I move—

Mr. Speaker, this is the last stage of the passage of the Railways and Harbours Appropriation Bill through this House and the last opportunity many of us will have of exchanging a few words with the hon. the Minister in connection with matters concerning his Department. The interesting thing we had during the course of the debate was the attempt on the part of the hon. the Minister not to state what his attitude was in regard to the Van Zyl Commission before some of his supporters had first tried to draw us on this side of the House to state our attitude. Of course that was a very obvious political manoeuvre and I am surprised that the hon. the Minister could have thought it would succeed, because it was obvious right from the beginning. But what is interesting is that after the hon. the Minister had stated his attitude an attempt was made to tag the majority report on to the Opposition, which also failed, as did the attempt of the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) who made a furious speech in which he discussed an attitude which nobody in this House had adopted. That kind of manoeuvre will not succeed, Sir. We think the supporters of the hon. the Minister should not so obviously try to play politics with these important matters. It is very clear what our attitude is. The Van Zyl Commission was appointed by the Minister to advise him in connection with a problem which was obviously giving him trouble. It was the Minister’s commission; they reported to him and it was for the Minister to decide what he was going to do with that report. As far as we were concerned we were interested onlookers at this attempt of the hon. the Minister to get himself out of the difficulty. And what happened? The commission reported and did not assist the Minister greatly because in the first place the report was a divided report. There was no unanimity. The minority report advanced very pertinent and strong arguments against the majority. On the other hand the majority consisted of people whose authority cannot easily be ignored, prominent businessmen and prominent railway officials. But the end of the matter was that the Minister practically ended where he had begun, namely, that he had to decide for himself what attitude to adopt in regard to the question of railway workshops. He was in that position before the appointment of the commission. It was always necessary, also before the commission was appointed, for the hon. the Minister to approach the problem on the basis that it was a question of principle, just as we on this side of the House have from the outset approached this problem on the basis that it was a matter of principle, a basis which we explained to the Minister in a preceding debate, a debate in which we stated our attitude clearly. Where we approach this matter on the basis that it is a matter of principle I do not think it is necessary for us to go into the question of whether the minority or the majority report should be accepted. There was never any necessity for such a commission. The Minister is the person who needed the advice, not us. We believe—and I repeat this—that South Africa is a State which is based on private initiative and that is why we believe that wherever possible private initiative should do the work of the State. We cannot accept that private undertakings generally are less efficient than Government undertakings. There may be exceptions which I shall deal with later. We cannot accept that because experience throughout the world has shown that the tendency is for private undertakings to be more efficient than Government undertakings. We have experience of that in all spheres in South Africa. We had the classic example in the Transvaal where it cost the State as much as £11,000 to construct one mile of road but when the road construction contract was handed out to a private undertaking, the costs dropped to £4,000 and so I can give you endless examples, Sir. Our attitude is that generally speaking private undertakings are more efficient than Government or public undertakings. The commission also found to that effect but then the hon. the Minister wanted to quarrel with us because we refused to accept this general statement.

Do you say that was a finding of the commission?

According to the Minister. Yesterday the hon. the Minister devoted a great portion of his speech to that.

Do you say the commission found that private undertakings were more efficient than Government undertakings?

No, I say the commission found, as the Minister also put it yesterday, that tenders had proved that private undertakings could not do the work as well as the Railways.

Not as well, or not at the same price?

It amounts to the same thing.

No, it does not amount to the same thing.

Mr. Speaker, it may be true in regard to specific tenders but the only point I want to make is that it does not follow that we accept as a general statement that private undertakings are of necessity less efficient than Government undertakings nor do I think the hon. the Minister accepts that. There are so many instances where that has not been proved that I do not think the hon. the Minister can judge without investigating the matter in further detail. For example, it is not clear from the commission’s report whether they took into consideration the fact that the Railways transport their raw materials to the workshops free of charge whereas private undertakings have to pay the Railways for such transportation. But what is particularly not clear is whether the profits which the Railways make from transporting the raw materials required by private undertakings were taken into account. That is one example where there is no clarity; there are many others. But let us leave the details at this stage and confine ourselves to the principle, and that is that we believe that in principle it is more sound for a country like South Africa to encourage private initiative where possible. However, one does not want to be dogmatic in these matters. Of course there are exceptions and we on this side of the House have stated those exceptions and they were also stated the other day by the Minister when he made his final recommendations for the future; point No. 8 of his heads of arguments that where it was necessary to perform a certain service in the public interest and where there was no private undertaking who wanted or could do it—and when I talk about “could do” I not only mean whether they are physically able to do it but also whether they can do it economically—it was the duty of the State to step into the breach and to provide that service. That was also how the Minister put it. If I remember correctly the hon. the Minister said that where private initiative could not continually and efficiently provide in the needs of the Railways he would let the railway workshops do the work. There we agree with him. But what I find interesting is this that after the appointment of the commission the members of which the Minister himself selected, the Minister does not accept their report but he draws certain conclusions as to the principle, conclusions which are based on sound United Party policy. That is what is so clear. If the hon. the Minister were to pay more attention to the attitude of this Opposition he will spare himself many commissions and a great deal of embarrassment. Hon. members opposite wanted to make out the case that we were opposed to the railway workshops and that we wanted the people who work there, particularly the artisans, to be dismissed; that we wanted to take the bread out of their mouths. That is really going too far politically. The United Party has and can have no such idea. Those railway workshops were established in terms of United Party policy because they had to do work which private initiative did not or could not do. During the war years, as the Minister correctly stated, they rendered invaluable services to South Africa. We are living in difficult times, Sir, and we may need them again. It would be short-sighted to do anything to make them less efficient or to do away with them. Not only that. Those people, particularly the artisans who work in the railway workshops, are the most alert, the most independent workers, in the employ of the South African Railways. They were the people who, since this Government took over, had to take the lead on numerous occasions, had to make themselves unpopular, had to stick out their necks, to force the Minister to improve the conditions of service of the whole staff. How could we possibly wish to see such valuable people, such independent people, people who are a credit to the independent spirit of our South African nation, people who have the courage to stand up to the Minister, not get their fair share? Every railwayman in South Africa ought to be grateful for the fact that there are such men like the artisans who work in the railway workshops to-day. This sort of argument will bring us nowhere, Sir.

What we wish to reiterate is that we agree with what the Minister has done. We agree with him that in future he will as far as possible limit the work done by these workshops to maintenance and repair jobs. We agree that they will not unnecessarily undertake new manufacturing processes. But we take it that where that is necessary, it will be done where private initiative is not available to do it or does not want to do it. We agree with all that.

With what do you not agree?

I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has been asleep so far. We do not agree that in principle public undertakings should be given preference. We say that in principle preference should be given to private initiative. When you do ask public undertakings to do anything you do so by way of exception on certain fixed bases, namely, that it is in the public interest that the work be done and that private initiative cannot do it or does not want to do it.

I just want to repeat. The statements made by the Minister are all very well, but it depends on how they can be interpreted in practice. The Minister knows to-day what principles we shall apply when we judge the manner in which he applies that statement of policy of his in practice. If that application does not comply with the principles laid down by us we shall criticize him and call him to order before the nation. But it does not follow that the wild political allegations made by the other side of the House are of any value whatsoever.

As far as incentive bonuses are concerned I think certain aspects in that regard should be discussed at a later stage. I personally am at the present moment trying to ascertain with great interest how this bonus system works. I hope we shall have an opportunity at a later stage of discussing it. One aspect in particular has come to my notice which I very much want to raise with the Minister immediately. The artisans in the employ of the Railways who are connected with the building industry have a complaint which seems to be justified. Their complaint is that where they are placed in charge of Native workers the achievements of that span are taken into account in determining whether they comply with the norm on which the artisans’ bonus is calculated. But the span of Natives themselves do not get a bonus. The artisan in charge of the span of Natives has to qualify for the bonus but the span of Natives, whose work makes it possible for him thus to qualify, do not get a bonus. It works this way in practice: Say, for example, a plasterer has to peg the foundations of a building, dig them and fill them with concrete. He has to build the initial foundation walls; he has to do everything which forms part of one process for the purposes of calculating the norm. The digging is done by a span of Natives. If that work is not finished within a certain period of time he is debited and he has to make up that time on the rest of the foundation work before he qualifies for the bonus. He “gets into debt”, to use their own term, in respect of his bonus. The Natives say to him: “Why should we work harder; why should we exert ourselves more for the sake of your bonus? We do not get it.” He on his part tries to egg those Natives on to work harder because his bonus is at stake, his earnings are at stake. The result is that there is friction between the White artisans and the span of Natives under his supervision. I think that is unreasonable and I think the Minister ought to give attention to that. I think it is unfair that a person’s bonus should depend on the extent to which people exert themselves, people who themselves do not fall under that bonus system. It is interesting to note that when that same span of Natives do other work, where a building artisan is not in charge but an ordinary foreman, they work on a daily paid basis and not under the bonus system. That is a source, and I think a justified source, of grievance on the part of building workers who have to do the kind of work where they are dependent for their production on the co-operation of Natives and the Natives themselves do not share in the bonus system. I think the Minister must either let the Natives share in the bonus system as well or he must not include that work in the norm which must be complied with in order to qualify for the bonus.

There are other points too which have been raised in this debate that have not been disposed of. One of the matters about which I am sorry we have not had greater clarity is that of railway pensioners. We have made some progress. The Minister said he was having discussions with the Minister of Finance. I got the impression that the Minister meant he was discussing the question of additional allowances to the pensioners with the Minister of Finance. But that was not quite clear, however. It is a sound principle, as far as allowances to statutory pensioners are concerned, to have uniformity in the Railway and other Government Departments. I came to the conclusion that that was what the Minister meant. I take it that that is right. But, Mr. Speaker, that is not enough. The complaint, the justified complaint of the pensioners is not that they want increased allowances which are subject to a means test. They think their basic pension is insufficient. They think it is unfair that where they are healthy and sufficiently keen to augment their income by doing private work, they should be penalized the moment their incomes exceed R150 per month. If you give them an allowance which is subject to a means test that allowance becomes a charity payment which the Railways makes to its pensioners. I do not think it is the duty of the Railways to make charity payments. It is the duty of the Railways to see to it that those people who have given a lifetime of good service to the Railways are properly rewarded in their old age. That is a responsibility which is unrelated to charity. That is why we are unhappy about the long-standing recommendation of the Superannuation Fund, supported by the actuaries as required by the regulations, that those pensioners should be given a 10 per cent increase, a recommendation which the Minister would perhaps have accepted under different circumstances but which he refused to accept at the time. The Minister took it upon himself to refuse that recommendation of the board, supported by the actuaries. The hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) (Mr. van Rensburg) tries to find an excuse by saying that the responsibility for pensions rests, in the first instance, with the board. During the course of the debate the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) said it was the responsibility not of the Minister but of the Superannuation Fund to make recommendations. Well, they have made the recommendation; it was supported by the actuaries as required by the regulations.

May I ask a question? Could the hon. member tell me when that recommendation was made?

If I remember correctly, two years ago. And the Minister refused it. But the recommendation still stands. The Minister took the responsibility upon himself of refusing it. Our argument is that circumstances have changed. The Railways are enjoying unprecedented prosperity at the moment. But that is not all. There is an inflationary tendency. People are finding it hard to make ends meet. The State and the Government, of which the Minister forms part, must assume some of the responsibility for the fact that an inflationary tendency is creeping over South Africa and that it is permanent. The important point is that the Government can, if it wishes, follow a deflationary policy. Why do they not do so? No Government in the world is doing that to-day. Throughout, a slow inflationary tendency is creeping over the world; there is a gradual decline in the value of money. Government pensioners have fixed incomes, incomes which are declining in value year by year for which the Government must as least be partly to blame. There rests a duty on the State to see to it that where that happens to its own pensioners, as a result of its own policy and its own attitude towards the value of money, those people are compensated, permanently compensated, compensation that will be incorporated in their basic pension and that will not be regarded as an allowance subject to a means test. Why should the person who is healthy, strong and willing to make a further contribution to the State in these days of a manpower shortage, be penalized for making a contribution in the shape of the manual work he performs by the sweat of his brow? I trust the consultations of the Minister with the Minister of Finance are not only based on the question of how to increase the temporary allowances which can be stopped any moment, but also on what can be done to increase the basic income of the pensioners.

