Mr. Speaker, I move—

Decentralization of industry has been a subject of controversy for decades, not only in South Africa but also in many other countries of the world. France, Italy, Spain and the United Kingdom as well as the United States, Canada and Australia have all not only debated the issue but have also in varying degrees had legislation or incentives applied in their endeavours to find solutions. Certain issues have, however, become apparent. Firstly, most concentrations of industry come about as a result of natural forces uninfluenced by government action; secondly, while such concentrations have problems, sometimes of a serious social nature, it is easier and cheaper to manufacture products and to create jobs in such areas than it is in deconcentrated areas; and, thirdly, decentralization for political as opposed to economic reasons to areas without resource magnets to sustain them almost inevitably runs into difficulties. South Africa’s decentralization efforts have almost continuously been beset by problems, particularly some of the following: Industrial production in the Republic is concentrated in four major metropolitan areas, viz. the PWV area, Durban and environs, the Cape Peninsula and the Port Elizabeth-Uitenhage area, which are responsible for about 80% of the total industrial output, the PWV area alone being responsible for more than half of this. The total geographic product of the PWV area is more than 1½ times that of the other three metropolitan areas. If we look at the out-put of Black States, both independent and self-governing, this demonstrates the relatively low percentage of the gross national product of the Southern African region which has its origins there as opposed to the high levels of population that exist there. In other words, there are tremendous differentials in per capita income between those areas and the industrialized metropolises of South Africa.

Endeavours to decentralize industry have not resulted in a solution of the problem despite incentives relating to taxation, rail tariffs, finance, labour and other matters. While it may be argued that the number of jobs created is large, in absolute terms it is small relative to the problem. The cost of creating the jobs has also been very high relative to the cost of creating them in the industrialized areas. It is of little surprise therefore that in a Benso publication Development Studies in Southern Africa Van den Bergh and Kooy state—

If, therefore, decentralization is to meet with success, a new approach must be adopted and, in particular, economic realities must be accepted.

As Van Eeden pointed out in the same publication, the development of the national States is in conflict with market mechanisms. Experience and research indicate that before decentralization can have a real prospect of success, the availability of local resources, the proximity of markets and the related transport problems must all be determined, as they are essential ingredients.

In the light of the foregoing we need to consider the latest plans of the Government concerning what is now referred to as deconcentration and sometimes still as decentralization.

Firstly, the concept of regional development based on economic grounds as opposed to development merely ideologically bound, clearly constitutes a progressive advance. Regrettably it is so that the objectives which are stated and the report which has been given contain a second objective, which indicates that the aim is still to deal with development on an ideological basis as opposed to doing so on a purely economic basis. In this regard I quote from the Working Group for Economic Affairs report of November 1981—

If that were also to be undertaken on viable economic grounds, one would of course have no objection to it. However, nowhere can one find a wish to develop industries purely for ideological reasons. In our view it would be better to seek to promote development in proximity to population concentrations in depressed areas while bearing in mind the availability of resources, rather than to be concerned about whether that particular development is adjacent to a political boundary or is situated within a particular political State. In our view joint economic effort for one Southern African region is to the best advantage of all—and that is what is required.

Secondly, differential incentives depending on the needs of the area can be acceptable if these differential incentives are applied with due regard to the development of other areas, existing industries and relative needs.

Thirdly, the areas of greatest poverty need priority attention, and not only necessarily as far as industrial development is concerned, because agricultural development and a local social infrastructure are perhaps as important and must similarly be considered. In the appropriate circumstances they may even be more advantageous than industrial development.

Fourthly, industrial and other activity should be planned bearing in mind the needs of the local community, the area concerned or the Republic as a whole for the products to be produced, as well as the export potential of such products, because production without adequate markets will only create new problems for us.

Fifthly, not only should labour intensive industry receive preference, but extra incentives should be given, not only in the deconcentration areas, but also elsewhere.

Sixthly, the long-term objectives—and these should be the objectives in respect of all industries in the end—should be to make all industries economically viable and to enable them to exist without having to rely on particular concessions, and certainly on an equal basis eventually with similar industries in the whole Southern African region. There is no point in subsidizing, supporting or giving incentives to such industries for ever because quite obviously one should seek to obtain and establish viable industries on an indefinite basis.

Seventhly, training facilities are as vital as ever before, because one cannot have any development which is going to succeed if all one is doing, is to spacially redistribute the skilled labour that is available rather than to increase the pool of skilled labour that is available in Southern Africa as such. If we do not have the skilled manpower available, all we are doing is to juggle around and concentrate the skilled manpower in one place instead of another.

There are some other fundamentals which we have to look at when we deal with the question of deconcentration or decentralization in South Africa. The first of these is that the creation of jobs, which we have talked about so often, is absolutely a vital necessity in the years that he ahead. Here I give but one quotation from the Economic Development Programme for 1978 to 1987—

The reality of the matter is that while we have had a boom period we have been able to do something about unemployment. However, now that there is again a downturn in the economy we find a situation where we have to not only deal with the question of the new job seekers that come onto the market but we also have to be very careful in regard to maintaining existing employment opportunities in South Africa. One of the absolute priorities of South Africa for the future is the creation of jobs. Without the creation of jobs there is actually very little real hope in the economic future of South Africa. The people have to be employed if there is to be security and stability, and if we do not have security and stability then all the other things become secondary or, one must almost say, even might become less relevant in the scene.

Secondly, the financial resources of the Republic are limited. We do not have unlimited financial resources, and the available funds have to be used in the most cost-effective manner. In other words, every rand that the hon. the Minister of Finance has available for the development of South Africa has to be productively used and used to the best advantage. This brings me to a very important point, i.e. when one creates jobs one has to create them at the lowest possible cost, because as many people as possible have to be employed and we have limited resources with which to create jobs. The other factor that has to be borne in mind is that there are depressed areas in South Africa— nobody can deny that—areas in which there are vast labour reservoirs, but poverty in these areas is one of the causes of labour drift and obviously a major cause of urbanization, if not the paramount cause of urbanization. To avoid an escalation of this process jobs must be created where it is economically viable to do so and, if possible, in the depressed areas in proximity to where the appropriate resources are available. It is also necessary, as I have said, to create those jobs on an economic basis. We have to bear in mind not only the availability of resources, but also the availability of transport and its costs where production is not merely for local consumption.

I have mentioned earlier the question of trying to create jobs, not only in industry but also in agriculture and the creation of jobs through the use of local infrastructure. I believe that we are not paying attention to the creation of jobs in agriculture. I believe that we should be spending more money in order to see to it that there is more employment in agriculture in South Africa. I believe this is one of the failings of our present policies, namely that we talk too much about industry and perhaps too little about other means of creating employment in South Africa. I believe that planning must be on the basis of rational economic resources. In that respect I have already indicated that it is regrettable that we do not have a complete commitment purely to economic interest as opposed to political interest, which still plays a role in this.

There is an interesting work which I know the hon. the Minister of Finance is familiar with, and that is the thesis which was prepared by Dr. McCrystal. I think it is a more than interesting work in this field. I think the hon. the Minister of Finance read it before any of us did as he perused it before it was printed. This book analyses to some extent the problems of this matter, not only in the world scene, but particularly relating to South Africa. In this work some basic things are stated. When we deal with arguments against dispersal—and here I refer to what Dr. McCrystal has said—the allocation of resources is a fundamental factor. The economics of agglomeration have to be taken into account in that same context. Those are the two major economic features. However, it is important to the champions of free enterprise, of whom it is said there are many sitting on the Government benches, although sometimes one doubts it…

Don’t you believe that?

I quote from Dr. McCrystal’s book where he writes—

and here I paraphrase “the best profit for his own business”. That is a principle that I would like the hon. the Minister to deal with in his reply. It is fascinating that every chapter in this book is headed by a quotation from Adam Smith. This book is often used by the people who advocate deconcentration and decentralization in South Africa, but the reality is that if you were a disciple of Adam Smith you would allow the businessman to go where he can act more profitably in the circumstances.

[Inaudible.]

A Social Democrat is in fact a believer in free enterprise; that is part of the essence of social democracy. The issue which I think is important and which we should keep in mind is that one has a situation in the metropolitan areas where there is not only a concentration of economic activity of an industrial nature, but also a vast service industry dealing with finance, business, etc. for which the existence of the industrial, mining or business activity is essential. The existence of that service industry cannot be prosperous if one does not have the core available which supports it. That is one of the reasons why one has to keep the metropolitan areas growing and why it is so vital that they should be kept going.

I do not need to deal with the social advantages of concentration—I think they speak for themselves. However, if one again examine the reasons advanced by Dr. McCrystal in regard to dispersal, one finds that there are a number of economic, social and strategic reasons. I need not deal with the strategic reasons. The social reasons in regard to the concentration of population, of urbanization, are well-known and need not be stressed. In regard to the economic reasons there is the question of cumulative causation whereby some areas get cumulatively richer and others relatively poorer. The object of dispersal is obviously not only to try to reduce income gaps in the population on a pure population basis but also to reduce them on a spacial basis so that one does not have the rich concentrated in one area and the poor in another as we presently have to a considerable extent in South Africa.

The issue of the under-utilization of resources also becomes important. What is fascinating—I should imagine hon. members concerned with towns will regard it of some interest—is that Dr. McCrystal actually regards the existence of Cape Town in its actual position as being coincidental and not as a result of an economic factor at all. Similarly he regards Durban as being an accident, and Port Elizabeth as having been artificially created. These are the views of Dr. McCrystal and ours. He says Johannesburg is built on gold. That is something we know is of a substance.

At the moment it is a little dangerous there.

I can tell the hon. the Minister that I have a degree of confidence in gold—which I think the hon. the Minister of Finance shares with me—and if the hon. the Minister is worried about it his hon. colleague can convince him that gold is going to come right eventually. Concentration can also result in waste. Overconcentration can in fact create substantial problems. What appears from the book as a whole can best be explained by the summary by Dr. McCrystal where he says—

However, nowhere does he say that it is the political factors that should be motivated. I believe that we should consider the economic factors and the social factors because I maintain that the political factors are actually secondary in this regard.

I want now to deal with a matter which is of great concern to me and not only of concern to me but of concern to people in Johannesburg, people in the PWV area, in Cape Town and in Durban and its environs. I refer here to the avowed intention of this Government to recover the costs of infrastructure and public services in the existing metropolitan areas by means of taxation or otherwise. I believe that this type of sword of Damocles, this kind of additional taxation, this sort of threat of removing certain subsidies can only have an adverse effect on the future of these areas and create new financial burdens for their residents at a time when they are already feeling the pinch because of deteriorating economic conditions. The prospects of this additional financial burden for the residents of the PWV area are not imaginary. I am not imagining this. This is a very real threat, a threat which we who are there cannot ignore. The proposals compiled by the working group for economic affairs as published by the economic branch of the hon. the Prime Minister’s office provide, inter alia—

In fact, the hon. the Prime Minister himself has said—

I want to stress this—

I want the hon. the Minister to tell us today what taxes he has in mind, what taxes the hon. the Prime Minister has in mind. I want the hon. the Minister to tell us today how he intends to apply in a discriminatory form taxation in the areas I am discussing. The hon. the Minister of Internal Affairs has himself agreed that it is a valid point—I referred him to the statement of the hon. the Prime Minister—that the bigger metropolitan areas have gradually to switch from subsidized tariffs and facilities to full cost allocations. This means that the full cost of roads, transport and housing must be paid and that training concessions in respect of labour will be removed. All these concessions, according to the hon. the the Minister of Internal Affairs, will disappear from the PWV area, from the Cape Peninsula and from Durban and its environs. If this is so, it will mean additional burdens for the residents of Johannesburg and the other cities affected. It will mean that residents, businessmen and industrialists who pay their share of taxes and who are responsible for the generation of a substantial portion of the Republic’s wealth are going to be taxed once again. It also means that there is little doubt that whereas these areas play a dominant role in regard to the total economic activity of South Africa, that whereas these people pay an overwhelming amount to State revenue, this wealth-producing machine …

All fat cats!

The hon. member talks about fat cats in Johannesburg. I should also like the hon. the Minister to get up and say that he thinks that there are a bunch of fat cats in Johannesburg. [Interjections.] This wealth-producing machine is going to be hampered in its task of producing jobs at the cheapest cost to meet the demands of a job-hungry population and contribute to the wealth of South Africa as a whole. Incentives in new areas are an acceptable mechanism for decentralization but disincentives in respect of existing and thriving areas are in our view counter-productive.

I want here to quote again from the Benso publication in which Mr. Van Eeden is quoted as saying—

He is referring to the concentrations in South Africa—

There are many reasons why this should not be done by the Government. For instance, there will be disruption of the financial pattern; there will be additional taxation; there will be a hindering of the creation of cheap jobs, and there will be an inability to satisfy the job demands that the areas themselves are going to create.

When it is said that the development of the national Black States goes against the market mechanism, it can equally be said that the development of those areas is in accordance with the market mechanism.

I believe that money is a major instrument of reform. Money must though be used to the best advantage. As I have said, every rand must be used to the best advantage. Planning is essential, and economic considerations must receive priority over the ideological. South Africa must be treated as one entity. If one penalizes the metropolitan areas and stops them from progressing in an orderly, normal manner and if one taxes those people unduly, one would be doing a disservice to South Africa as a whole.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Yeoville began to speak, I thought we could expect a peaceful debate and to a certain extent I was disappointed because I had prepared myself for a fight. Fortunately the hon. member for Yeoville did not disappoint me in the end because he took advantage of the opportunity to hold a municipal election in this House. I shall deal with the more peaceful part of the hon. member’s speech later. I want to deal with the part where he held a municipal election first.

No one is denying the importance of the metropolitan areas, but the hon. members of the official Opposition are in fact only interested in those areas because those are the only areas in which they have any support. If one considers the situation, there are many aspects on which I can agree with the hon. member. However, I want to put a few questions to the hon. members of the official Opposition in connection with certain figures. According to the 1980 census 39% of the country’s population is concentrated in the four metropolises. If one analyses the figures for the rest of the country, one finds that of the 61% of the population not living in the metropolises, 74% represents the Black population and 45% the Coloured population. Those people are living outside the metropolises.

We know why that is the case.

The hon. member must not be ridiculous now. I want to argue in a reasonable fashion with the hon. member for Yeoville. Today that hon. member said once again that we must create more employment opportunities. I agree with him in that connection. No one is denying that we must create more employment opportunities, and this request is being made every day.

What about the cost? *

I am coming to that. The hon. member said that we should not retard the development of the metropolises, but 45% of the Coloureds and 74% of the Blacks are living outside the metropolises, and the problem is that there is inadequate development in those areas. On the other hand sociological problems are arising as a result of the influx of people to the metropolises. It is generally accepted that as soon as a metropolis has been created, that area needs no further encouragement for it then has a momentum of its own. However, the momentum it builds up is not there merely because it is a metropolis. There are also other factors involved. In the process an imbalance begins to develop. The man who establishes himself in a metropolis finds himself in a situation in which he is in a more favourable position than the man not living in a metropolis. As regards the measures proposed here by the hon. member for Yeoville, I just want to point out to him that we shall always differ on one aspect. However, there is nothing we can do about this. He and I do not belong to the same party and for this reason we shall always differ. South Africa and the NP are not coming forward with new incentives at this stage and looking at deconcentration, decentralization and regional economic development merely from a political viewpoint. If the hon. member wants to allege this he is wrong.

Of course it is true.

Look at the realities.

Never mind, we shall discuss them in a moment. The hon. member for Yeoville wants us to emphasize the political aspects on the one hand and underemphasize the economic aspects on the other.

When we speak of decentralization and deconcentration, it is not possible in South Africa to deal with matters of this kind solely on economic grounds. It is not possible because in South Africa there is a constant structural change in progress as far as the political dispensation is concerned. In the past we had the situation in which there were Black areas, reserves, etc. However, those areas have become developing States. Development has taken place there. Hon. members of the PFP themselves admit, in terms of their own policy, that there will be residential areas of that nature. They themselves admit that there will be reserves. However, those areas must also be developed. Those areas must receive the necessary attention. We know what the position is today. When we then speak about labour opportunities, we know that the retention capacity of those Black States only enables them to house and cope with 28% of their labour force entering the labour market annually in their own areas.

And whose fault is that?

No, we must not begin to ask whose fault it is now. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to know from me whose fault it is, I can tell him it is the fault of the Progs. [Interjections.]

You forget the realities of history.

No, that is not correct. We are in fact taking history into account. However, we can return to this later. I want to tell hon. members what the findings of the commission was with regard to the reasons for the poor economic development within those Black areas. In the first place there is the excessive force of attraction exerted by the metropolises. Then there is the poor utilization of agriculture there, as well as the poor infrastructure in those areas. In addition there is the question of the high population growth, poor education and inadequate finances to deal with all the problems. We have already come across a situation in which funds being employed in those areas, cannot be utilized for the purposes of development, but are perforce being spent primarily on the sociological problems that have arisen. The result is that while on the one hand we have this tremendous growth in our metropolises—and in this regard I agree wholeheartedly with the hon. member for Yeoville—on the other we have a tremendous backlog in those areas, so that in actual fact, while we are applying the capitalistic free market system in our metropolises, in those areas that have lagged behind we are creating a socialistic structure. This is in fact what we are trying to put right.

Surely it is in the interests of South Africa that these matters be put right. It is not in the interests of the NP only, but also in the interests of the point of departure of the PFP that those areas be developed. What we are therefore doing is to reduce and rectify the preferential position of a person living in a metropolis so that the man who has not established himself in the metropolis can be in the same competitive position. Surely, this is a fact.

That is how the market ought to work.

Yes, that is how it ought to work. Surely it is a recognized fact that if we can succeed in doing this, there will definitely be an improvement in the entire situation. In any case the hon. member for Yeoville said— when he referred to labour—that we should pay more attention to agriculture and the creation of employment opportunities in agriculture, etc. We know that at present the agricultural potential in those areas is still being rather poorly utilized. There is nothing strange about that. Everyone knows that. However, there is great potential, and for this reason employment opportunities can be created in the agricultural sector in those areas. If the hon. member says employment opportunities should be created in the agricultural sector—and I agree with him—I just want to ask how those people can compete with the metropolis when it comes to the processing of their agricultural produce, for they have no means of processing it? If one can provide a stimulus which will make it possible for those agricultural products to be processed within a reasonable distance of the market, surely it is an improvement on the present situation? One can actually begin to wax lyrical about these matters. However, I do not agree with the hon. member that it should always only be done on an economic basis.

And social.

That hon. member has now added the concept of social. However, some of his political associates and other people will not add the concept of social. I think the hon. member means well when he adds the concept of social, but I would rather steer clear of that matter.

Let us consider the creation of the employment opportunities the hon. member discussed. The places where there are the greatest opportunities for the creation of employment opportunities are in factories, especially factories that process certain raw materials. If one considers ratios, one sees that factories processing agricultural produce are the most labour intensive factories. At present we have the situation that 73% of all factories in South Africa are situated in the four metropolises. According to the most recent figures at my disposal, 79% of the gross industrial production comes from these metropolises, while the metropolises only cover 3% of the area and accommodate 39% of the inhabitants of South Africa.

That shows how efficient they are.

No, it proves that we are in fact creating the necessary measures to rectify this disparity.

