Before calling upon the hon. member for Durban (Central), I just want to say that Loan Vote M, Education, Arts and Science, R2,810,000, may be discussed under this Vote. I also want to point out that I ruled yesterday that NUSAS could not be discussed under this Vote. I have reconsidered the matter and now wish to state that inasmuch as the NUSAS organization is a student organization and that membership of that organization is automatic at the universities which are given assistance under this Vote, the organization in question may be discussed.

During the debate last night the hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) made a restrained appeal to the hon. the Minister to withdraw his instructions to scientific organizations which would have the effect of forcing them to exclude non-White members under pain of no longer receiving financial assistance from the State. This order has shocked these associations, and so far as could be ascertained in the time available none of them is prepared to acquiesce. The total number of non-White members is about 14. It must be obvious, therefore, that the danger of serious race mixing is minimal. I understand that of the 14 non-Whites three are Japanese, which reduces the number to 11. As these 14 are distributed in different societies, there is no prospect of the formation of non-White societies for many years, because you cannot form a society with one or two members. Yesterday we had a debate on the reporting in foreign newspapers and the image of South Africa which was created thereby. If the Government persists with this policy, the overseas partners of these organizations will break off their connections and our societies will stand isolated. This will have a most serious effect on the image of these societies. Internally it will mean that many senior members will resign and join overseas societies direct. Some societies will disintegrate. Among the results are a few which I want to mention. Societies exchange journals, with the result that at very little cost our libraries are kept up to date. Overseas societies make available their workers for library research. I have myself received photostat copies of scientific papers at very short notice. International congresses are held and our members are welcome to attend and to contribute. The Government itself has on many occasions paid the expenses of its own servants and of university professors to attend congresses. All this will now cease. The amount of money in question could quite easily be recovered by a moderate increase in subscriptions, but the Government has tried to attain its aims by enforcing a change of constitution on these societies, and this must become public through the exchange of minutes with foreign societies. One of the most valued assets of a scientific worker is his close connection with the publications on his subject. In fact, when separated from the big educational centres the library references are invaluable, so much so that in choosing a post a man will consider that separation from such sources—and this is what will happen—may make the post unacceptable to him, and we are looking for men to fill our posts.

This, I presume, is the thin end of the wedge of the Government’s policy to prevent mixed scientific societies. If applied to the medical and dental profession, which fortunately at present receives no financial assistance, it will cripple almost completely the established and growing reciprocity with numerous overseas countries. In passing, may I say that the hon. the Minister is not well informed on the question of reciprocity with Holland. It is true that the reciprocity is limited, but the numbers seeking admission since this limited reciprocity was instituted have never reached more than half the limit, as no one has ever been refused admission. Sir, the writ of the Government runs within the boundaries of the Republic, and within those boundaries it can control the results of its actions, but when its actions compel societies to behave in such a manner that their constitutions make them obnoxious to their foreign associates, the Government is acting against the interests of the country and creating an image which is not favourable to us. It is breaking the tenuous threads that hold the great scientific world together, and the effects of this action are incalculable and more harmful to us than to the others because we are the odd man out. I hope, Sir, and I beg that in the interests of the country the hon. the Minister will withdraw his instruction: it can do nothing but good to all concerned, and I would suggest to him that it is a good axiom to “leave well alone”.

The hon. member who has just sat down has again discussed a matter to which we have recently given a great deal of attention. I do not want to cover that ground again nor do I want to contradict or support what the hon. member said since we find ourselves in an academic atmosphere in discussing this question of education. May I be permitted to convey my hearty congratulations to the hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) on whom Rhodes University has bestowed a doctor’s degree. I think we are all agreed that this is a well-earned honour and an honour which is not only being bestowed upon the hon. member, for in honouring such a man Rhodes University also does credit to itself.

In discussing the question of education in recent times, we have been concentrating mainly on the question of manpower, technique and science. There are, of course, individual members who talk about minor matters such as the question of the language medium and discrimination against a particular group. These are transitory things. The serious issues are the questions of manpower, technique and science. It was even suggested recently that a Minister of Science should be appointed. But, Mr. Chairman, we already have one. His Department deals with the sciences in a brilliant fashion. It is not the duty of a Minister to promote and to deal with science; it is the task of education itself. But in placing so much emphasis on the question of education, technique, manpower, development and everything that has to do with the economic and material welfare of the State, we sometimes forget that the nation also has a soul. I want briefly this afternoon to draw attention to our writers. I do not want to discuss individual artists who produce a work of art out of pure love or inspiration—something for which they do not expect compensation. Such a person is a devotee; he writes because he is inspired and he makes a gift of his work to mankind. There are such people but there are very few of them. I want to discuss the writer or artist who has to earn his bread by his work, who does creative work in a particular sphere and thus contributes to the nation’s treasures, particularly in the sphere of literature. There are many of our writers who cannot make a decent living—I do not want to be misunderstood because I do not want the hon. the Minister to seek a means of livelihood for them but I want to put their case as they see it. In the first place, the writer in South Africa has a double task; he is in double harness. When he sheds the yoke of his daily task in the evening he has to don the yoke of creative work. He has to do this at a time when he is exhausted, when he is drained physically and dulled mentally; sometimes he has little time and under those circumstances he has to try to do fine creative work. That is why some great writers who produced real works of art gave up writing. The remuneration offered to writers by publishers is very little. Sir, I do not want to attack the publishers. They have always treated me well under the present set-up. Only this morning I received a cheque for 75 cents! I am going to put it away; I am not going to draw it. I have another which I have had now for three years, a cheque from a certain pressman, a cheque for 15 cents! I am collecting these things so that I can show future generations how lavish their predecessors were in enriching their own souls. The writer usually receives 15 per cent of 80 per cent of the selling price of a book. This works out at 12 per cent but it presupposes a wide circulation. An ordinary work of art has a circulation of only about 3,000. The average price for such a book, the market price, is R1.35 and of this amount the writer receives 12 per cent. If there is a wide circulation, as in the case of prescribed books or book club books, if the circulation is in the neighbourhood of 20,000, the average price is about 85 cents. This does not help very much either. Sir, all prices and all wages have risen in recent years, particularly during the past 15 to 20 years. All workers receive more; all goods are more expensive; the cost of living is higher, and in comparison with this the writer’s remuneration in South Africa has fallen. Usually, when there are certain reprints of a book, it is the custom in other countries to increase the percentage of the writer’s share. In South Africa it decreases. A writer has to use his resourcefulness, his ingenuity and his imagination. I am thinking now of an extremely deserving writer, a writer like Frans Venter; I am thinking of Karel Kielblock; I am thinking of an hon. member of this House who has been engaged for many years now in writing a historical novel. But writing requires research, travelling and reference work, and for that extra expense that he has to incur the writer receives no compensation at all. He has to do all that work for love. The writer is taxed. He devotes his spare time and his energies to the work he is doing and he invests a certain amount of capital in that book but, unlike the farmer and the industrialist, the writer cannot deduct these expenses when he submits his income-tax return. Even we who sit here receive part of our remuneration tax-free; that does not apply to the writer. In certain cases the writer may perhaps be allowed to deduct 5c per mile in respect of travelling expenses, but a doctor is permitted to deduct 25c per mile. Then there is the question of performing rights. The writer in South Africa gets nothing in this regard. When a musical composition is performed, the composer is remunerated. The only remuneration which the writer receives—and it is very small—is when one of his works is broadcast over the radio; otherwise the writer is paid nothing in respect of performing rights. In other words, the person who uses his books does not pay the writer anything extra for that privilege. There are large libraries in which there are collections of thousands of books but only one copy is kept of the work of each writer and that copy is read over and over again and loaned out to the public. If a writer were to be paid lc or even lc every time his book was loaned out, he would receive what is known as a royalty; he would then be receiving some compensation, but he is paid nothing at all. The more our libraries flourish—and we are all pleased that they are flourishing—the more the writers suffer. They sell fewer books and yet more people read those books. [Time limit.]

I wish to confine my remarks to the report of the National Advisory Education Council referred to on page 106 of the Estimates. Sir, the council has had exactly one year, so far, in which to function so that its report is understandably slight. It is none the less welcome. The first significant comment appears in paragraph 20, which I will quote very briefly—

In other words, the council discovered very early on what every other country in the world has discovered, and that is that the basis of the re-organization of our educational system must be the introduction of greater differentiation in the secondary school. The Minister himself, right at the outset, had referred to the council all matters concerning the teacher. With that we have no quarrel at all. There are four sub-committees working on these matters at the present time. The second matter to be referred specifically to the council by the Minister was the question of a basic syllabus and curricula. The council in its turn, referred the matter (and quite rightly) to the Committee of Heads of Education Departments, i.e. the four Provincial Education heads and the Secretary for Education. This was done with the Minister’s approval. So far so good. The Committee of Heads of Education Departments duly considered the matter and reported to the council that the syllabus for matriculation and school leaving certificates was the responsibility of the Joint Matriculation Board and then went on to say that secondary education was essentially differentiated education, and that therefore before any planning could take place it must be decided who was to be responsible for secondary education. The Education Council itself met again in June last year to discuss this matter and I think their resolution on this subject makes rather peculiar reading. In paragraph 31 of the report the council at that meeting passed a very generalized resolution, which is quoted in full, requesting the Executive Committee—

Then, with the chairman’s agreement, they gave an instruction to the Executive Committee “to give urgent attention to the pressing problem of the divided control of secondary education and to submit recommendations to the council”. The interesting thing is that the Executive Committee, having been given that instruction, discussed the whole matter and prepared a memorandum which was placed before the council at its third meeting. The council—and here I would stress what the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said yesterday, namely that they were unanimous—resolved to submit a recommendation on this vital matter to the hon. the Minister. The gist of that recommendation was—

Well, one can only commend the Executive Committee for having come to that decision. It corroborates the vast weight of evidence on the subject given before the Parliamentary Select Committee on the National Education Advisory Council Bill in 1962. Having made that recommendation to the Minister through the council, that is where they stuck, as far as one can see. The Minister’s statement on 4 December 1963 on this subject expressly omits any mention of his acceptance of the council’s recommendation that all secondary education up to and including Std. X should be allocated to the provinces. It is very significant that he merely refers the matter back to the committee of heads of departments, with the following instructions, that they were to—

Well, they have already had a recommendation that the provinces should, if possible, take over the control of all secondary education up to and including Std. X, and I wonder why that was left out of the Minister’s statement? It was a specific recommendation. Perhaps he wishes them to discuss it further; perhaps he has reservations. If that is so we would like to know what those reservations are. I would like to remind the hon. the Minister that this council was appointed by him; it consists of experts in whom he says he has complete faith as to their ability as educationists and their ability to do the right thing for South Africa. One wonders whether the hon. the Minister is prepared to reject one of the most important recommendations of the council in the whole field of education, at such an early stage in the life of the council. We want some clarification on this matter. It is quite clear from this report that apart from the work being done on the subject of teachers, nothing—and I repeat nothing—practical can be put into operation; no plans can be carried out to improve the educational position until a decision has been taken on the allocation of responsibility for secondary education. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will be kind enough when he replies to tell us precisely what his reservations are and why he was unable to accept the recommendation of the council which was a unanimous recommendation, that secondary education should be taken over by the provinces.

Sir, paragraph 39 of the council’s report deals with the question of manpower and complains of a lack of authoritative information on this subject, which is something one can understand. It goes on to say that the council is very pleased indeed that at the turn of the year a manpower research and planning committee was established under the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research of the Education Department. Paragraph 42 deals with the major research projects for 1964, about which we are very pleased indeed. Paragraph 43 says something which I think is most significant and should be brought to the attention of the Minister, because we are back where we started in this matter as well. Paragraph 43 (v) says—

Sir, right throughout the report you find this same refrain that nothing really can be achieved until it has been decided what is to be the fate of secondary education. With regard to the manpower research and planning committee, Sir, the Minister will forgive me if I remind him that right back in 1948 the de Villiers Commission recommended—

That was right back in 1948, and it has taken this Government 15 years to see the red light. It seems that something is stopping the council from coming to a decision about the allocation of secondary education to the provinces. Perhaps the hon. the Minister will help us to get that clarified.

Sir, paragraph 48, as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out, reveals a defect in the working of the council and the committees of the council, a defect which we foresaw from the start. They are asking for additional posts to be created on the secretariat because the Executive Committee cannot cope with the work. No further money has been voted this year for that purpose. Posts may have been created, we do not know; perhaps the hon. the Minister can tell us. The vital question, of course, is whether those posts can be filled even if they have been created because it is so hard to get trained people. I wonder if the hon. the Minister is in a position to tell us that he has found people to fill those posts. [Time limit.]

I want to issue a friendly warning to the hon. member who has just sat down by reminding her of the saying: More haste, less speed. I remember that when she was still a member of the Cape Provincial Council the hon. member was a signatory to a memorandum in which the establishment of a national education council was condemned outright.

That is not correct.

This council has only been in operation for about a year but the hon. member comes along and demands a solution to one of the most difficult problems in the sphere of education. I would like to tell the hon. member that if she cannot make a positive contribution she should rather remain silent. This Education Council will eventually provide us with the solution which she now demands so prematurely.

But I want to discuss another matter which I consider to be most important. I want to take a few statements from the important Cilliers Report on the question of subsidy formulae in connection with universities and I want to use those statements as the basis of the case I want to make here. The first statement in this report that I want to use is that responsible academic circles in Britain and Australia regard the most desirable number of students for the sort of university which we have in South Africa as being between 5,000 and 6,000. The second statement is that it is not in the best interests of higher education and research training to try to meet the increasing demand for graduates by means of excessive expansion and additions to existing university institutions, but that the solution lies in the establishment at suitable centres of additional universities from time to time. The third statement is that at the present rate at which our country is developing it is visualized that within the next five or ten years we shall have to establish one or even more universities in this country to meet our needs. The fourth statement is that the modern semi-socialized state must itself take the initiative in establishing new seats of learning. Mr. Chairman, in the light of these statements I want to take the liberty of bringing the disturbing fact to the attention of the hon. the Minister that the intellectual potential of the White population on the Rand cannot be fully developed, mainly as the result of lack of university facilities. I should like to mention a few of the vast collection of facts and figures to indicate the need for additional university facilities and I want to request the hon. the Minister most urgently but at the same time in a very friendly fashion to take serious note of these facts because I feel that the time will come when he will be compelled to take the initiative in connection with the further expansion of university facilities. The Witwatersrand and the surrounding areas, Vanderbijlpark, Vereeniging and Sasolburg, constitute only .7 per cent of the total surface area of the Republic but it accommodates 30 per cent of the White population of the Republic; it accommodates 22 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Republic and 43 per cent of the Afrikaans-speaking people in the Transvaal. In June 1962, in the three school board districts of the Witwatersrand and in the Vereeniging school board district there were no fewer than 125 Afrikaans-medium primary schools and a further 12 Afrikaans-medium primary schools with predominantly Afrikaans classes. Furthermore, in these school board districts there were 34 Afrikaans-medium high schools and four parallel-medium high schools with predominantly Afrikaans classes. The total number of Afrikaans-speaking pupils in those four school board districts was 95,734. It is noteworthy that it has been estimated by experts that by 1970 there will be 118,000 Afrikaans-speaking pupils on the Witwatersrand as against 96,000 English-speaking pupils. As far as the high schools are concerned, there were 150 in the Transvaal in June 1962, excluding the English-medium private high schools. Thirty-four of the 93 Afrikaans-medium high schools were situated in the school board areas that I have just mentioned—the three on the Witwatersrand and one at Vereeniging. In other words, in an area in which more than one-third of the Afrikaans-medium high schools of the Transvaal are situated there are no university facilities for Afrikaans-speaking pupils. What is more, there is no room for them at the University of the Witwatersrand. Last year the University of the Witwatersrand already had more than 6,000 students and the Chancellor of the University, Professor MacCrone, said on 4 April this year that his university expected to have more than 10,000 students by 1970. The position at Pretoria University is that last year already more than 9,000 students were enrolled at that university. I repeat therefore that no university facilities exist for the large Afrikaans-speaking population of the Rand. I ask you, Sir, are you surprised in the light of this information that an investigation to which Dr. Op’t Hof referred last year, an investigation which was instituted by the eight universities for White students, brought to light the fact that although half of the matriculants at the end of 1961 were Afrikaans-speaking, there were only 37.2 Afrikaans-speaking pupils at university that year as against 64.05 per cent English-speaking pupils? I want to add, moreover, that about 50 per cent of the enrolled students at our residential universities left those universities without getting their degrees. You will understand therefore why I say that there is a tremendous wastage of intellectual potential as far as the White students are concerned because the necessary facilities are not within their reach. The Director of Military Production, Mr. J. P. Coetzee, and Professor S. P. Ligthelm, made a very important investigation some years ago to ascertain why so many students could not receive university training. They found that between 500 and 600 students were lost to us annually in the years 1960, 1961 and 1962 because they could not afford the study fees. They found further that some of our most brilliant potential matriculants were doing inferior work because their parents were not even in a position to provide them with their basic daily needs. You will understand, Mr. Chairman, why I make this plea for university facilities to be placed within the reach of those people so that they can attend university in the morning and go home in the evening. This matter is most closely connected, of course, with the move to the cities. As most of us know, the people from the platteland who have moved to the cities have mostly found their niche in the substructure of our urban economy. I want to demonstrate the effects of that by quoting the following figures. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for West-dene (Mr. van der Spuy) who has just sat down has been putting the case for another university at Johannesburg. In this connection I should like to say that it is felt very strongly by education bodies that the existing universities should be utilized more freely, not only for refresher courses for teachers as advocated in the report of the National Advisory Education Council, but that more effective use should be made of them, rather than to foster duplication of universities whose full development is already hampered by the shortage of funds and staff. If it is necessary to increase the number of universities one would rather advocate a bilingual university as was established earlier this year in the University of Port Elizabeth Act.