Another question which I think has not been disposed of is the very interesting question raised by the hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood). He made out a very well-argued case in connection with the position of the Bantu workers on the South African Railways. The Minister repulsed those representations by saying that no representations had been made to him in that regard,

I did not say that.

What did the Minister say? I am sorry if I misunderstood him, but I understood him to say that. The hon. member for Berea specifically raised the question of the Native workers on the Railways. Apparently the Minister did not specifically reply to that. I think the Minister owes the House an answer. It is a very important matter. The question of how we treat these Native workers is one which is becoming of increasing importance to South Africa. Not only in their interests but in the interests of the White man’s position in South Africa. Unless we can build up an irrefutable moral case that our treatment of the Natives of South Africa is such that it is beyond any criticism our position in the world will become increasingly difficult. The Minister of Railways can play a very important role in that. The hon. member for Durban (Berea) has rendered a service to South Africa and to White South Africa when he raised that matter. I trust we shall get a clear statement from the Minister. I trust we shall get a clear reply from him on the question raised by the hon. member for Berea.

Nor do we have clarity in regard to the attitude the Railways are going to adopt as to how future transportation work is to be divided between the Railways and private undertakings. The Minister is deliberately vague about that. Two pertinent questions have been put to him to which I hope he will reply. What does it mean when there are rumours throughout the country that the Railways are hardening in their opposition to applications to the road transportation boards for permits to convey certain goods over a distance exceeding 300 miles; permits which were granted in the past in certain circumstances are now more strenuously opposed by the Railways. We are informed that the transportation boards are not giving in to the Railways but the Minister tells us that an increasing share of the increased traffic that will have to be conveyed in South Africa is available to private undertakings. Then we hear reports which are in direct conflict with that. The Minister owes us an explanation. As head of our Railways the Minister must tell us what his attitude is towards the question which is raised time and again that private hauliers ask that the same conditions should be granted to them as those granted to auxiliary hauliers. I do not want to go into that again; I raised it in a previous speech and the Minister did not react.

Mr. Speaker we have raised a number of matters during the various stages of this Budget debate to which the Minister has not reacted. I admit that many of them are matters of minor importance, but others are policy matters of fundamental importance such as what planning the Railway Administration is doing in regard to the future of our country in view of changing economic conditions. We have not had an adequate reply to that. I do not wish to repeat all the arguments but I want to say this: Where the Minister has omitted to reply to some questions in detail, some of which I have mentioned, where he has omitted to make broad statements of policy, which we have every right to expect of him, we only want him not to say again that too much time for the Railway Budget is allowed under the new Rules. Had he had enough time, Mr. Speaker, the Minister could have replied to all the questions. The only excuse I can make for him is that his time was perhaps too limited to give the necessary attention to all the points raised. That is why we forgive him provided he does not make that reproach again.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) said I made a furious speech yesterday. I was not furious. The hon. member bases that conclusion on his own feelings. I think my speech made him furious.

The hon. member for Yeoville performed an interesting egg-dance in connection with the Van Zyl Commission Report. Had the member known that the Van Zyl Commission Report would land him in the difficulty in which it did land him, I do not think he would ever have raised it. What do we get from the hon. member as far as the Van Zyl Commission Report is concerned? He repeated this morning that he agreed with the statement issued by the Minister in connection with this matter in which the Minister stated what the attitude of the Railways was to manufacturing departmentally. The hon. member agreed with that, but, says the hon. member, the Minister should remember that the South African governmental system is based on private initiative.

Do you deny that?

Be a little patient. Secondly, he says the Opposition cannot accept that private undertakings are less efficient than public undertakings. Thirdly, he says he believes in the principle that private undertakings should be encouraged. If the hon. member for Yeoville wants to be consistent, according to the statements he has made, then surely he must plead for the acceptance of the majority report of the Van Zyl Commission. [Interjections.] Wait a minute; the hon. member must listen. If the hon. member adopts the attitude that private undertakings are more efficient than public undertakings then he also adopts the attitude, which he did yesterday, that the requirements of the Railways can be manufactured cheaper by private undertakings than by the Railways. If he follows that line further and says he believes that private undertakings should be encouraged, then surely he must, if he wants to be at all consistent, be pleading for Railway requirements to be manufactured by private initiative. [Interjections.] What attitude does the hon. member adopt then?

The hon. member holds it against the hon. the Minister and myself for having misunderstood him yesterday. What did the hon. member say yesterday? He carried on like a cat on hot bricks in connection with this matter. He says: “We are neither happy nor satisfied with the approach the Minister and his Department adopt as to the role the Railways should play as a State organization in respect of the principle of private initiative.” What does the hon. member mean by that? He is neither happy nor satisfied. Then he says: “We of the United Party are bound to the principle of private enterprise.” Then he also says he agrees with the Minister to a very great extent …

[Inaudible.]

I don’t know why you always have to interrupt. Sir, I shall be very grateful if that hon. member will please keep his mouth shut for a moment. I am not addressing him; I am addressing the hon. member for Yeoville.

Order!

Then the hon. member for Yeoville says he agrees with the Minister that capital has been invested in the manufacturing industry of the Railways that cannot be left unproductive. He agrees that proper use should be made of the manpower. Then he says there is a socialistic outlook which worries him. What can the hon. member for Yeoville mean? What else can the hon. the Minister deduce from that but that the hon. member is worried about the fact that the Railways want to continue to manufacture departmentally? In spite of the clear statement by the hon. the Minister in regard to the attitude of the Railway Administration to this question of manufacturing departmentally the hon. member says they want an assurance that the Railways will not expand their manufacturing section. He concludes by saying that in connection with this matter the Railways should not develop a monopolistic outlook.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is trying to please both sides. The hon. member is soft-soaping industry and at the same time—and this is the hon. member’s difficulty—he is also soft-soaping the artisans of the S.A. Railways. That is the difficulty in which the hon. member finds himself. That is the difficulty in which that party mostly finds itself. They are always sitting between two stools. They always want to soft-soap conflicting interests. I think the hon. member should rather have left this matter alone than to have performed that egg-dance in connection with the Van Zyl Commission’s Report.

The hon. member is very concerned about private enterprise. Had the hon. member read the Van Zyl Commission’s Report properly he would have realized that he need not be worried about the development of private enterprise in South Africa. Had he read it properly he would have seen the comparison Mr. Bestbier makes in the minority report between the growth of public industries on the one hand and the growth of private industries on the other hand, he would have realized that the gross value of the turnover in respect of private industries had increased from R267,000,000 in 1935-6 to R2,557,000,000 in 1954-5, i.e., by 858 per cent. As against that the growth in the public sector, over the same period was from R28,000,000 to R194,000,000, an increase of 593 per cent. That clearly proves that private industries have expanded at a faster rate than public industries.

I say the trouble with the hon. member for Yeoville unfortunately is that he wants to soft-soap the Railways’ artisans at the same time as he soft-soaps large industrial interests.

The two do not conflict.

In this particular instance, they do. It was interesting to note that the hon. member for Yeoville was much clearer in the attitude he adopted to-day than he was yesterday after the hon. Minister had read a telegram to him which he had received from the Artisans’ Staff Association. That made the hon. member think seriously during the intervening night. He then decided: “No, come what may, we dare not throw the artisans overboard; I shall have to state this matter more clearly so that we do not find ourselves in an embarrassing position as far as they are concerned.”

The hon. member said there were certain matters which were not clear to him. What more must the Minister do to satisfy the hon. member as far as pensions are concerned? The hon. the Minister assured him that he was particularly well-disposed towards the Railway pensioner. We on this side gave him the same assurance. But, unlike the hon. member for Yeoville, we on this side are not prepared to make a political football of the Railway pensioners. We show our sympathy towards the Railway pensioner—as the hon. Minister has proved it over the years—without trying to make political capital out of it. What more must the hon. the Minister do in the eyes of the hon. member for Yeoville than he has already done in connection with this matter? I wish the hon. member for Yeoville will show me the courtesy of not talking when I am addressing him. I don’t do that to him.

What further assurance does the hon. member for Yeoville want from the hon. the Minister? The hon. the Minister has assured him of his sympathy. Surely the hon. member for Yeoville knows that the Minister has in the past proved his sympathy for the pensioners in a tangible way. He assured the hon. member that he had certain improvements in mind but that he was still having consultations in that connection. Why is the hon. member for Yeoville always harping on this subject? Mr. Speaker, I shall tell you why he does it. He wants to make a political football of the railway pensioner. He wants to go outside this House and tell the pensioners that it was because he had continually pleaded with the Minister that the Minister had eventually agreed to make certain improvements to their pensions. That is the object of the hon. member for Yeoville.

The hon. member complained and said the hon. the Minister had not replied to certain points. The hon. member for Yeoville must really not hold this against me. I think the Opposition have raised certain matters about which they were so uninformed that it was not worth while replying to them. If they want to acquaint themselves with what is happening in the Railway Administration everything is at their disposal. They only have to study it. Nor do I think it is necessary for the hon. the Minister to reply to the stupidities of the Opposition.

I want to tell the hon. member for Yeoville that I think there are a few matters in connection with which we too need clarity, such as what the attitude of the Opposition is in connection with certain aspects of Railway policy. As far as the railway funds are concerned do they want the funds to be in a sound financial position? Must adequate provision be made in the Renewals Fund for the replacement of certain capital assets? Must provision be made in the Betterment Fund for improvements and additions to existing assets? Must the Rates Equalization Fund be improved. They must state their attitude in connection with these matters in clear terms. They will place their hands on their hearts and say they are in favour of railway funds being strengthened. But if they say that, they must stop criticizing the Minister and saying that he has taken far too much money out of the pockets of the railway users than he required to run the Railways, as the hon. member for Yeoville said. Then they must stop complaining about the tariff increase which was made in 1962. Let us just see what the position is in connection with the funds since the tariff increase of 1962—and I admit also as a result of the increased traffic that was offered because of the increase in the economic development of the country and also as a result of the greater efficiency the Railways have attained. All that has resulted in a surplus of R12,000,000 in 1963 and a surplus of R18,500,000 in 1964 and an estimated surplus of R10,000,000 for 1965, a total of R40,500,000. Let us see what has been done with these surpluses. If the estimated surplus of 1965 is added, or transferred to the Rates Equalization Fund at the end of the financial year, the Rates Equalization Fund will have been strengthened by the three Budgets, since 1963, by nearly R25,000,000. I want to know from the hon. member for Yeoville whether he is against that fund being approximately R50,000,000 strong at the moment? No, he is not against it, but he would not reply. If they are against it why did they not tell the previous hon. member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) that he was talking nonsense when he said time and again in this House that the Rates Equalization Fund should be at least R60,000,000 strong?

You agreed.

Of course I agreed but do you agree?

I have no objection.

But they object to the tariff increase, they object to the big surpluses the Minister produces, but those surpluses are used to strengthen these essential funds of the Railways. Take the Betterment Fund. As a result of the surpluses it was possible to pour R15,600,000 into the Betterment Fund. Are they against that? The hon. member does not want to reply. If they are against it why did they criticize the Minister when he used the Loan Fund to enable the Betterment Fund to cover the costs of improvements and additions to existing assets? Did the hon. members agree with the previous hon. member for Wynberg when he said two years ago that the Betterment Fund was insolvent? Let the hon. member for Turffontein tell me because he apparently has more courage than the hon. member for Yeoville. Did he agree with the then hon. member for Wynberg?