Why do you call it disparity?

I concede that we did not succeed with previous decentralization methods, and we must learn from the mistakes we made in the process. We think we have already learned a great deal. Perhaps we wanted to decentralize to too many points without having proper regard to the regional economic situation. That is where the National Physical Development plan of 1975 failed. It failed because it was not so much concerned with the regional economic aspect.

However let us consider decentralization and deconcentration. After the hon. Prime Minister’s Good Hope speech, I said to myself: Let us now assess the statement the hon. the Prime Minister has made, because I myself feel there are a few points on which we could improve. My point of departure was quite simply that the incentives to be given within the Black States, should be greater than the incentives given outside the Black States.

Yes, that is the essence of it.

Yes, that is the essence of it, but I feel it has not yet been spelled out clearly enough because I think it is important to achieve those things we want to achieve, which is the development of those Black States, those Black economies, which I do not consider to be economies separate from that of the South African economy. I am on record as having stated in the past that it is a unit economy. There is no question of this. However, the participation within that unit brings the variety we are seeking, and that variety must eventually manifest itself in the constellation of States and in the confederation. Because one wants to deal with those concepts in conjunction with one another it is not possible to consider the situation merely from an economic viewpoint.

Perhaps we should now ask: What do deconcentration and decentralization mean? I consulted people who in my opinion know a little more about these matters than I do. If I mention names, those hon. members will also know what I mean. For example, I looked at what a man like Albert Hirshman, a world authority on decentralization had to say in his work Strategy of Economic Development. In chapter 10 he states inter alia—

I emphasize: “controlled disequilibrium”.

Which is economically sound.

Surely if one works with a controlled disequilibrium, one cannot merely allow economic forces to count. In that case, surely, the disequilibrium will continue to grow. This is the position we have in South Africa. At one stage we allowed things to be done only on the basis of economic considerations. That is why a backlog developed in certain areas.

What does John Friedman say in his book General Theory of Polarized Development? He says that growth in a core area only produces positive results up to a specific juncture and that after that the results become negative unless the growth forces are extended from the core area to less developed areas.

But we have not reached that point yet.

We have reached that point. It is quite clear that we have already reached that point.

In our country, however, we have other circumstances as well, which have to be taken into account. If one were to draw a line in South Africa today from Messina to Port Elizabeth, 82% of all economic activities would be to the east of that line.

People do not like the Wild West.

That may be so. There are various factors responsible for this. This is inter alia the part of the country with the most water, and the raw materials are there. However, we must be practical now. The western part of the country is also very rich in minerals and we have begun to exploit them. However, we cannot content ourselves with continuing to exploit minerals in those areas without also creating a structure there which could continue to exist after the minerals had been removed. That is why one must adopt these measures now.

In his motion the hon. member spoke of economic viability. The hon. Opposition are the last people in South Africa who should talk to me about economic viability. This is the same Opposition which wanted nothing to do with the matter when we established Iscor and Sasol. But what is our position today? These projects were undertaken in defiance of economic rules and regulations. They were undertaken in the face of economic predictions and ran counter to any possible studies concerning economic viability made at that stage. They were initiated for strategic political reasons and today we are reaping the benefits. That is why I say that we cannot undertake this economic planning in a vacuum. Economic planning, economic decentralization and deconcentration points must be undertaken within a framework. One undertakes it within a political dispensation in any event.

Is Iscor not in the PWV area?

Iscor is in the PWV area, but it is also active in Newcastle and it is extracting ore in Sishen. That is how far that enterprise has expanded. No one can fail to appreciate the importance of Iscor today. What I want to advocate is that we should understand the recommendations being made. I concede that improvements may be made to the recommendations, but we have made progress in any case. I think the hon. member will admit this.

If we now apply the idea of economic regional development and co-prosperity projects can be launched across national boundaries so that economic development can extend across national boundaries—when I speak of national boundaries I am not referring only to the States that have become independent of South Africa, but also of other States in Southern Africa—I think we can rectify the disparity which exists, and we can do South Africa’s rural areas and less developed areas a great favour because we shall then be ensuring that the deconcentration takes place without stifling the metropolises. No one is interested in stifling the metropolises. All we want to do is to rectify matters so that a person working in a metropolis is not in a more favourable position than a person not working in a metropolis or so that a person not working in a metropolis is not at an unnecessary disadvantage because of this. These measures are all aimed at rectifying this matter.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member must not give his colleague who still has to speak advice now. He has already made his speech with an eye on the municipal elections.

Now it is your turn.

I am now making mine, or haven’t you noticed? The Government does not intend to tax people bringing in money unnecessarily when it speaks of some form of levy which can be imposed on the metropolitan areas. People in the metropolises, who have all the favourable factors on their side, must not expect the man who is not living in the metropolis to pay for all their privileges. The man who is not living in the metropolis is also contributing to the programme which is being developed in the metropolises today.

Who pays the greatest portion of the taxes?

Now the hon. member for Yeoville is speaking for his party’s people only.

No, I am speaking for all these people.

I think the hon. member and his colleagues should rise to their feet and tell us who must be taxed in this country. Those hon. members do not want us to consider the poorer people as well when it comes to taxation. Those hon. members say we are the “fat cats”. They say they are pleading for the poor people, the pensioners and the less well-to-do people, but they are indifferent to the 61% of the less well-to-do people who are living outside the metropolises. A practical example of this is their approach to the urban Blacks. Those hon. members, through Mrs. Helen Suzman, think that Soweto is all that exists in respect of the Black people.

Nonsense.

She does not speak about those 74% who live outside the metropolises. It does not concern her and according to her the people inside the metropolises are all that count. [Interjections.] Just when things are getting interesting I have to resume my seat!

On a more serious note, I want to say that the methods we now wish to employ may possibly have defects, but at least we are making a serious effort and an effort that is not without an economic basis. It has an economic basis. In the process we have arrived at concepts that have largely not existed in South Africa before—these are that we can deal with the unitary concepts of the unitary economy of the Southern African set-up far more comfortably and can allow the advantages to have a beneficial effect on one another, to the good of all the people in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt had great difficulty in trying to show that he disagreed with the motion before the House today. In fact, a lot of what he said is supportive of the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville.

There is just a small flaw in the whole argument.

Then, of course, there was an admission that there were flaws in the original plan which his Government, or his party, had for deconcentration and decentralization.

The only aspect that I would like to deal with specifically regarding the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt’s argument, is his investigations into whether the deconcentration philosophy can take place purely on economic variables.

Nobody argues with that.

No, but I am referring to his investigation into it. The hon. member said that, irrespective of deconcentration, one will always find a very significant political component. We agree with that and the hon. member for Yeoville will also agree with that. Where the argument of this side of the House differs from that side of the House is that there are natural economic laws and natural political laws …

What do you mean by this side of the House and that side of the House?

The Opposition as opposed to the NP. The HNP are not here yet. There are natural laws of economic development and natural laws of political development and the problem arises—not in the interdependence of the two sectors, the one with the other—but when the one supersedes the other or the natural laws are interfered with. That is the difference and we believe that the governing party today has superseded the natural laws of economics in the interests of what they perceive as political laws. In other words, the whole gravamen and thrust of the deconcentration programme was politically motivated. We in the NRP therefore agree entirely with the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville.

In the short time available to me I would like to concentrate particularly on what the input variables and the justification for decentralization are and whether the Government is in fact performing satisfactorily in the application of the decentralization programme, and where there are weaknesses, what improvements can be brought about. It is common cause between both sides of the House that decentralization in South Africa is absolutely essential. The reasons for this are fairly obvious and have been substantiated in all developing countries throughout the world. The first reason is that one’s existing metropolitan infrastructure carrying capacity becomes over-utilized. One thinks here particularly of areas such as Durban and the Pinetown area in Natal where the roads, the water supply and the housing— those sort of infrastructural inputs—are becoming totally saturated in utilization. The same would obviously apply for the highly urbanized area of the PWV. The population concentration—and a recent survey has confirmed this—is tending towards certain specific areas, very much at the expense of rural development. Then, of course, one has also to consider the social consequences of highly and rapid urbanization.

One need not refer to the problems of squatters, to the problems of under-developed housing areas which are creating slum conditions or to the discontent and the crime rate, all of which are consequences of an over-hasty urbanization programme. We believe that the hon. the Prime Minister, with the identification of the growth points in South Africa, is moving in the right direction. I think even the hon. member for Yeoville would agree that it is absolutely essential to identify the growth points, in the interest of good forward planning. We believe that the Good Hope conference and the identification of the regional growth point areas is a satisfactory start to the whole process. However, is the Government’s present approach to decentralization adequate and in the interests of the whole of South Africa? Or is the Government creating more problems than it is trying to solve? We believe that the Government has allowed political considerations to override fundamental, natural economic law considerations. The programme of decentralization has been an attempt to foist an ideological political structure on to those areas of South Africa. As the hon. member for Yeoville so adequetely indicated, the man who is paying the price for that at the moment is the individual and the business sectors in the metropolitan areas. The question may be asked: Is that concentration of economic activity and the assets of South Africa going to pay dividends, economically and politically? What in fact has happened is that the Government, because it has allowed itself to be moved away from natural economic law, has taken the cake of South Africa, redivided it and then redistributed it without actually creating a bigger cake. This is the fundamental flaw in the type of approach which the Government has. They have reshuffled the assets of South Africa. In the process they have squandered a large amount of the asset value of South Africa to produce wealth.

Let me give hon. members an example of this. The Government spends millions of rands of taxpayers’ money in duplicating the infrastructure in the homeland areas. Then, by means of tax concessions, they encourage the industrialist to move his business from an area such as Johannesburg to an area such as, for instance, Transkei or Ciskei. What happens then? That industrialist leaves behind a highly skilled and trained management and skilled workers. He moves into an area where he has to retrain people and import management skills at an inflated price. The end result is that he has to be subsidized in the border areas or in the homeland areas whereas he was perfectly viable in the metropolitan areas.

What about the subsidization of services in the metropolitan areas?

Yes, I believe that is absolutely essential. The Government has a social responsibility towards South Africa. For instance, in the field of mass transportation it is absolutely essential that the Government should provide subsidies. In the field of basic foodstuffs the Government must provide subsidies. However, the difference is that the Government is taking perfectly viable operations and making them unprofitable without subsidies by having them moved. That is the problem. If bread could be sold economically at a low price there would be no need for a subsidy. If transportation could be provided profitably without subsidy there would be no need for a subsidy. But to take a viable operation, move it and then subsidize it, means that of the assets in South Africa are being squandered.

We also believe that what the Government has done is to attempt to transplant First World Industrial technological development from the urban areas to the homeland or rural areas. It is a fatal mistake. The First World system cannot be transplanted successfully to rural areas without subsidization. Otherwise it smothers the inherent in situ potential of the rural areas. What is the sense of encouraging a manufacturing organization in Johannesburg to move to a rural area, to subsidize it and then to train the people in rural areas in skills of a highly technological society, such as welding, engineering and building skills, all of which are necessary to develop the infrastructure, when the inherent potential in the rural areas is labour intensive and agriculturally based.

I want to give the hon. the Minister an example. I am not blaming the areas concerned; I am blaming the Government. Tea production was one of the first projects attempted in the Transkei. It was done because the Transkei is an agricultural area with viability as far as tea production is concerned. However, what happened? The Government introduced the most sophisticated engineering and automation plant for the tea plantations in Transkei. The Government also encouraged tea growth in Venda. However there, very fortunately, due to astute advisers, they decided not to use the First World tea production system. Venda tea production was not mechanized; they applied labour-intensive methods. The end results, surprisingly, have been that Venda tea, based on labour intensive systems, is 20% more cost effective than Transkei tea.

It has much more flavour too.

Mechanization also brought other problems. Moreover, the machinery in Transkei cannot be maintained because of a lack of skilled workers. On many occasions as much as 20% of the plant is not operating while they are waiting for skilled technicians from Johannesburg. In Venda they do not use so many tractors on the fields. They use horse-drawn carts, collect by hand and they use firewood for drying processes. I am trying to demonstrate to the hon. the Minister the folly of trying to transplant First World technology to a Third World area.

It is also important to look at the housing area. When one has this mass migration of workers to the urban areas, the Government has to provide housing in terms of First World standards. When I say “provide housing”, I literally mean giving a man a key and allowing him to walk into his house. The hon. the Minister of Community Development has umpteen examples of how expensive this is. It must however be done. The in situ development of housing in the rural areas can probably best be expedited by a self-help programme. The Government’s approach at the moment of providing housing in township areas is totally wrong in the decentralized areas. We should have a self-help development scheme and not the provision of housing directly.

A further justification for decentralization into KwaZulu, Ciskei or Transkei lies in the fact that these areas are conveniently situated near ports. The agricultural potential of these areas should therefore be developed. Food and protein are in world short supply and in the homelands the potential is for agricultural product development. With food development of course goes the potential for fuel development. One knows about the possibility of cassava and the fuel that can be produced from it. One also knows that methonol and alcohol can be developed by the processing of sugar cane.

We believe if the Government took cognizance of the realities of the economic situation in South Africa it would change its basic approach to decentralization. It would in the first instance concentrate on developing the in situ potential, which is agricultural and Third World orientated. It would discontinue the process of transplanting manufacturing industries which are the product and inherent component part of First World industries. It would discourage this and allow the people to remain in the metropolitan areas and to flourish under the natural laws of economics. The Government should pay greater attention to the development, on an orderly basis, of the rural areas in the fields to which they are best suited, viz. agriculture and fuel development.

Lastly, I want to refer to the method of financing which the Government utilizes. I believe this should also be changed. We welcome the prospect of a Development Bank for Southern Africa. The Government has to date utilized taxes raised in South Africa for subsidy and development purposes in the rural areas.

We believe this is totally wrong because what one is doing is depriving the metropolitan areas of resources. We also believe that the greatest degree of speed and urgency should be put into the Development Bank of Southern Africa. We understand the difficulty and the reason why this is being held up. It is because of the composition of self-governing areas vis-à-vis independent areas. Is this not once again a braking mechanism where the natural economic development has been hampered by political considerations? We listened very intently to the reply given to us the other day by the hon. the Prime Minister when a question was put to him about the Development Blank. The Development Bank is a source of assets that can be utilized on an economic basis by the participating units. It is wrong to take taxes and use them to prop up a situation for ideological reasons. If we are going to be sincere about reverting to or utilizing natural economic law, I think the hon. the Minister will agree that the answer to this lies in the Development Bank of Southern Africa. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us whether the Government has been able to resolve their dilemma of representation on the board of the Development Bank vis-á-vis self-governing areas and independent areas.

I ask this because to the best of my knowledge that is the reason why there has been no further progress in this direction.

No, that is not correct.

Well, then, I should like the hon. the Minister to tell us what his problems are.

In conclusion I should like to say that we in South Africa have been blessed with the natural assets, the human resources and the opportunity to become one of the most sophisticated and most profitable industrial societies in Africa and the world. However, regrettably this Government is squandering that potential or minimizing that potential because of false ideological and political considerations. I want to express the hope that, as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt said, this Government is recognizing the error of its ways in many respects and that we will hear from the hon. the Minister what new direction the Government intends taking, what new assumptions they are going to make and what their plans are for the future in order to ensure that the prospects raised by the hon. the Prime Minister at two meetings with businessmen, the prospects for successful partnership, can in fact be improved. We in this party hope that the plans formulated by the hon. the Prime Minister will bear fruit.

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately I must tell the hon. member for Durban North that I have heard him make far better speeches in this House. I think the hon. member did himself a disservice today. He should rather have allowed one of the better informed members of his party to bring us this message on the metropolitan areas.

The hon. member began by saying, without further ado, that the Government should subsidize. The Government should subsidize the Transport Services, and various other things as well. But the hon. member did not tell us from which source these subsidies should be paid. Where is the money to come from? The hon. member for Yeoville told us that we should no longer levy taxes in the metropolises, and should levy them elsewhere. [Interjections.] I do not know where we are to find that money, but we shall have to find it somewhere. The hon. member for Yeoville wants to dole out the money, but he does not want taxes to be levied in the metropolises. [Interjections.] The hon. member wants to subsidize. They want houses built, but none of those hon. members told us where we could find this money.

What subject are you discussing now?

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member was solely interested in his own municipal speech. He did not listen any further to what was being said. [Interjections.] The hon. member said that we could not transplant the technology of a First World onto a Third World situation. We should simply allow the Blacks to continue ploughing with wooden ploughshares. We should not teach them that they can plough better and deeper with an iron ploughshare. No. We should leave them as they are. We should not disturb them. [Interjections.] Do you know what the hon. member’s speech reminded me of? It reminded me of that war material our people brought back from Angola. It was all redundant and obsolete war material from Russia and Czechoslovakia, all the broken down and defective stuff. This one can dump, but one must not give these people sophisticated instruments. The hon. member went further and said that we should not build houses in an orderly way in the Black areas. He said: No, give them sheets of corrugated iron and cement, and leave them to it. Do hon. members know what would follow? There would be another film like Last Day at Dimbaza, in which it would be asserted that the Government had not made sure that tap water had been laid on, that they had to draw water from a well. I think the hon. member should have been more positive. If the hon. member’s leader had heard him today the hon. member would no longer have been deputy leader.

Let us dwell for a moment on the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. The motion has two legs. In the first place the hon. member said: Look, you should not decentralize unless it is justified on economic grounds. In the second place he said: If you decentralize, just remember the “vested rights and interests”, for you must do nothing that will affect them. Consequently the existing industrial sectors must not be prejudiced. These are the two legs of the motion.

The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt has already dealt in comparative detail with the second leg, but what shocked me was the way in which both previous Opposition party speakers simply glossed over the social problems that had been experienced and were probably still being experienced today. The hon. member for Yeoville said that the Government had to co-operate with the private sector, but surely we are committed to doing just that. We have been for a long time. Surely the hon. the Prime Minister said he would like to see the Government, the public sector, playing a regulatory role, a co-ordinating role and only to the extent to which it was necessary, a controlling role, but private enterprise should be allowed to go its own way, in so far as this was in the interests of South Africa and its people.

After all, we want to co-operate. We want the private sector to co-operate with us in planning and building up the new South Africa. We are trying to build and plan in the economic sphere, the social sphere, but also in the political sphere. In the President’s Council we have people from the private sector, from the academic world, from the Government sector—yes, from all over—and who is boycotting it? Who does not want to co-operate? Which party and which group does not want to co-operate and work on the new plan for South Africa? There they are, sitting on that side!

What does the hon. member for Yeoville say in his motion? He is interested only in the economy; the rest does not matter. Yet we already have the goodwill on the part of the Government to co-operate, as proved by the Good Hope and Carlton conferences. Who torpedoed this effort even before it could begin? Surely it was the Press that is inimical towards the Government, and other groups that share the same ideology as that party. Surely it was they who tried to disparage and condemn these conferences by their negative attitude and finally torpedoed them, even before they could get off the ground.

Today they are completely silent. But what is more: Everyone is trying to advocate what the Government is already doing. In the first part of his speech the hon. member for Yeoville did one thing, and one thing only: He advocated what the Government is already engaged in doing. He asked for better training. The hon. member said that there should be a development axis extending across national boundaries. But this is already declared policy. What did the hon. member suggest that was new? Nothing. He was not concerned about the social problems caused by over-concentration, and on influx, congestion and inundation. He was not interested in these things.

