The hon. Minister tabled yesterday details of the moneys to be appropriated for this special Bantu education Bill. In view of the fact that many of us have not had an opportunity of studying the figures, I wonder whether the Minister will be good enough to give a rough outline of the amount that it is intended to set aside for this special Bantu education.

I am sorry, I have not got the particulars with me, but it will be the amount set aside in the Vote for Special Education, which is a separate Vote every year. If the hon. member would refer to the Estimates for the current financial year, he will get an idea of the amount that is annually spent in that connection and there is a tendency to increase that amount from year to year as the need arises.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 12,

I mentioned during the second-reading debate that I should like the hon. Minister to consider that these children should not be required to pay tuition fees, although I have no objection to their having to pay boarding fees. I am referring now to sub-section (1) (a). I wonder whether the hon. Minister would be prepared to consider an amendment so that the clause would read “in respect of special boarding provided for that child pay such fees as may be required by the Secretary in accordance with the tariffs determined from time to time”. In other words, it comes to this, that the parents of these children admitted to these special schools for the blind, the deaf, etc., would be required to make provision for boarding, but not for the actual tuition and training. Would the hon. Minister be prepared to consider that concession?

I do not think it is necessary to bring about an amendment of that nature. Let me just tell the hon. member what the approved basis of the subsidy is to-day then he will realize that he need not have any fears in this connection. At the moment we subsidize the salaries, allowances and leave gratuities of the approved teaching staff to the full extent; we subsidize the salaries, wages, allowances and leave gratuities of all the other approved staff to the extent of two-thirds; we pay a maximum maintenance allowance of £54 per annum in respect of approved needy pupils who board in a school hostel or such lesser allowance as the Secretary may determine with due consideration to the contribution the parents themselves can make in his opinion; we pay the travelling costs of approved boarders on admission and when they leave and for the July and December holidays and other approved occasions, including the full travelling and subsistence allowance of their companions, or part of the costs as the Secretary may determine with due consideration to the contribution the parents can make in his opinion. Then we pay all the travelling costs of those approved needy day scholars who do not live in the hostel and if they are not in a position to pay it themselves, or a portion of it, as the Secretary may determine with due consideration to the contributions the parents can make in his opinion. Moreover we subsidize the cost of one meal per day in respect of approved needy day scholars who do not live in the hostel who, because of the school timetable or the distance they are away from home, have to take their midday meal at school, at a rate determined by the Secretary in consultation with the Treasury. Then we pay a subsidy of two-thirds of the costs of approved buildings, including alterations to existing buildings, architects’ fees, survey costs and the purchase price of the sites for the buildings and everything in that connection on condition that the school must have its own share, namely one-third, available before the State makes its contribution. Then we subsidize the travelling and subsistence allowance of Government representatives on boards, to the full extent according to a tariff laid down by the Secretary in consultation with the Treasury. We subsidize the travelling and subsistence allowances, at the current Public Service tariff, of members of the staff when, on the instructions of the Secretary, they have to act in the service of the State and we subsidize half of all other approved expenditure. The hon. member will realize, therefore, that we pay a very liberal subsidy to these institutions and that in actual fact the parents do not have to carry any educational costs in this connection, because the salaries of the teachers are fully subsidized, the equipment is subsidized and no school fees are really charged at any of these institutions. The only fees charged in respect of children, and then only part of it, are for boarding when they live in the hostels.

I quite see the hon. the Minister’s point of view, but although all these amounts are paid by the Government this clause says very definitely that they will be in respect of special education. If the Minister can give an assurance that tuition fees will not be charged, I will be perfectly satisfied, and that they will only be charged for boarding fees. But as I understood what the hon. the Minister said, what he is prepared to do is to make tuition fees free except in those cases where the parents can pay. If that is the position, and if he is not prepared to make a concession, I understand it.

Mr. Chairman, I want to make some inquiries in regard to Clause 12 (2). It seems to me that it is a very cumbersome process that in each case where different fees may be determined or exemptions may be granted this can only be done in consultation with the Minister and the Minister of Finance. I notice in other clauses of the Bill that the Secretary has certain functions and powers and I wonder whether the Minister can explain why it is necessary to have this cumbersome process in deciding whether a particular child should be admitted to the school free.

I first want to deal with the doubts the hon. member who has just sat down has expressed in regard to Clause 12 (2). It is general practice in the Public Service that in respect of all expenditure the Treasury must exercise financial control and no Department can act without the approval of the Treasury when there are financial implications of any nature whatsoever, and I think that is right. The Treasury constitutes the safety valve in regard to the financial obligations undertaken by the State. That is why it is necessary in each case where a provision is laid down for the first time or where a provision is amended that the Treasury should be recognized. As far as the general question of class fees is concerned, to which the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has referred, I stated clearly what we did and that no class fees were in actual fact collected, but that we had an over-all amount at these schools, which amounted to this that where the parents of a child were in a position to do so, they really only paid part of the boarding fees. We must leave the door open for the parents to contribute according to their ability. I think the hon. member will agree with that.

I do not agree, but I understand it.

The better the financial position of the parents the greater the portion of the boarding fees they have to pay and that is why the Minister must have this discretionary power. The hon. member need not be afraid that we shall charge class fees. It may be as we develop, as we reach the stage where there may be schools for cerebral palsied children for Bantu in the urban areas as well, which is very expensive training, and where it is not necessary to have hostels, and where the parent may be able to contribute something that they will be asked to do so because I think it is only right that those who can should contribute to enable us to help the children of other parents who cannot contribute anything.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 13,

This clause says that the Minister may in respect of any special Bantu Government school establish a committee to advise the Secretary. I wonder whether the Minister does not feel that it might be advantageous to omit the word “any” and to create an advisory committee which could advise the Secretary in regard to all special Bantu schools. I say this because from an examination of the latest report issued by the Department, dated 1961 and made available to us in May last year, it does not appear that there is a medical man on the establishment of the Department. I feel that when one is dealing with children who are injured or handicapped it may be necessary sometimes to take advantage of the experience of a medical man. I feel that if an advisory body could be created for one particular school, an advisory body for all the schools, which would include the services of a medical officer, would be a good step which would help to smooth the administration. If one goes a little further one finds in the Bill that the Secretary or the Deputy Secretary or an Under-Secretary may administer the terms of the Bill, and under those circumstances it could well be that in the absence of the Secretary an official not well versed in the administration of these schools may be called upon to make decisions. Therefore I ask whether the Minister will consider the suggestion I have made.

The hon. member must remember that this clause refers only to advisory committees for special State Bantu schools and not to subsidized schools. At the moment there are no State Bantu schools of this nature. All existing schools are subsidized or private schools and every one of them has a committee which exercises control and to which I also appoint a few members. If it is at all possible I see to it that doctors are also appointed to those committees. In respect of schools for the blind I try to appoint somebody with a special knowledge of ophthalmics and at schools for cripples I try to appoint somebody with a special knowledge of physiotherapy etc. But that is in respect of subsidized schools. This clause, however, only deals with State Bantu schools where there is not a controlling body. It may happen that you have to establish such a school to meet a certain need, or that you have to take another school over and that you are unable to appoint an advisory committee immediately on which you can have all these people. That is why it is safer to say that I may do it. The policy is indeed to do it, but if we say I must do it and there is no committee then the school cannot function. The position may arise that you have to go carry on with your activities, even without a committee, for practical reasons. It is only worded like this to be on the safe side, but the intention is to appoint such people.

Clause put and agreed to.

On Clause 19,

Does this clause mean that the Minister will lay down the salaries to be paid in any subsidized school?

That is the intention and that happens in practice. In actual fact, where the State subsidizes the teaching staff it also lays down the salaries and the conditions of employment. If private institutions want to increase those salaries or other benefits they will have to obtain permission because we do not want to have one school competing with another in order to attract the best teaching staff by offering higher salaries. There must be a measure of uniformity.

But they may increase them?

Only when permission has been obtained. But that really does not present a problem to-day. These people are being paid reasonably well and their salaries are fully subsidized and for that reason we should have a say over the salaries.

Clause put and agreed to.

Remaining Clauses and Title of the Bill put and agreed to.

I move—

There are several reasons which I explained to the Whips of the Opposition. The Minister has to open a very important research building to-day. A few thousand people have been invited and also a number of scientists from overseas.

I move—That the Bill be now read a second time.

It is well known that it is the Government’s declared policy gradually to relax rent control or to abolish it wherever at all possible. For instance control over dwellings has already been lifted over 205 of the 274 areas in which it was originally instituted as well as over all business premises in 1956. However, it would appear that a certain category of landlords have discovered loop-holes in the existing legislation by means of which they are exploiting tenants. One of the objects of the Bill now before the House is the elimination of such loop-holes to prevent the exploitation of the members of the tenant community. I shall deal with this aspect more fully later on.

However, before proceeding further I feel that I must correct erroneous impressions which have been created by misleading reports which have appeared in the Press about this measure and its effect on the public. I wish to state categorically that it is not and never was an object of the Bill to extend the provisions of the rents legislation also to all dwellings which are at present uncontrolled. The only object of the legislation is the prevention of exploitation of the public, including those members thereof residing in uncontrolled dwellings. To this end legal machinery is envisaged in the Bill which will enable the State President to fix the rental of a specific dwelling, or all the dwellings in a specific building or all the dwellings in a specified area on a reasonable level, and to make such dwellings subject to the provisions of the Rents Act if exploitation in respect thereof is taking place.

A Proclamation for such extensions will only be issued on my recommendation after I have been satisfied that exploitation in respect of such a dwelling, building or area is in fact taking place, which must be curbed. It is therefore not true to say that all dwellings which were occupied for the first time subsequent to 20 October 1949 are now being made subject to the Rent Act. I wish, however, to read a telegram, one of many I have received. I have received telegrams from tenants and from landlords and I do not want to read them all, but I want to read one telegram which came from Johannesburg—

This is the sort of telegram I have received from all over the country—from Cape Town, Durban and other cities.

In terms of the existing legislation, the Minister is only empowered to effect total decontrol in circumscribed areas. This system has the disadvantage that he must wait until the housing position in a specific area has improved to such an extent that the whole area can be decontrolled. In practice this means that although there may be sufficient dwellings of a certain standard or type in the area, control may not be abolished in respect of such dwellings as there may still be a shortage of another type of accommodation in the same area which necessitates the retention of control. This Bill therefore has as one of its objects the creation of powers which will permit of the decontrol of even a single dwelling, or certain types of dwellings, whilst control over other types can still be retained. This is a proposal I am making after having had discussions with Members of Parliament and with property owners’ associations last year.

Where provision is now to be made to permit of a concession to landlords, it is also necessary to create means by which it will be possible to ensure that tenants of uncontrolled dwellings will not be subjected to exploitation by some landlords whose greed for money is stronger than their sense of fairplay.

It would seem that as a result of the influx of large numbers of immigrants, and also of the country’s flourishing economy an increased demand for housing is being experienced in all the larger centres. For instance, it is estimated that in respect of only the income group R180 and less per month there is a demand for 2,000 dwellings at Durban, 1,000 at Cape Town, 1,000 on the Witwatersrand, 2,000 at Port Elizabeth and for several hundreds at places such as Pretoria, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, etc.

In most cases the Department of Housing together with local authorities is taking the necessary steps to plan and provide low-cost housing where the demand exists, but as hon. members know, the planning usually takes a long time.

According to newspaper reports and the correspondence columns of daily papers in all the more important centres, as well as information placed at my disposal by victims and other responsible persons, this increased demand for accommodation is being exploited by some owners of uncontrolled dwellings, that is, dwellings occupied subsequent to 20 October 1949 in a manner and on a scale that cannot be tolerated by a responsible government. Not only is new accommodation becoming available being offered at exorbitant rentals but the rentals of existing dwellings and flats have in some centres been increased by amounts far in excess of 10 per cent during the past 12 months. In some cases increases of 30 per cent have even been reported No justification exists for the belief that this tendancy will come to an end in the near future. On the contrary, it is generally considered that these conditions will still deteriorate if the demand for accommodation increases.

I must point out that in most developing countries housing shortages exist, and in most Western European countries rent control is still maintained.

As hon. members will realize practices having the effect of the purchasing power of a tenant’s income being absorbed almost completely by too high rentals cannot be tolerated, because the international standard is about 20 per cent of his income and it furthermore creates an inflationary position in respect of broader economic conditions which is most harmful to the community in general.

To combat this malpractice powers are also contemplated which will enable the State President, on the recommendation of the Minister, to extend the provisions of the Rents Act 1950, also to dwellings occupied subsequent to 20 October 1949 as well as to dwellings still in the course of erection or still to be erected. The powers envisaged are intended to be permissive and will therefore be exercised only if the Minister after considering a report by the rent board concerned, if a rent board exists, or by the Secretary for Housing if no rent board is in operation, is satisfied that the rental charged for a dwelling or dwellings is such that it can be regarded as grossly excessive. The rentals of new dwellings in an area in respect of which the State President has issued a proclamation will in such event also have to be determined by a Rent Board.

In the proposed amendment provision is also being made for the Minister to release from control any dwelling, dwellings or area in respect of which it had been instituted by the State President by proclamation if the Minister is satisfied that conditions had returned to normal. What is intended therefore is not the extension of control over premises which are at present uncontrolled, but only the creation of machinery by means of which steps can be taken when necessary, to regulate the rental in respect of such premises until the danger of rack-renting has abated.

If I am in the future forced to apply the powers made possible by this provision the landlords concerned will only have themselves to blame. I issue this warning in the interests of landlords as well as tenants.

The Bill therefore mainly deals with the elimination of loopholes and endeavours to stop exploitation. The other amendments are principally of an administrative nature and are intended only to bring the Act up to date.

I now wish to refer to the different clauses. Paragraphs (a) and (c) of Clause 1 contain no new principles but merely adjust the Act to existing conditions. Paragraph (b) deletes the words “not exceeding” in paragraph (b) of sub-section (1) of the principal Act and has the effect that a rent board may not allow a smaller percentage than 6 per cent on its valuation of land in the determination of a rental for a controlled dwelling. Up to now they had the right to allow up to 6 per cent, but now we fix it at 6 per cent. This is a concession to the landlords. This amendment is justified by present conditions and should meet with the ready approval of property owners.

In terms of paragraphs (d) and (e) rent boards must now also determine rentals for garages or parking bays on controlled premises in cases where such garages or parking bays are not let as an integral portion of a dwelling. This is one of the loopholes by means of which lessors circumvent the provisions of the Rents Act at present as they often let such facilities which are not controlled by law at exorbitant rentals.

Clauses 2 and 6 are consequential amendments only and merely adjust the Act to the legal position existing at present. Clause 3 amends Section 7 of the principal Act. It contains no new principles but merely provides that the documents in regard to rent board hearings can also be served by prepaid registered post. Clause 4 amends Section 13 to provide for the appointment of a Rent Control Board consisting of three instead of five members.

Clause 5 amends Section 25 of the principal Act and is one of the more important clauses in this Bill. The new sub-sections (2) bis and (2) ter which are added by this clause are intended to eliminate loopholes in the existing Act. Prospective tenants of controlled dwellings are in cases being manoeuvred by landlords into a position, in which, in order to obtain a dwelling on lease, the tenant must also agree to accept and pay rental for furniture and equipment which are in the premises or which are brought therein, by a third party, usually at an impossible rental, with the result that such tenants are exploited in a scandalous manner. The amendment contemplated in sub-section (2) bis has as its object the placing also of such furniture or equipment under control. According to a decision of the Supreme Court such furniture and equipment brought into a controlled premises by a third party is not at present subject to control. Determination of rents in this connection will take place in accordance with a formula prescribed by a circular issued to all Rent Boards in 1950 and which is still applicable to-day.

Furthermore I must point out that in Section 1 (ix) of the existing Act reasonable rent is defined as including a return on the land of 6 per cent; on the value of the building 8 per cent; an amount of not exceeding 2 per cent in respect of maintenance and also the amount paid for wages, taxes, etc. Paragraph 7 (d) of the circular dealing with furniture reads—

That is the instruction which was given to rent boards all over the country. Furthermore, I want to refer hon. members to Section 1 (9) of the existing Act where “reasonable rent” is defined as including a return on the land of up to 6 per cent—we are now making it 6 per cent—on the value of the building 8 per cent and an amount of not exceeding 2 per cent in respect of maintenance and also the amount paid for wages, taxes, etc I may say that the Department of Housing which is a property-owner on a large scale finds that 2 per cent is quite adequate for this purpose.

The position in respect of garages and parking bays which are available on controlled premises, but which are not on integral parts of specified dwellings, as for example in the case of a block of flats, is that tenants can be charged exorbitant rentals therefor because such garages are regarded as business premises and are therefore uncontrolled. The proposed amendment in sub-section (2) bis provides that a rent board must now also determine a rental for such garages or parking spaces.

I now come to Clause 7. This clause amends Section 33 of the principal Act and is one of the more important clauses of this Bill. By the insertion of paragraph (2) of sub-section (1) provision is made for the Minister of Housing to release from control a single dwelling or any type or class of dwellings, which may also vary from place to place. As I said in my general remarks this is an important concession as in terms thereof control can be lifted gradually and in an orderly manner in any area in respect of which a rent board has been instituted.

With the insertion of sub-section (1) bis to (1)quat provision is made in terms of the Act for protective machinery to be put into motion in cases where property owners charge exorbitant rentals for their properties.

I now come to (1) bis. In this sub-section provision is made for the rent board of a district or the Secretary for Housing, if a rent board is no longer functioning in a district, to investigate the rentals being charged for uncontrolled premises and to submit a report to the Minister of Housing in connection with his findings. If the Minister of Housing is satisfied in consequence of a report that the lessors of dwellings, or all the dwellings in a particular building (block of flats) or all the dwellings in a specified area are exploiting any abnormal demand for accommodation, he may recommend to the State President that the provisions of the principal Act be made applicable to a specific dwelling, building or area. The State President may then by proclamation extend the provision of the principal Act to such dwellings, building or area. The State President may also fix a date in the proclamation, which may be before or subsequent to the date of the proclamation, as from which date the provisions of the Rents Act will apply to such dwelling, building or area.

In the Committee Stage I shall come forward with a small amendment to stipulate that after that date a rent control board cannot diminish the rent unless the Minister sanctions it.

Then I come to sub-section (1) ter, which provides that a lessor of a dwelling which is subject to rent control in terms of sub-section (1) bis may not charge a higher rental for his premises than the amount charged on the date fixed by the proclamation and in this way rentals can be frozen at a reasonable level. It also provides in respect of dwellings which are let for the first time after the date of the proclamation that a rental therefor would have to be determined by the Rent Board. Subsection (1)quat merely makes it obligatory for the lessor of a dwelling to furnish the Rent Board or the Secretary for Housing, as the case may be, with information he may require to prepare a report for the Minister to which reference is made in sub-section (1) bis.

Mr. Speaker, I also want to say at this stage that I propose to introduce two further small amendments in the Committee Stage. I may just as well read them to the House now; they will be put on the Order Paper in due course. I propose to move in the Committee Stage that if a Rent Board cannot dispose of applications within the 90 days provided for in the Bill, the period can be adjusted; secondly, that the Bill will not apply to dwellings let by bona fide owners or lessees for periods of three months or less. That is designed to deal with those cases where people go overseas for a few months and let their houses to people to look after the house in their absence. The third amendment, to which I have already referred, is that a rent board may not reduce a rental determined by the fixed date, the date stipulated in the proclamation by the State President, without the Minister’s consent. The fourth amendment will provide that the provisions of the Bill will not apply to dwellings let for the first time after the fixed date even though they are in an area in respect of which the provisions of the Rents Act have been applied by proclamation unless it is made applicable to them by notice in the Government Gazette. I think that will meet some of the objections which have been raised hitherto in this connection.

Sir, I know that rents legislation is not popular with all sections of the community but it is very necessary under present conditions, not only in South Africa but also in other countries of the world. Hon. members will also agree that we cannot close our eyes to unscrupulous people exploiting fortuitous circumstances for personal gain. I am convinced that this is a just and proper way of dealing with the problem on a short-term basis, while on the other hand the State and local authorities must take the necessary steps to provide houses for the lower and middle-income group as fast as possible.

It is quite clear on the admission of the Minister himself that a crisis in housing has developed in the past year in this country. There are simply not enough houses and flats for families looking for them; there is a big shortage, and as the Minister himself has said, he expects this position to deteriorate in the immediate future. In consequence there has been a rapid increase in rentals in many areas and many tenants are suffering hardship. The Minister is not accusing all landlords of exploitation; it is only a section of the landlords who are racketeering and taking tenants for a ride. But as usual hon. members opposite, with their naive faith in the power of legislation, believe that they can cure all economic and social evils simply by passing laws. Here again they seem to believe that this problem which has arisen can simply be removed by this amending legislation. That is the whole attitude which the Minister adopted. He did in the end speak a little about encouraging local authorities and other authorities to increase the amount of housing available. Sir, what will this legislation bring about? It will undoubtedly bring immediate relief to many victims of recent excessive increases in rental, but what will it do for the many people who cannot find houses because of the shortage which exists and which the Minister himself admitted? What will it do for all those immigrants and other South Africans who are desperately looking for reasonably priced houses and flats and who cannot find them?

We are not dealing with that now.

Then I want to make this other point.

When is he going to deal with that?