Make your speech and I shall reply.

I come to the Renewals Fund. As a result of the surpluses R6,000,000 could be paid into the Renewals Fund. Do the Opposition object to that? The hon. member for Orange Grove referred to the Superannuation Fund. A special amount of R3,200,000 has been earmarked to reduce the shortage in the Pension Fund. Do the Opposition object to that? No, they do not, because the hon. member for Orange Grove complains about the shortage in the Pension Fund. But the hon. member for Orange Grove has not got the vaguest notion why there is a shortage in the Pension Fund, yet he complains about it. You see, Sir, if we close this financial year with a surplus of R10,000,000 there will have been a total surplus of R40,500,000 over the three financial years and as a result of those surpluses it was possible to contribute R50,000,000 to the Railway funds. I challenge hon. members opposite to get up and to state that they are opposed to the Railway funds being strengthened. If they are against it they must tell us. Then we shall at least know where they stand in connection with this matter and then the country will also know and the railway workers will know where the United Party stand. If they are against those funds being strengthened the country and the railway workers will know that the Opposition do not wish the Railways to be administered on a sound financial basis. If, however, they accept that it is necessary to strengthen the funds, and I maintain that they do accept it …

In that case your questions have surely been unnecessary.

If they accept it, and they will of course get up and say they do, then the hon. member for Yeoville must not accuse the Minister of having placed an unnecessary burden on the shoulders of the railway users by having taken more out of their pockets than was necessary to administer the Railways. The Opposition cannot blow hot and cold at the same time. They cannot object to the surpluses on the one hand and say on the other hand it is essential that the Railway funds be strengthened. We need a good Opposition and for that reason it is essential for the Opposition to have clarity in their own minds on this important matter and not always argue in a roundabout way during a railway debate. They make a farce of the Railway Budget debate, Sir. Yesterday I put certain questions to the courteous and polite hon. member for Yeoville who is always talking to members behind him and as can be expected from a courteous and polite gentleman he assured me he would reply to me. He had the opportunity to-day of replying but he did not do so. I asked him certain questions in connection with the Opposition’s attitude in respect of private road transportation undertakings and their competition with the Railways.

I did deal with that.

The hon. member knows I put certain questions to him and that he did not reply to them. That is another matter in regard to which the Opposition have failed to tell the country and the Minister precisely what their attitude is. We can continue in this way but I want to accuse the Opposition to-day that they are making a farce of the Railway Budget debate in this House because they are not clear in their own minds as to what their own Railway policy is. There is no such thing. The hon. member for Turffontein may laugh but it is a very embarrassing little laugh. He knows they have no policy in connection with the most important Railway matters. The catastrophe has now befallen them that South Africa is so fortunate as to have the services of an outstanding and efficient Minister of Railways. They may perhaps still have succeeded in hiding the fact that they have no policy had we had a poor Minister on this side but we have an outstanding Minister. I want to tell you to-day, Sir, that there are many countries in the world who envy South Africa, countries which are faced with great financial problems and with tremendous financial shortages as far as their railways are concerned, countries which are envious of us because we have a Minister of Railways who, in the times in which we are living, is administering the Railways so well and so efficiently.

If one single factor has become clear in the course of these debates, it is that it is clear that as far as the Government benches are concerned, they must look for a new chairman of their transport group. That fact is clear and it has been revealed again in the speech of the hon. member that we have just had to listen to, a member who professes to be chairman of the Railway group of the party opposite, chairman of the Select Committee on Railways. What was the speech we had to listen to? On the motion to go into Committee of Supply he made a speech which was a form of recitation from the General-Manager’s Report; on the second reading of this Bill he makes a speech dealing with points which were never even raised in the course of this debate, because he was caught on the wrong leg in the motion to go into Committee of Supply. Let me take one or two facts. He asks: What is the Opposition’s policy in regard to the established Railway funds? He poses the question: Do we want to see those funds in a healthy position? In the same breath, a couple of paragraphs later in his speech, he says that the former member for Wynberg (Mr. Russell) wanted to see the Rates Equalization Fund brought up to a figure as high as R60,000,000. What is the hon. member arguing about? Does the hon. member not know what has happened during these debates for the past few years? He should know that one of the legs of the amendments moved by the Opposition in former years dealt with the strengthening of the funds. But who raised the Rates Equalization Fund three or four years ago when it was bankrupt? Who brought the Betterment Fund to the low level that it had never reached before? The present Minister with his policy. The hon. member forgets that and presents an atmosphere of political purity here in respect of Railway matters.

And you speak about purity!

You see, Sir, the hon. member comes along and attempts to raise political issues in the course of these discussions. He was bitterly disappointed that the question of the Van Zyl Commission was not raised by this side of the House and not touched on by his Minister in his Budget Speech. Obviously it was not mentioned by the Minister in his Budget Speech as a political trap, because he had to get the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) to raise the issue, thinking of one thing only, the votes of the 14,000 artisans employed in the Railway Workshops. But the hon. member was bitterly disappointed that there was no statement from this side of the House that we accept the majority report.

The hon. member for Yeoville put the question to me and I then responded.

Why was an important matter such as the Van Zyl Commission Report not dealt with by the Minister in the course of his speech? The hon. member should have told us why it was never raised by the hon. Minister. It is a very important matter and industry wanted to know what was the Minister’s policy in regard to the findings of the Van Zyl Commission, the majority report and the minority report. If there was a responsible approach to the matter and not a political approach, one would have expected the Minister to deal with the matter in his Budget Speech, after which an objective debate could have followed on the issues at stake. It was only after we put these things to the Minister that he then got up and gave his reasons for rejecting the majority report. Now the hon. gentleman comes along and attempts again to make political capital out of it and to gain the sympathy of the artisans by creating the impression that this side of the House wants the artisans to be put out of their job in the Railway Workshops by revolving his argument around, a statement made by my hon. colleague that he cannot accept that private initiative is less efficient than a state undertaking. That is a sound approach, and the Minister accepts it, because if the hon. the Minister did not accept the principle, he would say: I am not going to let private initiative manufacture my railway coaches, I am not going to let private initiative manufacture my electric locomotives because I can do it more efficiently in my own workshops and I can do it cheaper. But will the Minister say that? Of course he does not say that, because he recognizes that private initiative can play a very important part in these matters as far as the Railway Workshops are concerned. That is the issue, but the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) attempts to make a bit of political capital out of an issue after he was bitterly disappointed that he could not do so in the second-reading debate.

But now let us come to the question of the railway pensioners. We have had nothing constructive, or a word of sympathy from the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) about the railway pensioners. The only consolation that the Railway pensioners got out of this debate is the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) saying that they have got the sympathy of the Minister. They had the sympathy of the Minister three years ago. Since he has been Minister of Railways, he has always claimed that he is looking after the interests of the staff and that he is sympathetically inclined towards the pensioners. But the blunt fact of the matter is that that sympathy never is displayed in a practical fashion until the Opposition presses and forces him to do something about it. I remember last year’s second-reading debate when the Minister denied that he could give the railwaymen an increase and he said that it was against the interests of the country, and only after the debates and the motions moved by this side of the House, four months later he did give them an increase because he had no other alternative. I want to remind the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) of what the Minister said in this House about the interests of Railway pensioners, because I think the Minister still owes an answer to the railway pensioners and to the House in regard to a statement that he made here on 20 March 1962. Perhaps the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has forgotten this. Let us read what the Minister said two years ago when replying to the debate on 20 March 1962. I am going to read it in full because I do not want the Minister to say that I am quoting out of context. He said this—(Col. 2920).

The hon. member wanted some explanation as to why I had refused to accept the majority recommendation of the Superannuation Fund Committee. I can only say that there was very strong opposition from certain staff organizations when those recommendations were made. Instead of causing general dissatisfaction—there would have been considerable dissatisfaction had those recommendations been adopted. I decided not to adopt them. Those recommendations were in regard to the 10 per cent increase in pensions and also in connection with the question as to whether servants should be allowed to pay enhanced contributions to make up for the seven years of their retirement. But there was no unanimity. There was considerable opposition from certain staff organizations …

In spite of the majority report, so the opposition was based on a minority opinion—

And then the Minister made this important statement—

The point is that they dealt with it, and having dealt with it, have they made any recommendations, and having made a further recommendation, has the Minister been prepared to accept it? Because whether or not the pensioner gets his relief does not rest on the sympathy of the hon. Minister. They do not want sympathy, they want practical help in order that they can maintain a decent standard of living. That is what they are looking for. I am surprised that the hon. member for Bloemfontein (East) has not the courage in the House even advocating that relief should be given to the Railway pensioners. All he can say is that the Minister has got sympathy.

Now I want to come to one or two other matters of practical interest in respect of the commercial services of the Railway Administration. The first question I want to refer to is the question of the advertising services conducted by the Railways. There was a statement in the General Manager’s Report that a new policy is now being followed and where it comes to advertisers making application to the Administration for advertising space on hoardings, there is a change in the policy. It is well known that most of the hoardings of the railway administration are in a very dilapidated condition, but the principle is now being followed that where advertisers are prepared to replace those hoardings at their own expense, not at Railway expense, the administration will permit them to do so. What disturbs me is the extension of this policy as opposed to the principles of the Ribbon Development Act. We now find along all these express ways, all the railway property, the erection of vast hoarding signs which are in fact defeating the very object of the Roads and Ribbon Development Act. and it looks like a form of tickey-grabbing for revenue purposes by the Railway Administration. I would like to ask the hon. Minister whether he can give a clear indication in this debate to-day as to what is his attitude and what is the policy being followed of granting, apparently with no limitation whatsoever, a wide licence for the erection of these hoardings provided that the advertisers themselves are prepared to pay for the hoardings.

There is another important matter which also falls under the question of commercial development, and I refer to the promotion work that is being done by the Railway Administration’s Department of Tourism. Very important aspects arise now since the appointment of a special Ministry of Tourism. I find, e.g., that there is a clash of information between the information given by the General Manager’s Report in respect of the number of tourists coming to South Africa for holiday purposes as opposed to the figures for example supplied by the Department of Tourism, the Tourist Corporation. There is no relation at all, and they give two independent figures, because the General Manager’s Report quotes a figure of 158,000 tourists and 183,000 visitors to the Republic, not handled entirely by the Administration (I understand it is a globular figure) whereas in the Tourist Corporation’s Report the figure is given at 210,000 approximately. There is a very large difference between the figures quoted.

The one is for the calendar year and the other for the financial year.

Perhaps the Minister can clarify the issue. My point is that it is known that in the past the tourist services of the Railway Administration worked very closely with the Tourist Corporation, and the Minister knows that in a Bill now before the House large numbers of functions of the Tourist Corporation are taken over by the Department of Tourism, particularly as far as the overseas offices of the Tourist Department are concerned. What is going to be the relationship now and how is it going to operate? It is clear that the tourist services conducted by the Administration itself form a large percentage of the tourist attractions offered to any potential visitor from overseas who wishes to come to the Republic for holiday purposes. We have also the aspect of the inquiry into the hotel industry. I want to ask the hon. Minister now whether the time has not arrived where good United Party policy should again be applied, and that is the development of terminal hotels by the Railway Administration itself. The Minister will remember that that was thrown overboard. That was the great vision of a former United Party Minister of Railways who foresaw the possibilities of tourism in the postwar period, and plans were made in that respect. Now with all the surpluses we have and all the capital development, this matter should receive serious consideration. The General Manager himself stresses the potential business of tourism as far as railway finances are concerned, and I want to put it specifically to the Minister: Has the time not arrived when consideration should be given to the construction of first-class tourist terminal hotels by the Railway Administration, to be conducted and managed by them? I put that thought to the Minister because I do believe that it is an interesting one.