Surely the Government is committed to eradicating social problems, as far as this is possible. Surely the Government is committed to never again allowing a Windermere or a Cato Manor to arise. The Government must therefore ensure that there is order and regulation in the settlement of people. Surely we cannot allow Crossroads to arise everywhere in South Africa. Neither the PFP nor the NRP are involved in this, for in reality the opinion of the PFP is irrelevant. It is not relevant because the party is not relevant. The opinions of those two parties are not relevant because their policies are irrelevant to the voters of South Africa. When it comes to the development of South Africa or to deconcentration, those two parties do not want to be involved in the political or social aspect of such development, but wish to concentrate solely on the economic aspect, and that is why one cannot attach much value to what those hon. members are advocating.

It is being said that we should not touch existing industrial sectors; in other words, we must not touch the big business concerns. I do not think any of us wish to do any such thing, but, Mr. Speaker, do you and I not feel hurt when we drive through the streets of Johannesburg, or when we remember what the entrance to Witbank looked like. In the past the magnates were interested solely in exploiting everything for their own gain. They were not prepared to plough anything back. The environment was disfigured with mine dumps and other rubbish, which are a reproach to all those who are not prepared to plan in an orderly way, together with the Government, so that the environment of South Africa—and when I speak of environment it embraces a very wide concept—may be preserved for all its people. Unfortunately the trail of devastation left by certain people and organizations runs very visibly through Africa, leaving behind many of the States to the north of us like oranges that have been squeezed and sucked dry. It is indeed possible that something like that would also happen in South Africa if it were not for the fact that this Government is prepared to decentralize and to ensure, as far as lies within its means, that the riches and opportunities of South Africa will be accessible to all its inhabitants, and that there will be an opportunity for everyone to improve his own position.

When it comes to decentralization of the industries in this country we cannot take cognizance of the economic aspect only. If we were to do that it would mean that we would be closing our eyes to reality. For example, if one visits great cities of the world like Bangkok and Thailand, and Rio de Janeiro, one encounters people who streamed in an uncontrolled influx to the cities from the rural areas and who are living there under the most deplorable conditions. In fact, we experienced this in our own country as well.

If the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville had been concerned only with deconcentration and decentralization one would have been able to agree with it in its entirety. But if it is to stand on one leg only, i.e. the economy, one will not be able to support it because it is one-sided and takes cognizance only of the interests and aspirations of a certain group of the population of South Africa. Consequently I think, as far as deconcentration is concerned, that if we take cognizance of the interests of a specific region, even across dividing lines, and concentrate on them, we shall be able to build a prosperous South Africa, and shall also be able to create the employment opportunities that are so essential.

I want to close with one final idea. Perhaps it is true that we were not entirely successful in dealing with our previous attempt at decentralization in such a way that we could be fully satisfied with it. But no one can get away from the fact that decentralization and deconcentration have come to stay. We cannot escape or get away from that.

I wish to refer to one axis. For example, if we look at Rustenburg, Brits, Babalegi…

But those are PWV areas.

Yes, I know that. Do listen to what I want to say. When we consider that area it is interesting to note that the development that has taken place there is permanently established there. There is one thing we cannot get away from. During the past 14 years more than 28 000 new employment opportunities were created there. More than R230 million has already been invested there. Surely it remains true that when strikes occur in South Africa, not a single stone is thrown in Babalegi. Not one. Why not? It is because there are happy people living in that homeland, people for whom there are employment opportunities. It is because those people are able to work there under decent conditions.

That is why I maintain that the concepts of deconcentration and decentralization have come to stay.

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the hon. member for Roodeplaat, and I wish to point out straight away that I do not think that he touched on the problems sketched by the hon. member for Yeoville at all. What the hon. member for Yeoville tried to indicate was what the implications would be if the Government’s proposals on the disincentives in regard to those residing in the metropolitan areas were implemented! This was the essence of the hon. member for Yeoville’s argument. The hon. member for Roodeplaat did not reply to those real—to those valid—objections.

In the course of my speech I also hope to react to the arguments raised by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt. In general I wish to associate myself with what the hon. member for Yeoville said. I should like to support his motion, and moreover associate myself in general with what the hon. member for Durban North said.

This subject is probably one of the most important in South Africa, because I believe that the future in our country is to a very large extent going to be determined by what is done in this sphere, and by our approach to it. For that reason I should like to approach this matter with great circumspection and also with great responsibility. In view of the importance of this aspect I think it is fitting that we should all approach the matter in this spirit. It is very clear that it is not only in this House that a major difference of opinion exists on the direction in which we should go and on the entire problem surrounding the urbanization process, but that throughout the entire world a great difference of opinion exists—between academics, experts and other people—on these aspects, those of decentralization and deconcentration. There is no doubt about that.

The Government, though the hon. the Prime Minister, announced a comprehensive policy of deconcentration and decentralization. For the sake of clarity—so it seems to me—we should nevertheless distinguish clearly between these two terms. As I understand the concept of deconcentration, it means that a new concentration of industrial undertakings are set in motion within specific metropolitan areas, while, in the case of decentralization, we are dealing with inter-regional disparities or inequalities. What it amounts to, therefore, is that in the case of decentralization one tries to eliminate the inequalities which exist between one region and another. I find that confusion occurs in our use of these two concepts, as though they actually meant the same thing. I do not think that that was how the hon. the Prime Minister meant it, nor do I in fact think that it is technically correct to interpret them in this way.

Would you please repeat that statement of yours?

Mr. Speaker, I am saying that, in the case of deconcentration, it amounts primarily to the relocation, or attempts at relocation, of undertakings within the same specific region; in this particular case, then, the PWV area. In the case of decentralization we are dealing basically with a concept which in essence amounts to the elimination of disparities between regions.

When discussing these matters there are basically three predominant aspects of which we should take cognizance. Firstly we should ask what the objectives are with a policy of deconcentration and decentralization. Secondly, what are the mechanisms, the means which are being applied and, thirdly, what are the possible consequences or implications or effect of these steps?

When it comes to the basic objectives which we wish to promote with these concepts, it seems to me we can say that there are primarily four of them.

Firstly there is the possibility that the marginal costs of the provision of services in the existing developed centres have become too high. In other words, the marginal costs of the provision of services prevail over the marginal benefits for the investor, inhabitant or whoever it may be. Secondly there is the elimination of the existing regional inequalities. Thirdly there is the stimulation of rural development and, fourthly, the assurance of population redistribution in the light of the previous three factors. In my opinion these are the four fundamental objectives which a policy of deconcentration and decentralization may have.

Let us now glance at what the considerations in South Africa are, as stated by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt and also, by implication, by the hon. member for Roodeplaat. It seems to me there are basically three considerations which apply here, namely to curtail the migration to the cities, particularly the migration of Blacks to the urban areas outside the national States, in other words to bring about in that sense a measure of population redistribution or to prevent a greater concentration of people occurring in the existing metropolitan areas. This includes two objectives, but it seems to me that those two objectives are predominant. The third, as I have said, is to eliminate regional disparities in view of the fact that the metropolitan areas make such a tremendous contribution to our industrial production and to the overall economy of the country. The hon. member Mr. Van der Walt quoated a few of the figures here.

If we wish to view these matters in their correct perspective, we should consider what challenges we are facing, for it is only in the light of those challenges that we can judge what our primary considerations ought to be and also what means ought to be employed. The figures have been quoted repeatedly here, but let us consider the projections for the increase in the South African population by the year 2000. If we accept the higher figure, we see that the population will probably amount to a total of between 43 and 46 million people. If we accept the lower projection, the figure is between 37 and 40 million people. That is the overall picture.

You must take the higher one.

Very well, we shall accept the higher one and then the problem is simply all the greater. This is the challenge we are going to be faced with, whether we want to admit it or not. According to calculations we are therefore, in all probability, going to have to deal with a total population of approximately 45 million at the end of this century. Let us see, in view of this, what the projected growth in the labour force will be. In the year 2000 we shall have a total labour force of approximately 17,5 million people in South Africa, of which no fewer than 12 million are going to be Blacks. I think it is important that we take that fact into consideration, and I shall touch upon it again later. It is important in view of what we are going to do in connection with deconcentration and decentralization.

Let us consider further the kind of progression or annual increase we are going to have in the labour supply for the period 1980 to 2000. For the Whites the increase during that period will be 576 000, for Asiatics 153 000, for Coloureds 604 000 and for Blacks 5,75 million. During this period, over the next 20 years, the Black labour force in South Africa is therefore going to increase by a minimum of 5,75 million.

If we then ask what percentage of that population is going to be urbanized and we consider what is already happening in the metropolitan areas, we see—and here I wish to correct the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt a little—that at present 67,56% of the Whites are already in the metropolitan areas…

I was referring to the total population.

I am coming to the total. In the case of the Coloureds it is 55%, in the case of the Asiatics, almost 90% and in the case of the Blacks, more than 43%. For the total population the figure is 53%. This is stated in Die Bevolkingsher-verspreiding in RSA—Navorsingsverslag van die RGN. One finds it on page 19. The metropolitan areas also include the non-urban components which are situated in the metropolitan areas. [Interjections.] This is the authoritative source which I am quoting here. I cannot dispute it.

If we then ask what the figures are in regard to urbanization we find, again in this report, that at this stage the Whites are urbanized to an extent of 88,7%: the Coloureds 77%; the Asiatics 91% and the Blacks, only 38%. The reason why the relative urban component is so low is that the vast majority of the Blacks have not yet been urbanized. However, if we were to make a projection, as others have done, we would have to assume that within the next 20 to 40 years the urbanization process among the Blacks will probably be of the same order as that which applies to the other groups. We may therefore assume that, calculated at its most conservative, it is likely that 80% of the Black population will have been urbanized by the year 2000. The central challenge is how we are going to solve that problem. It is in that sense that I wish to associate myself with the points which the hon. member for Yeoville touched upon here. I am convinced that if we implement this policy, we shall not be able to do what we have to do to accommodate those people at that juncture.

It depends on which …

I am coming to that. The fundamental question which has been touched on here is whether we are going to allow ourselves to be led by economic considerations, or by other considerations. That is what is involved. We can do whatever we like, but if we do not allow ourselves to be led by economic considerations we shall not be able to cope effectively with the increase in the population and the increased urbanization of the population. Those are the hard facts of the matter. This tremendous challenge is an economic challenge. It is a question of making provision for a growing population. It is a question of employment opportunities for a growing population, and in particular for the Black population. If we allow ourselves to be led by considerations other than economic considerations I am convinced that we will never be able to achieve this ideal, no matter what we do. As a matter of fact, we have had experience of population distribution in South Africa which was attempted on the basis of non-economic considerations. We have the Groups Areas Act, in terms of which people were removed in their hundreds of thousands, not because of economic considerations, but because ideological considerations.

Nonsense.

It was not done because of economic considerations. The hon. member knows that as well as I do. A great deal of the relocation of Blacks—the hon. Mr. Van der Walt will concede that I am right about this—did not take place because of economic considerations, but because of ideological considerations.

There was a time when you propagated it.

Never. Mr. Speaker, I just wish to say that in the urban areas there was re-distribution and eviction of Blacks on the basis of non-economic considerations, and the resettlement of a large number of people, in the implementation of the provisions of the 1936 Act, was not based on economic considerations, but was done in order to realize specific political objectives. Rightly or wrongly, it was done merely in order to implement specific political objectives. In addition, the attempts to develop homelands were for the sake of political objectives and not for the sake of purely economic considerations. The reason for the position in which the homelands find themselves at present is the fact that the Government refused to accept the proposals of the Tomlinson Commission. I should like to go into this further, but my time unfortunately does not allow me to do so.

With reference to the second main point which I touched upon, viz. the question of the means, I wish to say that there are various ways in which urbanization can be controlled. Firstly it can be done by way of incentives and secondly by way of disincentives. As far as disincentives are concerned of course, we already have section 2 of the Physical Planning Act on the Statute Book.

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

I am sorry, but I do not have the time to reply to a question.

As I have said, we already have section 2 of the Physical Planning Act on the Statute Book, which means that there are other reasons for not allowing industries in the urban areas. Then, too, there is section 3 of the Physical Planning Act. In this connection I could just say that I am a little surprised that, in spite of the undertaking given by the hon. the Prime Minister, no steps have as yet been taken to have this section expunged from the Statute Book. In the third place, too, there is influx control. There are other steps as well which could possibly be taken, but in spite of all these measures we have not succeeded in preventing urban migration. In fact, if the population growth is considered, we are confronted by the sobering situation that, in spite of all influx control measures, in spite of all attempts at decentralization and in spite of sections 2 and 3 of the Physical Planning Act, we have not been able to prevent the population becoming established to an increasing extent in the urban areas.

I want to associate myself with the hon. member for Yeoville and say that if, in view of these facts, we are going to take steps which will curtail the economic development of the present metropolitan areas, we shall not achieve what we wish to achieve. This would probably give rise to greater unemployment and we shall again have the situation that what we shall have to say that what we attempted to do, just in the case of homeland development, did not succeed. If anything is therefore going to be done, by way of these additional disincentives in respect of existing employers for example, which will harm the existing metropolitan areas, the entire country will be harmed and we would not be making a contribution towards the solution of our problem.

In conclusion it may be asked what alternatives can then be considered. I can only mention that in many overseas countries attempts to bring about decentralization did not succeed. The first requirement is that, whether we wish to or not, we should accept the urbanization process as inevitable. Secondly, proper economic diversification of activities and employment opportunities should be created within the existing urban centres. This idea that may, for example, be allowed in Mitchell’s Plain, is absurd. If one really wants a satisfied community, diversified activities will have to be created within the places where a location of people has occurred, as for example in Mitchell’s Plain and Soweto.

Are you calling Mitchell’s Plain a location?

I said where the people were located. Surely the hon. member knows what I mean. We shall have to create diversified activities in those areas, in other words the policy of resettlement should be terminated and there should be a stimulation of labour-intensive undertakings in particular in the undeveloped areas.

In conclusion I should like to quote what a very renowned authority on this subject wrote. I am referring to what Mr. Koichi Mera wrote in the Population Distribution Policies in Development Planning, a publication of the UN. I am doing so because I think it is important that we should not consider the subject in this light. He said—

He went on to say—

Here we have an expert telling us that if we really want development, we should in the first place allow ourselves to be guided by economic considerations.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member Prof. Olivier went to a great deal of trouble to show that people are being resettled for other than purely economic reasons. This may be true, but what is being discussed here today is the principle of deconcentration. Generally speaking, the resettlement of people has nothing to do with a policy of deconcentration. People are resettled a few kilometres from where they were. For this reason his argument is not relevant to this debate.

I may refer to some of the other aspects touched on by the hon. member Prof. Olivier in the course of my speech. At first glance one cannot find much wrong with the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. If one were to do what the hon. member for Yeoville is insinuating, namely to deconcentrate in conflict with economic laws, in other words, settlement in a place where it would be uneconomic, it goes without saying that it would be unsuccessful. One cannot defy those economic laws—to do so would be to court failure. We cannot therefore find fault with this. It also goes without saying that if we were to prejudice the existing metropolitan areas, it would do South Africa a great deal of damage. Therefore, as far as the motion goes one cannot find much fault with it. What is important, however, is that the motion fails to touch on important matters, that it paints a one-sided picture and that it concentrates on one point only. It concentrates only on economic aspects. It is certainly true that the economic aspects are of great importance, but the matter does not end there. The motion implies, as I have already said, that only economic aspects are important. This is reminiscent of the purely materialistic view which prevailed in the nineteenth century and which eventually led to unbridled capitalism and even laid the foundations for communism. We have seen what can happen if one concentrates solely on economic facets. The over-concentration in metropolitan areas leads to social and also political problems. These problems are not only illustrated by history, but also exist in the world today. In the twentieth century we have eventually come to the conclusion that people are not only economic beings, but also spiritual beings, and that there are therefore also other things of importance.

I do not want to say that the hon. member for Yeoville completely disregarded the social considerations, but he did make them totally subservient to the economic considerations. In his speech the hon. member clearly pointed out what is important to him when he said that the businessman must be allowed to go where he can make a maximum profit. The businessman must be able to make the maximum profit, and this is the major consideration as far as the hon. member for Yeoville is concerned. It is a very shortsighted view. This is just what planning is all about. We know that if we over-accentuate the economic aspect to the exclusion of the social aspect, problems will arise in the social sphere in due course, and social problems in turn will lead to political problems, unrest, violence and revolution. Indeed, planning is the mechanism whereby these shortsighted economic considerations can be tempered by the long-term social and political considerations. Planning is frequently the process whereby one comes to the realization that one should not take the easy way, but must take a roundabout route before heading in a certain direction. One must not simply set out blindly, because one may find oneself on the edge of a precipice. In many cases one must begin by taking a circuitous route. This is what planning teaches one. The concept of deconcentration is applicable specifically where these factors are taken into account and where planning is of preeminent importance.

In a certain sense one can put it like this: The poor man will tell you: “If I only had money I would be happy.” In contrast, the rich man says: “Money is not everything.” This illustrates the point that the man who lives purely for the moment and only considers short-term goals will give absolute priority to economic considerations to the exclusion of all others. However, once he has achieved his economic goal, he discovers that he was shortsighted. We cannot afford this in this country. When one plans and takes all the social and political considerations into account, one must bear in mind the particular circumstances of the society in question. One must ascertain what social and political circumstances must be provided for in the economic planning. One must then take into account that South Africa has unique social and political problems that do not exist in other States. Planning in South Africa, any plan to deconcentrate, must therefore also take into account the special problems of South Africa. For this reason it makes sense also to take into account the population structure of South Africa and the particular geographic distribution of the population groups when planning for economic deconcentration is carried out. I want to repeat that I am not suggesting thereby that economic considerations are less important or that we can draw up plans without taking the economy into consideration. Within the limits of what is economically viable, however, it is imperative that these other considerations also be taken into account. One cannot therefore, as the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville implies, concern oneself exclusively with economic considerations. In one’s planning one must strike a balance between economic aspects on the one hand and the social and political aspects on the other.

In conclusion, a few more points. The hon. member for Durban North stated that we should not transplant First World technology into the Third World. Of course this is not necessarily the best way to deconcentrate. There is a great deal of merit in what he says, but it still does not negate the point of deconcentration and the merits of deconcentration. Of course it is true that one must take into account the level of development of the people and of the area when one establishes a specific industry, but we must also try to bring the Third World closer to the First World. What point would there be in our perpetuating the Third World status of those Third World parts of our country by only letting them have third-rate development?

There was a whole argument concerning the subsidizing or otherwise of services. If we look at the history of our development in South Africa it will be noted that certain subsidies for the sake of industrial development were also introduced in the metropolitan areas. This was done for a specific purpose, viz. to get industrial development off the ground at that stage. However, the industries are now established in the metropolitan areas and now we simply have to do for other areas what we did 30 or 40 years ago for the metropolitan areas. We were so successful in establishing these metropolitan areas by the subsidies we introduced that we need only repeat the same process elsewhere. The entire purpose of deconcentration is to bring about balanced development in the country, balanced in the economic sphere, balanced in the social sphere and balanced in the political sphere, and that is what we need for a contented South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, in the course of my speech I shall come back to the debate about the Frist World and Third World activities in the industrial sector and deal with it. However, at the outset I should like to refer to one or two points raised by the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt when, in referring to the homelands, he talked about the agricultural potential of those regions.