Unless the Minister is wise enough to accept some of the advice that we are going to offer from this side, this legislation will make the position worse instead of better. Sir, to decide what the right measures are that should be taken in this crisis, surely one should first of all find out why this shortage of housing has arisen. We know that two years ago there was a surplus of houses and flats. Why has this situation suddenly arisen? The Minister has apparently given the answer himself. The sudden and increased demand for housing stems from the two causes which he gave himself, namely the increased rate of economic growth in the past 18 months, and secondly, the rapid increase in immigration. In the past year we had over 30,000 immigrants. Sir, what does that mean? If we consider that the normal rate of increase of our White population is 50,000, then obviously if any Government embarked on an immigration scheme of the order of 30,000 immigrants a year, which is the target of this Government, they should realize beforehand that is going to create a tremendous additional demand for housing, because the rate of increase of the White population is stepped up by 60 per cent and the extra demand for housing will probably be even more than 60 per cent if one takes into account the fact that in general there are more family units amongst the immigrants. Quite clearly a Government which knows what it is about, should surely have realized that immigration of the order of 30,000 per annum would greatly increase the demand for housing, and would have taken special steps to meet the demand. But what do we hear from the Minister to-day? He said that it would seem that this increased demand was due to the large number of immigrants arriving in this country Sir, any person with a little bit of common sense should have realized that this is exactly what is going to happen if you go in for large-scale immigration. The normal increase in demand, which is accounted for by economic growth, has in the past been coped with by the normal development in the building industry as such. But what do we find here? We find that this Government, which can tell us 15 or 20 years in advance where every racial group is going to live and how big the cities are going to be, apparently could not foretell that large-scale immigration would require a large-scale expansion of housing accommodation. Sir, then the Minister comes along and says that planning takes time. I laughed when he made that statement and I will tell him why I laughed. It is precisely because planning takes time that he should have made his plans a year ago instead of waiting until now. Surely that is the answer. One of the most simple things that one can foretell in a social context like this is that if you get more people you are going to need more housing accommodation, but apparently it has taken the Minister completely by surprise judging by his speech. I would like to suggest to the Government that if they wish to adopt more United Party policies they should consult with us. If they would consult with us we would gladly explain all the implications of our policies to them. Do hon. members opposite really imagine that we would have been so stupid as to embark on a policy of large-scale immigration without taking special steps to see that the housing was available when the people arrived? Sir, you do not even have to be clever to think about that: They could simply have looked around to see what was done by other countries who have gone in for large-scale immigration, countries like Australia and the Rhodesian Federation. When those countries embarked on large-scale immigration they took special steps to see that housing would be available for the immigrants. Sir, I say that the Minister wants to meet the crisis by the provisions contained in this Bill. I have already said that this Bill will assist certain tenants who have been victimized by unreasonable increases in rentals. Therefore we will support the second reading of the Bill, but as I have already said it will not assist to provide the extra housing which is so urgently needed. On the contrary, unless the Minister is blind he must surely realize that as the Bill stands now it will tend to restrict the building of flats and houses in the future for the simple reason that the threat of a limitation on rentals in the case of all dwellings to be built in the future will tend to divert the building programme to other types of buildings. Surely if investors can get an equally good return they will go in for the building of offices and other types of buildings which they can also let, instead of building houses and flats, or they would simply invest in other enterprises and not in houses. I say therefore that surely the sensible thing will be to exclude all new buildings from the scope of this Bill as was done in the existing legislation, for very good reasons, because if you are going to threaten to control the rentals of all new buildings in the future, people are going to be very chary of investing in houses and blocks of flats; they are going to look for alternative forms of investment yielding higher returns. The Minister has told us that he is satisfied that a return of 8 per cent on buildings and 6 per cent on ground is realistic and adequate, but there are also many people who are as public-spirited as the Minister is who believe that this might not be sufficient. We on this side submit that that type of question can best be decided by a select committee, which could also go into the present procedure in connection with the valuation of property, the way in which rent control boards are at present constituted, and the type of appeal that is available at the moment. We would therefore urge upon the Minister that he should appoint a select committee after the second reading of the Bill to take evidence from interested parties, such as building societies, trust companies, etc. Quite clearly the Minister has not deigned to avail himself of all the expert advice that is available. We would therefore urge upon the Minister to refer this Bill to a select committee after the second reading. We will no doubt get the answer that this is simply a delaying tactic. Sir, the matter which is dealt with in this Bill falls within such narrow ambits that a select committee could be called upon to report quickly. We need not have an inquiry such as that instituted by the Press Commission over a period of years. The Minister can set a term; he can come to an understanding with the select committee. There is no reason why a select committee dealing with a fairly narrow subject like this should not report in, say, six weeks after adequate consultation with all interested parties on the question as to whether this Bill should also apply to all new buildings; whether existing returns are adequate having regard to the yields in alternative forms of investment …

Which issue in the Bill are you concerned about?

Surely the hon. member knows that the whole Bill can be dealt with at the second reading. It is, of course, true that this side of the House can itself try to improve the Bill in the Committee Stage, but we would be under the same handicap as the Minister in that we would not have adequate opportunity to avail ourselves of the advice of disinterested parties such as building societies and trust companies who know far more about this matter than we could be expected to know. Surely these specialists who have a vast amount of experience in this matter could assist the Minister to bring forward a Bill which might improve the present position instead, as might very well happen if this Bill goes through in its present form, of giving assistance to present tenants but at the same time creating a bigger housing shortage than exists at present.

The hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) has found it necessary to accuse the Government of not having done its duty in respect of housing; that it should have provided housing also in view of the immigration to South Africa. Mr. Speaker, this Government has done more than its duty in respect of housing as far as it was able to do so over the past years. With the assistance of Government loans 50,500 housing units were built since 1948 to 1962 for Whites at a cost of R219,000,000; 5,100 housing units were built for Asiatics at a cost of R11,000,000; 28,000 housing units were built for Coloureds at a cost of R28,900,000; 193,000 housing units for Bantu as a cost of R102,000,000. Altogether 276,600 housing units were made available to the people by way of Government loans at a cost of nearly R361,000,000 over a period of 14 years. During that period of 14 years more housing units were erected with the assistance of the State than in any corresponding period in our history. That is apart from the housing which the Railways have made available to their officials and which, up to 1963, has cost the total sum of R110,000,000. Other Government Departments, such as Justice, Defence, Forestry, and Bantu Administration and Development have also erected 3,792 houses for their officials. The Nationalist Government has made money available to house over 80,000 White families. If these houses could be lumped together they would form a White city which would be five times as big as the White urban area of Bloemfontein; nearly twice as big as that of Pretoria; 3½ times as big as that of Port Elizabeth and more than eight times as big as that of Pietermaritzburg. The Government is not satisfied with what it has already achieved, however. The Government is continuing to do its duty in meeting the housing needs of the people. I do not know where the hon. member for Jeppes was the other day when the hon. the Minister replied to a question put by the hon. member for Durban (Umbilo) (Mr. Oldfield). It was very clear from the hon. the Minister’s reply that the Department of Housing was conducting a continuous and intensive campaign to encourage local authorities to meet the housing needs of their inhabitants. In the eight city areas of the Republic schemes are afoot which are either already in the course of construction or which are still being planned or in connection with which negotiations are still being conducted with local boards; these schemes involve the erection of more than 8,000 housing units for Whites and over 55,000 housing units for non-Whites. All these schemes will be financed by the National Housing Fund. I want to say this in reply to the hon. member for Jeppes that this Government has indeed a proud record in respect of housing. The hon. member for Jeppes advanced the argument that this Bill would discourage private initiative from providing housing accommodation; that it would lead to a greater shortage of houses and flats and that it would put a stop to building by private enterprise. I am convinced, however, that this legislation ought not to discourage anybody. It will most certainly not discourage the honest person who treats his tenants fairly and reasonably. This Bill holds out no dangers to him whatsoever. He will still have every chance and every opportunity under this Bill to earn a good return on his investment in an honest and reasonable way. If it will discourage that person who wishes to provide residential accommodation with the object of exploiting his tenants, that fact should be generally welcomed. As a matter of the fact, the Government would be grossly neglecting its duty towards society if it were to give such people the opportunity of continuing to exploit others. The question also arises whether it is not better to discourage those people from erecting flats or houses, particularly if the result is that extremely expensive housing is made available to the public. During this time of a labour shortage in the building industry the available labour should much rather be utilized to assist the Government to complete its various housing schemes, housing schemes which will in any case be much cheaper to the public as such than the expensive housing which these exploiters want to make available. In other words, the available labour force in the building industry can be utilized much more beneficially in the interests of the public in the provision of cheaper housing. I think, however, that the danger that this Bill will have a discouraging effect on private enterprise is extremely small. The measure of discouragement that it will indeed bring about will only be in the interests of the public because it will eliminate the exploiter class in the building industry.

Mr. Speaker, this Bill must be welcomed particularly in view of what is envisaged in Clause 5, namely, that no tenant can be compelled to hire furniture under a separate contract from a third person and to pay more for it than the rental laid down for it by the rent board. This closes a loophole in the Act, as the hon. the Minister has rightly said, a loophole which has led to large-scale exploitation of tenants. This exploitation of tenants by landlords of getting a third person to furnish the leased premises and to charge an exorbitant rent for such furniture has already been going on for many years. I want to mention a case which came to the notice of the Bloemfontein Rent Board as far back as 1959, a case where an owner let apartments at a rental fixed by the Rent Board, while his wife leased the furniture in those apartments under a separate contract at double the rental of the apartments. The lessor charged R8 for his apartment and his wife charged R16 for the furniture per month. The value of that furniture was less than R100. Had the lessor included the furniture in the rental of the apartment he would, according to the Rents Act, only have been entitled to a maximum of 18 per cent on its capital value and he would only have received R1.50 per month for the furniture. But with the separate contract of his wife’s in respect of the furniture R16 was paid per month for that furniture—in every one of those apartments.

There was another instance in which the same lessor was concerned. It came to the notice of the Bloemfontein Rent Board that in a certain case where the landlord concerned had let an apartment to a tenant, the tenant had preferred to use his own furniture. He asked the landlord to remove his furniture. In spite of that, the tenant still had to pay rental for the furniture of the landlord, namely R16 per month. It cannot be proved, Sir, but it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that the furniture which was removed was let to another tenant. In that case the wife of the tenant would have had an income of R32 per month from furniture which was hardly worth R100. I say, Mr. Speaker, that that is scandalous and large-scale exploitation and I am pleased and grateful that the hon. the Minister will now under Clause 5 be able to put a stop to those malpractices and that exploitation. That is why it is so urgently necessary to have this clause. I suppose like other Rent Boards, the Bloemfontein Rent Board was aware of this loophole in the law but they could not act. It can only be prevented by amending the Act in this way.

This Bill is a double-edged sword, Sir. Any measure of this nature ought to be. Because the Government has to see to it that the conflicting interests of both the landlord and the tenants are protected reasonably and justly. On the one hand the interests of the landlords are protected. As the hon. the Minister has explained. Clause 1 (b) provides that the Rent Board should allow the landlord the maximum interest of 6 per cent on the value of the ground, whereas a play of between 4 per cent to 6 per cent was allowed in the past, and where it was in the discretion of the Rent Board to decide what it should be. In Clause 1 (b) the landlord is allowed further additional expenditure such as his contribution to the Unemployment Insurance Fund in respect of supervisors and employees, contributions to the Workmen’s Compensation Insurance Fund, registration fees in respect of Bantu workers, the fees payable in terms of the Native Service Levy Act and the Transportation Services Act.

At the same time the possibility that rent control will be abolished is held out to the lessors of houses which are controlled if the rentals they charge compare favourably with the rentals charged for houses in the same area which are not controlled. In other words, what is envisaged is a gradual relaxation of rent control if the rentals are calculated on a fair and reasonable basis. On the other hand—I have said that this was a double-edged sword—properties can be made subject to the provisions of the Rents Act if the rental is not calculated on a fair and reasonable basis. In this instances the measure again takes up the cudgels on behalf of the tenant in order to protect him—as the hon. member for Jeppes had in fact to admit—against unheard-of exploitation by the landlord. In other words, this is a double-edged sword, a sword which cuts in both directions in order to strike a fair and reasonable balance between the landlord and the tenant. As such it should be welcomed and be regarded as a measure which the Government is introducing to enable it to obtain and to maintain that necessary balance between the two parties concerned.

In these circumstances I am not surprised that the Opposition, who are always only too anxious to oppose everything the Government does, did not dare say that they were going to vote against the principle of the Bill but that they were obliged to support the Government in this matter.

Sir, I regret that the hon. member who has just sat down has introduced that last note into this debate. It was utterly unjustified and I propose to treat it with the contempt it deserves. The hon. member’s earlier remarks, and indeed those of the Minister, showed quite clearly, Sir, that the Government had failed to realize what the demand for accommodation would be at this time and that they did not take the necessary steps which, I believe, could have been taken had they realized fully the affect of immigration and the affect also of the booming circumstances prevailing in the country at the present time. The country is moving forward but the Government did not realize that additional accommodation was necessary. If they did realize that, they did not take the steps to see that that additional accommodation would be available. It must be admitted that the reason why people can get away with abuses of the nature mentioned is because there is not adequate accommodation for all the people of this country.

I said so.

Yes, I agree, but the gentleman who supported him took rather a different line. So there is common cause that at the present time there is not as much accommodation in this country as we would wish. Sir, it is obvious that we must support the second reading of this Bill, as has been said. In the circumstances which exist that is the right thing to do and the Opposition always likes to do the right thing.

I want to support the plea of the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) that the hon. the Minister should indicate in his reply that he would be prepared to send this Bill to a select committee after the second reading. It is common cause that there has not been adequate opportunity for the interested bodies to make their representations. I am sure the hon. the Minister will agree that what is necessary is to get the best possible measure on the Statute Book, a measure to deal most effectively with the position as it exists and at the same time to have as little deleterious effect as possible on the economy of this country and the provision of new accommodation which alone can eliminate the shortage which exists at the present time I believe it is in the interests of everyone that it should be looked at by a select committee. I think the hon. the Minister will agree that interested parties have not had an adequate opportunity of studying this Bill and of making representations to him or his Department. I, for one, am one who had hoped, at the request of the Association of Building Societies, to have an opportunity of talking with the Minister but he was away so that was impossible. Consequently, as there has clearly not been adequate time for studying the Bill, of getting the full facts, and of deciding what the best provisions will be to put on the Statute Book, I hope the hon. the Minister will agree to it that the Bill be sent to a select committee. The hon. member for Jeppes said it need not delay the Bill long.

It is necessary to study a Bill with seven clauses for more than a week?

It is very necessary, I submit, that legislation should be good. I say Bills of this nature should always have a period available which will allow the interested parties, the tenants and the landlords, to be able to discuss the Bill and to make representations before the Minister comes to this House and puts the Bill through. The period has been very short.

We know what we are talking about.

The period has been very short indeed. The present building programme which is very considerable must clearly have an effect, even at its present tempo, of eliminating the shortage. I see that in the month of November 1962 plans were passed in Cape Town for 342 dwellings with a total expected cost of R1,279,000. In the same month plans for five blocks of flats were passed by the council with a total estimated cost of R857,000. If you look at all the other main centres—I have the figures here—it is clear that an immense amount of building is going on at the present time. In those circumstances, Sir, I believe those are circumstances which should be taken into account

The hon. the Minister, in his introductory remarks, indicated that attempts would be made to apply the control only where necessary. I think that is undoubtedly welcome. I think everybody will agree with the Minister when he said that nobody liked control and that he would like to see the end of it if it were possible. But we concede that in the present circumstances control is advisable. I stress again that it is very necessary that one should not take any steps through legislation of this sort which might make the end result worse than the first. The hon. member who supported the Minister indicated that there was no fear whatsoever of persons being frightened to put up new projects. Sir, the inevitable result of the reimposition of control, if we are not very careful, will have the exact opposite effect of what we desire and may easily stop the tremendous building programme which is taking place to-day. The hon. the Minister, by taking the power which he is taking in this Bill, the power of granting exemption, shows quite clearly that he himself is not in favour of control as a general thing. We know quite well that it was the lifting of building control in 1949, and making it not applicable to new dwellings, which led to a spate of building throughout the country which helped to put an end to the housing crisis. I hope the hon. the Minister will be convinced that a case can be made out for not applying the possibility of control to buildings erected after a certain date. Obviously the position in regard to abuse in respect of furniture and such matters, as have been mentioned, is something which could clearly be controlled at any time. Clearly where there is abuse which comes very close to fraud, a case can be made out for dealing with it. But I believe the Minister will agree that if we want to get a maximum of accommodation built in this country—and it is our hope that we shall have even a bigger stream of immigrants in the year that lies ahead—if we want the maximum amount of private building in this country, we should not have any control over buildings. I do not think anybody can dispute that that is a fact.

Not low-cost housing.

No, low-cost housing is obviously the function of the Government and the local authorities. There, of course, there is no necessity for control because the rentals are fixed by public bodies. The interested bodies, as the hon. the Minister knows, have hardly had an opportunity of making a study of this Bill. I have had a communication from the Association of Building Societies. As the hon. the Minister knows they are anxious to have an opportunity, not only to study the legislation, but, if they think of improvements, to put them before the Minister. I have been informed that the Association of Trust Companies in the Cape is having a meeting tomorrow to consider this Bill. They have not yet had an opportunity of reading it. As there has been such short notice I do hope the Minister will accept the suggestion that has been made that he will take the second reading and then allow this Bill to go to a select committee. It can only lead to better legislation and I hope that suggestion will be agreed to.

I should like to make a further plea. We support the thought that there will be an even greater flow of immigrants. But I do hope that the Government will do everything that it can to see that the circumstances which exist at the present time are cleared up as quickly as possible and that they do not arise again. I believe, with the hon. member for Jeppes, that had there been adequate planning in respect of this matter, we need not have been in the difficulty in which we are to-day. Throughout the country in the big cities which are expanding at an enormous rate there is in fact a shortage of accommodation to-day. We should obviously bend all our energies to eliminate that shortage because if we can do that and see to it that residential accommodation is available in all the categories which require it, high priced dwellings to low priced dwellings, there will no longer be any necessity for control. It is common cause between all of us in this House that the sooner we can get rid of these controls the better it will be for our country.

The arguments advanced by the hon. members for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) in support of their request to the hon. the Minister to refer this legislation to a select committee were very flimsy. For the past weeks the Opposition have been complaining bitterly and have said that the Government could not provide them with sufficient work to keep them busy. And what do they say to-day? They say seven days do not give them enough time to study this short little Bill of seven clauses properly. That is definitely not a compliment to the working capacity of the Opposition. We know their capacity for work is limited but we did not know that it was so limited. Their arguments that this Bill should be referred to a select committee are as flimsy as the argument that the Government is to be blamed and that the Government has neglected to provide sufficient housing seeing that the Government has brought in immigrants on a large scale.

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with this Bill very objectively. I want to deal with it from the point of view of the landlord and from the point of view of the tenant. I want to say at the outset that it might perhaps have been preferable, in respect of rent control, to have allowed the recognized economic law of supply and demand take its course. In ordinary circumstances not only the landlord but also the tenant would have been treated fairly and justly in that case. We must, however, consider the abnormal circumstances which prevail to-day. When I say that I wish to add that I think the trend of the Opposition’s arguments, in respect of this Bill which they say they support in principle, is to create the impression in the world outside that there is a dire shortage of housing in South Africa, an uncontrollable shortage of housing. And that is not the position. The housing position is by far not what it was during the days of Harry the House-builder. The United Party is now trying to turn housing into politics. They are trying to make the country believe that there is a tremendous shortage of housing but they ignore the assurance which the hon. the Minister gave the other day that there was really not an uncontrollable shortage of housing and that his Department had the situation in hand. He told us what his Department was doing. If my allotted time allows me I should like to return to this point; but I doubt whether it will.

I say that in normal circumstances the natural thing would have been to let the economic law of supply and demand take its course. In that case both the landlord and the tenant would have been treated fairly. We must keep count of extraordinary circumstances, however. The natural tendency is for prices to rise when the demand increases. That is also the tendency in the case of housing. When housing becomes scarce the natural tendency is not only for prices to rise but for rentals to rise as well. That is very natural. We find, as we experienced only recently, that under normal circumstances many houses stand empty, that many flats, practically the entire block, stand empty. What happened then? The owners of those blocks of flats reduced the rent. In some cases they reduced the rents drastically to attract tenants. Now that housing is again becoming scarce there are reports from all sides of rents that have been increased. The increases are not unreasonable in all cases. On the contrary, in some cases they are only brought back to the normal scale on which they were some time ago. A further consideration that should be borne in mind, Mr. Speaker, is the unproductive percentage of houses that are let. By that I mean that percentage of houses and flats which, because of various reasons, stand empty and unoccupied at times. That percentage varies from time to time. When housing is plentiful the percentages goes as high as 13 per cent, 14 per cent up to 15 per cent. It is impossible always to have a 100 per cent occupation of houses that are let. That is an aspect that should be taken into serious consideration.

The specific object of this legislation, as the hon. the Minister said in his second-reading speech, is to combat exploitation. The Minister said that and we are aware of it. We have proof that there are unscrupulous landlords, those people who exploit the housing shortage in order to make iniquitous profits. This legislation is a warning to them. It will depend on themselves whether the Minister turns on the screw of rent control because the Minister gets the power in this legislation to take action against any individual culprit in this connection without innocent people being dragged in, because rent control, in terms of this Bill, can be applied by way of proclamation to any specific dwelling.

There is a small aspect of the Bill about which I am not enthusiastic, and that is Clause 1 (b) which amends Section 1 (10) (b) of the principal Act where rent determination is defined. The Minister makes a concession in this Bill. He says that whereas in the past the value of the land has had to be considered up to a maximum of 6 per cent in determining the rent, the full 6 per cent must in future be considered. I support that wholeheartedly; that is an excellent amendment. But the hon. the Minister does not go further. He leaves the balance of the section dealing with the value of the building unchanged; in that case it can still be up to a maximum of 8 per cent.

8 per cent net.

Net, yes. A maximum of 8 per cent. It is my humble opinion, Sir, that also as far as the value of the building is concerned we should perhaps delete “maximum” from the Act. Because the owner is, in my opinion, entitled to the full 8 per cent of the value of the building. If the owner neglects his duty towards the tenant and neglects his building or does not keep it in a proper state of repair the Rent Board may withhold the whole 2 per cent or a portion of it, to which the landlord is entitled in terms of Section 1 (g) of the principle Act for maintenance and repairs costs. I do not see the necessity, however, why he should be pressed in that respect and also be pressed in respect of the 8 per cent of the value of the building. That was a small matter which I wanted to bring to the notice of the Minister.

I now come to the Rent Boards. The Rent Boards are given new powers under this legislation. The initiative must be taken by the Rent Board to put the machinery into operation whereby the investigation should take place, the machinery whereby buildings which are uncontrolled at the moment, buildings which have been occupied since 1949, are to be placed under control. They have to institute the inquiry. Where there is no Rent Board the Secretary of Housing will take the initiative. I think the Rent Boards will institute such an inquiry, which they are now empowered to do, after they have received specific complaints from the public about exploitation. They will only institute an inquiry, for submission to the Minister, as a result of specific complaints. I also believe that they will only take action where there is obvious proof of a contravention. I hope the Rent Boards will not avail themselves of these new powers to try to expand their domain still further. It is not the intention or the policy of the Government at all, as the Minister has stated very clearly, to extend rent control. On the contrary Clause 7 (a) of this Bill proves that the tendency is in the opposite direction. In other words, to relax this control as far as possible. Clause 7 (a) of this Bill makes it possible in certain circumstances to abolish rent control gradually in a certain area. This is a very praiseworthy provision in this Bill in that a certain group of buildings or groups of buildings may in certain circumstances be decontrolled and released from such control.

The object of this Bill is not to extend rent control. Its main object, as the Minister has stated, is to give the Government the right to combat abuses and contraventions committed under the existing Rents Act. I also think we should warn the Rent Boards that they should keep the balance, as the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) has said and that they should not only act as the guardians of the tenants but that they should also protect the owners from the tenants where it is necessary to do so. It is the duty of the Rent Board to protect the owners against unscrupulous tenants, and there are such people. There are unscrupulous tenants and they are in a position to chastise the owners mercilessly. That is our experience. I want to give the example which a colleague of ours, who previously served on a Rent Board, gave me. A husband and wife hired a house and took occupation; they removed the trellis work and used it for firewood; after they had dismantled the house inside they went to the Rent Board and asked for their rent to be reduced because of the neglected condition of the house. It is the duty of the Rent Boards to protect owners against unscrupulous tenants.

They have the power under Section 21 of the Act to do so, because it says that no tenant can be ordered to vacate the premises except if the tenant had done or was doing material damage to the property, or if the tenant had made himself guilty of behaviour which had disturbed the occupants of adjoining or neighbouring property. My request is that it should be put to the Rent Boards that where an owner can prove that his property has been damaged badly by a tenant, and where the tenant has made himself guilty of behaviour which has disturbed the neighbourhood, the Rent Board should not hesitate to take drastic action against him. He is the type of tenant who embitters the lives of owners. I am grateful that there are not many of them, but there are some.

