusiasts a lot. However, I really believe that the hon. the Minister and his department have perhaps become a little over-enthusiastic with this Bill. I think that the amendment moved by my senior colleague is an amendment we should support.

If we look at the history of this Bill, we see that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act was first introduced in 1951. It was introduced as a law because until that time a War Measures Act, No. 31 of 1944, had been used to control squatting. This was particularly due to the vast increase in industrialization in our cities during the war years. The then Minister of Justice who introduced the Bill and who is now a retired ex-State President, was at great pains to point out at the time that Bill was aimed at giving people more rights before the courts. He and a number of members of the Opposition agreed that a War Measures Act was not a suitable type of Act to keep on our Statute Book in a civilized society in times of peace. It is interesting that the hon. member for Brits, by way of an interjection in 1951—he is still present in the House— pointed out quite clearly that this Bill was a transition measure. If one looks at the context of that debate, one sees that what the hon. member for Brits meant by that was that Bill was only meant to meet a squatter situation that was regarded as temporary. Incidentally, the then member for the Trans-keian Territories mentioned by way of an interjection à propos of the developing problem of squatters in Umtata, how much Umtata had done to bring about a settled Black community by means of a sensible site and service scheme.

Since 1951 we have removed, rehoused and settled literally hundreds of thousands of Bantu in this country. Therefore squatters are nothing new in South Africa. At Ndabeni 60 years ago Black squatters were moved from there to Langa. In Cato Manor Black squatters were moved. Then we also moved squatters from Moroka where there was a site and service scheme which went to rack and ruin. Squatters were also moved in Sophiatown and Korsten. Why does the hon. Minister now suddenly come with this Bill when for 25 years we have been moving and rehousing people in an orderly and proper way?

You do not understand the Bill.

Squatting is a fascinating feature of society. Today, when sociology has become a modern and fashionable field of study in our universities, the sociologists, like Columbus often setting out without knowing where they are going and, when they get there, not being sure where they are, have of course been attracted immediately to the squatting phenomenon because here one suddenly has communities of people thrown together who set out to organize themselves and have little trading places established. From an architectural and sociological point of view, this represents a fascinating establishment of community life. However, the same is experienced in any city in the world. In South America they have what they call the “favel-las”. In São Paolo and in Rio de Janeiro. The population in São Paolo has increased in the last five years from 5 million to close on 8 million people. Many of them do not even squat, but sleep at night under the freeways where it is at least dry when it rains.

That is what I want to prevent here.

The point is that we cannot ever expect to be without squatters in an industrializing society. This is one of the great forces at work in our society. We accept that in this country of ours we have certain standards. We come from a Western tradition and we are determined to have an orderly, well structured society. We do not want Winder-meres, we do not want Crossroads in our society. That is right; that is good.

Mr. Speaker, is this the way to go about in dealing with the situation?

What is your objection? Give us a solution.

Mr. Speaker, the Nationalist Government has endeavoured to stop the movement of Black people to the cities. They have failed miserably. [Interjections.] They have created tremendous hardships. They have encouraged bribery and corruption. They have created a vast bureaucratic network, but the position is that the Black populations of our cities have increased many times over, despite the attempts to keep them out by the most elaborate bureaucracy and with the largest attempt at control. Mr. Speaker, you will not stop people from coming into the cities to seek employment. I believe that this hon. Minister and his department have to understand that. The only way in which they can ever control it, is by having proper housing. To date our existing legislation has dealt perfectly well with the situation. The argument that has been advanced by the hon. member for Tygervallei and which has been hinted at by the hon. the Minister, is that we have a permanent hard-core collection of squatters who will persist in being squatter-dwellers.

I grew up as a student working in Winder-mere, running youth camps and Sunday school classes and a boys’ club. I know what an awful place Windermere was. Where is Windermere today? Does the hon. the Minister suggest that all those people who have been rehoused in Windermere, are still living in squatter camps? I doubt it very much because they know the difference between a wet cardboard house and a dry brick house. I am sure that they would, in most cases, seek to stay on in proper housing. We have in this Bill an attempt by the Nationalist Government to get away from one of the truths of South African society, and that is the urbanization of the Coloured people. These people do not suffer from any influx control. Therefore, they are free to move into the cities when they so choose. Now the crows are coming home to roost.

The hon. member for Berea has asked how many Coloureds are still going to be housed in Natal. The answer was 4 000. The hon. the Minister says 222 houses are going to be built and that in 1976, 602 dwelling units for Coloureds will be built at Marianhill.

At Marburg, near Port Shepstone, one has an influx of Coloured people from the Trans-kei, people who have been discouraged from remaining in the Transkei and who have been pushed right out as fast as possible. They come into Marburg, having nowhere to stay. A group area has just been declared for these people. They simply have to squat. They have nowhere to live. Now, we are going to have influx control because this Government has not been capable of providing the housing we have been telling them for 20 years they must provide. [Interjections.] We went on a very interesting tour with officials of the Department of Community Development. Let me hasten to say that, generally speaking, I believe this department does an excellent job. We went to a place called Albowville where flats are standing empty, very nice flats for people in the lower income groups. What is the conclusion which these gentlemen, these officials and the hon. the Minister came to? Their conclusion was that there was adequate housing for Whites. There are no Whites living in squatter camps. There may be a few hippies living in the bush because they want to be naturists, but most Whites are not interested in living in squatter camps because they have housing.

Until such time as there is ample housing for Coloured people in the Western Cape, the hon. the Minister cannot say that he needs a stronger and a bigger whip to enable him to deal with this situation.

We are always going to have people who cannot help themselves and we accept that. We are always going to have jokes about people who store their coal in the bath. One hears it everywhere; in Washington, Lagos and Cape Town. However, the responsibility of the department, our social welfare agencies and our churches is to train people to live under new circumstances. We accept that people are going to have difficulty in adjusting in their townships. That is why the Department of Community Development passed legislation last year to provide community facilities. Our responsibility is to encourage people to get decent housing, not to whip them in with a Bill which we do not even know is necessary. In fact, after 25 years we believe that it is not necessary.

The form of influx control which is being introduced here is one which particularly needs to be investigated by a Select Committee. The hon. member for Green Point has referred to a statement by the president of the FCI. It is an extremely dangerous precedent. Controls on freedom spread in a society, whether we like it or not. This first form of control on the movement of Coloureds is going to be the first step towards creating a whole process of influx control for Coloured people. We want to know what administrative measure is going to be applied. The local authorities, for example, are now suddenly saddled with the responsibility of providing certificates. Surely it is the Department of Community Development which should do it, because this department is now taking complete control. To control the Bantu we have had the vast bureaucracy. What are we going to have to control the Coloureds? How is an employer going to determine whether his worker is legally employed? Is he going to travel about the Cape Peninsula and to Stellenbosch and inspect where his employee is living? What about clause 3(c), which refers quietly to the fact that housing “will be provided by the employer”? Suddenly the employer has to provide his employees with housing. Where is he going to supply it? Is he going to be given land? Suddenly we have a completely new development. Employers are keen to support the hon. the Minister. The Chamber of Commerce in Cape Town, in Belhar is doing its best in this regard. However, this is higher income group housing.

Why do you not rather make a fool of yourself in the Committee Stage?

There has been a tremendous attack on and a refusal to accept the principle of site-and-service by the Government. I can only conceive that it is because they always regard site-and-service as being a potential slum. However, with proper control and with people who have a rising standard of living, site-and-service can well be the only way in which these people can acquire their own homes.

As in Rio de Janeiro and in Sáo Paulo?

With due respect, it is not properly applied there. I particularly want to mention that the Indian community is more than ready for this and, in fact, they are the sort of people who would make a real contribution to a good site-and-service scheme. I believe they would welcome any site-and-service scheme. This also applies in Natal. Although the department is about to launch what is an excellent scheme at Marianhill—I was very pleased to see last week that all the tarred roads have been built—the real need for the Coloured community in Natal is for freehold land, in other words a site-and-service scheme, where they can build their own property. There are hundreds of Coloured people with high incomes who are decent citizens and who want to buy and build their own houses and take that burden off the taxpayer. Why does the Government not make more site-and-service schemes available to these people? Only a fraction of the properties in the Marianhill development scheme is available for home ownership.

I believe this debate could be dominated by the Cape members of Parliament, because people seem to be only concerned with the situation of Coloured people and, more particularly, the Black people at Crossroads. However, the squatter problem is not confined to the Cape Peninsula. As I have mentioned, we have squatter problems at Marburg in Port Shepstone, in Marianhill, in Motalas’ Farm in Pinetown, on the edges of Kwa Mashu, in Clermont, at St Wendolin’s in Shongweni and on the edges of Soweto. Here one has this kind of situation already existing. It amazes me that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development flits in and out of the House like a little butterfly when he should be paying attention to every word spoken in this debate. His department is after all arrogating to itself incredible powers.