It is so that from the point of view of the climate and the availability of water, those regions, or a large part of them, are well suited to good agricultural production. However, we all know that the agricultural potential of every area that is over-populated, as the majority of those areas are today, is destroyed by the very fact that so many people are present there. It is, therefore, illogical of the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt to suggest that it is the policy of the Government to ensure that agriculturally those areas are developed to their maximum potential, because as long as it also is and remains the policy that the Black people of the cities and the Black citizens of the homelands must and will be forced to remain there—this will, of course, lead to further over-population, something which they are already suffering from—it will be impossible for those areas to develop to their full potential. Therefore the hon. member’s argument really does not merit any further comment.

†I want to make use of the time at my disposal to concentrate on the Western Cape and I wish to deal with some of those aspects of Government policy which I believe are mainly the cause of the Cinderella position in which the Western Cape finds itself today.

If we take regions 39.3, 4 and 5 as a basis for comparing gross national income as a percentage of the total, we find that the contribution of this area has gradually but consistently shrunk over the past few years. In 1970 the area was responsible for 13,3% of the gross regional income. By 1975 this percentage has shrunk to 12,8% and in 1980 the figure was 12,9%, an increase of ,1%. In trying to establish whether this increase could possibly be of a permanent nature, I was told by the experts that this was mainly due to an upsurge in the clothing industry as a result of a number of very favourable and lucrative export orders which the Western Cape textile industry had been fortunate enough to acquire. The indications are therefore that the trend would seem to be that this part of the country is shrinking rather than growing.

Even if one accepts the fact that the mining industry in other areas may well have contributed substantially to this shift we nevertheless find that even when we exclude the mining industry’s figures from all calculations the Western Cape has still shown a steady decline compared to other developed metropolitan areas. Following upon this economic downturn comes an inferior quality of life and all the evils accompanying that fact.

I believe that the main reason for this decline is Government ideology which, if continued, will create a poverty-stricken Western Cape area in which joblessness will lead to a volatile situation which will remain a continuous threat to the stability of this area.

That is an overstatement.

Sir, an hon. member over there says that that is an overstatement. In the view of that hon. gentleman it may well be. However, every expert in this area has warned us against the threat of unemployment in this area and has also warned us about the problems that flow from the lack of housing in this area as well. If hon. gentlemen opposite wish to deny these facts, I can do nothing about that. I want to say, however, that under the guise of protecting Coloured men and women against competition from the Black man in the Western Cape—I am referring to the so-called Coloured preferential policy—the Western Cape has been done no favours at all. It is a myth that the Coloured community either wants protection or needs protection. The facts of the situation have long ago dispelled that myth. There are only a few people—perhaps they are sitting on those benches over there—who believe that there is a need for this preferential policy. Rather than assisting the Coloured worker, this policy has, in fact, become harmful. We all know that the Black man has traditionally filled positions for which the Coloured worker does not have the inclination. There are certain types of work that people, for various reasons, do not want to do. It is, of course, their right to decide what type of work they want to do. The Black man has in fact not replaced, and will not replace, the Coloured worker in the Western Cape. By restricting the employment of Blacks in the Western Cape, one has, however, now forced Coloured workers into categories of work for which they are not suited. Even worse than that, from a growth point of view industrialists in the Western Cape who were debarred from employing Blacks have either not expanded their industries or have moved their industries elsewhere, and that in turn has led to a continued shrinking of the industrial situation here.

Some Blacks were of course, allowed and are still allowed into the Western Cape under the migrant labour system, but these contracts are normally so restrictive as to make the Black worker a temporary employee in this area. This discourages investment in training, which in turn results in the Black worker hardly ever achieving his maximum potential, to his own disadvantage, to the disadvantage of his employer and in the long run also to the disadvantage of the area itself. The conflict in terms of the lack of training of the Black man, is something that has been mentioned before in the House, and I think the Minister of Manpower implied that he would probably have to give some attention to it.

The social evils that flow from the migrant system are also well known, and many authorities have published works in this regard. However, I think it is necessary for me in this debate to point out a few of these evils. Firstly, the migrant labour system is a major factor in the disintegration of the family unit. Secondly, it is a major factor in increasing the number of illegitimate children each year. I suppose the hon. the Minister is now going to laugh at that as well.

I am laughing at you.

It is furthermore a major factor in the increase in alcoholism among Black people. It has a destabilizing effect on the life of Coloured families in this area. Migrant workers are far less stable than those who have a family life. Finally, migrant workers acquire fewer skills than those who have permanency in the area. The nett result therefore is less productivity and a lack of growth in the Western Cape.

Business suspended at 12h45 and resumed at 14h15.

Afternoon Sitting

Mr. Speaker, before business was suspended I had explained the disadvantages of the migrant labour system and the effect it had on the economy and on the development of the Western Cape. In order, however, really to appreciate the Government’s cynicism with regard to decentralization one has to have a look at the housing situation in the Western Cape over the past few years. It is important to note that for a period of approximately six years the Government did not build a single additional house for Black people in the Western Cape area. If one were to assume that no influx would have occurred—that would be a ridiculous assumption to make— one would have expected that, even if the Government were against the influx of more people, it would nevertheless have made provision for the natural growth in numbers of those Blacks already here in the Western Cape. Yet nothing has been done.

It is only after major upheavals in the Western Cape that the Government is now being forced into providing additional accommodation for all Black people.

You are talking utter nonsense now, and you know it.

No, it is quite true. It is because of the Crossroads situation and all the other troubles flowing from that that the Government has now been forced into action.

That is utter nonsense you are talking now.

We all know, however, that in the final analysis it is home-ownership which is probably the main stabilizing influence in any community, and I should like to state that the sooner the Government accepts this principle also in respect of the Western Cape, the sooner this area will become stabilized. The squatter situation should not have come as a surprise, as I have just said, because so little was done about the housing situation. It is in fact a direct result of the Government’s action here in the Western Cape, and also of the Government’s action in the homelands. What they did here and what they did in the homelands resulted in the squatter situation with which the Cape now has to cope. In the light of the fact that the policy of the Government is the direct cause of the plight of the homeless, the action taken by the Government is despicable, and it is therefore not surprising to me that many people are finding it increasingly difficult to tolerate the position in the Western Cape.

The way in which the Government is handling the problems has a destabilizing effect on the Western Cape and is turning this community, which was once proud of its record of racial harmony and understanding, into an area in which racial feelings are becoming more bitter by the day. It is already, I believe, discouraging financial investment in this part of the country, something which is going to lead to a further slow down of the development of the Western Cape. I believe the Government has retarded growth to the point where the lack of job opportunities and of housing has now become a major concern of all who really care. I believe something must be done about it.

In order to determine the magnitude of the problem—and referring only to the Coloured segment of the community—I believe it is necessary for me to point out that in the planning region No. 39 the population will be approximately 1,8 million people by the year 2000. I am referring only to Coloured people now. These people will all require jobs. They will all require housing as well.

According to a document put out by the engineering department of the Cape Town municipality, Greater Cape Town will be able to accommodate, when it is fully developed, about half of the required number— 900 000 people. If the areas of Macassar, Eerste River, Firgrove, Strand and Somerset West are added it will be able to accommodate a further 300 000 people. If we add to that the number of people that can be accommodated at Atlantis, we are still left with 300 000 Coloured people with no space to live and no space on which to build their houses. It is therefore clear that more residential land must be provided in the Greater Cape Town area and that more industrial land will have to be provided in close proximity to Mitchell’s Plain so that job opportunities can be created there and so that people will not have to travel over such great distances to reach their places of work.

At this stage Government policy does not permit more residential or industrial land, and that in an area in which an infrastructure already exists and in which job opportunities can be provided at probably half the cost of providing job opportunities in other further-lying areas. The Government’s own development strategy for the Western Cape, which was published in March 1980, does prevent any further development and does, in fact, insist that any development that does take place should take place further up along the West Coast axis. All available statistics make it clear that if the Government’s policy is implemented it will, by the year 2000, result in a shortage of something like 300 000 job opportunities, homes and everything that goes with that.

The plan to which I have just referred will not solve the housing and employment problems of the Greater Cape Town area. It certainly will not. Secondly it does not deal at all with the great influx of Black people from the homelands and from elsewhere. The plan or proposal will not solve the problems in the Western Cape region, but could even have a negative effect on the regional economy. Whilst Atlantis will obviously have some very positive effects, it will largely remain a dormitory suburb of Cape Town, housing those people who are at the lowest income levels, and at least half of them—at the moment more than half of them—will have to travel back and forth to Cape Town in order to make use of available job opportunities.

The implementation of the plan will cause Mitchell’s Plain to be starved of industry, thereby preventing even Mitchell’s Plain from developing in a natural manner to its full capacity. The result is that Mitchell’s Plain will, in itself, become a dormitory suburb of Cape Town, with all the problems that flow from that. In any other decent Western society a programme such as the one put forward by this Government would be considered immoral.

Hear, hear!

In the plan the role of the Saldanha area has not been clearly defined. Obviously, to my way of thinking, the Western Cape does need additional heavy industry, and I do not think there is anyone who would argue about that. I wonder whether it is not now time for the Government—or more specifically the hon. the Minister who is going to be dealing with this aspect this afternoon—to tell this House when the Government plans to build or expand the complex up there to include the semis plants, so that further development can take place around the Saldanha area. I think the whole Western Cape community, though perhaps businessmen in particular, would be interested to know this.

Bearing in mind that there is this shortage of job opportunities, one realizes that something obviously has to be done about it. I would say that the responsibility for doing something about it does not solely lie with the Government. I think that local government will itself have to play a major role. I believe that the time has come for us—particularly those of us in the Western Cape—to permit the development of a very substantial informal industry. In the streets of Cape Town, for example, where are the hawkers one finds in any other cities? Where are the people who ply their trade on street corners, selling locally produced and locally manufactured articles? Why is it that in a city such as this the local rules and registrations are such that no informal industry has been allowed to grow and flourish? I am not blaming the Government for this, but I think the time has come for local government to make the development of informal industries possible by in some instances doing away with some of the red tape, some of the by-laws, and in other instances perhaps setting aside certain geographic areas in which those by-laws will not be applied to enable the people there to start up business on a small scale.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to react in detail to the speech made by the hon. member for Wynberg, except to say that I have some good advice for the hon. member for Yeoville in this regard. In future he had better examine the speeches of his supporters to make sure that they do not contain any standpoints which are contrary to those he himself is propagating.

Like the Prime Minister goes through your speeches.

That is precisely what the hon. member for Wynberg did this afternoon. In fact his entire argument was, that, with regard to the Western Cape and its economic development, action must be taken by the Government to assist in such development, in contrast to the standpoint which the hon. member for Yeoville propagated, viz. that only market forces and economic consideration should play a part.

No. You have my speech there. Read it.

Yes, I have it, but the hon. the member must give me a chance now. I kept quiet while he was speaking. The solution of the hon. member for Wynberg to the economic shortcomings in the Western Cape, was that one should simply throw open the doors to a stream of Blacks. He said that this would solve all the problems in the Western Cape. This is obviously so much economic nonsense. I do not intend going into it any further.

I now turn to the hon. member for Yeoville. I immediately want to thank all the hon. members who took part in the debate for their contributions. I think that this was an important debate, because it was concerned with the essence of this country’s growth and stability. Now it is true—I think that the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt summed it up correctly—that the hon. member for Yeoville, as far as the timing and the subject of his motion are concerned, actually had his eye on 3 March and not on the future. He obviously orchestrated it with a view to the Johannesburg municipal elections. As a result he made certain basic errors of reasoning, to which I shall refer. I intend quoting him.

He began by quoting from Dr. McCrystal’s book. But there is an interesting contrast between his statements and the authoritative statements which he quoted to support his case. What did the hon. member say? He said that on the grounds of economic considerations, Cape Town should not really be here.

[Inaudible.]

Yes, but surely the hon. member quoted it in support of his statements. If I understood him correctly, he also said that Durban was a mistake. He said that Johannesburg and the PWV area was the only place that was established on economic grounds.

That is correct.

He says that is correct. Then let us take this further. Why is he so worried about Johannesburg, for on the grounds of its own economic momentum, that specific area has no need to receive any assistance? Could it not then continue to exist on economic market forces and maintain its growth? These are the facts. This also applies to the PWV area. Why does the hon. member for Yeoville see, in the actions of the Government, a danger to the development of that area when the Government states that owing to economic considerations, there should be no covert and direct subsidies out of general tax with regard to the PWV area? There is only one logical conclusion which one can arrive at, and that is that the hon. the member does not believe that Johannesburg developed solely because of market forces and its own economic ability, or he was only arguing for the gallery. The fact of the matter is that if the hon. member were not so concerned about the direct and indirect advantages of that specific area and the fact that we want to phase them out, he would never have introduced this motion. Let us consider the motion of the hon. member for Yeoville. The crux of the hon. member’s motion—and the hon. member may interrupt me if I am summing it up incorrectly —lies in the fact that he is propagating a viewpoint and endorsing a standpoint that the only motivation for deconcentration and decentralization, and also for the geographic distribution of economic activities of course, must be found within the economic viability of the specific area or region. This is what he said. I say that on these grounds, he was arguing against the position of the PWV area.

Why do you people hate Johannesburg so much?

No, wait a minute. I have an idea that the hon. member hates Johannesburg. No one will ever deny that economic reasons ought to be a very important consideration. On the other hand the hon. member will understand—he is intelligent enough to understand this—that the concept of economic viability has more than one connotation, and that it is a relative concept, depending on where one lives and what the potential of a specific area or country is.

In the second place, the hon. member will not dispute what I am saying if I tell him that there is an inseparable relationship between the economic and political and constitutional considerations. It is true, after all, that political stability is intrinsically related to the economic growth and development in any country. The hon. member knows that this side of the coin is also true in this specific connection. On the other hand, no economy can function efficiently in an atmosphere or a climate of political instability. I want to tell the hon. member with complete conviction that his standpoint and motivation represent a simplistic, over-simplified view of the circumstances of this country and, in our context, he completely ignored the interdependence of politics and the economy. If we differ on this, let it be so.

From the wording of the hon. member’s motion, I must of necessity conclude that he argues that there ought to be no political considerations whatsoever with regard to the policy of the deconcentration and decentralization of economic activities. In this specific regard, I must point out that the concept of the geographic distribution of economic activities in the form of deconcentration or decentralization, does not, of course, only have an internal or local connotation, but also, in our circumstances, an inter-state as well as a foreign connotation. In the second place, I want to assert that the fundamental premise of any policy of deconcentration and decentralization of economic activities, is that it has to co-ordinate economic growth and development across the borders of States, thereby, in the first place, bringing about greater stability in the regions concerned and, in general, to Southern Africa as a whole. If the hon. member argues that this premise is purely an economic one, and that it has nothing to do with the power struggle in the global context, then the hon. member and I are arguing from completely different angles. It is an acknowledged fact—I think the hon. member will also admit it to be— that in general there is a greater concentration of economic activities in the metropolitan areas, especially in the PWV area. The hon. member for Yeoville as well as the hon. member Mr. Van der Walt quoted figures in support of this. More than 51% of the total factory production of our country, is generated in the PWV area. This area is also responsible for 39% of the total domestic product. If the PWV area were to develop at the projected average rate of 5,2% of the Economic Development Programme over the next seven years, it would have certain implications for us. As far as economically active people are concerned, there will be an increase of 847 000, and only 527 000 of this number will be the result of natural population growth in this area. Consequently this implies that more than 300 000 additional workers will have to be drawn to the area, and this will have to be done at the expense of the national and independent Black States around us.

Why at their expense?

Yes, it will be at their expense, because we shall employ the trained and semi-trained staff of these States in order to strengthen the concentration.

Of course, one always attracts the best people from these States.

Yes, it will be their best. Should these 300 000 people become permanently established—that is, after all, the policy of the members on the opposite side of the House—this will mean that permanence will be given to 1,2 million people in those areas. The hon. member for Yeoville did not once try to set off the socioeconomic implications, or the financial implications of such a situation, today. Consequently his argument that it is cheaper to create employment opportunities in the metropolitan areas only, is nonsense. The hon. member is not prepared to set off the costs, which are not quantifiable, when he discusses the creation of employment opportunities. Surely the hon. member knows that one cannot argue like this. Surely he knows that one must argue on the basis of facts.

The promotion of economic stability in South Africa, in the whole of Southern Africa, requires a total and effective strategy of economic deconcentration of activities, with the emphasis on the promotion of the economic development of the less developed areas of our country and other countries in Southern Africa. This is the principle on which the policy of the Government with regard to regional development is based. Let us look at what the hon. member said in this regard. He quoted the Prime Minister on the phasing out of the advantages to the PWV area. He also quoted me and then he went on to say: “So the case is made out for this additional burden for the residents of Johannesburg and other affected areas”.

†It is, however, not a question of an additional burden.

Of course it is an additional burden.

It is simply facing with economic facts that area for which he pleads.

You are going to impose extra taxes on them.

I am not going to impose extra taxes on them. The hon. member must just give me a chance to finish my speech. Do I impose an additional tax if I say people must pay for their transport?

Who moved the people out so that they have to travel to work?

Give me a chance to speak. I did not interrupt the hon. member while he was speaking. The hon. member knows that today in terms of their tariff structure the S.A. Transport Services transport manufactured goods at the high tariff rate. There is therefore cross-subsidization in this particular regard in respect of transport. I want to make two points to the hon. member in this regard. Firstly, there is a shift of payment and secondly, I want to ask him what justification there is that the rest of the country has to pay taxes for the advantages enjoyed by this particular area? That is in essence what it is all about.

The hon. member went further in this particular connection. He said—

But who is suggesting that there should be disincentives? All we are suggesting is that there should be a recovery of the costs involved and that the value should be determined on those costs. [Interjections.] I am coming to what the hon. the Prime Minister had to say. The approach to regional development, in other words, the approach to a more evenly spread geographic economic activity in this country, as far as the Government is concerned, is based on two very important principles which I should like to enunciate very briefly. The first is that a system of free enterprise should be the basis of the South African economy. However, the hon. member is the first one on that side of the House to concede the point that the Government has a responsibility also to take cognizance of the market failures in this type of economy. The hon. member knows that. [Interjections.] Does the hon. member dispute it?

No, I say it is the Government failures not the market failures.

No, it is the market failures. Does the hon. member suggest that there are no failures whatsoever in the free market system?

Of course not, there are lots of them. However, in this case, it is Government failure.

Very well. The second point is that the functions of the Government in the promotion of regional development should be restricted, and I believe that those restrictions should be twofold. Firstly, there is the provision for sufficient public goods and services including infrastructural services. In the second place there is the creation of a climate that will be conducive to private sector participation in the regional development process. I want to say here in passing that the type of contribution that we have received from hon. members on the other side of the House during this debate will have precisely the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve.

