May I ask for the privilege of the half hour? In considering Bantu education we have to consider three accounts. The first is the account given in our usual Estimates of Expenditure; the second is the Loan Account and the third is the Special Account for Bantu Education. In considering these accounts one has to give special time to the account on Bantu Education. It has been our criticism every year that Bantu education is to-day in a financial strait-jacket; it is impossible to spend more money without special legislation being put through the House. We cannot budget for Bantu education as we do for the other accounts. The hon. the Minister is not empowered to add extra expenditure. He is confined to the R13,000,000 and the amount raised in the form of direct taxation of Africans themselves. In the White Paper on the Budget we were told that over the last ten years the national product has increased from about R3,000,000,000 to R6,000,000,000. I think it is only right that we ask ourselves who have made that contribution? It has, of course, come from the capital, the skill and the technical knowledge of the White man. But it has also come from the labour of the African people throughout South Africa. What has their share in this production been? I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has made any calculation but if the product of the country has doubled I think it is only fair to assume that the contribution of our Native labour and our Native artisans has increased to the same extent. I think that is a fair assumption.

When we consider what is actually being spent on Bantu education we must come back to the whole philosophy of Bantu education. What are we trying to do with the Native child? What kind of education are we trying to give him? When elementary education was introduced in England just about a hundred years ago Robert Lowe, when introducing the Bill, said this—

In other words, we are preparing them for a certain existence that they will have in the future. I should like to give another opinion, an opinion that has been quoted before in this House. This is an opinion which I have found in the old records of the Natives’ Representative Council, that great experiment that was introduced in South Africa but which, unfortunately, was not the success we hoped it would be. I want to quote what Councillor Thema said as long ago as 1937—nearly 30 years ago. I am giving a brief extract—

In other words, as has been stated by my hon. friend on my left, the member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) education is indivisible; what is education for a man of one race is education for a man of any other race.

There is a very serious accusation I have to make about the conduct of Bantu education. It is that African parents are being called upon to subscribe specially for the education of their children. I want to quote from the Annual Report of the Bantu Education Department for the calendar year 1962. Under the heading “Staffing” on page 6 they say the following—

We have the situation that there are not sufficient teachers in our schools and there are not sufficient facilities. That brings me to the first really creative action that I have seen in Bantu education, namely, the decision to appoint an advisory council. I understand that advisory council will go into operation this year. I want to quote from the journal of the Bantu Education Department. They say this—

And this is the important extract—

I think that is a very important function. We are in fact following in the steps of the Department of Education, Arts and Science where an Advisory Council has already been appointed. This advisory council that has been appointed has certain very important work to do and I would commend to the hon. the Minister the example of the Advisory Council of the Department of Education, Arts and Science. What was their first great decision? It was to investigate the status of the teacher and when we think of the status of the teacher we think of his education, his training, his emoluments and his conditions of employment. I should like to say a few words about the status of the teacher under Bantu education. I regard it as extremely unsatisfactory to-day. I find that the increase in the number of scholars in relation to the number of teachers works out to about 74 pupils to every new teacher appointed. Some classes must be 60 or 70 under the control of one teacher. That is the only conclusion one can come to. [Interjections.] These are the figures of the Department. And many of those teachers are not qualified; many of them have little inducement to qualify. I want to refer to the emoluments some of these teachers get. We know there has been a movement in South Africa to introduce minimum wages for all our African workers in all walks of life, in industry, commerce, etc. of R2 per day. I think that is a fair amount; it is not a generous amount but it is fair. I want to compare that with the salaries of some of these teachers. The man who has no special qualifications to teach—he is called uncertificated—receives R11 per month. And the minimum wage introduced in some industries for African workers is not a minimum of R11 per month but a minimum of R50. Then you have another section who have a Junior Certificate. I think that is a fair qualification. They receive R20 per month. That is less than a domestic servant gets and a domestic servant receives quarters, food and lodging.

Junior Certificate without teacher’s training.

Yes, that is the section who have no professional teaching qualifications.

What about the qualified teachers?

I am coming to those. I am starting at the bottom and working up. Take the teacher with a university degree, with a B.A. or B.Sc. degree, but who has not taken a qualifying teaching course. They start at R35 per month. He will leave the teaching profession and get a job in a city at R100 per month. I now come to the qualified teacher, the man who is qualified and who has been trained although he has not got a very high qualification. I am not criticizing the low qualification. I realize that in building up any system of education one has to be prepared, at the early stages, to take a lower qualification. Take the teacher who has a lower primary certificate. He starts at R25 per month. That is just half of what has been suggested for industry. The man with a higher primary certificate—which I think is a good certificate—has to work for six years before he will receive R2 per day. What age will he be then? I should think 27 or 28. He will then receive a wage equal to that of an ordinary labourer. I do not want to quote any more. I can quote more if necessary. I realize that towards the top the position improves but this is a disgraceful state of affairs. The Minister is not altogether to blame because he has to cut his coat according to his cloth. He is in a straight-jacket. He may not spend more than a certain amount; he may not budget for more than a certain amount. Because he is placed in that position he is dependent on taxation of the Natives in order to increase the amount. Any increase in taxation of our Natives will not realize a great sum. That is the situation with which we are faced to-day.

The next point I should like to come to in the time at my disposal is the state of the schools themselves. I think that is unsatisfactory too. We have a system of double sessions. Double sessions are only satisfactory if children get a full school day but they don’t. Up to Standard II the children have double sessions and automatic promotion. They pass from one grade to the other and after three or four years, if they do not show great promise, they leave school. It is a short school day and it is unsatisfactory. Why is the hon. Minister doing this? I think it part of the window-dressing of Bantu education. We can tell the world, we can tell the London newspapers what a large number of children we have at school. But we do not tell the world of the conditions of Bantu education in South Africa. Nor do we tell them what the qualifications of the teachers are or what inducements there are for people to enter the teaching profession.

You would rather have them on the streets.

No. What I would rather have…

You have to start with a little.

My point is that we have been building for over ten years and we have not achieved very much. That is my criticism. We have the children at the schools but they are not receiving the kind of education we were promised they would receive. I hope this advisory council will improve the position because Bantu children are certainly not getting the education people are led to believe they are getting. That is the point I am making.

We have told the hon. the Minister in the past that we are opposed to teachers coming under the control of school boards for their professional affairs. By “professional affairs” I mean salaries and promotion. I think that is most important. Whenever a Bantu Education Bill is introduced this question is raised. We differ about this. We on this side have said that teachers are professional people and they should be controlled by a promotions board or by the Department itself; promotions should be controlled by professional people in the Department. If teachers are promoted as they are to-day we accept that that is the system; that is the law. But we regard it as being unsatisfactory. We do not subscribe to that. The hon. the Minister will know that the Transkei has now taken over its system of education itself. The first step was to say there would no longer be Bantu education but education. The next thing they have said is this: The teachers will be controlled by the Government itself. They will become Government employees. That is the rightful position of a teacher. I want to ask the Minister to make every effort to introduce a second improvement, to provide a pension scheme for these teachers. After all, they are members of the teaching profession. Some of them have served the country for 25 to 30 or 40 years. I ask the Minister to approach the Minister of Finance to try to influence the Cabinet to see that these people not only receive proper emoluments but that they receive a pension as well.

As for the schools themselves I am not criticizing the teachers. They are doing their best and I know the Minister is doing the best he can with the funds at his disposal. Although these teachers are having a very poor time we must compare their conditions of service with those in the university colleges. We have university colleges which is also part of the window dressing. We can now tell the world about this wonderful university college on which we are spending so much money. I have already pointed out that at Fort Hare the cost per matriculated student is over R3,000 per annum and the cost of all students—many of them are not matriculated, they don’t belong there really, they should perhaps be at a training college or at a technical school—is over R2,500 per student per annum. The cost of a White student at a university is R436 per annum. It costs seven times as much to educate one of these Native students as it costs to educate a White student at one of our universities. Nearly all of this cost is borne by the State. We are not getting value for our money. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister this question. Quite recently the new quinquennial scale of university staff salaries was introduced in South Africa on the recommendation of the Cilliers Commission report to the hon. the Minister of Education, Arts and Science. Do the university staff at Fort Hare, in Zululand and at Turfloop receive the same salary payments as the professors and lecturers at the White universities? Is it equal pay for equal work? I should like the hon. Minister to explain (I do not understand it myself) the meaning of the “territorial allowance” for the members of the White staff of these institutions. The question is not whether we are spending too much money on university education. The point is this: The Bantu Education Account is a fixed amount and in order to pay these vast sums of money for university education of African students we are robbing the poor child who is in the primary school. It is that child that I have in mind. I want to ask the hon. Minister this question: Is it not possible to make a move in the head office of the Bantu Education Department to allow Africans to take part in the administration of their own departments? I have put that question every year on the Order Paper on the number of posts at head office occupied by Africans, and in reply the hon. Minister informed me that not one of them is occupied by a Bantu. They are all occupied by Whites. Is it not possible to introduce Africans on the staff at his head office?

Then I should like the hon. Minister in his reply to deal with this question: We now have the Transkei Government controlling its own system of education. Who will control the education of Xhosa children who are living in our cities? If they are to be controlled by the Bantu Education Department that we have here, will they receive the same kind of education as the Xhosa child in the Transkei? Is there any agreement that has been reached, will there be liaison, will the departments try to work together? I do not think it is fair to say to the Xhosa child in the Transkei: You will receive one kind of education, but your brother or your cousin living in Johannesburg will receive a different kind of education.

Finally I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. We are, of course, anxious to help him. We are critical of the Bantu Education Department and its administration, but we are all anxious nowadays to build up a good system of Bantu education. There were days, when the late Mr. Hofmeyr was Minister of Education when he was called a “kaffer-boetie” because he was anxious to give the Bantu a system of education. But those days are past. We are anxious now to work together. The hon. Minister will know that in the Transvaal, and I assume in other provinces, members of school boards and provincial councillors are free at any time to examine the system of education and to visit the schools. Now I want to make this appeal to the hon. Minister, and I feel quite sure that he will accede to my request. I want him to make it possible for any member of Parliament to visit any Bantu institution, a Bantu school or a university college, or any other institution, should he wish to do so. I am not asking now for an escorted visit. I want a member of Parliament to be able to go along to a school at any time, make himself known, and be able to visit the school. I want to go to schools myself, and I think the hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) would like to do so, and also the hon. member for Prieska would like to do so.

What do you want to do there?

I want to see how the school is run and I want to make contact with the staff. I want to show the staff that all sections of this Parliament are anxious to assist and that we are interested in the work they are doing. Nothing encourages teachers more than public interest. If the school board members in our provinces have that privilege, and I presume school board members of Bantu schools have the same privilege, I should like that privilege to be extended to every member of this House. I personally am very anxious to visit these university colleges and the schools, especially the high schools. I make that appeal to the hon. the Minister. Other members on this side will raise special points in regard to his vote.

I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) on one thing and that is that he did not participate in the rearguard action in connection with the transfer of Bantu education to the Department of Bantu Affairs. He did pass a considerable amount of criticism but we welcome criticism. There is a great deal to be said for the objections raised by the hon. member. But I do want to remind him of a few things. He referred here to the generosity of the late Mr. Hofmeyr, and I want to tell him of only one incident which took place in Mr. Hofmeyr’s life. In Mr. Hofmeyr’s last year, I came to see him in connection with the establishment of 40 secondary schools in the Transkei and in the Ciskei, small secondary schools. After he had looked at the figures in regard to what we needed in connection with the erection of the buildings and so forth, he told me that he as Minister of Education was in agreement with us but that he had first to hear what the Minister of Finance had to say. At that time he was Minister of Finance as well as Minister of Education. The result was that I got nothing. Finances have therefore always caused trouble but these are things that can eventually be rectified. The hon. member did, however, say a few things which I cannot allow to go unchallenged. There was his criticism in connection with the double sessions. I cannot understand why the hon. member should accuse the Department of Bantu Administration and Development of being guilty of “window-dressing”. I asked him by way of interjection whether he would rather see the children on the streets, because that was what would then happen. There has never been adequate accommodation for all the children under any system, and there is nothing wrong with double sessions. This principle was applied on a large scale in Europe during the war and also during the post-war years. It is also applied in our country; it was applied in my own school and in my own circle of inspection.

But every child is given his full day’s education.

Yes, there may, of course, be local objections in connection with the particular way in which this principle is applied, but if it is properly applied there can be no objection to it. There is a five-hour school day for the children; in the lower classes, the school day is only of three hours duration. I cannot see that the teacher will be overworked if she is asked to teach for three hours in the morning and for three hours in the afternoon. I feel that the hon. member should not do that sort of thing. The hon. member also discussed the philosophy of education. He asked what we meant by education. He as an educationist knows just as well as I do that educational systems differ from country to country. The educational system in France is not the same as that in England and England’s system is not the same as that of Germany. Generally speaking the pattern of White education is followed in Bantu education but it has to be adapted to the national character and the particular circumstances of the Bantu. I am the last one to maintain that we have now set up an ideal system for Bantu education. Continual changes and improvements will have to be made. But I do want to say that it is head and shoulders above anything we ever had before in the provincial system. The Department of Education has already to a large extent succeeded in nationalizing educational facilities for the Bantu. When one’s policy emanates from a central body, which will be quite possible in the future with the assistance of the Advisory Council which will be established, one has the position desired by the hon. member. That central body can delegate its powers to regional authorities. If hon. members want to see what is being done in the field of Bantu education, they should look at page 2 of the report to which the hon. member also referred. There we find the names of the organizers on the professional side, people with qualifications and a background in the educational sphere of which any educational system in the world can be proud. A great deal is being done for Bantu education and I want to mention a few items. This education was taken over less than 10 years ago by the Department of Bantu Administration and Development but more progress has been made over the past eight or nine years than was made in the preceding 20-year period. I want to refer to a few important facts in this regard. Success has been achieved in every sphere. School attendance has doubled. Where in 1954 it stood at 800,000 it stands to-day at 1,700,000. We have succeeded to a large extent in using the Bantu language as medium in the schools. The hon. member for Kensington will agree with me that the old system which we had under the provincial administrations where in the lower classes, in the kindergarten, we had the so-called “vernacular A and B” and an “English A and B” because we regarded those children as being deaf mutes who first had to learn a language so that we could teach them through the medium of that language was pernicious. The result was that the child who had only four years’ schooling—many of those children had a school life of only four years—left school without even being able to read their own language. Everything has been changed. There is now a junior primary schooling lasting four years in which the child learns at least what we call in English the three R’s; he can read, he can write and he can talk his own language. Then there is the senior primary school with the four-year course which is different to ours; we have a three-year course. It is obvious that that extra year is necessary. To tell the truth, I have often thought that that period should be longer because many of the things learnt naturally by a White child in his home have to be taught to the Bantu child at school by the teacher. That four-year period concludes with intelligence tests which are adapted to the requirements and the character of the Bantu children. There are also other tests to indicate the aptitude of a child, scholastic tests. There is a sifting at the Std. VI stage which we ought to have under any system of education. As far as secondary schooling is concerned, in former times we never even heard of differentiated education at the Bantu schools. We had recourse to academic subjects only. Today there is a whole list of subjects which a child can take at the senior certificate stage. There is woodwork, commercial subjects, housewifery, needlework, music and agriculture. Many of the teachers receive special training in these subjects at training schools. This is also something of which I often dreamed in my day but which we were never able to introduce. There are technical training schools. We have 14 schools today with an imposing list of subjects taught there: Masonry, plastering, furniture-making and carpentry, cutters’ courses, building construction and woodwork, leather and upholstery work, sheet metal work and plumbing, electro-techniques and general mechanics. We did have a little furniture-making previously, a little leather work, but this was all done at the mission stations, at places like Tiger Kloof at Vryburg, and at a few places in the Transkei. [Time limit.]