I believe we should think seriously in terms of the Black man and his house. Some members of this House might have seen the play Goodbye Johnny which is on at the Nico Malan theatre at the moment. In that play there is one sentence in which the young White man says: “Ag, ons kan sommer ’n semi gaan koop.” This person is obviously of a low income group. How many Black men can ever look forward to owning a home of their own? If they can, it is only when they are grandfathers. In the Western Cape they certainly have no future at all, but they must provide their labour for 11 months out of 12 and under the most difficult circumstances. Can one blame their wives—in fact I think they have very good wives—for coming to live with their husbands to keep them from all the evil things that takes place in the hostels and everywhere else? Can one really blame human beings, women who care for their men, for coming to live with them where they work? I find it very difficult to blame them and I must say that I would not have been surprised had it been the policy of a Government which is not a Christian National. But here a Christian National Government allows this awful situation to exist. One only has to drive from Acacia Park to the Airport along the edge of Bonteheuwel to see all these people waiting for the labour trucks to fetch them. Almost every man most probably has a wife and children. Can one blame them? I cannot and I defy the Government to stop that from happening. They will irritate and upset these people by doing this. The Government may send these people back by train, but they will come back because some of them have a respect for the sanctity of marriage.

There is something else that worries one about the situation of our Black people. I happen to be able to speak Zulu reasonably fluently and often when I meet a Black man, I greet and speak to him in Zulu—most Xhosas understand Zulu reasonably well—and often one finds them acutely embarrassed. They refuse to reply to me in Zulu, but rather reply in Afrikaans. When I ask them if they are trying to pass as Coloured, they smile very ashamedly and tell me, in Xhosa, that I am quite right. Probably most of them knock out their two front teeth to make it more convincing. When I hear this, because here is a man who is denying his identity I am deeply stirred because he wants to get away from all the laws and systems which the Government imposes on them.

Coloured people could up till now come in freely, but now we have a new principle of influx control being introduced also for them. It will bring on them—not to the same extent as the Blacks, but to some extent—the horrors of the pass laws.

I believe this Bill ought to be reconsidered very carefully by the hon. the Minister. We have not been convinced that the hon. the Minister really needs this Bill, because for 25 years we have cleared up slums without it. In clause 3(c) the hon. the Minister introduced a very serious provision, which the Chamber of Industries—which certainly is no political organization—has extreme misgivings about. Furthermore, we have here a return to the provisions of the War Measures Act of doing away with access to the courts for a demolition order. Incidentally, the Minister of Justice described this as a fascist measure in 1951. He wanted to counter that by introducing access to the courts. I do not want to suggest that this Bill is a fascist measure, but it is returning us at least halfway to the War Measures Act of 1944. I do not believe we want this to happen, because in this House we like to go forward and not backwards. I trust that the hon. the Minister and members on that side of the House—I can see the hon. member for Tygervallei is almost convinced—will agree that this matter ought to go to a Select Committee as soon as possible.

Mr. Speaker, we have just seen that typical old 1910 UP model, just as we have been seeing it all these years. It is still the same model, except that it is now dilapidated. Its wheels have gone flat. [Interjections.] I shall come to that hon. member in a moment, because his timing in that old model is out. The octane of the present-day petrol is too high and that hon. member cannot keep up with the problems of the times. Typically, as we know that old crankhandle model, their attitude is still “let things develop”.

What have we heard from the hon. members of the UP so far? They admit that we are dealing with a major problem, not only here in the Western Cape, but in Natal, too. However, we have not heard one positive suggestion from those hon. members aimed at the solution of this real problem. I want to tell the hon. member for Pinetown something which he probably will not know, because it happened long before he was riding a tricycle. I should just like to remind him that it was the UP itself that initiated influx control, because the problem had become too great. The Black people flocked in their thousands to the growth points in the country, and particularly to the Witwatersrand. They are the people who initiated those control measures, in an attempt to find a solution to that problem. It is a problem which coincides with the squatting problem. The hon. member is now asking why legislation should be introduced at this stage. Sir, as a problem grows, surely one is going to try and solve that problem. If one cannot have that problem solved in an orderly way by reasoning with people and asking for their co-operation, then one must force it upon them by means of legislation. The years have taught us that legislation is the only method by which we can solve a problem of this kind. Hon. members on the other side, however, have only one solution to this problem, and that is that there should be sufficient housing. Their attitude is that if there is not sufficient housing, we are going to have squatters. I want to agree—and this is the only point in respect of which I can agree with them—that if we have sufficient housing, there will not be a squatter problem, but now I ask them in all reasonableness to mention to me one single place anywhere in the world where there are so many houses that a house can stand open for someone when he moves from place to place. Do they know of such a place? Do they think it is possible that there could ever be such a condition in South Africa?

This problem of squatting involves responsibility, a sense of responsibility which we must cultivate and which is lacking among those squatters at the moment. They are people who simply trek. Sir, what responsible person simply takes to the road with his family and his few articles of furniture, to go and establish himself at another place without first ascertaining whether housing is available for him there? I immediately want to tell the hon. member who spoke about influx control, as well as the PRP, who have announced their attitude in advance by means of newspaper reports and meetings, that this legislation is not going to apply to Coloureds only. Nor will it only apply to Indians and Bantu. This Bill is just as applicable to Whites, if necessary. They must not, therefore, bring up their usual old story once again that this Bill is merely a discriminatory measure. If the causes of squatting are investigated, I should say that in the first place it is due to the irresponsible behaviour of the head of the family. Possibly one can simply teach some of those people a lesson from nature and the animal kingdom. What bird does not first build its nest so that the little ones which are hatched, will at least have protection and safety? Therefore, it is also time for us to teach these squatters responsibility and also discipline them to a certain degree. The hon. the Minister said that a quarter of the 21 000 squatters came from the platteland, but these people do not come from rural squatters’ camps. They are people who had housing and were employed somewhere and simply left their work and housing and went off in an irresponsible way to the city lights. Then hon. members on the other side still expect that a house should be ready and waiting for them.

They must work, and you know it.

But this is not the point. Even if one changes one’s job, no responsible person moves around like that. Perhaps I can quote a simple example for the hon. member. When I came to this Parliament in 1966, I could not find accommodation for my family. I then left my family behind and came here alone. I did not have the means— and very few of us do—to spend R250 000 on a house, like the hon. member for Randburg, and the hon. member for Johannesburg North. Perhaps they should think about the way in which they spend their money here while they are temporarily employed, and whether that money could not perhaps be applied in another way. I leave the matter at that. However, it is shocking that 60% of the squatters previously had accommodation. The hon. the Minister said this and hon. members had the opportunity to dispute the 60%. This figure was ascertained after an inquiry by the department.

As the hon. the Minister also said, an inquiry was made and 60% of them said that they came from existing housing schemes. These are people who fight shy of making payments, people who do not want to accept their responsibility, or subject themselves to discipline in any way, people who prefer to live in hovels and under the most unhygienic circumstances rather than in better housing which is provided for them by the State. On 29 March the Department of Community Development arranged for members of this House to go on a tour together with the hon. the Minister. The department did not take hon. members just to show them the fine projects. They also took us to the squatters’ camps, where the most terrible conditions prevail, and I want to admit that it fills one with aversion to see the circumstances under which these people are living. But where was the PRP? Not a single member of the PRP took the trouble to go along or even apologize for not attending.

But they walk around there at night.

They were not prepared to come and look. Even though they were not prepared to look at the good schemes, they could, after all, have gone to look at the problems with which the Department of Community Development was faced. But they did not want to go because they do not like to see the squatters’ camps together with us, because they visit the camps on their own. They visit the squatters’ camps on their own, together with enemies of South Africa, inter alia, the English newspapers who take photographs which are sent out to the world to sully and besmirch South Africa’s name. But when they have the opportunity to go and ask the officials in a responsible manner what the problems are there and to discuss solutions in a reasonable way, they are conspicuous by their absence.

Therefore I say that they did not want to go because they did not want to see what a gigantic task has already been carried out by the department to solve the immense squatting problem there. They did not want to go and look at it, because nothing positive has ever come from the PRP. They have never said anything positive and have never spoken with appreciation about anything done for the non-Whites in South Africa. If those hon. gentlemen want to be reasonable now, they will have to ask themselves whether this Government has already done something to solve the problem, and they will have to agree that a great deal has already been done. They could have seen proof of this if they had had a look at what has been done in Elsies River. This was surely one of the worst slum areas in the whole of South Africa. They could have seen what has already been done there as regards the buying out of properties, the construction of roads, the provision of services, the construction of dwelling units and other gigantic tasks which have already been carried out, to such an extent that in one year, from 1 April 1975 to 31 March 1976, 1 389 dwelling units were erected in Elsies River while 1 460 have already been planned for the following year. Is this not something which can be spoken of with appreciation? Those hon. members, however, do not do so. They do not even try. Nor do they want to pull their weight in any respect. Furthermore, the rent of the houses erected there, is as low as R23 per month for a sub-economic dwelling unit. Where in the world can one find cheaper than that? However, one still has cases where people leave those houses and establish squatter camps of their own accord.