South Africa is not the only country that has accepted a more balanced geographic spread of economic activity as one of its national economic objectives. I submit that this objective has been included in the spectrum of national economic objectives of those countries that have opted for or chosen the free market system as the basis for their economic development. I submit, however, that the pursuance of such an objective should be based on the full exploitation of the country’s development potential. It is therefore the Government’s intention to promote full exploitation also for economic reasons of the development resources of the various identified regions whether they be in the sphere of agriculture, mining or manufacturing or whatever resources may be available in that particular region. The whole basis of the consideration of future incentive measures is based precisely on the natural development potential of the various regions. As far as regional industrial development is concerned— and industry has been identified as that sector of the economy that will have to be held responsible for creating most jobs in the future—the basic approach is not decentralization per se of industry in general terms.

The economic power—I agree with the hon. member for Yeoville in this regard—of existing industrial areas and their indispensable contribution towards the economic development of the country as a whole should be recognized and maintained. I am not disputing that fact. I believe that the importance which the Government attaches to the aspect I have just enunciated can be found in what the hon. the Prime Minister said when he opened the Rand Easter Show. I do not intend repeating what the hon. the Prime Minister said on that occasion; the hon. members know what he said. I should, however, like to add something to that, viz: Also in terms of the provision of employment and the improvement of the standard of living of the people, it must be clear that the Government has a responsibility towards the less developed areas. It is therefore the intention to create conditions in the regional context which will contribute a business environment in which the private sector can exploit the industrial development potential of those specific regions.

*I conclude by saying that as far as the pursuance of the overall objective of a better geographic distribution of economic activities is concerned, it cannot be left to market forces alone. The hon. member knows this. As far as I am concerned, the necessity of Government involvement arises, inter alia, from the fact that socio-economic costs—I want the hon. member for Yeoville to listen to this—for large urban concentrations of pollution, labour unrest, poor economic conditions and poor housing, for example, are usually not reflected in the cost structure of the metropolitan areas.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 34 and motion lapsed.

Mr. Speaker, I move the motion printed in my name on the Order Paper, as follows—

I think it is clear to everyone in South Africa that as far as housing is concerned, in the past the State took the initiative as regards about 93% of the housing of our Black people, 80% of the housing of our Coloureds, 50% of the housing of our Asians and 13% of the housing of our Whites. It is also generally known that the housing of our Blacks, Coloureds, Asians and Whites is not only the task of the State and of all of us, but also, and in particular, the greatest and finest challenge to the State together with the private sector and the individual breadwinner. Because this is so, we are aware that this greatest of tasks, this finest of tasks, cannot really be accomplished if these three parties, the State, the private sector and the breadwinner, do not tackle it as a strong and mighty partnership. In these times it ought to be clear to us that the State cannot accomplish this task alone. Because this is so, it goes without saying that in recent times the most important aspects, if not everything, in connection with housing problems, efforts and proposals—in short, all the initiatives—have been concentrated on Black, Coloured and Asian housing, because this is as it should be. It is the ideal not only of the State, but also of all of us that the housing problems of these three population groups be solved. That is why we are taking this opportunity today to emphasize White housing and the problems arising in this connection. I shall attempt to emphasize the first part of the motion, while other members on this side of the House will emphasize the second part.

If one wants to evaluate properly the progress we have made over the years one must, for the discussion to be meaningful, ask a few questions and then try to answer them. I want to say immediately that it is not sadism that prompts me to ask my first question. The question is: What was the position in respect of Government housing when the NP came into power in 1948? I ask this in the knowledge that we are all aware that at that stage the Second World War had just ended and it was a period during which uncontrolled urbanization had taken place. There was no co-ordination among the various housing campaigns launched by the Government and there was no Department of Community Development as we know it today. The expertise of which we are so proud today did not exist at that stage, and in the light of this it goes without saying that the Social and Economic Planning Board of the Government of the day had to find that in 1948 there was a shortage of no fewer than 70 000 houses for Whites. If that had been our only problem, we might not have been so badly off, but in addition there was a seething slum development around our large cities. In the midst of this chaos the NP Government came into power, and from that day to this we must give an account of our stewardship.

The second question is: What was our housing ideal for our people? I feel I cannot put it any better than Dr. Verwoerd did in 1964 when he re-organized the Department of Community Development. He put it like this—

Having answered the second question, we put the third question, namely: What modus operandi, what methods did the Government have to apply to create order out of this chaos? I believe it is clear to anyone concerned with legislation what the first step had to be. Not only had the legislation to be adjusted to the demands of the day, but new measures had also to be introduced in terms of which the necessary structures could be created to undertake this tremendous task.

It is interesting to look back, after so many years, to important legislation in this connection, and I just wish to mention a few of the Acts. The first and the most important of these Acts was the Group Areas Act, because in the chaos in which the country found itself, no progress could have been made without this Act. A second essential Act was the Housing Act of 1957. Then we had the Co-ordinated Housing Act of 1966, and in the same year the Development Act was adopted. The Slums Act was then amended, and recently the Co-ordination of Building Matters Act was accepted, while the hon. the Minister yesterday submitted the important legislation, the amending Bill granting borrowing powers to the National Housing Commission. By means of the above Acts, existing structures could be improved or new structures created, because at that stage no progress could be made if the necessary structures were not available.

I feel on this occasion we must refer in the first place to the National Housing Commission, established in terms of the Housing Act of 1957. All four the population groups are represented thereon, and at present it consists of 14 members. This commission is in charge of the National Housing Fund, while the department is responsible for its administration.

Together with this commission of course, there was the National Housing Fund which was established in terms of Act No. 10 of 1957. Of course there had been various other housing funds in the past, which together totalled R218 million when they were eventually consolidated into the National Housing Fund. On 31 March 1981 the fund had already grown to such an extent that loans totalling R2 008 million could be financed from it, loans by means of which the enormous number of 792 589 houses could be built for our people.

I believe we can say today without any fear of contradiction that the National Housing Fund is a revolving fund the likes of which will not be found anywhere else in the world. Indeed, we could not have outlined this history or told this story without this mighty fund which, over the years, has stood as a monument to the ingenuity of this Government. This fund is fed, in the first place, by annual appropriations by Parliament, and in the second place, by income from interest and profits on the sale of properties. In the final instance—in terms of yesterday’s legislation—the fund will in future also be able to make use of loans. Other structures have also been created, however, of which I shall only mention a few. There were the individual loans, as well as the tremendous welfare efforts. During the past five years no less than R76 million has been devoted to Welfare housing. Today we can proudly attest to the tremendous number of less privileged people and people in unfortunate circumstances owing to physical and other reasons, who are now able to live in favourable circumstances in the care of the State.

This brings me to a further question. I could of course dwell at length on the achievements of this Government, but unfortunately time does not permit me to do so. However, many other structures have been established along the way in order to allow the State machinery to operate meaningfully and successfully. However, the question I want to touch on now is what our operating results have actually been. What did we achieve with all these efforts? I do not want to bore hon. members, but I do believe that it is interesting to note that in a period of 28 years—from 1920 to 1948—a total of 22 301 houses were built at a cost of R53,7 million. That was what was built by the State over a period of 28 years. This amounted to a total of 779 houses per annum at a cost of R1,9 million. That was during the period 1920 to 1948. If we are to report on the period from 1949 to 1981—a period of 32 years—what do we find? We find that the vast numbers of 113 745 houses were erected by the Department of Community Development at a cost of R909,4 million. This amounts to a total of 3 554 houses per annum at a cost of R28,4 million. If we look at the past five years—to bring it closer to our own time—we find that no fewer than 19 450 houses were erected at a cost of R318,8 million. This therefore means 3 890 houses at an annual cost of R63 million.

However, this picture is not yet quite complete, because there are also other Government departments that have made a considerable contribution. It is also very interesting to note that if we add the 19 450 houses of the Department of Community Development to the 1 108 houses of the Post Office and the 31 120 houses of the Railways, we have a total for the past five years of 51 688 houses, which means 10 340 houses a year. This only completes the picture as regards the provision of housing by the State. It does not, however, make mention of houses financed by building societies and guaranteed at a rate of 20% by the State. These figures do not make provision for the other State corporations either. Suffice it to say, however, that this tremendous achievement by the State, and more specifically by this department, was for our White people.

We may ask ourselves what the effects of this tremendous effort have been. I think the effects have been that the provoking and seething slum areas in our cities, where the White man sat and vegetated, have disappeared. In the second place, we can say that our cities and towns in South Africa have undergone a transformation, and in the third place, we can say that we have eventually reached the stage at which this Opposition was able to say, on 7 May 1979, that there was an over-supply of White housing in White South Africa, in an era separated only by a year or two from the present era. This was one of the greatest, really the mightiest, achievements that any State has ever been able to boast.

We know there are problems, and my col leagues will refer to them. We know there are serious problems, but now that we have given an account of our stewardship, can we not look back at the road travelled by the State/machine and view with appreciation these enormous achievements of the department and the State? If the ideal of the late Dr. Verwoerd in respect of housing for all our population groups is important to us, can the White breadwinner not say to himself today that the State has done all this for its people, and then ask what he can do in the future to make a contribution to ensure that all the population groups in South Africa have proper housing?

Mr. Speaker, on the one hand this House is grateful for the fact that the hon. member has brought the matter to the attention of the House and that a discussion of this subject may now take place. On the other hand, however, it is a pity that he and so many of his colleagues always try to seek consolation for the problems of the present in the problems of a Government of the past. What point is there in going back to 1947 and 1948. At the time, the hon. the Minister was a young politician and he made political capital out of that situation. However there were other circumstances involved at the time. He is fully aware that there were problems relating to accelerating urbanization, the lack of capital during the war years and the absorption and accommodation of no fewer than 0,25 million ex-servicemen, as well as the accommodation of tens of thousands of immigrants streaming into the country. These were practical problems. However, the fact that problems existed at that stage does not conceal the fact that there are enormous problems in South Africa at present that we must analyse. However, the hon. member suggests that the housing programme in South Africa was launched by the NP in 1948 and that it immediately acquired concrete form in the Housing Act of 1957. However, the first Housing Act was that of 1920. The garden City project was one of the most important White housing projects here and it was launched in 1919. Then, too, there was the Citizens’ Utility Housing League which was founded in 1945. Nor was the Epping Garden Village established by the NP. It was established long before the NP came to power.

But see what we have done with it.

Let us not try and score petty debating points now. The beginning of the housing programme did not coincide with the coming into power of the NP on 26 May 1948. [Interjections.] It is true that the National Housing Commission has done very good work, and I have no wish to seek to play that down. I think full credit should be given to the people in the National Housing Commission who have done the work. However, it is not only the Government. It is also all the local authorities and utility companies. They all teamed up and used funds from private and Government sources in order to promote housing for Whites in particular over the years. Therefor we have no problem in that regard. In order to place the matter in perspective, I move as an amendment to the hon. member’s motion—

1. that adequate housing is provided at prices which the public can afford; and
2. that home ownership is available not only to the wealthy, but also to the middle and lower income groups living in our cities.”.

†I do not deny credit to the National Housing Commission for the work it does, but I think it would be quite wrong for us to become complacent as far as present problems are concerned because of achievements in the past. The hon. member can recite all the figures relating to achievements in the 1950s, the 1960s and the 1970s, but what is much more important is what the problems are of today and how we are going to overcome them.

The point is that the housing position for Whites, particularly in an area like the Cape Peninsula, has deteriorated rapidly over the past couple of years. I want to contend that it is going to deteriorate still further unless the Government takes positive action in this connection. The hon. the Minister should be aware of the rapidity with which the situation has deteriorated. I want to quote from a report, which appeared in a newspaper, of Dr. G. H. Hansmann, chairman of the Citizens Utility Housing League—

Of 48 subeconomic houses provided, only 10 could be afforded by the people who ordinarily qualify for them. I come to a further report in The Cape Times. It concerns a letter written by Mr. Walters of the department to the city council. In it the fact is revealed that, whereas in the past there had been a surplus of White housing in the Peninsula, suddenly there were over 400 names on the waiting-list for White housing in the Peninsula. Then I come to Die Burger. The headline is: “Groot woningnood in Kaap se Wit buurte”. I quote—

This appeared in Die Burger of 9 July last year, six months ago. I quote further—

I am quoting this to draw attention to the fact that housing is in a fickle, delicate situation and that there has been a serious downturn in the position of White housing in the Peninsula area in the last couple of years.

Secondly, it is quite clear that galloping inflation is undermining the basis of the Government’s national housing policy with the result that housing, including both rented accommodation and home-ownership accommodation, is being put beyond the financial means of tens of thousands of people living in the cities. Unless the Government takes steps to remedy this position, we will be facing a major crisis not only in Black, Coloured and Indian housing but also in White housing far sooner than at present the Government tends to realize.

What is the nature of this housing problem? First of all, as far as the individual is concerned—I shall be coming to the problem in so far as it concerns the Government—the problem is of a twofold nature. Firstly, there is the problem of availability and, secondly, the problem of affordability. There is a problem of availability in the sense that there is just not enough housing stock available to meet the demands of the lower and middle income groups in the cities. It is a practical reality, a physical measurable factor: There is not enough housing stock.

Then there is the problem of affordability, in the sense that even when there is a quantum of accommodation available, it is not available at prices which the lower and middle-income groups can afford to pay. This is the problem of affordability.

One can ask: What are the overall reasons for this twofold problem? I just want to tabulate a few of them. There may be more, but these are the most important. First of all, there has been a sharp increase in the demand for accommodation. The migration of people from Rhodesia and from Namibia has led to an increasing number of immigrants. There has also been an increasing number of old people who are not accommodated in rent-controlled buildings. Secondly, there has been a sharp reduction in the number of flats available for renting because of the rapid shift from letting accommodation to sectional title. In this particular category there is a sharp drop in the available facilities.

Thirdly, there has been the dramatically sharp increase in the cost of land, of building and of mortgage bonds. I do not want to go into extensive detail on this, but the hon. the Minister should know that land prices in urban areas have increased sharply. If one looks at sale prices in relation to market values or municipal valuations of a few years ago, one sees that the value of land has gone up two, three or four times over the last five years in the urban areas. Secondly, building costs have increased over the last year by 32,5%, in the year before by 24,6% and it is estimated that this year the increase will be anything between 12% and 18%. In any event, over the last two years there has been an increase of at least 15%.

In addition to this, people are now being faced with an increase in mortgage rates. They have increased by between 45% and 50% since December 1980. The mortgage bond rate has increased from 9% to 13,25% in the case of bonds up to an amount of R10 000 and from 11% to 15,25% in the case of bonds of R40 000. So bond rates have increased by in the order of 45%. One must still add to that the fact that the mortgage bond interest rate increases with the size of the mortgage loan. One must therefore add to that the compounding effect of the increase in building costs. I have just made a few calculations in regard to this. On a property which 15 months ago cost R10 000, at 9% interest one paid R900 in terms of interest repayments. That same property now costs R13 000 on which one has to pay 13,25% interest, which means that one has to pay R1 768, an increase of R860 or 96,4% in the cost of servicing that bond. In the case of a property costing R20 000 the bond interest rate used to be 9,5%, but as the value of that same property is now R27 200 and the bond interest rate 14,25%, it means that there is an increase of 104% in bond servicing costs. The cost of servicing bonds has increased in the order of between 95% and 105% over the last 18 months. This has had a dramatic impact on the affordability of new housing stock, particularly for young couples.

The fourth reason why we have these problems of affordability and availability is the failure of the Government to adjust income and loan levels in order to take into account the rise of costs which have taken place. The result of this is that, even where local authorities have funds available to them from the National Housing Commission, they are unable to use those funds within the framework of the financial formula laid down by the Government. The hon. the Minister should know this. He knows that in the Cape Peninsula, although there is some money available, the city council has refused to proceed with schemes because it says that, if it puts schemes out to tender on the basis of present building costs, it will not be able to let them economically or even subeconomically to people in the R650 income bracket. The same applies to the divisional council. Mr. Botha, who is the chief engineer, made it quite clear that the divisional council cannot put new housing schemes out to tender in the Cape Peninsula if that housing is going to be pegged for occupation by people with a maximum income of R650. At that level of R650 one cannot afford to pay the rental which would be applicable on a house costing between R20 000 and R25 000. So the failure of the Government to adjust either the income or the overall cost formula in order to take into account the rise in the cost of servicing buildings is another reason.

The last reason that I want to enumerate is the continuing failure of the Government, in spite of the hints that they are going to do something, to provide incentives to the private sector to build flats or houses for the people in the lower income group.

*I therefore ask the hon. the Minister: When is the aid, assistance or incentives due to come? It is pointless pointing backwards, because the hon. the Deputy Minister of Finance is not in this House. The hon. the Minister is now captain of his own ship and must himself account to this House. Is assistance going to be provided? Are the private sectors to be given incentives to participate in the provision of housing for the lower and middle income groups?

†Which are the two categories of people most seriously affected by the crisis of the availability and affordability of housing in the lower and middle income groups? I contend that the two categories mainly affected are, first of all, older people, in the main retired people, who live on fixed income and who require mainly rented accommodation. I want to weep for the older people in the cities living on fixed incomes and watching the rising costs of rentals and of housing accommodation. I want to say—and the hon. the Minister must accept this—that there are countless thousands of people in an absolute desperate position, and the hon. the Minister cannot shrug this away. I believe the hon. the Minister will have to do something about it. Let me give the hon. the Minister some illustrations.

Take for example what Mr. Hansmann of the Citizen’s Utility Housing League said last year about the problems experienced by young couples wanting to buy accommodation—

This is the Citizen’s Housing League in Cape Town, which supplies housing in places such as Ysterplaat, Brooklyn and Epping—

Last year the Cape Peninsula Welfare Society for the Aged wrote a letter in which it stated—

Mr. Speaker, it is a very real practical problem. It is said that there are other priorities. I want to say, however, that all of us must have a sense of responsibility. We must allocate money according to priorities, but I believe that in any civilized society there is no greater responsibility than that to the aged and infirm. If there is money available, the first priority for housing should be for the senior citizens of our country.

The next category of people affected are the young couples who want to set up a home and start a family. One of the basic things every young couple should aspire to is to own a home, not only because it gives them a sense of security, but also because it gives them a focal point for their family life. It also gives them the essential way of building up capital against the ravages of inflation. Once again the Citizens’ Utility Housing League points to the fact that young people are no longer in a position to buy their houses. It is all right if you already have a house and have made a profit on one or two houses before that, but we are talking here of the young marrieds—the 20 to 30-year age-group—who want to buy a house and set up a family. There is no way in which, in the present circumstances, they can afford the down-payment and the interest payments on their homes. This has become a very serious problem indeed for all of us in South Africa.