I should like to bring the discussion back to the subject of bursaries and loans to students. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister in all sincerity again why he sets his policy against a more realistic treatment of bursaries. Sir, I cannot think that the hon. the Minister’s mind is closed to the practical and very constructive suggestions which have come from the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hopewell) and others on this side, members who have asked for a more realistic treatment of bursaries and loans under the Minister’s Vote. Here I should like to put forward the proposition to the hon. the Minister that he reconsiders the whole question of bursaries and loans and that he takes into account what the Cilliers Commission has said in this regard. On page 71 of that report they assure us that 82.4 per cent of the students at the United Kingdom universities receive financial assistance in the form of bursaries and loans based on merit and need for the purpose of providing for a substantial part, if not the whole, of their university training and residence. The report says this is a responsibility which deserves much more attention in this country to-day than it has at any time received in the past because the extent of the benefit of bursaries and loans, in relation to the total cost of training and residence, is very much lower in South Africa than in other countries.

I feel the amount voted from Revenue Account to the Department of Education, Arts and Science which averages about 3 per cent of the Budget, while the Loan Account offers about 1 per cent, is far too low. There are large corporations in America that consider that in order to keep abreast of their competitors they should spend at least 5 per cent of their turnover on research and training. If they can do that, then I am sure that South Africa, as a country, can do as well as any large business.

The Robbins Report on Higher Education has just come out in the United Kingdom. They state in that report that one twelfth of the age group have some form of higher education. The report recommends that the State’s support of higher education should be sufficient to increase it by half, so that one sixth of the age group should go to university or college and they say that that will cost R700,000,000 per annum. This staggering increase is going to take place over the next 16 years. Sir, I think we should aim to do the same here. Everyone familiar with the needs of a highly developing country like South Africa, which the Minister is, I am sure, cannot doubt the necessity of giving a more realistic allocation to bursaries and loans for students. It was the Governor of the Reserve Bank who said earlier this year that “we ourselves needed educated people badly, but it might be possible to increase the tempo of our educational activities to a greater extent by not only educating young people for South Africa’s expanding needs but also the experts. We should stop paying lip-service to scarcity of skilled persons and manpower and devote more money and attention to university and technical education and give more liberal study bursaries”.

I feel South Africa’s stability in peace and war depends on experts. We have created a world around us to-day which cannot be run without university graduates, scientists and technologists. So higher education, which used to be looked upon in days gone by as only available to those who could afford to pay for it, has become a national necessity. The State, I think, should reassess its attitude towards it. The State must concern itself with planning for an ever-increasing university output of trained manpower to relieve the present shortage of skilled manpower. Higher education should be put within the reach of all those who can qualify for it. I appeal urgently to the hon. the Minister to-day to see that all talented youth should be entitled, to receive a bursary to cover both their tuition fees and living expenses. This will have to be done on a selective basis. They should also be paid during vacations provided they complete certain set studies during those vacations. I would ask the hon. the Minister to consider this more generous provision for bursaries and loans and to ask the National Advisory Education Council to consider this during the next year.

The hon. the Minister himself when he was speaking on this subject during the Budget debate asked for a crash programme to meet the immediate education needs. I am now asking the hon. the Minister to institute this crash programme in the form of a massive increase in the funds for bursaries and loans for all students who need assistance.

In the very short time available to me there is another matter to which I should like to draw the Minister’s attention and that is adult education. What plans have the hon. the Minister and his Department for accelerating the tempo of adult education in this age of automation? Sir, a new approach to adult education is needed to-day. We have to think of re-education. We have to re-educate the population in order to enable them to keep up with automation. They have to match their skills with new requirements and they might have to be re-educated several times during their lifetimes. This is a very complex problem; it is a problem just as important and perhaps more complex than the problem of additional aid to universities. During the last 20 years we have had a half of all scientific knowledge increased in the world and we have had the number of scientists doubled. Under our apprenticeship scheme a young man begins at 16 and at 21 he emerges as a supposedly qualified craftsman, with his future determined. Similarly in the case of an engineer who takes a degree at university it is generally assumed that he will not have to undergo any further training during his lifetime. If the annual growth rate is going to be maintained in South Africa and if the present shortage of manpower, which everybody admits exists, is to be remedied, then we shall have to consider re-educating university graduates and workers in unskilled jobs. [Time limit.]

We notice that under the Vote of the hon. the Minister assistance is being given to various universities, amongst others, Cape Town, Stellenbosch, Witwatersrand, Pretoria, Rhodes and so forth, but no assistance is being given to the University at Port Elizabeth. I am sure, however, that when we discuss the Vote of the hon. the Minister next year we will find that provision has been made for a grant to the University of Port Elizabeth.

It has become the practice of hon. members opposite to laugh when hon. members on this side of the House express their gratitude to a Minister or to the Government. In spite of the fact that they will probably again laugh at me, I want to extend the warmest thanks of the Eastern Cape to the hon. the Minister and to the Cabinet for the establishment of the University of Port Elizabeth. The House is probably aware of the fact that good progress has already been made. As hon. members may have noticed from the Press, the council of the university has already been constituted. That council consists of persons drawn from public life and from universities like the University of Rhodes and Stellenbosch University. As you are also no doubt aware, Mr. Chairman, the rector has already been nominated by the council and his appointment has been approved of by the hon. the Minister notwithstanding the fact that the Opposition told us before the university was established that the rectorship of the university would be a political appointment. I hope that this appointment has proved to those hostile to this university that the hon. the Minister has followed the old practice of approving of the appointment of a rector recommended by the council. I may say that we expect great things from Dr. E. J. Marais, the rector, whose appointment has been proposed by the council and approved of by the hon. the Minister. We also want to thank the hon. the Minister for having given his immediate approval to the council’s recommendation.

We are also pleased to be able to say that it is anticipated that the university will be able to start its work next year. I am also pleased to be able to say that at this early stage it is already in a position to teach two subjects more than the number being taught at the moment by the branch of Rhodes University which is still functioning there. The most important point of all is that we are pleased that notwithstanding the predictions of the Jeremiahs who wanted to wreck the establishment of this university and who now sit so innocently on the Opposition benches, notwithstanding their opposition and notwithstanding the struggle that we had to wage, there is hearty co-operation to-day in the Eastern Cape. Everyone there is imbued with one ideal and that is to make the University of Port Elizabeth a dual-medium university at which members of each language group will find what they need for their further training and what they need to qualify them further for those walks of life in which we have a shortage of adequately trained people. We hope and trust that we will even be able to exceed the highest hopes of the hon. the Minister and the Cabinet. I am sure that the Government will not be sorry that it has given this assistance to the Eastern Cape and to Port Elizabeth specifically by establishing this university.

I want to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which has been brought to my attention by people interested in the work done by the African Self Help Association. Some time towards the end of last year it appeared that students attending the Johannesburg Nursery School Training College were issued with an instruction that they were not allowed to continue to belong to Nusas or to do work for the African Self Help Association. It would appear that in terms of a regulation which the hon. the Minister had framed under the Vocational Education Act, which allows him to approve or otherwise of organizations to which pupils of vocational schools could belong, a ministerial edict had gone out, an edict which was presumably conveyed to this nursery school as the students were given this instruction, that they were no longer to remain members of Nusas or continue to do any work for the African Self Help Association.

The hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell) earlier this year put a question to the hon. the Minister asking whether students had in fact been so forbidden. The Minister gave, what I considered to be not a very satisfactory reply. He referred the hon. member to the regulations he had framed under the Act. Since that time I have taken the matter further. I have examined the particular Government Gazette in which the regulation was gazetted, i.e. R.1946. It seems to me firstly, if I may say so, that the hon. the Minister has exceeded his powers in terms of the Act because on examining the Vocational Education Act of 1955, I find no definition which includes nursery school training as vocational education. It is certainly higher education but it is not vocational education in terms of the definition of the Act. It seems to me that the hon. the Minister has, in terms of the law anyway, exceeded his functions by making this regulation. However, the legal aspect of the matter is only a minor part as far as I am concerned. What I am really concerned about is the hon. Minister’s disapproval of organizations such as Nusas, which after all is the official student body at the major English-language universities in this country, and the fact that it would appear that he indicated he would not be prepared to approve of students falling under his aegis at vocational training schools belonging to Nusas or any allied activity of Nusas. I would like the hon. the Minister to make it clear whether this is in fact his attitude because this is the impression which the students at the Johannesburg Nursery Training College have been given. I believe most of them have been told to resign from that organization.

Furthermore, the hon. the Minister includes in the organizations of which he disapproves, the African Self Help Association. I wonder whether the Minister realizes in what a difficult position that association has now been placed as a result of the withdrawal of the services of the students of the Johannesburg Nursery School Training College. The hon. Minister must be aware that the African Self Help Association is an organization which is registered as a welfare organization in terms of the Act. I wonder whether he realizes that there is no training scheme for African nursery school teachers and that those students were rendering an invaluable service to this association by teaching the simple routines of hygiene and handwork to the teachers at the African Self Help Association. This is an association which is run by a body of White women in Johannesburg in conjunction with African women in the township. Their whole aim and object is to teach African women to be self-sufficient and to assist them in some form of domestic activity, in the running of nursery schools and various other important ancillary organizations like that. I cannot for the life of me understand why the hon. the Minister objects to students doing this work which they do in a voluntary capacity without any compulsion from the principal or teachers of the nursing training college and work, which I understand, they miss considerably now that they have been forbidden to continue with it. I ask the hon. the Minister to reconsider his policy in this regard because I believe he is doing a disservice both to the students and particularly to the African Self Help Association which does magnificent work in the township. It is a completely nonpolitical body. I can give the hon. the Minister every assurance on that score. It does no political work amongst Africans whatsoever. It is entirely a welfare organization. It is run, as I have said, by volunteers from the women of the White community in Johannesburg with the specific objective of assisting African women in learning to be more self-reliant and to pass their knowledge on to others in the township. I know the students were doing a good job in assisting this association and that they feel very sore indeed about having been told that in terms of the regulations it was necessary for them to resign from Nusas and to stop working for this association. Again I want to draw the Minister’s attention to the fact that I believe, as far as I can see from examining the Act, and the definition of “vocational schools” that nursery training schools in fact do not fall under this definition and that he has in fact exceeded his powers in this regard.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) spoke about a particular welfare organization and said that she could assure the hon. the Minister that it was not a political organization. She also mentioned Nusas and said that it was such an innocent organization.

I said nothing about Nusas.

I am pleased that the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) is here. He said yesterday evening that the hon. the Minister should repudiate what had been said by his two colleagues about Nusas in the past. This Government contributes a large amount to these universities and it is compulsory for students at these four English-medium universities to become members of Nusas. Sir, I ask myself: What is Nusas? In October last year the hon. the Minister of Justice explained to us what this organization was; he told us what its aims were. This year certain students at the University of the Witwatersrand wanted to establish another English-medium organization as a counter to Nusas because of its communistic and political activities but they were forbidden to do so by the Rector of the University on the ground that Nusas was the only authorized organization. According to Dagbreek of 22 March, the establishment of a similar body was prohibited in Durban because the new body wanted to bring about co-ordination between Whites and Whites. The Rector said that co-ordination could only be sought between Whites and Blacks. The establishment of that new organization was also prohibited with the result that Nusas now has a monopoly at these four universities. Mr. Chairman Nusas, as we know it to-day, should be destroyed root and branch.

Leave the English-medium organizations alone!

They can establish other organizations with other aims but Nusas should not be allowed to continue to exist as advocated by the hon. member over there.

I accuse the hon. member for Kensington of co-operating with Nusas in secret—and then he comes here and attacks the Ministers! He now adopts a pious attitude in an attempt to hide that fact. Communists like Slovo, Sam Kahn, Lionel Forman, Wolpe, Ruth First and all the other staunch leftists like Hepple, Rubin Sachs, Goldreich, Wentzel and Leftwich are all products of Nusas. The hon. member for Kensington is annoyed because these hon. Ministers attacked this organization.The hon. member wants to protect Nusas. That is what the United Party is doing. Nusas is an organization which co-operates very closely with the A.N.C., a banned organization in this country. In July 1963 they held their 39th Congress at the University of the Witwatersrand, the Alma Mater of the hon. member for Kensington and the university at which the hon. member for Houghton learnt her liberal ideas, ideas which are a disgrace to this country. At that congress they elected Albert Luthuli as their honorary president. I want to ask the hon. member for Kensington whether he is satisfied that Albert Luthuli should be the honorary president of Nusas. Is he satisfied with that? The hon. member for Green Point (Maj. van der Byl) wants a Coloured to be Prime Minister; does the hon. member want Albert Luthuli to be honorary president of an organization of his Alma Mater?

The policy of Nusas is complete political social and biological integration. That is what they advocate. I want to know whether this hon. member agrees with that policy. Is that what he wants? Is that his policy? The hon. member for Kensington criticized the Ministers here last night and I am asking him now whether that is his policy.

Of course.

So that is what the hon. member for Houghton wants. The hon. member for Kensington refuses to say “yes” or “no”. I can only infer then that that is what he wants.

Go on with your speech; I will speak later on.

I hope the hon. member will give me his reply. Nusas goes much further than this. Like the Liberal Party, they too advocate the policy of “one man one vote”. Is that what the hon. member for Kensington also wants? [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members in the corner over there must please stop conversing among themselves.

Mr. Chairman, we are under extreme provocation.

Let us look for a moment what affiliation there is between Nusas and the communist world. In 1945 it was affiliated with the International Union of Students. This affiliation ceased in 1955 because of the banning of the Communist Party in South Africa. Although they severed their connections with that organization in 1955 they have continued to keep in touch with that organization. Nusas held its congress in Johannesburg in 1963 and minute No. 377 in which they proudly state that they still have contacts with Nugs in Ghana, reads as follows—

That is what the United Party are advocating; that is what they want. I think in pleading for this organization, this camouflaged Communist Party in South Africa, the United Party are doing a most shameful thing. Mr. Chairman, I think the time has come in South Africa for the hon. the Minister to say to these universities, “We will only contribute 71 per cent of your expenses if you put a stop to this sort of thing.” We as taxpayers, as parents and citizens of South Africa, are not prepared to encourage these organizations at our universities, because if we do, those universities will become the breeding-ground of communists, agitators and liberals. That is what the United Party want; this is what they want to protect. No, Mr. Chairman, I think it is time for us to tell the outside world that we are not going to permit this any longer. If action has to be taken, we must act. What are the aims of a university? The Cilliers Report describes them as follows; it says that there are three aims. The first is that it must be a training school for public and professional leadership in a variety of spheres. Secondly, it must be a centre of culture for the education of man as a whole; and, thirdly, it must be a training sphere and a research institute for the search after and the discovery of new knowledge. If these are the aims—and that is what we want—then universities must serve that purpose. We want our students to be trained. This is the penultimate training that they receive before they embark on their careers. The final stage of this training is to adjust themselves to practical life. If the students are not properly trained and educated—I hope you will forgive me if I say that one might almost say that the English-medium universities ruin them, (opvoeter) insteading of training (opvoed)—if the students are not properly trained by these authorities, by the chancellor, the lecturer, the professor and the teacher—then steps have to be taken. That entire group is responsible for the students. We do not want a repetition of what happened in Johannesburg when the rag procession gave rise to shameful conduct on the part of a few students who dressed in women’s underclothing and other things in which they marched through the streets. Referring to this behaviour Professor MacCrone said: “We cannot blame the university but the parents”. To this I say that if he cannot do his duty, if he does not want to accept his responsibility, then the parents must take up the matter and tell Professor MacCrone to clear his university’s name which has been sullied because of the conduct of these few hooligans. [Time limit.]