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

Mr. Speaker, children are seen but not heard. However, I should like to indicate what else has been done. Anyone can see what has been done on Mitchell’s Plain. Over 40 000 houses are planned, exclusively for the Coloured community. At Mitchell’s Plain 298 houses have been completed so far, but at this stage one finds that a garden has been laid out in front of every house. There are also tarred roads, a fine park has been laid out and sports grounds and a stadium have already been developed. In all reasonableness, where in the world will one find a residential area, whether White or non-White, where so many facilities have been provided before the first person has moved in? Where is another place like this to be found? Just look at Atlantis on the West Coast. The same holds for Atlantis as far as this is concerned. There is a modern sports stadium for rugby, cricket, athletics and tennis, whereas only 150 families have moved in so far. Where else in the world will one find a residential area with all those facilities already available?

Can those who are so quick to condemn the Whites and this Government here in South Africa, tell me where else in the world a scanty 4 million people, like the 4 million Whites here in South Africa, have provided so many facilities, luxuries and privileges to more than 20 million people? I challenge that PRP, that is so quick to condemn, to mention one other country in the world in which a scanty 4 million Whites have done as much for 20 million people as has been done here in South Africa. [Interjections.] Why then was such a fuss made in advance by the PRP about this legislation before us? When the legislation was laid upon the Table, they immediately held a protest meeting and stated how they would oppose the legislation. However, I shall say why they oppose it. They oppose it because the PRP is against the creation of order and has always indicated that they want no law and order in any community.

I challenge them to show us a single measure which they supported and which was aimed at the maintenance of law and order. Sir, do you know what they always plead? They always say that action must be taken against the Police and the officials in our Prison Service, those people who must maintain law and order. I know of no case in which the PRP wanted to maintain law and order in South Africa. I think that the Department of Community Development has really gone out of its way and displayed the greatest degree of tolerance concerning the squatter problem. On 15 November 1974 the department had marked every one of the squatters’ huts.

No, it was on 15 November 1975.

I am sorry. On that date each one of the huts was provided with a number. The department even went so far as to provide a temporary water supply and drainage in some of the camps.

The only other thing envisaged by the Bill, is to eradicate the squatter farmers. Actually they should be called “squatter parasites”. I do not know why the PRP is so keen to protect the squatter parasites and their interests here. After all, the squatter farmers are out to exploit unscrupulously those very people whose cause the PRP is championing. The squatter parasites do not care in what unhygienic conditions the squatters there have to live, nor do they care whether enteritis epidemics break out amongst the squatters as happened in the case of Sir Lowry’s Pass Village or Mamre.

I do not believe that the Bill provides unreasonable measures against the squatters. Those people are left as they are at the moment until proper accommodation is obtained for them. I also believe that to judge by action in the past when something was tackled and by the rate at which houses are being provided, the Government and the department will solve the housing problem.

How is the influx of squatters to be controlled? The hon. members opposite must come up with something positive. If they can suggest an acceptable solution, I believe that the hon. the Minister would be reasonable enough to accept it. I invite them to make an acceptable suggestion, because I believe that they agree with us that there must be control somewhere. Do the hon. members not want control? They need only answer in the affirmative or in the negative. I cannot hear anything from the other side. They do not want to tell us whether they want control or not. We are not concerned to limit the movements of the Coloureds. They will still be able to move freely from one town to another and from one province to another. It has never been the policy of the Government to apply influx control to the Coloureds. The Bill is merely envisaged as a temporary measure until such time as the housing problem is solved. In any event, it will not be applicable throughout the country. It will only be applicable to defined areas. I think that all that is being done, is to exercise control over the employer, in that he will only be able to employ people who have the necessary accommodation. Apart from that it also imposes a duty on the employer to turn first to those people who have provided for housing for themselves and have incurred commitments in this respect. They are people who are settled in the Cape with their families and do not travel around from one place to another. I believe that the Bill is welcomed by those who want law and order to be maintained. I believe that the Coloured community will also welcome this measure.

Have you asked them if they welcome it?

I believe they will welcome it because through the Bill they will be safeguarded against all kinds of unhygienic conditions and the crime which runs riot under such circumstances. The Cape Town city council and the divisional councils have already given their approval to this measure. Now I do not know whether it is a UP city council or a Prog city council.

It is a good city council!

In any event, for the information of the hon. members opposite I can say that this city council has given its approval to this measure and supports it. With the co-operation of the Cape Town city council and the divisional councils I believe that this problem will be solved.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Boksburg always strikes me as a remarkable phenomenon. Whereas we on this side of the House have not yet spoken about this Bill, he attacks us. He waves his arms and makes a fuss, whereas not one of us has yet had a word to say about it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I shall give the hon. member an opportunity to put his question in a moment. Let me just make a few other statements. I found it astonishing that he should have continued with his attack and said, for example, that no responsible person would take to the road with his family without knowing whether he would be able to get accommodation. Is he, then, ignorant of the history of the Afrikaner? Has he not read Van Bruggen’s Ampie trilogy, the most well-known trilogy in Afrikaans?

But if Ampie was irresponsible …

Ampie was one of thousands. He was not irresponsible. He had no choice. He had to go and seek work. There was no house for him, and he had to go. Has the hon. member not read Holmer Johanssen’s book, Die Onterfdes, or the Carnegie Report? In that report it was explained that owing to the unemployment and lack of land on the platteland, the Afrikaners migrated to the cities in their thousands, although there was no accommodation for them. They stayed there in squatter camps. Surely it is irresponsible of an hon. member of his years to come along and talk as he has about squatting and people who take to the road without having accommodation. I should like to come back to the Second Reading speech of the hon. the Minister.

May I ask my question now? The hon. member said that I had attacked them before they had spoken. Can he tell me whether it is true that they said recently at a public meeting that they were going to fight this legislation because it was nothing but influx control over the Coloureds? Does he admit that?

Mr. Speaker, I do not know what public meeting the hon. member is talking about. I was definitely not there. I do not know what other members were there, but they can speak for themselves. Mr. Speaker, I found it striking that two things were lacking in the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech. The one was the fact that he paid virtually no attention to the problem of Bantu squatting. I can understand that this does not fall entirely within the scope of the hon. the Minister’s department. However, I want to say that I suspect that this legislation was really motivated by the problem of Bantu squatting rather than by the problem of Coloured squatting.

Definitely not.

I think that this, among other things, was a very important consideration. The second point is that one thing is particularly striking when one listens to the speeches emanating from that side of the House. Reference is made to the housing programmes. The hon. the Minister referred to them very proudly. He feels proud about it and I think that real and serious efforts are being made in this connection. It is said that proper housing is the solution to squatting. However, the question that has not been answered is this: What becomes of those squatters before they have proper housing? They are chased away. That is what this legislation is there for. If they were to return to the platteland or to the Transkei, what would they go and do there? [Interjections.] I realize that the hon. the Minister referred to the freezing of certain squatter camps.

All of them.

Since 15 November. The point I want to make is that if we want to conduct a fruitful debate on the problem of squatting, we must see the phenomenon in the context of an industrial society. It is in that context that squatting is a problem. The reason is that it is a symptom of unequal economic growth. There are stronger growth points in the urban areas, whereas the rural areas are unable to accommodate the surplus labour. That is the one problem. The other problem that faces us is the issue of the increase in population. Where a squatting problem is experienced in urban areas, then, particularly in the sphere of the underdeveloped, it is coupled with a high increase in population. This is always the case. In the third instance there is the issue of distorted migration patterns. In other words, it is cases of over-urbanization that make it necessary for large-scale unproductive capital expenditure to be incurred in the short term in order to provide housing, basic services, etc. These are processes, factors, which are operating in our society and in any other society in Africa. That is why we are going to have to contend with squatting in the future. Even though squatting was frozen on 15 November 1974, there are nevertheless going to be squatters. I know that this is a deterrent measure which the hon. the Minister is taking. It is a deterrent measure based on the Act of 1951, which only provides for the introduction of stricter punitive measures and the addition of new provisions. In general the problem of squatting will continue to exist. I do not want to blame the squatting problem on the Government. Nor do I want to blame it on any other Government saddled with similar processes in its society. These are problems facing everyone. I do not believe that we differ with regard to the diagnosis of the problem. We differ about the prognosis. What is the solution? What are the steps which must be taken to contend with these problems. We shall have to institute an investigation into squatting in South Africa.

In South Africa it is a fact that the vast majority of squatters are either Bantu or Indians or Coloureds. It is also true that those who have been entrusted with the responsibility for dealing with and administering this problem are Whites. That is why, wherever the phenomenon of squatting occurs in South Africa, immediately one is concerned with the issue of race relations. Whether we want to accept it or not, this is so. It is the White man who has to deal with the problem, and to a large extent it is the Black man who causes the problem through his presence in urban areas.

Because squatting is different for the various population groups—particularly in the sense that different acts and regulations apply, for example, to Indian and Coloured squatters on the one hand, and Bantu squatters on the other—it is impossible for me to cover the whole field. Some of my colleagues will deal with some of the other aspects of squatting. I should like to say a few words about the phenomenon of Bantu squatters in South Africa.

We shall not be able to understand the phenomenon of Bantu squatting unless we see it against the background of the increase in population, the demand for labour and the existing housing shortage. The hon. the Minister did not—I say this with respect— have a great deal to say about these aspects. In my opinion this is really the responsibility of the hon. the Minister or the hon. Deputy Ministers of the Department of Bantu Administration. They ought really to react to the points I am going to mention.