I now want to come to one or two steps which I propose the Government should take to try to remedy this problem. The first absolutely essential step I believe it has to take, despite the hon. the Minister’s partial rejection of the figures I gave him yesterday—I am prepared to settle for less as long as it is realistic—is to adjust in money terms, not in value terms, both the income limits and the loan limits for assisted housing to take into account the decline in the value of money and the rise in the cost of financing housing. If the R650 were to be increased to R800, it would not increase the number of people entitled to assistance. It would merely bring it back to where it was before. There is no point in the hon. the Minister’s increasing the level at which one can borrow money—for example from R18 900 to R25 000 or more—and yet still saying that the only people who can borrow money are people with an income of up to R650 per month. That will mean that those people will then be spending much more than 25% of their income on housing. Therefore, if one is going to increase the amount of the loan, the money that one can borrow, then one also has to increase the income level otherwise there is going to be complete distortion and there are going to be people below the income level of R650 per month who are going to have to pay far more than 25% or even 35% of their income on housing. Only today I checked up with a well-known housing authority in the Peninsula and I discovered that if one takes a Mitchells Plain situation— it could, of course, be a White housing area—with an income of R650 per month, the monthly interest and redemption payment is R181,11. That already amounts to 28% of that income. It is a little more than it should be on any scientific assessment of that income level. One should not actually even be paying 25% at the R650 level. However, they pay that amount because they are being charged 9% interest and, with redemption, the amount comes to R181,11. However, if that same person had an income of R660 per month and had therefore to obtain his loan on the open market, he would have to pay R247 per month in interest and redemption. At the current rates applicable to mortgage bonds he would have to pay 42% of his income simply in interest and redemption. If that is the case, I do not believe it is possible for us to continue with the situation where people in the R660 to, let us say, R900 per month income bracket can be saddled with having to pay anything between 40% and 50% of their income on interest and redemption in respect of housing.

In the second instance, I believe that this Government has to find some way of providing incentives to the private sector to encourage it to re-enter the housing market. The hon. the Minister was not there last week but I assume that he would have seen an article which appeared in Die Burger because it was accompanied by an attractive picture of him taken some years ago. This report appeared in Die Burger of 22 August of last year. I must assume that it was inspired because it appeared on the front page on this particular Saturday and stated, inter alia—

*The article goes on to say that an announcement will probably be made during the discussion of the hon. the Minister’s Vote—which took place on 15 September last year. We are still waiting. What are those incentive measures? Where is that assistance which will make it economically possible to persuade the private sector to reenter the housing market in South Africa?

†In the fourth instance, I believe that the Government must formulate a scheme so that where there are people who qualify for assistance under the Housing Act living in flats that have been converted to sectional title, those people should be permitted to obtain loans in order to purchase their flats. In other words, just as one can purchase a house, there should be provision whereby such people can purchase flats under a sectional title scheme if they otherwise qualify for housing assistance.

I know the hon. the Minister will not like this but in the fifth instance I want to tell him that as far as senior citizens are concerned, if they qualify for assistance from the State and if the State cannot provide them with accommodation, I believe the State must pay them subsidies if they make use of private accommodation. Either the State must provide the capital or the accommodation or else it must assist these people to live in whatever accommodation they can find.

Finally, I believe that the hon. the Minister in consultation with the building societies—he must go and talk to the building societies, to the private sector—must find some means of bending the financing rules in the private sector, the rules governing the financing of housing, so as to make it easier for young couples to purchase their first house. A study made by Dr. Selwyn Myers of Garden Cities shows that if a person pays 25% of his income for a house when he is first married and he has an increase in income of approximately 10% per annum, it will mean that after 10 years he will only be paying about 8% of his income on housing and that after 20 years he will only be paying about 3,8% of his income on housing. Therefore we have the situation where at the time when he can least afford it, at the time when his income is at its lowest and his commitments at their highest, he is charged a percentage of his income which is the highest during the whole course of his lifetime. So there must be a differentiated way of repaying mortgage bonds, either by reducing the interest rate for the first five years or by foregoing the capital repayment for the first five years so that it can become possible for the young South African to buy his home. We can go on in this vein, but we shall come back to a number of these aspects when we discuss the hon. the Minister’s Vote. At this stage, however, I should like to ask him what he is going to do about incentives.

You ask so many questions that I shall hardly be able to answer them all.

The hon. the Minister must tell us—I presume he has had discussions with Sapoa and all his wealthy property friends—how he is going to bring them back into the home building field for the lower and middle-income groups in the city. What is he going to do about it? He knows, as the hon. the Minister of Finance knows, that the private sector does not invest to make a loss; the private sector invests to make a gain, even if it is only a modest gain.

Obviously.

The hon. the Minister knows that at the level of rentals or interest repayments that the lower income group can afford to pay, one cannot supply housing in the cities on an economic basis. Somehow or another the Government will have to find a way of bridging the gap between what the middle and lower-income groups can afford to pay and the level at which the ordinary well-meaning, even public-spirited private sector can come into the act.

I hope that one has at least tried to put things into perspective, to analyse a few problems and to make, as a preliminary start to this session, some positive and constructive contributions to a debate, not on the problems so much, but on how the Government should overcome them.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member’s amendment is so similar to our motion that I almost forgot to afford you the opportunity to move his amendment. All that he has done, is to imitate what the hon. member for Newton Park did. For instance, he suggested here and there that certain words like “so that” and “that” be deleted. We also saw how he attempted to ride on the back of the NP with regard to housing schemes that were launched previously. What I found strange, was that the hon. member could rise here and want to take the credit for schemes such as Epping Gardens and Crown Gardens in Johannesburg.

I did not refer to Crown Gardens.

No, wait a moment. Crown Gardens was built in that period. It takes us almost 20 years in order to bring such a scheme up to township development requirements alone. Therefore, the hon. member can understand that the people who have been living there, have been faced with tremendous problems. One can scarcely believe what they had to do without. The party to which the hon. member belonged at the time, was not such a bad party—but they did not do anything! [Interjections.] They were really passive. I do not want to rub it in now, because some of those chaps are still sitting here. [Interjections.] Some of those chaps are sitting here today on both my left and my right. [Interjections.]

When one takes an in-depth look at the housing problems, one hears that the people who were shouting two or three years ago “crucify, crucify the entrepreneurs, crucify the township developer”, are now saying “give him money”. He was besmirched by the hon. members opposite from start to finish. Not only was he a rascal: he transgressed at every step. Nevertheless the developers prepared the way for the hon. members and other people and now the way is clear for township development. Where are the lot of ogres now? Where are the people who shouted at them? The township developer left the field open. The State could not undertake township development alone, and now everyone is dead quiet. Everyone wants more flats to be erected, but they are holding onto their money tightly. They are investing it in anything else, whilst the State has to be responsible for housing.

If we had listened to the hon. member for Newton Park and heard what the Government has done over the years with regard to housing, we in this House should be filled with gratitude for what one Minister after the other has done with regard to community development and housing in this country. I am thinking, for instance, of the housing scheme in Boksburg. The hon. member for Boksburg knows it well, and he probably asked for it. Then there is also the housing scheme at Edenvale, as well as other large schemes for White housing. In the light of this one realizes that the NP Government is worth its salt. Coloured housing such as that at Michell’s Plain overshadows that of the Whites. Since the mass media is emphasizing the housing needs of the non-Whites, many people no longer realize that a great deal is also being done for the housing of the Whites. Therefore, we must dedicate ourselves to telling the public about the fine housing projects for the Whites as well. However, we cannot argue away the fact that places like Mitchell’s Plain, Phoenix and others are so vast that all the Whites in Zimbabwe could be accommodated there if Mugabe or Nkomo were to anger them tomorrow. Within a short space of time 250 000 people were accommodated. The entire population of Liechtenstein for instance, could be accommodated in Atlantis. The entire populations of some countries could therefore be accommodated in some of our housing schemes.

In spite of this, however, it is still being alleged that not enough is being done with regard to housing. It is being alleged that we are facing the biggest housing shortages at the moment, and I definitely agree with this. On the one hand it may be described as a problem of supply. On the other hand it is a purely economic problem. Often those who need housing, cannot pay for it. We are saddled with population groups that cannot afford proper housing. I cannot agree with the hon. member for Sea Point when he says that one should spend only 25% of one’s income on housing.

[Inaudible.]

The fact is that at the time when I purchased my first house, I had to pay £30 for it out of an income of £69. At that time I was a good teacher. Therefore, hon. members on the Opposition side can realize how badly they treated us at the time. I earned £69 per month and I had to pay £30 of that for my house. Today it is expected that people should pay only 25% of their income on housing. I believe that this percentage was established by the State, but I also feel that economic realities are going to force us to expect that people who fall within certain income groups, should pay 33% of their income on housing. We shall have to look at this. We cannot continue to provide housing to people who are in a position to acquire it for themselves. The most important reasons for the shortages of erven, houses and flats is definitely the fact that the private township developer has withdrawn from this sphere of activities. I have just given the reasons as to why this happened. It has become necessary over the past years for so-called experts to establish the housing shortages mathematically. They came up with projections for the year 2000, whilst they are not, however, to provide any solution to the current problem. At the moment the position is such that many of these experts are causing nothing but problems for the Department of Community Development, whilst they are not coming up with any solutions. One thing that really makes me angry, is when former judges and former Post Office employees, and other types of people too, tell us on television of the R770 million that is going to be given to Soweto this year for the erection of 55 000 houses. When one simply makes a quick calculation in front of the television set, one becomes angry right on the spot. It appears that a house will cost R14 000, and that is without services. Then if one takes into account the fact that services represents 60% of the cost of a dwelling house, it appears that those houses will cost R21 000 each. Then people nevertheless still make the excuse that the man who is going to live in that house is not paid enough to pay R15 or R20 per month for that house. However, projections of this nature are distributed worldwide. Thinking people study them, and those who do not think base their expectations on them. This is why problems arise.

Now the question arises why private township developers have left this field. Allow me to give a brief explanation of the process of township development. In the Republic of South Africa each of the four provinces has its own ordinances. These ordinances differ from one another. Furthermore, the ordinances are interpreted by various local authorities in different ways. The ordinances in question in the case under discussion, date from the thirties. Originally everyone accepted that local authorities had to provide the services in towns. Hon. members who were involved in township development in earlier years, will know that until 1960 local authorities were responsible for providing services themselves. The cost thereof was recovered from the revenue received from the provision of water, electricity and sewerage. However quite suddenly, when a great housing shortage arose in 1960, the local authorities realized that their funds were not sufficient for the financing of services. What happened then? The township developer was then told that he had to pay for the provision of services in full. He had to finance the provision of all services in full, whilst the cost of the provision of water, electricity and sewerage would once again be recovered from the occupant of each house. In this way local authorities provide their own finances from township development. The standards laid down by the local authorities, are totally unrealistic in many cases. For instance, why should the width of a road in a town be 7 metres whilst a width of 6 metres, in which a car can turn comfortably at least, is quite adequate? That extra 1 metre pushes up the cost of the road by 16,9%. It is an extra expense, that is entirely unnecessary. It is not practical either and this is not what the case should be.

I am not asking for building limits for instance to be increased. This would create problems if the road in question would possibly have to be broadened for some reason or other in the future. Tar is an extremely expensive item. Building a road can cost up to R120 000 per kilometre. Why then should a road be made an extra metre wider? After all, this is not at all necessary. Why should kerbing and channelling also be placed along roads? After all, this is a very expensive item. We install curbing and channelling, but we ask a home-owner please not to build a garage. He must make his house cheaper. We do not want him to build a garage, but in the street in front of his house we lay R4 000 worth of cement curbing and channelling over which he and his children trip when they want to go for a walk in the evening. [Interjections.] Often they do not even serve any purpose for water drainage. These are unproductive methods that have been used over the years, requirements that were laid down by people who did not have to pay for them. These were people who adopted an unrealistic standpoint on the application of standards. A few adjustments would have been able to change the entire matter. Of course, we have a wide-awake Minister, who takes no nonsense. Before long he is going to introduce another metropolitan service unit, and that unit will also be able to lay down standards. Then the consumer will pay, and the financing can be effected by a Government loan from the Exchequer. The prices of erven will then have to drop by R2 000, R3 000 or even R5 000 per erf, because less will have to be spent on services. How many of the large companies are suddenly prepared to build in a place like Soweto and other places now? However, they want to build only. They do not want to provide the services, the Government has to provide the services first. Why? If Harry were here, I would have said that they want the shine, they want the praise. They want people to say how wonderful they are, but the State will first have to incur that—one can almost call it useless—expenditure on services before those companies build the houses. I ask those firms to consider providing the services themselves, then they will be real township developers, people who will be esteemed and respected in practice for the developmental nature of the work they are doing.

However, there is another problem, and this is related to guarantees. Municipalities may set aside R2 million for services, but then they ask for an escalation clause, but they know that no bank or insurance company will give a guarantee if there is an escalation clause in the transaction. On one occasion the planning committee of the PWV froze the development of five townships for more than 2 years. Can hon. members imagine what expenditure this entails? Let us suppose that there are 200 plots in every town. This means a total of 1 000 plots that are frozen for two years. Think of the costs in professional services that are lost in the process. Just think of the financial implications of such a step. That is why banks and private bodies do not want to give guarantees to township developers and the money must then be obtained from ordinary funds, funds that one has never been able to obtain at an interest rate of less than 15%, and that one cannot obtain at an interest rate of less than 20,5% today.

There is another problem. It is true that there was definitely no shortage of White housing in the past, not in Johannesburg either. Then, however, we had the situation where political organizations, supported by certain people in Natal and elsewhere, have caused more than a thousand non-White families to move into the less well-off areas of Johannesburg only over the past few years. These are people of colour who have moved into the homes of less well-off Whites. The less well-off Whites are evicted and then the non-Whites move in and pay two to three times as much in rent. We are immediately faced with a White housing problem which is in fact not a White housing problem. People like Actstop and other politically orientated organizations have brought a new dimension to our housing problems. It would require very serious legislation or investigation in order to rectify these matters, and these are matters that must be rectified. We cannot allow our less well-off Whites to develop an anti-non-White feeling. We cannot allow racist feelings to take root amongst our people in this country because others have taken over their homes. However, this is precisely what is happening here.

I am simply asking that we should act sensibly in this country. On the Opposition side and on our side as well we must try to improve the housing position by informing people too. I think the hon. member for Hillbrow will concede that he is a stranger in Hillbrow. His voters do not know him. They are not aware of him. He has a big pile of things that he wrote and gave to the Minister, but I can say that if one takes some of the names in it, one would not find a single one of them in the telephone directory.

You are talking through your hat now.

These are all people who have moved to Hillbrow from Durban, Kimberley and elsewhere. They have moved to Hillbrow and superseded people who were settled in proper housing. This is one of the matters which will have to be solved. I can just point out that in recent times 47 of these people appeared in court and that the court found them guilty. Then they moved. Following that there were another 50. Now another 100 cases are being prepared.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member whether he will be prepared to apologise to the House if I show him the file and show him that every one of those people is a resident of Hillbrow?

I am not sure that it is the file that was here last week. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: The hon. member is impugning my integrity.

Order! The hon. member must accept the hon. member for Hillbrow’s word.

Mr. Speaker, now I do not know what I must accept. I did not hear what he said properly.

Mr. Speaker, I asked the hon. member if he would apologize to the House if I showed him that every one of the people in the file I brought to the House is a resident of Hillbrow and that those who have telephones, of whom there are many, are to be found in the telephone directory.

Order! The hon. member must accept the word of the hon. member for Hillbrow.

Sir, if he can prove in the time that I have left…

No, the hon. member must do so unconditionally.

I shall accept it, Sir. My time has almost expired, but I just want to tell the hon. member that most of those people come from those places to which I referred. They have recently moved in.

Order! The hon. member for Hillbrow gave the hon. member a certain assurance in connection with this matter and he must therefore accept his word.

Mr. Speaker, can the hon. member for Hillbrow tell me that all those people have been living in Hillbrow all the time?

Yes, I can.

Order! The hon. member must proceed. [Interjections.]

Sir, I then take note with gratitude and appreciation that over the years this Government has done enough for the Whites as well as for all other groups in South Africa with regard to housing.

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order: May the hon. member for Kimberley South say that the hon. member for Hillbrow is lying?

Order! Did the hon. member for Kimberley South say that the hon. member for Hillbrow was lying?

No, Sir. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Newton Park and the hon. member for Langlaagte seem to have a totally different approach to this debate to that of the hon. member for Sea Point. I am rather suspicious myself because, whilst I would be very happy to support the good work of the Department of Community Development as a whole, I do have some difficulty in supporting the concept that it has done wonderful work in respect of White housing. In fact, on two previous occasions in this hon. House I raised the very issue of the deficiencies in White housing. Therefore for me to support a motion of thanks for the progress made under the national housing policy for Whites, would be very difficult.

At the outset I should like to raise a point in connection with the document issued by the Department of Community Development in July 1981 wherein it is written that “Local authorities are responsible for the adequate housing of their residents.” In the South African Yearbook for 1982, page 313, it is, however, stated unequivocally that “the State is responsible for assisting those who cannot buy a house on the open market.” Here we have two public and official documents making contrary statements as to where responsibility lies. Quite frankly, I do not believe that it is the sole responsibility of the State, nor for that matter of local authorities, to be the sole providers of housing. But I point out these apparent discrepancies because these are documents that go to a wide variety of people and, as I say, would appear to be contradictory. In any case I do believe that it is the function of the State to provide housing for pensioners, the elderly, the indigent and various people who are incapacitated.

Hon. members have expressed thanks for the provision of housing for, amongst other things, these categories, but I am afraid I simply cannot express thanks for the provision in these categories.

The hon. member for Newton Park raised the point that since 1948 such wonderful work has been done. He also said that in 1964 the late Dr. Verwoerd had reorganized the housing set-up in the country and that a great deal of work had been done. I would be inclined to concur with the remarks about Dr. Verwoerd in 1964, because it was around that period that a terrific amount of housing was in fact provided for the White community. Large blocks of flats were built and fairly substantial housing schemes were produced. In other words, a positive effort was made to provide housing. Regrettably, however, over the last few years, virtually nothing has been done for the White community in Natal. I cannot, of course, answer for what happened in the other provinces. Other speakers know that better than I do. For the past 11 years I have been in a position to know of virtually everything that was being built throughout Natal.

Change to provincial government in Natal.

Is the hon. member suggesting that because Natal is not Nationalist it was discriminated against? Is that what the hon. member is suggesting? That would seem to be the case. Does it therefore mean that to get a fair deal one has to be a Nationalist? I do not believe that is the thought of the hon. the Minister. I know the hon. the Minister reasonably well now and I do not believe he is such a dishonourable person as to have that attitude.

The hon. member for Langlaagte also made great issue of how much better off people were today in respect of housing than they were when the NP became the Government. I do not know how well the hon. member for Langlaagte remembers the situation in 1948. In 1948 I was a relatively young, married man. At the time I had one child, or maybe two, I am not sure. [Interjections.] I know that I had several relations in Durban …

How many have you got now?

I have seven.

Are you sure of that?

Yes, of that I am sure. The point I want to make is that there were a number of young people with whom I associated who did not have any particular pretentions to wealth in any way, shape or form, but each one of us was able to buy his own home. From 1948 to 1950 it was relatively simple for people to be able to buy their own homes. Today it is very nearly impossible. Not only is it very nearly impossible to buy one’s own home, but in those days people bought homes for the most part. One never heard of anybody buying a flat. That was just not done, or even thought of. I believe the policy on White housing over the last 30 years has totally changed the quality of life of the White community in this country. It has turned them into a lot of troglodytes who live in hen-coops for the most part. As far as the rest are concerned, they have great difficulty in meeting their rent or bond commitments. This is the problem we are facing today. This is why it is extremely difficult for me to support this motion.

It is all very well to be critical, but I do believe that if one is to serve any sort of useful purpose in the House, one must also try to be constructive. I believe that when I have spoken sometimes critically on various occasions I have also attempted to be constructive.