There is another matter. During the course of the debate it has already been referred to by the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan), but year after year we in the Select Committee are faced with the issue of the losses shown by Railway book-stalls. There has been a shift of management of these bookstalls from time to time; different systems have been applied. But I want to ask the hon. Minister if this is not a case where the whole question of facilities to the public, offered at stations in the way of book-stalls, should be handed entirely to private enterprise. There are companies which would be prepared to do it, and instead of having the dirty little barbwire windows that one looks at at the Railway stations with a few James Bond soft-backs and a couple of other things, so that one has to struggle to find any decent reading matter (which is virtually unobtainable at the Railway stations) as opposed to the tendency one sees in the book trade in private initiative to-day where there are beautiful displays made of books with easy accessibility so that one can exercise one’s judgment and purchase a book. Because the potential must be quite considerable if properly exploited, I would like to ask the hon. Minister as a matter of policy: Has the time not arrived when the whole question of the management of the book-stalls should be given over to private contract and be placed in the hands of private enterprise and then exploited to the fullest benefit on a licence basis in a similar way as is being done now in respect of certain catering establishments?

There is yet another matter I want to put to the hon. Minister. It has been brought to his notice on former occasions by this side of the House, and that is the question of air freight as far as the internal services are concerned. Mr. Speaker, when one looks at the figures and the expansion of the volume of traffic and the manner in which it could be exploited, one feels that this also should receive attention. The parcel services as far as the Railways are concerned, are now becoming profitable, highly profitable. Has the time not arrived that we should have in a sense an around-the-Republic air-freight service for quick delivery of articles, not only in the way of light stuff but also heavy stuff. The ton-miles now shown and the increases which on the last book year are over 50 per cent as far as the internal services are concerned, the freight-ton-mileage, seem to indicate that by the exploitation and the opening up of such a service, even a greater volume of traffic would be offered. I would like to ask the hon. Minister if he could give some consideration to this matter, because I believe that such a proposition is well supported by industry and commerce.

Whilst discussing airways, there is the other important matter and that is the over-border services and travel along the West Coast route. The Minister will recall that earlier in the Session, I put a question on the Order Paper in regard to the pooling arrangements, and he stated in reply to me where I asked him whether he was making any new pool arrangements with any other airlines, that that was under consideration but that no agreement had been arrived at. I want to direct the Minister’s attention to a report which appeared in The Star in November of last year, a report to the effect that a pool arrangement had in fact been arrived at with the Portuguese Airlines and that under that arrangement the Portuguese Airlines would be entitled to uplift traffic and put down traffic and so will the South African Airways at Lisbon. It is an important issue in the light of developments in Africa and the threat now to stop foreign airlines en route to South Africa from using the intermediate traffic that is offered. I think the question is such a broad one, with such important ramifications to the future of our overseas traffic as far as the South African Airways are concerned, that I hope that the hon. Minister will be in a position to make some statement in that regard.

There is one other matter to which I want to refer. I listened attentively to the Minister’s reply on the question of dieselization yesterday, and as I understand it he said that the introduction of dieselization to East London and the proposed purchase of a further R30,000,000 of diesel traction, and it is not likely to stop at that; we know these figures are only estimates and inevitably an additional amount is added—is of a temporary nature.

Temporary?

Yes, the Minister said that it was envisaged that in future the line would be electrified. I would like clarity about it.

I want to quote to the Minister the statements made by the General Manager in regard to dieselization which was investigated by a committee appointed in 1954, because I think what he said here is most important in the light of what we are asked to approve here in regard to this extension of dieselization. I quote—

The Minister has asked for approval in this Budget for the amount of R30,000,000 to purchase diesel locomotives, and for R840,000 for the establishment of maintenance workshops in East London, but where is it going to end? I understood the Minister to say yesterday that this was of a temporary nature. Is it of a temporary nature in respect of this one line?

I said nothing about its being temporary.

I think the Minister said it was in the transitional period.

That is the general policy, not in respect of one particular line only.

Must we accept that this is a transitional policy while the lines are being electrified? One is in a difficult position. We know what happens with this Minister. It all comes back to the question of planning. This is the first indication of the permanent introduction of diesel traction in the Republic.

Nonsense. We have had it in South West Africa for a long time.

But I am talking about the Republic.

We have had it in the Republic for a long time also. The hon. member should study his brief. There have been 54 diesel locomotives in operation for the last couple of years in the Republic.

I raised it during the course of the debate and the Minister did not reply to it. I went to South West Africa and I visited the workshops and I saw what they were servicing.

I am not speaking about South West now. I say there have been 57 diesel locomotives in operation on the lines in the Republic for the last four or five years.

Of course we know that diesels are required for shunting.

No, not for shunting but for main line haulage.

We know it has not been the general policy to use diesels for train haulage on all systems in the Republic. This is now called an interim step. The Minister should have said yesterday that it is now his policy to introduce diesel traction over and above steam traction, but that is not what he said yesterday. The impression he created was that this was merely a transitional measure, until the Railways were fully electrified. That brings me back to my point. The Minister agreed with me. He said it made our transport system more vulnerable. What I am trying to get from him is what in fact is his policy in this regard? Is this merely a temporary measure? Can the Minister clarify it for us so that we know what the position will be in future, because certainly there is no clear statement of policy in this regard.

Finally, I want to say that my impression of these debates is that it has revealed a complete lack of vision. We have attempted in the course of these discussions to come with an objective approach. I know that the Minister is a bit of a romanticist. He would not be Minister of Railways if he were not. I know that the Minister gets a thrill when he sees railway lines streaking into the distance, but he must also think of the human material and the results on future generations in South Africa. He must think of these things as well and they cannot be thought of unless there is proper and adequate planning in the Railways. We try to make substantive and objective suggestions, and it is a matter for regret that hon. members opposite prefer to play politics rather than to take an objective approach to the transport problems of the country.

The hon. member for Yeoville (Mr. S. J. M. Steyn) took 15 minutes to tell the House that he was in complete agreement with me regarding the report of the Van Zyl Committee. I do not know why it was necessary for him to deal with this matter at such length. Apparently he was rather afraid he had created the impression yesterday that his party was in sympathy with the majority report, but if he agreed with me then it was only necessary for him to say one or two words in this regard, and not to discuss the matter for 15 minutes. He said that the commission had made certain general statements and that the United Party could not accept the general statement that private entrepreneurs might be less efficient than a State undertaking. But that was never the point at issue. Nobody ever mentioned the efficiency of private enterprise in comparison with that of the railway workshops. The entire investigation dealt with the question of costs and whether it would be more advantageous to the Railways to buy these articles from private industries or to manufacture those articles themselves. That was the point at issue. The finding of the committee was actually that the Railways could manufacture goods more cheaply than the private industrialist could deliver—not manufacture—those goods to the Railways, because the private industrialist has to make provision for his profit. The inquiry dealt with the cost of the article and not with efficiency. I have never contended, and neither has my Department contended, that a State undertaking is far more efficient than private industry. That has nothing to do with the matter at all. The hon. member said that it was healthier for a State like South Africa to encourage private enterprise. We agree. We have never differed in that regard. I tried to show yesterday how the Railways are encouraging private enterprise and that the result of this encouragement has been the number of industries that have come into being. I said that the Railways were responsible for the fact that we to-day have industries in South Africa manufacturing 90 per cent of our Railway requirements, whereas under the Government of hon. members opposite 90 per cent of these requirements had to be imported. But that encouragement has taken place under this Government.

We have given even more preference than that laid down by the Government. Hon. members know that it is laid down that a 10 per cent preference must be given in respect of articles manufactured in South Africa. I went out of my way in some cases to give local industries 20 per cent preference in order to encourage them and so that South Africa could supply her own requirements. So we do not differ in this regard. The hon. member should actually be very grateful that the Minister and the Administration have given so much encouragement to private enterprise. He said that my conclusion was based on sound United Party policy, but their policy was to import and not manufacture in South Africa. They gave very little encouragement to the establishment of private industries for the manufacture of Railway requirements. My conclusion, therefore, was not based on their policy but on sound National Party policy. They do not agree that in principle, preference should be given to State undertakings. I do not know what they mean by that and I do not know what sort of preference this is. I say that certain preferences must be given to State undertakings, for example in connection with Road Transport, to protect State undertakings. But besides this the hon. member must remember that the Railways have invested more than R24,000,000 in capital in their workshops. As I have already said, thousands of workers are dependent upon the Railways for their daily bread. I said that we would not expand our manufacturing activities unnecessarily. On the contrary, we are trying to encourage private industry to manufacture these requirements, but then it must be done economically and private industry must not exploit us, something which unfortunately has happened in the past. Where a certain industry has had a monopoly, it has already tried to exploit the Railways, and that will not be tolerated. That is the general policy with which apparently the hon. member agrees.

As far as the artisan in the building industry who has a complaint in connection with the system of bonus payments is concerned, I just want to say that the bonus schemes are always drawn up in consultation with and with the approval of the trade unions. If the artisans want any change to be brought about, they must contact their trade unions. This is never done onesidedly but in co-operation and after consultation with the trade union concerned.

As far as pensioners are concerned, the hon. member has said that basic pensions are inadequate and he wants them to be increased. I have stated repeatedly over the years that the Superannuation Fund is a contributory fund and must be actuarially sound. This fund is controlled by the staff themselves. They have an equal number of representatives on the Superannuation Fund Board as the Administration has. This fund is controlled by the staff themselves; it is their fund. One cannot impose burdens on a fund which that fund cannot bear. It would be improper of the Minister to instruct the body controlling that fund to increase pensions by 10 or 20 per cent.

And if they want to do so?

No, they do not want to do so. The hon. member should have listened to my reply. I have said that he has not studied his subject. Three years ago I gave my reply in connection with the recommendation in regard to the 10 per cent. The recommendation was made in 1961 and I gave my decision in 1962. Good reasons existed for my not accepting it. Firstly, there were different suggestions. Two of the trade unions objected to these recommendations which did not deal only with a 10 per cent increase. There was the question of conflicting interests. Besides this it would have meant the fund being considerably weakened. This took place just before the consolidation of the cost of living allowances in basic salaries and would have imposed an additional burden on the fund. I took the right decision at that time in not accepting that recommendation. But since that time great changes have taken place. Consolidation and rationalization have been introduced. This has placed additional burdens on the fund because pensions have been increased. Why must the hon. member go back to 1961? That I cannot understand.

It is unfair to say that it is the responsibility of the workers and that it is their fund if at the same time the hon. the Minister says that he has the right to refuse their requests.

I have the right to decide, but it is the workers’ fund. It is their contributory fund and they control it. but I take the responsibility for any decision that is arrived at, and that is also the way it should be. I want to prove that the hon. member has not studied his subject. He said that the compensation, in other words these allowances, should be incorporated in basic pensions. If he had given a little attention to this matter he would have realized that this is quite impracticable. This allowance is paid out of revenue; the pension is paid out of the Superannuation Fund which is a contributory fund. How can one consolidate the two? Who will then be responsible?

It is a temporary allowance that can be done away with.

There is no other way in which to pay it. It has never been said that that allowance will be done away with and that has never been the complaint.

But it does fall away if a pensioner’s income is more than R70 a month.

That is something quite different. That is where the means test comes in. The hon. member must then be in favour of the abolition of the means test. Is that what he wants?

Yes.