I also want to make another appeal to the hon. the Minister. While we are busy revising our rent legislation, the Rent Act of 1950, has the time not arrived for us to consider making a concession in respect of those premises which are presently controlled? I am referring to the house which was occupied prior to October 1949. Has the time not arrived for us to give some thought to the owners of those buildings and to make a concession as far as they are concerned as well? When I ask that it is necessary for us to consider a few aspects. The first is that to-day you cannot build nearly as comfortable and sturdy a dwelling for the same amount of money as you could have built 15 or 20 years ago. And you will probably find that generally you have to pay a higher rental for the former type of inferior house than for that sturdy, comfortable house which was built 15 or 20 years ago.

Another factor that should be borne in mind is the fact that the value of money has dropped. The rent that was fixed 15 years ago for a house is not of the same value to the owner than it was at that time.

But surely the owner can also come to the Rent Board.

*Mr. S. F. Kotzé: That is true but it is very difficult for the owner to go to the Rent Board with the excuse that the value of money has dropped. I am only putting that forward as a tentative request. Perhaps the Minister will consider that in the future.

Another fact that must be considered is that private initiative and enterprise should always be respected. In the case of many people I know the few houses they let are their only source of income. They have invested their last penny in those and they should be enabled to live decently on the proceeds. I am not saying that they should make an exorbitant profit but they should get a reasonable return. I want to put forward a suggestion for the Minister’s consideration either now or at a later stage. Has the time not arrived for us also to change the law as far as the definition of “reasonable rental” is concerned. Should the law not be changed in such way that a reasonable rental will be that rental charged prior to the 1950 Act, namely 10 per cent instead of 8 per cent on the value of the building, and 8 per cent instead of 6 per cent on the value of the land? That was the position under the old Act, prior to 1950. It should perhaps be considered to revert to that. There may be reasons why it cannot be done in which case we shall accept the position, but I put the suggestion forward for consideration. I think it is also time for us to think about those people who own buildings that were erected before 1949, sturdy, comfortable buildings that serve the purpose, buildings whose rental is totally out of all proportion in comparison with the rentals charged for houses that are built to-day. The argument will be that it cost less at that time to erect them, but I maintain that if that could be done it would be a greater encouragement to people to invest their money in houses and to let them.

I cannot refrain from returning to the hon. member for Jeppes. I think he went beyond himself to-day in attacking the Government in the shape of the Minister of Housing. If ever a person has given his undivided and closest attention to this matter it is the present Minister of Housing. I want to return to the quotations made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East). The Opposition will not get away with the kind of suspicion they are sowing and the propaganda they are making in the world outside that the position is out of hand here as far as housing is concerned. I want to spend a few seconds of my time to repeat very clearly to this House what the hon. the Minister’s reply was recently to a question of the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). He said that his Department had had discussions with all the local bodies in the Republic and had told them timeously that he expected them to do everything in their power to make provision for the housing needs of their people. He encouraged them to make use of the loans that could be obtained from the National Housing Fund. The Department has had discussions with no fewer than 270 local authorities which have had the result that houses are now being erected by those local authorities as follows: 900 houses for Whites, and homes and institutions for a further 700 persons; 10,000 houses for Coloureds, 3,700 houses for Asiatics. But that is not all. They have approached the large city councils and over and above the number of houses which the local authorities are erecting to-day, some of them are planning large housing schemes for Whites with which a start will shortly be made. In Cape Town, for instance, they are planning for approximately 1,000 houses; Durban, approximately, 2,000; on the Witwatersrand approximately 1,000 houses; a few hundred in Pretoria, and also at least about 1,000 houses in Port Elizabeth. What is the shortage? The shortage in Cape Town is approximately 1,000 houses—1,000 are being erected. The shortage in Durban is about 2,000—provision is being made for that; in Johannesburg and vicinity there is a shortage of 1,000 and approximately 1,000 are being built on the Witwatersrand. There is a shortage of 2,000 in Port Elizabeth and at least 1,000 are being erected there this year. Is that indicative of negligence on the part of the Government? But that is not even all. The Department of Housing itself is busy erecting 1,000 houses and flats altogether for Whites. No, Mr. Speaker, I think it is farfetched on the part of the hon. member for Jeppes, after everything the Government has done and is doing, with the support of the local authorities, to make that accusation against the Government. It simply cuts no ice. This Minister and this Government have done a great deal and the country knows it. They have the confidence of the public and the local authorities who support them. That is much more than hon. members of the Opposition can say.

We are very grateful for this new legislation. People should not be exploited and this legislation will see to it that they are not. People who have not exploited others need not be afraid and this measure should not serve as a deterrent to them. But those culprits who contravene the law can be dealt with one by one in terms of this legislation and they can be called to account. They will only have themselves to blame if the Minister turns on the screw which this measure gives him. They deserve it.

I had hoped that party politics would be kept out of this particular debate which concerns essentially an economic measure, but needless to say it crept in. I agree with a good deal of what the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) has said, excepting his last remarks, Sir, because I for one want to give credit where credit is due and I have always said that the housing programme of the Government redounds to its credit. But I do not say, as has often been claimed by hon. Ministers and particularly the hon. Minister who is in charge of this particular Bill, that this building of houses is due to the Government’s ideological programme. He often claims housing as an achievement for apartheid. My answer to that has always been that the provision of housing for the less privileged groups is naturally one of the most elementary duty of any modern Government. Therefore while I give the Government credit for having built a large number of houses during the last ten years, I do not in any way attribute this to the Government’s ideological programme.

Having said this, I want to tell the hon. member for Parow that although he apparently supports this Bill, most of his arguments have been for alterations to the main clauses of the Bill. He seems uncertain for instance as to the exact amount which would give a fair return to property owners and he pleads specifically for changes to be made in respect of property owners who put up houses 20 or 25 years ago. I think he has quite a reasonable argument there. But, surely that also bears out the argument that the Bill has not been properly considered in detail. It is true that in Committee certain alterations can be made, but I do not think that sufficient time will have been given to consider and weigh all the factors if the second reading is taken to-day and perhaps to-morrow the Committee Stage takes place. Therefore I think it is a reasonable argument to ask that some delay should be instituted by way of a select committee after the second reading, so that the property owners and other interested persons, such as the people mentioned by the hon. member for Parow, can put forward their considered views. I want for instance to read to the hon. Minister a letter which I received today from somebody who is basically interested from the point of view of the property investor. I myself am in no position to say whether the fixed amount of 6 per cent on land and 8 per cent on the value of buildings is indeed a fair and equitable return, particularly in comparison with the returns which investors can receive in other fields, in commerce or industry. But I would like to put the views of one such investor who is not a rack-renter, but a person who realizes that tenants have got rights as well as landlords. This is the point that he makes—

I think I understood the Minister correctly and that he said that a wrong impression had been created in the Press, and that in fact it was not his intention to extend rent control to all buildings.

No universal control.

So to some extent this fear might be set at rest. On the other hand, this Bill gives powers specifically to control any building (as I read the Bill) where the Minister or the controller in charge of this legislation deems it necessary to control, and this therefore would include the category of persons referred to, or could include them in certain instances. The fact that for instance exemptions from control are implied in the Bill, does not, I think, relieve the hon. Minister of the responsibility to adhere to the undertaking given to people who built from 1949 onwards in order to relieve the housing shortage. But the letter goes on to say—

He goes on to say—

Where do you get 10 per cent on the Stock Exchange to-day? You will not get more than 5 per cent.

Would the hon. member like some tips? This man goes on to say that in respect of most building projects profits are retained until bonds are repaid, and incidentally the rate of interest on a bond is a minimum of 6 per cent. So what inducement is there for a man borrowing at that rate who would receive a similar return of his money on the land portion and a marginal profit of possibly 2 per cent on the cost of construction? I want to repeat that I am in no position to judge whether the up to 6 per cent, the amount now fixed on land and 8 per cent on buildings is in fact a fair return. It may be so. The hon. member for Parow seemed to consider that in many circumstances it was not a fair return. The person who wrote to me equally considers that it is not a fair return, that there should be an averaging out on land and buildings together of 10 per cent net as a reasonable return.

I want to put it to the hon. Minister that I do not believe that in the period from the time of the second reading of this Bill until the time when the Committee Stage is taken, sufficient thought can be brought to bear on these particular problems. Therefore I believe that a good case has been made out for the referring of this whole matter to a select committee after the second reading, which means, of course, that the principle of this Bill will have been accepted by this House. I do not believe that there is anybody here against the principle because it is designed, as the hon. Minister, has pointed out, to stop abuses, to stop rack-renting of tenants, which we all know has been going on on a large scale; to stop the practice of paying money under the lap, key-money, excessive charges for garages and excessive charges for bits and pieces of furniture left in a house or flat which enables rack-renting landlords to find a loophole in the existing Rent Act. So nobody is against the basic design of the Bill. It is only a question of implementation, and as hon. members have pointed out, in attempting to close these loopholes and to do away with abuses, the hon. Minister may unwittingly be perpetuating and in fact exacerbating the situation in so far as people who intended to put money into building projects for housing and residential purposes may stop short in their tracks knowing now that they are going to get what they at any rate consider to be a meagre return on the money invested. Therefore a further shortage may in fact be created by this very measure. Therefore we ought to consider very carefully any steps we take before we go ahead to put down abuses which all of us agree are abuses that should be put down. I agree with what the hon. member for Parow said when he stated that if there were enough houses and flats—that of course is a very elementary point, but it is quite correct—the rack-renting landlords would not get a look in. In fact all of us know that a couple of years ago when there were more flats available than there were tenants looking for flats, landlords were making all sorts of concessions in order to get their properties occupied. I know that in my own constituency several luxury flats were to let and landlords were prepared to offer people a month free of rent in order to get people to take up leases in those expensive buildings. That is no longer the case. In most cases like that rents have gone up and in some cases as much as 30 per cent and 40 per cent. So it is a question of supply and demand, and under a system of free enterprise the way in which to level supply and demand is obviously to enable the supply to catch up with the demand, and to do that you have to make investment attractive.

I want to make one final point and that is that the shortage of housing is due to a large extent not only to a shortage of investors which may be increased if this figure of 6 per cent and 8 per cent are accepted by the House, but also to the bottle-neck in the building industry and allied trades. That is one of the major reasons why we have the current shortage of houses and flats, and this is due in turn to something which is of course a matter of party politics, and I have to mention it, despite the fact that I said that I had hoped that in regard to a Bill like this, party politics could be excluded—but there is no doubt about it, the shortage in the building industry and allied industries is due to a shortage of labour, which in turn is due of course to the refusal of the Government to employ our labour resources to their fullest possible potentiality.

No.

But that is so. There was a report only the other day from the building industry proper that there is a shortage of 4,000 artisans in the building industry. Now there are just not the White hands to provide those artisans, and it is ludicrous that in a time of acute shortage in housing, one of the basic necessities of life, the Government sticks to this absurd ideological programme of reserving jobs for White apprentices in the building industry.

What has that to do with the Bill?

It has a lot to do with the Bill for the simple reason that the remedy for the shortage is not in the Bill, but must be found in supplying the means for building houses, and that means not only investment money for housing, but it also means the people who can be employed on such projects. As far as I can see the Government is unperturbed by this. As the hon. member for Jeppes pointed out, the Government as always, thinks that by putting a piece of legislation on the Statute Book, a magic wand is created which will immediately right the obvious wrong in the country. In this case it is going to take much more than this piece of legislation, apart from the fact that, as I say, its provisions may have the opposite effect. But the basic reason is not being touched by the Government, and that is to provide adequate labour, in not only the building industry but also the allied industries, like the brick-making industry, the steel industry, the appliances industry, all these industries which have to do with housing; they are all suffering from a shortage of skilled and semi-skilled labour. If the hon. Minister wants to do something about a problem which is clearly exercising his not inconsiderable brain, then I suggest that he should get into consultation with the hon. Minister of Labour and his other colleague, such as for instance the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration, to see what can be done about bringing non-White labour into the allied industries and into the building industry. I see the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) shaking his head sadly. I would like him to stand up and tell me where there is a lack of logic in this particular argument. I would like him to tell this House: If more non-Whites are taught to use their skill to build the necessary houses, how that will undermine White civilization? I can tell him that White civilization will be untouched.

For reasons I have given, I am supporting the principle of this Bill. But I agree with the plea put up by the hon. member for Jeppes that the Bill should be sent to a select committee, because I do not believe that the detailed provisions are necessarily correct, and I fear that the cure might well be worse than the disease, and finally, I do not believe that this Bill in any case tackles the root causes of the shortage.

After I had heaved a very heavy sigh I asked myself how long our country and our State would be saddled with this evil of democracy—the ineffective Opposition sitting there.

We have been dealing here this afternoon with a Bill providing for rent control, and starting with the hon. member for Jeppes (Dr. Cronje) and ending with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) we had no argument at all except that of the payability of capital investment in this industry that was raised by the hon. member for Houghton, which had no bearing on any clause of this Bill. Hon members will vote for the reasonable basis of this Bill although criticism has been expressed in regard to some of its aspects. I must honestly say that it is pathetic. One asks oneself: What are we doing here? We have had to listen to this debate for hours and hours and to try to understand the aims and merits of persons who have been sent to this House to make a positive contribution.

Why is this Bill before us? I want to start by quoting from a few of the organs supporting that party opposite. I quote firstly from the Cape Argus of 18 January in which supporters of that party expressed themselves on the desirability of the introduction of a Bill of this nature—

That is what it deals with; not control for the sake of control or laws for the sake of laws, or laws as a last resort, as has been suggested here. No, it is a question of a reaction to the call of the people, the citizens of the country and not to a housing shortage. We must try and remain sober and impartial in this House. I go further. On 18 February the following report appeared in the Cape Argus—

That is the motive for the introduction of this Bill. It is a reasonable one and it reveals the sense of responsibility of a Government that is there to serve the people at times like this. It has been argued that we would like to do without control. This policy was reiterated by a former Minister of Housing, the late Dr. Stals, on the introduction of the existing Rents Act in 1950, in which he gave the undertaking that certain buildings and houses that were erected after a specific date would be exempted from the provisions of the Act. But 14 years have elapsed since that time. Circumstances have changed. Shortages have arisen as far as housing is concerned and the hon. the Minister is well-synchronized as far as the requirements and the problems of our time are concerned. Two weeks ago I had very long discussions in my constituency in regard to this problem. How pleasantly surprised I was when on arriving here I found that the hon. the Minister of his own volition was preparing a Bill of this nature. How pleasant it was for me to be able to tell my people: Watch the Press; the problem we discussed will be dealt with one of these days in legislation. The problem was put to me that immigrants, persons whom we welcome into our country, are forced in the industrial areas to-day to live in little rooms that are not even hygienic, rooms riddled with vermin and that they have to pay R32 per month for these rooms. I suppose it is in accordance with the attitude and the policy of the Opposition that we must have immigrants, but must we receive them in this way? Or has the time not come for us to take action and do something positive to alleviate this housing position? I am still awaiting arguments dealing with specific clauses of this Bill and proving that the profits on capital investments in the building industry will be detrimentally affected by this legislation and that the building industry as such will be hampered. I am still awaiting arguments to prove that our immigrants will be detrimentally affected by the provisions of this Bill as far as their housing is concerned. Arguments of this nature would have been relevant and would have constituted a positive contribution on the part of the Opposition.

It has already been mentioned here, and I want to emphasize the fact that the purpose of this legislation is to exercise control over opportunities which the lessors of properties may see for themselves in the shortage of housing—the mentality which is devoted to the day-long task of “tickey snatching” and capitalizing upon the needs and the requirements of honourable citizens of the country. That is the purpose of this Bill. I sincerely hope that I am correct in my interpretation that this Bill will also have the effect of restricting the development of our flatlands in this country. We would liked to see the hon. the Minister giving more attention to the question of homes for families. It is not that we object to the fact that single persons live in flats, but we note that our immigrant fathers are, encouragingly enough, the heads of large families of from eight to ten children. It is my personal opinion that it would be an injustice and an anti-social action were we to force these people to become lost in the maze of our urban flat jungles instead of finding accommodation for them in decent homes.

I want to express my appreciation for the soberness and the sense of responsibility shown by the Government in introducing this Bill and for doing its duty and bearing its responsibility towards a specific section of our society, as proved by the letters to the Press that I have quoted here, and because furthermore, before this legislation was introduced, the Government announced what would be done in order to solve the accommodation problem in our country. I am pleased and proud to be a member of a Government of our time which is trying to the best of its ability to fulfil its obligations towards the society that it is called upon to serve. I hope and trust that the speakers on the Opposition side who will speak after me in order to make their contribution an interesting debate, will make an effort to discuss the actual basis and the main purpose of this Bill—the elimination on purely human grounds of evils in a specific sector of our community in which we can least afford to have them to-day.

The disappointment in the United Party as an Opposition expressed by the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman) is exceeded only by our disappointment in the National Party as a Government and by my personal disappointment with the arguments he advanced in order to try to provoke us, as I understood him, to oppose this Bill. [Interjections.] I think the hon. member has not yet realized that we have said, on this side that we are not opposing this Bill.

You dare not.

That is not the point. We have said we are not opposing it. Why does he try to provoke us into opposing the Bill—in order to make the debate more “interesting?” We have said that we are not opposing the policy of the Government, at this time, to effect a certain measure of control in the letting of premises. [Interjection.] If the hon. member also believes that, why did he stand up and talk at all? Why did he speak for 20 minutes to express his faith in this wonderful piece of legislation? I want to tell him that we regard this as a necessary evil; thus we are not prepared to say, as enthusiastically as he does, that he thanks the Minister for this wonderful Bill and that the Bill renders a wonderful service to society. One would think that the Government is doing something constructive, instead of seeking a negative way to deal with a certain situation. [Interjection.] The hon. member says that this Bill does not arise from the housing shortage at all but from the call of the people, “die roepstem van die volk”. Sir, have you ever heard such nonsense in your life? Where has an intelligent nation ever sent out a call to its Government, of this nature? There may be a call for housing, but not for the control of rentals. That is a very different thing.

Sir, I want to deal with one or two points raised by hon. members on the Government side which seem to be in conflict with the arguments advanced by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). That hon. member made out a case—better than I can hope to make out—for the appointment of a select committee after the second reading, in order to give all interested parties an opportunity to make representations. He gave chapter and verse to show that there was good reason to inquire into and to change certain aspects of the Bill. That being so, why should the hon. the Minister have any objection to accepting our suggestion that a select committee be appointed to give interested parties a reasonable opportunity to make representations? The Minister himself said this was a drastic Bill, and that it is the policy of the Government to abolish rent control. So one must assume that he does this under pressure, and that only circumstances have dictated this measure.

But I warned the exploiters last year already, and they would not listen.

I am not saying that the exploiters should be protected. I only want to deal in a reasonable way with the request of the Opposition for the appointment of a select committee. The Minister has said clearly that it was the policy of his Government to abolish rent control.

Yes, but I qualified it.

Yes, that is so, but then his qualification in itself is not an argument which invalidates the argument in favour of a select committee. As was pointed out, in a matter of six weeks the proceedings of that select committee should be concluded. One wonders why, in view of the very challenging remarks made by the hon. member for Parow in regard to the provisions of the Bill, and while there is this doubt and uncertainty in the mind of the hon. member for North-West Rand also, the Minister should have any reluctance in agreeing to the appointment of a select committee? I have only one complaint against the speech of the hon. member for Parow, and that is because he said in effect, referring to the speech of the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker), that the United Party had complained that seven days was not a sufficient period for the United Party to study the legislation, and then he went on to say that there are only seven clauses and surely the Opposition could study seven clauses in seven days. You will recall, Sir, that what the hon. member for Germiston (District) in fact said, was that within a period of seven days it was not possible for the interested parties to be apprised of and to study these seven clauses. We could study these clauses in seven days, but we are not the only persons concerned. In fact, we could deal with it in an impartial way, but the interested parties should still be given the opportunity to appear before a select committee to give their views. On that subject I want to say, with great respect to the Minister, that if he thinks that his or any other measure will completely eliminate exploitation, he is sadly mistaken. You cannot, by legislation eliminate entirely the human element when that element conspires to bring about a position of advantage and disadvantage as between one person and another. But what this Bill will not do is to provide the necessary housing which, if it were there, would have made this legislation unnecessary. Surely this is fundamental. If the ordinary economic law of supply and demand had been in operation to-day, and if there had been an excess of supply over demand, the Minister would never have come here with this legislation—because it would not have been necessary. So, the fact is that the cure for this evil is not this Bill which has been so lavishly praised by the hon. member, but the provision of housing, and it is on that subject that I want to put one or two points to the Minister.

The Minister is, after all, not the Minister of rent control but the Minister of Housing, and although certain figures have been given here which make his activities seem to be of a very high order (and I concede that in regard to the provision of housing for the non-Whites it has been of a high order), the Minister will surely admit that when it came to the provision of housing which the immigration policy of the Government so obviously required, the Department of Housing did not have a clue, and did not do anything. The hon. member for Parow himself said that the shortage to-day is 1,000 houses in Johannesburg and 1,000 in Port Elizabeth, and so many here and so many there, and then he went on to say that the Department is providing them. If the Department is providing the housing, what is all this fuss about? Why did the Minister say that not only is there a shortage of housing, but that the position will deteriorate? The House is entitled to know who has the facts at his command, the Minister or the hon. member for Parow, who virtually says there is practically no housing shortage, and if there is, the Government has already tackled it? I think we would be far better served in regard to the discussion of this Bill if the hon. the Minister would recognize that there was an opportunity of providing housing, once the Government had decided to take over the United Party policy of immigration … [Interjection.] Yes, I know that even to-day that policy is not very popular on that side of the House, but having embarked upon that policy, the Government should obviously have known that additional housing would have to be provided, and also as the result of the shift of population from the platteland to the towns, in the course of which some 45,000 White people left the platteland during the last 13 years to move into the cities. Bearing all that in mind, some account should have been taken of the need of providing housing for immigrants. But I submit that the Government is temperamentally incapable of thinking in terms of the needs of these immigrants, because to this very day they are not completely sure of themselves with regard to their policy. Where the United Party advocated and carried out a policy of immigration from conviction, this Government does so from necessity. In order to illustrate that, I want to quote from a speech by one of the major spokesmen of the National Party, Dr. Eric Louw, as he now is, where in 1945 he complained very bitterly of the United Party’s immigration policy and said, in Col. 5984, of Hansard, that the policy of the National Party is not that they disapprove of immigration as such because it is necessary to increase the White population, and he then went on to deal with the two ways of increasing it, and said that one was by natural increase and the other by immigration. Then he said—

But 19 years later, when this Government has been in power for almost 16 years, conditions are still not suitable for the reception of immigrants—because there is not sufficient housing! And how can the Minister deny that? He merely comes forward with a Rent Control Bill, as if that will provide the housing!

There is another interesting aspect in regard to the Government’s built-in reluctance to “follow through” on immigration. They have an immigration policy, and they are getting the immigrants, but there is something about their attitude which apparently makes it impossible for them to follow through, and to provide the necessary housing. At the end of the war the United Party was in power; shortly after that there was the 1948 election, and the attitude of the present Government was stated very clearly in this pamphlet of which I have a photostat copy and what do you think, Sir, was the major point of criticism of the United Party, the criticism that was designed to win the election for them? And who do you think it was written by? It was written by the then Secretary of the National Party in the Transvaal, Mr. M. D. C. de Wet Nel. He said—

Then to make sure that you would know, Sir, that he is complaining of the fact that the United Party brought in immigrants and gave them housing, he said—

Unfortunately, I think, that is still the idea in the minds of the Government members today. They bring in the immigrants, but they cannot bring themselves to follow through and to provide the housing timeously, and if you have any doubt about that, Sir, I have one other reference which proves it completely.