I would just like to read from an advertisement that I have here in front of me. It reads, inter alia, as follows—

I made some inquiries and found that there were in fact in the same scheme three-bed-roomed houses and that they cost R17 000. One may ask: When did this advertisement appear? It may perhaps shock hon. members to discover that this advertisement appeared in January 1982, last month in fact. This was in Durban.

What is your point?

The point I am making is that it is possible to build houses at a far lower price than they are being built for today. However, one has to put into those houses what people can afford to pay for; in other words, one has to be realistic. What is more, there has to be a totally different approach to the development of land for housing. In order to avoid any misunderstanding at all I want to repeat that the point I am making is that as far as the White community is concerned, I believe that housing schemes can be established, as they were a long time ago in Woodlands and similar places, for Whites in regard to which all the basic underground services, roads and so forth, are planned and basically put in and the units are then handed out in small blocks of 50 or 70 or 100 units so that a large number of builders participate in the construction of those houses. I believe that if one cuts out all the frills and trimmings one can produce housing at a price that the public can afford to pay. I may add that the advertisement I mentioned earlier was placed by the Durban city council. I know that these houses would not be palatial. I know that they would not have many of the refinements to which South Africans have become accustomed. However, I do know that if these houses were available to White people, there would be very many who would be happy to occupy them. There are many people who are artisans who would move into those houses and improve them. To prove my point I want to say that if any hon. members have visited an area such as Chatsworth, which was the most soul-destroying place when it was originally built because of the horrible facades of many of the buildings, they will admit to being absolutely amazed at the change that has taken place. In appearance it is today a beautiful and model suburb. I say that cheap houses can be turned into something worthwhile if the basic structure is there and the will to do something with them is also present. I believe therefore that this is one angle to which serious consideration should be given to see whether basic housing can be provided at basic prices. I believe this can be done. The advertisement I quoted proves that houses built towards the end of last year can be offered at that sort of price.

Mr. Speaker, I want to go one step further in my efforts to be constructive. I want to say that we must avoid these monstrous hencoops that are being built. It seems to be the custom today, if one has to provide housing, to push up colossal multistoried buildings, the theory being that it is economical in land. Of course, this may well be true.

It is perhaps economical in land, but even then it is doubtful, because in the overall one has to provide open spaces and various facilities to accommodate a larger number of people. So it is a moot point whether it is more economical in the ultimate in land, but it probably is. In cost, however, it is definitely not more economical, positively it is not, because although one does have a lesser initial capital cost—a little and not a great deal—one’s maintenance costs thereafter are out of all proportion because one has lifts, high-development maintenance costs which are very high, and various other expenses of a similar nature.

Added to this and which I believe is more important, is the fact that it reduces the quality of life of the people who are living in them to the lowest possible grade. I was going to say “to that of chickens”, but that would be unfair to the people who are living there. It is, however, a very low standard of life. People do not like to be on the 10th or 11th floor when their children are playing 10 or 11 storeys below, because if anything goes wrong, they cannot get at them to call them. I happen to have in my constituency some of these very, very large blocks of flats which have been financed by National Housing Commission money, and I can tell hon. members that they are most unpopular. The biggest of them comprises a couple of hundred flats.

Who planned them?

I do not know. I think it was the local authority originally, but the point is that the National Housing Commission went along with the concept. The flats to which I am referring are most unpopular and for quite a long time they could not let them. Eventually the elderly type, the pensioners who were only too anxious and desperate to get a place, were very happy to move in. That block of flats which was built as as family unit is now a residence, virtually for old-aged people—a good thing too. We have to have accommodation for them.

As far as the elderly are concerned there is one further point I should like to make. When one is trying to provide homes for social pensioners and people of that financial strata, I believe one should get away from idealism and the thinking that one has to provide everything possible for them. I know that everybody likes apple pie and mother, and everybody likes to do everything possible for the elderly. We have sympathy for them, but I believe we must be realistic and have low-rise development that these elderly people can operate and in which they can move around—a simple room with basic facilities. I have seen so many of these old-age establishments which, per unit of accommodation, are enormously expensive, more expensive than a house in some cases. They should not be of that design. They should be less expensive so that we can get more of them. After all is said and done, most of these people who are turfed out of redevelopment areas are not leaving marble halls and palaces; they are leaving pretty scrubby accommodation. I am quite sure that the type of accommodation to which I am referring could be built at a very low cost per unit and at the same time they can be very satisfactory for the people concerned.

To conclude I would say that it is with sincere regret that I cannot support the motion, because, as I say, I have a great deal of respect for the work being done by the department in other areas of housing. I am sorry, however, I cannot support it in respect of White housing.

White housing in Natal?

Well, I can only talk about Natal because according to the hon. member for Maitland we are dis criminated against because we are not Nationalists.

I do know that the hon. the Minister is aware of the shortages and that something is going to be done about it. In the meantime the motion before us concerns things which have happened in the past, so I fear it is my duty at this stage to support the amendment of the hon. member for Sea Point.

Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to agree with the hon. member for Umbilo that we must give careful attention to housing standards. Unfortunately I cannot agree with him when he says that nothing has been done in Natal. However, this is a matter that he must settle with the Minister.

I am rather disappointed by the approach of the hon. member for Sea Point. The hon. member for Newton Park moved this motion with a specific purpose. In the first place he wanted to express his gratitude towards the Government and then he wanted to look at the problems and try to find solutions for them. However, what have we had here? The hon. member for Sea Point says that we must not talk about 1948, because there were laws prior to 1948, too. However, I want to tell the hon. member that it does not matter what fine laws there are on the Statute Book. If those laws are not implemented, they mean nothing.

Then the hon. member followed the extremely popular trend of talking about the young people first. He feels that they should be assisted in obtaining houses. I agree that young people must have houses, but it is probably the easiest thing in the world to demand that the Government should provide them.

I also find it a pity that the hon. member raised the matter of the aged. I want to tell him that the Government is taking great care of the aged because we realised that today we are building on the foundations that they laid for us. Indeed, I believe that possibly apart from Holland, there is no other country that cares for its aged as well as South Africa does.

The hon. member also said that it is no use looking at previous achievements; we must establish what bottle-necks and problems exist at the moment. However, I want to tell the hon. member that one can never eliminate current problems without looking at previous achievements and at how problems were solved in the past.

I am very grateful that the hon. member for Newton Park moved this motion, because I believe sometimes it is necessary for us to stop for a moment and look back at what has been achieved since 1948, i.e. since the NP came into power. It is no secret that White housing was in a terrible state prior to 1948. Every day we saw headlines in the newspapers of how Whites had to live in slum conditions. We often read of how families had to live in backyards, in garages and shacks. I had evidence of this in my own town. There is a place called South End where up to six White families had to live in one house and bring up their children there. Thanks to the policy of the Government, however, these people were all accommodated in decent homes, and some of those same people are leaders in their own communities today.

Sir, there are problems and there are bottle-necks, but I feel that we do not really have problems with regard to the man who has an income of up to R650 per month. I believe that he is being looked after fairly well. I want to tell the hon. member for Sea Point once again that it is no use saying categorically that we should increase the income limit. All that we would gain by that, would be to increase the size of the group of people that must be helped, and the Government does not have the money to be able to do so.

I want to dwell on the group of people who are earning a salary of between R650 and approximately R1 000 per month today because I believe that they have a problem. A year or so ago building societies had a great deal of money. Interest rates were fairly low. The building societies were offering these people loans of up to 90%. However, what is the position today? Building societies have little or no money. Interest rates are high, and with the increasing costs, if we also take into account the period of inflation in which we are living, it is almost impossible for a man who earns a salary of between R700 and R1 000 per month, to save for a deposit on a house. However, what is the solution to this problem? These people cannot approach the Government for assistance. Of course I agree with this.

However, I believe that we should try to find these people a solution to their problems. In the first place I feel that we should give attention to standards. I believe that we will have to accept that if someone would like a three-bedroomed house, whilst he can afford a two-bedroomed house only, he should simply begin with the smaller house. After that he can go further.

Another very important aspect that I should like to raise, however, is the price of land. The hon. member for Langlaagte pointed out to us the problems that the township developer is experiencing. It is no longer strange today for it to cost one between R5 000 and R6 000 to provide services for a small erf. The township developer has to purchase expensive land. He has to pay high amounts in interest. This means that he therefore has to sell that erf for a much higher price, a price that people cannot afford. The solution that I want to try to propose here—and it is a modest solution—is the following. I want us to approach the local authorities in South Africa. We have more than 500 local authorities in South Africa and practically all of them have large tracts of donated land, land that has cost the local taxpayer nothing. Usually we find that this endowment land borders on developed areas. In other words, it is not necessary to take the main access services that must be taken to that land, any further. Therefore, what I want to suggest, is that local authorities begin to provide services to those pieces of land.

However, once services have been provided to those pieces of land, the problem has not yet been solved. The young couple that I am talking about now, must still obtain money to buy a plot there. However, now I want to go even further and involve the local authorities in question more closely. I want those local authorities to borrow money on the open market. In the first place they must do so in order to provide the services, and in the second place, with a view to undertake the entire development. In other words, those local authorities will build two and three-bedroomed houses and make them available to these people. These are people with an income of between R650 and R1 000 per month. I said earlier on that it is virtually impossible for these people to obtain a deposit, not to mention a bond. However, now I want to go further. I want the local authorities to make these houses available to these young people at low deposits. I feel that if we could do this, it would be a step ahead.

However, now we are faced with another problem. The cheapest money that a local authority can obtain on the open market, is money on which it has to pay 14% interest. However, I believe that we can still build two and three-bedroomed houses for R22 000 and R26 000 respectively. The repayments on a loan of R26 000 are approximately R313, however, and I do not think that that type of man would be able to manage it. However, if we could decrease the interest rate to say approximately 9% and decrease his monthly payments to approximately R218, I do not think he would have any problems. However, we have a difference of 5%. Therefore, the question that arises is who should contribute the 5%. We have already heard that the Government cannot make that contribution. I therefore feel that it is now the time for the employers to be involved here. It may perhaps be said that it will be very difficult to involve employers in such a scheme, but I want to point out, however, that many of these prospective buyers already qualify for a subsidy, but because they have not yet been able to scrape together a deposit in practice or to obtain a loan in order to buy a house, they have never yet been able to make use of that subsidy. In other words, there are already a number of people who could make use of it.

I have made it my duty to motivate my own town council and to activate them to involve employers so that 200 houses can be built in my town over the next three or four years. Such a scheme was started in Port Elizabeth a few years ago. The interest rates were fortunately not as high at that stage, nor were the building costs as high. I find this one of the most attractive schemes, a residential area of 396 houses in which happy families are living. Just think of the rates revenue that that municipality receives from those 396 houses. What I want to emphasize, is that such a scheme will also be lucrative for the municipality itself. If we want to solve the problem for this group of people, we will each have to make our own contribution, no matter how modest it may be. I think that we in this House should speak to our local authorities and employers in question. Then I think that we would be able to make a modest contribution towards solving the problem. Then we could leave the needs of our people in the subeconomic group, particularly those of our aged, to the Department of Community Development and the National Housing Commission.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Algoa made an interesting speech. I think that we on this side of the House would regard his suggestions about financing through local authorities as one more way of providing more finance for housing.

Before I carry on with the speech I have prepared, I think I should call the attention of the House to the disgraceful allegations of the member for Langlaagte. That member attempted to insinuate that the member for Hillbrow took from his very thick file a number of false letters to the hon. the Minister and applications from people in Hillbrow for assistance with their accommodation problems.

You are talking nonsense.

That hon. Minister is welcome to nominate anybody on that side of the House to look through this file and examine every one of those letters to see whether they are, in fact, from people in Hillbrow. [Interjections.] I think that the hon. member for Langlaagte should be ashamed of himself. [Interjections.] Not only that…

Go on squirming.

I believe we have got to take that sort of thing whence it comes. [Interjections.] We know it means very little indeed.

Go on squirming.

If that hon. member could see himself in a mirror he would be squirming 24 hours of the day.

The problem is there is too big a hole in your mouth. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, could we have order please?

Order!

We have had a number of interesting facts and statistics presented to us this afternoon relative to this motion.

[Inaudible.]

Mr. Speaker, if that hon. member had remained in the House throughout the debate, we might have paid more attention to him. I think he should learn some manners. If he is going to participate in a debate, he should stay and listen to it and not absent himself for half an hour. [Interjections.]

Calm down, calm down.

Sir, we do not always calm down when an hon. member of no consequence attacks an hon. member of integrity who is a senior hon. member of the House.

In our view State housing should be a safety net type of housing in that it should provide for those who cannot help themselves. It should, however, do so in such a way that those who can learn or are eventually able to help themselves will be in a position to climb out of that safety net. State housing should be for the poor, the pensioners and the underprivileged who are not able to buy or rent houses on the open market.

We regret the racial tone of this motion, because today many Coloureds and Indians and even some Blacks have larger incomes than many Whites, and we need to remember that there are Whites who are poor. Many are pensioners who are being robbed by the inflation this Government inflicts on our country. It is true, however, that Whites do have a high standard of living.

Pretoria gives us some interesting facts and statistics, not only about the standard of living of Whites but also about other factors. In Pretoria, for example, Whites have a total floor area per person of 46,9 square metres, Blacks 8,7 square metres, Coloureds 15 square metres and Asians 21,5 square metres.

What inference do you want to draw from that?

The hon. member must just wait till I have finished my argument. That hon. member, who is an advocate, should know that one has to develop an argument.

Let me point to another interesting situation which has developed in Pretoria. I am sorry that the hon. the Minister of State Administration has left, because if he were here, he would have discovered what some civil servants have to put up with. Since April 1979 the average rental in Pretoria for a two-bedroomed flat has gone up from R138 per month to R240 per month. This means that on average rentals in Pretoria vary from R3 to R3,25 per square metre. That is an increase of 74% in Pretoria alone. Construction costs have gone up to R380 per square metre for a house and R400 per square metre for the average flat.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would love to answer the hon. member for Turffontein’s question, but I just want to finish my speech first. If I have a few minutes left at the end, I shall give him an opportunity to put his question. [Interjections.] We see, therefore, that there has been a tremendous escalation in costs. Clearly, when one has to pay R240 per month for a two-bedroomed flat in Pretoria, that presents a very serious situation for people in the lower income group. It is also noticeable that White families today are smaller. In fact, the Afrikaans-speaking section of the population has now reached virtually zero population growth because of the smaller families people have today. Also, the spectrum in the White population today includes many more older people so that one finds that proportionately there are many more older people in the White community.

Nowhere is the problem better illustrated than in my constituency.

You are the problem in your constituency.

In Pietermaritzburg in housing for Whites funded by the National Housing Commission with the assistance of the municipality, there were in October 1979 199 vacancies and in October 1980, one year later, 100 vacancies. In March 1981 there were 353 families on waiting lists and in October 1981 370 families.

Pietermaritzburg is blessed with a progressive—with a small “p”—and far-sighted council. In fact, to give an example of how go-ahead they are, they are preparing a may-oral reception next month for representatives of the world Press who are arriving in Pietermaritzburg for an event—I cannot mention what event, because it is sub judice—to welcome this international Pres corps to Pietermaritzburg where a certain court case is going to be held. The Council are actually holding a special municipal reception and they will be giving them special facilities to make them realize what a significant and important place Pietermaritzburg is. The Pietermaritzburg municipality monitors the housing position very carefully and it always tries to ensure—it has done so over the years—that demand does not exceed supply by too much.

One of the problems that an efficient local authority has can best be illustrated by the following example. Last year officials of Pietermaritzburg’s municipality came to see the department of the hon. the Minister of Community Development, under whose portfolio this motion is being raised, to ask whether the Minister, if he had no funds available, could give them bridging finance until they could raise the funds to build some houses on 245 serviced sites which they had available immediately. This request was turned down and the municipality was told to go and apply in the normal way. Here was a go-ahead municipality, just the kind of municipality advocated by the hon. member for Algoa, and which I agree we should have, wanting to do something and merely asking for bridging finance until they could raise their own finance, but their request was turned down.

We do not have to tell the hon. the Minister about the Pietermaritzburg Municipality. He knows that it is a responsible, well-run, efficient municipality. After making an analysis of the needs for White housing and finding that two-bedroomed units suit White housing needs better today, this municipality is itself looking for financing for a cluster housing development scheme on a fairly large scale in order to deal with the needs of low-income Whites who need these smaller homes.

I do want to make a plea for Pietermaritzburg’s needs. Our local authority cannot be classed as “stoepsitters”. Furthermore, Pietermaritzburg, as may have been mentioned during the discussion of the previous motion today, is to gain not only deconcentration concessions, but the adjoining KwaZulu area is to get decentralization concessions. We are delighted that this sensible decision has been made. However, there will be an increased need for an adequate stock of housing for low-income group Whites, not only those employed in private industry, but also those employed in Government and semi-Government services. Furthermore, many Whites who have left Zimbabwe have come to settle in Pietermaritzburg.

Why?

They have come to settle in Pietermaritzburg because it is a delightful place.

Because it is Progressive.

That is right! It is because they do not want to settle in a Nationalist-dominated town. Interjections Mr. Speaker, you would rule me out of order if I were to tell those hon. members why. However, we are now discussing the housing problem and the fact is that we do have White Zimbabweans in large numbers in Pietermaritzburg and that they have to have somewhere to stay. It is my responsibility as MP for the area to bring that need to the attention of the hon. the Minister.

There is also a grave shortage of accommodation for social pensioners and the frail aged. In this connection I want to quote from The Natal Witness of 5 November 1981. Many old-age people have had to be moved out of housing funded by the National Housing Fund to make way for families. This was the condition under which they went into that accommodation. This has, however, emphasized the need for homes for old-age people. The article states—

Pietermaritzburg has one of the finest old-age care associations in the country, and there are many old-age homes in Pietermaritzburg. If there is such a grave need it is indeed a serious matter. As the hon. the Minister knows, an hotel was recently sold at a very low price by a generous Pietermaritzburg businessman to the Pietermaritzburg and District Care of the Aged Association, which made the offer to purchase the hotel, and it is being financed with funds from the hon. the Minister’s department, something for which we are very grateful. This is an area that is in serious need, and I want to urge the hon. the Minister to consider sympathetically the needs of the Pietermaritzburg area for White housing.

The hon. the Minister wanted us to go and have a look at what Epping Garden Village looks like today. As a student at the University of Cape Town I used to preach in one of the churches in Epping Garden Village … [Interjections] … and I know the area well. We have a similar area in Pietermaritzburg. The housing department of the local authority made an analysis of low-cost housing in Pietermaritzburg. These particular houses were built immediately after the war for ex-servicemen and are kept in good condition, but the housing department of the local authority is not prepared to spend more money on them because that would raise rentals, which would remove a basic core-stock of really cheap housing for Whites from the Pietermaritzburg area. So we have a local authority in an area which is insensitive to the needs of low-income group Whites. I trust the hon. the Minister will ensure that the bottleneck which the hon. member for Newton Park mentions in his motion will be removed, certainly in Pietermaritzburg.

Mr. Speaker, when the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North stood up to speak, I wondered how long it would take him to move from the motion under discussion, which is essentially about White housing, to race and Black-White relations. As far as I could measure it, it took him exactly one minute and 20 seconds.