The means test is applied to people earning more than R1,800 a year. The idea of the allowance was chiefly to assist people receiving small pensions. If the means test is abolished it will mean that even an official receiving a pension of R3,000 a year should also receive that allowance. Then the hon. member must also argue that the means test should be abolished in regard to old age pensions because the principle in that regard is the same. [Interjection.] The means test is applied according to a person’s income, so the hon. member must then use the same argument in connection with old age pensions. The hon. member has already said that the means test must be abolished.

Not for the people who are affected here.

Everyone receiving more than R1,800 a year is affected thereby. That is the income that is allowed [Interjections.] The hon. member jumps from one point to another in such quick succession that one does not know where one is with him. One can never pin the hon. member down in regard to any point. He is too smooth and slippery for that.

He is two-faced!

The question is whether the Superannuation Fund Board will not reconsider the matter?

No, because after this the cost of living allowance was consolidated and this changed the picture completely. The Board itself decided not to reconsider the matter because the position changed completely on consolidation. The Board was at liberty to reconsider the whole matter. It was not necessary to give them terms of reference of this nature, but as a result of consolidation and other circumstances they decided not to reconsider the matter.

Bantu wages were improved on rationalization. It is not my intention generally to increase wages at this stage, whether they be wages for Bantu or for Whites. I cannot increase wages every year. A certain period of time first has to elapse.

I have dealt with the points raised by the hon. member for Turffontein, in reply to the hon. member for Yeoville. In regard to the advertising hoardings which the Railways display on the national roads, the Railways are also subject to the provisions of the Ribbon Development Act and where they contravene the provisions of that Act they will have to remove the hoardings. Those instructions have been given.

There is no overlapping between the Railways Tourist Department and the Tourist Corporation. The Railways Tourist Department is merely concerned with advertising the services that the Railways can render to the public; they do not advertise S.A.’s attractions. An inquiry was made a few years ago. A Committee was appointed to see whether there was any overlapping, and they found that there was none. There is a clear demarcation between the activities of the two bodies. I will certainly not embark on a scheme to build tourist hotels. That matter was thoroughly thrashed out when my colleague was Minister of Railways. The Railways are not hotelkeepers. To run hotels at a loss would certainly not be in accordance with business principles.

Why should they be run at a loss?

Because there are very few luxury hotels to-day that are not run at a loss.

It is the policy that bookstalls should be handed over to private enterprise, but we have to look after the staff working in those bookstalls, and consequently it is a gradual process. In regard to the air freight services, I can give the hon. member the assurance that where freight is offered we will extend the service.

The hon. member spoke about the pool arrangement. There is a difference between a pool arrangement and an air agreement. There is no pool arrangement with the Portuguese. Pools are arranged on an operational basis between the operators. That is in regard to the pooling of revenue and expenditure, but it is quite a different thing from an air agreement, which provides for traffic rights. There is an air agreement with Portugal whereby they give S.A. Airways certain traffic rights and we give the Portuguese Airways certain traffic rights, but there is no pool arrangement.

In regard to diesels, I have stated my policy clearly in the past. The hon. member should listen when I talk, or try to understand what I say. I try to speak as clearly as I can. I have told him repeatedly that the policy is that diesels would be used in the transitional period from steam to electricity. I said that fully in my reply yesterday. I do not know what more he wants to know. In the transitional period we will use diesels, and we might even use more diesels in future, on any system and on any line. It is the general policy of the Railways. Where steam locomotives cannot cope with the traffic any more and where electrification is not justified, diesels will be used during the transitional period until such time as electrification is justified. Now is that quite clear? Diesel traction has been in operation in the Republic since 1957. In 1957 57 diesels were purchased. They have been running on the Witbank line, and for several years on the Volksrus-Union section, and they are running from Noupoort to De Aar. Did the hon. member not even know that? He said this is the first time diesels will be used in the Republic. Why does he make such foolish statements? The hon. member talks and talks, and half the time he does not know himself what he is talking about.

In the light of what you have just said, must we understand that the acquisition of further steam traction will now be stopped?

Steam locomotives are not being built any more. Did not the hon. member listen when I told him that yesterday? Only diesels and electric units are being built to-day. The North British Locomotive Company has gone into liquidation, and the other locomotive manufacturing companies have switched over to diesels and electric units. So consequently we are compelled to buy either diesel or electric units, and where it is absolutely essential for diesels to be purchased during the transitional period we will have to do so. Is that quite clear to the hon. member now? I hope he will not make the same speech again next year. If he does I will just refer him to Hansard. Sir, I may say that there is one thing which always amuses me and that is that the hon. member on behalf of his party always takes the credit for the good things done by this Government. He says that as a result of their pressure on the Government wages have been increased and concessions have been made to pensioners. If they can evolve such wonderful schemes, how is it that they are steadily becoming weaker in South Africa? Why is it that the U.P. becomes steadily weaker, and that they even have less hope of coming into power now than they had 15 years ago? I can only say that when an Opposition claims the credit for the good things done by a Government, it merely indicates how bankrupt they are.

I move—

1. (1) immediately bring free and adequate education within the reach of, and make it compulsory for, all the children of South Africa;
2. (2) afford all children having special ability and merit and whose parents cannot afford to send them to higher institutions, an opportunity of receiving, by means of Government aid, suitable higher education or training; and
3. (3) through the utilization of the radio, of educational television services and the establishment of local radio stations and other means of communication everywhere, make possible a huge campaign for adult education, for the purpose of—
   1. (a) affording all the peoples of our country a share in the highest possible Western and modern standards of living and comfort as soon as possible;
   2. (b) eliminating as soon and as far as possible the wide and dangerous gap existing in the country between the rich and the poor and between the privileged and the unprivileged; and
   3. (c) creating a positive spirit of friendship and co-operation amongst the various races and population groups in the country.

I do not think it is necessary for me to read out the motion. All I want to do at this stage is to draw attention to the fact that this is not a motion which is confined to education only, but that I am asking for a comprehensive plan of national reconstruction which will cover the entire field of our human problems in South Africa.

We Whites in South Africa find ourselves in a position to-day where we are seeking a solution for our difficulties with a greater sense of urgency than we have ever done before. In this process a large variety of plans has been put forward in recent years, plans which are offered to the public as “solutions”. In moving this motion it is not my intention to examine and to judge the merits of any of these plans. After examining all the various directions and the various plans offered as solutions, one is still faced with one unalterable fact, and that is that whatever policy we follow and whatever constitutional adjustments we make, in whichever areas Whites live in South Africa, there will at least be as many non-Whites living in the same areas for all time to come. And if, as a result of some partitioning plan or other, the non-Whites living in those areas are not Blacks, they will be Brown people or people of Indian origin. However small or however big we may make South Africa, we can never get away from the fundamental fact that wherever the White man lives, other races will also continue to live there. In other words, however much the numerical ratio may change of be changed, Whites and non-Whites are destined to remain interwoven here in a relationship of permanent interdependence. If therefore there are such things as logic and common sense in politics at all, then logic and common sense demand that none of these interdependent groups should labour under the delusion that it will be able to maintain itself as the only privileged aristocracy, dispensing favours to itself which it withholds from others by legislation or other means. If it should try to do so, there can be no doubt at all as to what the outcome of any such attempt would be. There is nobody who is more outspoken on this matter than the well-known historian, Dr. G. D. Scholtz, who is also the editor-in-chief of the Transvaler. In his book, “Het die Afrikaanse Volk ’n Toekoms” (Has the Afrikaans Nation a Future), he says this—

He then refers to a series of examples from history, and, inter alia, he says the following—

The same thing happened in Russia. “In 1830 and in 1848,” Dr. Scholtz says, “there were revolutions in most Western European countries, the object of which was to wipe out the differences between the privileged and the unprivileged groups …” In order to avoid a conflagration in this country sooner or later, all Whites in the Republic must learn the lesson which past history teaches us! At any rate there is this ray of light in history: “It was only the great political reformation of 1832 which probably saved Britain from a revolution.” The aristocracy in Britain made the necessary adjustments timeously. That is why the British Royal House stands out to-day above all others in the word; that is why the British aristocracy finds itself in the unique position of occupying a position of accepted leadership in Britain and of being the pivot on which British political stability rests.

As we know, it is largely due to history that the Whites of South Africa find themselves in the position of an aristocracy as against the non-White population groups. Up to World War II this position was accepted more or less naturally. The Western European White dominated the whole of the Coloured world. In the last two decades, as Dr. Scholtz says, the position has changed radically—

This affects the destinies of the whole of mankind and that it will sweep over every part of the earth, including South Africa. In the light of this I believe that the whole future of our own nation is going to depend on the way in which we cope with these new circumstances. This is the time when we, as a White aristocracy in South Africa, should make adjustments on our own interests. The longer we wait the more likelihood there is of a changed set-up in which we will no longer retain a leading role. I honestly believe that out of fear we refuse to face the political implications of the adjustments that we will have to make, to such an extent that we entirely overlook the crux of this problem. It has been proved over and over again that the demand for political rights only becomes the dominant demand when justifiable demands for economic and social improvements are not met. Because the only means whereby social and economic advancement can then be obtained is by trying to obtain political supremacy. In 1961 Dr. J. C. de Ridder published a study entitled, “The Personality of the Urban African in South Africa”, in which he made an analysis of what he called “The frequency of demands submitted to the National Action Council” of the Congress of the People, which was held in June 1955, under the leadership of the A.N.C. at Kliptown. According to his analysis “the frequency of demands” was as follows: Demands in connection with the pass laws, 79; demands in connection with wages, 79; demands with regard to education, 25; demands with regard to employment, 14; in connection with land ownership, 12; in connection with beer-brewing 10; and demands in connection with the franchise, 9. Nine demands with regard to the franchise as against 79 in connection with wages! Studies of the same subject made by other people have similarly proved that there are fewer political demands than demands in connection with wages and economic improvements and improvements in the educational sphere. A very interesting fact is that the most successful mass movement amongst non-Whites that there has ever been in South Africa was not a political movement but the I.C.U. (Industrial and Commercial Union), which strove to bring about higher wages and better economic opportunities for its people. As against that a political movement like the A.N.C. had a following which has been given by various people as ranging between 28,000 and 100,000, at its best! Dr. de Ridder finds that—

Other students, like Dr. de Ridder, have also found that the main concern of the Native is his economic position; he is concerned mainly about things such as wages and the pass laws, which are interrelated. The next demand, in order of importance, concerns education, while political and social demands in fact figure amongst the lowest on the list. It was only when their economic demands were not met that the non-Whites pushed aside the more moderate leaders and began to place greater emphasis on the demand for political supremacy as a means of achieving their other aims. That is why I have come here to-day to ask for things which I believe to be much more urgent and, at this stage, more important than any political programme. I believe that we ought to take steps, as the motion puts it—

and

Sir, the extension of economic opportunities and the improvement of wages are matters which we have dealt with in this House over and over again and which have already been brought to the notice of the Government. I do not want to cover the same field again. Broadly I can say that we agree with Dr. Anton Rupert who said this in London—

It is in the sphere of education that I believe we must have a new dispensation in South Africa, and that is why we ask in this motion, firstly, for a plan of national reconstruction which will—

I deliberately framed this request in immediate terms, not because I do not know that there are certain practical difficulties which will have to be overcome; not because I do not know that there are certain things which cannot be done overnight, but because I believe that there is an important principle involved here which is of such a nature that it ought to be accepted immediately so that a start can be made in this direction. I trust therefore that the Government side will not come here today with the old story, the story that we often hear, about lack of teachers, lack of buildings and lack of money when in actual fact what is lacking is the will on the part of the Government to tackle this matter. The simple fact is that there is nothing to-day which ought to receive higher priority in our country than adequate education for everybody in South Africa. I cannot think of one single difficulty which cannot be overcome through courage. In New Zealand, for example, children who live in isolated places are taught through the medium of television and lessons over the radio, and where they have to contend with the problem of a shortage of teachers they solve it by the simple expedient of placing the children of all classes in the school under the care of one teacher and by teaching them with the aid of television. Moreover, in a country which is as rich as ours there is no excuse for any struggle. We constantly talk about “White civilization” and we express our concern about the future and the survival of our “civilization”. Civilization is by no means something which is limited to the White man; what we mean, of course, is that we in South Africa are anxious to retain the standards of living and the standards of behaviour to which we as Westerners have become accustomed. On that point we are all agreed, and the aim to seek to retain one’s Western values is quite permissible. But where can we find a better way, a surer way, of retaining and safeguarding our Western values and standards than by ensuring that all persons in South Africa will share it as soon as possible and help us to defend it? Any Government therefore which refuses to do everything in its power to get our Western values generally accepted in South Africa has no right to complain that “our civilization is in danger”.