As far as the issue of the increase in population is concerned, Prof. Lange, formerly of the University of the Orange Free State, found that the increase in population among the urban Black man was 63% higher than the world’s average population increase. He also found that since 1904 …

Are you now including our Black people?

The Bantu. I am referring specifically to the Bantu.

You are not talking about the “Black Power’ ’ now?

No, I am talking about the Bantu. Since 1904 the increase in population among the urban Blacks has always been higher than that of rural Blacks. Here we already have a phenomenon which proves that these people are not going to become fewer. They are going to increase in number. The increase of 63% per annum higher than the world average is independent of migratory tendencies.

Not any more.

Yes, but it is independent of migratory trends in rural areas, which are therefore not taken into account in the calculation.

Looking at the labour question, we find that the hon. the Prime Minister’s economic adviser, Prof. Stefan du Toit Viljoen, recently wrote in the Financial Mail that in the year 2001 there would be 16 million economically active labourers in the South African economy. Of those 16 million, 36% will have to be skilled labourers. He then makes a calculation based on present trends and finds that if all the Whites were skilled labourers by the year 2001—a doubtful supposition—there would be three million skilled labourers from the ranks of the Whites. Consequently there would still be a shortage of 3,5 million skilled labourers. In this one can immediately note the economic drawing power of the urban areas. These people will be attracted to the urban areas. The third aspect is the housing shortage. Here I am referring specifically to the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, because their housing problems are different to those of the Department of Community Development. The Bantu Affairs Administration Boards are responsible for the administration of the urban Bantu areas. They have to mobilize the necessary finances themselves from among the ranks of the urban Bantu themselves. The greater part of their revenue derives from the sale of alcohol, chiefly Bantu beer, but White beer as well. This is the basis on which they have to finance their activities. Against this background one can see that in terms of the present pattern of State expenditure, contending with the shortage of accommodation for the Bantu is a hopeless task. In fact, I foresee that the issue of Black urban housing is going to be the cause of a grave situation developing in South Africa in the future. If this is the case—and I do not have the slightest doubt that it is going to be the case—the problem of Bantu squatting around urban areas is going to become more rather than less serious. That is as far as the general aspects of Bantu squatting in South Africa is concerned.

If we turn the telescope around and aim it at the Western Cape, what do we see? We see, among other things, that about 100 000 plus Bantu are living in Nyanga, Langa and Guguletu. Of these, 34 000 are accommodated in single quarters. There are about 500 people—rather more than less—on the waiting list for family accommodation in these three areas of the Western Cape. Not a single family unit was built in 1975. I obtained this information from the hon. the Minister in reply to a question I put to him. I also asked him how many houses were being planned for 1976. I was told in reply that no housing was being planned for 1976, but that matters were being investigated. I then asked where the people who were entitled to houses, but did not have them, were living. The department told me that they were living with those people who already had houses. Here, therefore, we have a case of concealed squatting. This is one of the biggest problems in Soweto. It is not the visible squatting one gets at Crossroads, KTC or Nyanga East; it is people who are within the established residential areas and who stay there with people who have houses. It is calculated that about half the population of Soweto is accommodated in this way. One could almost say that these people are squatting legally in our urban areas.

I now want to refer specifically to the position at Crossroads and KTC. The issue here is the lives of 11 000 people—about 10 000 at Crossroads and about 1 000 at KTC or Nyanga East. What are the general characteristics of these people? The vast majority of the men are in these areas legally. They are allowed to stay in single quarters. But they have been here legally for some time and will remain in these areas legally for some time. On the other hand, the vast majority of the women are in the area illegally in terms of the Urban Areas (Consolidation) Act. The women say that they come with their children to stay with their husbands. The men say that they are unable to find accommodation for themselves in the areas and also, on top of that, provide for their wives in the Transkei. The wives say that there is no work for them in the Transkei. The Government now says that the women and children must return to the Transkei and the men to their single quarters in the areas where they live. However, the women and children refuse to return. That is how simple the situation is. It is against this background that the Prevention of Illegal Squatting Act of 1951 has been implemented thus far. This Act provides that fines and penalties may be imposed if these people do not want to leave. The fine is reasonably light. A court order, too, may be requested. One had first to obtain a court order before one could send the people back to the Transkei. I now want to come back to the remark I made earlier to the hon. the Minister. It was when it was found that the Act of 1951 did not work efficiently because a court order had first to be obtained and the fines were reasonably light and it therefore had no effect on the people, that this new legislation was piloted through. The fines are being increased and the obtaining of the court order is no longer necessary. You now change the rules of the game. The rules are being changed so that the situation may be approached from a different angle. That is what is happening here.

The rules of the game are being changed because it is no longer necessary to obtain a court order.

This is a serious matter, not a game.

I mean it in a metaphoric sense and not as a joke. In fact the hon. the Minister can accompany me to the areas and he will see that it is not a joke. I use the comparison in a metaphoric sense. The Minister is now changing the rules of the game because it was not possible to solve the problem by means of the old measures. Listening to the way in which the hon. the Minister is fitting it in, this particular piece of legislation is being served up most attractively against the background of an impressive building programme. However, the issue here is not the building programme, but the implications of the legislation in question and why it is essential. While the hon. the Minister was reading it, I thought of King Rehoboam. One finds this in the Bible, in 1 Kings, 12. Rehoboam was Solomon’s son. Solomon imposed exceptionally severe taxes to build the temple for Israel. When he died, Rehoboam succeeded him. The old men of Israel went to Rehoboam and asked what they should tell the people, because they were complaining about the heavy taxes. Rehoboam then consulted the young men of Israel, took their advice and told the people: “My father made your yoke heavy and I will add to your yoke: My father also chastised you with whips, but I will chastise you with scorpions.” This is what is happening here. The hon. the Minister is chastising these people with scorpions. The previous legislation did not work, and therefore he is making the punitive measure more severe and causing disruption among these people in the urban areas. All the problems which cause housing shortages and squatting are ignored in this legislation. All that the legislation envisages is the suppressing of the phenomenon as such. I am not suggesting that there are no building programmes, but I am suggesting—this is the point the hon. member for Boksburg also made—that I have the strongest misgivings as to whether the building programmes will ever catch up with the problem of squatting, particularly as far as Bantu squatters are concerned. I cannot see this happening.

What is your solution?

I shall get to that if you give me the chance to do so. Even as regards the problem of Coloured squatters the tempo of housing development would have to be stepped up. However, I think that the most spectacular progress has been made with regard to Coloured squatting. However, we have only begun to tinker with the problem of Bantu squatting and the problem has only begun to manifest itself in South Africa.

Another effect of this legislation is that it places the onus of assisting with the combating of squatting, on the employer, on the one hand, and on the lessor or the owner of the land, on the other. I want to repeat that the concrete relations situation one finds is that a White man goes to a Black man and tells him that he must leave and that he may not live there. This is a race relations situation and I want to put it to the hon. the Minister that particularly as far as Bantu squatting is concerned, this is going to cause conflict and problems on a vast scale. There have already been reactions in regard to Elsies River. One gets the feeling that these quite ordinary people are now being politicized, that they are becoming angry and that they are seeing that there is no further reason for their problem to be found.

The hon. member for Tygervallei referred to the fact that I had discussed this problem of squatting with senior officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. These people received me in a very friendly spirit and openly explained to me what their difficulty was. Their difficulty is caused by the implementation of the policy of separate development with regard to the urban Black man. I went to the squatter camps and I tried to understand what the difficulty was as far as they were concerned. Their problem is simply that the women want to be with their husbands and children. It does not matter if every man has ten or 20 wives. On the one hand we find the primitive urge of man to maintain his family life, and on the other, the political policy which must be carried out. There is a total lack of communication between these two groups. It is into this situation that legislation is now to be introduced in terms of which people are literally going to be forced to incite race conflict. What are employers and owners or lessors of land really becoming? As far as Bantu squatting is concerned, they are becoming agents of the Bantu administration boards, in order to solve the squatter problem.

What is your solution for this?

To conclude, I want to concede that there is no easy, clear-cut alternative to the problem of influx control or squatting. The hon. the Minister asked for a fruitful debate. I am not criticizing him as if I have in my pocket the ultimate solution which will end squatting throughout Africa. However, there are a few fundamental principles which, in my opinion, one must bear in mind. Firstly, if a man is able to find work, one should not restrict him from going to work. Secondly, once he has found the work, it must be possible for him to live with his family, for the simple reason that if he does not live with his family he will be an unstable personality in the urban centre where he is employed. The third basic guide-line I want to suggest is that if he is there with his family and he has employment, and the State is not able to provide him with accommodation at that stage, and he is prepared to construct his own accommodation, then, rather than put obstacles in his way, he should be assisted. Sir, these are standpoints of principle. They are guide-lines in terms of which the Government can implement a system of influx control which will differ dramatically from the one which exists at present.