May I draw the hon. Minister’s attention to this Bantu Education report which has been issued for the year 1962. I would ask the hon. Minister if he cannot get the Department to give us the report for 1963 instead of 1962. It would make things far simpler for us and for the hon. the Minister if we could debate last year’s activities rather than to discuss a report which is in respect of two years ago. The hon. member for Kensington did raise this point last year and I would ask the hon. Minister if his Department would consider this reasonable request and give us last year’s report instead of one which is two years old.

The hon. member for Prieska said that finances were always a difficulty and that there is not yet an ideal system to finance Bantu Education, and also that there was never enough accommodation for all the children and in fact that there is a world-wide shortage of accommodation and teachers. Sir, we would agree with the latter point, but may I point out that while there is a world-wide shortage of teachers and of accommodation, the solution is to have a bigger allocation on this Vote. I know that here we are confined to dealing with the moneys that are allocated to the hon. Minister under the Vote of Bantu Education, but I would like to protest that in the midst of the South African prosperity and with the giant extra surplus of R40,000,000, not one cent of this has been allocated to education, either for the White population or the Bantu population. Sir, the figures for Bantu Education in the Estimates, if we break them down, reveal that various amounts have dropped this year. There is a drop to R21,170,000 from very nearly R25,000,000 last year. I know that R3,500,000 now is allocated from the Bantu Administration Fund to Transkei Education, but this breakdown of the R21,170,000 for Bantu Education to cover the five remaining areas, i.e. the Northern and Southern Transvaal, the Orange Free State, Natal and the Ciskei and the remaining part of the Republic, we find that a decrease is also reflected in the subsidies. There is a total reduction of R3,145,000, while there is on the credit side to universities an increase of R190,000. For school libraries, while they have an increase on the administrative side of R1,000, there is a decrease in respect of the amount spent on books for pupils of R4,400. I welcome the amount of R25,000 to be spent on the introduction of a broadcasting service to Bantu schools. May I ask whether the hon. the Minister is not considering the installation of closed-circuit television, as I understand the Transvaal is considering for schools there to alleviate the shortage of teachers?

I am afraid the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan) is going to say that I am making propaganda.

The Transkei will have television before we will have it here.

If we study the Estimates, we find that there is a reduction of 223 teachers, 26 principals, one vice-principal, eight inspectors, one chief inspector and 17 other staff. Hostel maintenance is down by R14,100; your bonuses and allowances for retired Bantu teachers have dropped, have plunged by R51,500, and your pension funds for Cape Province and Natal teachers have dropped by R35,000, and also bursaries and loans by R1,100. We find that on pages 3 and 4. School-feeding has dropped by another R20,000. I would ask the hon. Minister if he would give us the explanation for these decreases here. Sir, Bantu education finances are inadequate all round, but the higher we go up the educational ladder the thinner and thinner gets the jam, and if you look at the figures to highlight this, you find that over the past eight years that the increase in the total Bantu school population was 67 per cent out of 1,750,000, and if one goes further into these figures one finds that over the same eight years the percentage at the prmary school level over all schools does not drop below 97 per cent of whom three-quarters have not gone beyond lower primary, and of the 3 per cent who proceed further up, one per cent only reached matric, and the merest fraction are in the higher classes; there were only some 3,000 pupils in all four provinces in the two top classes of high school. My criticism is that percentagewise this does not keep pace with the population increase and the figures are so low that what it needs is 1,000 per cent or more improvement to provide the number of teachers necessary to instruct the Bantu children of the future. We have the following figures in respect of the three Bantu university colleges. The number this year is 761 and we have 1,897 at all universities, and this percentage is 0.014 of the Bantu population. We produce a small number of graduates from the universities and from the Medical School in Natal, where there are 105 pupils, we produce a handful of Bantu medical graduates. Then there are the industrial schools and the technical schools and the diploma courses for teaching and agriculture and there is some provision for technical education. But, Sir, it is considered by educationists that our Bantu universities must produce 1,000 graduates annually, and matric figures must reach 4,000 annually to serve the minimum requirements of the Bantu population, and even this would only be one-quarter of what is really required. I would like the hon. Minister to tell us how he can attempt to produce these figures with the inadequate funds at his disposal. I feel that the provision is quite insufficient and that not nearly enough students go to the Bantu universities even to provide the necessary teachers to staff the schools or to build up the number of Bantu matriculants in the next generation of high-school Bantu children. It is strange that one hears no criticism of it from this angle from hon. members on the other side, for if hon. members on the other side believe in the permanency of separate development, with the present Bantu education expenditure, how can sufficient numbers of doctors and technicians, surgeons and mechanical and electrical engineers, school teachers by the tens of thousands, agricultural officers and civil servants, shopkeepers and accountants, policemen and postal employees be produced for the Bantu homelands in which hon. members on the opposite side believe? For these people should all come from the Bantu people and I feel that without this personnel being provided, it must mean that the Bantu territories are not going to be fully developed. Without this personnel how can we provide the personnel to serve those Bantu territories? I would ask the hon. Minister very seriously to reply to these figures as to how he intends stepping up the numbers of matriculants and the attendance at the three Bantu universities with the totally inadequate funds at his disposal. [Time limit.]

I am inclined to agree with the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) that it is the aim of all of us to produce an adequate number of people with higher qualifications so as to enable them to serve their own people. But if this is intended to be criticism of the new regime, I want to tell her that she cannot, after all, blame the Department of Bantu Education for a shortage of manpower. The provinces were saddled with this problem for almost half a century. We cannot in eight years under the new regime compensate for what went wrong there. Furthermore, I am inclined to agree with her that we must train more of these people so as to enable them to serve their own people.

I was pointing out the direction taken by the Department of Bantu Education and I did so with a view to indicating that the pattern is the same as that in White education. I spoke about the vocational and technical schools of which we knew nothing under the old regime. I want now to discuss special education. There the numbers of psychologists who are active in this matter. I have already referred to the scholastic aptitude tests and the intelligence tests. I want to refer to the education of the blind, the deaf and the cerebral palsied in connection with which absolutely nothing was done under the provincial system in the past. I also want to refer to the cultural and social sphere in connection with sport, gymnastics, libraries and similar subjects. I also want to say something in connection with the standard of education. It is often contended that the standard in the Bantu schools is still low. We have the same watchdogs at the secondary stage. There is the Matriculation Board which watches over the content and the standard at that stage and, because their colleges are university colleges, there is the University of South Africa which looks after the content and standard at the university colleges. Criticism is also often levelled at the pass figure at the various schools. Well, there have been lean years, but we also find this happening with White education. In 1961 it was particularly low and only 28 per cent passed, but in 1962 it was 40 per cent and in 1963 it was 61.5 per cent. Hon. members must remember, as I have already said, that these results have been achieved in spite of the fact that the Matriculation Board expected the same content and the same standard from these schools as from White schools. I think that this is wonderful progress.

I want to point out one thing which is often forgotten in making comparisons with the old system. I myself know that generally speaking, results in the days when the provincial administrations carried the schools, were better than those achieved in 1960 and 1961. But hon. members must not forget that it was the custom at the schools to hold back pupils at the Std. IX stage until such time as there was certainty that they would pass in their final year, in Std. X. Those children were deliberately held back, to such an extent that the Department of Education had to interfere and compel people to make their children write the examination. This is one thing that hon. members must remember. The other thing is that even in spite of the fact that they held these children back, when they prepared their figures for publication the education departments omitted Bantu education year after year because otherwise the pass figure would be too low, notwithstanding the fact that those children were held back in Std. IX until such time as it was considered that there was a good chance of their passing. I do not have time to discuss this matter. The hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) spoke about the idea of “Europeanizing the Native”. I have tried to point out that the same pattern is being followed in this regard as is followed in White education. It is, of course, a very difficult question. If one thinks that it is the right thing to do, then one must have mixed schools. I think that the hon. member for Kensington would be the last one to stand up in this House and dare to say that we should have mixed schools, schools for Whites and non-Whites together, as they are now trying to force upon the people in America. I do not think that he is in favour of that. [Interjection.] The same education can be given in different schools because there is continual adjustment to the needs of the various races. The domestic and other conditions of the Bantu are different to those of the Whites. We had the same position when we had separate schools for Afrikaans-speaking and English-speaking children. This was not only due to a language difference but to differences in national characteristics. I think that the hon. member for Kensington would be the last one to dare to stand up and to say that we must have mixed schools. This would be the easiest way in which to “Europeanize” the Bantu. We do not believe in that and the Opposition do not believe in it. We are prepared to say it but I do not think that hon. members opposite are prepared to do so.

The hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) spoke about the vocational training centres and other educational institutions provided for the Africans, and all the good things provided for them, but I wonder how he can reconcile his views with the facts I now propose to give relating to the attitude of the Minister towards the vocational training of Africans, particularly in regard to the training of building workers. In Johannesburg there is a vocational training school doing extremely good work in regard to the training of Native builders. It has had a checkered career. It was started by the City Council and was extremely effective in training plumbers, electricians, bricklayers, etc. for work in the Native areas. In August 1960 the Minister objected to these men receiving that training and requested the council to close the centre down. Protracted negotiations took place as the council was unwilling to do this. Houses were needed for the Natives and White workers were not available, and therefore Black labour had to be trained to build houses for their own people. These negotiations covered the period from August 1960 to December 1961, and during this period the Minister offered the council a so-called State technical training certificate school. At this time the enrollment at this National Training centre was 214, and the Minister demanded that this number drop to 140 in 1961 and to 70 in 1962, and that the centre should go out of existence in 1963. The training they offered the children at the State technical junior certificate school was good enough, they said, but the training given at that institution did not reach the standard required by the trade, and much more training would be necessary before they could become certificated building workers. Strenuous efforts by the Johannesburg City Council eventually resulted in the withdrawal of this prohibition and permission was granted to carry on this centre. In this case commonsense prevailed. Last year the City Council of Johannesburg took a large number of Parliamentarians around Sowetu, and among the places we went through was this vocational training centre, and each and every one of us who was there must have been very impressed by the diligence and the demeanour of these boys who were being trained there. There was, of course, the usual comment from one of the Nationalist members that the “kaffirs” were being spoilt and were being given more than our own boys. That was definitely untrue, of course, but that was the comment I heard myself. The men trained there pass out with the equivalent of artisan’s status and they are of course limited by the law to working in their own area. The City Council of Johannesburg maintains that training should be available for far greater numbers, as the training of these youths will, among other things, take them off the streets, which is a considerable factor in controlling juvenile delinquents, apart from training more building workers. I am told that their passing out is a sight worth seeing. Every student rushes to his mother to show her his certificate and I have been told that it is a sight worth seeing. I hope that the Minister has seen this sight and that it has aroused in his bosom the feeling that these people should be helped to a greater degree. After all, it is something when you arrive at the stage in life when you can with certainty keep your wife and family on a reasonable level. But now I must point out the Minister’s extraordinary policy, which I cannot make out at all. In spite of the great success of this institution, he refuses to have such centres established elsewhere. In Benoni, for example, we cannot get permission to open one. Sir, if I take you to Daveyton and show you the beautiful buildings erected by Native artisans, you would be most impressed. They are a credit to any White town in the country. They were erected by Black men trained in terms of the Minister’s policy. I inquired where these men were trained, and I was told that they were trained on the job. They were trained on the scores of houses built along the Reef. The Minister of Labour informed the hon. member for Houghton that 757 Africans had been trained as building workers in terms of the Building Workers’ Act of 1951. I understand they were trained in the vocational training centres, and 3,653 have been registered as building workers. This figure includes Africans who were not trained under the Act but who had acquired experience which enabled them to pass trade tests in terms of the Act. I asked whether these men were certificated in any way and I was informed that they were fully certificated building workers. In fact, the first certificate was issued by no less a person than Mr. Tom Naude. These African building workers are building all over the country. I understand also that their services are in great demand. They are so highly trained that they are in very great demand wherever building is proceeding. I understand that we are actually losing some of them to the Protectorates and other places, but whether that information is correct I do not know. More and more of them are qualifying in this manner every year, but surely the Minister must admit that a measure of vocational training would produce better artisans. Is this not a dog-in-the-manger attitude which he adopts? When we have got to the stage where these building workers can do such good work, why stand in their way? I do not know why the Minister will not extend these vocational training centres. I do not know what the trade unionists as a whole think of this. They all finish up with the same certificates, but why will the Minister not allow the municipalities who want to open vocational training centres to do so? Why does he stop them? I just cannot see the reason. I suggest he is adopting a dog-in-the-manger attitude. The boys are kept off the streets and it will definitely help to establish that middle class of Africans which is so important for the future of the country. I wonder whether the Minister will give me the background of this attitude of refusing to allow the extension of vocational training centres for building workers, and why he now insists that men must be trained on the job. To me it just does not make sense.