Sir, this motion goes further than the question of education. In paragraph (2) we ask that—

State aid may assume various forms, but I think the least the State can do at once is to make loans available to deserving children. Here I am thinking particularly of the White child, because even in the case of the White child there is a tremendous leeway to be made up as far as higher training is concerned. I had a conversation a few years ago with a woman ambassador of Costa Rica at the Organization of American States in Washington, and I was astonished to learn from her that Costa Rica had entirely abolished her army and had instituted free university training for all children who attain a certain standard, irrespective of whether they are rich or poor. Sir, we are in the habit of looking down upon certain South American states, but here we are, one of the richest countries in the world, and our whole system of higher education in South Africa is still based on the apochryphal idea that if your father is rich then all the doors are wide open to you, however untalented you may be, but if your father is poor there is nothing but a struggle ahead of you, however talented you are and however much your talents may be needed for the progress of the country. I say that in South Africa that is an unforgivable position, and as long as it is your father’s money that counts and not your ability and merits when it comes to selection for higher training, we shall not be able to call this State of ours a modern and enlightened State. One really becomes despondent when one sees how the sons of poor parents have to run around looking for two sureties to obtain a loan and then frequently give up in despair and resign themselves to their lot. We shall have to be wide awake and take notice of what is happening behind the Iron Curtain. Statistics that I have seen indicate that a country like Russia, comparatively speaking, spends considerably more on higher training for its people than the leading countries of the West and almost three times as much as we spend here in prosperous South Africa. [Interjections.!

I mean on the basis of our population ratio. It is no wonder that in the scientific sphere the Russians are ahead of us in so many fields. I believe that we will have to put an end to the position in South Africa where the rich child and the poor child are not given an equal opportunity when it comes to the question of higher training. I hope that hon. members on the other side will not come along with the hackneyed story that we do not have enough money for all these improvements. My motion opens with the request that the Government should be less extravagant than it is; that it should stop spending huge amounts on measures and undertakings which have no future. One could make a whole speech on this subject alone—time does not permit me to do so—but I am thinking particularly of the unnecessary legislation which we put through in this House and which gives rise to the building up of a bureaucracy which must be one of the biggest to be found anywhere in the world to-day. We are being over-governed! If my figures are correct then one-quarter of the working people in South Africa are connected in some way or other with one of our public services. I think of all the commissions which produce Blue Books which have scarcely been laid on the Table of this House before they become museum pieces. I think of all the jobs for pals. So many commissionerships and high posts have been created in recent years that every second member sitting on the other side can look forward to promotion sooner or later if he does not blot his copybook. I think of all the apartheid notices, all the partitions, all the double entrances and all the bridges which come into being under the policy of apartheid and which have no earthly future. One need only go down to the centre of the city to see how many thousands of Rand are being spent on the building of crossovers at the station so that Whites on their way to the train will not come into contact with Coloureds. Within a decade we are going to have in this country the biggest collection of structural white elephants that the world has ever seen. I could go on giving numerous examples. Sir, in these circumstances nobody on that side must come here and tell us that there is not enough money for education. Mr. Speaker, I have been in this House for 14 years and if there is one thing which has struck me more than anything else in these 14 years it is this: In all the years that I have been here I have never once heard anybody on the Government benches ask where the money is to come from when apartheid measures are put through in this House or when boards are established, when commissions are appointed or when all sorts of mock Parliaments are called into being.

Order! The hon. member must confine himself to his motion.

My motion starts by referring to the wastage of public moneys. But when it comes to welfare measures or better provisions for education then the question is invariably raised where the money is to come from. I reject the approach once and for all that the money is not available. In a rich country like South Africa the money is available and the training of the people of South Africa should receive absolute priority.

Lastly, my motion asks for an imaginative plan of national reconstruction. So far I have dealt with the younger generation because that is where our greatest hope lies. But one of the biggest problems in South Africa today is the Tack of contact between the various population groups, and the ignorance, the prejudice and the lack of understanding and mutual sympathy which flow from this lack of contact. Herein lies our greatest danger for the future, and the people who are going to pay the price for this are not we so much perhaps as our children. It is true that a certain amount of this prejudice owes its origin to our history and to the great disparity between the standard of living of the various sections of the population. We have therefore inherited a certain amount of this prejudice—and that is understandable. But what is unforgivable is that in the past decade and a half this prejudice has been artifically fed and strengthened and encouraged for party political purposes. Contacts have been broken down everywhere; alienation has become the official policy and, figuratively speaking, barriers have been built up everywhere between people with the result that while people in our country can see one another they cannot understand one another. In the light of these facts we are the last people in the world who dare talk about the political wall in Berlin as something outrageous. And we have reached the stage where we make the serious blunder of believing that people of different races cannot successfully co-operate with one another. To bolster this belief of theirs hon. members opposite continually talk about events in Africa, and they interpret those events as it pleases them to interpret them. We refuse to believe that what is taking place and what has been taking place in Africa is a struggle for political freedom in which most Whites have allowed themselves to be caught on the side of colonialism. But let us look at another Continent of the world where different races are living together just as we do in South Africa; let us look at the multi-racial Continent of South America where this factor of colonialism is not present and where there is as great a variety of colours and races as we have here in South Africa. One very often hears the story from the Government side that “there is not a single example elsewhere in the world where different races co-operate within the same State”. Mr. Speaker, when the South Americans hear that proposition they not only laugh at it but they feel hurt. Take the example of a country like Brazil where White and Brown and Black and Yellow live together. In Brazil the Whites, according to our idea of who is White, form only one-third of the population. They have strong class differences there, but without entrenching themselves behind laws the Whites in Brazil are in control of the country. Brazil also has her problems, of course, but she does not have the industrial problems that we have nor does she have our race problems. A few years ago Professor P. Serton of the University of Stellenbosch made a comparative study of South Africa and Brazil, the results of which he incorporated in a book entitled “South Africa and Brazil”. On pages 116 and 202 he says—

Professor Serton then comes to this conclusion—

Mr. Speaker, I am not suggesting that the structure and the customs of one country can be superimposed on those of another country; that is not what I am proposing, nor do I maintain that we can follow the example of Brazil in everything. There is too great a difference between our history and that of Brazil. But what I object to is that we are beginning to convince ourselves for political reasons that different races cannot co-operate and that there is no country in the world in which they do co-operate. That is why we are not only extending restrictive legislation in these dangerous times but, as Professor Serton puts it, we are discriminating “along the wrong lines.” That is why my final point in this motion is this—

One of the methods which I suggest whereby blind prejudice and misunderstanding between the various races and ignorance can be lessened is, as we propose here, “a huge campaign for adult education” with the aid of the radio, with the aid of educational television services, and by establishing a radio network over the whole of South Africa. Sir, with the modern means that we have at our disposal in South Africa and in the world we can achieve miracles in bringing about a better understanding between the different races. And nothing would be more helpful in this regard than for our statesmen, our political leaders, to set a practical example. When I was a youngster I was very deeply impressed with the way in which a man like Mustafa Kemal in Turkey Westernized his country almost overnight by combating backward customs, and by the way in which he changed the whole mentality of the Turkish nation, their old ideas, their old customs and even their dress. I mention this merely as an example of what can be done— and all the more so to-day when we have such modern methods at our disposal—if a Government has the will to guide its country towards a programme of positive reconstruction and towards better relationships between the various racial groups. What I ask is that we should stop being afraid of civilized contacts between people. I have more than ample faith in the character of the White man to believe that civilized contacts will in no way detract from his determination to preserve his identity. On the contrary, the necessary adjustments now, along the lines I have indicated, represent the only guarantee that the future of the White man in South Africa will really be safe and assured.

I have been listening now for a whole half-hour to the speech of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson), and I am still faced with the same question which I jotted down on my notes yesterday, and that is this: What does the hon. member really want? We have been listening here to a whole lot of generalities. The hon. member says that we must have contacts; he says that the White aristocracy must make certain adjustments, but we did not hear a single word from him as to how this is to be done and what the basic reason is why we should do so. I was interested to hear the hon. member refer to the states of Southern America and to Brazil specifically. He was careful to say that we could not follow the example of Brazil in everything. But as far as education is concerned, what can we learn from Brazil? What one does get in Brazil is integrated education, and I wonder whether the whole idea underlying the hon. member’s speech is not that he wants us to have integrated education in South Africa. He says that wherever Whites live there will always be non-Whites, but he does not go on to tell us how education is to be provided there. He does not subscribe to the proposition that we should have different schools for Whites and for non-Whites. I want to put this question to the hon. member, because the idea worries me: Is the position that the only adjustment which the hon. member really wants is that we should introduce integrated education?

This is not a motion on education.

Reply to the question.

The hon. member says that this is not a motion dealing with education, but two-thirds of the points which he mentioned here clearly deal with education only.

I want to confine myself to the educational aspect of it because he says we must build up a new kind of person in South Africa, and that can only be done through education. If he does not want to follow the pattern that we are following to-day, then the only alternative is to introduce integration in our schools and to re-introduce integration in our universities.

Sir, I should like to move the following amendment to the hon. member’s motion—

I want to proceed, in the limited time at my disposal, to prove this statement. I am not going to deal with White education and adult education. I think the hon. the Deputy Minister will probably come back to it. I want to confine myself mainly to non-White education. I do not want to deal with what the Government has done already. The hon. member says that he cannot accept the proposition that the necessary money is not available. But look what the Government has already done in respect of Coloured education. In 1940 there were 972 schools in the Cape with 124,137 pupils, and by 1950 there were 1,143 schools with 179,866 pupils and 5,353 teachers. By 1955 the number of teachers had grown to 6,500. In 1960 there were 1,422 schools with 267,909 pupils, and in 1962 there were 1,619 schools, in the Cape only, with 297,919 pupils and 9,063 teachers. In the Transvaal there were 55 schools in 1940 with 10,210 pupils. In 1962 there were 80 schools with 31,659 pupils, and the number of teachers rose from 663 in 1955 to 1,086 in 1962. In the Free State there were 28 schools in 1950 with 2,674 pupils and 96 teachers. In 1960 there were 34 schools with 3,280 pupils and 133 teachers. In 1962 there were 39 schools with 4,594 pupils and 164 teachers. In Natal the number of schools increased from 33 in 1950 to 45 in 1962; the number of pupils rose from 6,520 to 13,568; the number of teachers increased from 256 to 489. We have the same pattern in Bantu education. Sir, my time is so limited that I cannot go into detail, but I just want to point out as far as Bantu education is concerned that in the year 1950 there were 5,338 schools with 747,026 pupils and 18,530 teachers. In 1955 the number of schools increased to 5,810 with 1,500,774 pupils and 21,974 teachers. In 1962 the figure stood at 8,249 schools with 1,684,426 pupils and 28,849 teachers. We have made tremendous strides in this sphere. Just think of all the money spent on Bantu education. It has been calculated that 80 per cent of the Bantu children of school-going age are at school to-day.