It is not my intention to continue this debate of the importance of Nusas in university life. I think what we are doing here is that we are blowing it up out of all proportion, and the best thing that we can do is to confine ourselves to the betterment of education in South Africa and to leave the Nusas alone for the time being. There are opportunities to deal with these political subjects on other Votes. I would much prefer to simply go on with the debate as we were doing previously.

I want to draw the hon. Minister’s attention to the question of the teaching of medical students in our universities. The hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) was quite right, I think, when he said that there are great difficulties which face the poorer section of our population. He mentioned the Afrikaans section. That also applies to the English-speaking section who find it difficult to attend universities outside their home towns. That is perfectly true, and if it is true for the White people, it is equally true for the Coloureds and the Bantu. We have heard from time to time of the failure of our country to provide sufficient Coloured and Bantu doctors. An establishment has been instituted in Durban to provide facilities for such students who come forward to take up medicine, but our difficulty there is that there are not sufficient candidates of the matriculant class who are good enough to be admitted. There is only a small trickle of Bantu going to this university to become doctors I think the difficulty is financial in the main. We have got, as I said last year, a very large hospital on the borders of probably the largest non-White town, non-White city in South Africa. The Baragwanath Hospital lies next to Soweto. It is almost impossible for a Bantu to provide the fees plus the living expenses of his child to go from Johannesburg to Durban to study there. He cannot afford to do it. So naturally there are not very many students coming from Johannesburg to attend the university at Durban. Now because of apartheid, I know, it has not been possible for the Witwatersrand University to admit Bantu students. Something must be done to alleviate the strain that is put on the Bantu who wants to go from Johannesburg to Durban and take up medicine. He cannot afford both the cost of his tuition plus the cost of his living while he stays there. In addition, as the hon. Minister well knows, the Bantu student has a longer course than the White student. He has to take an extra year at Durban. For some reason it is found necessary for the Bantu student to repeat his first year of study which in itself is very wrong. Earlier in the course of this Session we heard that it may have to be a law of this land to provide half-baked doctors to provide for the services of the non-Whites. The White people that become doctors cannot possibly undertake to look after the Whites plus the Blacks. There are not enough doctors being produced to do that, with the result that large areas of South Africa are being absolutely denuded of medical services. If we are going ahead with the proposals in respect of South West Africa, contained in the Odendaal Commission’s Report, there again we will need hundreds of additional doctors, particularly non-White doctors. If the hon. the Minister is not going to do something now at this stage to provide facilities for non-Whites to enter the Witwatersrand University then I am afraid all these schemes that are being put forward from time to time of encouraging the Black man to look after his own affairs, are going to remain fairy tales. There is no substance in them, because we, who are the custodians of education are not doing very much to help them along the right lines. So what does it mean? It means in essence that the Witwatersrand University must get a larger grant to make its medical school bigger than it is now, so that it will not only be able to admit more White students but at the same time will be able to admit a large number of Black students, and these Black students to go there to become doctors. They will have their own hospital at Baragwanath where they can do their practical work on their own people. The Coloureds that are admitted to the Witwatersrand University have got their own Coloured hospital at Coronation and the practical work can be done there. The position can be made quite easy for the Black people and Coloured people as far as practical work is concerned. But the university is prevented from admitting these people and until the Minister finds ways and means of lessening this burden that is resting on the White doctors to look after all sections of the population, it is no good going forward with these grandiose schemes on paper of providing services by the Blacks for the Blacks, by the Coloureds for the Coloureds. You will never be able to do it under existing circumstances. It is fortunate that in the Cape there are facilities here for teaching the Coloured students, but north of the Cape there are not these facilities, and until the Minister can see the point that I am trying to make and the importance of this point, he is going to cause a chaotic position in the next five to six years. Day after day we are being told that there are not enough doctors, day after day we are told that there are not enough dentists; day after day we are told that there are not enough pharmacists. What is the hon. Minister going to do about this? Is he going to encourage the Black people to take up these professions, or is he going to close the doors to them, the doors that are right at their doorstep? I again appeal to him to reconsider his decisions of the past, to open up the universities and allow these people to enter. He will not be sorry. South Africa will not be sorry.

Much has been said on this Vote already and perhaps it is just as well for me to give a short review now in regard to a few of the important matters.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) started off by saying that all university education should be under one Minister. This is, of course, a debating point the hon. member raised, well knowing that it would have very little effect, because the policy of the Government has repeatedly been explained in this House, viz. that there are the various education departments for high education. In any case I am glad that the hon. member now evidently begins to advocate a national education department. But in any case there is no question of that. It is Government policy. That is the position and that is how it will remain, and when the Votes of the Ministers concerned come to be discussed the results at the non-White universities will clearly come to light. The splendid results achieved, showing what attention was devoted to those students.

The main matter which the hon. member discussed was the National Education Advisory Council. Before dealing with principles I first want to dispose of a few other points. The hon. member asked which members of this Advisory Council were on a full-time basis, and which were part-time. When we passed the Act in 1962, I very strongly advocated that we should have five full-time Executive Committee members. I still believe it was a good thing that we did not accede to the request that there should be only three, for the simple reason that when we started looking for good people we could not simply take people out of their posts and appoint them full-time in another post. But my standpoint was that we wanted the best possible people. I still maintain to-day that we obtained the best possible chairman Dr. Rautenbach. He is the rector of a university, and the fact that the University of Pretoria was willing to allow their rector to serve on the Education Council not only part time or half the time, but really full time, and that he performs his rectoral duties part time, is only something we can be grateful for. I, who took part in it and saw what the problems of the chairman were in the first year of their existence, can give the assurance that if we had had political people there we would have made a real mess of the whole thing. When I speak about “we”, I refer to all sides of the House, because what was required in the first place was cautious action. Professor Rautenbach in the first place got a council of 29 members of whom one was more suspicious than the other. The one was watching to see what the other one’s plan was and what he would do. The provinces were afraid that they would be deprived of their rights, and the Central Education Department was afraid that it would be deprived of its rights, and the training colleges were afraid that their status would be lowered. Everybody was suspicious, and nobody trusted the other. Then we got Professor Rautenbach, a diplomat and a man who knows what he wants, and he managed—it took him some time—by means of dining and wining and much talking and by making these people understand the position, and pointing out that it was not necessary to be so suspicious, to achieve one thing which to me is very important, namely that these people now come together there and sit as scientists, professional men and experts, without being suspicious of one another. They are beginning to trust one another, and I just want to say that we should do as little as possible in this the highest council of the land to spoil matters. It should not be forgotten that a system developed ever since 1910. At the time we all desired that something should be done to this system, and now we should not spoil things. As the hon. member for Westdene (Mr. van der Spuy) said, more haste, less speed. That was the first man. The next, who is also a very good man and who was there part time until May but is now there full time, is Mr. Stanley Osler. He was the head of a private school. He could just simply, in view of all the plans they had there, have said: “Now I leave you to manage by yourselves”. Mr. Stanley Osler had to wait a whole year because certain work had to be completed, and now his board is satisfied that he can do it in a full-time capacity.

In the meantime another problem arose. One of the other pillars was Professor Bingle. He then became rector as from the beginning of this year. I received a unanimous request from the Executive Committee that without the wise guidance and assistance of Professor Bingle, with his background, things would be very difficult, and seeing that matters had progressed to quite a great extent we must please not let that man go. On their strong recommendation I immediately agreed, with the approval even of the Cabinet. Now I must say that these professional people are working very hard. They must now work overtime. Of course they are not paid the full salary of a full-time man. They really receive only a compensatory allowance, which is negligible. But they do it from devotion to the cause, because a certain course was adopted and a certain amount of progress has already been made. I hope that the House approves of this. The position is not ideal yet. I expect things gradually to be sorted out and that there will be five full-time members.

The next difficulty the hon. member for Kensington had is Parkinson’s Law. I am just as afraid of that as the hon. member is. We guard against it as much as we possibly can. The hon. member pointed out that there are two bodies, the Secretariat and the Research Bureau, and that both already want to expand their staff. Now I want to explain immediately that the Secretariat is not a big, cumbersome body. As a start we gave them only a secretary and a typist. I have now asked the Public Service Commission to investigate whether their work justifies an expansion of the staff. My information is that at the most only one or two members will have to be added to the staff, because a tremendous number of reports have to be written and typed, and it is essential to have additional assistance. Hon. members have received only a brief report, but I as the Minister—not as the Minister of Education, but really as their Minister, because this Education Council is really a separate board and the Department of Education has very little to do with it—receive all the reports, and there are stacks of them, memoranda, etc. Therefore this expansion of staff is negligible.

In so far as the bureau is concerned, the work it has to do for the Education Council is only a small part of its activities. As a result of the work the bureau is continually being given, with the numerous research projects they have to undertake on behalf of the Economic Advisory Council and the Scientific Advisory Council, expansion is necessary. But there is no question of giving everybody a private secretary and having a large secretariat. This expansion is not unnecessary. I can give the hon. member the assurance that care is taken to see that it does not get out of hand, and that is why we also provided in the Act that this council should not establish its own separate research bureau, but that it would make use of existing facilities. But because more work is being entrusted to them and because the work is urgent, it is necessary to increase the staff. The hon. member said that he was glad that the decisions were unanimous. He expressed the hope that when this council in future took decisions and I accept their advice, it would always be a unanimous decision which I accept. Of course I cannot bind myself there. It is gratifying to see that all their decisions were unanimous, but in any case it is not a rule of democracy that all the decisions one accepts have to be unanimous. I hope it will not happen, but if it later appears necessary for the Minister to take a decision either on a majority resolution or even a minority resolution, the Minister should still have the right to decide.

The hon. member expressed the opinion that we did not make sufficient use of married female teachers. I have been given the assurance that it is the policy of the Department that when an expert person is required and there is no unmarried women to fill the post, a married woman is appointed. But we should beware of one thing, namely that the bread is not buttered on both sides by keeping a married woman teacher in employment because she is a good teacher, whilst closing the door to a young teacher who has just finished her studies, so that there is no opening left for her. So when there are shortages we say that the married woman must assist us, and where we know that the shortage will persist for a long time my Department appoints married women teachers for periods of three years or even longer. And where they are particularly qualified for the post and there are unmarried but less qualified applicants for the same post, they are still appointed. Therefore to a large extent we are in fact doing what the hon. member desires, and we try to secure the best people in the interest of our nation.

I should just like to round off this matter of the Education Council by replying to the hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor), who also spoke on the subject. The hon. member made one great point, namely that the Education Council recommended that there should be an end to the divided control, and that with a view to that a change should be made. I prefer to quote the exact words from paragraph 31 of the report. I do not want to read the whole of it, but they say that they will do all these things “with a view to the possible allocation to the provinces of all education up to Std. X”. That is the advice. This recommendation was transmitted to me and I said that I was willing to allow them to publish the following in a Press statement, and in connection with that particular sentence my words were—

This is a difference in degree, and not in principle. That is how I see it. This advice was definitely, cut and dried, that all secondary education should be given to the provinces. My standpoint was that it is too early to decide on that. That is the very crux of the matter. The crux of the matter is that we want to abolish divided control, but we want to know how it is to be done, and we cannot say that this is the only method. Therefore I phrased it in this general way, that the divided control of education should come to an end and that there should be development of a national education pattern. That is the language which has always been used in this House. There was no difference between us. It was not a question of our saying that we would be taking something away from the provinces or giving the provinces something. It was not a quid pro quo affair but the basic idea is that the whole of the White population, Afrikaans- and English-speaking, feels the need for a national education pattern to be developed, even though it shows great diversity. This is where I differed from them, but I do not think it is a difference in principle; it is a difference in degree as to how one must state the case at the moment, because that is all important. I want to predict that this is only the beginning and that it will not be completed next year either, or perhaps for quite a few years, but there is no idea of our deceiving one another or of playing politics or of seeing where one can gain a disadvantage. This is not a quid pro quo affair. The main point is that this is really an honest effort on the part of these educationists to do the best they can for the child, who is the important factor. The interests of the child come first, before the national interest. Now the hon. member for Wynberg has raised objection. She says they are concerned with the teacher and with this problem and that one. If the hon. member takes everything into account she will see that all these things together just amount to an attempt to achieve the great ideal. This meeting of education chiefs has existed for years already, but since we have had this Education Advisory Council now for the first time these five education Departments can get together and really show results because there is mutual trust. Previously there was suspicion and they thought: You just want to get us together to take something away from us. Therefore I am grateful that we have got so far. This House ought to express its gratitude because we are now at least not trying to take advantage of one another and stepping on each other’s toes, and seeing how the one can profit from the other. If we can now say as legislators that we want to give these persons every possible assistance, I want to predict that we will render a great service to the Republic of South Africa. I have asked my Deputy Minister to discuss the question of manpower. Then hon. members will not have to listen for so long to one monotonous voice. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) referred to the Cilliers Report.

Before the Minister leaves that point, will he tell us what members of the Executive Committee are full time?

There are five members. Professor Rautenbach is the chairman, but he is there part time. Professor Bingle is the Deputy Chairman and he is there part time. Dr. Jordaan is also Deputy-Chairman and he is there full time. Miss E. C. Steyn, one of the members, is there full time, and Mr. Stanley Osler is also there full time.

Now, in regard to the Cilliers Report I just want to point out that the report stated that the subsidies to the universities were steadily increasing and eventually it may become 100 per cent, but all that the State says is this: We recognize the autonomy of the universities, but in regard to one matter we want to retain co-authority, and that is in regard to the money voted for the universities. The State has to provide that money, but the State does not want to tell these people how and what they have to teach. We do not interfere in that sort of thing, but we have co-authority in regard to the whole development, and we just warn them of that. They always boast of their autonomy, but we are very interested in the products they produce. I want to state my standpoint very clearly to the hon. member, and also to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) in regard to the question of Nusas. I received letters of protest from the university authorities concerned in regard to what my two colleagues had to say about Nusas and about those universities. I handed them over to my colleagues. They supplied me with an answer which I transmitted to the principals of these universities without comment, and I have heard nothing further about it. Whether these principals are now convinced I do not know, but my two colleagues are man enough to defend their own case. But what I want to say is this. I stand here as one of the original founders of Nusas. In 1959 I represented my Alma Mater at Stellenbosch, when Nusas was founded. We drew up a constitution and the name of that body was the National Union of South African Students, and that constitution was in the interest of the students of South Africa. It was a cohesive federated body, the object of which was to promote the interests of the students of South Africa. Dr. J. D. du Plessis, the former Secretary for Coloured Affairs, was also one of the founders as well as Dr. Len Verwoerd, the brother of the Prime Minister. But what has happened since then? Instead of that constitution, which is still in my possession, there is an amended constitution and a changed course of action which I must say is frightening. These people no longer stand by the original objects, but encroach on the political sphere. They arrogate to themselves the right as immature people, to a large extent, to criticize any actions of the Government. We receive the greatest criticism from them, but I take no notice of it. When I receive criticism from that association, it goes into the wastepaper basket without any acknowledgment, because that body has been so wrongly inspired in recent years. But I want to say that the State has an interest in it. As the hon. member for Sunnyside quoted from the Cilliers Report, university training has a three-fold object, and we subscribe to that. The State will not allow its citizens to be influenced in this wrongful manner, and they associate with all kinds of movements which are certainly not good for the country and its people. I am glad that quite a few of these universities where Nusas plays a role are waking up now, and I immediately want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that this nursery school of mine has not yet asked me whether they may become a member, but if they do so I will prohibit them from joining that organization. [Hear, hear!] In view of the fact that the Government pays its subsidy and bears full responsibility for that nursery school, we will not allow it, nor will I allow it at our high schools or at any of our other schools. We will not tolerate those pernicious influences. There are splendid international organizations in student life, but this association has left an odium which certainly cannot be ignored. I say this quite clearly so that hon. members may know where they stand as far as I am concerned.