So many questions have been asked in the few speeches made by hon. members opposite that I think that I should reply now; otherwise I shall be accused later of making speeches that are too long. I want to start with the accusation made by the hon. members for Kensington (Mr. Moore) and Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) to the effect that there has been a great increase in the national income of the country and that we are experiencing prosperity; that the Bantu have contributed to this position to a large extent but that in spite of that fact, the State restricts its contribution to Bantu education to what it was previously. I want to say immediately that I have no doubt that the Bantu have made an important contribution to the prosperity we are experiencing but I have no doubt either that the Bantu have been properly remunerated by their employers for the share in the prosperity of the country which they have had. If this had been the case, the Bantu would have made a larger contribution by way of taxation to the Bantu Education Account. The position is that a Bantu earning more than R30 per month pays tax on a higher scale. So, in the first place. I say that if the Bantu is to be given his rightful share in this prosperity, he must not be given that share by way of a subsidy for his education but by way of the improved wages that are paid to him. Secondly, it must be remembered that the State cannot be expected to review its contribution to Bantu education if the Bantu themselves do not do their share in this regard. One of the greatest problems we have to deal with is the fact that the Bantu avoid paying tax. Fewer than 50 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa have paid their taxes over the past few years.

Of the whole Bantu population?

Yes. There is work for everyone who wants to work in the present development in South Africa. They can all work and thus afford to pay the small amount they have to pay in taxation. But our experience has been that those who earn the most often pay the least. Until this matter has been resolved, I cannot approach the Treasury with any justification and ask for a larger State contribution while more than 50 per cent of the Bantu are not fulfilling their obligations towards their children. We are investigating this matter interdepartmentally to ascertain to what extent it is possible to introduce a P.A.Y.E. system for the Bantu as well. We are investigating ways and means of improving income from Bantu taxation, but the collection of Bantu taxation does not fall under my Department; it falls under Bantu Administration and Development. Unless we are prepared to arrest the Bantu on a large scale, they will not pay their tax. Should we arrest them on a large scale in order to force them to pay their tax? We will have to find ways and means of getting the Bantu to make his contribution. If he makes his rightful contribution, which he is able to do and which he will be able to do better if he is paid according to the way in which he contributes to the economy of the country considerably more money will be available for Bantu education.

Let me point out to hon. members that we are not unsympathetic in regard to this matter. Last year, when it appeared that the Bantu Education Account could not meet all its obligations, we made provision for most of the additional burdens imposed on the Bantu Education Account over the year, such as those of the university colleges, by making an additional grant to that account in respect of those additional burdens. So we are not unaware of or unsympathetic in regard to this matter. The point of importance to us is whether the Bantu Education Account is able to meet its necessary commitments. It has been able to do so up to the present. I want to emphasize the fact that in spite of what hon. members opposite have said, in spite of the hon. member for Kensington’s reference to “window-dressing”, we in South Africa have achieved something which is unequalled throughout the entire world in connection with Bantu education. In ten years we have increased the number of school-going children from about 50 per cent, which it was in 1954, to about 80 per cent, and this is a conservative estimate. This is an achievement which has been equalled in no other less developed society in the world. I read recently in a Unesco Report of the achievement of certain South American States which succeeded in increasing the percentage of children at school from about 60 per cent to 70 per cent over the past ten years. They described that as a wonderful achievement. But we have done far more than this with the Bantu in South Africa. It is true that the remuneration paid to teachers is not what we would like it to be. I want honestly to say that I am disturbed at the fact that a Bantu teacher with good qualifications earns less than a Bantu nurse in a hospital. That is not right. But I cannot recommend higher salaries for Bantu teachers until the Bantu in South Africa have made their contribution to the Bantu Education Account on the proper scale. If the Bantu people on their part also feel for the teachers who sacrifice a great deal for the development of their own people, and if the Bantu themselves are prepared to pay their taxes, or at least a reasonable percentage of those taxes, I shall be the first one to recommend a further improvement in the salaries of teachers to the Government, as we did last year. For some time now we have been investigating a pension scheme or provident scheme for Bantu teachers. This is a very involved matter and it will cost additional money. I am quite prepared to introduce it but then I must have an indication that the Bantu public appreciate what the teachers are doing for them. I think that the teachers themselves can contribute a great deal towards making the Bantu people aware of the necessity for accepting their responsibility towards their teachers; in other words, paying their taxes. If less than half of a community pays its taxes, it is not fair simply to make up the shortfall by way of subsidy. I am prepared to consider doing more for Bantu education once the Bantu people have accepted their responsibility and pay their share of taxes.

This brings me to the question asked by the hon. member for Johannesburg (North)—whether by means of the training which we give the Bantu we can develop the Bantu areas properly. My reply is that we cannot do this with the teachers we have at the moment. I want to emphasize the fact very strongly that I believe that the development of the Bantu areas on the basis of White technicians, White leaders, White professionals and White administrators, is a wrong development. The development of the Bantu areas must be a balanced development. It must be a development of the areas and of the people, a development in which the people themselves can have a share, a development in which the large number of Whites who are still helping to develop the Bantu areas can be relieved to enable them to serve their own society. In order to do this we must produce the necessary manpower and Bantu education is the department which has to undertake this task.

I just want to tell hon. members what we are doing in that connection. It does not help to talk about the amount spent on Bantu education because the amount which one spends does not in the first place determine the number of Bantu who will pass matric, or how many will complete their courses at the university colleges. It depends upon the standard of education given, particularly in the secondary schools. That is the decisive factor and because of the shortage of White teachers for White education in all the provinces, particularly in the scientific subjects, we cannot possibly use White teachers to teach the Bantu at the secondary schools. In fact, the Bantu do not want this; they want those opportunities themselves. It is a question of the training of the Bantu teacher and a proper supervision of that training, a training which will enable him to produce better results and to assist more pupils at schools to pass their examinations. It will be useless to have tens of thousands of Bantu at high schools but have none of them pass their examinations. That will merely be a waste of money. The person who drops out half-way through high school is the person who will walk about looking for work. Because that person cannot be placed in suitable employment, he will become frustrated. It is important for the students at the secondary schools to have a reasonable chance of passing their examinations so that they will have the training to enable them to serve their own communities. Here I want to refer to the extent to which we have succeeded in, in the first place, increasing the number of pupils passing their examinations. Let us take the junior certificate results. In 1954, 7,130 candidates wrote the examination. Of these, 3,343 or 47 per cent passed. In 1960, 10,500 candidates wrote, and of these, 52 per cent passed. I then issued an instruction that we should not simply try to increase the numbers at the secondary schools but that we should be more selective and give better education. This was the result: In 1961, 54 per cent passed; in 1962, 57 per cent passed, and in 1963, we had 9,500 candidates and of these 7,400 passed, or 78 per cent. In other words, the first step which is a prerequisite to produce more people who can serve their own communities—to enable more of them to pass their examinations and to so organize the schools and discipline the teachers and train them that they are able to get the children through their examinations—was very successfully taken by us. Let us look at the matriculation results. In 1960, 17.9 per cent of the candidates passed; in 1961, 26 per cent passed; in 1962, 40.7 per cent passed and in 1963, 63.5 per cent passed. This was the first time in our history that we had this high percentage pass. That is why I say that the answer does not lie in pumping in more money but in having a better supervision and inspection and training of the teachers in order to produce the people capable of rendering these services. I want to add that the pass figure was just as surprisingly good at the three university colleges. The pass figure for first-year students at all three colleges exceeded 65 per cent in all subjects. This compares favourably with any university in South Africa. That is why I say that we have overcome the first problem and I think that we can rest assured that we are moving in the right direction. Now that we have reached this stage we can make more facilities available, and this is what we have done in the meantime. We can now make the necessary facilities available to enable more students to pass but I have issued the emphatic instruction to my Department that I do not simply want to see more schools having more pupils who do not pass their examinations. It is a prerequisite that they pass the examinations.

This brings me to another question asked by the hon. member for Kensington. He asked whether the time had not come for us to appoint more Bantu to senior posts in the Department. My reply is: “No, not yet”, and my reason for saying so is this: We cannot start building from the top. I forget the name of the American Negro who wrote a book about education and who said: “You do not build a house from the chimney.” One cannot start building from the top; one has to start building from the bottom and the first and important requirement is to have the high schools properly manned by properly qualified teachers. Once this has been done, one can start increasing the numbers of one’s subinspectors, one’s overseers. Once their numbers are adequate, one can make inspectors of them and also start appointing them to administrative posts at a later stage. If we withdraw large numbers of teachers for this purpose—because they are after all the people whose services will be required—and appoint them to higher posts, we will be doing these particular individuals a service because we will be paying them better salaries. But the community will suffer thereby because there will then be so many fewer properly qualified teachers to do the teaching work. One has therefore to start from the bottom. Those numbers will gradually increase.

The hon. member for Kensington also came along with the old, old story that education is indivisible. That is a wonderful cliché. He even quoted the Rev. Thema who said this some years ago. He also quoted other people who have said it. Let me tell the hon. member that I say it too, but I add: Education for any society, even for various societies within the same nation must be adjusted to the circumstances of each particular society. I recently read a very interesting work on differentiated education and a differentiated approach to education by the various social groups in Great Britain in which it was said that in order to achieve the best results and in order to have proper education it was necessary that children from various social strata be placed in various types of schools for the simple reason that one had to apply the sound educational principle of movement from the known to the unknown. The education which we are giving the Bantu in South Africa does not as a system, or taken as a whole, differ from the education given to the White child. It is no different at all; it is simply adapted differently. The content of their books is different; the content of the various subjects is simply applied differently so as to start with what is known to the Bantu child. We start with what is known to the White child and so we also start with what lies within the field of knowledge of the Bantu child. That is the only difference that exists. When they eventually write their matriculation examination it is precisely the same examination as that written by the White child. When they write the university examination it is the examination of the University of South Africa. One starts at the bottom from various points but not with different standards; the one is not higher than the other. One simply starts with different fields of knowledge and one builds up gradually on this until eventually, at the matriculation and university level, the same work is being done. So there is no difference. It is therefore a complete misconception—and I hope that the hon. member for Kensington who is an educationist will assist me in eliminating this misconception—that we are giving the Bantu a different education which will place him permanently in an “under-dog” position. There is no truth in that statement at all. What is true is that we have continually said that the education of the Bantu has to be adapted to the service which he has to render to his society and it is for this reason that we do not, for example, develop vocational education on a large scale in the locations in White urban areas. We prefer to make that vocational education available in the new institutions which we are building and developing in the Bantu areas where there are very great development possibilities. This is also my reply to the hon. members that the enrolments at technical and vocational training schools in 1960 numbered 1,730; in 1963, they numbered 2,035 and in 1964, 2,351.

The answer was given in this House that 757 Bantu had been trained in terms of the Native Building Workers Act, 1951.

The hon. member does not realize that technical and vocational training does not simply consist of the training of building workers. A large number of artisans are and have been trained for service to Bantu society. This has been done with great success and it has also filled the need which existed for having a large number of these workers trained quickly. But generally speaking, these are not artisans who are able to complete a house from its foundations to its roof. These are artisans who have been taught on a large scale to do specific sections of the work. One team builds the foundations; another team puts down the floor; another team builds the walls and another team puts on the roof. Each team is taught its own part of the work and these teams carry out the home-building programme in our urban areas on a large scale. The training we give these people is sound vocational training and hon. members will notice that the number of these trainees increased over this four-year period from 1,730 to 2,351. I am referring now to the enrolments at our vocational schools. I say again that these vocational schools are in the first instance erected in the Bantu areas where there is a great demand for the services of these people because of the tremendous number of rural townships being developed for the Bantu, the contracts in regard to which are given chiefly to Bantu contractors. They therefore receive every opportunity there.

The hon. member for Kensington also referred to the large number of privately-paid teachers. He said that this was an indication that the amount which we were spending on Bantu education was inadequate. But the hon. member ought to know that since we have had to deal with Bantu education, whether under the old church-school regime, the provincial regime or under the present regime, there has always been a large number of teachers who have been paid by the community itself, because that is how the schools start. They start with the erection of the school by means of a subsidy by the Government. A teacher is then supplied for that school and the community pays his salary until such time as his salary can be subsidized. This has always been the position. There has not been any great change in regard to the numbers of these teachers except that the number of non-subsidized teachers has actually decreased recently. Every now and again the number rises but recently there has been a gradual downward trend in this regard. I may perhaps just say that in 1962-3 my Department subsidized 1,194 new teaching posts, and in 1963-4 the Department subsidized 805 new posts.

The hon. member for Kensington also referred to double sessions and he said that he hoped that one of the first tasks which the Bantu Education Advisory Council would tackle would be to improve the status of these schools. He said that one of the first things that should be done was to do away with double sessions. He gave the impression that double sessions were resorted to from the lower primary schools right through to Std. II. Sir, that is not so. Use is only made of double sessions in the sub-standards, in Sub-std. A and Sub-std. B, or in Grade I and Grade II as the sub-standards are also called. Use is not made of double sessions in the standards. It is true that where there is a lack of accommodation, one class may be held in the morning and another class in the afternoon with a different teacher. In Natal they call this the “Platoon” system. This does happen at certain places as a result of a lack of accommodation, but it is not a double session. Double sessions are only resorted to in the sub-standards where one teacher takes two classes, one in the morning and one in the afternoon. Each of these sessions last for 2¾ hours while the average duration of substandard classes elsewhere, for other races, is three hours per day. In reality, therefore, there is a difference of 15 minutes. It has also been proved in other countries of the world that one ought not to keep children of that age at school for longer than three hours per day. We keep them at school for 2¾ hours. A period of three hours is regarded practically throughout the world as being educationally sound for children of that age. In reality, therefore, there can be no objection to a period of 2¾ hours. All that happens is that the teacher now teaches for five hours per day instead of teaching for three hours in the morning and then going home. In this period of five hours there is a period of half-an-hour in which the two classes come together for certain cultural subjects. The teacher therefore works for only five hours per day. So she does not work longer than a teacher in a high school or one teaching a higher class. Hon. members must remember that in the lower classes there is no such things as homework or revision which has to be done on a large scale in the higher classes. That teacher therefore does not have to do more than the teacher in the higher classes. The children receive adequate education and they have a full school day just as in the case of all other children from Std. I. The hon. member gave the impression that the double sessions, the standard at the Bantu schools and the different kinds of education given to the Bantu, give an inferior character to Bantu education. But let me point out to the hon. member that on the first occasion that children who had started at the bottom under the Bantu education system wrote their matriculation examination, they produced a 60 per cent pass. Is this an indication of an inferior education? I think it is an indication that the system followed in Bantu education and the method in which it is applied, speaks volumes for the experts who worked out this system and the men who settled the matter. It also speaks volumes—and I want to express my appreciation in this regard—for the faithful work done by the inspectorate of my Department with the material at their disposal, the teachers in the field, in producing these particular results. I think that they are doing work which is not always fully appreciated.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) put a question to me in connection with the reduction in the amount to be voted under a certain number of items. All those reductions are as a result of the takeover of education by the Transkei Government. The amount in respect of free books under this Vote has been reduced because in the Transkeian schools books will now be supplied by the Transkeian Government. As far as staff is concerned, there is a reduction of 424 on the establishment involving a total expenditure of R545,100 in respect of staff salaries only because these posts have now been taken over by the Transkei. There is a reduction under this Vote of R3,169,700 in respect of subsidies to schools, the salaries and wages of teachers, school material, furniture, equipment, school books and libraries. All these reductions, except for the reduction in respect of school-feeding, spring from the fact that the Transkei has now taken over this education. They receive a contribution in this regard from the development fund of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. They no longer receive a grant from Bantu Education Account. The reduction in regard to school-feeding is as a result of the fact that certain school boards which were still practising school feeding themselves decided to discontinue the scheme.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the Bill introduced in the Transkei to abolish school boards. He said that this proved that their party was correct in consistently maintaining that school boards should not exercise control over teachers. But I do not know whether the hon. member is quite correct. In the first place, he must remember that in actual fact the Bantu Education Act makes provision for control over education and teachers not by school boards but by regional authorities. It is only in cases where the regional authorities have not yet been properly developed and as yet cannot exercise control themselves that these school boards are set up to do this work. The school boards are gradually being absorbed by the regional authorities which are Government bodies; that is precisely what the Transkeian Government is now doing. Let me quote to hon. members a provision in the Bill which has just been introduced in the Transkei. It reads as follows (translation)—