Order! The hon. member is now making a speech on immigration.

Mr. GORSHEL: Sir, both before and during your absence every speaker dealt with immigration. The Minister himself said that one of the reasons for introducing the Bill is immigration. But I will not pursue this subject. I think I have done so adequately. The Minister has not dealt with the Government’s responsibility for the provision of housing, which would have obviated the necessity for this Bill. He sent out a circular, which I received on 18 March 1963, under the heading of “Facilities for the Provision of Housing out of State Funds for Families in the Lower Income Groups”, and, inter alia, this circular says—

Then comes the hon. member for North-West Rand and appeals to the Minister to put a damper on the building of flats, because he thinks there is something wrong with flats, sociologically. There may be, but is he not aware that his own Minister said that there is a shortage of erven in the urban centres? If you have a building plot, you cannot put up one house on it, when you can put up a building of 20 flats. What does he expect the Minister to do? I say this in order to prove that there has been a great deal of ambivalence, as well as neglect, in regard to the provision of housing for the immigrants.

There is a further point made in the circular. It says that following on the decentralization of the Department of Housing into seven regions with regional offices at Johannesburg, Bloemfontein, Kimberley, Cape Town, etc., particular attention is now also being given to local housing requirements. Where is the evidence of this attention, and what has it produced? Will the Minister take refuge behind what he may call the negligence of the local authorities? Surely not—because when it suits him he comes here with legislation, as he did last year, to take away from the local authorities the right to demolish slums, or other rights.

That is not true. Where did I take away the right of local authorities to abolish slums? Stick to the truth.

I will. We had a long debate on this. The Minister will remember that under the old procedure the local authority appointed its own slums court, and to that extent it was in complete control of slums clearance in its own area. Is that the position now? Of course not, and I suggest that the Minister has taken that right away from them. [Interjection.] The Minister says I must stick to the truth and the hon. member for Cradock says it is a lie. He was not made to withdraw it …

Order! Is the hon. member reflecting on the Chair?

No, Sir. I want to say that with all the regional offices that the Minister has established, and with all the information he has collated in regard to the provision of housing, he undoubtedly must take some share of the blame for the simple fact that at this stage, when so many immigrants are coming into the country, the necessary housing has not been provided.

I want to make one further point. I think that during the recess the Minister went overseas to study housing schemes. I want to draw his attention once again to certain matters to which I drew his attention in 1962 in regard to the re-development of urban areas to provide greater housing facilities at lesser cost. If he went, for example, to West Germany, to Bremen, he would see as I did in 1961, a housing scheme—it was completed in 1962—where within eight miles of the city centre—a city with a population of about 300,000—they house 35,000 people in a satellite town, at a per capita cost which, considering that it is entirely European labour that is used (obviously), compares very favourably with the per capita cost of providing housing in this country. I do not know to what extent the hon. the Minister has studied that, but when he has a problem, as he undoubtedly has—as is revealed by the presentation to this House of a Bill in which, although he says that he would like to abolish control, he extends control in some ways—then surely he must deal with it in a practical way, and not resent the fact that the imperfections which his own side will not point out to him are pointed out by me, and others on this side. Surely in the interests of the country it is not sufficient to bring forward legislation that will merely serve, if it does serve, to do away with the exploitation of tenants by landlords. It is more essential for the Minister of Housing to busy himself with the provision of housing; only then can the law of supply and demand come into proper play, and then there will be no need to devise these sanctions and controls, because there will be adequate housing for the immigrants, and for the others. In conclusion, therefore, I can only ask the hon. the Minister once again to concede the point which has been made by us on this side—as it was made, I think, by inference by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé)—and to agree that after the second reading, this Bill should go to a select committee where all interested persons and groups—and the hon. the Minister himself has referred to some of them, who have communicated with him—can tell him in greater detail how the dilemma, in which a Government which does not want to apply controls has nevertheless to extend it, can be resolved, to its own advantage and certainly to the advantage of South Africa.

The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) based his speech in the first place on the demand that this Bill should be referred to a select committee, which indeed is also the main argument advanced by all speakers on the Opposition benches. I shall come back later therefore to this demand for a select committee. For the rest he based his speech on allegations with regard to the housing programme and the housing record of this Government and the immigration policy of this Government. He must forgive me for not replying to that because it has nothing to do with this Bill. Although it has nothing to do with the Bill, the hon. member for Hospital was given a very effective reply at the outset of these proceedings by the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) who gave the brilliant list of achievements of this Government with regard to housing. The point is that we are dealing here with a state of affairs for which nobody is to blame, and if anybody is to blame then it is only those lessors who are trying to take advantage of the existing state of affairs. We can do no more than to express our deepest appreciation to the hon. the Minister for having come forward at this stage with effective and fair measures to cope with this situation. It is perfectly clear to me that the hon. the Minister is not trying to arrogate dictatorial powers to himself, nor is he coming along with legislation at this stage in an attempt to be vindictive. If he had wanted to try to extend control as far as possible, or if he had wanted to arrogate dictatorial powers to himself, then he would certainly have extended his powers also to include business premises, in addition to taking the powers which he is now taking in terms of Clause 7 of the Bill, but it is perfectly clear that in Clause 7 he is confining himself to what is essential, namely control over dwellings, which in my opinion proves very clearly that in this case the Minister is confining himself entirely to what is absolutely necessary. The Opposition based their whole case in this matter on the demand for a select committee. If a select committee is asked for then it is clear that in the first instance sound arguments should be put forward by interested parties as to why this Bill should be referred to a select committee. I want to refer now to a report in the Burger of Tuesday, 18 February, in which reference is made to a letter written to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Prime Minister. This letter was written by one of the oldest companies in Cape Town which goes in for the letting of flats. The company advances quite a few arguments. I must honestly say that if the oldest company in Cape Town which specializes in the letting of flats—people therefore with a sound knowledge—can do no better than to advance these arguments after having considered the legislation carefully, then in my humble opinion no case at all can be made out by the Opposition or by this particular property company or by any other property company in support of the request that this Bill should be referred to a select committee for further evidence. In the first instance the company concerned says that at this stage this Bill is not necessary at all, which is nonsense, of course, and then the company goes on to suggest certain alternatives. The first alternative which it suggests is the following—

One can hardly believe that in these modern times in which we are living a company of repute can come forward with such a nonsensical argument. Is it suggested that we should scrap everything that has been done in recent times in this country and in the Western democracies in connection with town planning? Must we in this country go against the trend that we find in all parts of the civilized world, and that is that there must be town planning? Must we go against what is happening in all modern cities abroad where there is planning and where flats are erected in open areas and ample provision is made for play-grounds, etc.? The remedy of this company apparently is that we should allow what is taking place here in Cape Town at the moment where we find that blocks of flats are housing as many people as would constitute the White population of a whole platteland town—blocks of flats situated in streets in which one cannot move properly even on bicycle? In other words, this company wants the lack of planning which one finds in Cape Town to be entrenched in legislation and encouraged. The next reason which the company advances is this—

In the principal Act, Act No. 33 of 1942, which the present Opposition as the then Government Party placed on the Statute Book, the same profit margins, namely 8 per cent and 6 per cent, which are also being maintained by this Government, were laid down. This Government now comes along with an amending Bill which slightly improves the position by providing that the figure of 6 per cent on the value of land will be obligatory and that it will not be within the discretion of the Rent Board to allow up to 6 per cent. The hon. the Minister has already announced the ample and fair allowances which the Rent Board will make administratively for furniture, etc. He has already announced that the Government considers that 2 per cent is more than enough for maintenance. I suggest therefore that in this connection the provisions of the existing legislation and of the amending Bill are more than fair. But I do not doubt for a single moment that if at any stage in the future the hon. the Minister can be convinced by responsible and well-motivated representations that an increase in these allowances is necessary and fair, particularly to simulate the building industry, he will give favourable consideration to it although I feel that at this stage it is not necessary. The company concerned then goes on to say—

The hon. the Minister has already intimated that he is going to come forward with amendments to Clause 5 to rectify this position. The company goes on to say—

I suggest that this proposal is not a reasonable one. The property owners and the property owners’ associations and all interested parties are free at all times to approach the Department through their associations, through their mouthpieces, through their normal channels, with regard to questions of policy as far as the determination of rent is concerned, and I am sure that the Department will never turn a deaf ear to properly motivated representations. As far as the question of trained valuators is concerned I just want to say that any lessee or any aggrieved person is free at all times to try to prove his case before the Rent Board by leading the evidence of a valuator who in his opinion has had sufficient experience in this connection. It is the duty of the Rent Board not only to take into account valuations but to take into account all the circumstances and then to use its discretion to determine a reasonable rental.

As far as Clause 5 is concerned, the effect of which is to introduce control also in respect of furniture, etc., and to close loopholes in respect of rental charged for odd items to make sure that the provisions of the Act are not circumvented, I want to ask the hon. the Minister in any case whether Clause 5 goes far enough. He will notice that reference is made in Clause 5 to furniture, household linen, fittings, equipment, machinery or plant which is on the premises. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether recreational facilities should not be added in this clause. One finds in many cases nowadays that recreational facilities are provided at modern blocks of flats for the children and swimming pools and tennis courts, etc., for the occupiers of the flats. The fee for making use of these facilities is automatically included in the rental. Since there is no specific reference in this clause to recreational facilities we may find in the future that this loophole is used to circumvent the provisions of this Act.

In conclusion I want to say that I do not have the slightest doubt that the public will receive this legislation with open arms and acclaim it; that I do not have the slightest doubt that the hon. the Minister’s Department will apply this legislation fairly and honestly and in the same way in which they have hitherto applied rent control measures.

Let me say right at the outset that I welcome this Bill. I think there is just one small fault in this Bill. Had I been the Minister, I would have changed the title. I would not have spoken of a “Control Act”. I think a better title would have been “Rent Exploitation Control Act” or “Rack Rentals Control Act”. The Minister is not taking powers here to control rentals in all cases. He takes power only to apply control in cases where he thinks it is necessary and where exploiters make use of the circumstances in order to exploit the tenants, where the circumstances are such that the victim has to be protected.

You are on the right road now.

Sir, I wish that hon. member would either be sensible or remain quiet. The hon. the Minister is here asking only for powers to stop exploitation. I am one of those who, as long as I have the privilege of being a member of this House, will at all times give my support to any measure intended to protect the weak against the strong, where the weak are being exploited. That does not for a moment mean that I now suggest that this Bill will be the final solution to this problem. Nor does it mean that I believe that this Bill will solve all the problems. Of course problems will always arise. A year ago I went to the Minister together with a deputation of hon. members on both sides of the House, and at that time between 5 per cent and 7½ per cent the flats in my constituency were vacant. We asked the Minister to decontrol buildings which had been controlled since before 1949. The Minister told us that he would favourably consider our suggestions. We felt that it would be a good thing if the Minister had the power to decontrol certain areas where circumstances allowed of it, and even to decontrol individual buildings where he considered that circumstances justified it. I am glad to see that in this Bill he makes provision for what we asked him to do. Sir, nobody, six months ago, could have foreseen that we would have a shortage of housing. I certainly could not foresee that there would be such a shortage in my constituency. I am glad that the hon. the Minister now wants to take power to protect tenants against exploitation where such exploitation exists. I do not think any Government worth its salt should allow any group of persons to be exploited because of a temporary shortage of housing, as exists at the moment, and I also believe that any Government worth its salt should not use its powers in such a way as to commit an injustice towards the owners of buildings.

How do you feel about the request that this Bill should go to a select committee?

I feel that it should be sent to a select committee for reasons I shall mention in a moment. If I perhaps forget to mention a few reasons why the Bill should be sent to a select committee, then those reasons will be found in the speech of the hon. member for Parow.

Mr. Speaker, seeing that we are now discussing the question of referring this Bill to a select committee, I want to ask the hon. the Minister to consider it. He asked by way of an interjection whether we could not study this Bill, which consists of seven clauses, in seven days. Yes, I think most hon. members studied it and understood it, but I think the hon. the Minister must concede that at least I, and perhaps many other hon. members, are not capable of determining the effect of this Bill on the future building of flats, etc., and I think the Minister should seriously consider whether there is not perhaps some substance in the arguments of the trust companies and the owners of buildings. I have not the least doubt that it is in fact necessary to introduce this Bill at this stage. I can tell the House what is happening in my constituency to-day. The hon. the Minister read out a telegram here and I myself have letters from people in my constituency which I can read to the House. I do not intend doing so, but I have the names and addresses here and I am quite prepared to show them to any hon. members who are interested. One feels that this exploitation takes place particularly amongst the lower income groups, the people who can least afford to pay higher rentals. I have a case here of one person who was paying R86 a month. On 1 December the rent was raised to R130 a month. Then there is the case of a poor person, a widow, who paid R30 a month for a so-called bachelor flat, and that was raised to R50. In another case the tenant paid R76 a month plus R7 for the garage, and that was raised to R90 and R8 for the garage. Perhaps the most peculiar case is that of a lady who was notified by the owner of the flats, or rather by the agent, that her rental was being increased by 50 per cent. The letter reads as follows—

It will be noticed that they are not at all anxious for the tenant to agree to the increased rent; no, they are more anxious for the tenant to vacate the flat. I then thought perhaps this was the sort of tenant who is a nuisance to the owner of the building, because we know that there are such persons, as the hon. member for Parow rightly said, and that this was just a nice way of telling the tenant: “We no longer want you as a tenant and in this way we are making sure that you will get out.” I then approached some of the other tenants and discovered that most of them who had rented flats at a comparatively low rental had received the same sort of letter. I then got into touch with the agent and asked him what the object was. His reply was: “We can easily rent these flats, which are near the sea, to temporary tenants at anything from R170 to R200 a month for December, January and February, and in those three months we can get just as much rent as the present tenants pay over a whole year. During February, March, April and May, during the Parliamentary Session, we can easily let these flats at R80 a month, and then we will simply take a chance from July to the beginning of December”, Mr. Speaker, can I sit still and do nothing when that sort of thing is going on in my own constituency? I must surely look after the interests of all my voters, and not after the interests of only some of them. For that reason I welcome the powers the Minister is taking here. I am glad that the Minister made it clear that not all owners of flats are guilty of this scoundrelly behaviour. There are many owners of flats in my constituency who collect low rents, and here I think particularly of flats the rents of which have been pegged because they were built before 1949. Those owners are certainly entitled to better treatment to-day than they have received in the past.

Reference was made here to the law of supply and demand. I believe that the law of supply and demand in a well organized State is nothing else but the law of the jungle. In a well-regulated country this law of supply and demand is a thing of the past. What is not being controlled to-day? Is any hon. member willing to get up here and say that he is against the Usury Act which limits the interest which money-lenders may charge? Is there any hon. member who will have the courage to say that the law of supply and demand must determine the rate of interest, and that the Usury Act should be repealed? I do not believe that any member would suggest that. I therefore believe that it is necessary for us to have control, and if one has a wise Government it will apply that control reasonably.

I now want to mention one reason to the Minister why I think that this matter should be considered further. I want to suggest one small amendment for the Minister’s consideration, and that is in connection with the valuation of buildings. I know of a case where one of the most decent firms in this city bought a building for R152,000. The valuation which was later placed on that building was less than R100,000. You will realize, Sir, that when 8 per cent is allowed on such a fantastically low valuation, which is not in line at all with the present market value of that building, builders will be frightened off. But I believe that the Minister will find some way out of the difficulty. A panel may perhaps be established which will have the final say when any doubt exists as to the valuation. That panel may consist of one valuator nominated by the Minister, one ordinary valuator of the Supreme Court and one person appointed by the property owners’ association. But it will be possible to make better arrangements in regard to the valuation presently placed on the buildings. Therefore I repeat that I welcome this Bill and I hope the Minister will accept the suggestion to send the whole Bill to a select committee after the second reading.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member, who has just resumed his seat, on his speech. That is surely a unique experience for me, but I cannot imagine that it will ever be repeated. It is quite clear that the hon. member favours the Bill more than the select committee which his party suggests. I wonder who infected the hon. member with this sudden sound judgment, because the man to whom he spoke must surely have been very wise to have been able so suddenly to induce in him such an intelligent insight.

The criticism voiced against this Bill is really three-fold. In the first place the criticism is that the Government is responsible for the housing shortage and that by means of this Bill they seek to combat an evil flowing from the housing shortage. Now the Opposition wants to grasp the opportunity to reproach the Government because this housing shortage has arisen. In regard to the housing shortage, two arguments were advanced. The one is that the Government did not, or does not, make use of the available manpower in South Africa to provide housing and therefore a shortage exists. The other argument is linked to the question of immigration and it is said that the Government has not planned with a view to immigration. Then the third point of criticism is that this matter should be sent to a select committee.

I should like to deal with the first point of criticism, that the Government is responsible for the housing shortage because we are not utilizing the available labour. I am very sorry that the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman), who really developed that point, is not here, and that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), who agreed with that argument, is not here either. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) is fortunately here. He also indicated that he agreed with the argument that the Government was responsible for the housing shortage and that the available manpower was not being utilized. There is a recognized shortage of a number of artisans in the building industry. The question is asked why we do not utilize the potential Bantu workers who can do that work and why we do not use the potential Bantu workers in the associated industries, because then the housing shortage will disappear. May I just put two practical questions to those hon. members? This housing storage is something which arose after 1962. In 1962, 18 months ago, we had unemployment among the White workers. At what stage should the Bantu have been integrated on the scaffolding and the workshops where we were busy providing housing? The clever people who now suggested this easy solution should reply to this: How would the non-White workers have been integrated in the provision of housing? Do they think that it would have been an easy task suddenly to put the Bantu bricklayer alongside the White bricklayer and the Bantu plasterer next to the White plasterer? The same applies to carpenters. Surely it would have been a socially shocking matter which would have required considerable adaptations. I am not even arguing on the principle yet; I am arguing on the practical grounds which the liberals always lose sight of. The liberals always think that one clever statement is sufficient to wipe out all practical complications. An attempt like that to use Black labour in the building industry would have brought about so much confusion in the mids of the manpower employed in the building industry that the industry would have come to a complete standstill in South Africa. It would probably have ended in a strike.

What is the effect of that idea on the wage structure? We all know that nobody in the building industry to-day works for the minimum wage. I grant every building worker in South Africa the extra wages he can earn now, because when the time comes for him to be laid off it is not the liberals who arrange soup kitchens for the unemployed and who supply them with cash. Those people, under our system of free initiative, must look after themselves. They will have to bear the burden of unemployment. Therefore I grant them this bonus they can earn now. The idea which the hon. member for Houghton and her supporters, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and the other members of the United Party who agreed with her, propound here to solve the housing shortage simply amounts to this, that they want to peg the White building workers to minimum wages for all time. Supposing that this liberal idea is realized; we integrate a large number of Blacks into this very sensitive building industry. This is an industry which we know is subject par excellence to booms and depressions. Now this time of prosperity passes. Who must now be dismissed in the industry? Is the White worker to be dismissed, or the non-White, or will the workers who can exist on a low level of wages just have a tremendously depressive effect on the wage standard?

May I ask a question? What does the hon. member think is going to happen with the immigrants arriving here now? The same argument applies to them.

I will reply to that question. It is a valid question. It links up with what I am going to say now. In practice the integration of the non-White worker means that with the first setback that non-White workers will be dismissed. As the social structure is in this country to-day, the non-White worker, who is now employed in a time of need, will be the first one to be dismissed. And then we will be committing a very great economic injustice towards those people and create a new source of dissatisfaction which may lead to riots. Those people, because they are a separate class, will be treated in that way.

I now come to the hon. member’s question about the immigrants. The hon. member asks why the same problem will not arise in respect of immigrant building workers? I frankly admit that if we allow a surplus number of immigrant building workers to enter the industry, it will have economic disadvantages. That is why this Government, through its immigration selection boards, ensures that we do not bring in a surplus of immigrant building workers and that in this period of high conjuncture we have a shortage of workers. Only a fool would try to get his full complement of workers by way of immigration in a period of high conjuncture which one knows is a temporary period. The labour requirements that have to be filled are the estimated normal requirements. That is borne in mind when labour is imported. Therefore if there is a normally reasonable addition of immigrant workers and there is again a recession in the building industry, then those immigrants are not distinguishable by their colour and social habits as a separate category of workers, such as the non-Whites would be. There will be no discrimination against or in favour of them, as certain people in South Africa would have. The immigrant workers who enter the ordinary community of workers will share equally in the prosperity or adversity of the building industry. I think it is sufficient simply to say that the United Party argument and the Progressive Party argument, that there is a housing shortage here or that we do not make use of the available labour, is devoid of all practical value. It is one of these facile arguments used to state in general terms that which on analysis simply proves to be impracticable, and therefore it is a totally invalid argument.

I now come to the reproach made that we are experiencing this housing shortage because the Government did not plan with a view to immigration. Again I want to mention dates. The housing shortage arose during the course of 1963. Everyone will admit that. Even the silent Whip of the United Party will admit that the housing shortage did not exist in 1962, but that it only arose during the course of 1963. When did the first big inflow of immigrants take place? Our immigrants came in on a large scale during the course of 1963. How does an immigrant come to South Africa? Does he come by virtue of an application made a year ago? Or do they come continuously, as the applications are dealt with by the Immigration Office here and overseas? Of course they come in as and when applications have been dealt with. It is not possible to make any statistical projection of precisely how many immigrants are to be expected in any future period. In other words, the United Party argument that this Government should have built houses for the “approximately” 30,000 immigrants who entered during the course of 1963 is pure and unmitigated nonsense. Nobody could have built houses, which take about six to eight months to complete, in the beginning of 1963 to provide for the then unknown number of immigrants at the end of 1963. What the Government should do in regard to immigration, and what it in fact does, is to take the initiative in providing housing for the present and known population requiring houses in the shortest possible time. And is that not being done? Are the 8,000 family housing units to which the Minister referred not a sufficient special contribution towards eliminating the particular need which arose during the course of 1963? If one regards it from that angle. Mr. Speaker, then this Government has dealt with the matter absolutely correctly and on the only basis on which it could have been dealt with.

But there is a further aspect in connection with this argument that the Government did not provide for immigrants. Nobody can foresee the geographical distribution of these immigrants. Nobody can predict how many will go to the large cities, how many to the medium sized towns, and to which towns, and how many will go to the rural areas. The problem of providing housing for immigrants must manifest itself through the inland distribution of the immigrants themselves and can only be tackled when that need becomes known. Therefore this criticism is quite ridiculous.

To proceed further, I want to associate myself with the remark made by the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson). He revealed unexpected wisdom and propounded a truth here. He said that the question of supply and demand in regard to housing had no direct bearing on the question of rentals. In regard to housing we obviously have relatively long-term fluctuations. In 1962 there was a surplus of dwellings which led to low rentals. In 1964 there was a shortage. That long-term fluctuation in regard to the supply of housing can take place at any time, but price adaptation to the supply happens immediately, within approximately a month. Therefore one cannot in connection with housing say that one can solve the problem of rentals by meeting the demand. What is to-day a sufficient supply in regard to the demand for dwellings may in 18 months’ time be a great surplus as the result of fluctuations, or it may prove to be an insufficient supply. It is very dangerous to try to stabilize prices by supplying the demand.