The sound ideas expressed by the hon. member for Westdene in regard to the necessity for additional university training are gratefully accepted by me and I want to tell him that I was and still am a Witwatersrander, and I believe that in view of that great concentration of population the large universities do not offer the solution to our problems, and the Cilliers Report also said so. The contact is lost. I received a letter from a parent the other day, whose child is at one of the large universities. This child has been there since February, and last week this parent wrote to me saying that the daughter had written to her father that she had actually seen her Afrikaans professor that day for the first time. She had not even had the opportunity to come into contact with him. That is one of the many reasons for the large number of failures. I do not wish to go into the matter, but I just want to say that the Government is not unsympathetic to the establishment of a second university on the Rand.

Hear, hear!

But the Government thoroughly bears in mind all the points raised here. Since 1922 the University of Port Elizabeth was the first university to be established which did not have to start right at the bottom. The Government is aware that it is not easy to get lecturers. One can get many people, but few good ones, and therefore we have to go slowly, and the University of Port Elizabeth must first be assisted through its difficult initial stage. A lecturing staff has to be appointed. We have the non-White universities, and we cannot take too many lecturers away from other institutions, and we have to take care in that regard. I am not discussing the medium now. Personally, I still believe that the University of Port Elizabeth is not an experiment, but that it will be the crown on the great things we have already achieved in this country, viz. that it is possible to have a dual medium university there where Afrikaans-and English-speaking students will be able to associate with one another happily. And I hope that this will be proved within the next few years. I also want to tell the hon. member for Somerset East in connection with Port Elizabeth that this university will appear on the Estimates next year. It will appear on the Estimates on I April 1956. We have so much confidence in them that the Government has given them a gift of R160,000 to assist them over the initial period, and thereafter they will receive full assistance.

Now there are still two matters. The hon. member for Sea Point (Mr. J. A. L. Basson) raised the question of the scientific societies. I want to say immediately that the Government’s policy is quite clear and I will not depart from it. It remains as it is. In sport and also in every other sphere our policy is that these things should be organized separately for the various groups, White and non-White, and that there should be the possibility of having contact at the highest level by means of affiliation or federation and on the executive level. That is our policy in regard to the trade unions, the employers’ organizations, and sport. That is the traditional policy of South Africa. The White man helps the others where they are weaker, and puts them on their feet. That policy will stand. I just briefly want to mention what happened.

Towards the end of 1962 we informed these societies that unless they amend their constitutions in such a way that they have only White members, they cannot receive the subsidy the Government pays them. That is mainly a subsidy to publish certain periodicals. Then two problems arose. The one problem is that there are very few of these people. There is perhaps one non-White in one society, or two in another, but whether it is one or five or 100 it makes no difference. The policy is applied consistently. We do not want mixed societies. But we are always reasonable in the application of our policy. When this circular was sent out by my Department to draw their attention to the decision of the Government, trouble arose in regard to two bodies. The one is a purely Afrikaans body, the S.A. Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns, under the chairmanship of Dr. Ampie Roux, and the other was the S.A. Association of Technical Societies under the chairmanship of Mr. Campbell Pitt. These two gentlemen asked whether they could not see me jointly in order to put their problems to me. I agreed, and they came and I had a long consultation with them. Both gentlemen stated their difficulties. I then explained how I viewed the matter and how they could do it. Then we agreed that they would go back to their respective associations and put the matter to them as I had stated it, and then they would come back and tell me whether they now had different proposals, whether I should withdraw the whole thing, or whether I should amend it. I am still waiting for them. I am not reproaching them, because I think they have a difficult task. Perhaps they are still busy negotiating. But in the meantime the members of these associations were in a hurry and asked to see me, I then told the hon. member for Sea Point that I could not see them, and that was my reason; I could not see them because I was still waiting for Dr. Roux and Mr. Campbell Pitt to come and see me. Now it seems to me that there is confusion in regard to the whole matter, and I want to say that I have arrived at the following decision, and that in the light of what happened I have decided that for the financial year 1964-5 I will still continue paying these subsidies to the associations as in the past, hoping that during the present year a basis will be found for implementing the policy of the Government. If this hope is, however, not realized I shall have no other choice but to stop the subsidies for 1965-6. It is only a small subsidy. Not much money is involved. There are only 14 members out of 14,000, and the only thing I can do is to do it in this way, by giving these people an opportunity to consider the matter and then to have consultations again to see whether we cannot settle the matter on the basis of the policy of the Government.

How does the Minister propose, if there is only one atomic scientist who is a Coloured person, as is the case, that he should form an association for himself so that he can also participate in these discussions?

Those are the very suggestions I am awaiting from Dr. Roux and Mr. Campbell Pitt. If they tell me that nothing can be done, we will devise ways and means. But let us rather not seek the solution here. Let us seek it in the right place. I think we can probably solve those people’s problems.

The hon. member for Klerksdorp (Mr. Pelser) raised a matter which is of real interest, and this gives me the opportunity at the same time to reply to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). Both the hon. member for Klerksdorp and the hon. member for Rosettenville spoke about the training of medical men. The hon. member for Klerksdorp says that three kinds of training are provided in our country. There is the liberal training and there is the scientific training, but there is also such a thing as a Christian background and views. He pleaded that if another medical faculty is established, the training there should be the basis of what is actually the national principle, on a Christian basis. Now I may just inform hon. members, and the hon. member for Rosettenville may also take note of it, that the Government has had a survey made by the Scientific Advisory Council of what is required in South Africa. Should an additional medical faculty be established, or can the four existing faculties be expanded in such a way as to comply with the present requirements and for the next few years? We have been informed that all four faculties can be expanded in such a manner that until approximately 1975 a sufficient number of medical men can be trained to comply with the requirements of the Republic. That does not mean to say that no additional medical faculty may be established before 1975, because it takes quite a while before something like that comes into actual operation, but at least for the next few years there is no need for an additional medical faculty. Now I do not think hon. members need deliver pleas for a medical faculty here or there. We already know all that. Just let us accept the position. This was done in co-operation with the universities, and I just want to tell the hon. member for Rosenttenville that, according to the information we have, it is not only the shortage of money which results in Bantu not being able to go to Durban, but it is because the Bantu cannot succeed in passing the medical examinations to the same extent as the Whites. For many years to come the Whites will still have to provide medical services for the Bantu and the other racial groups. Therefore we shall have to train more medical men to assist those underdeveloped groups.

Now I still have to reply only to the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss). She made out a strong case in regard to bursaries and bursary loans. I complimented her on it last time, but I think she will now see what progress has been made in only a few months’ time, and what we have already achieved. I want to say briefly that my Department has available a total sum of R126,600 per annum, which is made available to the universities in the form of bursaries. Then since 1956 the Government has made funds available to the universities which they can give to needy students in the form of study loans, which the students then repay with interest. In this an amount of R253,000 has been invested. Apart from those bursaries and study loans provided by the Department, every university also has its own bursaries and loan funds to assist students. Large sums are also made available by other bodies. I estimate that this amounts to about R500,000 a year. Those are bodies like the C.S.I.R., the Railways, the Atomic Power Board, the oil companies, the Chamber of Mines, Iscor, the Helpmekaarfonds, etc. But now I come to the most important point, and that is the announcement by the Minister of Finance in his Budget speech as to the establishment of a national bursary fund. Hon. members will remember that the Minister announced that this fund would be established and that my Department would have to handle its disbursement, together with the legislation to legalize that fund, I shall also have to introduce legislation in regard to how the fund should be administered. This will still be done during this Session. Hon. members will remember that companies can subtract a maximum of 1 per cent from their taxable income for this purpose, and I expect that if the necessary publicity is given to it—and I hope great publicity is given to it—companies will react very favourably, because this is now the first time that we are establishing a bursary fund from which not only the very clever students will be able to receive a free bursary, but the second-class matriculant, the type of student we also need and have sometimes neglected, and who are in needy circumstances, will also be enabled to study further with the assistance of a bursary.

But when I talk about bursaries, I want to say clearly that I think it is quite demoralizing that a bursary should always be a free one. A large proportion of the bursary should be in the form of a loan, repayable by the student when he starts earning his own money. I want to mention an example. I said once that the time would soon arrive when not a single person who had passed matric and wished to go to a university would be prevented from doing so by lack of funds. But what did I find? The other day I received a letter from a woman. Her daughter is at Stellenbosch and she received a bursary of R100, and now she cannot study. When we made investigations, Stellenbosch informed us that we had granted her a free bursary of R100 and had offered her a loan of R200, but the parents had refused the loan of R200 and had only accepted the R100, and now of course that is insufficient. Just imagine! I now want to tell hon. members that our Public Service bursaries, which were always free bursaries, will be changed as from next year so that part of the bursary will have to be repaid as a loan, and for the other portion they will have to give an undertaking to serve for a certain number of years.

In regard to these bursaries I want to assure hon. members that I have not based my expectations in regard to this national bursary fund on sand. I asked my Head Office what amount had been donated by industry until 31 March 1964 for the technological training of Whites at universities. To-day I received the reply by telex—

I want to say that the reactions of these people to technological training are gratifying. I am grateful for it, and I am quite convinced that next year the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) and I will be able to shake hands and say that our ideal has been achieved, and that we will continue along those lines, and every person who needs it will now be able to obtain the necessary funds. I just want to tell the hon. member in conclusion that I agree with her that re-education is the solution to the problem. But it is not the task of Adult Education to undertake that. For that we have our vocational schools and our technical colleges and the other institutions which see to re-education. Adult Education has a totally different object. We cannot allow re-education, which is a specialized matter, to be tackled in that way. But the hon. member is correct in her submission that re-education is the solution to this problem.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question. Does the hon. the Minister not see his way clear to the African Selfhelp Association being divorced from his attitude to Nusas; in other words, he did not answer that part of my query as to whether he would allow students to continue with their work for the African Self-help Association, which is a welfare organization.

The position is that the students at that institution are all residential students. They are there to do a certain job. They have certain hours to attend to their work, and it is very difficult for me to say at this stage whether they have the time and the opportunity to do what the hon. member asks me to allow them to do. I will go into the question again and see what we can do about it.

Thank you.

The hon. the Minister in his reply to the debate made a few statements which we cannot allow to pass unchallenged. For example, towards the end of his speech he said that it would be completely demoralizing if bursaries were regarded as loans which were not at all repayable.

If the whole bursary is regarded as not being repayable.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister immediately that we have made so much progress in the educational field that primary and secondary education is compulsory and free to-day. Was it demoralizing to introduce that system in the case of primary and secondary education?

That is compulsory education.

Of course it is compulsory education but I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not argue with me that in the circumstances in which we are living to-day university and higher education has become extremely important. There is a tremendous shortage of manpower in South Africa to-day, particularly of technologists and technicians, and under these circumstances I think the approach of the hon. the Minister is completely wrong. He himself said that a portion of Public Service bursaries would in future be regarded as repayable loans and that this would be put into operation next year. Mr. Chairman, if we follow that policy then I do not believe that we will ever be able to overcome the problem with which we are faced to-day—the tremendous shortage of manpower. That was also the argument of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss).

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) advocated a system of loans.

Yes, but why did the hon. member advocate that loans should be made available? She advocated that loans and bursaries should be made available because a large number of our South African citizens are not in a position to receive university and higher education. They simply cannot afford it. The hon. member asked for a new approach to this whole problem and said that more should be done in the future. But the reply of the hon. the Minister to this was that it would have a demoralizing effect if bursaries were regarded as non-repayable loans. Sir, we Afrikaans-speaking people have undergone fantastic development over the past 15 or 20 years and because we have undergone that development we now adopt an attitude which is almost as snobbish as the attitude adopted by some people in the days of Milner and in the days of Lord Charles Somerset. I say that the time has come for us to see the position in this country as it really is; and the position is simply that thousands and thousands of young Afrikaans and English-speaking people cannot afford to go to university.

They can get loans.

I just want to refer the hon. the Minister to the report of Professor A. C. Cilliers, at page 78, to show how costs have increased. In 1911 the total cost per university student per annum amounted to £104 16s. Student fees amounted to 17.64 per cent of this amount; the income derived from private sources was 14.12 per cent and the income of the institutions was 31.77 per cent. The State gave a subsidy of 68.23 per cent. What was the position in 1961? According to this report the total cost per university student per annum was £205 16s.; student fees had increased from 17.65 per cent to 29.44 per cent, a tremendous increase, the income from private sources was 3.59 per cent as against 14.12 per cent in 1911. The income of these institutions remained reasonably constant. In 1911 it was 31.77 per cent and in 1961, 33.04 per cent. Sir, we boast about the very large subsidy which the State pays to universities but in 1911 the State subsidy was 68.23 per cent and in 1961 it amounted to only 66.51 per cent!.

If you compare the total amounts you will find that there is a tremendous difference.

Of course, but the contribution of the State must be compared on a percentage basis if we want to do it in a scientific way. Mr. Chairman, the National Advisory Educational Council can study all the reports of all its various committees which have sat on this matter but unless they can work out a scheme to attract more young men and women to our institutions for higher education we will simply not be able to succeed in overcoming this problem of manpower shortage. The important question is whether we have the people to-day to train as the technologists and technicians whom we shall be needing in the future. That is precisely where our whole plan, our whole system will fall down. But what does the hon. the Minister do? He comes along here and he throws cold water over the whole plan to bring higher education more easily within the reach of the ordinary man. He wants to make it even more expensive than it already is to-day. A student will be able to obtain a bursary but he will have to repay a portion of that bursary; it will be regarded as a loan. According to the hon. the Minister it will have a demoralizing effect upon the student if he is granted a bursary that is completely free. There are many people in South Africa and even in this House who received their training at institutions for higher education through the assistance of bursaries, bursaries which they never repaid.

I am one of them but I repaid mine.

There are others who did not repay the bursaries granted to them because it was not necessary to do so but that does not make them inferior to the hon. the Minister. I am very sorry that the hon. the Minister made that remark at this stage of the development of our education because it can only have a damaging effect upon higher education as such. This statement that he has made can only place a damper on students who are anxious to receive university training but who cannot afford that training. The hon. the Minister also placed a damper on potential students a few weeks ago when he said, in dealing with the A. C. Cilliers report, that the State was going to do a great deal more but that study fees would in all probability have to be increased in the future. I do not believe that the hon. the Minister did the cause of higher education any good by making that statement. If there are deserving people who want to receive higher education and who cannot afford it then it is the duty of the State to assist those people.

The hon. the Minister saw fit to follow the example of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) by making an attack upon a certain student organization which functions at some of our autonomous universities. The hon. member for Sunnyside has told us that students at English-medium universities have no choice; that they have to become members of Nusas, but I am sure that the hon. member knows that precisely the same position obtains at our Afrikaans-medium universities. The students at our Afrikaans-medium universities are also compelled to become members of the “Afrikaanse Studentebond”. [Time limit.]

One is really disturbed at the attitude adopted by the previous speaker. When the hon. the Minister referred to the question of bursaries, he made use of the opportunity, firstly, to indicate the large amounts that are being made available by the State for bursary purposes. He pointed out that those facilities had been increased, but at the same time the hon. the Minister also made an appeal in regard to the morale of our people. He told us that people who need bursaries could obtain those bursaries through the medium of the Government but that after they had completed their studies they should consider it a privilege to repay part of those study fees to the donor. Mr. Chairman, one of the most striking characteristics of a nation is its self-respect. The hon. the Minister made use of this opportunity actually to encourage bursary-holders to show a sense of self-respect and so it disturbs me that the Opposition, through the medium of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), has actually undermined the ground on which a nation’s self-respect has to be built. We as legislators ought rather to use our influence to guide and encourage our young people in this country, encourage them to do their share as well and not to expect to be given everything for nothing. That is why I am particularly disturbed by the attitude adopted by the hon. member.