The principles I have just mentioned are calculated to promote stability in our urban communities. In terms of this system we shall have more or less stable communities which cannot be the source of crime or unrest in our urban centres. One of my gravest objections to this legislation is the fact that all measures adopted thus far, particularly as far as Bantu squatting is concerned, have promoted, not stability, but instability. They disrupt those communities. They chase them around like a lot of guinea-fowl. I have seen this for myself. They move around from divisional council land to municipal land and then to the Bantu administration land. Some of them have moved as many as six or seven times. They do not form a stable urban community. In fact, they are now becoming angry and upset. They do not fully understand the dilemma in which they find themselves. The one thing they cannot understand is why they cannot live together as man, wife and children. I want to suggest that if the Government, and particularly the Departments of Bantu Administration and Development and of Community Development, were to consider these three principles or furnish us with clear reasons why they do not want to accept them, we should at least be able to conduct a fruitful debate. Until that happens, and so long as we get this kind of reaction, we must simply accept that the aims of legislation such as this are chiefly to get the phenomenon of squatting out of sight, so that one can say, “what the eye does not see, the heart does not grieve over”. The ultimate question is still: What becomes of those people? Where do they go to? What accommodation do they get and what employment is there for them at the place they are going to? If there is no accommodation or work for them there, then we are back with the original problem, and that is the drawing power of the city, the question of labour in the city and the attractiveness of the city. Throughout the industrial world this is the cause of urbanization and of the migration of the rural population groups to these areas. Rather than introduce legislation aimed at simply suppressing that problem, one might as well push a cork into the sea and hope that will stop the tides. Therefore, because this legislation as it reads at present, is exclusively a punitive measure which does not even begin to envisage alternative solutions to the problem of squatting—not the problem of housing but only the problem of squatting—and because we are of the opinion that the consequences of this legislation could be very explosive for all of us in South Africa, particularly as far as Bantu squatting is concerned, we are unable to support the Second Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rondebosch has now let the cat out of the bag by saying that his party is not going to support this legislation. This is more or less what we expected would be the case. Right at the beginning of his speech the hon. member for Rondebosch mentioned the example of Ampie. Sir, the hon. member really should know his history better. Surely Ampie was only a phenomenon amongst the Afrikaners. After all, he was not a typical example of the Afrikaner of that time. The comparison which the hon. member tried to draw between Afrikaners and squatters does not, therefore, hold water. By doing so, he completely lost his self respect as an Afrikaner. Ampie was merely a phenomenon. [Interjections.] There is a similarity in so far as both the Afrikaners and Ampie were poor, but to compare those poor Afrikaners with the squatters, the conditions in which they are living and the way of life which they accept, is almost sacrilege. [Interjections.]

Sir, the hon. member tried to make a very important point of this by saying that they recognized squatting. But we also recognize squatting as a process which takes place under certain conditions. This is the case, and we are not trying to restrict or put a stop to influx completely by means of this legislation. However, we are at least going to try to regulate and control it.

The hon. member spoke of Bantu squatting and said that this would increase rather than decrease. I want to make the statement that it will increase rather than decrease as long as that party and others of their ilk continue to prompt Bantu squatters who are in White areas illegally, to remain there. What I said about this, when I spoke about the conditions at Crossroads and that party’s share in the circumstances there, is on record in Hansard. The hon. member is an academic. He found that the number of Bantu squatters would increase rather than decrease. I now want to ask him if he also ascertained how many Coloureds there are in the greater Peninsula area who do not work at all or do not work regularly, and to what extent those data are responsible for the presence of large numbers of Blacks in this area. I shall be obliged if he would arrange things in such a way that one of his fellow party members could give us an answer in that connection.

The hon. member added that the men are here legally and that they also want their wives and children here. This is the case, and I, too, have dealt with that point in another speech. However, the point which the hon. member did not answer and which they overlook every time, is the fact that the Bantu who is here legally, concluded an agreement when he was recruited as a labourer in the White area, that he would come here as a single person for a certain period of time and under certain conditions. He accepted that agreement and now, in spite of that agreement, he brings his wife and children here illegally. He moves out of the accommodation with which he is provided, and which is being paid for in any event, and goes and squats at Crossroads and other places. However, the hon. member for Rondebosch and his party say nothing about this. They gloss over the fact that these people are law breakers; they overlook that.

Sir, the hon. member says that relations are disturbed if a White man has to go to Black people like these and tell them they have to go back. This is true, but it is made even more difficult when one White man tells the Black people that they are there illegally and have to move, while another White man tells them: “You are here illegally, but I shall provide assistance. I shall provide legal advice. You must plead extenuating circumstances when you are placed before the court. Remain here as long as possible, because a transgression of influx control is only petty; it is not a serious offence.” I repeat, Sir, that it really becomes difficult when one White man explains to those Black people that they must go away, while another encourages them to remain, even if they realize that they are there illegally.

I should like to ask that hon. member whether he is totally opposed to influx control. He qualified his standpoint to a degree by saying that if a Black man had work in a White area, he should be admitted, together with his family, However, the fact is that at least 500 men are in the area illegally at Crossroads alone. He says nothing about them, however. Should they, too, remain here?

I did refer to them.

The hon. member did not refer to them. He only said that when he went to Crossroads and asked the people what their problem was, they told him that they wanted their wives and children here. Sir, I have already challenged the hon. member in this connection in the past. The hon. member should also come and report to us what he says to those people. We do not only want to know what they tell the hon. member, but what he tells them, as well. He must tell us whether he encourages them to remain here.

I want to leave the hon. member for Rondebosch for a moment and return to the hon. member for Green Point. I am really disappointed that the hon. member for Green Point asked that this Bill be referred to a Select Committee. This request has already become a symptom of disease with the UP. Every time that party does not see its way clear to adopting a firm standpoint on a matter, they hide behind something else; in this case behind a Select Committee. They even dragged in the Erika Theron Commission.

Are you interested in the commission’s report?

Naturally I am interested in the commission’s report. After all, that commission was not appointed to work so that we could sit and mark time here in the meantime, while everything simply has to carry on as it is. Surely we have to continue with our work and deal with the problem. The hon. member says that we do not need this legislation, because the existing Acts are quite adequate to deal with the problem. However, I want to tell you that the existing Acts are not adequate and I want to quote to you what Senator Brian Bamford said. I quote from Progress. I do not know if the hon. member for Green Point knows about this little newspaper. This is what appeared in the September 1975 edition—

This is the Bantu Affairs Administration Board of the Western Cape.

That is how difficult it is now to obtain a court order. I want to read to you from a letter dated 1972. I do not think this document was meant for public distribution, but I do not think that the Cape divisional council will take it amiss of me if I say that their findings were the following—

These are the conditions which Senator Bamford qualifies.

I should prefer not to give the name of the place.

What is the date of that letter?

The date is 1972.

But we are now in 1976.

Senator Bamford based his statement on the existing Act. He said that it would now be virtually impossible for the court to issue a demolition order. I have thousands upon thousands of squatters in my constituency and I shall give you the figures in a moment. After all, I know of court cases which magistrates threw out because they said that they were not worth the trouble. The magistrates wanted to know how the people could be kicked out since they had nowhere else to go. The hon. member now says that we do not need the Act.

The hon. member also said that we should spend a little money to improve the shanties. The hon. member for Johannesburg West previously made a speech about new wine in old bottles or something of the sort, but the suggestion by the hon. member for Green Point consists of new patches on old bottles and this has not worked anywhere up to now, not even in Biblical times, nor will it work today, either.

His other suggestion was in connection with the “site-and-service” scheme. Lourdes Farm is also in my constituency and if this is the sort of community which that hon. member wants to approve and see multiply in order to combat this problem, then I want nothing at all to do with this. I often drive past there—it remains a mess. At the moment there are 693 shacks on Lourdes Farm, and if this is the future which he wants to create for squatters, he must not speak about the squatters with sympathy; he can speak about them in another spirit.

What do you do for the squatters?

Wait, I am coming to that, the hon. member for Jeppe must excuse me in the meantime. As far as the hon. member for Pinetown is concerned, I must say that I could not follow his speech. The only thing I could deduce from his speech, was that he was aware of the situation and the problems connected with the situation. However, he has no solution; indeed, he refuses to solve the problems because he wants to maintain the status quo. I wonder whether he agrees with the hon. member for Green Point that a commission of inquiry should be appointed to investigate the matter.

The hon. member for Green Point also mentioned the provision of housing for Bantu by employers. It has been the custom for years that employers of legal Bantu employees in the White areas are allowed to provide housing for their employees on both a family and a single basis. Naturally this arrangement is effected in consultation with the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards and according to an agreement with those boards. If the hon. member for Green Point does not want to believe me, I can tell him that according to the information available to me, this practice is already being applied by Iscor at Vanderbijlpark and also by De Beers at Kimberley and at various other places in the Western Cape.

One really gains the impression that the PRP and the UP are talking about squatting conditions as if they are looking at the situation through a pair of binoculars. They are looking from a distance and their attention is focused on the bad aspects. They do not take note of our resettlement projects and the solutions with which we are occupied. They look at this problem with blinkers and create the impression that matters should rather remain as they are.

I think we have all agreed that squatting is a worldwide phenomenon. Other honest people also admit that most African States experience the same problem, namely that people move from the poor rural areas to the apparently preferable life of the city. Some African States deal with this problem far more drastically than we do here in South Africa, but without the emotional consequences and without the exploitation by the humanists and the political vultures. Here the influx has been given a strong racial connotation and cannot therefore be handled without emotion. The focus, therefore, is always directed at action as well as at the conditions.