Therefore, in so far as criticism has been voiced of this Bill because it may discourage certain entrepreneurs from building houses, I want to associate myself with the hon. member for North-West Rand (Mr. J. C. B. Schoeman). I think South Africa is suffering severely from a surplus of flats. I think it is a shame that a beautiful city like Pretoria, with its old an elegant residential areas like Arcadia and Sunnyside, should be turned into a flats jungle when we have large open spaces. I hope that the effect of this Bill will, inter alia, be to change the pattern of investment in South Africa and to make the building of large blocks of flats less popular. I would welcome that as a great blessing. I welcome the Government’s housing pattern, viz. mainly to provide housing on separate erven in residential areas where our citizens can live in the relatively garden surroundings of urban suburbs. Therefore this objection that this Bill might possibly hamper possible future investment in building units is, as far as I am concerned, not valid.

I wish to say, however, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will have any visible hampering effect in view of the very important provision of the possible lifting of control with which I hope to deal later if the short time allowed to me permits.

I want to deal with the suggestion by the Opposition that this Bill should be sent to a select committee. I want to be most unkind and say that this is a very irresponsible suggestion made by those hon. members. They suggest that the Bill should be set to a select committee after the second reading. Their arguments as to why the Bill should go to a select committee in every instance amounted to this, that the valuation of dwellings is really a little unsatisfactory and should possibly be re-investigated. They indicated that the Bill should go to a select committee after the second reading so that the select committee could satisfy itself that the provisions of the Bill will not have the effect of hampering future building activities as the result of the amendment of the way in which rentals are determined. But, Sir, if the second reading is passed, the way in which the rental value is to be determined is not a principle of this Bill. At no stage is that a principle of this Bill. That matter is not being dealt with here. In other words, the select committee asked for by those hon. members would not be able to deal with this matter with which they want it to deal. The select committee would have to confine itself to the narrow principle laid down here, and that does not include the way in which rentals can be determined. The target at which those hon. members are aiming is no target at all. The motive they had in suggesting that this Bill be sent to a select committee could obviously not have been to get that committee to investigate the question of rentals. The hon. Whip over there would undoubtedly have realized this. It was just an argument for an argument’s sake, in order to oppose this Bill in some way.

I want to continue to deal with the particular provisions of the Bill. In respect of Clause 5, I want to thank the Minister for the amendment he has announced, to the effect that the provision in regard to fixing the rental value of furniture will not be applied to premises let for a three months’ period of vacation. I also want to take the opportunity to place it on record that this provision in regard to the rental value of furniture of course concerns only controlled premises. All pre-1949 properties are in a sense controlled, but determinations have not been made in every case. All the properties built after 1949, except those which are specifically controlled, are exempted. In other words, the greater majority of houses and flats which are hired for a vacation period in any case fall outside the provisions of the Bill. It is only in connection with controlled premises that this further concession is made. I also want to express my appreciation for the fact that the Minister has provided that where the Rent Board cannot value the furniture fast enough, payment can in the meantime continue in the ordinary way.

Then I want to deal for a moment with Clause 7 (a), which provides for the lifting of control. I should be glad if the Minister in his reply will also give the assurance—I hope I have read the Bill correctly—that the lifting of control will take place in respect of premises which are now for the first time brought under control by special proclamation. After a certain time the Minister can also deproclaim those premises. He nods affirmatively. To me that is the most important guarantee that this Bill will not have a depressive effect on further capital investment in housing units. The problem of capital investment in housing units, taken together with rent control, is not that the revenue from interest on one’s investment is low, but that the capital appreciation is cut off from one’s investment because it is a controlled property which has no prospect of earning a high income in future. When such a property can become decontrolled, as can now happen for the first time since 1949, that property is exempted from that disqualification which undermines its capital value, and such property can then be sold at the normal market value as soon as de-control takes place. I want to thank the Minister especially for this provision and the economically useful effect it will have.

Mr. Speaker, I think enough has been said in regard to how welcome this Bill is to those who are being exploited and whilst, I, like the hon. member for Sea Point, want to grant recognition to the many property-owners who do not exploit their tenants, we as a party want to say that we are grateful to the Minister for once more having shown that the National Party says to the poor man of South Africa: I am my brother’s keeper.

The debate to-day has covered many subjects some of which are not connected with the Bill at all. But I think the actual housing position in the country has been brought into the limelight. There is no doubt that some legislation was necessary and there is no doubt that the first thoughts to deal with the problem were to introduce legislation. Many people question and query whether or not legislation will bring about the desired effect. I do not think there is any question that in dealing with housing, particularly with flats, some action is necessary in regard to those landlords who put some furniture and charge rentals for garages, and in that way get round the law.

The point I should like to raise is this: Why and how does this shortage of housing come about? It is not so simple always to say, that it was brought about by the immigrants who have come to this country. We welcome them. There are other reasons for this shortage. The whole fact of the matter is that these exploiters, in the shape of landlords, have been enabled to take advantage of the position which obtains at the moment, because of the pressure on housing from the lower income groups to housing which is in the higher income groups. The Minister of Housing is making an admission to-day, by introducing this particular Bill, that his department has really failed. I am not impressed by the strings of figures which have been mentioned to illustrate the number of houses that have been built by the commission. The position is this, Sir, that those houses have been too few in every instance. I have some knowledge of the subject so I can say that the commission is quite unaware of the trend of events. Although the Minister protests and although other hon. members opposite are protesting that they were unable to do any planning. I submit that an intelligent application to the study of conditions could have produced some planning. The Minister said himself last year that he warned landlords about rents. Last year, is 12 months ago, Sir. I hope he will be able to tell us what steps he has taken during the last 12 months to remedy the shortage of houses because the Housing Commission which is an established body and organization, should have been able to take steps to bring about improvements. I would like to say to the Minister that although he may feel happy about conditions in regard to the National Housing Commission, I can say without any fear of contradiction that the National Housing Commission is in a very serious position and cannot cope with the work because, first of all, they are short of staff and, secondly, because of the supervision they give to local authorities who submit schemes for housing. The Minister says planning takes a long time. I want to direct his attention to the inordinate delays which take place in the laying out of townships, to the alterations and variations which are suggested by way of amendment to town planning schemes and townships by provincial authorities and the township boards …

What has that to do with the Bill?

It has a lot to do with the Bill. The second point I want to make is this that when the plans are produced, plans that have been prepared by competent architects employed by local authorities, they are so altered and amended that as time passes, delays occur and the housing schemes do not see the light of day for many months.

By whom are they altered?

As the hon. Minister well knows I have had a considerable amount of experience of dealing with the National Housing Commission.

Answer my question: By whom are they altered?

You are talking a lot of nonsense now.

I notice that what I am saying is beginning to sting because it is true. I can quote an example where urgency by the National Housing Commission was the order of the day; plots were acquired; the commission came back to the local authority to get the price reduced; two and a half years have gone by and nothing has happened.

Because you wanted to make money out of the poor people.

I am the hon. member for Karoo, not “you”. I am sorry that the hon. Minister is getting hot under the collar. The hon. Minister said by way of interjection that he has had to persuade United Party councils. I submit that the greatest efforts and the best work done in housing in this country has been done by councils where United Party people are in the majority.

Order! What has that got to do with the Bill?

Mr. Speaker, the Bill seeks to control rents. I am trying to suggest that there would be no need to control rents if the question of housing had been tackled in a practical and constructive way, with some speed and some expedition. Many hon. members have referred to housing and it seems a pity that the question of housing was introduced in the first instance, because in dealing with this Bill and asking for a select committee, there is no question that the hon. Minister would hear from outside interests what in fact the implications are, of the Bill before the House. It is not unlikely that he would learn something and perhaps find that what he suggests is as only a short Bill of seven clauses, is something that should be dealt with on a much wider scale. He may discover that. If the hon. Minister agrees to a select committee, as I hope he will, he might find evidence led which might expose the real reasons why persons investing in property are unhappy about the Bill as it stands. The result would be that we would find ourselves then having possibly to deal with legislation which might have its effect upon the control of rents on a basis which would deal with the prosperity of this country rather than legislate in a temporary way, which seems to be the attitude of the hon. Minister. It is suggested that this matter of rent control is a passing thing, whereas I believe that in the prosperity which this country will undoubtedly enjoy, there will be more and more persons interested in building and in the construction of houses and flats. I am optimistic enough to think that I am right, when I suggest that that will happen, and pessimistic enough to know that there will always be people who will turn a penny at the expense of their neighbours, if they can. The position therefore arises that in suggesting and asking the hon. Minister for a select committee the views of outside people would be heard. I go further and say that there is already a difference of opinion as to whether or not 6 per cent or 8 per cent are correct percentages. The hon. member for Parow himself cast doubt upon these figures, and I say with all due deference that the hon. Minister should have some expert advice from affected persons before he finally decides to proceed with the Bill.

Tell us about houses in the Karoo?

I would like to tell the hon. member that the conditions under which the Coloured people live are nothing short of shocking.

Order! I think the hon. member should not allow himself to be led astray by interruptions.

It is very difficult, Mr. Speaker, but thank you for the advice. [Interjections.] Mr. Speaker, I find myself in an extremely difficult position.

Order!

To recapitulate: The feeling on this side of the House is quite simple (Laughter.) I use simple words for simple people, Mr. Speaker. We believe and accept that rent control is necessary. We believe that the position has arisen through negligence on the part of the Minister of Housing. We believe that the whole of the future in this country could have been foreseen, partially if not wholly.

Yes, but that point has been made repeatedly.

Having canvassed the case for a select committee, I will take your advice, Mr. Speaker, and take no further notice of interjections.

The Opposition are not opposing this measure this afternoon but they are obviously making use of this opportunity to launch attacks upon the hon. the Minister. The hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) comes along with the charge that the Minister has allegedly failed to make provision for housing for immigrants, and the last speaker has now come forward with the profoundly wise statement that the Minister “was negligent!” The spectacle that we have here this afternoon is that the Opposition really have no grounds for criticizing this measure and because they have no criticism of this measure as such but nevertheless have to say something, they try to criticize the Minister and his policy. If I may give them a little friendly advice I want to tell them that the right time for them to criticize the Minister if they have any criticism is when his Vote and his policy are under discussion but this is not the time or the place to criticize the policy of the Minister when we are discussing a Bill such as this. They should criticize the measure as such, and if they have nothing to say about this measure they should rather remain silent. We know that they are such a bankrupt party as far as policy is concerned that they can no longer criticize any measure at all and the result is that Bills are going through this House at a terrific speed. They are an exhausted bunch of spiritless people.

Order! The hon. member may not refer to the Opposition as a bunch of people without spirit. He must refer to them as hon. members.

May I say then that hon. members opposite are a lot of spiritless people. They come along with the suggestion that a select committee should be appointed. Let us analyse on what grounds they ask for a select committee. In the first place they say that interested parties should be given time to study this measure and to make representations. Mr. Speaker, surely that is a far-reaching thing to say in this House, because the implication is that in connection with every measure which comes before this House we must first appoint a select committee so that interested parties outside this House may first study the measure and then make representations and then only this House can proceed with its business. To say the least of it, it is a foolish proposal. Do hon. members opposite no longer have sufficient initiative to analyse a measure and to decide for themselves what can be said in favour of it and what can be said against it? Must they always fall back on members of the public to give them a little ammunition so that they can have something to talk about in this House? It is a sad state of affairs when that sort of request is made in this House.

What a ridiculous argument!

The hon. member for Hospital made a speech here with regard to immigration. Is the immigration policy of the Government a good ground for appointing a select committee on a Rent Control Bill? Because that was obviously his whole plea. He devoted the whole of his speech to it and winded up his speech by saying that he supported the proposal that a select committee should be appointed. Apart from mentioning the Government immigration policy he advanced no grounds in support of the request that a select committee be appointed. He went back to 1945, to the days of the late Dr. Malan, and dealt with the entire immigration policy of the National Party. That is the reason which he advanced in support of the request that a select committee be appointed. Is it fair to come before this House with such arrant nonsense?

The hon. member is an expert on nonsense.

Be quiet, Moscow!

Order! The hon. member knows that the term "Moscow" is not permitted.

I apologize, Sir.

The hon. member for Karoo has just advocated that a select committee should be appointed but he too did not advance a single reason in support of his request. He was apparently concerned about the activities of the Housing Commission. He said that he had a great deal of experience, a very intimate knowledge of this matter, but he failed to give us the benefit of his intimate knowledge of that subject and to tell us why the activities of the Housing Commission justify the appointment of a select committee to go into a Bill dealing with rent control.

I want to emphasize that this Bill is not before us to-day because there is any appreciable shortage of housing in this country, nor has this measure been introduced because immigrants have come to this country. The only reason why this Bill is before us is the unscrupulous conduct of property owners who are making use of the opportunity to "cash in" on the present situation. That is the only reason for this measure. The reason is not, as hon. members opposite suggest, that there is a shortage of housing, or that so many immigrants have entered this country that it has given rise to a shortage of housing. The fact that this Bill is aimed against those unscrupulous exploiters is borne out by the number of interviews which have been reported in the Press and by the hullabaloo raised in the Press with regard to this measure. There has been a great deal of scaremongering in the Press by various estate agents. Amongst other things they allege that all building activity will now come to a standstill. They go so far as to say that the whole of the building industry will be paralysed and that the whole economy of South Africa will be disrupted. But the most foolish statement of all appeared in a newspaper this morning, and that is that immigrants will now be prohibited from coming to this country. That statement comes from those who will be affected by this measure, namely the exploiters. That is why they are so vociferous, because this Bill is designed to deal with those very people who are so vociferous to-day. The reason for its introduction is not that there is a shortage of housing or that immigrants are entering this country. But the Opposition want to consult these exploiters because the exploiters are their bosses and they want to hear from those people how they should react to this Bill. They themselves lack the initiative and the knowledge to talk about this Bill. They have to consult these exploiters.

I want to deal with this question as to whether this measure will curb building activities. In the first place I want to say that that is impossible in the light of the Government’s policy as set out by the Minister. The Minister has told us that it is the Government’s declared policy gradually to relax rent control and to abolish it wherever possible. That is the Government’s approach and the Government’s policy. How can such a policy prejudice building activities? The Minister has told us that control has already been lifted in 205 out of the 274 areas. But secondly I want to point out that this measure in fact ensures that the building industry as a whole will not be affected because this measure will be applied selectively and permissively and only against those people who exploit the tenants in this country. One of the provisions of the Bill is that rent control can now be applied even to one dwelling even to apartments within one building; it can be applied to a particular class of dwelling in a particular area, and it can be brought into operation in a particular area, which shows that it is only directed against particular types of people; it is not intended to be applied on a country-wide scale. It is directed against those people who exploit the tenants. We know that the phenomenon against which this Bill is aimed is due to our flourishing economy and to immigration into this country because there are unscrupulous people who think that under present-day circumstances they can increase their rentals, and in doing so they are creating an unheard-of situation which is very unhealthy from the point of view of immigration. It is a very unhealthy state of affairs from the point of view of attracting immigrants if rentals are so high that a person has to spend up to 40 per cent of his salary on house-rent. This will definitely retard immigration to this country. Far from deterring immigrants this measure will promote even more immigration to South Africa. It is not the intention at all to apply rent control on a country-wide basis.

I come now to a few of the specific provisions of this Bill. The Bill provides that a lessor can be given a return of 6 per cent on his land, 8 per cent on buildings, and 2 per cent for maintenance. In addition to that he can recover the salaries, rates and taxes, etc., paid by him. I want to say in this connection that these unscrupulous people, or let me rather say estate agents of this kind, often try to make the public believe that out of this 8 per cent they have to pay all rates and taxes, that they have to pay their salary bill, that they have to pay the maintenance bill, etc., and that they are left with a meagre 2 per cent or 3 per cent profit on their investment capital. That is by no means the true position in terms of the Act. The Act provides for a return of 6 per cent on land, 8 per cent on buildings, 2 per cent for maintenance, and in addition to that it also provides for salaries and rates and taxes. All these things are paid for by the tenant, so the owner receives much more—he probably gets an average of at least 7 per cent on the capital invested by him. It is also argued by certain people that the return on one’s capital investment will now be scarcely 3 per cent or 4 per cent and that this will restrict building activities in this country. Is that really the case? That is not the position because the rental which the landlord obtained in normal times was approximately what it will be under this measure, and it certainly did not have the effect of curbing building activities.

I should also like to say a few words about flats. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) expressed a fine and commendable sentiment when he talked about the jungle of flats in Sunnyside and Rissik. He put forward the plea that there should be fewer flats and that we should beautify our towns with fine dwellings instead of having jungles of flats. I do not entirely agree with the hon. member for Kempton Park. I believe that flats serve a useful housing need and that there are many people in our country who have no alternative but to live in flats. I hope that people who build blocks of flats will not allow themselves to be deterred by this sort of talk on the part of unscrupulous lessors and people who want to exploit tenants but that they will continue to build flats. I cannot imagine that in a modern economy like ours we can do without flats. Flats are definitely needed and as you know, Sir, there are many workers who have no alternative but to live in flats.

Then I should like to say a few words about the section dealing with furniture. The Minister has indicated that he is going to move an amendment to the effect that the hiring of furniture will not be controlled in respect of buildings and furniture where the lease is for a period shorter than three months. In this connection I just want to draw his attention to the practice that we find in certain coastal towns that the furniture in the building is let together with the building at such a high rental that over a period of three months the lessor obtains the equivalent of a whole year’s rental. Buildings which are let for this short period, during the holiday season, are expected to yield the equivalent of a year’s rental over these three months. I think this is a scandalous exploitation of holidaymakers. The poor inlander who goes to Durban, for example, or to one of the South Coast towns, who has to go somewhere to spend his holiday, is obliged to hire one of those places and he pays such an enormously high rental that for the rest of the year the building can stand empty. I should like the Minister when he moves his amendment to bear this aspect of the matter in mind.

I want to conclude by saying that we who represent constituencies where large new towns are coming into being and where great development is taking place and where, as we know, this sort of exploitation against which this measure is aimed is taking place, heartily welcome this measure, and we want to congratulate the Minister on the fact that he has come forward with a very popular measure. I think he deserves the thanks of the whole House and of the entire nation for this step.

This afternoon we are not just dealing with a new Bill to control rents. The Bill reads “to amend the Rents Act of 1950”, and I think that is the basis of this side’s argument, while accepting the measure, the matter should go to a select committee. We do have these amending Bills in this House but there is no two ways about it that very often they put a completely new complexion on the original measure.

Listening to the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman), I heard him say that we had no criticism of the Bill. I do not know whether he was sleeping or not, but if he had listened he would have listened to very constructive criticism from this side of the House as to what should happen as far as this Bill is concerned.

When the hon. Minister introduced this Bill he, no doubt was worried about the public’s reaction to this measure outside. To give credit where credit is due, I think he is doing his best as Minister of Housing, but unfortunately he does not control the purse-strings, and does not have all the say. He went to great length to say that this Bill in fact only meant to take care of those people who kick over the traces. I do not think he realizes that this measure will go far beyond his own control. It will become an Act on the Statute Book and there is no doubt about it that the larger centres in this country will be affected by this particular Act. He said it was the policy of the Government to abolish control as far as possible. I think he is in line with our thoughts on this side of the House. We feel that control should have gone a long time ago. I said the other day that when the Government has to introduce a measure such as this, it shows that there is something wrong somewhere. The Minister said it took a long time to plan. If this Government had confidence in this country, I am sure it would have been able to plan to provide the necessary housing for immigrants and this measure would not have been necessary. But that has not been the case. We find time and time again that the Government is found wanting when it comes to planning for the man in the street. This Government is so busy putting the Whites in one place and the Blacks in another place, and the Coloureds here and the Indians there, that they forget the man in the street who is getting thoroughly tired of being pushed around and having to put up with control and measures such as this. The man in the street wants a decent home in which he can live peacefully. He wants to be able to get a house, but this Bill certainly will not provide housing. This Bill will have the effect of holding up further building of dwellings and flats.

Nonsense! what is going to happen and the Minister cannot tell them. The Minister is doing something here to take care of the exploiters and the rent racketeers, but unfortunately he has put a complete umbrella of control over rentals. That is why we made an appeal to give the people outside a chance to put their case before us and then come to this House with a very much better Bill. This Bill amends the Act of 1950 and the whole thing should be re-examined in the light of prevailing conditions. Furthermore, in introducing this measure which I say will have the effect of altering the whole position, the Minister must look to his rent boards. At present the rent boards are constituted in a manner where they fix valuations and decide upon the rents. But to-day these rent boards will be faced with a completely different situation where they will have—whether they are competent to do so I cannot say—to value large blocks of flats and other dwellings and fix rents, and there will be all sorts of complications. Buildings are built at a basic cost and they are at times sold at appreciated value. What will the Rent Board decide on as the rent? Will it take the original cost, or the appreciated value? There are these complications. Items such as this could have been settled in the select committee and we would have had a very much better Bill than we have now.

Housing is the responsibility of the State. There are outside institutions, but where they fail the State should provide the money to see that the individual gets a house, and we should not be faced with measures such as this and (?????????) have to apply rent control, which is a step in the wrong direction and it does not help the whole of the economy of our country.

I should like to deal with the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn). He put up three arguments. We, as well as the hon. member for Houghton, said that the shortage of housing exists to some extent because we are not making full use of the labour resources of the country. The hon. member for Kempton Park thought that we wanted to make out a case to get round the back door and to dilute the White labour market with Blacks in the building industry, and he wanted to protect the Whites. I think that is a completely short-sighted viewpoint. We have the trained labour and the Government should make full use of it. I feel that the White labour unions can fully protect their own members …

Order! That is irrelevant.

He also used the argument that you could not plan finally because you did not know where the immigrants would settle. He said you cannot build houses unless you know where they will settle. He should know that there have been authorities working on where these immigrants will settle. The Minister of Immigration should know that it is where industries are expanding that they require the houses. I feel certain that the Department of Housing can tell them how many houses are required and where they are required, so they can get on with the job. I say this Bill is a stopgap measure, such as we often see in this House. The Government is trying to control something, and one is always reminded of the man in a boat which is sinking and in order to let the water out he drills another hole. That is what the effect of this Bill will be. Instead of remedying the situation, it will deteriorate, and the only thing you can do to put it right is to have the measure examined by a select committee.

The hon. member for Salt River (Mr. Timoney) began his speech by asking the hon. the Minister to agree to refer this Bill to a select committee but he gave us no good reason for making this request of the hon. the Minister. He wandered away from the Bill in trying to indicate the reason for the housing shortage and he mentioned a large number of other matters that had nothing to do with the subject matter of this Bill which is the exploitation of tenants by landlords. I want to point out that in 1950 the Rents Bill was referred to a select committee after the second reading. I ask myself whether circumstances have changed to such an extent since 1950 that it is necessary to appoint another select committee. The Opposition want the select committee to make certain basic facts known to us. I think that we are able to ascertain from the very voluminous report of the select committee of that time the views of those entrepreneurs in the property market and the problems which they have to deal with. The principles that held good in 1950 are principles which still hold good today. I do not think that a select committee can tell us anything new in regard to these matters. All that a select committee may perhaps be able to do will be to bring cases of flagrant exploitation to our attention far more pertinently, but it is not necessary to be informed of more cases than those that have already been brought to our attention. This Bill is necessary so that action can be taken in cases of exploitation. It was also noticeable that the hon. member for Salt River said that we were more concerned in grouping Whites here, Bantu there and Coloureds somewhere else. He said that we should not occupy ourselves with that sort of thing when all that the ordinary man wanted was a roof over his head and “to live in peace”. Must I conclude from the remark of the hon. member that we are occupying ourselves with that sort of thing that he would like to see all those races who, as he says, want to live in peace living where they please? Does he not want us to give effect to the principle of group areas and the principle of separate residential areas? No, we will implement that principle and at the same time we will provide the man in the street with housing, and the way in which we provide him with that housing will enable him to live in greater peace than that in which the hon. member for Salt River would like to see him live.