The hon. member for Wynberg (Mrs. Taylor) in referring to the manpower committee this afternoon hurled accusations against the Bureau for Educational Research which in my opinion were undeserved, unfair and untrue. The hon. member referred to the manpower committee which is investigating the manpower position in the country and she said that it was surprising that the bureau which has been in operation since 1948 has not yet been able to do anything in this regard; that a manpower committee has to be brought into being in order to do this work. I say that that is a very unfair and untrue accusation against the bureau. The very last way in which one can solve the manpower problem is either by means of slogans, such as those used by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West), or by means of untrue statements, such as those made by the hon. member for Wynberg. When one wants to get to the root of the manpower problem one has in the first place to ascertain scientifically what the actual manpower requirements of this country are. The second step in this regard is to ascertain the actual talent of the manpower available, juveniles and other, in this country, and ’ thirdly, it is the task of the State to make the necessary training facilities available so that those people who have a particular aptitude can be trained in that direction. Time does not permit me to go into detail in regard to this last-mentioned factor because I want to come back to what has actually been done by the bureau and the manpower committee. I want to say that there is nothing of which the Government need be ashamed in this regard. It is not for nothing that we in this country have the second highest world percentage of Whites at universities. This is not something that has just happened. We have reached this position as a result of the training facilities which the State has made available. America is the only country in the world in which the percentage of Whites at universities is higher than that in South Africa.

I want to hurry on in the short time I have left to me to indicate what we have actually done in connection with manpower research. The impression given by the hon. member for Wynberg was that the Bureau for Educational Research has done nothing over the years since 1948; that the State has been fast asleep.

That is not what I said.

We can note with appreciation what has been done in this sphere over the past years. The establishment of this manpower committee, the first meeting of which I had the privilege of opening officially in Pretoria the other day, is not simply a first step taken by this Government in connection with manpower research. We have been engaged upon manpower research over the past ten years. In 1958 the Bureau for Educational Research completed a particularly important and interesting study which dealt with a survey made in connection with the training and employment of natural scientists and engineers in South Africa. This was a very comprehensive work and consisted of five volumes. This investigation indicated the manpower position in the sphere of natural science in South Africa at the time as well as what the requirements in this regard would be in five years’ time, and we were able to set up our educational facilities accordingly. In this connection I also want to mention the fact that the bureau is at present engaged upon an investigation into the labour pattern of the Coloureds here in the Western Cape. They are already engaged upon that investigation and when the investigation into the labour pattern in the Western Cape has been completed, that investigation is going to be extended to the Coloureds in the rest of the country and also to the Indians, beginning with the position in Natal. These investigations that are being undertaken by the Bureau for Educational Research will form the basis for any further advice which can be given to the Government for the establishment of suitable means of employment. But one has also to begin at the root of the manpower problem and that is to ascertain what the talents of our school-going children are. The bureau is engaged upon an equally important investigation in this connection; it is making a survey of children leaving school in order to ascertain why children leave school before they have passed Std. VIII or Std. X. The purpose of this inquiry is to keep children at school until they have passed their final examinations. But that is not the only work we are doing. The Council for Scientific and Industrial Research has been engaged for some years now upon a similar investigation, through the medium of the staff institutes, into our manpower requirements in this country. This inquiry is being undertaken in various spheres. The bureau is doing the investigation in connection with children at school and also in regard to children leaving school. As a result of these investigations upon which the bureau on the one hand and the C.S.I.R. on the other hand are engaged, as a result of the biennial manpower survey that is being made by the Department of Labour and also as a result of the surveys that are being made by the Bureau of Census and Statistics, we have found that there has been a duplication of work and wastage of manpower. In order to eliminate that duplication of work the Government has decided that all these bodies should be co-ordinated. That is the reason for the establishment of the manpower committee which has now started work. That meeting of the manpower committee to which I have referred was attended by 27 persons representing the Provincial Administrations, various State Departments dealing with labour matters, Departments like Bantu Administration and Development, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs and, obviously, the Department of Labour itself as well as Immigration. This manpower committee has been brought into being but the Bureau for Educational Research still occupies a key position; it still remains the actual investigating body of this manpower committee. Because the bureau has gained knowledge and experience in connection with manpower research over the years, it is felt that we should retain that machinery in the future and that is why the machinery has been set up under the bureau. That manpower committee will co-ordinate the various projects and the various Government and semi-Government research bodies. [Time limit.]

There are three matters which I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister. The first one arises out of the Estimates of Expenditure from Loan Account, Loan Vote M, “Loan to National Film Board”, R442,000. It was R450,000; apparently they drew R8,000. The matter I want to raise is the question of the appointment of the general manager of this board. I have asked a total of, I think, ten questions on this subject—on 7 February we saw the curtain rise on what I can only call “The Curious Case of Mr. Crouse”. It is quite a thrilling film or play in ten episodes. I asked on 7 February whether applications had been invited, etc., and the Minister in reply gave me a long list of the positions with the National Film Board for which applications had been invited, starting with the general manager at R6,150. Curiously enough the advertisement in the newspapers, which was inserted in the usual way, and more particularly the one which appeared in the Vaderland on Thursday the 30 January refers to all those positions except the position of general manager, so that I could not—and cannot to this day—reconcile how the hon. the Minister could tell me: “These are the positions that are going to be filled in the usual way,” etc., when in the advertisement, which appeared a week before that answer was given, there was no reference to the general manager-—the top position was not advertised! I have read this carefully, and I can find no reference to it. There is a fairly lengthy list of positions and I will not have the time to go through it. Then on 25 February in order to try to clarify this rather mysterious position, I asked whether the National Film Board had employed any persons at a commencing salary of more than R3,500 per annum. Of course, the position of general manager was advertised, according to the hon. the Minister, but not according to the advertisement, at R6,150. The hon. the Minister replied and said: “Yes, one employee, Mr. F. J. de Villiers, as secretary-treasurer, at R4,080 per annum.” We still had not found the general manager! Then on 28 February I asked him whether a meeting had taken place during February this year between any official of his Department and members of the Motion Picture Producer’s Association of Southern Africa, who claimed, according to a Press report, that they had met the general manager of the National Film Board, Mr. Crouse, the week before. I put this question to the hon. the Minister of Information who had, perhaps unfortunately for him, insinuated himself into this little discussion between the Minister and myself. The Minister of Information replied “no” to the first part of my question, and the rest of it fell away. I then came back to the Minister of Education, Arts and Science—Sir, the “question and answer” procedure as employed in the House of Assembly will never cease to be a source of wonder as far as I am concerned. I came back to the Minister on 3 March and asked whether a Mr. Alexander Crouse was employed by his Department. He answered, “yes”, gave me his degrees, and said that his salary was R4,500 and that he was the chief of the division of State Film Production. Now we come to 10 April when I asked the hon. the Minister whether a general manager for the National Film Board had now been appointed, and his reply was: “Yes, on 1 April 1964,” and he informed me that Mr. Crouse was the general manager! Arising out of something else, I put a question to the hon. the Minister of Information. I asked him whether his attention had been drawn to the caption to a photograph which had appeared in the South African Digest of 21 November 1963 and which contained a reference to “the general manager of the Film Board”, and I then referred him to the statements which the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science had made. This caption referred to the general manager of the Film Board, Mr. Alexander Crouse. The Minister’s reply was—

And then there appeared this addition to the answer—

The word “designate” was spelt with a capital D. I then came back to the Minister of Education on 17 April and asked—

The hon. the Minister courteously—but very curtly—replied, “No; the rest falls away.” I went back again to the Minister of Information and I said to him in effect on 21 April—

The hon. the Minister of Information replied—

In other words, through the Minister of Education, Arts and Science—

In the English text, of course, he used the word “Designate”. In reply to a subsequent question he said that “designate” should have been printed with a small “d” instead of a capital D, which merely proved that we were not getting anywhere. What I want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: I believe he is in charge of the Public Service; we talked about that yesterday. I hope he will explain to the Committee how it comes about that a man who was already known to be General Manager of this very important board, which has been given a loan of R450,000 in its first month, as it were, in Government circles and in the South African Digest as the General Manager of the board as early as 21 November 1963 and is thus known publicly, to the Press and to the Motion Picture Producers Association of Southern Africa, with whom this board will have to work very closely, I believe, can be appointed in such a way that the hon. the Minister can stand up in this House and, without a smile on his face, give me eight evasive answers which obscure the fact of the matter—which is that Mr. Crouse has all along been the general manager of that board? On top of everything the Minister said to me and the House, did he then have to say, in order to circumvent any complaint, “Oh, he was only general manager designate.”? Nobody knew that except the Minister of Information. The public, the National Film Board and I were not let into the secret. I hope the hon. the Minister will give an explanation on that score. Sir, this could and should develop into a very lengthy discussion but I am not going to pursue it.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister what he intends to do in regard to the acquisition of works of art, in view of the fact that out of the windfall which the hon. the Minister of Finance has announced, there will be R250,000 to spend on such works of art. I want to ask him what he is going to do, as related to the purchase of the Fehr collection. As I have said before in this House, I was very happy to learn that the State had acquired this collection. In reply to a question from the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) on 7 April the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science gave a number of details, and from the answer emerges the fact that although R300,000 was paid for this collection, one gentleman, being Mr. F. L. Alexander, who was a lecturer on art and erstwhile dealer in antiques and is at present art critic for the Burger, according to the answer, valued the collection at R100,000—and then apparently, according to the Minister’s answer, in order to make sure that he had not been unfair and had not tried to mislead the Minister, he tried to put the maximum value on it, and Mr. Alexander said, “Let us add 50 per cent for goodwill and make it R150,000.” This was Mr. Alexander’s valuation, and yet, because two other valuers were called in—either at the same time or subsequently, I do not know from the answer—the price paid was R300,000, when the basic valuation of Mr. Alexander was R100,000, or R150,000 if you add 50 per cent for goodwill for safety’s sake. I raise this, Sir, because I sincerely hope that in which ever way we may acquire art treasures for the nation, they will be acquired in a more realistic way, having regard to the public purse; in other words, that we will spend the money more realistically.

The other point is that according to the Minister’s answer the only place where this exhibition will be seen will be Cape Town. I will remind the hon. the Minister that it is common knowledge that very important works of art are shipped half-way around the world, including the Mona Lisa, etc., and although this is a condition of this collection …

Do you realize that it also contains a lot of furniture?

I know that, but the point is that according to the answer all of it—including the paintings—has to stay in the Castle. This is my point, Sir. I know that Cape Town regards itself as the whole of the Republic of South Africa, but I say there are other cities and towns …

That was a condition.

I know. But I say that in regard to the future acquisition of art treasures, the Minister should not allow the money that is so limited, to begin with, to be used in such a way that only one part of the country will have the privilege of being able to see that art collection, and that it should rather be a collection that can be circulated, if possible throughout South Africa. [Time limit.]

Numbers of hon. members in this House as well as the hon. the Minister have referred to the evils that have resulted from the Nusas student organization and I think one must place the blame for these things at the door of the universities where most of these students receive their education. When one considers the question of sabotage in and refugees from this country, I think it may perhaps be worthwhile to discover what the percentage is of people who are guilty of these things, at which universities they have studied and what the State grants to such universities is. The hon. the Minister referred to the Education Advisory Council and then he referred to certain persons who had done particularly good work on that council. He spoke, amongst others, of Mr. Stanley …, which gave hon. members quite a fright until the hon. the Minister said “Osler”.

Uys.

I think that it may be a good thing if we change his name to Osler Stanley so that one will not get a fright when one hears that first name.

There are many opportunities for employment in this country and there is sufficient money for people to earn. But every person who accepts work must be a capable and able person and must learn that capability and ability at our educational institutions. It is not sufficient just to be capable. We test a person’s ability by his knowledge and by his aptitude but we also test his competency by his devotion to duty and by his adjustment to his work and to life. It is this aspect which is also part of university training that I want to emphasize for a moment at this late hour of the debate. We have heard a great deal about the shortage of manpower. We know that the Government is engaged, through the medium of the hon. the Minister and his Department, in anticipating the development in the industrial sphere by making university training available so that when that manpower is required for our industrial development it will be forthcoming from our universities. It will not be a question of needing a certain amount of manpower for our industrial development and then having to wait until the universities produce that manpower. We are already proceeding in that direction, that is why I cannot understand why the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) is so disturbed and has attacked the hon. the Minister so unfairly. He said that the hon. the Minister is making no provision at all for the future. Every person on this earth has a function to perform. The hon. the Minister also has a function to perform in this House and so has the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West). The function of the hon. the Minister as a responsible person is to formulate a policy for us and to give us some idea of what will be done in the future and it is apparently the function of the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) to stand up here in an irresponsible way and make a propagandistic speech. That is the easiest thing in the world to do; that is something that does not require much doing. One does not need much knowledge or much ability to do that.

Our aim in this country is of course that the graduates from our universities should not simply become so many cogs in a machine; not simply become so many buttons to be pressed. They must be people who in their life and work are the bearers of a principle of life. I want to emphasize this fact: South Africa will not be able to achieve anything numerically for many, many years. But what she has done in the past and what she will still do in the future as a result of the fact that our students receive the necessary training at our universities is to achieve something as far as quality is concerned. Each one of us has to take the place of six people but this is not the case in those countries where because of their large population, they have more than enough students who have had university training. Mr. Chairman, in our training we must be taught a sense of values. There is a lack of meaning in life, in our work, in our pleasure, in our sport, in our relaxation and in our dress. For what is meaningful in this life we have to rely upon the products of our universities because they Will have to give the lead in the future. They will have to set the pace.

The university has to deal not only with the 2,000 or 3,000 or 7,000 students studying within it. Those students do sit close to the fire but we must have channels of radiation from our universities to the public outside. We know that it is an unfortunate fact that the daily Press is not very interested in serving as a radiation channel for all that is good in our universities. From the nature of things and because of the times in which we live they have to reserve their space for the less meaningful, according to demand. Why is the demand for what is meaningful so poor? We must concentrate upon cultivating people who will ensure the correct demand. They must come from our universities. The universities must implant what is meaningful in life and in our present generation because the generation that is now at university will determine the demand in the future. They must make it easy for the daily Press also to serve as a radiation channel for all the good things at our universities. There is no market for the publications of universities themselves. As far as university publications are concerned the only consumer is the producer himself. Consumers are cultivated at the universities themselves and that is why university training must cover not only the apex of our national pyramid but it must be education on a national basis to such an extent that it permeates through all the masses.

I cannot but refer to the opportunities that are available. The hon. the Minister has already mentioned this fact. I have here a letter which I received from the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science. This is once again in reply to what was said by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) in connection with the lack of training facilities. The letter reads as follows (translation)—

Our universities are subsidized to the extent of 70 per cent or 80 per cent of their expenditure by the State. I just want to point out that the percentage in Holland is 96 per cent. This is an ideal which it is worth our while in South Africa to strive for. Unfortunately, we have a lack of donors. The donors to universities are not the rich people; they are the poor people. Why is this so? Once again it is because there is too little taste for what is meaningful in life. If all of us had a taste for what is meaningful in life, rich and poor alike would open their wallets in order to make donations to universities by way of cash contributions and also by way of bequests and not simply expect the State to make these contributions. In other words, we should not always turn to the taxpayer to find the necessary funds for providing the necessary manpower for our country.

I do not wish to prolong this debate unnecessarily but I should like to make one or two observations to remove some misunderstanding which seems to exist in the minds of the hon. member for Sunnyside (Mr. van Zyl) and others. I refer especially to the two quotations I made from speeches by hon. Ministers at functions during the recess. I did not make any attempt to defend Nusas. To be quite frank, the hon. Minister of Posts and Telegraphs did not attack Nusas. He did something much more serious. He attacked the universities, not Nusas. This is what he said—

He did not refer to Nusas. That is the story the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs told the dear people at Wonderboom on the occasion of a “stryddag”. That is the first. I now come to the second.

The hon. the Minister of Justice did attack Nusas but that is not the gravamen of my charge. The gravamen of my charge is the same as it was in the case of the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs. He said this—

The case I made was this: That on the one hand we have an hon. Minister of Education doing his duty in introducing Votes in this House providing for R6,271,000 for four English language universities for extension purposes and to enable them to carry on their good work. On the other hand we have two of his colleagues advising parents not to send their children to these institutions. It was the inconsistency of the thing. That was the case I made. I shall not repeat it.