I want to ask a question: What moral claim does one have on society if one gives up a house and one’s job and, as the hon. member for Boksburg said, packs one’s donkey cart and gives notice at the farm or does not even give notice and then simply moves to the city? This also applies to the Bantu who has a farm in the homeland and simply turns up here and squats under the bushes. What moral claim does such a person have on society if he gives up his home and job and simply comes and squats in another area where he is not allowed to be? What does society owe those people? I do not believe society owes them anything at all. By squatting, they are living off society as parasites.

I want to ask the hon. members on the other side, those who criticize us so sharply, to look at the example of Prof. H. W. van der Merwe, as a result of what he wrote in Die Burger at one time about Crossroads, in order to realize that we have here a political policy and Acts which must be implemented. This House is the place to criticize them and attack them and they are free to do so. However, I think it is wrong that politicians and other bodies influence the Blacks who, in many cases, are ignorant of the laws of the country, to break the laws. One confuses them, one does them an injustice and one gives them bad, faulty advice and misleads them. You arrogate to yourself the right to condone illegal influx and squatting. The persistent disregard of the laws of the land and obstruction of the law by the squatters of Crossroads is a sign that they are influenced. The question of who influences them is no longer a problem to us.

I also want to ask of that party in particular, whether it is not the same people who are continually telling us about “the rule of law”? I want to ask them what has happened to their respect of the law if they influence those people to break the law, or does one use and discard this “rule of law” to suit one’s own purpose? Are these not the same people who are always reminding us of the large numbers of Blacks in the so-called White areas? In the meantime they are influencing those people—we have learned this from the hon. member for Rondebosch—to come along. Every person who can possibly qualify must come here with his family. In the meantime they are exerting themselves to make the whole country black, at the expense of the Coloureds as well. This is their proud record of service to South Africa: The subtle intercession for the cause of resistance to law and order and the resultant ploughing under of White and Brown and the bedevilment of good relations between White and Black.

I do not think that party has counted the cost involved in what they are doing, nor do I think that they can control the consequences. They want to alleviate the lot of the squatter by telling him how bad the law is and how cruel the system is. They tell these people that they are guilty, but that they will see to it that they will get off lightly. They also provide them with legal advice and arguments. This is the advice they give, but they do not tell the squatters to return to the homeland and that they will help them to get there in the easiest way. They give the squatters the impression that they have a right to break the law. Then, if the court finds him guilty and he has to be sent back, there is disillusionment and disappointment for the Black man. In this way resentment of the White man and the system is born. Is this, now, due to the law or to the system? Surely it is due to interference with the execution of the law. And who causes the hate? The one who has acted firmly from the outset or the one who appeased without explaining the true situation? Whose fault is it? The one who implemented the law or the one who was mistakenly sympathetic? The hon. member for Rondebosch quoted a text from the Bible here. I have also brought one along and refer him to Proverbs 24 : 24, and I quote—

We believe that prevention is better than cure, and basically, this legislation is going to be preventive in practice.

Another hon. member of that party, the hon. member for Sandton, is unfortunately not here today. However, last week, in another debate, he made interesting allegations. He told us about a place called Alexandra where 38 500 Blacks were living legally, but 12 000, too, were living illegally. In another Black area near Sandton there is a population of over 17 000 who are apparently there legally, and approximately 8 000 who are there illegally. I now want to quote the hon. member (Hansard, col. 5585)—

He went on to say that the place was developing into a place of evils and although the population was decreasing, crime was on the increase, that is to say, violent crimes like robbery and theft. He told us that there had been an increase of 8% in the crime rate over the past three years. He said that the number of assaults had increased by 18% and dagga offences by 20%. Then he says, and I am quoting once again (col. 5588)—

These are the words of the hon. member for Sandton. He asks for action and a decision. A proposal by the hon. the Minister of Community Development is now before the House to do precisely what the hon. member for Sandton asks, but now the hon. member for Rondebosch says on behalf of his party that they do not agree with this legislation. In other words, here the problem is identified; everyone agrees on it, but the solution which they asked for, a decision, a proposal, viz. vigorous action …

[Inaudible.]

Why did the hon. member for Rondebosch not make an alternative suggestion? Why does he not move an amendment?

It is still coming.

No, he just says that they oppose the legislation. However, he now has a whole night to work on the amendment.

There are two possibilities in respect of these 20 000 illegal Blacks to whom the hon. member for Sandton referred. Firstly it must be established whether they are unemployed. We must also combat the loafing. The increase in crime, of which he told us, indicates that many of them are unemployed. Since they do not work, they do not have money and therefore they cannot buy food and other things. This is the state of affairs throughout the squatter community. For this reason they steal, assault, and in the process, maim people too. This is why they smuggle dagga and have shebeens. This evil of loafing, work-shyness and laziness when it comes to regular work for five or six days of the week must be eradicated completely. It is time that the public are protected against these parasites who batten on the community and endanger the health of all with whom they come into contact through their squatting and unhygienic way of life. The public must be protected against these people who have to steal, thieve and in the process even murder merely to be able to exist, these people who also terrorize and threaten people of their own race, assault and maim them if they will not hand over all or part of the money they have earned by the sweat of their brow. If this legislation is going to be implemented strictly, it could be the key to the solution of the “skollie” problem, the loafing and the laziness. However, the hon. members of the PRP are opposed to this, while hon. members of the UP say a commission of inquiry must first go into the matter. I am sure that if we see to it that people work, our crime rate will drop, our rate of inflation will drop and our productivity will increase. Then everyone will have the money to afford the rent of a decent house, even if it is a dull little house. Then we would not have to hear that 60% of the people who are now squatters, come from municipal schemes because among other things they could not pay the rent. Then the forgotten ash heaps to which the hon. member for Sandton referred, could be cleared and the people who are living in filth, would then be able to have decent housing.

I am not quite sure whether proof that such a person has a job, is sufficient. I have already referred here to a master builder in Parow who informed me that the absentee rate among his Coloured labourers is as high as 22½%. Last week an industrialist from the Strand informed me that the absentee rate among his Coloured labourers was 30%. Under such circumstances the cost of living and inflation must surely rocket. Therefore I believe that an initial proof that a labourer has work and as a result qualifies to be here, is perhaps not sufficient. There will have to be a check whether such a person works regularly, because if he does not work regularly, he will not be able to pay the rent of the house. The person will then be evicted and become a squatter once again. The whole procedure will therefore be repeated. We already have experience of this phenomenon in practice.

I have already said that the one possibility is that the people may be unemployed. However, there is also another possibility, namely that they may indeed have work. If this is the case, I believe that it is a matter of honour that they must be accommodated and the squatting conditions be cleared. I do not believe that we differ on this. Employers and the owners of land on which people are living illegally, must accept joint responsibility for orderly coexistence and help to ensure that people can live decently. Those who have in the past refused to help or to accept joint responsibility, those who allowed the slum conditions and ways of life of the slum to arise, which became a danger to peace-loving and well-meaning people will eventually be dealt with and forced to accept joint responsibility.

Wally, you agree, don’t you?

With some of the things; but not with others.

The hon. the Minister has already dealt with certain figures and although I cannot improve on them in the slightest, I should like to add that according to the figures at my disposal there is a total of 27 000 squatters in the False Bay constituency. I know that when one speaks of numbers of squatters, one must allow for a variation in percentage, but I believe that it can be accepted that in my constituency there are most probably 27 000 squatters who are not properly accommodated. I sometimes gain the impression that hon. members of the Opposition wear blinkers when they speak about squatters. We see them every day, we live among them and we grasp the problem. We do not hate, nor do we bear a grudge against the squatters, but we realize that the prevailing conditions simply cannot remain as they are. Something must be done and we believe that the legislation is the key to this.

On 31 May 1974 the Stellenbosch Divisional Council said that illegal squatting was one of its biggest problems in spite of the fact that only 1 300 shanties remained in its area after more than 500 had been demolished the previous year. The Cape Divisional Council mentioned in its report for the year 1974-’75 that they calculated that there were 100 000 squatters in their area. The areas of these two councils lie in the form of a horseshoe around the Cape Peninsula. This is the point of arrival of those who come from the rural areas and is the last refuge of those who are moving out from the centre of the city. They usually squat with the permission of the owner.

We must make no mistake; there are Coloured owners, too, who allow squatting. In the agricultural area in the vicinity of Phillipi there are two Coloured owners and as far as I know, the properties of both are squatter towns. Apart from the squatters’ shanties, stables, chicken coops and pig sties are converted for human occupation. No approved building plans exist for these things. There are no sanitary services and water is not laid on. The squatters have to pay rent and are often exploited. There must be plans which have been approved by the local authority concerned for a pig sty, but no approved plans exist for many of the structures in which those people are living.

The hon. member for Green Point asks that a commission of inquiry should be appointed first while the hon. member for Rondebosch says that he wants nothing at all to do with the clearing of such conditions. The squatters are allowed to live in structures for which there are no building plans. Once they have moved in, they cannot be evicted unless alternative accommodation is provided. Since the courts have already given such rulings, the police no longer want to take action. They say that they are wasting their time; why should they pay attention to complaints of that kind? The owner has first to complain, but usually he does not. The result is that nobody bothers the squatter or the owner of the land. The squatters erect their shanties and move overnight, but usually move in on a Sunday. When one goes to have a look on a Monday morning, they are there.