Mr. Speaker, the crux of this matter is the question of exploitation. Let us consider certain specific cases of exploitation. The question of exploitation has been discussed generally this afternoon but I want to mention specific cases. For which items do tenants have to pay to-day and how do landlords try to obtain a little more money for their property? In the first place there is the furniture that is supplied in the flats, furniture that is usually bought at a sale and is in rather a disreputable state. That furniture is valued at a price that is absolutely ridiculous. I make so bold as to say that the total cost price of that furniture in some cases is only equal to one month’s rent. Let us go a little further. The increase in municipal rates is often given as justification for an increase in rentals. I do not know Cape Town too well; I do not know whether there have been large increases in municipal rates over the past few years and whether this is sufficient reason for the increase in rentals. We also have the cases where the lessee has to pay extra for a garage. In many cases the lessee has to pay twice the normal rental for his flat in order to have the use of a garage. The lessee also has to pay for the servant’s quarters that are provided. Furthermore, he also has to pay for the water and electricity supplied by the City Council the price of which, so it seems, has suddenly increased! He also has to pay for the renovating and cleaning of the building. Provision is made for these items in the percentage allowed to the landlord, but over and above this percentage of about 2 per cent the tenant of a flat or a house is still asked to pay more. We even have the ridiculous case in which tenants are asked to pay more because the name of the flats has been changed. They have to pay more because the building has gained a certain prestige and the new name has given it a better status in the neighbourhood! There is also the case in which rentals are raised because there are no children living in the flats. The lessees are told: “There are no children in the flats; there is more peace and quiet and therefore our tenants must pay more.” I mention these specific cases so that we can ask ourselves when an increase in rent is justified. An increase would be justified if municipal rates rose so disproportionately that the landlord received no real interest on his investment. But then we do not expect that increase in rental to be exorbitant; it should merely be sufficient to cover the increased expenditure brought about by the increased municipal rates. An increase would also be justified in cases where extensive structural alterations were made to the building—not simply minor repairs and renovations. If a flat was virtually rebuilt thus adding to the comfort of the tenant, we would agree that a reasonable increase in rental was justified. Or if good furniture, good fittings and other amenities were provided in that flat and a higher rental was asked, having regard to the price of those articles and having regard to depreciation, we would have no objection. But we do have exorbitant increases. I have gone into this matter fairly exhaustively and I want to mention a few particular cases. It is well known that the rental of many flats was raised by 10 per cent as from 1 January of this year. But over and above this 10 per cent we find an additional R8 per month being charged in the case where the flats have been given a new name; R6 per month over and above the 2 per cent allowed to the landlord because the flats have been repainted; R9 without the landlord’s being able to explain the reason for the sudden increase; R10 because the municipal rates have apparently been increased to such an extent; R14 because there is a shortage—and after all, it is simply a question of supply and demand. There was also a case where the rental was increased from R29 to R61 over a period of nine months. Mr. Speaker, the exploitation that takes place covers specific matters—the exploitation of those people in the lower and middle income groups. It is usually they who have to suffer.

If this is the position, it means that many people spend from one-quarter to one-third of their monthly income on rent. We know that an expenditure of 20 per cent or one-fifth of monthly income makes for healthy domestic finances. If one-fifth of the monthly income is spent on rent, that household does not suffer any ill effects. We find that some of these money-grabbing landlords are indifferent to the way in which they disrupt the whole household and upset the whole domestic balance. People have to cut down on food so that they can pay their rent. Imagine the harm that their greed causes not only in this sphere but also in regard to the feeding of our young people.

I differ from the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) in connection with what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) said in regard to these flats jungles that come into being. Mr. Speaker, I do not say that we should do away with flats completely. There was a time when they provided for a very necessary need and there will always be a time when they will supply this requirement. All I hope is that the hon. the Minister and his Department will make a little more propaganda for houses. As you know, commissions of inquiry like the Piek Commission have been appointed in the past in connection with family allowances. They have found that flat life has had an affect upon the size of our families and this is something that we in South Africa cannot afford. We should rather encourage our people, if we have the means and if the Department can supply the houses, to live in ordinary houses on a reasonable plot of land so that we can revive their love for the land. We must try to get away from this system of having concentrations of people, particularly those coming from the platteland, in these large blocks of flats.

I would like to say something about the question of a slump in the building industry. This point was also mentioned in the report of the select committee of 1950 to which I have already referred. It was stated at the time that building activities would come to a standstill. At that time there was no control over buildings occupied after 1949. I want to make this quotation (translation)—

Because we subjected certain people to rent control at that time, it is being said now that building activities will come to a halt. I quote further (translation)—

Furthermore (translation)—

These phantoms were being chased up as early as in 1950 and I believe that those same bogeys are being put up to-day. Those money-grabbers, who see the fountain from which they are drawing a far larger income than they are entitled to, being dried up by this measure, are putting up those phantoms. But I believe that the lessor who has always asked a reasonable rental for his buildings and who has received a reasonable income from his investment will not allow himself to be deterred by statements of this nature. If it has been a good and safe investment field for him he will want to continue to invest in similar undertakings in the future if he is able to do so financially. We must remember that all landlords are not exploiters. Will those people who have always invested their money in this sphere and have made good profits from it suddenly cease to be interested in it? They are not going to be deterred by this measure. They are the people who will continue to invest their money in the building industry. It is the people who are money-grabbers, who are greedy and who now see this fountain of their wealth drying up, who now realize that their days of indolence are over, who are putting up these bogeys.

It has been said that our Rent Boards may be inundated with work. The hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé) referred to the fact that people sometimes damage the house in which they live and then go and complain to the Rent Board that the rental is too high and that that rental should be reduced. I believe that such cases do arise. But we also have the following cases that I want very earnestly to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. In our older urban areas particularly we find that some of the older homes are in a rather dilapidated condition. The owners are not prepared to do any renovations or repairs to those houses. The tenants are prepared to do the work themselves if the owners will give them the materials. But the owners refuse to do so and in such cases the tenants have usually to vacate the houses because they are actually no longer suitable for habitation. The owners of those houses do these things because many of the homes in the older urban areas are situated on premises that are zoned for light industries.

As soon as those houses become so dilapidated, that the City Council declares that area to be a slum area, those owners are very happy because then the buildings can be demolished and the plots can be sold as industrial land. I do not want to discuss the Slums Act, but there are provisions in this Act which do make it possible for such owners to be brought to book. I want to mention this point for the consideration of the hon. the Minister. This is not an extreme measure. We know that we have to take action when people are exploited. But would the best thing to do in this case not be to do what is done in one of the American States? In that State tenants complained that owners did not want to renovate or repair their tenants’ homes. The Judge in that particular area examined the houses and found that the position was as had been stated by the tenants. In his judgment he stated that as long as the houses remained in that condition, it was not necessary for the tenants to send their rentals to their landlords; they could pay their rentals to the court and the court would keep that money in trust for the owner until he did something to help those people in their need. If he eventually did nothing, the court would use the money to have the necessary renovations and repairs done to those homes. This may perhaps border a little on the extreme but there are some of these people in regard to whom we shall have to take very firm action, just as in regard to the exploiters, because they are also people who allow property to deteriorate, thus contributing to the fact that we have a housing shortage, particularly in our older areas. I am convinced that this measure is going to do what we have in mind for it—to put the money grabber and the greedy person in his place. Actually, I hope that some of them will fall into the trap so that the tenants will realize who the people are who have exploited them in the past. It is not necessary for this matter to be referred to a select committee. The information that we want on this matter is information that we already have and we will simply be wasting time and leaving the victims in the hands of the exploiters for a longer period if we do not take immediate action. It is not clear to me why the United Party actually want a select committee because that select committee will have to hear evidence within the framework of this Bill. Many of the other matters that have been raised here to-day, even the question of immigration, a subject far removed from the provisions of this Bill, cannot be dealt with by that select committee. I think that it is time for this measure to be placed on the Statute Book. We want to congratulate the hon. the Minister in this regard and we are prepared to help to defend him against those people who are exploiters and who now want to fly down his throat and tell him that he is ruining them.

I listened very carefully to the hon. member and I must say that it was good in this sense that he pointed out to the House that both the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) and the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) certainly were not dealing with this matter correctly, because he said that he begged to differ with both of them. But I agree with him that an important measure of this nature requires the careful attention of this House. This measure was foreshadowed in the speech from the Dais by the State President at the opening of Parliament, and I feel, Sir, that the hon. Minister should have come forward with this legislation very much earlier in the Session. I would like to say that I am extremely disappointed that one has to wait four or five weeks before an important measure like this was brought to the House when the hon. Minister is well aware of the conditions which he related in his speech as existing with regard to the letting of houses and flats in our country to-day.

You want to delay it another four or five weeks?

No, it is necessary when you have such a measure, which we agree is necessary, to deal with certain implications and the request for a select committee is to deal with certain implications post haste. Had the hon. Minister really done his homework satisfactorily and timeously, this measure would have appeared before the House some weeks ago and the select committee which is called for would probably already have been in the position to bring in its report. Because this select committee is not being asked for prior to the second reading of this Bill, but after the second reading, because the principle is accepted. If there is exploitation, and we have no doubt there is exploitation, steps should be taken. I have also had a number of telegrams. We all have had telegrams from all sides. The hon. the Minister is not the sole possessor of the complaints of the country. We have had telegrams from tenants, from estate agents, we have had telegrams from owners, and therefore I believe it is our duty whilst supporting a measure of this nature, nevertheless to bring certain facts to the attention of the House and the attention of the hon. Minister. That is the duty of Parliament and the purpose of Parliament, because if one looks at the details of this particular Bill one will find that the Act which it seeks to amend has only been amended once in the last 13 years.

Mr. Speaker, when proceedings were adjourned I was suggesting that the Minister should have come with this Bill earlier. I just want to tell him that experience has shown that the law of supply and demand regulates the whole question of housing, just as it does any other commodity. If the Minister disagrees with that, I should like to quote to him from a very interesting book on the Rents Act written by Mr. Justice Rosenow and Mr. Justice Diemont.

I hope the hon. member will not go too far away from the Bill.

I want to deal with the Rents Act as amended and its history, because I want to suggest that if the Minister had a little more experience he would have come with this Bill a little earlier, and that he should not pooh-pooh any suggestion of the select committee at this stage. The authors say—

They go on to say that the Second World War brought about a housing problem even more acute than the one we had after the first World War. This is part of the history of the law of rents. When you get an imbalance in this law of supply and demand, you get a surfeit of housing or a shortage of housing. Over the last ten years, and perhaps even more markedly over the last four or five years, the law of supply and demand has actually controlled the position in regard to housing, and we had a considerable amount of housing and no problems arose because the Rents Act really came into play in this country in its most marked form after both world wars. After World War I the Act of 1920 had to be passed, and then it had to be dealt with by war measures during the Second World War and subsequent to it, and it had to be supported by additional legislation in 1942. It was only in 1950 that this Rents Act which we are dealing with now and are amending came before the House as a measure which consolidated and clarified all the legislation up to that date with regard to housing.

Did you support it?

Of course, and we support this one as well. The shortage of houses reached its height after this form of social upheaval, a war and its aftermath. That is an experience that the hon. the Minister should have acquainted himself with in order to have the proper history of the working of the Rents Act. My point is that when he planned a few years ago for certain social development in the country in the form of immigrants or other citizens entering the country from the north of Africa and from abroad, at that time certain steps should already have been taken.

Yes, but this point has been raised repeatedly.

Certain safeguards should have been provided in order to avoid the serious situation that faces the country to-day, when we have to deal with panic telegrams from tenants who find themselves exploited. This side of the House does not differ from the other side in regard to the necessity for the Bill or its main provisions. We have merely said that it would have been better to get all sides of the picture after having accepted the principle.

That point has also been made already.

Let us now examine what we find in the Bill. There is no question that when one deals with amending legislation one must look for improvements, and I am pleased to see that the Minister has started to improve the working of the Control Board by limiting his personnel to three members and not leaving it to vary from three to five, and thereafter providing a quorum of two. I hope this will enable the Rent Board to deal with its work a little more expeditiously. But I think he should give further attention to the constitution and personnel of the Rent Boards, because in the remaining provisions of the Bill a great deal more work will fall on the shoulders of the Rent Boards. The Minister went to a great deal of pains to deal with it. In Clause 7 (b) (i) ter the lessor shall not charge a rent higher than that determined by the Rent Board. In regard to this particular provision, perhaps more clarity should be given to the House than the Minister gave in his speech, because this seems to indicate that the lessor or the tenant or the owner of the property must himself come along and apply to the Rent Board to determine a rental before he can fix his rental for a prospective tenant. That applies to buildings in respect of which occupation was taken subsequent to the date fixed in this clause and the preceding clause. This is an important matter because it differs from the normal procedure, which is that the Board can of its own accord deal with this type of thing. There is no provision in the existing Act which lays an obligation on the lessor to have his rent determined before he lets the premises. This is a new departure and we should get some clarity from the Minister in regard to it because in principle it is something entirely new. The Minister is well aware of a number of difficulties that occurred in regard to rent boards over the last few years. There were some problems that arose in Johannesburg and elsewhere. Even now the rent boards are so heavily over-taxed with work that if one communicates with the Board in order to get some information in regard to a particular property, one is told that the file is not available and may not be for some time because it is either in the hands of an inspector or it is being dealt with by a member of the staff who is not present in the office.

That is just plain gossip.

No, that is a very unfair remark. I am dealing with facts. That is the trouble with hon. members opposite. They are very impatient of criticism. In my view, one cannot impose additional obligations under an Act unless the House is told how the procedure will be accelerated. The Minister read a telegram dealing with a particular building and I had a similar one. It reads as follows: “Pearl-brook telegraphed Steenkamp (the hon. member for Hillbrow) and the Minister re increased rentals”. We know all these things, so the Minister had nothing spectacular to tell us, but he made what he thought was a dramatic announcement. The point is that if any complaints are to be attended to and if the proper people are to deal with the matter, he has to tell the House how it will deal with the additional work which will fall on the shoulders of the Board, because here provision is now being made for the lessor himself to raise the matter. (Laughter.) It is all right if the Minister wants to laugh. Whenever one criticizes them, they are impatient. This will also provide an entirely new approach to the question of housing, because investors will come to the Board before the building is completed in order to ensure that their investment is a sound one, and in doing that they will deprive the inspector of the board and the board itself from actually viewing the premises and arriving at their conclusions as to what is a reasonable rental. That is a very important factor because the question of fixing a reasonable rental is entirely within the purview of the Board, and all the facts the previous member spoke about, all those signposts with regard to rents and wages and the 6 per cent return on the land and the 8 per cent maximum return on the buildings, will be lost. Agents have mentioned this matter to us. It would appear that it will be necessary for the investor or the lessor actually to get an assessment otherwise he will never know what his return will be on the capital he invests. The reason for pointing this out to the Minister is because it is necessary to ensure that we will not have a cessation of building. As the previous member rightly said, whilst one would like to have houses in the accepted sense of the term, one must not discard the importance of flats and the important part that flats played in the housing position when there was a delay in providing housing.

Now, just to assist the Minister, who seems a little annoyed, I would like him to know that in other countries where large numbers of immigrants are coming in housing development is initiated and pushed by the State itself, and land is opened up for that purpose. Therefore if we do not do it here at the accelerated pace which the State obviously cannot cope with, it should certainly encourage the private investor to do so, and that we do not have the rent boards cluttered up with the complaints which certainly will come forward because of the exploitation which may occur. The Minister must realize that it is the duty of this side of the House to deal with all these matters despite the fact that we agree with the principle of the Bill, and in fact we will always support a Bill which is introduced to deal with a matter which is urgent in the interest of the community.

Order! That point has also been argued before.

I can assure you, Sir, that I have no desire to delay the business of the House, except to deal with certain issues which the Minister himself raised. I should like him to make further comments in his reply in regard to the construction of houses. He dealt with this question and others have dealt with it, and that is the new tendency of trying to obtain changes in building regulations so that more wood can be used in the construction of houses. I want to tell the Minister that when the War Measure dealing with the Rents Act appeared in 1946, a very earnest effort was made to introduce the whole question of a change in the building regulations of municipalities in order to accelerate the development of housing schemes. I think this is the opportunity to satisfy and allay the fears of the public.

Order! That is irrelevant.

I have no concern with flats myself. My main concern is to ensure that the public is protected, because that is the purpose of the Rents Act, as well as of this Bill. As far as we on this side are concerned, our concern has been to ensure, in as rapid a manner as the machinery of Parliament will permit, that as much information as can be obtained should be obtained in order that we may not be accused in this country of falling behind in our obligations to meet one of the most important social changes in our country, and that is immigration at a reasonable rate, as we have always recommended. [Time limit.]

Mr. Speaker, one should normally approach a measure such as this with great caution, because it primarily affects personal relations. The Government does not normally interfere when two persons enter into a contract, when two people enter into an agreement, and they are permitted to contract as they wish. Under normal circumstances it would be best, whenever a lessee goes to a lessor and says he would like to hire a flat or a house, and the lessor says he is prepared to let it, that they should come to an agreement precisely as to what is being let and what rental is to be paid. One is reluctant also to interfere in a matter such as is provided for in this measure, because it involves important financial implications for the parties who otherwise come to a mutual agreement. One can quite understand that under this measure it may happen that the owner of a very large block of flats will be prejudiced or benefited. It may be also that the lessee may be prejudiced or benefited. Therefore I say we should approach this measure very cautiously, because it affects the contractual relations between people, and does not leave people completely free to do exactly as they wish. But circumstances may arise in this regard which may prompt the Government not only to deem it desirable to take action, but where it may be necessary for the Government to intervene, and to introduce certain legislation.

In the case of normal competition, it would be undesirable to come forward with legislation of this nature, but when that normal competition disappears, and one finds conditions such as those now prevailing in this country in regard to the lack of residential accommodation, it becomes necessary for legislation to be introduced. This is so particularly because housing, flats or houses, constitute an essential part of our national economy. It is necessary that we as the people who govern the country should see to it that the people are housed properly if possible. It is our responsibility to see to it that when circumstances arise which make it necessary for us to pass legislation in regard to a necessary requirement in our national economy, and it is the duty of this House and of the Government to do so.

But the matter really goes further, and it becomes so much more necessary if the prevailing conditions are to some extent responsible for the acts of the Government themselves. The acts of the Government to which I am referring are the universal desire that we should encourage immigrants to come to our country. I submit that the influx of immigrants has most certainly influenced to a very great extent the housing emergency existing at the present time. But it is not only the influx of immigrants which is encouraged by the Government itself. It is the influx too which is caused by circumstances over which the Government has no control at all, namely the circumstances in Africa. In consequence of that we have in recent years had influx of immigrants that greatly exceeded our most optimistic expectations. But that is not the only factor either. The economic conditions of the country have created a situation where people are utilizing to a greater extent residential space which they would otherwise not have utilized, with the result that there is a shortage of housing. Those are the circumstances, and in view of that, and because there is no longer free competition in the sense that housing is available, and that for every lessee of a building there is a home available; now the demand has greatly exceeded the supply, and for that reason exceptional circumstances have arisen, and it has become necessary for us to come forward with a means of providing that the owners of flats or houses do not abuse that position.

When we recall the circumstances, we realize that prior to the Second World War there was not the slightest control in connection with the letting of houses and flats. At the commencement of the war a war measure was passed, in 1940, in consequence of more or less the same conditions we are now confronted with, a tremendous shortage of housing, and in 1942 we piloted a Rents Act through this House for the first time. In 1942 conditions in regard to housing were very similar to those prevailing at the present time. It is not necessary to quarrel with the Opposition, for they are in agreement with us. Here and there there is a minor difference of opinion, and they are asking inter alia that we should refer the matter to a select committee. I asked them by way of interjection what they are not satisfied with, and what they are worried about? Sir, this is a small Bill, with only seven clauses.

I shall now deal specifically with the request of the Opposition that the Bill be referred to a select committee. We have had the experience of the Act relative to the letting and hiring of houses and flats since 1942. In fact, we had it before also, but after a lengthy interval we had it in 1942 again, and since then we have had all the experience of the rent boards and the letting of properties and the control thereof. Now we come to this stage, after 22 years, with all the experience we have gained since 1942, and we come forward with a small Bill which really does not alter the principles actually, except in so far as the Minister now may make recommendations to the State President and a proclamation may be issued. We have all the background and the experience, but the Opposition asks that this small amendment be referred to a select committee. Hon. members opposite should not forget history so easily. In 1942 we passed the first principal Act dealing with rent control, and on that occasion there was one member of the Opposition, the late Mr. Sydney Warren, who asked the then Minister of Social Welfare, Mr. Madeley, that the matter be referred to a select committee after the second reading. At that stage it was a completely new Act, and Mr. Warren asked that it be referred to a select committee. Mr. Madeley summarily dismissed his request and asked why he wanted a select committee. He refused to agree to it.

If that is so, why are you advising the Minister to follow a bad example?

I am not saying it is a bad example. All I am trying to prove is this. Nor am I saying that it was necessary to refer it to a select committee at that time, but I say if those hon. members opposite think their predecessors acted correctly, then there cannot be the least claim that this matter should now be referred to a select committee. At that time a brand new Rents Act was before the House, and it was not an official request, but it emanated only from Mr. Warren and Mr. Madeley refused it. Now we come along with a couple of amendments—I am not saying they are insignificant or of no value—but only that they are nothing compared with the contents of the Act of 1942. Now hon. members are asking that the matter be referred to a select committee. If the hon. members were to tell us they are concerned about this or that matter in regard to this particular clause, then I say there may be something in it. But as far as I have heard, hon. members opposite have always criticized things not contained in the Bill. The fact of the matter is that there is nothing in the Bill they could criticize this afternoon, but in spite of that they are concerned. The hon. member for Germiston (District) went furthest and said it may be that landlords and lessees may wish to make a submission to the select committee, but he himself does not know what it is. [Interjections.]

Order!

Apart from the request of the Opposition, there have been certain objections to this legislation voiced outside. I also read the papers, and among other things it is said that it will discourage the erection of buildings. There may be something in that, but I should like to point out that hon. members opposite may have created a wrong impression here. The Bill does not provide in the least that buildings erected since 1949 or which may be put up in future, will necessarily be subjected to rent control. Buildings put up before 1949 are subject to rent control, and those erected after 1949 are not subject to control. This Bill now merely provides that buildings erected after 1949, and those which are to be erected in future, may also be subjected to rent control. I think that is quite fair and more than fair, particularly because I feel rent control should be fluid so as to be adaptable to changed conditions from time to time. Last year members of the House of Assembly and officials from Pretoria experienced no trouble at all in obtaining accommodation in Cape Town. Flats were plentiful. In fact, I think that flats were still plentiful at the end of the session last year. Now, only six months later, there is a housing shortage in Cape Town. For that reason I should like to see our rent control being made as fluid as possible, so that it may be adapted to changed circumstances from time to time, and so that it will not always be necessary to come to this House to pass legislation to meet changing conditions.