It is not necessary for me to defend Nusas. I do not think it is necessary for us to enter into a discussion about any student organization. People always criticize student organizations. They criticize one another. That is one reason why they go to university. They have views to express and lives to live out at that stage. It is the Milton idea of a university: “Give me the liberty to know, to utter, and to argue freely according to conscience, above all liberties.” This is a personal touch: When I was a student the late Earl Roseberry, who was the greatest and most colourful orator of his day, opened a student union for us. He said at the close of his great oration: “I suggest that in this student union you should have a scroll over the door “No man will be bound in after life by any opinion he expresses here”. Hon. members who have been to university would perhaps like to forget their careers there. You know how we lived at university, Sir,—“hard-up, but always happy” we used to sing. Why should we in Parliament assembled devote our time to criticizing student organizations? They will criticize one another. And when students leave university you will find some of them sitting on the front benches here in later life. If you remind them then of their days at university 40 or 50 years before they will say: “Shhh, do not mention that.” That is the story, Sir. And that we should attack Nusas or any other organization is to waste our time. There is another student organization, the Afrikaner Studente Bond. Good luck to them too. I suppose they argue against one another. I suppose they have elections and I suppose they have rags. Students behaved so disgracefully the other day that the hon. member for Sunnyside worked himself into a passion, like an Indian Fakir, about the conduct of those students. Why? There is only one way to deal with a student who gets out of hand and that is to touch his pocket. There is very little in it. I think that is the obvious thing to do.

Mr. Chairman, we make ourselves ridiculous if we spend our time attacking student organizations. The other day I noticed that we touched bottom. Somebody attacked the C.S.V. (Christelike Studente Vereniging). Well, well, if they attack them, Sir, I think there is nothing left. If students get out of hand they should be dealt with. By whom? By the university authorities! There the Minister is right. We have to protect the autonomy of the universities and not attack these organizations from outside. The people to deal with them are the members of council on which the Minister is represented—he is represented on every university council. They can deal with every situation of this kind.

The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) said that we in this House should not waste our time on student organizations but in the meantime he himself was discussing them. The only conclusion that I can draw from his speech and the way in which he made it is that he aspires to becoming the cheer-leader of one of the universities at “Inter-varsity”. I want to tell him that is something that has been finalized and it will not help him therefore to cherish any aspirations in that regard.

I want to come back now to a matter which was raised here this afternoon by the hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher) and the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss)—the question of bursaries and loans to students. I cannot imagine a responsible hon. member in this House trying to make use of this House as a platform from which to make cheap bids for the support of intellectual young people of our country by criticizing the hon. the Minister for having said that it was demoralizing to grant bursaries to people without attaching any strings to the bursary. How did numbers of our educated people get where they are to-day? Did they get there the easy way by means of bursaries or did they get there the difficult way by means of self-application and by finding the wherewithal themselves? The hon. member told us the cost of how university education had increased. I do not deny that but I want to ask the hon. member whether he has noticed from the Cilliers Commission report to what extent the contributions of the State towards the training of our students has increased. The contributions of the State have increased by no less than 189 per cent since 1948.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) said that about 82 per cent of the students in Britain were able to attend university because they were given financial assistance. Perhaps the hon. the Minister was not listening attentively when she said this but she said that our students should all be exempt from class and hostel fees. That is the extent to which she wants them to be assisted. On page 71 of the report of the Cilliers Commission, after referring to the position in Great Britain, the commission says—

I want to support the hon. the Minister wholeheartedly in his statement that in principle he is opposed to the granting of over-generous financial assistance. I want to say here to-day that the largest portion of the bursary and loan fund for which provision is made in the Estimates this year is used for loans. And that portion which is not used for loans must be used in order to give further encouragement by means of bursaries to the student who does well.

The great need to-day is mainly in the ranks of the pre-graduate students. The hon. the Minister referred to various funds and private institutions which exist to-day to assist students. But they first want to find out whether or not the student is likely to do well, whether he is the sort of person who has it in him to make a success of his studies. Here I have in mind the Helpmekaar Association which also wants to help but they too first want to see what the student is able to do. The main thing is to give that student a start. That is why I ask that this new National Bursary and Loan Fund and all other possible means which may become available in the future should be used for this purpose. Let us assist those students by way of bursary loans, if I may call them that, so that at an early stage the young student will realize that he has undertaken an obligation upon himself for the sake of his own progress and that he was not simply something for which he need not accept any responsibility at all.

Speaking about bursaries and loans I should like to quote what is stated by the Cilliers Commission in regard to various forms of bursaries made available by the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science and by various other Government Departments, bodies which, as a result of staff shortages, encourage students by making bursaries available to them bursaries which are administered by the Public Service Commission. A condition of the bursary, however, is that the applicant must commit himself for a certain period to the Department concerned after the completion of his studies. In this connection the commission has the following to say in regard to these departmental bursaries, including those of the Provincial Education Department—

They go on to say—

This same idea is supported in a memorandum drawn up by the Federation of Engineering students, a sphere in which there is a great shortage of manpower in this country. This is a memorandum which they drew up and submitted to a conference at which the question of bursaries and loans was discussed. In that memorandum Professor Heydon of Stellenbosch stresses this point, amongst others. He says that this practice of State Departments of binding people to work for the Department by granting them bursaries results in many students discovering after the completion of their studies that they do not really have an aptitude for that particular work and that they are not interested in it. This applies more particularly in the case of the more gifted student who is desirous of studying further after he has obtained his Bachelor’s degree. He is then bound by that contract which he signed; he has to work for that Department or for some control board or other for a certain number of years. That sort of thing causes frustration. He is unhappy in his work because he either wanted to study further or to study in a completely different direction. That man is bound by a contract which he signed at a stage in his life when he was perhaps not mature enough to make up his own mind.

As a solution to this problem they suggest, not the abolition of bursaries and loans which are made available by State Departments in an effort to solve the problem of staff shortages, but a pooling of these funds which will be administered by the Department of Education, Arts and Science so that any gifted student or any student who needs assistance can apply to the Department for such assistance. Once that student has completed his studies he will then be free to apply for a post with any of the participators in the pool and, under the guidance of the Department, decide where to work. If he is a very gifted man and he decides to study for his Master’s degree he must be given the opportunity, through the Department of Education, Arts and Science and with the assistance of this bursary fund pool, to do so.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to express any opinion on this proposal but I want to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to this matter because I personally see a great deal of merit in it; as I see it it offers the possibility of attracting more gifted young students to the Public Service. We can even include in this pool groups of employers such as the Chamber of Industries, for example, the Chamber of Mines and other large organized groups of employers, groups which can offer a wider selection of posts to graduates. In this way we can make the man happy in his work and assist in making finances available to more and more of our promising students to study further after they have obtained their Bachelor’s degree.

I understand that we have practically reached the end of the debate. However, I still owe the hon. member for Hospital (Mr. Gorshel) a reply. He mentioned a very important matter—the purchase of the Fehr collection. In the first place I want to tell him that instead of asking all the questions that he had to ask in this case before he discovered the name of the person concerned, Mr. Crouse, he should in the future come to my office and I shall assist him then to draw up his questions correctly so that he can be given the answer he requires in reply to his first question. I really do not think that I replied unfairly to any of his questions but his questions were so incorrectly framed that I was not able to answer them in any other way. I really think he should take advantage of my offer.

But that is not the important point. The important matter is the Fehr collection. I am afraid that the remarks of the hon. member in regard to the Fehr collection may perhaps be wrongly interpreted both in this country and abroad. At the time, in 1962, the Government obtained three valuations of the Fehr collection. One valuation was R300,000, one was R150,000 and the other was R144,000. The valuator, however, stated that the Government could purchase the collection for R200,000. This is what he said—

As I say, these valuations were made in 1962. The Government has now paid R300,000 for the collection. As hon. members know, the value of these things constantly rises. Let me mention one example. The old Verenigde OosIndiese Companjie plates are valued at R200 each. During this Session some of those plates were sold for as much as R600 each. That is one point, the original articles which were valued in 1962 were supplemented by a further 30 articles which were added at a later stage. Those 30 articles are the following: “Five African oils, 17 seventeenth century Japanese and eighteenth century Chinese pieces of china and two large V.O.C. plates, five pieces of antique stinkwood, yellowwood and oak furniture, one bracelet with trinkets, ring and seal for watch-chain, all in gold, from the Van Reenen family, one pair of pewter mugs, inscribed, Table Bay Regatta, 1878 and 1879, and one ship’s bell, 1776”. These articles did not form part of the collection at the time.That is the material aspect of the matter. But imagine how much poorer the people of South Africa would have been, but for the expenditure of an additional R100,000 or even R200,000, if Dr. William Fehr had decided to break up his collection and to sell the items singly at a far higher price than R300,000 for the whole collection? It is estimated that if Dr. William Fehr had not been as patriotic as he was and had decided to sell his wonderful collection piecemeal, a collection which when one enters the Castle gives one the feeling of being transported into a wonderland of bygone days, he would have received far more. Just imagine how the Opposition would have complained! But I would have been ashamed to show my face outside and to hear the accusations of the people of South Africa! I think we as a nation and we in this House owe Dr. William Fehr a debt of the greatest appreciation and gratitude for the fact that because of his love for his country he did not yield to material considerations and hold out for more than he received from us, and that he enabled us to gain possession of this collection as a national treasure. I hope that that is the last we will hear about this question of valuations. From the material aspect alone I want to say that if the Government wanted to do so and had to do so, it would be able to obtain R500,000 for this collection within five or ten years’ time. Valuators would never value it at less than that figure. I am very pleased that the hon. member raised this matter and gave me the opportunity to express these words of gratitude and appreciation to Dr. William Fehr.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 24,—“Schools of Industries and Reform Schools”, R2,100,000,

This Vote of R2,100,000, dealing with the industrial schools and reform schools is an important Vote due to the fact that it covers the efforts of the State in reeducation of those juveniles, many of whom are juvenile offenders and juvenile delinquents, and it is pleasing to know that the emphasis has in recent times been placed rather on reeducation measures for these young persons than on the punitive measures.

However, I would like to deal first of all with the question of the reform schools. Mr. Chairman, you will recollect that in 1961 an important report was issued in regard to research undertaken by Mr. J. M. Lotter: “Die rehabilitasie van Blanke jeugoortreders”. In this particular report certain factors come to light, and I think one of the most important factors is that in judging the effect of the reeducation that takes place at the Constantia Reform School, it was found that the follow-up cases of some 544 ex-inmates of that school show that there was a very high degree of failures. The figures show that those persons who were not convicted of any further offence after being released from the reform school, only totalled 26.3 per cent, whereas those who were partial failures and who were convicted of only one or two counts for offences of a less serious nature constituted 10.1 per cent, and the failures—the criterium here was taken as those persons convicted on several counts for serious crimes usually resulting in heavy prison sentences—totalled 60.1 per cent, and of the over-all figure 3.5 per cent were unclassifiable. The hon. Minister has had sufficient time, I think to study the report and the important conclusions that were reached by this research that was undertaken in regard to ex-pupils of the Constantia Reform School, and I hope that the hon. Minister will be able to give some indication as to whether he has taken into consideration other systems of reeducation in this particular field in other parts of the world. For instance in America the principle has been adopted, and that is the modern principle, of establishing small units, and there they find that the degree of success in regard to this particular type of problem is very much higher. The figure that I have here shows that some 58 per cent success was achieved in this one particular school, the St. Francis School in the United States of America.

The other important factor is the after-care of these former pupils of a reform school and it is obvious that the hon. the Minister must consult with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions in regard to the after-care of these pupils, because there, I believe, is the most important factor in regard to the re-education they received at the reform school. These persons who are released on licence can quickly fall foul of the law and find that they are then classified as failures, and either find their way to prison or return to the reform school. Sir, the “Penal Reform News” makes an observation which I believe is a correct one, because ordinary welfare organizations dealing with these difficult persons have a similar experience, which shows that the probation period following release is far from satisfactory. The editor’s note in this “Penal Reform News” of July of last year, is to the effect that he has come to the conclusion, after discussing various aspects of the re-education that takes place at the Reform School at Constantia, that “our system of probation and parole is far from satisfactory. Because of the lack of proper supervision of the one time loser, the one time loser becomes a hardened criminal”. I do hope that the hon. Minister will make a full investigation in collaboration with the Minister of Social Welfare so as to ascertain how a greater degree of supervision can be brought about in regard to the expupils of such reform schools.

I wish to deal with the question of the schools of industries, and here the important work undertaken by the Minister’s Department is meeting, I believe, with a greater measure of success. Of course we realize that these schools do not have to deal with the advanced juvenile offenders and delinquents as in the case of reform schools. But I believe that a higher degree of success would be obtained if it would be possible to grade these industrial schools on a stricter basis. You find that young persons committed to various homes and institutions, when the boards of management decide that his interest could best be served by sending him to an industrial school, it has been the experience to find that a number of these youngsters on returning from the industrial schools, have learned habits, have learned a way of life which they should not have come into contact with. Because at these schools you also have those persons who have been daggasmokers and have developed behaviour problems, and indeed are maladjusted. I believe it is important to have a stricter grading at these industrial schools, so that persons committed there through no misdemeanour of their own will not have to carry a stigma in certain instances when they come to find employment. The question of the success of these industrial schools, I think, also rests a great deal on the question of having available more accommodation and also the question of smaller units. Due to the lack of accommodation at a number of these industrial schools, there is tremendous over-crowding also at places of safety and detention where these persons are waiting admission to these schools, and here too, the good and the bad are mixed, and I know that the position at the present time at the Durban place of safety and detention is that there is tremendous over-crowding and a number of these young people have to be accommodated outside the dormitories in the passage ways because such a large number of them are awaiting accommodation at the industrial schools. I put a question on the Order Paper the other day which the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts, and Science kindly replied to, and the reply shows that there are altogether some 2,353 young persons now accommodated at the industrial schools, and it is interesting to see that the figures from 1961, particularly in regard to girls, have increased by some 27 per cent, from 661 to 904. Here I believe you find one of the greatest shortages of accommodation in regard to industrial schools, namely to accommodate girls.

I asked also what provision was being made to extend our existing industrial schools, and the hon. Minister quoted that altogether an amount of R2,263,000 had been approved for extension at the industrial schools. But when looking at the Loan Vote, one finds that a very small amount indeed is being provided for the establishment of these schools. You find that a large number of these extensions are mentioned, but only token amounts are being voted: King William’s Town, R42,000, but only R50 being voted; Oudtshoorn Industrial School, R16,000 only R50 now being voted; Rustenburg, R310,000, only R50 is being voted; Heidelberg R38,500, again only R50 being voted. It appears that for the financial year ending 31 March 1965 in all these instances these schools are only having token amounts voted on those estimates. Therefore I do hope that the hon. Minister will use his influence and all the power at his disposal to try and expedite the provision of more accommodation at these schools of industries.

Another aspect is the question of the reduction that has occurred in the Estimates under this Vote in respect of staff. If you look at the Estimates, Sir, you will find that under “Schools of Industries”, whereas in 1963-4, there were 656 posts provided under “Staff” in these Estimates the number is now 629, an actual reduction of 29 in staff. Similarly there is a reduction in staff for reform schools. I do hope that this is not an indication that in any way this work is not going to be extended.

Another problem which I believe is a very real one is the question of absconders. If you look at the report that was submitted by the people who investigated the ex-pupils of reform schools you will find that of the absconders at the school there were 55.1 per cent and 21.3 per cent attempted or planned to abscond, that is 76.4 per cent. [Time limit.]

The days when industrial schools were regarded as penal institutions are long past in our country. Industrial schools have for many years been regarded as places of education in this country where important rehabilitation work is done. Our industrial schools are managed and controlled in that spirit. The reference of the hon. member to the Constantia Reformatory in pursuance of the Lotter inquiry, gives me the opportunity to say that the fact that that inquiry was held testifies to the great interest that we take in this work of rehabilitation and to the serious light in which we view this matter. We feel that we have to take stock from time to time to make sure that our methods are producing the desired results. In this regard I can give the hon. member the assurance that we are fully acquainted with the latest methods adopted abroad. From time to time we send our educationists overseas to visit industrial schools and reformatories there and to report back to us. On the basis of the findings of these educational missions I can say without fear of contradiction that our industrial schools and our reformatory at Constantia and the girl’s school at Durbanville are managed in the most scientific, educational basis that one could wish for. The work that is being done at those schools is in conformity with the knowledge that we gained overseas. Then I also want to refer to the setting up of smaller hostel units. Concern has been expressed in regard to the question of the correct psychological approach and whether in this respect we are giving effect to the pattern followed overseas. One of the ways in which we are doing this is to establish smaller hostels not only at the industrial schools but also at the reformatories. This enables the hostel father, who is usually a member of the staff, to make more personal contact with the inmates. I can therefore give hon. members the assurance that we are continuing with that work.