In other words, this Bill which has been introduced into the Transkeian Parliament simply seeks to do what we are already doing under the Bantu Education Act. We had to make use of school boards because the regional authorities had not yet been properly developed. Regional authorities have now been properly developed in the Transkei. They can therefore abolish the school boards there and set up regional authorities in their stead. They can now transfer the powers and the duties vested in school boards to regional authorities. That is precisely what we are doing in the rest of the Republic. We are simply doing it gradually; we shall continue to do it. In essence, therefore, there is no difference between what they are doing and what we are doing.

The hon. member also asked me what the position was in connection with the remuneration of teachers at Bantu university colleges. The Department of Education, Arts and Science recently announced new salary scales at the university colleges. Those university colleges are now able to add amounts from their own funds to those new basic salary scales which are subsidized by the State and to appoint teachers on what they call an extended scale which goes higher than the subsidized salary. We are making a careful investigation to ascertain how provision can be made for extended scales for the teachers at the non-White university colleges so that there will be no unfavourable comparison between a White teacher at a Bantu university college and a White teacher at a White university. The hon. member also asked me why a White teacher at a Bantu university college was paid a territorial allowance. It is not a territorial allowance; it is an inconvenience allowance. The hon. member knows that the White teacher at a White university has various privileges. He lives in a White city; his children are at a high school; his children are at a university; he enjoys all the facilities a White society can offer him. But the White teacher at a Bantu university college is deprived of all those facilities; he renders a particular service there and for that reason a small extra amount is paid him to compensate him in that regard. In any case, the whole question of the allowance and salaries is presently being considered and I hope shortly to be able to announce the new salary scales, including those for the Bantu and non-White staff at the university colleges, because these have to be reviewed at the same time. They will be applied in accordance with formulae which have to be worked out in consultation with the Public Service Commission and other State departments using the services of professional officers. I hope within the next week or two to be able to announce the new salary scales both for White and non-White teachers at university colleges.

The hon. member also asked me about the Xhosa children in the White areas of the Republic. He wanted to know whether they were going to be given the same education as the children in the Transkei. I can only say that I hope that the standard in the Transkei will remain as high as it is in the White areas. We shall retain control here because they are in our area. As long as they are here, we shall retain control. But we shall keep in contact with the development there because, on the appointment of the Bantu Education Advisory Council, the Transkeian Government asked to be able to appoint an observer to the Council. That observer will attend the meetings of the Bantu Education Advisory Council and in this way there will always be contact between the development of education in each of the two areas. I do not think we need be concerned that education in the Transkei and education elsewhere in the Republic will move in different directions.

The hon. member also asked me whether any member of Parliament can visit the Bantu university colleges and schools if they are interested in doing so. I am surprised that the hon. member has not yet visited these schools and university colleges because there is nothing whatever to prevent his doing so. He can do so at any time.

The hon. the Minister has now enunciated a new principal in taxation and government. He tells us that because the African taxpayer, the Bantu taxpayer, is not paying taxation as he ought to, the teachers cannot receive the money that they ought to receive. Sir, that is a fine principle! The Minister is saying in effect to teachers “you are really servants of the community, but you will not be paid unless the taxpayer is prepared to pay as well.” The hon. the Minister has also enunciated another principle. He says that the funds for the education of Native children should come from the wages that the African worker has been able to earn in this new boom period. The funds for the education of Whites and Coloureds and the whole community in South Africa, do not come directly from wages. They come indirectly, and if the hon. the Minister will study the White Paper issued by the Minister of Finance during the Budget debate he will see where the money does come from. Very little comes from direct taxation. Let me give him the figures. The main sources of revenue are these: R98,000,000 comes from Customs. Surely the Bantu subscribes to customs; surely he has to buy just as the White man has to buy; surely he has made his contribution here. R157,000,000 is derived from excise; this is last year’s figure. Surely the Bantu makes his contributions to excise.

But then he gets health services, etc.

I know, but he should get education services as well. R98,000,000 comes from Posts, Telegraphs and Telephones. Sir, who uses the post office more than the Bantu? Who subscribes to the Post Office savings fund more than the Bantu does? It is the Bantu’s bank. R581,000,000 comes from Inland Revenue. I want to take a look at Inland Revenue. Inland Revenue means chiefly income-tax. Let us have a look at income-tax. It is not the individual like the Minister or myself who pays income-tax really. It is the companies in which money is invested; and what are these companies? Any company in South Africa producing wealth pays 30 per cent of its profits in income-tax, unless it is a gold mine. If a gold mine is a paying proposition it pays, according to the Minister of Finance, up to 72 per cent of its profits to the Government. Who produces the gold? We could not produce an ounce of gold in South Africa without African labour. Three-quarters of your mines would close down to-morrow if they did not have African labour. When the gold mines pay these huge sums in gold-mining taxation, who has earned the money? Surely the African worker has earned it just as much as those able White managers who control the mines and, of course, the shareholders who have subscribed the capital. The Africans are partners in this, and what do we say to the African? We say to him, “In spite of the contribution which you have made over the years through your work on farms, on the gold mines, in commerce, in mining, in industry and in trade, your education will be financed out of the wages that you receive from your employer.” We do not say that to any other section of the community. Sir. I am sorry to hear the hon. the Minister as Minister of Bantu Education putting up that case. I should like him to go to the Minister of Finance to put the case for the Bantu child. That is his duty. His duty is not to come here and defend a system which I regard as grossly unfair, a system which many people have described as iniquitous.

In reply to questions I have asked in connection with headquarters staff the hon. the Minister has said that no provision is made for any Bantu member. He said we must start building from the ground and not from the roof. But we have a number of men on the roof already. We have Bantu professors. In reply to a question the Minister has given me the number of Bantu professors and lecturers. If they can be Bantu professors and lecturers, surely they can be administrative men in an office learning from the excellent men the hon. the Minister has at present; learning administrative work from his great staff.

At this stage we want them for the teaching profession where they can teach their own people.

We need them in both. We need them in the administrative field and in the teaching field. We usually send men to administration later in their careers but some men go there right at the beginning. We have built up a Bantu Education Department with men who are accustomed to administrative work and they can teach these Africans. I am very much surprised at the hon. the Minister again telling us to-day that the Bantu are not paying their taxes and there is therefore no money for the Bantu child. It is disgraceful.

I do not think the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) heard the interjection of the hon. the Minister while the hon. member was speaking about the large sums which are apparently paid by the Bantu in indirect taxation. This is true to a certain extent. One cannot determine how much indirect taxation the Bantu are paying but they receive many free services, services for which the Bantu have to pay over and above their tax. The Bantu receive free hospital services and they receive free health services, to mention only two. They are given the best health services and they pay nothing for them. The Whites have to pay for the same treatment. This makes a very big difference. When we consider all the educational, health and miscellaneous services made available to the Bantu, we find that these services more than compensate for the indeterminable amount which they pay in the form of indirect taxation.

I just want to reply to the point made by the hon. member for Kensington that we should appoint Bantu administrative posts. He said that we have Bantu professors available and that we can appoint them to the administrative posts. But. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely our difficulty. At the moment we do not have sufficient qualified Bantu at our university colleges to fill these posts. We have time and again been compelled when applications have been invited for certain posts at the university colleges, to appoint a White man because there have simply not been a sufficient number of Bantu with the necessary qualifications applying for the position. It is obvious that if we were to transfer the Bantu teaching staff at our university colleges to administrative posts, the teaching staff of those colleges would have to be replaced entirely by Whites. It is true that we have a great need for teachers. We are not only experiencing this at the colleges but also at schools. The hon. member for Kensington was very inconsistent. He first complained about the standard of the teaching given by the Bantu teachers in the primary schools and shortly thereafter he complained that they were not paid enough. It is true that the salaries of those teachers are low but I think it would be wrong to increase considerably the salaries of unqualified persons who are teaching. One does not want to encourage this sort of thing. We are of necessity compelled to make use of their services. I still well remember that we had the same position in the Transvaal. In 1920 the Transvaal Department advertised for White persons with junior certificate for teaching posts. Necessity compelled them to appoint White persons with only junior certificate as teachers I myself considered applying until I realized that I did not have the patience that a teacher must have. The shortage of teachers is world-wide. This problem cannot be solved simply by increasing salaries. The Bantu teacher, just like the White teacher, must realize that education is not merely a profession but a calling. It is a service which he has to render to his community at great sacrifice to himself. It has been the experience in every country in the world that no educational body can compete with industry, mining and commerce as far as salaries are concerned. It is simply impossible to do so, particularly in these times of scientific progress in which we are living. Take the White teachers. There will be very few of them who will not be able to obtain a far better paid post if they want to give up teaching. It is a pity that the Bantu teacher is not yet receiving what he ought to receive but the hon. the Minister has given us a full reply in this connection. No matter what the hon. member for Kensington may say it is the duty of the Bantu parent to realize that he cannot always simply take as far as education is concerned. He also has to give. He must also contribute his share to the education of the children of his own race. If he does so, that education will be more appreciated. If this happens, it may be possible to pay higher salaries. I do not say that the one is conditional upon the other but it will be possible to remunerate them better once they realize this fact. They must realize this fact not only for the sake of the additional money that it will mean to them but because the principle is fundamentally sound. I fear that a large number of Bantu want education for their children but are not prepared to pay for it. That is the wrong approach that one finds on the part of so many Bantu parents.

I just want to reply briefly to the quotation made by the hon. member for Kensington from a speech of mine made many years ago. I am very pleased to see that it made such a good impression upon him—the fact that education is indivisible. If hon. members will read my Hansard, it will not be necessary for me to explain what I meant. I stated emphatically—and the hon. member quoted my words—that education was indivisible in so far as one can teach algebra to everyone in only one way and that one can teach science to everyone in only one way. I mentioned these cases. In that sense, education is indivisible. But the hon. member for Kensington often quotes that sound statement that I made in order to prove something else. When Bantu education was transferred to the Department of Bantu Education he said that this showed that education was divisible. I then had to explain to him that it had nothing to do with the control over education at all. The control over education is in various hands in many countries. In many countries it is in various hands. The hon. member wanted to use that statement of mine again to-day to show that the education which the Bantu children are receiving is not the same as that given to the White children. The hon. the Minister has replied fully in this regard. They are trained until they reach the stage where they write exactly the same subjects and are examined by exactly the same bodies as the White children are. I can tell the hon. member that Greek and Latin and Law, in fact, every subject that is taught to the students at the University College of Fort Hare, is taught there in precisely the same way as it is taught to the White students at a White university. Their examinations are set by the University of South Africa and the university marks the papers. The standard is the same and the method used is precisely the same.

An important point made by hon. members was that although we have large numbers of Bantu children at school, the largest number of them are in the primary schools and that there are only a few of them who pass matriculation and even fewer who go to the university colleges. In which country in the world, Mr. Chairman, where there is State-initiated education, has the position ever been any different? The hon. member for Kensington himself supplied the answer in this regard when he said that when State education was started in England about 100 years ago they said that the purpose was not to teach people to advance as far as possible but simply to teach them to maintain their own position. That was what they said. We do not say that. We say that they can go as far as they are able to go. But this has been so in the case of State-initiated education in every country in the world, and we are only still at the start of Bantu education. [Time limit.]

Sir, the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore) has dealt adequately, I think, with the argument put forward by the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of the taxation of the Bantu. He pointed out how the Bantu were contributing through general taxation and not only by means of Bantu taxation. During the time at my disposal I do not propose to enlarge on that particular aspect. But I wonder why the hon. the Minister should allow Bantu education to be the sole exception in this question of expenditure by the Treasury. There is no such limitation in the case of European education nor in the case of Coloured or Indian education. As far as other services are concerned these services are extended to the Bantu irrespective of the tax they pay. What on earth would happen to the health services in this country if they were extended to the Bantu in the ratio of the tax they paid? Surely education is just as serious a matter as health? What would happen to the border industries, to the subsidization of the transport services to and from the Bantu townships if they were all dependant on the extent to which the Bantu paid taxation? It does not seem fair and I trust the Minister will make other arrangements to see that the Bantu receive sufficient money to enjoy a decent education.