How long do they remain at school?

They remain there as long as their parents allow them to do so.

How long is that?

Does the hon. member want us to introduce compulsory education for the Bantu? If we were to do so we would have the revolution to which the hon. member over there referred. Apart from the question as to how long this 80 per cent remains at school, they do at any rate learn to write and to read and to do arithmetic. They can no longer be classified as illiterate. If we take the whole of our Bantu population, including even the older Bantu who were never at school, it is estimated that between 40 per cent and 50 per cent of them are literate, whilst in the rest of Africa, according to the figures given by Unesco itself, only between 15 per cent and 20 per cent of the Blacks are literate.

Then I should like to deal with higher education. I want to mention just one example and that is the case of the University College of Fort Hare. What is being done there is being done at all the university colleges, it is done at the University College of the Western Cape, at the University College in Zululand and at the University College of the North. The State established these university institutions at State expense for the non-Whites. The State purchased the buildings and made additions or erected new buildings; the State pays the salaries of the teaching staff. Mr. Speaker, if you want to know what is being done for these people, I can only reply by making a comparison between these university colleges and the universities for Whites. At the University of Fort Hare the class fees and the fees for board and lodging only amount to R180 per annum per student, whereas at a university like Rhodes the class fees and the fees for board and lodging amount to approximately R394 per annum. The hon. member says that the children of rich parents are able to study but that the children of poor parents are unable to do so. Here we are making it possible for the poorest section in the country, the Bantu, to receive university training at a total cost of R180 per annum, whereas a White student at Rhodes has to pay R394. In other words, at the University College of Fort Hare they only pay 45.6 per cent of the fees paid by White students at Rhodes. At the University of Cape Town, where there used to be non-White students and where it seems to me the hon. member wants them back again, class fees and fees for boarding and lodging amount to as much as about R480 per annum. At the University of the Witwatersrand, even though the Bantu students who are accommodated in their Bantu residence pay more than R100 per annum less than White students, class fees and fees for boarding and lodging still amount to about R400 per annum. What becomes now of the hon. member’s argument that we are not taking care of the poor and that all we do is to erect barriers?

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out now what results we have achieved at Fort Hare. I have said on a previous occasion, and I want to say it again, that in the whole of its history the University College of Fort Hare has never had the teaching staff that it has to-day, a teaching staff of which any White university could be proud. It has never offered so many courses; it has never taught so many subjects. In addition to that, as far as facilities are concerned in the form of bursaries and loans granted to students, the position is that bursaries and loans are granted to more than half the students. The average bursary, together with the loan, amounts to R103 per annum, while the students only pay R180. Most of them receive a loan and a bursary which average more than R100.

At Fort Hare—and I think this pattern also applies to the other university colleges—our achievements are as follows: Last year 24 students enrolled for the B.A. degree; 23 passed, that is to say, 95 per cent. Ten students enrolled for the B.Sc. degree; seven passed, that is to say, 70 per cent. Eleven students enrolled for B.A. and B.Sc. (Honours) and ten passed, i.e. 90 per cent. Five enrolled for the U.E.D. and three passed, i.e. 60 per cent. That is the lowest percentage of passes we had. For the S.A.T.D. ten enrolled and nine passed, i.e. 90 per cent. One enrolled for the theological course and one passed, that is to say, 100 per cent success. In agriculture six enrolled and five passed, in other words 83 per cent passed. One enrolled for the diploma in commercial subjects and one passed, that is to say, 100 per cent success.

On the strength of these results a newspaper in the Eastern Cape said that this must be due to one of two things, that either these students were the most wonderful students that we had ever had in South Africa or that the standard must have been lowered. Sir, that is the old story that we always get from the Opposition. Those examinations are prescribed by the University of South Africa; the degrees are awarded by the University of South Africa, the oldest university in this country, the university which set the standard for all university colleges which were formerly colleges attached to the S.A. University. The standard at those universities therefore is the same as the standard at any White university. The difference in the results is due to the fact that Fort Hare has a better teaching staff to-day than it has ever had, hence these good results. I cannot see therefore how the hon. member can still complain that we are not doing enough, particularly for the poorer sections of our population.

In view of this non-controversial subject of education in this motion put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) I am surprised indeed that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) who has just sat down has decided to criticize it in the way we have just heard. Evidently, even in respect of education, hon. members on the Government side cannot get away from the party line. They concentrate on minor issues, and they stay away from the main issue of this motion. They draw the old red herrings across the trail. This is not an education motion entirely, Sir, it is a motion that through education advocates the positive spirit of friendship and co-operation should be created amongst the races. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort has just quoted reams of figures to prove the advancement in education over the past decade for all Natives. Of course, the number of schools and pupils have increased; so has the population and so have the riches of South Africa. What this motion asks for is an imaginative plan of national reconstruction to bring education within the reach of all.

Mr. Speaker, this motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout deals with two basic problems. The first of those is educational. It deals with compulsory education at lower levels and the selection and financial support of youth with special ability and also the introduction of more radio programmes and educational television services for adult education. The second part of this motion deals with the raising of the standards of living and increased productivity which again, through education, can play an important part in the economic integration and co-operation of all races in our country. Compulsory education is a sine quo non which all political parties should aim at as a principle. In any civilized country that should not be open to any argument whatsoever. But the problem of providing sufficient teachers has yet to be solved. Later on, when dealing with adult education by way of radio television, I want to come back to that subject.

In August last year, that great educationist, Sir Eric Ashby, when addressing the presidential address to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, advocated investment in man. “Investment in man, the most valuable of all capital,” he said—

Investment in man in our country with its huge natural resources requires a larger proportion of educated men and women than most other countries in Africa, men and women of all races. We have a tremendous annual university wastage among the White students. I should like to quote from the Transvaler of as recently as September last year. They refer to a survey that was made by the University of Stellenbosch on the progress of 54,500 children born in 1941. Of these children only 30.9 per cent reached matric. The figures shrink to 18.1 per cent who progressed to university and of the 18.1 per cent only 6.7 per cent got their degree. So there was a 60 per cent loss in those three years at university. Even the Transvaler is worried about this. It is not only those talents that are lost but also those children with special ability and talent whose parents cannot afford to send them to university or a higher institute. They should receive aid for suitable higher education and training. The talent of the youth of South Africa is one of the greatest assets and all children should be able to continue their education as far as their ability permits it. The present number of White university students is 45,705. In proportion to the population we are producing four times as many students as Germany, Britain the U.S.A. and the Netherlands, yet the wastage is about 50 per cent. Only 50 per cent reach the end of university courses. In Russia 95 per cent of entrants reach the end of a five-year course; there is only a 5 per cent wastage. In Britain the wastage is 17.2 per cent in respect of university students.

When business was suspended I was stressing the acute need to bring adequate compulsory education within reach of all children in South Africa. This motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout asks for an opportunity to be given, through State-assistance, to talented students who have not got the means for higher, university and technical education. In the amendment moved by the hon. member for Fort Beaufort I do not see this point mentioned. It would be interesting to hear what the hon. the Deputy Minister may have to say about this. As far as the non-Europeans are concerned there again their large numbers demand the establishment of professional and technological services for their own races. In fact the Bantustan policy of the Government cannot possibly succeed unless an educated class of non-European can be brought up and brought into practical experience.

Sir, it is nought for our comfort to read that Bantu education is progressing, that more per capita is being spent on Bantu children in South Africa than anywhere else in Africa. South Africa is a highly developed industrial country and consequently the standards to which the Bantu population have to be raised are much higher than in any other part of Africa. The trickle of funds available to-day for Bantu education is totally inadequate to develop the Bantu to serve their own people.

I would like to quote from the “Council of Education” of the Witwatersrand. At the end of last year the chairman referred to the “complete inadequacy of our quantitative achievements in the higher education of non-Whites”. It is in this respect, in respect of the numbers, that we have to improve our methods when we realize that 1.4 per cent of our White population students go to university out of a population of 3,250,000, whereas in the case of the Bantu out of a population of 11,000,000 it is only one-hundredth of the percentage of the White population’s educated youth.

In this age of automation we have also to achieve an annual growth in industry. It will be necessary, by the year 1968, to have far more skilled workers. We see that the Deputy Minister of Economic Affairs in November last year spoke at Bloemfontein about the shortage of skilled Whites. That shortage will be 30,000 by 1968, he said. If we are to provide more adequate education so that the whole of our working population has its standards raised and if this is done through education, then we shall have the extra skilled manpower we need and the present unskilled workers will have been trained sufficiently. It may be said that it is impossible to educate all the youth of a population of some 18,000,000 people, but technological advances in this age have provided the means in radio and television. This generation has by far the most competent single medium of instruction devised by man, which has vast potentialities as a medium of adult education, as stressed by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout in his motion before the House.

In the United States of America alone today educational courses on television and on the radio are available to 100,000,000 American listeners through 84 non-commercial channels. They are at the disposal of almost every school in America. In adult education more than 100,000,000 pupils of all ages were enrolled in these classes last year. In adult education the courses stretch from mathematics to physical education, from geography to reading, from literature to languages and also instruction to immigrants in the home language of their country. In America last year more than 3,000 teacher training courses were organized through television. In adult education in Chicago alone there were 70,000 people who had been brought to university level through the adult education courses and 30,000 of them reached a credit level at university; two-thirds of the audience for these courses were women in their middle 30s because this is one of the chief sources of prospective teachers. This is another aspect in which the Government could save expenditure by utilizing this method to train people. In Britain, besides the regular school courses on radio there is a great advance in adult education to-day through the new course “Dawn University”, the university of the air. “Desks at Dawn” at 7.15 a.m. when courses are put forward by six of the top speakers in the country organized by Cambridge University on six different fields of study which range right through from languages to mathematics and science to history and literature.

Tens of thousands of Italian men and women who were illiterate have learnt to read and write. They have learnt these basic skills through learning given on the little black box, television. This is where South Africa should use television to supplement the radio programme. We need a radio /television “war” on Bantu illiteracy. Radio and television are being used all around us in the great drive in adult education against illiteracy in Africa. Educational broadcasters are being trained by the United Nations for the countries in Africa. In Kenya they are putting forward half-hour adult education courses in Swahili, which are for older people, for women and for the younger illiterate. We in South Africa must harness television to educate the Africans through a properly constituted South African Broadcasting Corporation. We must educate them in the ways of Western civilization so that we may bring adult education to the illiterate to counter Communism. Screen education to-day, Sir, is the modern and more forceful equivalent of the blackboard. Its impact is far more powerful than chalk. We must use television as the blackboard for the Black man. South Africa needs these massive education programmes in the radio and in television, which must reach the Bantu community; they must reach the Bantu in the location squares and in the Bantu schools to train them. We must bring universal literacy to the illiterate in our population.

We live to-day in a world of scientific revolution. It is only if our educational progress becomes part of this giant scheme of national planning that we can go forward into the challenge of the age prepared as a country to develop along a programme of realistic-expansion with school and university education and with adequate training facilities for all. In this, Mr. Speaker, in giving full support to the motion put forward by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout we must feel that there are only 36 years left between now and the end of the century and in that, if we are to compete effectively with other countries overseas, then nothing less than this motion will be sufficient for investment in man.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout (Mr. J. D. du P. Basson) has moved a motion here this afternoon which is as long as and even wider than the Namib Desert. It is a motion which is full of generalities and flights of imagination, a motion which has an object which I can only describe as savouring very much of Communism. To plead for the raising of the standard of living in this country or in any country in the world, without coupling that with a plea for increased productivity; to plead not only for the raising of the standard of living, but a standard of living coupled with comfort (as this motion does); to plead in a motion such as this that the dangerous gap which exists in the country between rich and poor should be eliminated without saying that that should be accompanied by hard work, is nothing else than the Utopia which the communist holds out in prospect to the uninformed masses in the world. But I shall return to that in a moment.