As far as after-care services are concerned I may say that these services are to some extent performed through the medium of our own Department. We have an employment hostel attached to the Constantia institution. Hon. members are probably aware of that fact. Once these people have been placed in employment, there is provision for proper after-care during the period in which they remain in this hotel. The provision of aftercare services is actually a function of the Department of Social Welfare and Pensions. In this connection I may say that there is thorough consultation between the two Departments in regard to specific cases.

It is obvious that industrial schools produce better results than reformatories. The child who lands in an industrial school is in most cases a first offender or, on the other hand, a person who has not yet gone too far off the rails. Where it is clear in the case of the child at the industrial school that the work of rehabilitation that is carried out there is not adequate for him he is transferred to the reformatory. In this way the reformatories receive the most difficult cases that we have to deal with and that is why one cannot compare the results of these schools with those of the industrial schools. Our industrial schools are doing excellent work. Even overseas experts are highly satisfied with the results achieved in this regard. Reference has also been made to the reduction in staff. I can only say that this is due mainly to a reduction in the number of non-White servants.

There is one last remark that I want to make in connection with our aim to expand these services even further. Two years ago we established the Schoemansdal industrial school for girls. The hon. the Minister himself and I visited that school recently and we were particularly impressed by the good work that is being done there. The workers there are dedicated people. We went a step further and we established a new industrial school for subnormal girls at Knysna. I say “Sub-normal girls”; in other words, I am classifying them because the hon. member asked us to introduce a system of classification at these schools. That is our aim. We introduce classification as and when additional accommodation becomes available. As I say, we have already applied this system at Knysna. A further expansion that is envisaged is the establishment of a school at Utrecht, also for girls. We hope to be able to make provision for this in the next year’s Estimates. We also contemplate establishing an industrial school at Wolmaransstad. Once all these industrial schools have been established we will be able to apply the system of classification on a wider scale. We admit that this system is necessary for rehabilitation purposes.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 25—“Bantu Administration and Development”, R21,620,000,

Mr. Chairman, I should like to avail myself of the privilege of the half hour.

Under a system of collective Cabinet responsibility, this hon. Minister must accept full blame for the ideological policies of the Government. However, often we feel that he is a misfit in this Cabinet. We know he has a high regard for, and faith in, the Bantu. One only has to read his speeches, not only those he addresses to the Bantu themselves but also those addressed to this House to realize that. As a matter of fact, he is consistent in expressing his faith in the Bantu. When one compares the Transkei Constitution Act and the speech the hon. the Minister made in this House during the passing of that Act with the Coloured Council Bill and the speech the Minister concerned therewith made in this House, then one realizes the differences in outlook between these two Ministers in the approach to the people under their charge. The Minister of Bantu Administration also manages his personal contact with the Bantu on a different basis. He is inherently courteous and he never fails to pay the Bantu the ordinary civil respects, such as shaking hands. In this respect one must compare his attitude with that of his colleagues, the Minister of Bantu Education. I say therefore that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration seems somewhat out of place in this Government with a Cabinet of ideologists and Herrenvolkers.

But, however kind his smile may be and however good his intentions may be, he remains the instrument chosen by the Prime Minister to carry out the policy of apartheid, or, as Chief Kaiser Matanzima prefers to call it, separate development. The Minister gives the impression of being dedicated to the cause of apartheid and that he really believes in it as well as in Bantustans. If you believe in apartheid, you must, of course, also believe in Bantustans because these are the foundation on which apartheid is built. We, on this side, of course deny that the establishment of Bantustans will solve our Native problem for the reason that we will always have Bantu in our midst and while here they have to be catered for politically. Without viable Bantustans, however, there is no hope of making a success of apartheid. The whole concept of apart-held must fail if Bantustans fail. No doubt if sufficient sacrifice is made and the country is more equitably divided between White and non-White and sufficient capital is spent, Bantustans can be made to work.

And apartheid also.

I should like to remind the House that Mr. Oppenheimer once calculated the minimum amount of money required to put 50,000 Africans per year in non-agricultural work. He calculated that over 25 years this would cost at least R1,600,000,000. The Minister of Economic Affairs estimated that by spending £600,000,000 over 50 years you could ensure an income of £6,000,000 for the Africans. He did not, however, say why he accepted the figure of £600,000,000 except that it was the capital amount invested in industry at that time, i.e. 1956 in White areas. He did not say how many African would be employed but he did indicate that we could afford to spend that amount.

Now, the present Minister of Bantu Administration was placed in a privileged position vis-à-vis the other members of the Nationalist Party in considering the full implications of the policy of apartheid. He was appointed a member of the Tomlinson Commission. For him there were only two courses the country should follow, i.e. either complete integration, or complete separation. There was no middle course for him such as that being advocated by the United Party. In any event, the Minister and the other members of the commission set to work most industriously fulfilling the task allotted to them. You see, Sir, it became necessary for the Prime Minister to appoint this commission because he was at that time Minister of Native Affairs and he could no longer pay only lip-service to a policy of apartheid while being pressed by this side of the House to say what was meant by apartheid and how it would be made to work. He had no answer and he could not tell us how it would be made to work. So he appointed the Tomlinson Commission. The Minister of Bantu Administration was appointed to the commission before he became Minister. The previous Minister had suggested that a commission should be appointed because it was clear that the Government did not know what the economic implications would be of carrying out the policy of apartheid. Now, this commission consulted experts, conducted research and came to definite conclusions.

Which Minister appointed the commission?

The Minister of Native Affairs appointed the commission. Dr. Jansen was then Minister …

But you said Dr. Verwoerd appointed the commission.

Dr. Verwoerd is the man responsible for the policy of apartheid. It is his policy and not the Nationalist Party’s policy. Dr. Jansen did not know what it really meant or how to carry it out. And when this side of the House tackled him on how he was going to implement it, he announced that he was going to appoint this commission, which came to certain specific conclusions. I would remind the Minister of what the conclusion was—

The whole emphasis was on development with White assistance. The commission also said that “the initial step towards the practical realization of the separate development of Europeans and Bantu lies in full-scale development of the Bantu area, and what is of essential importance is the question whether the Bantu and European enterprise will be attracted to the Bantu areas in sufficient measure to utilize to the fullest extent the capital which will be invested in the Bantu as human beings and labourers, and in the basic facilities for productive purposes”, and then it says—

Now, the commission did not come to these conclusions lightly, that development was essential and that White initiative and capital were essential in the reserves. They considered the position very carefully before making these recommendations. Reading the report, one appreciates the great dare given to details in preparing it. After it had been prepared two of the commissioners, the two officials, asked to be allowed to put in a minority report, because they had changed their views on the question of White entrepreneurs being allowed into the reserves. The matter was again brought to the notice of the Minister, but the Minister stuck to his guns. I raise the question of the Tomlinson Commission report again, because this commission reported in 1954, ten years ago, and in terms of that report there had to be “kragdadigheid”, and at once. In the first ten years R208,000,000 had to be spent on the development of the reserves. The whole emphasis of the report was on speed in tackling the problem; we could not afford to waste time. Now we know that nothing like the amount suggested was spent. The Minister, I know, will get up and say that they are carrying out the terms of the White Paper. The Government did not accept the recommendations of the commission in all respects. They, e.g. declined to allow White people to take part in the development of the reserves and did not consider that all this capital expenditure was necessary. But when the Minister was questioned recently in Another Place as to what was being done, he replied in generalities. We say that if the Government’s contention is a valid one, that the Bantustans can be made to pay, we demand that this Minister tells the country what steps the Government has taken since 1948, and we do not want generalities, but details. We know that the Prime Minister, who was then Minister of Native Affairs, accepted the policy of border industries rather than development in the reserves. I want him to tell us what has been done in that regard. We know that there have been certain developments at Pretoria and that the boundaries of the reserves were changed quite a lot from what they were originally. We know there was development in Natal, but the eyes of the whole country now are on the Transkei, not only of the White people there but of the Blacks as well.

Recently the Minister of Economic Affairs was asked what border development had taken place near the Transkei to furnish work for the Bantu living in the Transkei. He replied that certain industries had been established near East London, Queenstown, Kokstad, Harding and King William’s Town. In looking through the information he gave, we find that in East London he mentioned two industries, a textile industry, a metal box industry—the textile industry employed 1,400 Bantu. I want to point out that those factories serve the Ciskei. The nearest factory to the Transkei is 35 miles away, so it cannot be described as a border industry for the Transkei. The whole idea of border industries was that the Bantu would live in their homelands and sleep there at night and walk out to go and work in the factories, but this is 35 miles away. And the development of the border areas has been so bad that even the Prime Minister has expressed his dissatisfaction with the development in the Ciskei, and he also referred to the poverty there. He is now making another attempt to get industries to go to the border areas by making certain concessions in regard to railway rates. But the Minister of Economic Affairs said that two industries had been established in Kokstad, and one at Harding. I want the Minister to tell us where those two industries are in Kokstad. I do not want him to tell us about old-established industries, about a mineral water factory that was established many years ago, or the sawmill at Harding. We want to know what industries have been established by this Government since it accepted the policy of border industries. I do not want the Minister to tell me about the textile factory at Zwelitsha, which was established by the United Party. We want to know what this Government has done. The feeling is gaining throughout the country, as we have said all along, that this Government is merely paying lip-service to the policy of apartheid, and we want to see what the Government is doing. They cannot go on bluffing all the people all the time.

The Minister of Bantu Administration says you cannot encourage White capital to go into the reserves because that is the worst form of colonization and it will breed resentment and hostility. I want to ask him whether there is any hostility on the part of South Africans towards Britain and America, because their capital has developed industries in South Africa? The Minister of Economic Affairs and the Minister of Finance are always very pleased when they hear about new capital coming in to start new industries. Does that breed a feeling of inferiority and hostility towards the British and the Americans because they invest capital here? And if it does not do so here, why should it do so in the reserves? What this Government does amounts to a much worse form of colonization. They have adopted the old British form of colonization of taking over a colony to rule. Well, we can understand why they did it,

This Government has the same troubles as the British, the Belgians and the French and all the other metropolitan powers had. They had the worry of what political rights the Africans should enjoy. This Prime Minister was very interested to see how easily Mr. Macmillan got rid of his troubles, merely by giving them independence, and so did General de Gaulle and the Belgians, but unfortunately for him he had no colonies to which to give independence, so he has now proceeded to create colonies. While the whole world is against colonies, he is creating colonies, as in the Transkei. What is more likely to breed hostility and resentment than the Parliament established in the Transkei? Just recently the budget was produced in the Transkei, and the expenditure is R16,000,000, but their income is only R3,000,000 and this Government has to give R13,000,000 to enable them to pay their way. Do you not think that will breed hostility and resentment, when they are always under an obligation to the Republican Government and have to come cap-in-hand to this Government for money, merely to carry on their administration and without any hope of establishing industries by themselves? Chief Kaiser Matanzima, who is the exponent of separate development, said in this Budget Speech, and also at other places, that he wants industries in the Transkei. How will he get them? He can only get them through White initiative and White capital. Sir, the development which has taken place in the Transkei is negligible. There is a small factory in Umtata and a few other local things, but that will not employ thousands of people. The Minister has to do more, and I want him to tell the country what he is doing. Because it will not be so easy now to deal with the Transkei. They have a Government now with two political parties, and as has happened everywhere else in Africa, where you have two political parties, the one party has to become extremist if it wants to retain power; it has to become Nationalist, in the same way as this Government came into power by getting the majority of the Afrikaans people to support it. Whatever that Government does now, there is an Opposition which will ask for more, and the Opposition will ask for more industries to be established. Chief Matanzima said that he was against migratory labour. Naturally he is against it, and why? Because he will be pestered all the time by the democratic party who will ask him what he is doing to protect his subjects who are working in the Republic.

Are you addressing the Transkeian Parliament now, or this House?

It is time hon. members over there realized what is happening. More and more Transkeians leave the Transkei to work elsewhere because they cannot live there. The figures show it. The policy of the Government is to return the Bantu to the reserves. The hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) wrote in the Patriot just the other day that—

Now, what is the “near future”? Last year I asked a question in this House as to how many Bantu had been sent by Government agencies from the Transkei to the Western Cape. In 1961 there were 666, in 1962 there were 892, in 1963 there were 3,864, and do you know how many have come in during the first three months of this year? It was 3,511. One of the officials in Umtata in an interview said that the figure for 1964—this is not just for the Western Province, but for other areas as well—as at 18 April already showed that 6,274 had left, which is only 49 short of the total for 1963.

Apartheid in reverse.

Namaqualand had no Bantu until 1963, and then they got 697, and so far this year they already got 157, and they go out to work because they cannot live in the Transkei. The Minister must tell the House how he is applying apartheid. What is going to happen to all these people who are coming out? Does he not think that it will lead to trouble with the Transkeian Government? Measures like the Bantu Laws Amendment Bill cause resentment among the Bantu, and the Government in the Transkei cannot ignore the resentment and the treatment meted out to their subjects by this Government. And as far as the urban Bantu are concerned, the Government is going to have more and more trouble, as more reserves are given the right to govern themselves. Incidentally, when the Natives’ Representatives were abolished in Parliament, the impression was given that by the time they left this House there would be Territorial Authorities throughout the country. Where are all those authorities? Why is there this delay in establishing Territorial Authorities? The Transkei got a Territorial Authority and the next area is the Ciskei, and I suppose it will be the next one to get self-government. But there is no doubt that the impression created is that the Government is back-pedalling and we do not blame them for back-pedalling. The whole outlook is different now because of what happened in the Transkei. The Minister cannot pretend that Bantu who are opposed to his policy and criticize him are merely put up to do it by White people. If he hears a Bantu criticizing separate development, he blames White people for talking to them, and he always says they are friends of mine. But that is no answer to the criticism. There are Bantu who can think for themselves, as he is always telling us, and they do not need to be told by the White people what grievances they have. And because of what has happened there the position of the White man has become more difficult. Matanzima said recently at Lusikisiki that the Transkei was the home of the Xhosa and the White man must realize it and in time he would have to get out. The other day the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is reported to have said at the Witwatersrand University that Umtata would go.

That is not true. I corrected it.

I do not see the correction. However, no matter whether he said it would happen in five or in ten years, the fact is that he said it.

I never said it at all.

Sir, I can hardly believe that he did not say anything at all! [Laughter.] The point is that I do not believe that Matanzima intends the White man to get out of the Transkei now, and I do not believe that the Government ever intends all the Black people to get out of the rest of the country. They are just paying lip-service to this policy, but the trouble is that every time anyone makes a statement of that nature there is more and more embarrassment for the White people living in the reserves. It is not only the White people in the Transkei who are affected, but the Whites living in all the reserves which may become independent.

Now I want to ask the Minister what the Government is doing for the White man? After all, this is supposed to be the White man’s Government. Sir, they have done a Kenya on them. I am not going to address the House on what the White man has done for the Transkei, because I have done so every year for 15 years, but I say it is time the Government told us now what they are going to do. The Prime Minister has always merely said that he would look after the Whites, until at the Nationalist Party Congress at East London in 1962 when there were certain resolutions asking what would be done, he could not ignore it any longer and so he appointed the Heckroodt Commission. That commission sat in 1962. They went through the Transkei taking evidence and they gave hope to the people because they said that no Government would ever legislate against the interests of the White people and therefore they would be protected. That commission took a year to report. It seemed easy when they started off, but apparently they ran into snags. Last year the Minister told the liaison committee in Umtata that he had received the report and was discussing it with the Prime Minister. In the beginning of this Session I asked him when we would see the report, and he said it would be very soon. We have been waiting for four months now and we cannot allow the matter to drag on any longer. What is the trouble? Obviously the Prime Minister does not know what to do. Our charge against him is that he should have known what he was going to do with the White people there before he gave self-government to the Transkei. He embarked on this scheme without realizing the full consequences, and members opposite must put themselves in our position. Talk about Kenya! The British Government did lend the Kenya Government money to buy out European farms. How many trading stations have been bought for the Bantu through the agencies of the Government in the last five years? Now is the time to tell us what he is going to do for the White people. If we are expected to make a sacrifice, and if the Government tells us: For the sake of solving our Native problem you will have to be sacrificed, we will say: Very well, if that is going to solve the problem, we are prepared to be sacrificed. But we all know that this is no solution, because there are more and more Bantu going to the White areas all the time, and there is increasingly less chance of them getting back. I know the Minister will say that the Prime Minister said that by 1978 the Bantu would start going back to the Transkei, but on what basis did they work that out? As far as we can see, the position is getting worse. The figures I have given just for the Western Province show that the position is getting worse. I have not even referred to the Natives going to the mines, but only to those who are recruited through Government agencies. The position is getting worse and therefore the Minister must now tell us whether he still thinks they will go back by 1978. And what does he visualize in the meantime for all the Africans living in the White area? What political rights will they enjoy? Is he going to continue with them as they are now? Does he intend giving the other reserves self-government? [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) raised a number of matters. I only have ten minutes available to me and so I can only confine myself to a few of these points. But before I do so I want to clarify one matter and that is in connection with what I said last Friday in regard to the Witwatersrand University. I want to quote from a correction which I had published in the Rand Daily Mail of the 12th because I want this fact to be recorded—

What about the report?