The hon. member for Kensington referred to the question of the salaries of Bantu teachers. He dealt with the minimum salaries. I want to pursue this trend of thought a short way and deal with the maximum salaries. I want to show that as far as teachers’ salaries are concerned the position is an extremely parlous one. Unless something is done to improve the lot of the Bantu teacher I cannot see that there will be entrants to the profession. According to the figures which I have received from the Minister’s Department it would appear that out of the 1,400 odd Bantu teachers who are unqualified only 10 are receiving salaries in excess of R2 per day. And as the hon. member for Kensington has pointed out R2 per day has become the accepted minimum wage in commerce and industry. Of the 25,400 qualified Bantu teachers less than half are earning more than the equivalent of R2 per working day. One has to bear in mind that from the amount they are earning some of these teachers have to pay back loans which have been granted to them by the Department in order to train as teachers. Recently a survey of Bantu wages was conducted in all parts of Natal and what did it reveal? It revealed that in so far as the 11,000 odd Bantu who were classified as unskilled workers were concerned 48 per cent of them were earning more than the maximum salary of unqualified Bantu teachers with a junior certificate namely, R6.46 per week. The survey also revealed that the median commencing wage of an African labourer paid by employers concerned in the survey was R6.85. It also showed that over 14.000 of the teachers in the primary school earned a maximum salary—and they had to go through four salary notches to receive it—of R9.46 per week. The minimum or starting salary to which the hon. member for Kensington has also referred, is only R5.65 compared with the Bantu unskilled labourer’s median commencing salary of R6.85 per week. It takes a teacher six to seven years to reach the maximum notch and in some cases up to 13 years. That is not much of an incentive.

I should now like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he could assist in regard to the training of Bantu chemists and druggists. I notice under item G ‘Bursaries and Loans to pupils’ that an amount of R29,000 has been set aside in the Estimates. It is very sad to notice that this is a decrease over the last three years of R11,400. The amount has gone down year after year. It is also interesting to see that the amount set aside for loans to Bantu school teachers has dropped from R40,000 in 1958 to R14,200 in the Estimates for this year. As far as non-White medical students are concerned they seem to be fairly well provided for because an amount of approximately R16,000 per year is allowed for their training. This has been the average over the past six years. I would like to appeal to the hon. the Minister to take some of the R29,000 which he has in order to train Bantu chemists and druggists. I believe the matter has become urgent. I have referred to the fact that funds are allocated for the training of non-White medical students but as far as I am aware—and I think my facts are correct—there are only three Bantu chemist and druggist apprentices at the moment. The course is a five year one. On average it will take six to seven years for one Bantu chemist and druggist to qualify. Pharmaceutical services are ancillary to medical services. How can the Bantu doctors possibly operate in the Bantu areas if there are no Bantu pharmacists? How can we do away with witchcraft and other superstitions which the Bantu have indulged in for years if we do not put in their place qualified people to deal with their health problems?

As far as the Bantu are concerned I believe this is an excellent opportunity for them to earn while they learn. Three of the five years consist of a academic course which must be attended at one of the university colleges and the other two years involve a two-year apprenticeship course. During that two-year apprenticeship course I estimate it will be possible for a Bantu apprentice to earn R1,000 but I do not believe that will be a sufficient amount to enable him to live during the whole five-year period during which he is undergoing his training. On the law of averages regarding the time taken to qualify, this period could well extend to six years. I feel this is an excellent opportunity for the proposed bursary fund to help these men to take the five year course. The number of matriculants has been referred to on several occasions. I believe this figure is approximately 360 for the previous year. That number of 360 has to make provision for all the walks of life which the Bantu choose to enter. I believe that unless some incentive is given to the prospective Bantu pharmacist it will be very difficult to obtain the necessary people from that small number of matriculants to give health services, from the pharmaceutical point of view, in the areas where the Bantu need them. It has been said by an official in the Department of Health that the ultimate aim should be one qualified chemist and druggist to 20,000 Bantu. I think the time to plan for this state of affairs is now. It cannot be left very much longer. In the Digest of March the intention is indicated to train Bantu as pharmacists at the University College of Turfloop. This was an announcement by the rector. But one has to have the students. One has to have them for five years. It is no good laying down three year university education if they are unable to qualify because of economic difficulties. The European students have a great advantage over the Bantu students in this respect because most of them receive their training in the large cities and towns with the result that it is quite possible for a White chemist’s apprentice during his three year academic course to earn as much as R200 to R300 per annum by occupying himself on Saturday mornings. This is an avenue of income which the Bantu are deprived of, Sir, because their university colleges are situated miles from any suitable town or city where they can get such employment. [Time limit.]

When my time expired I was emphasizing that the progressive education which the Bantu receives is the same as that given to the Whites. The hon. member who has just sat down is right in saying that few Bantu enrol as chemists. We have only just made a start in this regard. We realize that the small number of Bantu chemists available cannot even do a fraction of the work that will have to be done. We hope that as more students pass matriculation and enter the colleges the number of chemists will increase swiftly. This is necessary training.

I have said that the Bantu and the Whites receive the same education but I want to add that it must be emphasized in the case of the Bantu that the education which they are given at their schools and colleges must in the first place be used for the benefit of their own people; they must use this education to teach their own people to live better, to work better and to earn better. In this we reveal a service motive and not any other motive such as that which we discovered on the part of the United Party. Mr. Bamford, representing the United Party, had this to say last week in the Provincial Council when he was discussing the question of taxation. As he sees the position, the basic idea of the United Party is that all taxpayers must have a share in the central Government of the country. That is not what we say. It is simply being materialistic to use taxation as a qualification for participation in the central Government. In contrast to this, the yardstick of the Progressive Party is merit and merit alone. I prefer the yardstick of the Progressive Party to that of the United Party. We say that they must use that training to serve their own people.

Another argument is that the amount which is spent per capita on the Bantu student at the university colleges is so much higher than that in the case of a White student. The hon. member for Kensington gave us the figures. I may just tell him that some United Party members use that argument in another way. He said that it was “window-dressing”. But some of his colleagues use it in order to be able to tell people: “Look at what is being done for the Blacks. What is being done for your children?” That is the way in which they use that argument outside. I shall reply to that; it is quite simple. The amount which is spent on a Bantu student at a university college is of necessity higher than the amount which is spent on a White student at a White university. It is simply due to the fact that there are far fewer students at the Bantu university colleges than there are White students at the White universities. But we have to make provision for the teaching staff. There has to be a qualified teacher for every subject and for every part of a subject. There have to be various faculties. There may be only two or three or four students in every class but the teacher has to be there and he has to give the same lecture as the teacher at the White university has to give. As the number of pupils from the primary schools to the secondary schools and to the high schools gradually increases, and as the number of matriculants entering the university colleges increases, that amount will gradually decrease because then there will be more students who will be able to derive the same benefit from the same teaching staff, from the same equipment and from the same classrooms. When the number of students has doubled itself, the per capita amount spent will be halved and when the number of students has trebled itself, the per capita cost will be one-third what it is today. We can base those figures on the present staff and on the present equipment available at the university colleges to-day. So that matter will eventually right itself.

I am sure that the hon. member for Kensington was honest in his criticism this morning. He raised points which we realize must be attended to and which are receiving attention. But we must realize, as far as Bantu education is concerned, that we cannot run before we have learnt to walk and that we cannot walk until we have learnt to crawl. This has been the position in every country in the world. The progress that has been made over the past 10 or 15 years has been amazing. Let the hon. member for Kensington go back 15 or 16 years when we were both members of the education group. What was Bantu education then? The progress which we have made in this short period compares excellently with that in most countries of the world which have had to deal with problems less difficult than ours. Reference has already been made to one of the South American States. In that same report hon. members will see that there are various countries, even countries in Europe, in which the progress in the educational sphere has not at all kept pace with the progress which we have made as far as Bantu education in South Africa is concerned. This is not simply show; these are the true facts. This is not simply “window-dressing” for the benefit of UNO and others. It is a task which we have taken upon ourselves because we realize that it is a service which they must have. We have made progress in that respect which is the envy of many countries in the world.

Some of the statements of the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) need an answer. I want to tell him that far from African children getting the same sort of education as White children, the Minister’s own commission of inquiry into the teaching of the official languages etc. in the Transkeian primary schools found that in the many schools visited there was an almost frightening low standard of education in all subjects. I doubt very much whether any commission of inquiry into the White schools of South Africa would make such an observation. Sir, the standard of education is low throughout according to this fact-finding commission of inquiry. I am surprised to find the hon. member trying to justify the amount spent on Bantu education, the low amount, by virtue of the amount of taxes paid. We have had this argument before in this House. Although I of course do not approve of it for one moment, I can understand it being justified on the basis of pure party politics, rather like the way the hon. Minister himself tried to justify it when he mentioned there had been complaints that too much was being done for the Bantu and not enough for the White man, and when he said that that complaint was refuted by the Budget figures. He referred to the year 1962 and said that the real figures showed that 96 per cent of the Budget was spent on White development and 4 per cent on African development in South Africa. That I can understand as a party political argument, but there is certainly no argument on moral principles. I want to point out to the hon. member for Fort Beaufort too that where Africans earn a taxable income they pay income-tax and that most of them don’t earn a taxable income because they are limited in their earning ability by various restrictive laws that make it impossible for them to earn high incomes and that, all of them, have to pay personal taxes, and over and above that the African parent has to subsidize the education of his children. The African parents have to pay 20 cents per quarter up to Std. VI and R1 per quarter in secondary schools. In country districts they have to provide 50 per cent of the cost of the school buildings and maintenance. In the urban areas, there is a 20 cent levy to cover lower primary schools and for higher primary schools, the parents have to pay a levy that provide 50 per cent of the cost of the buildings. What European parent has to do that? No matter how poor, the African has to pay for his child’s education. As far as hospital services are concerned, if a person is unable to pay in a White hospital, he gets free hospital services. As far as the Africans are concerned, they have to pay a per capita fee when they enter the hospital, in the Transvaal, anyway. Now as far as the provision of free text books etc. is concerned, in the Transvaal to my knowledge White children do not pay for those text books. African children have to pay for all their text books, with the exception of the three “readers” that are provided. I have got a photostat here of a message sent to the parents of children attending a school in the Sharpeville area in the Transvaal and it reads as follows—

I agree there can be no progress without the necessary books, but I wonder what White parents would stand for such a system?

We pay for our children’s books.

There are allowances for indigent White children and there is compulsory schooling and therefore they have to be provided for. The hon. member should know that. I want to come back to another matter which I raised with the hon. Minister last year.

I asked the hon. Minister how he could explain how the per capita amount spent on Bantu children had steadily decreased over the years from R17.08 to R12.21, and last year he gave me the answer that the reason for that was that there had been an enormous increase in the attendance at lower primary schools, which is of course the cheaper kind of education. But when I examined the figures that the hon. Minister gave me the other day, I found that there is no alteration in the proportion of children that attended lower primary schools ten years ago, when the decade of Bantu education began, and to-day. In other words, in 1954, 70.94 per cent of the children were in lower primary schools and in 1963, the percentage was 71.47. So this is an explanation which I cannot accept. As far as I can see, there is very little difference. It is true there is an increase in the over-all number of children attending school, but there is also an increasing number in the higher schools. The proportions have gone up year by year, but even if the hon. Minister’s reasons were correct, the policy would still be very bad, because in fact the pattern of education should be to increase the proportion of children obtaining secondary and higher education. Only in this way will the hon. Minister be able to obtain the requisite number of teachers that he requires to bring up the standard of literacy of the African population, and only in that way will the necessary technical and other services be available to the African people. I want to question the hon. Minister’s statement which he made in the “S.A. Digest” that 80 per cent of the Bantu children in the age group of seven to 14 are literate. I don’t know where the hon. Minister gets that figure from. I question it, because as far as I can see not even functional literacy can really be ascribed to the children in the seven-14 age group, because the vast majority of African children at school, leave school after Std. II and Std. II children are not functionally literate. No educationist would say that two grades in the subgrades and two in the first standards can lead to functional literacy. In America six years of school attendance, up to Std. IV, are required before a child is considered to be functionally literate. So where the hon. Minister get his figures from I do not know. I also want to know where he gets the figure which again he quoted in one of the “S.A. Digests” that 83 per cent of all Bantu children between the ages of seven and 14 are at school. Sir, his own Bantu education journal says that the number of children in the primary schools in that age group is only 61 per cent of the total Bantu school-going population. Now, obviously, Sir, the difference between 61 per cent and 83 per cent would mean that more than 20 per cent would be in the secondary schools, which we all know is not so. I want to know where the hon. Minister gets his wildly optimistic figures. As far as I can work out from all the sources available, at the very maximum about 63 per cent of the school-age Bantu children are in fact in school between the ages of seven and 14. So I am afraid that I cannot accept the hon. Minister’s figures.

I must go back to the whole question of what is being provided for Bantu education. I am sure the hon. Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I think I am right in saying that there is one gleam of hope in this whole budget, and that is that there is a windfall this year to Bantu Education of just over R2,000,000, due to the fact that Transkei education has now been taken over and is being subsidized out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, and if one takes the R3,500,000 allowed there and deducts from it the taxation of Transkeian citizens which would come to the Bantu Education Fund, one arrives at an amount of about R2,250,000. I hope that is so, and if that is so, I want to implore the hon. Minister not to save this money the way he has been saving it in previous years. Last year I spoke of the tremendous amount surrendered to the Consolidated Revenue Fund and then the hon. Minister said that it had not been surrendered, but was being kept back in the Bantu Education Fund. I accept that, but it still has not been spent. Whether in fact it has been surrendered to Consolidated Revenue or simply kept as a balance in the Bantu Education Fund, means the same thing as far as I am concerned: The money has not been spent. My point is that let alone saving money on the Ministerial Vote, he should be pressing for increased expenditure. How he can save out of the R13,000,000 which has been allocated to this fund is beyond me! I am going to give the hon. Minister a list of things on which he could very comfortably spend money and not save it on the Bantu Education Vote: Teachers’ salaries which are appallingly low; a teacher’s pension scheme—there is not a teachers’ pension scheme for Bantu in the whole of this country; the whole question of providing teaching aids; the provision of text books; library books; all these things on which the hon. Minister should be spending money. School-feeding is another very important thing. There has been a reduction there. On loans and bursaries there has been a tremendous cut. Why save a cent out of this grossly inadequate budget of Bantu Education? I want to ask the hon. Minister not to repeat the previous year’s history, and the two or three years prior to that as well, when he saved nearly R1,000,000 on this account. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) as usual used the argument that far too little is being done, that the State must spend more money, that the Bantu must receive far more, and so forth. I want to make use of comparative figures to show the percentage of their national income that is spent on education by various countries and I want to prove to the hon. member for Houghton that on a percentage basis, South Africa spends the same amount of her national income on education as the United States of America does, a country which I think takes the lead amongst the Western countries in the sphere of culture.

Bantu education or all education?