You chaps took about 300 laws.

The hon. member then started talking about the Black-White differential in housing in South Africa. The other day, when we were discussing the Part Appropriation of the Department of Transport Services, the hon. member started talking about the security lighting at the installation in the Drakensberg. The hon. member has a one-track mind and, I am afraid, it is not on a track that is of any benefit to South Africa. He talks about Zimbabwe and the people of Zimbabwe who have moved into his constituency, but let me tell him—if he does not already know it—that those people are fleeing from “reconciliation”. I can also assure the hon. member that whatever else those people support they do not support his party. Once bitten, twice shy. [Interjections.]

We can be grateful for the motion which the hon. member for Newton Park has brought before the House. It has elicited an interesting discussion and has highlighted a great many of the achievements of the Government, the intentions of the Government, the monuments which have been built by successive ministries and has also highlighted future problem areas, and I agree that there are problems. It is typical that it is a motion from this side of the House that has initiated discussion and that it is spokesmen from this side of the House who have highlighted the problems that do exist. I am therefore sure that the solutions that will follow will also come from the Government.

Is Albow Gardens one of the monuments?

That was built by the city council of Cape Town, and I am not responsible for what the Prog city council of Cape Town builds, even though it was done with money from the National Housing Commission. The fact is, if we look at South Africa—and I am speaking at the end of this debate—nobody can deny that the housing standards and the general quality of life enjoyed by the White people in South Africa have grown apace since the war and that the standards that are enjoyed by White people in South Africa generally are exceptionally high. We also know that the housing problems that existed, the great slums which sprawled around our cities, some occupied by Whites, others not, have largely been removed—as far as Whites are concerned, they no longer exist at all—and that in itself has been a great achievement.

When we look at the future we find that there are various people who have various predictions in this regard. We find people like Mr. Van Straaten of the National Building Research Institute saying that we will have to build some 340 000 units over the next 18 years for Whites. In its turn the Property Economist predicts that we shall have to build some 840 000 units for Whites. The true position lies probably somewhere between those two figures. However, I have no doubt that our society will respond to that challenge. There are, of course, particular problems that exist at the moment and that the Government is investigating. The hon. member for Algoa also mentioned this fact. I should like to highlight one of those problems because I think it is one of the acute problems that we are going to have to solve in the short term.

If we look at a house built by a utility company, an effective and efficient utility company building the lowest cost house that one can reasonably build today on a small parcel of land in regard to which all of the economies of scale that currently exist have been employed, we find that the cost of such a house rose from R25 000 in January 1981 to R28 500 in August 1981 and to R31 350 in February of 1982. If we take a 90% bond on those amounts, we find that that has grown from R22 500 to R25 650 to R28 215. If then we consider the interest rates that applied in January and August 1981 and that apply in February 1982 we find that that rose from 9,75% to 13,25% to 14,25%. This means that the monthly repayment has risen from R200 to R294 to R345. This again has meant that the minimum salary requirement has risen from R800 in January 1981 to over R1 300 in February 1982. That, Sir, is a substantial fact. It is something which neither the Government nor any hon. member in this House can run away from. This is a situation which is going to have to be bridged, and solutions will have to be found.

I should like to make a suggestion in this regard, because we may ask: How can a solution be found? It can only be found either by building a house on a subsidized basis, in other words the State absorbing the cost, or it can be found by way of a subsidy on the difference or it can be found by way of a loan. So what I should like to suggest is that we investigate the possibility of capitalizing the interest at least on a portion—10% or 25%—of the deposit, for a start, or perhaps over the whole amount on a sliding scale so that at the time of purchase the interest rate is low and then builds up over a two or three-year period. The one portion of the speech of the hon. member for Sea Point that I found interesting was that in which he quoted figures given by Mr. Myers of Garden Cities which indicated what proportion of a person’s income was paid over a period of 10 years and how it diminishes. I think, therefore, that since the repayment rate would rise more slowly in the case of the capitalization of the interest if added on to the loan than would the cost of the building, it would in fact have the effect of putting somebody in a house today which he may be able to afford easily in three years’ time but which he would never be able to afford if one did not put him into that House today.

In other words, if he does not put his foot on the first rung of the ladder today, he may never be able to do so because the cost of doing so is going to rise appreciably and steeply. Therefore he must do it now. By capitalizing the interest, one is neither going into a long-term subsidy situation which is the cause of many of the problems which the hon. the Minister has now, nor is one going into a situation where the State is having to fund housing which it cannot reasonably be expected to do. Anyway, bad gearing is bad finance because one is applying too much money to the problem.

With these words I want to leave that suggestion and say that I support very strongly the motion of my friend and colleague. I think it is a good motion. I think the Government has a great deal to be proud of, and what I am particularly proud of is to see how hon. members on this side of the House are again identifying and responding to the challenges which we see in the housing situation currently in South Africa.

Mr. Speaker, next to food, housing is one of the most basic of man’s needs. Apart from that, housing is a powerful factor in the creation and promotion of stability, peace and order in communities and in addition, in a country like ours, it exercises an enormous influence on good mutual relations between White and non-White. Accordingly, throughout the time it has been in power, the Government has made housing one of its highest priorities. Accordingly I wish to convey my thanks today to hon. members on both sides of the House—the hon. member for Sea Point and all the other hon. member—who took part in the debate and expressed their appreciation to the department and its staff for the enormous task they have undertaken over the years since the establishment of the department.

I believe that there is a feeling of pride in each one of us sitting in this House, whatever our political views in this country, when we consider what the Department of Community Development has done over the years in respect of the housing of people of all population groups in the country, particularly those who are unable to help themselves. I am gratified that apart from a little politicizing here and there, which, after all, is the salt and pepper of a debate—we have resisted making a political football of housing and the provision of housing. I am gratified that we have had a very positive discussion. Hon. members on both sides made good suggestions and the officials of the department and I have taken cognizance of and noted each one. I can give the assurance that while I am not able to furnish a reply to each of those points today, we shall consider all the positive recommendations made. I want to thank hon. members for the positive note they sounded throughout the debate.

Here I have in mind in particular the hon. members for Sea Point and Maitland, in their reference to the work of housing utility companies. There are only five such companies in South Africa, all five of them being in the Western Cape. In this regard this province is ahead of the rest of the country, even Natal. However, one has just been founded in Natal; indeed, together with the hon. member for Umbilo I launched it a few evenings ago. I hope that that utility company and those that we intend establishing in the rest of the country will do equally good work. Utility companies have done a tremendous amount in the Western Cape for White housing in particular, particularly after the Second World War when there were literally thousands of people in the Peninsula without a roof over their heads.

I want to thank the hon. member for Newton Park for having created an opportunity, by moving this motion, to focus attention today on what is being done in respect of White housing, and on the bottlenecks which must be identified and eliminated in this regard.

When we speak about White housing we must recognize as a background fact that the Government has a supplementary role in regard to the provision of housing. It has repeatedly been said—and it was said again in this debate today—that the Government cannot possibly provide accommodation for every family in the country. I wish to go further and say that it is impossible even for the Government to provide housing for all the people in the lower income groups. Although I understand what the hon. member for Sea Point had to say, I cannot agree with him unreservedly that we should increase the income limit so as to include more people for whom we have to accept responsibility.

[Inaudible.]

I said that I am not unsympathetic to the hon. member’s view, but the fact remains that at present we cannot accept a greater responsibility towards all the people in the lower income groups. It is true that the State accepts responsibility for certain people within specific income limits. When one considers that groups of people— that includes all population groups—to whom housing is provided subject to the same limits, we see that 80% of them are non-Whites. It therefore goes without saying that a considerable amount of State spending on housing will go to housing for non-Whites.

The hon. member for Umbilo said that he was unable to support this motion particularly as far as White housing was concerned be-so he maintained, nothing had been done about this in Natal for the past 14 years. However, that is untrue. I asked one of my officials whether he knew of any housing scheme in Natal, because I am not acquainted with the situation except in the case of Randrus. He told me off the cuff that we had built Van der Walt Park on the Bluff and that it comprised 90 units. Then there is Yellowwood Park with 70 units, Waterval Park with 19 units and Bushlands Flats comprising 19 units. In various suburbs, viz. Queensburgh, Randrus, Umgeni Park, Mangrove Park and on the Bluff, we have made plots available. In Umgeni Park alone we made 200 plots available with services, and I am told by the official that there are hundreds of plots in the other suburbs where we have created an infrastructure with departmental funds. Indeed, this is what we in this country want, because this is the best way to assist people, and this is the pattern on which the department will build to an increasing extent in the future. We have limited funds, and what we can still get we shall for the most part spend on making plots with services available not only to Whites but also to the non-White population groups. They must then build houses for themselves on these plots. Indeed, the Whites did so in the past. Notwithstanding the fact that they can approach the State for housing because they fall within a certain limit, only 13% to 14% of the Whites asked for State aid. The other 86% obtained loans from the building societies and provided houses for themselves. We in Natal made hundreds of plots available with services where people could build houses for themselves. Although the hon. member for Umbilo wants us to do more, it is at least clear that we have not done nothing at all.

As regards the provision of housing for Whites, I must also point out that up to the second half of 1979, there was a total oversupply of housing in this country. This is probably the only country in the world where this has happened, in these enlightened times we are living in, the only country in which there has been an over-supply of housing, in which literally thousands upon thousands of flats stood empty throughout our cities. In Johannesburg alone—where the hon. member for Hillbrow lives—there were still 10 000 flats standing empty at the end of 1979. Surely these are facts that we cannot overlook. There was an over-supply of housing, notwithstanding the progressive immigration scheme we had undertaken a short while previously and the thousands of immigrants coming to South Africa annually. Is this not an achievement of which we should all be proud—the fact that until a short while ago we had a situation in this country in which no member of the White population group was seeking accommodation?

Now I also just wish to add that this is a situation which still prevailed here in the Cape Peninsula the year before last. That same Dr. Hansmann whom the hon. member for Sea Point quoted here today can confirm that. The hon. member for Tygervallei also knows that until the other day, a year or so ago, there were neat houses for the low income group in that fine suburb, Ruyterwacht—earlier known as Epping— which could not be sold or occupied. In my own constituency there was a block of flats comprising 552 flats built with the funds of the Department of Community Development. Early last year half of those flats were still standing empty.

Very well, now the hon. member maintains that somewhere in the Cape Peninsula there is a waiting list of 400 Whites who need housing. My goodness, the hon. member has proved that as far as the Peninsula is concerned, there is no shortage of housing. He speaks about a waiting list of about 400 people, but those are not all people who fall within the limits set by the National Housing Commission. We have ascertained that the majority of people in Johannesburg, in the Cape Peninsula and elsewhere whose names appear on waiting lists are people whose income is so high that we are unable to provide them with housing. They are people who must rely on their own resources to obtain accommodation. Therefore, when the hon. member makes his allegation concerning a waiting list of 400 people, I want to put it to him that there is no housing shortage.

However, the situation is not as simple as that. We cannot simply focus on those 400 names to the exclusion of all else. There is an increasing shortage of White housing in certain areas, particularly in Pretoria, and also to some extent in Johannesburg and Durban and, to a lesser extent in certain other urban areas. However, with the facts at our disposal we simply cannot speak about a crisis situation or an emergency situation as far as housing for Whites in this country is concerned. Anyone who speaks in those terms has his facts wrong. The fact is that there is no White person in South Africa who lacks accommodation. Moreover, the percentage of Whites accommodated in unsatisfactory conditions is relatively small. In addition, over-population among Whites only occurs in exceptional cases. The situation with regard to White housing therefore comes nowhere near being an emergency situation or crisis situation, as the hon. member for Hillbrow would like to describe it. Nor can it in any way be compared with the situation in which other population groups in this country find themselves. As I have said, it is our experience that the people who seek houses and place their names on waiting lists are people who seek cheaper houses than those they are living in at present. However, they are not without a roof over their heads. It is true that due to the shortage of houses there are people today living in dwelling units which they cannot afford—in others words, units for which they as families pay more than should be paid in terms of the normal, acceptable norms of whatever percentage of one’s income one should pay in rent or capital redemption. Therefore they are trying to obtain accommodation which would better suit their pocket. As I have said in the past, many of the people who place their names on waiting lists are people whom we as the State cannot really help because they fall outside the limits laid down.

The hon. member for Newton Park indicated by way of statistics what the department has done in the field of housing in recent years. For example, over the past five years alone—if I understood him correctly— we have built 19 449 dwelling units for Whites at a cost of approximately R319 million, and this at a time when there was no real shortage, when in fact we were on the brink of having a surplus of White housing.

However, there is another aspect I want to put to hon. members. I should like to indicate what this department’s achievements have been over the past five years in the field of the provision of welfare housing, viz. housing for those of our people in this country who most need it, and everyone in this House agree that these are people for whom we must do as much as we can. I am referring of course to our elderly people. For them alone the Government has provided housing amounting to R76 million over the past five years.

In 1959 there were 57 old-age homes in this country, with an occupancy of 2 846. In 1972 there were 212 homes with an occupancy of 13 359. In 1981 there were 335 homes with an occupancy of no fewer than 22 866. I have said in the past and I repeat it in this House today that there is no developed Western country in the world that spends as high a proportion of State funds on White social welfare housing and housing for its elderly than South Africa. I want hon. members to say this and also to be proud of it, not only hon. members on this side of the House but also the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg North, for example, who said that he preached to those people. Because the hon. member for Umbilo spoke about conflicting rulings with regard to the accountability accepted by the State as far as housing is concerned, I wish to repeat unequivocally here today that the State cannot provide housing for all, not even for everyone in the lower income groups. The State can only make a supplementary contribution in this regard. In our capitalist free market system it is the duty of the individual himself—I shall deal with this again—of the local authorities and of the employer—and I want the hon. member for Sea Point and other hon. members on the Opposition side to assist me to impress more clearly on the employers that this is essential—that they too should make their contribution to the proper housing of their employees. Thus far, employers have been all too willing to employ people who have flocked in from the platteland without finding out whether they have a place to stay. They have simply exploited them for their labour and at night they have had to go and find shelter in the bush under a tree.

Or squat on the lawns.

To come back to the individual, there is an appeal I wish to make to our young people today. It is said that they are having a hard time of it. That is true. I shall deal in a moment with the factors which are making it difficult for them to obtain housing. There is an appeal I want to make to our young people of today, and it is that they, too, should bear in mind that they will want to set up house one day and have a roof over their heads. It is true that many of our young people make provision for almost everything. They buy a hi-fi system, a television set and a motor car. However, they do not consider that one day they will want to marry and have a roof over their family’s heads. When such a person marries and finds that there is no place readily available for him to stay, he must not blame the Government for the fact that there is no housing for him. Hon. members must assist us in inculcating a sense of responsibility in these people. I specifically want to draw the attention of our young people today to the State supported housing scheme launched by our department with prospective house-owners in mind. They can save at a building society of their own choice and in this way build up a lump sum. The interest is subsidized to the tune of 2% by the National Housing Fund and the total interest yield on the amount thus saved is deductible for purposes of income tax. Of course, when a person saving with a building society in terms of this scheme applies for a loan, he enjoys preference. A growing number of young people are making use of this. Since this scheme was introduced a few years ago, R3 million has been saved in this way. I think our young people should make great use of this opportunity to save so that they are able to obtain a roof over their heads when they marry.

It has been pointed out that there are bottlenecks. Of course there are bottlenecks. The first bottleneck we have in this regard is that in view of the increasing amounts the State is spending on housing we can do progressively less, owing to the rising costs to which the hon. member for Sea Point referred. Because young people and others are unable to obtain building loans, since building loans are simply unavailable, the situation today is that many of the Whites who would normally provide houses for themselves are approaching the State or placing their names on waiting lists. The fact is that in the past 85% of the Whites used to provide their own housing by using these financial channels. Today, however, the building societies simply lack the funds to come anywhere near meeting this need.

Another bottleneck is the extremely high interest rates and the extremely high building costs, which of course make it simply impossible for certain young people and people in the middle-income group to afford a loan. Therefore, even if one could obtain a loan, those people simply would not be able to negotiate it due to the high interest rates and building costs. This is a bottleneck.

Then, too, there is the sale of flats under sectional title on a large scale, and the fact that employers are to an increasing extent purchasing large blocks of flats for their own employees and then evicting the people who live there—often they are pensioners. We cannot deny this. In addition, of course, a large number of houses which previously were in the rental market are now being taken off the market as a result. This, too, is a bottleneck.

Then there is the aspect raised here yesterday by the hon. member for Sea Point—I think he touched on it again today—namely that the assistance provided nowadays by the National Housing Commission and the Community Development Council, which is sometimes linked to building societies, is inadequate. The amounts we make available in loans through the National Housing Commission, the Community Development Board and building societies is unrealistic because nowadays one cannot buy a house for R18 000 or even R23 000. The department is giving its attention to this matter. It is true that we have been getting very few applications in recent times. To me this is a very clear indication that the people are in fact unable to do anything with these amounts. I also wish to point out to the hon. member for Sea Point that I was speaking about the increase in the income limits yesterday—that the department does not only grant loans to people earning less than R650 per month. We have a scheme in terms of which a breadwinner earning no more than R720 per month may obtain a loan of up to R24 000 on a property costing no more than R27 000. The hon. member said that these amounts were too small. We shall have to look at the amounts, but the fact is that we are already making loans available to people earning more than R650 per month. The Community Development Board also grants loans of up to R25 000 to people who fall above this income group. The fact is, however, that nowadays R25 000 is no longer sufficient to purchase a house, particularly in certain areas.

I now come to another aspect and this is the question of township development and the bottlenecks that occur in that regard. The hon. member for Langlaagte dealt with this matter at length here and I agree with him that there is a tremendous delay in this regard. This is a real bottleneck in regard to the provision of housing. Township development involves a time-consuming process. However, on the basis of investigation by the Fouché Commission, a Housing Matters Policy Council and an Advisory Committee for Housing Matters have been established. These are statutory bodies which, inter alia, also identify bottlenecks in the field of housing on an ongoing basis. The Housing Matters Policy Council, with the aid of the provinces, is identifying bottlenecks and, with the aid of the provinces streamlining and simplifying the whole process as far as possible. Factors involved are, inter alia, the selection of township developers, the drawing up of uniform guides on the drafting of development plans and township development procedures. These are matters about which we have reached agreement and which are now in the hands of the provinces, which must give effect to them. The laying down of uniform and simplified norms and services in township development areas, which is something that the hon. member for Langlaagte would particularly like to see done, are matters which we have referred to the steering committee on uniform norms for services, and we have just received a report which will be considered at the next meeting of the advisory committee in March this year. For the most part we have had this done by way of investigations by the Building Research Institute of the CSIR, and I therefore think that we shall be in a position to expedite considerably the whole process of township development.

The hon. member for Sea Point referred to incentive measures, and I should like to say to him that we give constant attention to proposals that we can submit to the Department of Finance and to the Treasury concerning incentive measures we want introduced as regards the furnishing of assistance to individuals who provide their own housing, and also to employers that provide housing for their employees. For example, there is the tax rebate of R4 000 received by employers for every housing unit they provide for their employees. We feel that the amount of R4 000 is also too small and should be increased. This, too, is a matter to be considered by the Steyn Committee.

With leave, amendment and motion withdrawn.