I know that the reporter denies it but what he said was an infamous lie, I would almost say, a deliberate lie. I think he wanted to report me in that way in order to sow suspicion amongst the Whites in the Transkei.

I want to discuss another point raised by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories. He referred to border industries. He said that development had to take place within the Bantu areas and that we had nothing to show in this regard. I want to mention a few figures in this regard but before doing so I just want to say this. We are too much inclined, in connection with border industries, to speak about the number of Bantu who are actually in service there without having regard to the other Bantu who obtain employment in their own areas as a result of those border industries; for example, a factory may be established on the border and there may be, say, 1,000 workers employed in that factory but homes have to be built for those workers in their own area and a large number of building workers is required for this purpose. Shops are also required to supply people in those townships with what they need. Other activities are also started in this way. I just want to mention a few figures in this regard. There are about 42,000 workers in the border industries at the moment and about 6,000 of these are in the better paid posts. But now we must remember that as the result of the border industry policy and the five-year plan of the Government for developing the Bantu areas we also have many more people working elsewhere than on the farms. Before this Government came into power the majority of the Bantu in these areas were all dependent upon the agricultural industry for a living but as a result of the policy of the Government nearly 200,000 Bantu have now become employed in the Bantu areas in spheres outside the agricultural industry. This is the position in the Bantu areas and in regard to the border industries. There are 42,000 actually working in the border industries but living in the Bantu areas. To this number I also want to add the 200,000 who are now employed there. How are they employed? The hon. member for Transkeian Territories spoke contemptuously about the sisal industry but I want to give him these statistics to consider. There are 10,184 Bantu labourers employed in the fibre-processing industry alone in the Transkei and there are 1,478 occupying the higher posts. This gives us a figure of more than 11,500 Bantu employed in the fibre industry alone in the Transkei.

What did they do previously?

They probably worked in the Transkei but they have now been given other work and they are no longer dependent upon agriculture. I say that 200,000 Bantu are now employed there, excluding those employed in the agricultural industry, and the labourers alone number 140,000. There are 23,800 in the higher paid positions, masons, etc. There are 18,000 employed in education alone. We also had to provide health services as a result of our development and there are 5,000 Bantu employed in these services. When we add all these totals together we find that as a result of our policy there are now an additional 200,000 people who have been placed in employment in the Bantu areas, people who previously were dependent solely upon Bantu agriculture in those areas. There are these 200,000 workers, and taking each family as consisting of about five members, this alone gives us 1,000,000 people. These are figures which the Opposition cannot refute. The Department is making a thorough survey of these activities but the difficulty is that these hon. members do not take the trouble of going to the Bantu areas to see what is actually being done there. It will be an eye-opener to them. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories lives in Umtata but he did not even take the trouble to go and see the factory that we had erected there until two years ago when we drew his attention to the fact that there was a factory there. It was only then that he went to see the factory and he was surprised at what had been done.

That is not true. [Interjections.]

Order!

Hon. members from Durban have not yet even visited Umlazi to see what is happening there. A large Bantu township has been established in the Bantu area; it is not a Durban location. When one discusses this township with people from Durban one finds that they think that it is another location that is being built there; they do not know that it is a huge Bantu town which is providing work for thousands of Bantu in their own area.

I want to come back to the Transkei. Let us take the question of the Bantu authorities. The Bantu authorities which were established by this Government to-day employ 6,000 labourers and have 1,481 Bantu in higher paid positions. Each of these Bantu authorities has its own budget. I wish hon. members would go and see how they work and what they are doing; how they build roads, how they build their schools, how they construct their clinics, the health services that they render to their own people. If hon. members will only take the trouble to visit the Bantu areas in order to see how the policy of the Government is being implemented, they will be absolutely dumbfounded and amazed. [Time limit.]

I shall deal with the figures quoted by the hon. member for Heilbron a little later. At the moment there are two points I should like to clear up with the Minister. The first of these is that this debate now gives us the opportunity of getting quite clear the claim of his party and his speakers at public meetings that the policy of the Government which is now being followed, is the traditional policy of South Africa. I charge the hon. the Minister of following a policy akin to revolution. [Interruptions.] In support of this claim, I should like to quote from ‘Bantu”, a document issued by the Department of the hon. the Minister. In its issue of last month and in a specially splashed first page story it says—

Therefore I say that the policy of this Government is akin to revolution and for this I bring the hon. the Prime Minister as my witness. In his own admission it is a revolutionary policy. [Interruptions.] Mr. Chairman, when the Prime Minister puts his own followers in the cart, then they squeal! We have heard in debate after debate that there is nothing new in this policy and that it is only a development of our traditional policy. But the Prime Minister here admitted that this policy was akin to revolution.

The second point I want to raise with the Minister is that we have asked him either to accept or repudiate the statement issued by the Chief Minister of the Transkei that it was the policy of his party to annex parts of Queenstown and the districts of Mount Curry, Harding, Port Shepstone and other areas. We have asked him either to repudiate that statement or to say that it is correct and to say what negotiations or discussions have taken place with individuals or organizations in respect of these areas.

I now want to discuss the figures given by the hon. member for Heilbron. He painted a glowing picture here of Bantu economic development and of the number of people employed in the Bantu areas. The point I want to make is that according to the latest available statistics there are 3,881,000 Bantu who are economically active. This number can be broken down into the various categories of activities, but we have a current employment throughout South Africa of a few under 4,000,000 Bantu. These are actively occupied in earning their living. The hon. member for Heilbron is now bragging that 42,000 Bantu are employed in border industries. But by saying that he is repudiating one of his own commissioners-general because in the February issue of “Bantu” there is a report of a speech by Dr. Eiselen when he addressed the North Sotho Territorial Authority. In that speech he claimed that there were 15,000 Bantu occupied in all border industries throughout South Africa, and that it was expected that an additional 12,000 would be employed in the near future. Now, Dr. Eiselen was a former Secretary for Native Affairs. So now I should like to know whether the hon. member for Heilbron repudiates one of his own commissioners-general and claims his figures are false. Working on Dr. Eiselen’s figures, you find that 15,000 in relation to 4,000,000 is .4 per cent; so that if you accept the figure of 42,000 to be correct, it will be a little over 1 per cent. That means that that only about 1 per cent of economically active Bantu are employed in border industries. The hon. member also talked about the tertiary activities but in terms of their own policy these tertiary activities cannot be allowed in the White areas as the towns and shops must be in the Bantu areas. But where are they? If you go to Hammersdale, you find factories but where are the shops, the butcheries, the bus services? They just are not there! There is not even a village.

What about Umlazi?

That hon. member talks about Umlazi. You see, Mr. Chairman, this is where the Nationalist Party is trying to bluff South Africa. I say it is a deliberate bluff intended to mislead the people by including an area such as Umlazi as a border area when it is in reality the township serving the City of Durban and 100 per cent of the workers in Umlazi work in the city of Durban, bar those running the township itself. Umlazi is the dormitory area for the industrial area of Durban. That is why we are getting figures which differ from those of Dr. Eiselen!

May I ask you a question?

No. The hon. member has a chance to speak. But I want to tell him that he does not seem to know that Umlazi is not a border area. So I should like to ask the hon. the Minister either to confirm or repudiate the statement of the hon. member that Umlazi is a border area and that Durban therefore is a border industry area. I want to know whether Durban is now a border industry area.

It is a border area.

It is not a border industry area? Mr. Chairman, now you see the complete craziness: We have a border area but it is not a border industry area! It is a border area, the workers work in industries, but it is not a border industry area, and therefore they are not border industrial workers.

What are you trying to show?

What I am trying to show and what I intend to show, if we can get this Government to face the cold facts, is that after ten years since the Tomlinson Report, they have failed to put more than a drop in the ocean to meet the problem of employing the Bantu. I want to deal, not with vague woolly figures, such as those quoted by the hon. member for Heilbron, but with the cold hard facts. We have an estimate of what is required. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) referred to the R208,000,000 that was required of which R100,000,000 was to be utilized for industrial development in the reserves within ten years. We have a Bantu Investment Corporation whose object it is to finance industrial and economic development in the reserves. White capital is forbidden. White entrepreneurs may not enter the reserves to start industries or any commercial activities. Only the Government can do that and the Government only acts through the Bantu Development Corporation as far as initiating new industries is concerned. Here I have the report for the year ending 31 March 1963. We find that after four years the Bantu Development Corporation has on loan the sum of R289,000. [Time limit.]

I shall deal later with the hon. member who has just spoken because I want to deal first with an important matter, and that is a statement made by the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) here this afternoon. He said that the Transkei Government have an Opposition which will demand more industries. You know, Mr. Chairman, that is a very important statement. It is important, firstly, because it will be a very good thing, and secondly, because that Opposition will be better than the Opposition we have had in this House for some years now. If the Opposition in the Transkei insist on more industries, they will be a better Opposition than this one because the Opposition in this House opposed tooth and nail all the key industries which have been established in South Africa, industries like Iscor and Sasol and so forth. They did not want them to be established at all. If the Opposition in the Transkei is going to be an Opposition which will act differently to the way in which the Opposition in this House has acted, then the Transkei will develop far more swiftly then we could ever have imagined would have been the case. I want to express the hope that that Opposition will act responsibly, because if they do it will prove clearly that they accept the fact that the Transkei is their homeland and that they have to find their salvation and develop their future prosperity in that homeland. What effect other than salutary one can this have upon the development of the Transkei?

What have we heard in this House? The hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw) said just now that the figures quoted by the hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) were “woolly”. What did he mean by that? The hon. member for Heilbron pointed out that as the result of those 42,000 Bantu employed there, there was a total of 200,000 Bantu employed in the Bantu areas of the Transkei, Bantu who previously were dependent exclusively upon agriculture.

That is not what he said.

Then the hon. member was not listening to what he was saying. He gave us these statistics but the hon. member was not listening at the time. Mr. Chairman, I say that the Transkei will develop more swiftly than we could ever have expected if they have a responsible Opposition which does not follow the pattern followed by the Opposition in this House of always hampering and opposing the development of their own country. It will be a good thing if they have an Opposition in the Transkei which works for its country’s benefit and which does not undermine and sabotage everything done by its Government.

The hon. member for Durban (Point) has to-day again proved for the umpteenth time that the Opposition are no longer obsessed with the idea of revolution but that they are pregnant with it! They cannot discuss anything or consider or mention anything without talking about a revolution. Have you ever heard a greater distortion, have you ever in your life heard a greater misrepresentation of the speech of the hon. the Prime Minister than that of which the hon. member was guilty to-day? The hon. member has interpreted that speech as a sinister idea that we want to encourage revolution! Have you ever heard anything like it.

I used the hon. the Prime Minister’s own words.

If that is the only way in which the hon. member can express criticism, then I feel sorry for his party. He is as conversant as I am with Afrikaans, but when despite this fact he can still distort a sentence to such an extent, then we must not blame the outside world for having the wrong idea about South Africa. The hon. member for Transkeian Territories in his turn resented the fact that the hon. the Minister has continued to provide the Bantu with work, firstly, through the medium of a five-year plan within the Bantu areas, the partial results of which we have heard about here this afternoon, and secondly, through the medium of border industries. The hon. member does not want that. What does he want then? He and his party want all the Bantu to leave their homelands.

Where must they go?

The United Party say that the Bantu must be able to own land in the heart of the White area.

All of them?

Once ten of them have bought land there, what is to prevent 20 or even 100 more doing the same thing at a later stage? What Bantu will remain in the Bantu areas when he knows that he can obtain land in the White man’s area? Instead, therefore, of allowing the Bantu to develop in their own homeland and making it their country, those hon. members now want to sever the connections of the Bantu with their homeland and encourage them to come and settle here in the White areas at the expense of the development in their own areas. If that possibility is always being held out to the Bantu, what Bantu will then devote his money and enterprise to the development of his own homeland? It simply goes to show that the United Party have no aim in view but to destroy the Bantu homelands as far as they can. If we create a lack of confidence on the part of the Bantu in his own area it is obvious that he will go somewhere else, particularly if there is the attraction of his being able to settle in the White areas.

But what is wrong in the Bantu coming to work in our areas if we need their labour and if there is employment for them here? Where else must they go? Why does the hon. member resent the fact that the Government permits Bantu to be employed in White areas if there is work for them there? We resent the fact that that party does not make the Bantu aware of his homeland and encourage him to devote all his initiative to the development of that homeland. It is only in regard to those Bantu for whom there is not at this stage nor will there be in decades or centuries to come, any work and a niche …

Centuries is right!

Of course it may take centuries. Why not? What is wrong with that? In fact, this is a pattern which is revealing itself throughout the world. What is wrong with that? Let me tell the hon. member what is right with it. It is that every race group in this country will have the opportunity of knowing where his homeland is. If the concept of a homeland is so wrong, I wonder how hon. members opposite argue because the first homeland that springs to my mind is Israel which came into being by way of the Balfour Declaration. This was supported by America, by Lloyd George, the late General Smuts and others. But that still does not detract from the fact that there are still millions of Jews in the rest of the world to-day although that is their homeland. [Time limit.]

I should like to ask the hon. member for Krugersdorp whether those Jews who still live in other countries vote in Israel or whether they vote in those countries of which they are citizens?

Not all of them.

While I do not want to waste my time with the hon. member, there are two points of his speech with which I should like to deal. The first of these is the question of industries in the Bantu homelands. I do not know where the hon. member has been wandering for the last umpteen years because he does not know that the United Party has consistently fought for the establishment of industries in the reserves with White capital and White skill. We as a party have always been in favour of the development of industry in the reserves. The second point of his speech which was interesting is his violent reaction to his own Prime Minister’s description of their policy as revolutionary. It is of course revolutionary. Only they do not like to be reminded about it.

Peaceful revolution.

But I want to come back to the argument with which I was engaged when my time expired. I pointed out that during the four years of existence of the Bantu Investment Corporation, a total of R289,000 is put out on loan. That, however, is not the most serious aspect of the matter. The more serious aspect is that during the year 1962-3 there were 530 applications compared with 718 the year before that. In other words, instead of increased investment in the Bantu areas, the applications for help have decreased. After all, this corporation is the basis for all the hopes for the development of Bantustans. Yet we find that applications for help are becoming less. Let us look at the number of applications during previous years. During 1960-1 the number of applications was 60, during 1961-2 71 and during 1962-3 76. In other words, this corporation which is to be basis for the development economically of the Bantu, is not meeting the purpose for which it was claimed to have been established, because not only are there less applications but the rate of increase in applications granted is so negligible as to be unimpressive. If you look at the money allocated to the various groups, you find that only four groups have had loans, i.e. the Northern Sotho, the Xhosa, the Zulu and the Tswana. What about the other groups? What about the other areas? They too are Bantustans! But not a single cent has been loaned to them during the four years of the existence of the corporation.

“Opsweping”!

You see, Mr. Chairman, when you deal with facts, it is called “opsweping”. When you deal with the cold, hard reality of facts …

Like the figures of Dr. Eiselen?

I accept Government documents as containing trustworthy figures. The figures of Dr. Eiselen I took out of a Government publication, out of a departmental publication reporting a speech of its own commissioner-general to a territorial authority.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.