All education. The figures in regard to America are also in respect of all education. Negroes included. I want to compare South Africa with a country like Australia which spends 1.5 per cent of its total national income on education. This country is a recognized leader amongst the Western nations. Great Britain spends 2.9 per cent of her national income on education. Canada, which is continually being held up to us, spends 3.1 per cent of her total income on education; Norway spends 2.6 per cent. America only reached the figure of 3.4 per cent after the first Russian spaceman had made the first space flight. America was greatly shocked at how far behind she was in this sphere. She then started spending tremendous amounts on education and the amount spent then rose to 3.4 per cent of her total national income.

What is the percentage spent on Bantu education?

South Africa has precisely the same figure as America—3.4 per cent of her total national income. I just want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that if we take the tax paid by the Bantu and work out the percentage of it that is spent on Bantu education, we will find that it will not be 3 per cent or 4 per cent but much closer to 30 per cent or 40 per cent. If the hon. member will accept this fact as far as the Bantu are concerned, the picture will improve considerably. I want to mention a few other figures to compare South Africa with other States in Africa. I know that the hon. member will say that this is an unjust comparison but I want to add that the Africa States to-day have not simply to depend upon themselves for the money required in connection with education and improvements; they receive money and assistance from all quarters, technical and otherwise, to try and assist them and place them on an equal footing with other countries. Tremendous sums of money are given to them for their upliftment but in spite of the tremendous amount of foreign aid they receive, how do the figures of the Africa States and the literacy there and the number of school-going children there compare with similar figures in the Republic of South Africa? After all, we are also an Africa State because we are a part of this Continent. I want to mention a few figures for the information of the hon. member. I want to say immediately that there has been tremendous development, great progress in Africa. They have realized that education is the key to all economic and political growth and that is why there has been a very marked and new tendency on the part of Africa States to spend as much money as possible on education. They realize that economic prosperity makes far greater demands of technical staff and that is why they are trying to promote education as much as possible. I want to quote certain figures in order to make the position clear. I want to compare the percentage of school-going children between the ages of five and 14 years who attended school in 1931 with the percentage in 1961 in order to indicate the development in this regard.

Business suspended at 12.45 p.m. and resumed at 2.20 p.m.

Afternoon Sitting

When business was interrupted I was using comparative figures of the number of pupils of school-going age in the Africa States in order to show how their numbers had increased from 1931 to 1961 in order to prove the tremendous awakening which has come about in Africa in regard to the value of education. I say this fully aware of the fact that millions of rand are pumped into these States annually by Western and Eastern countries in order to improve their education generally. In Algeria, there was an increase from 11 per cent to 31 per cent; in Ghana, an increase of 8 per cent to 54 per cent, and in the Congo, from 12 per cent to 43 per cent. This was the position in 1961, according to the figures of the Africa Institute. We can compare the position in South Africa with the position in these Africa countries. The Opposition are so much inclined to tell us when we are discussing matters of this nature that our position must be considered against our Western European background, and, in the next breath, they want to link us up with Africa. The Opposition cannot have it both ways. For comparative purposes I want to compare our country not only with countries in Western Europe but I also want to draw a comparison between our country and certain Africa States because as far as our Bantu are concerned we are in the same position as the Africa States are with their Bantu. It is right therefore to compare the figures for our country in this regard with those for the Africa States. It is generally estimated that the national income of the Bantu in South Africa alone is more or less R800,000,000 per annum. In contrast to this we have the expenditure on Bantu education—a total amount of between R22,000,000 and R25,000,000. In other words, if my percentage is correct, we find that between 2.6 per cent and 2.7 per cent of the Bantu national income is spent on Bantu education. This figure of 2.6 per cent must be compared with 1.5 per cent in Australia, 2.6 per cent in Norway and 2.9 per cent in Britain, while the figure for the Republic as a whole, Whites and Blacks together, is 3.4 per cent of our total national income. I feel that we have a just cause here and that we have nothing to hide in connection with what we are doing for Bantu education as such. But I want to deal further with the figures in regard to schoolgoing children. I want to take the example of Ethiopia which has been self-governing for many centuries and which is an independent State in Africa. In 1961, 3 per cent of its children of school-going age, between the ages of five and 14 years, were at school; in Somalia the figure was 5 per cent, in Liberia, 18 per cent, in Nigeria, 32 per cent, in Egypt, which has such a lot to say about our affairs, 51 per cent, in Ghana, 54 per cent and in the Republic of South Africa, 80 per cent.

Those figures are slanted.

Before the hon. member refutes these figures let me tell her that they have been obtained from the Africa Institute. They are actually even higher than this. If one adds to this figure the large number of people who cannot be educated, people who as a result of disabilities or whatever the case may be, cannot be educated, then the percentage is even higher.

What is the position in certain Africa countries in regard to education? Let us take the case of Ethiopia once again. The following facts came to light at the congress in connection with the development of education at Addis Ababa in May 1961: There is a need in Ethiopia at the moment for 82,000 primary and 18,000 secondary school classrooms; they need 97,000 additional trained teachers simply to come up to standard. If universal primary education were to be introduced, they would have to incur a capital expenditure of three times their entire budget in order to bring their education into line with that of the rest of the world. Let us compare this with the position in South Africa. When we do so, we find that the picture is completely different. Let us consider these statistics for a moment. I want to give the figure of the number of people receiving university education out of every 10,000 inhabitants in the various States. I also want to say that as far as South Africa is concerned, the figure represents all races, including Whites. But we are an Africa State and as such I want to compare the position in this country with that in various other countries.

Out of every 10,000 possible students in Algeria, there are eight at university; in Ethiopia, two; in Liberia, six; in Nigeria, eight; in Ghana, 11 and in Somalia, one. In comparison with these figures, the Republic of South Africa’s figure is 40. [Time limit.]

I was always under the impression that a Minister should try and get as much money as possible to run his Department efficiently. I would think that it would be his job to provide the best possible service that he can afford. Now it would appear that the hon. Minister, judging by what he has said, gives service according to the amount of taxation that is derived from the Bantu. Well, if that is what the hon. Minister meant, I can only say that he blundered very, very badly. If we want this Republic of ours to progress, then I would say to the hon. Minister that his best investment at the moment would be to invest as much as possible in the education of the people, irrespective of their colour. That is his big investment here, and the sooner he changes his ideas about the taxation problem which he put forward this morning, the better for all of us in South Africa. We have from time to time emphasized the fact that it is impossible for the White man to carry the services entirely for the Whites and the Blacks. It is impossible to do so, and if there is going to be any future whatever in Bantustans, in the homelands, as advocated by the Government side, they are doomed to failure if education for the Black people is not improved. I was more than disturbed when the hon. Minister of Education (Mr. de Klerk), a day or two ago said in reply to a query I put to him, when I said to him that I was perturbed at the small number of Bantu that go to the universities, replied that he was also perturbed about it, but as far as he could see the Bantu even though he matriculated was not yet able to absorb further higher education. That is a very serious state if that is really the case in South Africa. It is our job not to start comparing what we have got in this country and what they have got in other countries, but we must find what the weak link is in our system so that we can prepare our matriculants to enter the universities to become readily available for the professions. If what the hon. Minister of Education says is correct, then we are doomed here, because a very, very small percentage of the Bantu that matriculate will be fit to go to the universities. Now it is not only the hon. Minister of Education who has said that. It is a feeling amongst educationists as well. If it was only his own thought, I would not be so perturbed about it, and would say that he is probably mistaken, but that is a trend of thought that is going through higher educational circles to-day, and we have to find out where our weak link is, where along the line of education have we failed. Is it going to be for all time a dead end, matriculation—is that going to be the dead end, or are we going to do our level best to see that education for the Bantu is provided in such a way that he is made fit and proper for higher education? How can we do that? We heard a little while ago from the Minister that it is impossible to build education from the top; you must start at the bottom. The way I see it, our weak link is not in the primary school so much as in the high school. There we have the difficulty that faces not only the Whites and the Bantu, but the Coloureds and the Indians as well. Financially it is becoming more and more impossible for parents to keep their children at school. If the Bantu is going to be burdened further with having to pay even a small amount for that education, he will seek ways and means of avoiding that education because he cannot afford it. It is difficult for a Bantu child to go to high school without shoes. In the primary schools they do it. If we are going to consider these difficulties which face the ordinary Bantu family, the difficulties of the cost of living against the wages earned, plus the burden of paying towards education for them, whether it be the cost of R18 worth of books or R4 for sporting equipment, or the inability to supply the educational accessories, as in the case of those children who go to art school and cannot afford the cost of art material, how are we going to help these people to keep their children at school? On top of that we have the poor salaries of the teachers. How can we expect a child who has matriculated to want to become a teacher if the salaries are so low that you cannot keep a family on them? I do not know how the Minister is going to meet these difficulties, but it is his job to do so, and unless he can find more people of the right calibre to take their matriculation, and unless he can find why they cannot absorb higher education after matriculation, then he is falling down on his job. I want to say to him now that if he is not prepared to go into this matter of finding out why a matriculant is not fitted for higher education, the whole of our educational system in South Africa will tumble down. We cannot afford to educate the White people alone. It has proved a burden in the past. On top of that, to-day we find that White teachers are not teaching the Bantu. They are not encouraged to do so, and why? Because there are not enough White teachers to teach the White children, the Bantu have to find their own teachers. How can they do it if they are not fitted for higher education? Where can we find the teachers for them? What will the Minister do when it comes to teaching in some of the professions? What is he going to do to make fit 100 students a year to take up dentistry, or to find another 100 doctors a year, or to find another 50 or 60 pharmacists a year? Where will he get these people from, and who will teach them? That is his problem, and until he finds the solution to the problem he will be failing in his duty. On top of that, he says that in the lower classes, in primary schools and in high schools, he cannot give them all the facilities he would like to give them because he has not got the money. And why does he not have the money? Because the Bantu have not contributed sufficient in taxation. Surely, if that is the trend of thought among Cabinet Ministers to-day, then not only is education for the Bantu doomed, but education facilities for the Coloured, the Bantu and the Indian will be doomed. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) only asked one question during his entire speech and it was this: Where would the Minister find matriculants to enjoy higher education? I want to give the reply immediately. The reply is simply this: the tragedy which hit South Africa was that the United Party was too long in power. The moment we came into power we introduced a far-sighted educational policy and we are today reaping the fruits; to-day there are people who can go further with their studies. Those hon. members opposite were the people who allowed matters to go on as they were and to-day they want to know from us where the matriculants have to come from. Within a few years there will be enough of them. But I want to leave it at that.

I want to revert to the theme I was dealing with and that is the training of technicians in the various states of Africa. I want to make a comparison between Ghana which is considered to be the leader of the Black Africa states, and South Africa. Ghana has for years had the advantage of having a British form of government and to-day it has the additional advantage of money being poured into her State coffer from all sides. Over the next five years Ghana will require at least 20,000 professional and academically qualified people to keep her economy on the level at which it is. The training of Ghanaians in Ghana and overseas—95 per cent of them study on gratis-bursaries—will jointly only yield 3,000 of these people within the next five years. As against that I just want to mention one figure in respect of South Africa. In 1960 alone, with the exception of training colleges, there were 3,735 Bantu students at the universities. There is no comparison and I think the Opposition must gradually begin to realize that this Government is beginning to find a solution and they should give more credit for what is being done and be less destructive in their criticism.

I want to give one other comparative figure before I bring two matters to the notice of the Minister and that is the figure in respect of literacy. I think everybody accepts that the percentage of literacy is a good indication of the relative level of development of a country in the educational, social and economic fields. To put the picture in the right perspective I first want to give the broad background and give the percentage of literacy in the various continents. In Europe it is between 91 per cent and 93 per cent. In America it is between 79 per cent and 80 per cent. In Asia, with her centuries-old civilization it is between 35 per cent and 40 per cent, whereas, in the case of Africa, which has been dormant for centuries, it is between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. I now wish to return to specific countries. Literacy in Algeria is between 15 per cent and 20 per cent. In Egypt it is between 20 per cent and 25 per cent as well as in Ghana. But in Ethiopia, one of the complainants against us at UNO, it is between 1 per cent and 5 per cent and the same in Somaliland. In Liberia, the other complainant, it is between 5 per cent and 10 per cent. In Nigeria it is between 10 per cent and 15 per cent and in the Republic of South Africa it is between 40 per cent and 50 per cent, double the average for Africa and higher than the average for Asia, in spite of our racial composition of people of various races. We are doing our share and it compares very favourably with the rest of the world. Naturally, more can and is continually being done in the interests of the Black man himself and also in the interests of the White man. I think the Opposition should rather stop criticizing.

There are two matters which I want to bring to the notice of the Minister. The results we see to-day are the fruits of a Bantu Education Act which has placed the control in the hands of one single central body, a body which follows one policy and one direction as far as Bantu education is concerned throughout the country. That is why uniform action can be taken and that is why planning can be done on a broad basis. In that case you must have results. The general duty of education as such is to impart knowledge and to teach the student to speak languages but, like in all other countries, education in South Africa also has a specific duty in respect of its own people and the situations which obtain in its own country. I wish to quote from this book issued by Unesco which deals with an educational survey made throughout the entire world. It is clear from this that in every country its educational system has a specific duty to fulfil. I want to quote that of Israel. Education there is specifically charged with the following—

In the special circumstances in which Israel finds herself, her Government regards it as fitting that, apart from the general task education has to perform, it should regard it as its specific duty to train the youth to face up to the specific problems which confront the country. If that is true of Israel, it is necessary in South Africa that all educational authorities in respect of Whites and Bantu and everybody else, start giving attention to the specific duty which rests on education in South Africa with her particular problems and the particular way in which her population is constituted. Our yardstick should not be the broad concepts of imparting knowledge and general civilization but our yardstick should be whether our education, apart from imparting the broad concepts, is also aimed at solving the specific problems of South Africa. I think it is in this regard that our curriculum, in respect of Bantu education as well, should receive more attention. Is enough being done in the field of Bantu education to stimulate patriotism and an awareness of his own nationhood amongst the Bantu? Are we instilling in him a feeling of pride in his own nationhood and in his own language? Surely that is one of the basic principles of all education. Secondly, do the curricula in respect of Bantu education as well as White education keep sufficient count of the fact that the population of South Africa consists of various races and with the ratio of these races to one another? Do we emphasize in these curricula the necessity for human dignity? I say that in education we have a mighty weapon in our hands, not to indoctrinate the students with the principles of any political party, but to impart to the youth of all the inhabitants the necessary knowledge to live peacefully together in this country and to enter the future in safety. That to my mind is the duty of education.