But I should like to deal once again with the complaint in connection with the discouragement of the erection of buildings The matter is not as simple as it seems. In the 1950 Act provision is made for all the expenses and provision is made for 6 per cent on the land and 8 per cent on the building, and in addition provision is made for 2 per cent depreciation and maintenance and all the other incidental expenses. But Mr. Speaker, apart from that there is another factor we have to take into consideration, namely that since the Rents Act of 1942 was passed by Parliament, up to the present time there has been a gradual increase in the value of properties. In other words, during that time anyone who bought property wisely, property such as a block of flats or anything else, would have discovered that up to the present time there has been a gradual increase in the value of that property. And that tendency to appreciate has subsisted up to the present time. Hon. members may differ from me if they wish, but I say that anybody who during the period from 1942 invested his money in a block of flats for instance, has always been better off ultimately. This is so because he has in the meantime been receiving reasonable interest on his money while his property has steadily appreciated. If he wants to sell it today, he is able to sell it for more than he paid for it originally.

Here I should like to say that I am not completely in agreement with what the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has said. He created the impression that properties subject to rent control, in other words properties erected before 1949, have not necessarily appreciated in value. He intimated that these properties have not shown any appreciation because their rents have been fixed. But surely that is not quite correct?

He is always wrong.

I shall not admit that, but nevertheless I think I must disagree with him on this point. Take the flats in which I lived in Cape Town in 1938-9. At the present time those flats are worth two to three times as much as in 1938. I know that is so, and that in spite of the fact that those flats have always been subject to rent control. You must remember, Mr. Speaker, that it is not only the fixed rental of a property that determines the value of that property, or that prevents appreciation. As we know, there are municipal valuations from time to time. Since 1938-9 the municipal valuations of these properties have been increased tremendously, and any owner is at liberty to go to the Rent Board after the valuation of his property has been increased, and to claim that the value of his property now is greater and that therefore it should carry a higher rental. If he goes to the Rent Board in 1948 with the value of a building he has possessed since 1938 already he goes there with the valuation as it stood in 1948 and not as it stood in 1938, and the value in 1948 is not the same as that of 1938. It is clear therefore that the owner of property subject to rent control can in fact obtain an increase on rentals from time to time. That is why I am saying that it is not only the rent that determines the value of a property. Apart from that the owner may, as I have already said, go to the Rent Board to obtain an increase in rentals, and the value of his property appreciates to the same extent if he succeeds in his application.

But I do not wish to plead for the lessee only to-night. I think it is our duty also to look after the interests of the landlord, and I am imbued with sufficient sense of responsibility to say it is no more than fair that the landlord should receive a reasonable return on his investment. We have heard of various percentages here to-night. For instance, there are those mentioned by the hon. member for Parow (Mr. S. F. Kotzé). Here I should like to argue with the hon. member also, because I disagree with him. Indeed we are getting so little stimulation from hon. members opposite, that we have to argue among ourselves now. In the first place the hon. member for Parow said something should be done for the owners of properties erected before 1949. But in terms of Section 5 of the Act of 1950, these landlords have the fullest right to apply to the Rent Board in respect of buildings put up before 1949 …

The Minister has already said that.

Then I leave it at that. The hon. member also referred to a “reasonable rental”. He felt that 8 per cent is not sufficient, and for that reason he has asked that the words “not exceeding” before the words “8 per cent” be deleted. Strangely enough, Mr. Speaker, in this respect the hon. member was in agreement with the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman). It does not happen frequently that they are in agreement! In any event, these two hon. members expressed the view that in view of the present rates of interest, 8 per cent is not sufficient. I took the trouble to look up the prevailing dividends on shares. The hon. member for Houghton particularly referred to shares and said that if I was unable to obtain 8 per cent, she could give me a few tips. Incidentally she has not done so as yet! In any event, in the first place I checked the prevailing dividends on shares in fishing companies. Here it varies between 6.8 per cent, 3.8 per cent, 7.7 per cent, 5.5 per cent, and 4.7 per cent.

Now hon. members mention a rate of interest of 10 per cent for the owners of buildings which they are letting, and that while they have complete cover for all other expenses and always have the prospect of their buildings appreciating in value. What is the position in regard to gold shares? Here the dividends vary between 8.8 per cent and 9.8 per cent in the case of old mines showing a declining production and therefore paying a smaller dividend. What is the position regarding new mines with a bright future? Here the dividends are only between 6.6 per cent and 7 per cent. If we refer to shares in financial undertakings, we find that the dividends there are only in the region of 6.2 per cent. Those are the highest I have been able to find among the prevailing prices.

I am mentioning these few figures merely to show that a return of 8 per cent on the letting of property is quite a reasonable and good return on the investment.

Don’t you think that in view of all the differences of opinion between you and other members opposite, you have made out a good case in favour of referring this measure to a select committee?

I do not think the hon. member is serious in making that statement. The differences there are between us are not differences relative to the contents of the Bill. They are differences really as regards the way in which the subject is discussed.

There is one more matter I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I have often appeared before Rent Boards, and if we refer to the definition of reasonable rent … [Time limit.]

The Bill which the hon. the Minister has placed before this House is like the curate’s egg: it is good in parts. I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister what aspects of the Bill are good and what aspects of it cannot be passed by this House without some form of amendment. Generally, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that I think he has the support of everybody in this House in his desire to do something about the control of rent. However, the hon. the Minister has shown a sudden desire to help the rich, because this Bill is designed only to help the rich while the poor is being neglected. Let me say to the hon. the Minister that he should have studied the old Rents Act. Let me at this point tell the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) that there was a Rents Act as far back as 1920 and not only as far back as 1942. I want to indicate to the hon. the Minister that there is a certain loophole in the Rents Act which operates in this way. The landlords have found one way of circumventing the Rents Act and that affects particularly the poorer section of our community. What they do is to go to the poorer class and tell them that if they put R40 or so down and pay so much per month, the house is theirs. In that way they circumvent the Rents Act, i.e. by selling houses under the Hire Purchase System. What is more, they have gone so far as to sell houses to Coloured people in this way in areas where houses can never be transferred to the Coloured people concerned even if they can pay for the houses.

Who are these landlords?

Afrikaners, Scots …

Boereverneukers!

Yes, “boereverneukers!” At any rate, this is a serious matter to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. The Minister will probably say that this is a question which falls outside the scope of this Bill but I think it should be explained that semi-detached houses are too small to be transferred under existing law. Ownership of one of these houses can never …

Order! The hon. member must return to the Bill.

Sir, I am trying to indicate to the Minister that this is one of the loopholes in the Rents Act. I want to give the Minister some good advice and now you stop me!

Are you in favour or against this Bill?

I know it takes some talking to convince that hon. member; but it will sink in just now. When the Minister introduced the Bill, he indicated that it was intended to end exploitation of certain circumstances by landlords. Then I wanted to indicate to the hon. the Minister that there is another form of exploitation which he did not think of but I did not want to displease you, Mr. Speaker, and will consequently not continue with it. It serves, however, as an example why this Bill should be sent to a select committee.

I now want to deal with some of the clauses in the Bill and want to put certain questions to the Minister. Firstly, I should like him to explain to me the meaning of Clause 5 (2) bis. It provides that no rent or compensation can be charged for furniture, household linen etc.

In this respect I should like to learn from the hon. the Minister whether this applies to cases where the rent has been determined by the Rent Board? Many houses were built before 1949 in respect of which no rent has been determined at all. Are these premises to be excluded from the operation of this provision? The hon. the Minister does not seem to be interested. Then he must say so, but I rather think that he is not able to answer my point. Mr. Speaker, before I vote for the second reading of a Bill I should like to know what the meaning of a clause is. I think the Minister owes it to me and to this House to explain what the position will be of properties which have never been before the Rent Board, because as I read this clause you cannot charge for furniture, etc., except in respect of premises whose rent has been determined by the Rent Board. But what about those premises whose rent has never been determined by the Rent Board? There are thousands of these premises. Are these to be excluded from the operation of this Bill? Can landlords of such premises charge what they like? This is why I say that this is a half-baked measure. Apparently the Minister has not thought about these things. He owes us an explanation of this vagueness in the Bill. Anybody reading through this Bill—even the lawyer from Standerton—will realize that the Bill is vague. I demand an explanation from the Minister on this clause. If he cannot give me a satisfactory explanation, I regret to say that I must come to the conclusion that he does not understand his own Bill.

I now come to Clause 7. This is, I think, a very bad provision. Here the Minister can, after having gone into the question, decontrol a building situated amongst control buildings or control a building situated amongst uncontrolled buildings. Now, I do not know on what basis he is going to set to work. The Minister has not made this clear.

Tell us whether you are a member of the Broederbond!

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member asks me whether I am a member of the Broederbond, but he knows that we Broederbonders cannot give away secrets! In any event, I, nor anybody else, can understand the meaning of the proposed new paragraph (g) to be added to Section 33 of the Act. What, in effect, he is providing here is that if the rental of an old building which is controlled is situated amongst a group of new uncontrolled buildings, comes up to the level of that of the new buildings, he will decontrol the old building. In other words, the rental of the old building can go up and up until it is sky high. Then he will decontrol the building! This is absolute stupidity. Anybody taking the Minister to court in terms of this provision will surely win his case on the grounds of vagueness of the provision itself.

Let us look at the proposed sub-section (1) bis. Here the Minister says that he will not control any building erected after 1949 until such time as he receives a report that he should do so. Does this not in effect mean that the Minister is holding the sword of Damocles over the heads of owners of premises built after 1949 because he can control them at any time?

Are all owners of buildings exploiters?

They may all become exploiters. This means that the Minister will be kept busy for years and years following up exploiters in South Africa. I am not protecting the landlord; nor am I against the tenant. I am trying to be objective and constructive in my approach to this Bill. But when one tries to point out the weaknesses and stupidities in this Bill, members opposite are unable to explain them. The proposed new sub-section (1) bis means that anybody who built a property after 1949 will be uncertain as to the future of that property, because he does not know when the Rent Board will step in.

Will you vote for the Bill?

Yes, I shall vote for the Bill. I am prepared to do that because I do not intend destroying its good parts just on account of its bad parts. However, here is an unanswerable case for the appointment of a select committee. So far there has been no answer either by the Minister himself or by any other member on his side as to why this Bill should not go to a select committee.

I should now like to speak about the 2 per cent the Minister mentioned in his introductory speech. Does he realize that there are many landlords who do not spend that 2 per cent. Why does he not make it incumbent on landlords who get 2 per cent for repairs but do not spend it …

If I do it, you call me a dictator!

I want to help the Minister. He is allowing the landlord 2 per cent for repairs …

Not only for repairs also for depreciation.

No, for repairs and maintenance. Now, I say, there are many landlords who do not spend this 2 per cent. Why cannot they be required to submit a report to the Rent Board every year to show that they did spend this? Why should a tenant pay the landlord 2 per cent for repairs when the landlord never spends that?

Do you want me to force them?

I say that if a landlord gets that 2 per cent for maintenance he should spend it.

The 2 per cent also covers depreciation.

In terms of what Act—the 1920 or 1942 Act?

In terms of the 1950 Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the Minister that there are landlords who do not spend that 2 per cent. Their properties are allowed to fall into disrepair. Then suddenly they come forward and spend a few hundred rand on repairs and thereafter go to the Rent Board to say that they want an increase in the rental because they have spent a lot of money on the properties. That is wrong.

There are clauses in this Bill which need close scrutiny and further study. While the Minister is trying to do good, he is nevertheless going to find himself in trouble because he will find many snags in this Bill. Consequently, I think if he wants this measure to work as he wants it to work, he should see to it that certain aspects thereof are more closely scrutinized than has been done before the Bill was introduced. For these reasons, I support the motion that the Bill be referred to a select committee before its second reading.

There is one remark that was made by the hon. member who has just sat down to which I think I ought to reply. He said that this Bill would only help the rich and not the poor. I believe that these measures are intended to protect tenants against exploitation. If we ask who the tenants are we will find that most of them are people who cannot afford their own homes. They are therefore the less-privileged people. That is why I think that the statement made by the hon. member is devoid of all truth.

Mr. Speaker, this is a necessary and important measure which we must place upon the Statute Book. In the first place it will serve as a warning to those who seek to exploit the public by means of exorbitant rentals. In the second place it gives protection to that section of our society that includes our less-privileged people. For these reasons it is important that this measure be placed on the Statute Book.

I infer from speeches made by hon. members of the Opposition that they accuse us of not having made adequate plans for accommodation. We cannot help think back to the days when they were in Government. What were the housing conditions then? When we investigate the years 1945, 1946 and 1947 we find that many of our people lived in hovels. And yet the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) says that they had sufficient houses for immigrants! If there was sufficient housing in those years then I can say that we have no problem to-day! We had chaos in those years and I think it would be better for the Opposition to draw the veil over those years instead of hurling accusations at us! We still recall the building schemes …

Order! The hon. member must come back to the Bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to confine myself to housing. I recall the schemes which were in operation at that time, amongst others that of “Harry the Housebuilder”, Which had to supply accommodation …

Order! I have said that the hon. member must come back to the question of rent control.

I say that these rent control measures are necessary at this time. We do have a housing shortage to a certain extent which results in the exploitation of tenants because the accommodation which is available is insufficient to accommodate all the tenants. That is why landlords can demand these exorbitant rentals. That is why I say that for our part we must do everything in our power to make adequate provision to ensure that this shortage of accommodation does not assume serious proportions. The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) asked: “What about the other groups?” Over the past 14 years 276,500 houses have been built to meet this need and yet we still find that people accuse us! I want to refer to the hon. member for Salt River who said that we should have foreseen this shortage and that we should have begun housing schemes in anticipation of this shortage.

I want to mention another offence that is committed and that is in connection with furniture which is let separately. This furniture is usually let under a separate contract in the name of the landlord’s wife. The condition is laid down that if a person wants a house, he also has to hire the furniture. This malpractice is one of the offences that will be eliminated by this legislation. The Government considers it its duty to ensure that the public is protected against this sort of exploitation and against these malpractices.

That responsibility has been imposed upon us by the electorate and we must ensure that this exploitation does not occur. Another evil that flows from this housing shortage and which in turn makes it necessary for this legislation to be passed, arises from the fact that large numbers of immigrants have entered this country. I refer particularly to the 30,000 who entered the country this year. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) dealt in some detail with this matter but I want to point out that in 1962, about two years ago, there were many flats here in Cape Town standing empty. This need is not something therefore that existed in the past; it is something that has arisen quite recently. If the Government can be accused of not having made the necessary plans timeously to provide facilities for alleviating this housing shortage, then that accusation can also be made in respect of other bodies. Here I want to refer particularly to municipalities. Mr. Speaker, if the municipalities wanted to cooperate—there are many who have cooperated and we are grateful for that cooperation …

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to housing.

I wanted to make the point in order to show how this position arose. It is true that if the other bodies had done their duty we would not have had this legislation before us. I want to point out that this serious position flows from the housing shortage that we are experiencing at the moment.

I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that I think it would be a good thing if the regulations in connection with the determination of rentals were made known to landlords. There are many people who do not know how the rental for a house should be calculated. That is why I ask that these regulations should be made known particularly to landlords so that they will know that if they maintain their premises in a reasonable condition and spend more on those premises as far as upkeep is concerned, which they are allowed to do, they will be able to charge an increased rental for those premises. I think that notices of this nature to landlords will serve a useful purpose.

Then there is also the question of valuations. The matter that I want to mention has already been dealt with by one or two speakers. I refer to the tenant of a property who damages that property. Sometimes the garden is completely ruined. Such a tenant may neglect the fruit trees, and once that property is in a dilapidated condition, he goes to the Rent Board. But the tenant who maintains his premises in good order sometimes has to pay a higher rental because the valuations are usually made on sight value, the appearance of the property decides what the valuation is. I also feel that this is a matter that must be considered in those cases where the valuation of the Rent Board is lower than the municipal valuation on which the landlord has to pay rates.

Should we take the municipal valuation as the basis?

No, Mr. Speaker. I am not asking that the municipal valuation be taken as a basis. In most cases the municipal valuation is a very good indication. The valuators who make that valuation are sometimes influenced by other factors. I also want to say that people are not inclined to appeal in a matter of this nature; they simply accept the decision and regard it as being final.

I want to conclude with this plea to the hon. the Minister that all our available building workers be used to enable us to make a start on our most important State housing schemes as soon as possible in order to overcome this housing shortage. I ask that this matter should receive special attention at places where there are long waiting-lists for cheap housing and I want to mention my own constituency as falling within this category.

Mr. Speaker, this side of the House has already indicated that it is going to support the second reading of this Bill and that it wants this Bill to be referred to a select Committee. I differ from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (District) (Mr. J. A. Schlebusch) who called this Bill an important Bill. I want to say that it is a necessary Bill. It is necessary because we have received numbers of letters and telegrams from tenants who complain about exploitation. Whether we like it or not some means must be found to rectify this position and powers must be given to the hon. the Minister to apply rent control so that we can protect these people. I have here a letter from one of my voters. I shall not read it but this person writes to say that his rental has been increased by 35 per cent over a period of nine months without there having been any increase in rates and without any repairs having been done to the block of flats. He simply has to pay that rental. He asks what can be done. Because of this sort of thing, Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is compelled to support this Bill.

The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) who is not here now, asked why we were so concerned. We are concerned because of a number of reasons, Sir. We are concerned (a) because we have to give powers to Ministers of this Government—who already have too many powers—to enable them to apply the necessary control and (b) because the medicine will aggravate the illness. If we slow down the building programme by 10 per cent by means of legislation—and the Government has reason to believe that the same rate of immigration will continue during the next year and that a further 30,000 people will enter the country—we will find ourselves in even greater difficulty. The answer is to build sufficient homes for everyone and then the normal competition which the hon. member for Ceres mentioned will control the prices of houses and it will not be necessary to have rent control. If we have rent control and we slow down the rate of the building of houses by only 10 per cent we will find that the situation next year will be far more serious.

Can you mention any country in the world where such a position obtains?

What kind of situation?

Such as you have just described.

I want to reply to the hon. the Minister by quoting from the Estates Gazette of 11 January 1964 in regard to a conference that was held in London in November 1963. They say—

It almost appears to me as though this quotation is applicable to this country.

And did they abolish rent control in France?

I did not say that they abolished rent control in France. The hon. the Minister will have another opportunity to speak. Is there any member on that side of the House who will maintain that rent control does not slow down the building rate? If there is anybody who maintains that that is so, I want him to stand up after me and tell me his reasons for saying so. If people who build houses and flats are afraid that rent control may affect them and interfere with the dividends that they make on their investments then they will of course be hesitant to build. And the moment they hesitate the situation is aggravated by the remedy that one has used to try to improve it. I repeat that under the circumstances we are compelled to support this Bill against our will. We all know about the exploitation that takes place. We cannot allow all these people to be exploited in this way any longer. But this is not a sound measure, Mr. Speaker. It is a measure which cannot be permanent. This Bill will restrict the building industry which is one industry we do not want to restrict. We want to alleviate our housing shortage as soon as possible. When we find ourselves in this position, what is more natural that that the Opposition should say: Under the circumstances we are compelled to support this Bill but we ask for a Select Committee to go into the matter to see what can be done to solve this vital problem, this burning question-because it is a burning question, Mr. Speaker.

I repeat: We may have had 30,000 immigrants whom the Government did not expect to come to this country but I want to ask hon. members opposite to name a country with a subsidized immigration scheme that has not had immigrants? I can mention Australia or Canada or New Zealand. They all have had 80,000 and 100,000 and more immigrants in one year. And we boast that we have had 30,000! I would have liked to have seen 80,000 immigrants come to this country, but heaven knows what would have become of us if we had had 80,000 immigrants in one year! [Interjections]. My hon. friend mentions Palestine. He does not know that people there lived in tents for many years. He does not know what he is talking about. We may be fortunate enough to have 50,000 immigrants next year—because they are the answer to many of our problems—but does the Government honestly think that by means of this step that they are taking, without referring the Bill to a Select Committee so that the situation can be carefully investigated, it will be able to supply these people with the necessary housing?

The hon. member must not repeat himself.

Very well, Mr. Speaker. Let me put it in this way. The Opposition support this Bill but a Government which has set up a subsidized immigration scheme, a Government that by means of its agricultural policy has so depopulated the platteland that 30,000 people have moved to the cities over the past ten years, a Government whose Bantu policy has caused the Whites to sell up their farms and move to the cities and find homes for themselves there, a Government that has not made provision for sufficient houses for those people and because of this fact now has to pass an additional measure to control rentals—this Government—must accept responsibility for these things. We blame the Government squarely for all these things. Even if they comply with our request to refer this Bill to a select committee, it is their fault that this Bill is before us this evening. But if they do not comply with our request then we wash our hands of any responsibility for this Bill, even though we support it. The Government must accept the responsibility for this housing shortage that we are experiencing in South Africa to-day.

It seems to me that the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) is a stranger in Jerusalem. The hon. member says that the housing shortage in the Republic of South Africa is a burning question and that he lays it at the door of this Government. This Government has never run away from its responsibilities. It has always faced its problems squarely and it has solved those problems one by one. But as I say, this hon. member is a stranger in Jerusalem if he thinks the Government cannot solve this problem. I want to refer the hon. member to the greatest problem the Government has ever dealt with in regard to housing, and that was when it removed the non-Whites from the slums in which they lived and provided proper housing for them. This Government faced that problem squarely and solved it, in spite of tremendous opposition from hon. members opposite.

I want to put this question to the hon. member for East London (City): He is a man who has travelled the world, as he often tells us. I now want to ask him this: On his travels through the world and through the countries which have developed so tremendously, has he ever come across a shortage of housing there? Now he must say yes or no.

May I reply, Mr. Speaker?

Did you come across a housing shortage there? The hon. member knows that in all those developing countries there is a housing shortage, just as there is here.

You do not know what you are talking about.

The hon. member does not know what he is talking about, because he is now talking like a fool in this House.

Order! The hon. member must address the Chair.

Hon. members of the Opposition asked that this Bill should be referred to a select committee. They contend that a select committee can solve the problem with which we are faced to-day. But what is the problem? The problem is a shortage of housing which is being exploited by persons who want to exploit the tenants of those premises. Hon. members of the Opposition say that they place this problem squarely in front of the Minister of Housing. Are they justified in holding the Minister responsible? Is it not only once more a case of delaying tactics because they do not want to choose sides in regard to this matter and find themselves in a quandary? Hon. members get up one after another and say they support this Bill, but then they make reproaches against the Government. Did not the hon. the Minister himself warn us of this tendency a long time ago? Did the Minister not warn all the local authorities and the various other bodies and say that a housing shortage would arise? The Minister acted promptly and effectively in connection with the matter. He deputed some of his officials to have consultations with all the local authorities in order to obviate this emergency which has now arisen. He knew that the time would arrive when these people would be exploited. He went to the local authorities and the various other bodies to warn them timeously. There were various municipalities which co-operated with the Minister and overcame this housing shortage. In those local authorities and city council areas and municipal areas this Bill will not be necessary because those people listened to the timeous warning of the Minister. They co-operated with his Department. But it is in the areas of those local authorities who were obstinate and paid no heed to his timeous warnings that this Bill becomes necessary. Therefore hon. members of the Opposition should not blame the Minister to-day, as the hon. member for East London (City) has done, and say that the Minister must squarely face this position and solve it. The Government, through the Minister, definitely played its part in regard to this matter. The Government took action and now the Minister again very timeously takes action not to allow exploitation. He is now being blamed for it, and they now seek to delay this legislation. That is why I say that instead of blaming the Minister we should thank him for the fact that he foresaw these things timeously. The country is grateful to him.