I want to deal with the motion which has been moved. The hon. member refers in this motion to a very imaginative plan that has to be tackled. In this connection I can only say that I think the hon. member is really a Ripvan Winkle who does not know what has been happening around him in this country over the past decade in the field of education. The hon. member has interspersed this plea of his for a plan of reconstruction with a series of generalities which reminded me very much of what Mr. Stanley Osier, the head of the Kearnsly College in Natal said recently. He is a member of the National Education Board who is an authority on educational matters. He is respected in English-speaking circles and he recently said the following in an article—

My impression is that generally good results are obtained by our best schools and that the standard of education is fairly sound. Of course, it can always be improved upon and we must not stop aiming at that.

That is precisely what the Government of our country is doing. We are always aiming at improving our educational system. We realize that there may be shortcomings, that there may be certain defects, but that is nothing to feel disturbed about. As a matter of fact education is not static, it is dynamic, and it is to be expected, therefore, that a Government must continually adapt itself to new trends of thought and new developments. That is also why this hon. member can be assured of the fact that this Government is fully aware of the duty and responsibility which rest upon it in this connection because if we want to maintain ourselves in future we must only be satisfied with the best educational system. We realize that the tempo of industrial development is fast and in order to keep pace with that development it is necessary for us to develop our available human material to the utmost. The National Education Board which has now been established will undertake that task. That board must to a great extent assist in eliminating the wastage of manpower by bringing about greater co-ordination. And I do not doubt that this educational board will make a very important contribution in this sphere. Where the hon. mover says in his motion that South Africa needs an imaginative plan I want to tell him that it is unnecessary for him to plead for an imaginative plan. As a matter of fact for the past decade or more South Africa has been carrying out an imaginative educational plan. We are carrying it out to such an extent that the educational facilities offered in South Africa our standard of education have to-day reached that stage where they can be compared with the best in the world. They can be compared because of the observations made by our educational experts who from time to time visit educational institutions overseas and who are in a position to make a comparison. When I say that the standard of our educational system can be compared with the best in the world, when I say that we in this country are keeping pace with developments, I am not only referring to the educational facilities for Whites. South Africa provides educational facilities of which we need not be ashamed to all her national groups.

I want to deal briefly with the motion of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout point by point. Where the hon. member asks in point No. 1 that free and adequate education should be brought within the reach of all the children of South Africa I can assure the hon. member that that is precisely what is being done in South Africa. As far as the White children for whom we have compulsory education are concerned, the position is that thanks to the educational facilities we have for White children, coupled with ever-increasing university facilities, South Africa is to-day in this fortunate position that, apart from America, we have the largest percentage of students in proportion to our White population at university in the whole world and if that is not significant and if that is not an indication of the educational facilities and the opportunities there are in South Africa I do not know what will indicate that. Sir, when you think of the tremendous development that has taken place over the past decade in the sphere of vocational training in our country, vocational training which includes technical education, commercial education and other technical education, when you think of it that the Government intends spending R34,000,000 over the next few years on the erection and expansion of technical schools, commercial colleges, trade schools and other vocational schools in the country, I think we have an indication of the tremendous field covered by this imaginative plan which the Government is carrying out to-day.

The hon. member and his seconder are however, mainly concerned about the facilities provided to non-Whites. Let me start by referring to what is being done for the Bantu in this connection. As far as Bantu education is concerned the position to-day is that we have made such progress in the Republic that lower and primary schools are within the reach of every Bantu child; that as many higher and primary and secondary schools are being established as possible. Apart from this the House is aware of the fact that greater university facilities are being provided to the Bantu. It is also well to mention that the attendance at Bantu schools has more than doubled over the past ten years with the result that 83 per cent of the Bantu children of school-going age attend school. When you take into account the fact that in any nation in the world there is a certain percentage of children who, because of mental or physical defects cannot be educated, and that that percentage is sometimes reckoned at 15 per cent, we can only conclude that with this 83 per cent who attend school to-day for a shorter or longer period, we have really reached a stage which is tantamount to compulsory education. But where the hon. mover and his seconder plead for free education for the Bantu children I think the Opposition must ask themselves the serious question where the money for that purpose has to come from. Does the Opposition think the White taxpayer will be prepared to contribute increasingly more to this service? As a matter of fact to-day the Bantu themselves pay no more than one-quarter of the expenditure connected with their education by way of the general tax which is paid into the Bantu Education Fund. In any case as far as compulsory education for the Bantu child is concerned the Bantu authorities which are now being established, such as the Transkeian Authority, can, if they wish, decide to introduce free and compulsory education in the area over which they have jurisdiction; we shall not stand in their way.

However, it is not only Bantu education that has progressed at a suprising rate in recent times. When you think of what has been done in the way of Coloured education it is something spectacular. It is spectacular to think that already in 1963 there were 368,000 Coloured children at school in the Republic and it is spectacular to think of the tremendous school contruction programme which has been embarked upon in the Republic. You need only travel as far as the D. F. Malan Airport to see the building programme which is being carried out at Bonteheuwel. When you see that you realize that the Republic has reached the stage where we practically have enough schools for all the Coloured children in the country who want to attend school. From a practical point of view the school facilities which are provided to the Coloureds have reached the stage where in the foreseeable future every Coloured child who wishes to attend school will have the opportunity of doing so.

But it is not only in respect of the Coloureds that greater facilities are being provided. Our country can be proud of the university facilities which are provided to the Coloureds and the Indians. When I was in Durban last Tuesday I had the privilege of visiting the Indian University College and I was very favourably impressed with the facilities that university college offers. The laboratories provided there, whether it is the psychological laboratory or the scientific laboratory, are of the most modern any university in this country has. As a matter of fact some of the laboratories at that Indian University College in Durban are more modern than those at the University of Natal at the moment. Those are not achievements that should continually be belittled by motions of this nature. When you visit the Cape Western University College for Coloureds you are equally impressed by the most modern equipment and facilities provided there. It is something of which any country can be proud.

This motion also refers to bursaries that should be granted. I wonder whether the hon. member for Bezuidenhout and his seconder are aware of the fact that the Government spend nearly R500,000 per annum on bursaries for post-matriculation study and those are not the only bursaries available in the country; municipalities and industries make bursaries available for post-matriculation study; the university itself does so and so do the Provincial Administrations for the training of teachers. We also find that the State assist technical colleges in this connection. In spite of this huge amount of R500,000 which is spent on bursaries from State funds the State is at the moment considering extending these bursary facilities considerably in future.

Loans as well?

The loan facilities are also improved all along, these facilities are not available to Whites only. Non-Whites also share, according to their due, in these bursaries. When you bear in mind. Sir, that about 100 per cent of the Bantu students at Bantu universities in this country receive State assistance in the form of bursaries or loans you appreciate the tremendous scope of this assistance and that is done because we realize these people will in future be required to serve their own people in their own areas in administrative and executive capacities.

The motion also refers to radio and television services. The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) also pleaded for that. I think the attitude of the Government in respect of television is well-known and it is unnecessary for me, therefore, to deal with that. But as far as the extremely important medium of the radio is concerned it is well to know that this adult education for which the hon. member, for which Rip van Winkle, pleads is already being undertaken on a very large scale in South Africa. All the hon. member has to do is to tune in and he will realize that a large portion of the radio programmes consists of lectures and talks of an educational character which are intended to educate the adult. When we talk about adult education, you must remember that last year, under the supervision of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the opportunity of attending its adult educational courses was given to 118,000 people, by means of youth camps, scientific exhibitions and so forth. Nor do these services remain static. They are being expanded and I may say that the Department of Education, Arts and Science and the Broadcasting Corporation have just recently agreed to introduce an evening programme on a national basis so as to expand the facilities offered by the adult education section of the Department. In future there will be talks in order to make this section of the State’s activities, this section which provides facilities for adult education, better known. There will be lectures relating to youth activities, literature and the activities of women’s organizations. Apart from this we enlist the services of Radio Bantu in the Bantu schools. They are given F.M. sets free of charge for this education and the school radio service for Bantu will be in full operation from April this year. Nor is there anything to prevent this service which we have to-day for the Bantu child from being extended in due course to the Bantu adult. As a matter of fact, as far as its radio educational services to the Bantu themselves are concerned, I think South Africa is ahead of any other country in Africa.

In conclusion I want to deal with the objects envisaged by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I know the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has travelled extensively and he knows what the standard of living is in many countries of the world. Because he has travelled so extensively, Mr. Speaker, he ought to admit that the standard of living in South Africa is comparable with the best in the world. But that is not only the position in the case of the Whites. The non-Whites too have a high standard of living. Let me rather quote somebody in this connection to whose words the hon. member probably attaches more importance than to mine. I have in mind, Mr. Clarence Randall, the well-known American chairman of the State Advisory Committee, who recently wrote the following in respect of the Bantu in a journal with a world-wide circulation—

Four out of every five Bantu children go to school and there are more than 2,000 university graduates as compared with fewer than a dozen in each of the new African states which now vote in the United Nations.

In respect of the urban Bantu this same American person of learning writes as follows—

The hon. member who has also travelled in America will probably subscribe to the following view expressed by Mr. Randall—

I think South Africa has every reason to be proud of what she has achieved here.

The hon. member talks about racial tension. We do not have racial tension in South Africa. South Africa enjoys greater racial peace than any country in Africa. Not only do we enjoy greater racial peace than any country in Africa but we have far less tension in our country than any country in the world where various cultures and colour groups have been grouped together within the same territorial boundaries. That is due to the positive steps we take in our country. The hon. member now pleads that we should change the Western outlook on life and that comfort should be added to that. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in this motion of his he talks about increasing the Western and modern standards of living and comfort. The hon. member is pleading for the conditions which appertain in the land of the lotus-eaters. The hon. member is apparently under the impression that you obtain a higher standard of living in the form of a gift from Father Christmas No, Sir. never yet has a higher standard of living been obtained in the form of a gift from Father Christmas. You only obtain that by working hard. That is why I regret that no reference is made to work in the motion of the hon. member, that there is no appeal to people to work harder so as to raise their standard of living. No, he talks about the comfort they must enjoy. You can only raise your standard of living in this country, as in any country in the world, if you are willing to sweat for it and our task in this House, as the representatives of the voters, is continually to encourage the people to realize that and not to talk about a comfort which only has an Utopian and a semi-communistic flavour.

Reference is made in this motion to a dangerous gap between those people who are Door and those who are rich. If you wish to eliminate that gap you must not do so by way of legislation, it must be eliminated by the willingness of the people to work in order to eliminate it. The hon. member can consider himself lucky to be living in a country like this where we have this measure of racial peace. To use his terminology, the hon. member talks about South Africa having to undergo a national reconstruction. It is a fact that we are at the moment experiencing a national reconstruction in the country. We are experiencing it at the moment in the sphere of race relations in South Africa. South Africa is beginning to develop a new conception of the relationship between White and non-White; there is a new spirit, a spirit which will in future be one of our main sources of strength to ensure our safety. The hon. member accused the Government of not being well-disposed towards the advance of the non-White groups. This peace we are enjoying in South Africa, this inflow of non-Whites to this country to come and work here that continually has to be curbed is because the Government of this country is well-disposed towards the cultural and economic advance of every racial group in the country and to the extent to which the positive steps which are taken in this connection begin to take shape to that extent the non-Whites will become more well-disposed towards the Whites in this country because of what is being done for them and for the country.

With leave, the motion was withdrawn.