The second matter I wish to mention is the question of an intimate knowledge of the traditions and the background of each of the constituent national groups. That will give rise to mutual respect and esteem and eliminate friction, jealousy and suspicion. Let us awaken the conception in the youth of all racial groups that he should grant unto the other person in his area that which he demands for himself in his area. That will bring about mutual understanding as well as respect for one another and do away with continual jealousy and suspicion that the one is trying to dominate the other. That is how I see the matter and my request is that particular attention be given to it.

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) has said that the object of education should be to educate us all to live amicably together in this multi-racial country.

That is not the object.

Well, it is one of the purposes then. But if the African teachers are going to be imbued with the same ideas of nationalism as some of the White teachers, I see no hope of any education system achieving that object. The hon. member also said that our percentage of literacy compares more than favourably with other countries in Africa. We admit that, and I would like to point out that there is no reason for us to be complacent about it. After all, we have had a much longer start than other countries in Africa, except Egypt and Ethiopia, in getting education. Our complaint from this side is not that we are not doing enough to educate the people. We say that we should take further steps and see that our teachers are better paid. That is one of our main attacks from this side of the House. The Minister admits that they should get more. The hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) said that the trouble was that the Bantu wanted education, but were not prepared to pay for it themselves. I say that is quite wrong. Living in the Transkei as I do, I know that the Bantu have to pay for it themselves. You get the poor domestic servants who can ill afford it having to borrow money to buy books for their children, which the poor White man does not have to do. But the poor Bantu in the reserves does it, because he wants his children to be educated. We realize the difficulties. We know what costs are involved, but what I say is that where the salaries have been laid down for the teachers, surely it should be seen to that they get those salaries. Shortly after this Bantu Education Department was started, I had occasion in this House to criticize the Department for not paying its teachers, and I was then told that they were still going through teething troubles, but I say that these teething problems have taken too long to overcome. The administration in that Department could be much better than it is. I am continually pestered by teachers in the Transkei because they do not get their pay. They have to live and they have no money to buy groceries, etc. The shopkeepers cannot go on giving them credit, and these people complain to me. I had two cases last year. I did not have only two cases, but in two cases I could not believe that those female teachers were not getting their pay and I wanted proof from the Department, and each of them brought letters from the Secretary of the Bantu School Board. The one letter says that this particular teacher is bona fide employed by the School Committee, and that her salary needs adjustment as from 10 September 1963 and it says that she has not received her salary on account of the said adjustment, and she is therefore in financial need and her salary is expected during the holidays. That letter was written on 20 December so this girl was without pay from September and the Xmas holidays had started. I have another letter from the Secretary of the School Board at Tsolo to certify that this certain teacher had not been paid her salary since July 1963. This letter was written on 2 November. She was without pay for almost six months. The letter says that the delay was probably due to the fact that she left one school to go to another in the same area. Well, there is no excuse for this sort of thing. These teachers cannot be expected to carry on without being paid. They cannot save up enough money to carry them over months if they do not get their pay. A special effort should be made to see that they get their pay on due date. I know it will be said by the Minister that the Transkeian Government has now taken over education in that area, but I want to point out that what is happening in the Transkei is probably happening elsewhere also.

It is happening.

It has been going on now for ten years, and I do not think it should be allowed to go on. I ask the Minister to give us the assurance that he will personally go into these matters to see what is happening. (Interjections.] I have had heaps of such cases. I only asked for letters from the Department in these two cases.

You cannot blame the system.

Who must I blame then? I said there were heaps of such cases. [Interjections.] The Minister knows that I have been to see him about these cases. He knows what is happening. I wonder how those hon. members would like to go without pay for a month? [Interjections.] I have now dealt with the Bantu teacher, and now I want to deal with the White teachers who work for the Bantu Education Department in the Transkei. These teachers have been seconded to the new Government of the Transkei. I have raised with the Ministers concerned under every Vote so far the question of house allowance and the territorial allowances being paid to the officials of the Department working in the Transkei. I have raised it with the Ministers of Justice, Transport, Posts and Telegraphs, and the reply has been that those servants are not in the same position as the officials of Bantu Administration, because they have not been seconded to the new Government; they are still working for the Republican Government and therefore they are not entitled to these allowances. But the White teachers have been seconded to the Transkeian Government and I cannot see why they do not get the allowances received by the officials of the Department of Bantu Administration. The Minister may say that they are not public servants, but I want the Minister to give me an assurance that they will be paid and that they will receive back-pay, because this has been due since November. It seems that the Minister is on the point of replying to me, so I will not stress the point but will first wait to hear what he says.

A few things are clear to me in this debate. The first is that the Opposition does not want to compare what is being done for Bantu education in the Republic with what is being done in the Black states of Africa. They are afraid of that. Another thing is clear to me, viz. that the Opposition, now that it has abandoned its basis of attack in the past, the integration basis and the mixed school basis and the mixed university basis, is now busy burdening the Government and unburdening the Bantu. Their whole argument here, into which the question of taxation is dragged and the salaries paid and the cost per White student and per Bantu student, is all aimed at burdening the White Government with the full responsibility and exonerating the Bantu so that they can make propaganda out of it. Just see what the whole debate is aimed at. It is aimed at the things which are most inflammable, the salaries, the so-called injustice, the comparison between education for the Whites and for the Bantu, which are not comparable at all, and then the hon. member for Kensington says that the university training is window-dressing. We see right through that whole strategy. Instead of the United Party, now that they accept the principle of separate Bantu education, giving us sound criticism in regard to what is going on to-day—and with reference to that I just want to say a few words in regard to Bantu education. I just want to state one thing very clearly first, and that is that the Government does not spend too much money on Bantu education in the Republic. My reason for saying so is this, that the money which at the moment goes to Bantu education from the pockets of the Whites represents an expenditure which is justifiable at this stage and which is being spent according to the capacity of Bantu education to absorb it. The second thing I want to say is that in the course of time the load on the shoulders of the Whites in respect of the financing of Bantu education must become lighter and lighter and the Bantu, to the extent that their income increases and their ability increases more effectively and more independently to control and to administer their education, must necessarily assume increasing responsibility in regard to their own education. In other words, there will be a burdening in the future. If we look at the construction of Bantu education at the moment, and we look at its horizontal construction and its vertical construction and its content construction and its principal construction, a very encouraging picture emerges. We have noticed a steady, consistent, acceptable and explainable improvement in Bantu education since 1955. (Let me first come to the horizontal construction. Here I want to mention three things. The first is that increasingly more Bantu children attend school. In 1963 there were 75,000 more Bantu children at school than in 1962, and over the last ten years the average annual increase was 90,000. The second point I want to mention is that, still on the horizontal level, literacy is increasing. The percentage of school-going Bantu youth is increasing. At present it is the highest in the whole continent of Africa; 83 per cent of all children of school-going age are at school. That compares favourably with Nigeria, Ghana and Southern Rhodesia. They can appear with us on the same platform, but they cannot claim to play the main role. That role South Africa can claim for itself.

Let us look at the vertical construction. There I want to mention two things. The numbers in the secondary schools are increasing. Since 1955 to 1963 it increased by 18,461, and the rest of Africa cannot compare with that. The second point I wish to mention is that the loss of students from the lower primary to the higher primary level is becoming smaller. In 1963 there was no less than 4 per cent more Bantu students on the higher primary level than in 1962. That is not a disturbing fact. I can mention what is happening at the moment in Western Germany, where concern is being expressed by the German Scientific Council in regard to the tremendous loss that takes place and the disappearance of children from the lower school to the secondary level and the university level. I have the whole report before me, but I have no time to read it. And in regard to the content construction, I just want to state three facts. Firstly, the standard of education, of the educational content among Bantu students, is steadily increasing. For example, the Bantu students who wrote the same matriculation examination as the White students last year fared very much better than in the previous year. In 1962, as compared with 1963, the number of passes in the Matriculation examination increased from 40 per cent to 60.5 per cent, and the results in the Junior Certificate examination were about the same; there we also had an improvement of 21 per cent. These results reflect no lowering in the standard of the examinations set. The Junior Certificate examination is controlled by Bantu Education. I think the Matriculation questions are drawn up by the Joint Matriculation Board. I am not quite certain, but in any case two separate bodies set the examination. These two bodies have nothing to do with each other, and yet there was more or less the same improvement in both cases. In the big Bantu schools the number of passes was between 80 per cent and 100 per cent, which compares favourably with the results in any White school.

When we come to the principal construction, I want to express the following few thoughts. The Bantu to-day enjoy an education which is adapted to the capacity of the students, and in this regard I want to congratulate the Department of Bantu Education. Sir, may I quote one example; I want to quote an extraordinary example. The communist newspaper, Neues Deutschland, recently published the new principle of a “uniform socialist educational system”, and what do they say in it? They say—

I do agree with all the principles set out here, but it is admitted right throughout the Western world that education, the content of education, must conform with the intellectual capacity and the moral capacity of the students. That is what is being done in Bantu education. We do not want to soar into the clouds. In the second place, it rests on mother tongue education. The spirit and the atmosphere, the whole constellation in which the Bantu student finds himself, must conform with his intellectual and moral capacity. That is a principle which is universally recognized and supported. Sir, it is not a principle laid down by little lightweights in education who want to derive political capital from it. [Time limit.]

I have listened with interest to the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling). He told us that mother tongue education was one of the fundamental principles of Bantu education as applied by the Government. I admit that that was the case when this policy was introduced, but we now find, when the Transkei has separate powers in regard to education, that the idea of mother tongue education has lost ground to such an extent that in the Bantu education organ published by the Department of Education the following pleas are made to the Transkeian Government—

In other words, there is a strong movement afoot in the Transkei to do away with this principle of mother tongue instruction.

However, that is not what I rose to say. What is particularly interesting to me is that we have a Minister to-day who is not sure whether he has asked for too much or too little for Bantu education under his Vote. He told us to-day that he does not believe that the solution to the problems of Bantu education lies in spending more money on it than is being asked under this Vote. But let us see what the hon. the Minister said barely three months ago. I have here a copy of a report which appeared in the Burger of 24 February 1964 three months ago. The headline of that report is as follows—

To-day again he says that we are spending enough.

I did not say so.

The Minister can tell us later what he in fact said. Here I have written down his words: “The reply does not lie in pumping in more money”. But three months ago he said that we were still spending too little on the Bantu. This report is in connection with a speech the Minister made at Somerset West on the occasion of the celebration of the 50th anniversary of the Cape National Party. He said—

I quote this to show that the hon. the Minister evidently has not much confidence in the correctness of the sum of money he is asking for under his Vote, and that he is not sure of his policy either. As far as the United Party is concerned, we have never objected to the spending of money on Bantu education. We should like to see a sound and efficient system introduced, but we also want to see, in fact we demand, that that money should be well spent and that some of it should not be wasted. I think we are entitled to ask the Minister, if too little is being spent by the Government on Bantu education, to tell us in what branch of that education he thinks too little is being spent, and what steps he envisages in order to make a change in this regard in future. I think the taxpayers of the country are entitled to know what his plans are in that regard. I am sure that many hon. members opposite, like the hon. member for Ventersdorp, perhaps also agree with what the Minister said at Somerset West, because I heard no criticism this afternoon in regard to that statement the Minister made.

The second matter I want to raise with the Minister, and which I also raised last year, is this question of the purchase of periodicals for Bantu schools by his Department. I should particularly like to have a little more information and any explanation in regard to the purchase of the periodical Bona. I should have liked him to reveal this Bona secret to us further. I asked the Minister this year what periodicals he purchased for the Bantu schools, and the reply was that last year, inter alia, he bought 252,000 copies of Bona at a cost of R16,000. I asked him who printed Bona, and he replied that it was Bona Pers Beperk. Well, I ascertained—and in fact one can see that in the company reports also—that Bona Pers Beperk is really the same as Dagbreek Pers Beperk, viz. a very important publishing firm under the control of that side of the House. The second periodical mentioned in the Minister’s reply is Wamba! of which 744,000 copies were bought at a price of R37,000. Its publishers are Via Africa, and Via Africa is the Nasionale Pers, the publishers of the Burger. I have no objection to Wamba! as a periodical to be used in Bantu schools; I think it is a good one, but I wonder whether other bodies were also given the opportunity to offer periodicals which were equally suitable or perhaps even more so.

In the first place, I want to ask the Minister whether he is still buying Bona for the Transkeian schools. He informed the House, in reply to a question earlier this year, that all aspects of education are now being transferred to the Transkeian Department of Education. He told us to-day that all books purchased for libraries in the Transkei are at present being bought by the Transkeian Education Department, partly from funds they receive from the Department of Bantu Administration. But on the other hand, the Minister told me in reply to a question that they are still buying Bona and these other periodicals. I put this question to him in April and then he said that those periodicals were still being bought by his Department. I should like to know what the position is to-day. Is Bona being bought in the Transkei by the Transkeian Department of Education itself, or is he still granting money through his own Department for the purchase of those particular periodicals I mentioned here?

I think that there are also other periodicals which may be taken into consideration for these Bantu schools. I should like to know why only Bona was chosen. I do not want to accuse the Minister of anything to-day: I know that he is innocent in regard to this matter, but somewhere there is some sinister influence being exerted so that this periodical is purchased. [Interjection.] I want to draw the attention of the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) to a certain circular which was issued on 1 August 1962. I am sure he also received that circular. It is stated in that circular that—

That is really your case.

This circular dated August 1962 was a secret circular issued by the Broederbond. A photostatic copy of it appeared in the Sunday Times, and one asks oneself to what extent that circular influenced the Minister, not directly, but perhaps indirectly.

I hope that the Minister will give us more clarity not only in this connection but also in connection with the relationship between his Department and the Transkeian Department of Education. [Time limit.]

Before I come to the ash heap in which the last speaker poked about I want to say a few words in connection with the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes), who made a charge here with regard to teachers who allegedly were not paid their salaries on time. He created the impression that that was the general rule, although he was only able to produce two isolated cases which he went out of his way to trace.

That is not true.

The hon. member himself said in the course of his speech, “I went to ask them, but there are many more such cases”.

I did not ask them.

I think if the hon. member noses around and searches for more such cases, he may perhaps get a few more such statements. But I think it is very unfair to take a few isolated cases and then to suggest that that is the general rule. The two cases which he mentioned are apparently both cases of female teachers who were transferred from one school board division to another school board division. The hon. member knows that to a large extent the control over Bantu Education rests with the Bantu themselves and that to a large extent the Bantu school commissions and Bantu school boards have taken over Bantu Education. As far as that is concerned he can go and investigate the position in the White schools and I can assure him that he will come across similar cases—not only one but in all probability more cases than he was able to find in the Transkei. But, Mr. Chairman, these matters are not raised here on their merits; they are raised here in order to sow suspicion against the system of Bantu Education.