The hon. member for Boland (Mr. Barnett) said: “This is a Bill for the rich.” It is the “rich” who are busy exploiting the people. It is not necessary for the Government to pass legislation for the under-privileged. They are all already well taken care of, and thoroughly taken care of, under our National Housing Schemes or under schemes of local authorities. The State has already attended to the welfare of the under-privileged. That is why it is unreasonable of the hon. member for Boland to say to-day: “This is a Bill for the rich.” He implies that the Minister is not looking after the under-privileged, whereas they are in fact already being very well taken care of. We are now merely introducing legislation to protect those who are being exploited.

I want to discuss another matter with the Minister. It may be said that we differ from one another, but it is precisely at this stage that we should discuss the matter. We are today busy protecting the tenant in every possible way. We to-day assume that it is necessarily the lessor who is busy cheating and exploiting people. But I would like to say to the Minister: Has the time not arrived when, where we are already giving great protection to the tenant, we should also have regard to the bad tenant and protect the lessor against him? We have legislation to-day which makes provision for a person to be criminally prosecuted in the event of his not paying his hotel account. Has the time not arrived, where today we are able to institute a civil action against a lessee who fails to pay his rent, or who damages a property, etc., when it should also be possible for a criminal action to be instituted against him? In this connection I would very much like to associate myself with what the hon. member for Parow said. The hon. member for Parow pleaded to the effect that the 8 per cent was too low and that it should be increased. The hon. member for Ceres differed from him, but I contend that that is a risk which one has to take. In determining the rental the rent board does not take the percentage of occupation into account. A house may stand empty for quite a while; flats may remain unoccupied; repairs may be effected. There I agree with the hon. member for Parow. I feel that at a later stage we could consider increasing this 8 per cent. As the hon. member for Ceres said, one to-day gets no more than an 8 per cent dividend on any shares one buys. Why does one buy shares today? Is it for the dividend one gets, or is one looking for capital appreciation? That is the reason why people buy shares to-day; it is the capital appreciation they strive for, and not so much the dividends. I think it is quite wrong to make a comparison between buying shares and erecting buildings. I think that does not apply in these circumstances at all. I want to tell the hon. member for East London (City) that this is an urgent measure which must be passed now in order to cope with the acute situation which has arisen in the country. I am convinced that when the time arrives that the Minister sees that the percentages provided for here hamper the building of houses or flats, he will be the first person to come to this House to increase those percentages. We know the Minister and his Department. All they are interested in is ensuring that the problem of the shortage of housing in the Republic is resolved, to the advantage of the tenant as well as of the lessor. We have to look after the interests of everybody in the Republic of South Africa.

The hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout) has made one or two points which I feel should be dealt with by a select committee, the select committee we have asked for. And he is not the only member on that side who has made points which are not covered by this Bill and which could well be dealt with by a select committee. The Minister has not as yet indicated whether or not he will agree to a Select Committee being appointed, after the second reading of this Bill, to deal with some of the points which have arisen and with some of the difficulties which are going to become more apparent the more we examine the implications of this measure.

Before I go into that detail, Sir, I want to deal for a moment with a point made by the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller). When he was dealing with this question of a select committee he said that the rent boards have had ample experience, that they have had 20 years’ experience of the application of the Rents Act, and that therefore he could see no reason why there should be further investigation into the merits or demerits of the Bill before the House.

He said “we have had ample experience”

All right, then I shall go further and say: the public of South Africa and the inhabitants within it have had 20 years’ experience of the application of the present Rents Act. But they have not had to face up to the provisions laid down in this particular Bill and that is: How are they going to determine in advance what the rents would be so that they can give that information to those who want to continue building flats and dwellings but who are not prepared to do so unless they can have a very good idea in advance what return they are going to get on their capital. That aspect has not been dealt with by rent boards up to now. I think it is one of the most important features, a new feature, which the Rent Board and the Minister will have to deal with. I say that because there is a new provision here altogether. In the past there has been no appeal against a decision of the Rent Board but in connection with all the inquiries which are now going to be made in respect of dwellings constructed after 1949, the last word is not going to be with the Minister. This is a completely new departure and I think that the Minister will have to give us a lot more information in regard to this point because it has a tremendous bearing on whether or not we are going to get the flow of houses and flats that we shall require if we want to meet the increasing number of people who are going to require accommodation this year and next year and the years to come. There is a provision in the Bill that the rent boards are going to be reduced to three in number; I think that is correct.

No.

The rents boards can be from three to five. Is that not so?

Are you referring to the Rent Control Boards?

Yes, the Rent Control Boards. I don’t know the significance of that and I don’t think the Minister has dealt with that. This is an administrative matter, but I only mentioned it because it must have some significance and I want to know what it is. The point I want to come to is this that whatever the rent boards may determine as a result of an investigation, they have to place their findings before the Minister; before the Minister, in terms of this Bill, will advise the State President that a certain area or a certain building or a specific block of flats should be proclaimed for the purpose of this Bill. That means that whatever estimates have been prepared or whatever calculations have been made by the Rent Board will have to be considered by the Minister. I do not believe that it is the intention of the Minister to deal with this matter automatically. To indicate what I am getting at, Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to say that there are three main provisions that a rent board has to consider in determining whether or not the rent of a flat or a dwelling is reasonable or otherwise. That is the question of the 6 per cent on land and 8 per cent on improvements, but the third factor is the valuation that they place upon the land and the buildings. Now, as far as the valuation is concerned, it may be there is a method that is being used by the rent boards which has become more or less foolproof. I do not know. All I do know is that the main complaints from those who have had their properties before the rent boards, has been that there does not appear to be a similarity in the manner in which values are calculated in respect of dwellings. That means then that in cases where rent boards have come to calculate what is considered to be in their opinion a reasonable value, such valuations can vary considerably in the various provinces, because they cannot be guided by municipal valuations or sworn appraisements, or for that matter the market value or the cost of construction. They cannot be guided by these things because they are all variable, and I believe it is for that reason that the position in the present Rents Act has been made so that the Rent Board will have to decide what the value should be. But because of the introduction of this Bill, the Minister has now taken upon himself the responsibility of deciding whether the Rent Board will have to decide what the value should be. But because of the introduction of this Bill, the Minister has now taken upon himself the responsibility of deciding whether the Rent Board valuation and their figures are reasonable or not. If the Minister, for instance, receives a report from a rent board to the effect that the rents charged by a landlord appears to be excessive and he then examines the value placed upon the property and he disagrees with the value that has been calculated by the Rent Board, he can refer the matter back to the Rent Board and say that he does not agree, before he pursues the matter and puts it before the State President for proclamation. If that is to be the position, then it is quite a new departure and it introduces a new feature into rent control, and that is the decision of the Minister in connection with the findings of a rent board in regard to any property which they have to consider and bring under the ambit of the Rents Act in terms of this Bill. I say therefore that it is essential that this particular aspect should be as clear as daylight to all those who are concerned about the provision of housing in the future; they must know that the Minister is going to exercise his authority in respect of the matters that are referred to him by rent boards, because that is the only way that they are going to get some uniformity of treatment. He will have to deal with these matters that are referred to him from rent boards throughout the Republic. I want to ask whether it is the intention of the Minister to have a separate department within the Department of Housing to deal with this question of “reasonable valuation” so that he in turn will be guided as to whether the rent boards are being fair in respect of the various areas they represent.

I always have a check.

That is what I wanted the Minister to say. The Minister now says that he intends checking, but it is not going to be purely automatic. The Minister is going to check the figures on which the rent boards determine what a reasonable value is. If that is the case then we now have this new position. I have raised this point because I think it is important that the position of those who are going to risk their money in providing homes in the future should be clear and that they should know that it is not the Rent Board that is going to have the final say but that it is going to be the Minister. I know that there are those who say perhaps that the rent boards are more reliable than the Minister, but the difference here is that as it is the Minister who is going to check these figures, we as Members of Parliament will have the opportunity of dealing with the Minister where we discover that his checking has not been as good as it should be, whereas we have no way of dealing with a rent board at the present time. So I feel that in that regard there is an additional safeguard being brought into the Rents Act. The Minister may not appreciate it, but I think it is important.

I would always consult for instance the Rent Control Board.

Yes, but the onus would be on the Minister and that is what I wanted to establish, and that is why I took the matter up from where the hon. member for Ceres (Mr. S. L. Muller) left it. He said that there is nothing new here, that this has been going on for the last 20 years. I say that this is quite a new procedure and may prove to be of considerable value in the future.

The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) earlier in the debate, I think, gave a completely misleading picture to the House in connection with what he alleges was said on this side in relation to the manner in which these homes are going to be built in the future if there should be a change of government. He suggested that what we want on this side of the House is uncontrolled use of labour for the purpose of building homes. I want to say in reply that we have not at any time suggested that there should be uncontrolled use of labour, no matter what sort of labour, in the attempt to solve the problem of manpower shortage in relation to housing. What we have said is that if we cannot get the artisans and we cannot use the non-Europeans in terms of say job reservation, then what are we going to do? The responsibility for answering that question rests upon the Government, and this Minister as Minister of Housing will have to face up to this issue sooner or later. I mention this point because I believe that it is the crux of the problem if we are going to deal with the question of housing, and the Bill before us is as a result of the shortage of housing. If we are going to overcome the shortage of housing we are at the same time going to overcome the necessity for this type of Bill.

Europe found the solution.

Yes, but Europe has not got job reservation.

I say that they found a solution for dealing with the shortage of housing.

Yes, and how did they do it? They provided housing.

Of what kind?

Whatever type of housing they could provide.

Prefabricated.

I don’t know whether the hon. Minister intends introducing prefabricated houses in South Africa. They are available.

We have started already.

The question is have we got the manpower to construct and erect those prefabricated houses. My information is, and I am going now by what I see in the Press, that there is this shortage of manpower in the building industry, and for that reason I say that it is important that the remarks made by the hon. member for Kempton Park should be met and that the Opposition should not be accused of things they have never suggested. For instance, the hon. member says that what we want is the utilization of non-European labour so that the Whites could be brought down to a lower standard of living. We have never suggested that. It is not true. But the point I want to make here is that when we talk of non-Europeans and we are thinking of Bantu, then I think we have the wrong ideas altogether, because I do not believe that there are enough skilled Bantu to assist in this shortage of manpower. In terms of the Native Building Workers Act, those Bantu were never trained up to the European standard of skill, and to suggest that they could be used by us to overcome the shortage of European manpower is ridiculous. As far as the Coloureds and Asiatics are concerned, the hon. member for Kempton Park said that it is unthinkable to think that there should be Whites and Coloureds working together on the same job and that for that reason job reservation had been introduced to stop that sort of inter-racial friction. I now put the point to him quite clearly that in view of the fact that job reservation has been applied in the building industry in Natal and in the Cape, because of the shortage of White skilled workers, job reservation is only partial, it is only applied in respect of certain trades. So at the moment we have for instance carpenters being under job reservation but bricklayers not, and it is possible, and it is in fact happening, that bricklayers and carpenters on the same work, in the same industry, on the same job, are working together to-day, and job reservation cannot be applied to them, because they discovered that there were not enough Whites to do the work. So now you see, Mr. Speaker, that we can’t just brush this whole thing aside. The Government themselves have discovered that it is not possible to solve the problem by the application of job reservation.

What I do suggest is that there are ways and means of utilizing all of the skilled manpower there is available in the building trade without endangering the Whites at all. If the hon. Minister wants further information about that, we will only be too pleased to give it to him, but I am going to suggest at this stage that the Bill before the House is one which we are supporting because we cannot see the problem being overcome in any other way, that is, giving the necessary relief to those who are being over-charged as far as rents are concerned. You simply have not got the necessary workers in the country to overcome the longterm solution in a very short period of time. That is the position as far as housing is concerned. We want to see the immigration-flow stepped up and up, and in our desire to see that we also appreciate that it is going to complicate the position of housing in the Republic. Because of that, we say that this Bill is necessary and that is why we are supporting it. And because it is so important that anyone who wishes to construct flats and houses should be encourage, it is important that the provision of this particular Bill should be absolutely crystal clear, and because we want that clarity we have suggested that it should be referred to a select committee. We are not satisfied that the present system of valuing is safe and correct, because the whole position of a prospective builder of houses and flats depends upon what value is going to be placed upon the building that is going to be constructed. That is the key to the whole thing, and that is not defined in this Bill or in the main Act. That is why I believe that if we want to get complete clarity on this question of what is a “fair valuation”, it is worthwhile to refer the matter to a select committee and get evidence from all quarters to satisfy us that the present system is not the only system and that there can be an improved way of dealing with this question of a “reasonable value”. I think that is the most important thing. It is no use fixing the 6 and 8 per cent if the value is put down at a very low figure. It does not solve the problem at all.

So I say in conclusion that we are desperately keen to see the interests of the tenants protected and to see future landlords get on with the job of building homes, and for these reasons we want to make it quite sure that the provisions in this Bill are going to make it abundantly clear what a prospective builder can expect by way of return before he burns his fingers because of some action of the Rent Board, or decision of the Minister.

I think hon. members in this House are quite agreed in regard to the statement just made by the hon. member for Umhlatuzana (Mr. Eaton), namely that we would like to see the tenant being protected, but that at the same time there will also be encouragement for the lessor to help to provide housing. But where we are not ad idem is evidently on the point made by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman) when he says that he will vote for this Bill reluctantly, under the pressure of circumstances. It seems to me that the basic trouble of hon. members of the Opposition is that they do not want to bear responsibility. The hon. member for East London (City) said that he had received letters from voters who complained about the exploitation, a problem which actually exists to-day in certain instances. It is our duty as members of this House to try to combat that exploitation, and then, as a member of this House, one should be prepared to bear the responsibility in regard to the methods of combating it. It seems to me that the hon. member for East London (City) and other hon. members opposite do not want to do so. They would like to satisfy the people who have problems but they are afraid to offend in other respects, and now they shelter behind the well-known old smokescreen of a select committee. If the hon. member for East London (City) views the matter as seriously as he painted it to-night when he said that the need is great, then he should agree with us that there is no time left for a select committee first to consider this matter. I think the great mistake made in regard to the legislation presently before this House is the misconception spread abroad in regard to the objects of this Bill.

There are two principles at stake. On the one hand machinery is being created to facilitate decontrol, or the lifting of control, of housing units built before 1949. The other is to apply control also to the newer houses or flats, not in accordance with the old customary method, but more easily. But now this misconception has been spread abroad, and I want to admit that if it is believed it may have the effect of frightening off investors in blocks of flats from building more flats. The misconception is being broadcast that rent control is now automatically being applied to all buildings built after 1949, and also in respect of all future new buildings. I think that is the great misconception which is being published, perhaps not deliberately but because hon. members have not studied the Bill thoroughly enough, and if that misconception is believed people may be deterred from investing in houses. But fortunately that is not the case. This Bill provides that only those who exploit the tenants under present circumstances need fear that action will be taken because complaints are received and investigated by the Rent Board and that a recommendation may then be made to the Minister to proclaim such an area as a control area. But it definitely does not mean that all new buildings being erected and all those built since 1949 will now automatically be controlled. Nor does it mean that anybody who invests in flats or houses will now first have to go and determine what his fixed rents will be. If he plans his buildings at the current rates and for a reasonable rental, as has been the position in most cases until recently, such a person has no problem. Then there is no problem of his property being subjected to control, and he has no uncertainty as to what income he will receive on his investment.

Just as there are unscrupulous lessors—and I accept that they constitute a small minority—there are of course also those tenants who are certainly not little angels, and there I want to associate myself with what was said by the hon. member for Brakpan (Mr. Bezuidenhout). Of course we are not dealing with that at the moment, because this Bill specifically provides for the problem of the tenants, but I do want to plead that as and when normal conditions prevail again, as is inevitable attention will be devoted by way of amending legislation to the problem experienced by the lessor in regard to those tenants who are not little angels. I do not want to expand on that because nothing of the kind is contained in the Bill before us. I merely make the point that the interests of the lessor will always have to be looked after when we have once more reverted to normal conditions and there is perhaps a surplus of building units and houses, and flats stand vacant from time to time. Then we will also have to look after the interests of the lessor, who provides housing for those people.

The hon. member for Boland said here that there should be a measure of compulsion in regard to the expenditure of 2 per cent on the maintenance of buildings. The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) corrected him and said that the 2 per cent was not intended for maintenance alone but for depreciation as well, but I want to tell this hon. member, who went so far as to say that this legislation was intended only for the rich, that I think his speech was just aimed at making propaganda and not at improving this Bill. I want to tell the hon. member, further, that where an owner of a building perhaps in one year does not spend the full 2 per cent allowed him, he will perhaps spend a much larger amount in two years or three years, particularly when he is faced with the possibility of the Rent Board determination (an increase or decrease of rentals). He will perhaps feel compelled to incur this expenditure again to put his premises in good order.

I want to say a word about the provision in this Bill for facilitating the machinery for exempting from control dwellings and flats in the pre-1949 category. The old procedure of lifting control was to take into consideration the number of complaints submitted to the relevant local rent board, the number of cases heard, in order to determine whether it was still necessary to apply rent control and to retain the rents board in a particular area. The machinery now being created makes it easier to lift control in certain areas and even in respect of individual housing units in certain areas. I think that will be a great relief, particularly to those old people owning a property who did not necessarily acquire it in order to make an investment, but which in the course of their lifetime, when they were still earning, they built for themselves and then perhaps at a later stage found to be too large for their needs, and who now in their old age find it difficult to maintain such a building, to listen to all the complaints of tenants and to cope with the problems in connection with it from day to day. I think that particularly in such cases the Bill will make it possible to meet people of that nature for whom the ownership of living premises is really an obligation because they make their living out of the rentals but to whom the maintenance of the premises is really a burden, and who will then find it much easier to sell those premises. I think that particularly in these cases the provisions in the Bill will be a great relief. Therefore I want wholeheartedly to support this Bill.

Just to touch on one point that the hon. member for Stellenbosch (Mr. Smit) referred to in his speech when replying to the remarks made by the hon. member for East London (City) (Dr. Moolman): The hon. member for Stellenbosch felt that there is insufficient time for a select committee, that the matter is too urgent at the moment, and that there is not enough time for the Bill to be examined and evidence taken by a select committee. That is one of the very points on which we differ. You see, Sir, the unfortunate effects of hasty conceived legislation, even legislation as important as this, can be such that it can detrimentally affect the provision of the necessary housing that the country so badly requires. That is one of the reasons why we feel that we should not run such a risk, that the risk is not justified, that the situation, even as it was painted by the Minister in his opening speech, is not such that the delay which would be necessary to carry out the judicious use of a select committee procedure, could not be accepted. We believe that it is better to spend a few extra days of thought and examination at this stage than to run into confusion and have the Minister back at the old practice of again amending legislation and adding to the confusion at some later stage. If we are going to remedy any trouble, let us make certain that the remedy will be satisfactory. That it is indeed going to be a sound remedy, and that we will not in remedying one apparent evil, create a bunch of other troubles, perhaps more difficult to overcome than the present situation.

As the final speaker on the Opposition side, in dealing with this Bill, I want to make it quite clear that the attitude of the official Opposition in regard to this piece of legislation has been very clearly stated by a number of previous speakers. As the final speaker, I merely want to emphasize in brief just what that attitude is so that there can be no misunderstanding as to where the Opposition stands in regard to this piece of legislation. We are prepared to give the hon. Minister the powers he asks for to deal with unscrupulous property owners. There is no question of withholding such powers. They are well justified. We hold no brief for that type of persons. If the Minister feels that those powers are necessary, as he does do, then he can have them.

We do not propose to back up any type of rack-renting. If people are trying to exploit the shortage of housing which undoubtedly has suddenly developed (which I will touch on later) and the Minister and his Department need additional powers at this stage to deal with it, we have said on this side of the House, and we repeat that we will support the granting of those powers. But in saying that, we also want to emphasize that this class of owner, as the hon. Minister already mentioned in his introductory remarks, indeed comprises only a very small proportion of the house owners, or people responsible for renting property in South Africa, and we feel that extreme care must be taken to see that in dealing with the minority we do not in our zeal penalize the majority against whom there is no complaint. The hon. Minister, it is true, attempted to make it clear, also in his introductory speech, that certain safeguards have been provided to prevent this. A second point we feel must receive consideration is that to a substantial extent the present housing shortage which has suddenly developed (I emphasize the word “suddenly”), should have been foreseen and provided for by the Government. Then we would not have been in the position of having to face this piece of legislation to-day. It is our policy to encourage free enterprise based upon the reasonable needs of supply and demand, and the elimination of all unnecessary State control wherever it is possible to do so. That is the policy of our party. The hon. Minister in his introductory remarks said, that it was the Government’s declared policy to lift rent control where possible. He gave figures of the number of areas in which control has been lifted; I think the figure was 205 out of 274 controlled areas. But he added that there were certain loopholes and precautions he still had to take, and in fact certain additional precautions which he wanted to get authority for. With that we have no quarrel. That also we accept. I would like the hon. Minister in his reply to give us an indication of the type of the 205 areas in which control has been lifted. How many of those areas were sited in what one might term the major urban areas of the country as opposed the smaller urban areas or the rural part of the country.

Mostly in the rural part.

Thank you, Sir, we also feel that because of the fact that control may become necessary, apparently has become necessary at this stage due to abnormal conditions, in respect of essential services, I think that particular line of reasoning might well be applied in this case. We also accept the unpleasant fact that this Bill alone as it is before us to-day will not result in the provision of a single additional dwelling house, not one. But it carries with it an element of risk in that it may well have a discouraging effect amongst the authorities, public bodies as well as individuals responsible for providing this type of housing, whereas their co-operation is so urgently required in meeting the existing housing shortage. It is mainly for these reasons, and having due regard to the great national importance of adequate housing and the need to avoid any semblance of risk of upsetting the balance of that undertaking—and in speaking now I am referring more particularly to the provision of White housing, which is largely what the Bill at the moment aims at—it is for these reasons that we urge the hon. Minister to agree with our suggestion to refer the Bill to a select committee after the second reading. By then the principle will have been decided, and we can then come together under the normal procedure of the House and try and hammer out a solution which will be as near fool-proof as it is possible in a matter of this nature. By doing that we will obtain the advice, information, guidance and consideration of those authorities who are indeed right at the heart of this problem, the authorities on whom to such a large extent the country has to depend for the provision of this particular type of housing. We believe that the many important national institutions which are indispensable to the provision of an adequate number of houses and also those who speak for the average type of landlord and tenant should have an opportunity of placing their views before a select committee of Parliament and giving their evidence, thereby assisting the Minister and his Department, and Parliament itself in coming to a lasting decision on a piece of legislation such as this. We are strengthened in that view by the fact that the Rents Act as it stands to-day is an Act of considerable age. The main Act is an Act of considerable age and there have been very vast and sweeping changes in the country so that it has become necessary for certain improvements and adjustments to be made to enable it to meet the present-day conditions. If we are going to amend the Act as drastically as this Bill does—because the amendments are fairly drastic—then we should at least set out to put into the Rents Control Act things that are necessary in order to bring it into line with present-day conditions.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.