The Bantu who are here legally must be provided with approved accommodation. This is a requirement which must be complied with before permission is given for them to be here. The Coloureds, however, are even allowed to live in pigsties. Surely this is not right; why should it be so? To me the important point with respect to this legislation is that individuals and local authorities here and there, too, allowed squatting to develop. That was the start. It began on a personal level. However, the process snowballed and developed into a situation which must be condemned. Although we sympathize with the man in need, we were wrong to pity him. Exploitation and even enrichment followed. The consequences of squatting have not been on the personal level for a long time. It has become a community problem and therefore the community must be protected against the bad effects and malpractices caused by squatting. This Bill takes the responsibility back to the starting point, viz. the owner of the land. The onus of proof will rest upon him and, in my opinion, this is correct. He is the responsible person. This is another good reason why this piece of legislation is essential.

Perhaps I should give hon. members two descriptions of what a squatter situation looks like. The Cape Divisional Council states the following in its report—

This is what the divisional council had to say in last year’s report. They said that new squatters were always arriving. The Cape Times had the following to say in 1974 about a certain squatter community—I really cannot improve on this—

This article was written as a result of the complaint of the UP Senator, Senator Piet Swanepoel, who complained at a public political meeting that certain NP representatives had not done their duty in respect of these squatters. Only now, two years after this type of problem was pointed out, does the hon. member for Green Point ask for a commission of inquiry to do something about this problem.

On 22 January last year a letter written by a Coloured clergyman appeared in Die Burger. Sir, I hope you will allow me to read sections of his letter here. I quote—

This is a responsible standpoint. This Bill will have the effect that people will not move to the city impulsively in search of mere expectations.

This law is not being passed so as to escape our duty towards the squatters. Surely there is ample proof of that. The person who is here legally, the useful person, is welcome. There is proof that a person like this is properly looked after. We are not simply pulling down shanties, we are also building thousands of houses, even though some of them are drab. The hon. the Minister furnished us with more than sufficient proof of this. We know from experience that when there need only be a rumour going around that a housing project for non-Whites, for squatters, is being started, for there to be an accelerated movement into the area. Due to this experience we have to take preventive measures. That is why the Government has introduced this Bill which, we trust, will close the loopholes once and for all. Therefore we take pleasure in supporting the Bill and hope that it will come into operation very soon.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for False Bay and his colleagues have sought to defend and to support the Bill before the House. The hon. member for Rondebosch has already made it clear that we will not support this Bill at Second Reading. In fact, we feel so strongly about this that, before I sit down, I shall move an amendment. I want to correct one impression which the hon. member for False Bay has perhaps given here this afternoon, despite the quite clear words uttered by my colleague. That is that we have stated again and again in this House that we are aware of the problem, that we are not supporting the fact of squatting as such, that we are aware that this …

[Inaudible.]

Well, if you would only listen, Sir, perhaps you will understand. Mr. Speaker, we have made it very clear that squatting as such is undesirable …

But!

We do not support the terms of this legislation, of this Bill, as an attempt to meet the seriousness of the situation. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Rondebosch suggested that the Bill before the House is directed mainly at Bantu squatters. The hon. the Minister interjected and said that was not so. Therefore, I assume he is talking about squatting in general and, of course, about Coloured squatters in particular.

Yes.

Right. I want to concentrate on that aspect of the Bill, and I would like to ask the hon. the Minister at the outset, whether he has consulted with the leaders, the duly designated leaders of the Coloured people, regarding this piece of legislation. I would also like him to tell this House how much support he has received from them.

What leaders are you referring to? Of course, we did have consultations with some of them.

Mr. Speaker, I assume therefore that the hon. the Minister tried …

[Inaudible.]

I see. Mr. Speaker, can we assume that those leaders who have been consulted, supported this Bill?

The hon. member can wait for my reply on that.

Thank you very much. I assume that they did not support the Bill. However, I would like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister and this hon. House to a resolution which was moved by 800 to 900 Coloured people who met at a special rally to consider the implications of this legislation for the Coloured people themselves. It has been suggested earlier by an hon. member on the other side that the Coloured people themselves support this move. But I want to make it very clear that, in terms of this resolution, they do not. They believe— whether they are correct or not, is beside the point—that the implications of this Bill for a great number of Coloured people living in the Western Cape, is the introduction of influx control for the Coloured community of South Africa.

Were you there?

No, I was not. Were you there? I should imagine some of your people were there. Secondly, this resolution was taken because they believe that this legislation will restrict the free movement of the Coloured community. Thirdly, they believe that this legislation aims at gaining a better control of farm workers by preventing them from finding work in the urban and industrial areas of South Africa, and that this legislation will give unfettered control to local authorities over the property of Coloured people. They, therefore, condemn this proposed legislation in the strongest of terms and will fight its introduction and its implementation with all the powers at their command. They further appeal for assistance by responsible people in this House through voicing their objection to this Bill. We have looked at this legislation with care. My colleague and I, and other hon. members on both sides of the House, have visited a number of the squatter communities over the last two years. We have talked to the officials and to the hon. the Deputy Minister, as well as to the people living there. We have tried to assess the various reasons as to why people are actually squatting, how many there are, what their future is, what their position is and what they would like to see happen, if at all possible.

It is clear that there is an enormous squatter population throughout South Africa, but in particular here in the Cape Western region. They form a semi-circle around the more affluent areas, using unused scrub lands in the main, or rented plots in urban areas. According to my calculation, there are at least 7 000 squatter settlements in the Cape Town municipal area, 12 000 in the divisional council area and 3 000 in other municipal areas, making a total of well-nigh 23 000 structures, housing at least 120 000 people. I believe that it is very much higher and I am trying to be as conservative as I possibly can be in regard to the figures. It is probably about 180 000 Coloured people and approximately a further 15 000 Blacks.

On what do you base that?

On actual calculations by people who have gone into the areas themselves, people from very responsible bodies, people at the University of Cape Town who have taken surveys, the Chamber of Commerce and Prof. S. P. Cilliers against whom, perhaps, the hon. the Minister might have something as well. The Cape Times completed a survey on 9 June 1975, after having contacted various people who had been working with this problem over many years. We accept that it is not a new problem. They suggested that there are about 200 000 people who are living as squatters. This means that at least one in five of the Coloured population are living as squatters and that one out of every seven of the Bantu population live in these squatter areas. I simply outline the magnitude of the problem. I am well aware that the hon. the Minister and his colleagues are equally aware of the magnitude of the problem. That is the only point I am making so far.

Another question is why people live in this way. This has arisen during the course of the debate and various suggestions have been made. The most simplistic reason that has been suggested is that these people like it there. Of course there are a few people in every kind of community who will not fit into society and will not adapt or adjust and who will take the easiest way out. It is not the way you or I, Sir, would like to take, but nevertheless it is taken.

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

I am sorry, but I cannot answer the hon. member’s question at the moment. I am trying to develop a point, but if I have time at the end I shall be glad to answer the hon. member’s question. The question I want to try to grapple with is why these people are actually in squatter camps right now. If we are trying to reach a solution to the problem, it is of the essence to really understand why they are there at all. Are they merely unhousable people who come to annoy the city fathers and make a nuisance of themselves, or are there other more complex reasons and circumstances which lead to this problem? Certainly some of the squatters are unhousables without a regular source of income. However, my submission to the House is that the majority of those who are squatting at the present time are not Something of the order of about 25% of the Coloured squatters are immigrants from country areas who have come to Cape Town to seek work. There is a lack of farm work because of increasing mechanization. In any case, many of them in interviews conducted by the university suggested that they had come here in the hope that they would be able to increase the inadequate wages where they were working, and that they would earn a better wage in the towns. This is a natural phenomenon which has been taking place ever since the industrial age dawned in the world. People have come towards the cities, towards the bright lights. They have often been disillusioned, but the fact of the matter is that they have been so attracted as have many Whites in the past in South Africa.

According to my calculations most of the rest of the squatters are people who were born in Cape Town and who would like to have a house in the housing estates, but are unable to find accommodation there. Anybody who goes to these housing estates cannot deny that they are hopelessly overcrowded. At Bonteheuwel, for example, a place I have visited many, many times, there was a reasonably roomy situation until what is called the “infill” scheme was undertaken and a single-storey house ended up with a double-storey house in its back-yard, leading to crammed conditions without even minimal privacy. The tiny houses at Netreg, another community, are very crowded and smaller than many squatter dwellings. People live cheek-by-jowl in these estates, and yet there is not enough room.

The Cape Town City Council has announced that the waiting list contains at least 2 000 families needing housing and that the minimum waiting period is five years. This is a very real problem. It is not merely a question of people wanting to escape from their responsibilities and wanting to go and shack somewhere under the bushes in the rain. That is not the real reason. The real reason is that there happen to be—and this is confirmed by these figures given to me by the City Council itself and are not my own figures— 20 000 families needing housing while the minimum waiting period is five years. Where do these people live for those five years? They cannot simply disappear, but have to find some place to live. The situation is deteriorating all the time because of the population explosion. Of course attention must be given in this direction as well. Consequently many Coloured families, especially newly-married families who have been brought up on these estates literally have nowhere else to go. I am convinced that there are members in this House who have had young Coloured people coming to them asking for help, decent young people saying that they want to get married, but that they have nowhere to say and that the housing list is a mile long. Both in Johannesburg and in Cape Town these representations have been made. What do these people then do? They should get sympathy and not severe legislation which makes it impossible for them to exist. Most of them, therefore, have very little option but to turn to squatting for five to seven years, the time it takes to get to the top of the waiting list. These people do so out of desperation. For each family turning to squatting another will choose to live in established housing schemes in conditions of overcrowding and lack of privacy that are hardly superior to a squatter’s life.

There are also some families who choose to leave the housing estates—that is quite correct. Apart from the lack of control over their personal environment consequent upon living in public housing there are also serious crime problems in many of the estates. This is a problem not merely found in the squatting areas; it is also a very serious problem in the estates. Despite the housing shortage the Kreefgat houses, for example, were closed down a long time ago. Gang activity is one of the reasons for this. I see the hon. the Minister is shaking his head.

I shook my head because your argument is ridiculous.

Yes, all right, but one of the reasons stated in the report about the Kreefgat houses was that gang activity made it well-nigh impossible for people to live there. This is not my observation; it is in an official report concerning those houses.

There is another problem. Many squatters with regular wages have incomes below the poverty datum line and cannot afford even to pay sub-economic rents for council houses. Some can afford to pay these rents, but choose not to do so. Squatting is cheaper and in view of some of the facts just mentioned, sometimes better value. We should acknowledge that. One has to accept that there are some people who have decided to opt out of municipal housing schemes because it is cheaper to squat and because they do not want to have all the responsibilities. However, that accounts for only a small percentage. If one looks at the income levels of the people who are squatting one finds, according to a histogram produced by a professor at the university, that 20% of the squatters in Kensington and Athlone earn less than R50 per month and that 55% earn less than R100 per month. This is a vast socio-economic problem. We simply are not going to solve it by introducing more and more and more legislation. We will make it more difficult for people to find even inadequate housing. I concede that the shanty-dwellers are not all people of this kind. 9% of them earn more than R200 per month which, in this kind of community, is quite a respectable salary in the lives of many people.

Is this lack of housing for the Coloured people simply because of a high birth rate and a slow building programme, or are there other causes operating as well? The fact of the matter is that one of the greatest problems or factors that has contributed most to the Coloured housing shortage is undeniably the Group Areas Act.

I thought you were irresponsible, but I see you are just ignorant.

No, I am not ignorant at all. If the hon. the Minister cannot take criticism, then he should not be where he is. This and related legislation has worsened the situation in at least three ways. The hon. the Minister will have an opportunity to react, but let me put three suggestions to him. Firstly, no option is given to families created by mixed Black and Coloured marriages as there is a complete lack of housing for them in Black townships and they are not allowed to live in Coloured areas. I defy the hon. the Minister to give me an answer to that. This is the fact of the matter. It is for this reason that these people have to squat. Secondly, it has enormously restricted the land available for Black and Coloured housing, thereby slowing down building programmes and pushing up the cost of building in usually inconvenient and inaccessible land. It has created a shortage of readily available and suitable land for Coloured housing. Thirdly, removals which have taken place under the Group Areas Act have led directly to a large loss of housing which was previously available to the Coloured community. When one tries to discover what has happened to the houses which were once owned and lived in by Coloured families, one finds that many of these houses have been renovated and added to the White housing stock. They now form very pleasant White suburbs. Some houses such as the labourers’ cottages at Kirstenbosch have simply been left to stand empty. The hon. the Minister is welcome to go and have a look at them. They are standing there empty. Similarly, some Simonstown flats formerly housing Coloured dockyard workers have been unoccupied for years and have been allowed to decay. Many more of the old Coloured homes, those at Kommetjie for instance, have simply been demolished.

You are being dishonest.

I am absolutely right and if that hon. member does not like it, he can accompany me when I go there again.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: Is the hon. member allowed to say that another hon. member is “dishonest”?

Mr. Speaker, I meant that he was being dishonest in his presentation of the facts, because he does not give us the rate of absenteeism; he does not give us the numbers of the people who will not work; and he does not give us their birth rate.

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

I withdraw it, Sir.

Thank you very much. If the hon. member for Carletonville does not believe me I want to ask him to give me a convincing answer about what has happened to District Six. The current plans for redevelopment in this area are aimed at providing convenient housing and amenities for which group? It is, as always, for the White group. Some of the houses in District Six were undoubtedly slums but it is not only the loss of prime land and the destruction of their community that has been a heavy blow to the Coloured community; they have also lost their housing stock itself, even if some of it was in a bad condition. This has had very serious consequences, because at least 15 000 Coloured families lost their homes in the greater Cape Town area because of the provisions of the Group Areas Act. This figure could well be as large as 20 000 or 25 000. This means that the Act has played a very large part in causing a shortage of Coloured housing and the immediate consequent development of squatter townships. Of course squatting has been here for a long time. Of course it is found in many other parts of the world, but I am suggesting that the policies of the Government have aggravated the situation and therefore they have a major responsibility for it. [Interjections.] Hon. members can deny it if they want to; they can shout if they want to, but the fact of the matter is that it is true and there are many hon. members on that side of the House who know it.

What are the future prospects for the squatters? What are they going to do about the situation they are in? The official programme has several aspects. Firstly a crash housing programme is being undertaken, particularly at Mitchell’s Plain, south of the D. F. Malan airport. Very large sums of money are being invested in building good quality housing. In parenthesis I just want to say, in case some hon. members missed what I have just said, that the Government is engaged in providing good quality housing, and that a great deal of money is being spent. I think it is tremendous.

What more do you want?

I am glad hon. members have received the message. It is anticipated that these people will move to Mitchell’s Plain, which will enable squatters to be housed by filling the vacancies created in these housing estates. Another large scheme is that of Atlantis near Mamre. Coupled with this building programme is a policy of strict control of shacks. People are constantly being moved to official camps. Recognized shacks are numbered and recorded and unauthorized shacks are demolished. Now, we find this piece of legislation before the House. The previous demolition procedure was either to use a bulldozer or to attach a cable from a tractor to the shack and then pull steadily until the whole lot caved in while the resident watched impotently. The real question this House should be debating.

Is this your solution?

Yes, this is it. The question is whether this policy package of new buildings, strict control and group area evictions will solve the squatter problem. I believe it will not. Mitchell’s Plain suffers from two major disadvantages. It is far from the major sources and areas of employment and therefore repayments of high quality home ownership houses are so high that insufficient people may be prepared to move there from the various housing estates in which they find themselves now. Then of course there are the Government cut-backs which have already been referred to. Various groups have made proposals and I am sure the hon. the Minister must have received copies of various schemes which are trying to cope with the squatter problem in a responsible manner. I have tried to suggest a few steps. They may be quite useless, but I think this House needs to hear every point of view in attempting to solve this very real problem. First of all, I would suggest that emergency steps should be taken to improve the health situation in all squatter areas which are expected to remain for more than 12 months.

How?

If you do not even know how to introduce health measures, then you are even worse off than I thought. However, I shall spell it out for the hon. member. It would include a clean-up, a regular rubbish removal, adequate provision of water and adequate toilet facilities. I am sure the hon. the Minister knows of a place called Ferebos. Residents there, according to my information and after having spoken to some of the residents, are engaged in just such a health improvement scheme in conjunction with the Cape Flats committee for interim accommodation. This is a temporary move to improve conditions in these areas until more permanent arrangements can be made. I think this is one of the first steps that ought to be taken in an emergency plan.

Secondly, I believe that some squatter areas have the potential to be upgraded into satisfactory permanent living areas. Some of these do exist and provision of services is one of the necessary elements in achieving this. Most of all, there must be community backing and participation in the scheme, plus sufficient security of tenure to enable the people to feel adequately secure so that they can participate in the kind of development which can and will be necessary. The way in which a squatter shanty can be transformed by the owner’s efforts alone, if he has sufficient security of tenure, can be seen in this way. The owner is utilizing his own energy and money to turn his home into a satisfactory permanent structure. This should be encouraged. However, to enable this to happen, community participation is absolutely essential. Building by-laws will have to be adjusted to allow the interim accommodation legal status. Given the correct conditions which reinforce community structures, much satisfactory housing can be developed in this way at a minimum expense.

The third step which should be taken is the development of new areas to house squatters whose homes are not suitable for upgrading. Here the whole concept of a core-house concept can be utilized. It has been developed in other parts of the world and it has been developed in some parts of this country for other communities, including White communities. The core-house begins in a very small way and additions are made possible as the man’s income allows for it. Given a reasonable site enabling the provision of housing and the provision of work to be integrated in a satisfactory way, such housing could be successfully provided within the means of the lower income groups. There is no reason why a squatter house could not be incorporated satisfactorily into existing housing stock. The energies which have led to this kind of development could surely be harnessed in a carefully planned core-house scheme.