Then I also want to come to the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). He said that there were too few high school children, with the result that there were even fewer Bantu at the universities. That is correct; we do not want to deny it, but the hon. member must remember that we are dealing here with Bantu. We must take into account their level of civilization. We must take into account their ability to grasp the tuition of Western civilization. As far as their level of civilization is concerned they still have a leeway of perhaps 100 years to make up to reach the standard of civilization of the Whites, and one must take into account the fact that they do not come forward in such great numbers for higher education and for university education. We all deprecate that fact; we should have liked to see much more rapid progress, but the hon. the Minister can do nothing about this; these people are simply not capable of taking their place on this higher rung of the ladder. In this connection I just want to mention the following example. We need many Bantu engineers, for example, for the development of the Bantu territories, but we simply cannot get Bantu students to take an engineering course, even at the so-called open universities where they have to take this course because they do not have the aptitude that the White child has for science and mathematics. That is one of the factors which one has to take into account. One cannot simply say that the fault lies in the fact that there are not sufficient Bantu children at the high schools. We have a much higher percentage of the Bantu school-going population at high schools than many other countries. We have many more Bantu pupils at our high schools than any other Black state in Africa.

We are not a Black state.

Mr. Chairman, I come now to this ash heap, because when one wants to talk to the hon. member for Orange Grove one always has to go to the ash heap where he is always nosing around to see what he can ferret out, and if what he finds there is not filthy enough already he makes it filthy.

Order! I think the hon. member is being too personal.

I am sorry that I have to be so personal but one is forced to become personal. However, I should like to obey your ruling, Sir. The hon. member raked up this magazine Bona and a few other magazines and tried to suggest that it was a terrible sin that those magazines were being bought for Bantu Education. I want to put this question to him: What is his objection to those magazines being bought for Bantu Education?

Have you ever seen Bona?

What is there in those magazines that is destructive; that is not constructive as far as Bantu Education is concerned? There is only one thing which the hon. member can advance against them and that is that they are printed by Afrikaans entrepreneurs. That is what he cannot stomach. He did not tell us whether he would like the Sunday Times to be distributed amongst the Bantu schools. That is apparently what he would like to see.

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to enlarge upon this; I do not think it is necessary. The fact that hon. members opposite have to grasp at this sort of straw in order to be able to put forward some criticism under this Vote shows how little they really have to say about Bantu Education. Bantu Education, since the passing of the Bantu Education Act in 1953, has made huge strides in South Africa, and that is something which nobody will deny. Go and talk to the Bantu themselves and you will find out that they are grateful to this Government for what it has done for Bantu Education in South Africa. There is hardly a tribe which is not pleased that Bantu Education has been entrusted to the Bantu; there is hardly a tribe which does not impose a special levy on its members for the furtherance of education, because this is a matter in which they themselves can build; it is not something which is carried to them on a platter; it is something which has its origin in their own efforts and which they themselves develop for their own benefit.

The hon. member for Heilbron (Mr. Froneman) is very annoyed at any criticism that is offered from this side. I would remind him that redress of grievances preceeds supply, and if hon. members on this side of the House have grievances they are entitled to air them in the hope that something will be done about this matter and that therefore things will improve. The question of teachers’ salaries is just incidental, and like the hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr, Hughes) I too have had complaints about the non-payment of teachers’ salaries. I will admit that there are only a few cases; I have only had a few letters, but the hon. member must realize that only a few people ever take the trouble to write to a Member of Parliament about their grievances.

You cannot generalize.

I am not generalizing. I say that this does happen. It happens in the case of African teachers who can ill-afford to wait several months for their salaries, and I am quite sure that the last person in this Chamber who is annoyed at this complaint is the hon. the Minister himself and that he will take the trouble to see that these things are investigated and that matters are improved, so the hon. member for Heilbron need not be so annoyed about that.

The hon. member talks about this question of the increased number of high school pupils. The overall number has, of course, increased but nevertheless there is still an appalling fallout from the early enrollment until the high school stage is reached. This is due largely to economic factors. Firstly, parents cannot afford to keep their children at school simply because those children have to go out to work to augment the income of the family but, secondly, because the parents themselves have to contribute towards the cost of sending those children to school. This is where I think the State is adopting a very short-sighted policy indeed. This country needs well-educated people, irrespective of colour or creed. A country is as wealthy as its population is well educated, and we are following a short-sighted policy if we think that it is a good thing to have a vast mass of semi-literate people instead of an ever-increasing number of well-educated citizens who can all contribute through their potentialities to the national income of South Africa. We should not be satisfied with the fact that the enrollments in the lower classes have gone up to such an extent because unfortunately the percentage enrollment in lower classes and in the upper classes has remained almost constant.

Surely there is an annual improvement?

No, unfortunately there is not, and I have the Minister’s own figures to show that there is not an annual percentage improvement. It has been almost constant over the decade since Bantu Education has been brought into existence.

The number of pupils?

No, the percentage of pupils in the higher classes in relation to the percentage of pupils in the lower classes. The correct pattern of education in a modern state should be just the opposite. There should be an increasing number in the higher stages in proportion to the number in the lower classes.

That is not so in your European classes.

In fact that is the pattern in the case of White school children; there is an increasing number of children in the highest classes, proportionately, and it is in fact the pattern in the case of Indian children, and it was the pattern in the case of Bantu Education until the change-over to the present policy which is to increase the number of children in the lower grades. The Government does not want large numbers of highly educated Africans; it wants a semi-literate mass population suited to do migratory work.

That is nonsense.

May I ask you a question? How can you expect the percentage to remain the same when you have just heard that in the lower classes there is a doubling of enrolments; surely then you cannot expect the percentage to remain the same. The percentage in the upper classes should decrease.

Sir, I am talking of usually accepted scholastic standards; according to those scholastic standards, the pattern should be the opposite, as every scholastic expert ought to know, and the retired school teachers in this House ought to know that. But in fact the Minister’s own figures in respect of the period 1954 to 1963 show that that pattern is not changing for the better. If anything, there has been a decrease in the percentage of overall students in the higher classes in comparison with the number of students in the lower classes. It is the wrong pattern; that pattern does not exist for White children and it does not exist in more developed countries. Sir, hon. members opposite are always comparing us with “other Black States”. I must say that if I had done that there would have been an absolute outcry. I like that; I thought it was very nice, but I do not consider us a Black State. I did not know that the hon. member for Heilbron regarded us as a Black State. At any rate, I do not. I regard us as a modern industrial country and I do not really compare us with the African Continent or necessarily with Western civilization. The comparison which I used and which is the only rational comparison is the national income of the country concerned, and the important percentage is the percentage of national income which is spent on education. The hon. Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Development quoted a figure for overall education and I admit that there our figure is very satisfactory indeed, but unfortunately when one breaks it down in racial components, the figure is very unsatisfactory. As far as Bantu Education is concerned, it amounts to this: that the miserable figure of two-sevenths of one per cent of our national income is spent on Bantu education. That does not compare favourably with any country which is on the same level of industrial development as South Africa. Of course, you can make figures prove practically anything that you want them to prove, but hon. members must realize that when it suits them they compare us with what they call “other Black States” and when it does not suit them, they compare us with Western civilization.

I want to come back to one or two points I was making before I got diverted by these rather odd arguments which hon. members opposite have been using. I was suggesting some other way in which the hon. the Minister could improve the general picture of Bantu Education in this country. By the way, I think he can take some satisfaction from the improved matriculation results, and I want to say that right away; I think that does give one cause for satisfaction, but the hon. the Minister must realize and other members must realize that there is a stringent weeding out and that only the very top cream of Bantu pupils actually reach matriculation. The continuation certificates are granted to only about half the pupils. If you look at the figures for standard nine and matric you will find that only half the pupils in standard nine are promoted to matric, which is certainly not the case with White children. Nevertheless, there has been an improvement, and I am always grateful for any improvement, but it should not be overrated because there is a stringent weeding out right from the time the child enters school until he reaches the matriculation standard. Then, too, I want to say to the hon. the Minister that he must do something to reduce the double sessions. According to the figures he gave me, the position is that there are now double sessions at over 5,107 schools. No educationist can say that that is a good system, even if the teacher does not work more overall hours than teachers doing single sessions. It is an impossibility for any teacher to conduct double sessions. Also, the pupil-teacher ratio is completely out of proportion. The hon. member who was a teacher will know that it is impossible for a teacher to control 59 pupils in a class, and that is the average pupil-teacher ratio. I am sure that he in his honest assessment will agree with me that it is wrong that one teacher should have to attempt to control 59 pupils.

Sir, there are far too few technical facilities offered to Bantu students in this country. The hon. the Minister says that there has been an improvement. I read an article in the S.A. Digest in which certain figures are given, and the Minister also gave me some figures which show that there were 385 children at Bantu technical schools and 1,966 children at industrial schools, making a total of 2,351, which is far too low for the technical requirements of South Africa. I hope that the hon. the Minister will devote some of the windfall which he has received and which, I am quite sure, he is going to spend this year, to improving the facilities and the accommodation at technical and industrial schools. Higher primary schools are in very short supply. Even where the parents have managed to collect enough money, the rand for rand contribution is not forthcoming, because the money is not adequate or because it is not used for that particular purpose. There too I think the hon. the Minister can do a great deal. Most important of all, Sir, is the question of subsidizing of teachers. The figure is just appalling. At the moment there are 496 schools which receive no subsidies at all in respect of teaching posts and 2,343 teachers who are not subsidized at all by the hon. the Minister’s Department. That means that the parents have to raise the money, and I can assure the hon. the Minister that some of these teachers are getting as low a salary as R10 per month simply because the parents cannot afford to pay more. Sir, you can imagine the type of qualifications of the teacher getting R10 per month at a Bantu school. All these are things which I bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, not simply in a carping way but because I am very anxious that Bantu Education be improved in South Africa, because this is the source of our future wealth. These are the natural resources of South Africa. It is on the standard of education of the vast majority of the children in this country that the future wealth of this country is going to depend. [Time limit.]

Before replying to all the questions which have again been put, I just want to rectify one matter. In April the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) put a question to me in regard to the various faculties and the enrollment at the various university colleges. I indicated what faculties existed at the various university colleges and gave the number of students in reply to a question. Unfortunately, as the result of reasons which I will indicate, I omitted to say that there are three further faculties at Fort Hare, viz. law, commerce and administration and theology. The reason why I did not mention this is because they are comparatively new faculties in which the students are still in the pre-training period. Although these faculties have been established and the students have already begun studying in those directions, they have not yet been specifically enrolled in those particular faculties. I just wanted to correct this for purposes of the record and to say that those three faculties, which are important ones, in fact exist at Fort Hare.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) asked a question to which I did not reply a moment ago. She asked why the annual report of the Department could not be made available earlier. My Department does its best to make it available as soon as possible. The hon. member will note the mass of statistics contained in that report. From the nature of the matter, where one is dealing with a large number of schools containing almost 2,000,000 children, and where the statistics in that regard have to be classified according to the classes, the sex, the age group and the different schools, etc., that information can only be adapted through the machinery of the Department of Census and Statistics, because no single Department can build up its own machinery to adapt all that data, and one is dependent on that Department for the correlation of the data before these figures can be published in the report. We are already doing it as fast as possible. We cannot make it available earlier because these data cannot be correlated sooner. I hope the hon. member will understand that.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) referred to the low standard of education. She said that everything possible should be done to raise that standard. She quoted the Cingo Report to prove that the standard was low.

I want to state very clearly—I do so particularly for purposes of the record—that the Cingo Report states very clearly that it is not the system of Bantu education which is responsible for low standards where these exist. In fact, the Cingo Report puts the blame primarily on the negligence of the teacher. Let me just quote what they say on page 83 of the English text—

In the first place, they blame the teachers. They say that instruction sent to the teachers by the Department was found unopened in their drawers and cupboards. They do not do their work properly.

They say they are badly trained and the methods they adopt are antiquated.

That is one of the reasons they mention elsewhere. But let me read to the hon. member what they say on page 49—

They do in fact say elsewhere that the standard of the teachers’ qualifications is not high enough, particularly those with the lower primary education certificate. We admit that. We have already abolished the training of lower primary teachers. We now train them only for the higher primary teacher’s certificate. In other words, we are already doing a great deal to raise the standard. Nowhere in the Cingo Report do they say anything about the system of Bantu education. All their findings amount to this, that there are still shortcomings which have to be remedied, but that there is nothing wrong with the system itself and with the principle of mother tongue education. I want to tell this to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan): The hon. member is quite wrong if he thinks that the Transkeian Government is in principle opposed to mother tongue education. The hon. member does not know what he is talking about; he is talking without his book, as he usually does when he writes in his weekly publication. I shall come to that in a moment. All that the Transkeian Education Department hopes to do in regard to mother tongue education is to avoid a sudden transition from mother tongue education between the primary school and the high school, and for it rather to take place gradually. That is what they are considering. They are not in the least considering abolishing mother tongue education. In fact, they support the principle of mother tongue education up to a certain level.

I can tell the hon. member for Houghton that we are doing much to improve the standard. As the result of the Cingo Report and of other information available to me, I gave instructions to my Department to devote particular attention, in co-operation with the inspectorate, to the work of the teachers. Let me give one example. There are numerous such examples. I want to mention the example of a secondary school in the Ciskei. A few years ago they could not succeed in getting a single student there through the examinations. The inspector then devoted particular attention to that school to discover what the reason was. He pulled up the principal, and two teachers who were evidently devoting more attention to politics than to educating the children were transferred. The result was that at the end of last year that same secondary school took the Republic Cup for the best examination results. That shows that where the teachers do their work and there is proper supervision, results are shown.

The hon. member also said that we should eliminate the double sessions; that is something else which lowers the standard. I agree with her. Double sessions are, however, an emergency measure we are effecting, just as the training of teachers with a low educational qualification was an emergency. To the extent that it becomes possible, the emergency measures are being abolished. In the course of time, double sessions will be eliminated as far as possible. In the rural areas, where the children have to walk to school for long distances, we are fast eliminating it. Consequently we are already busy with the process. But I am not prepared, particularly in the urban and densely populated areas, to abolish double sessions before I am able to do something in regard to the salaries of teachers, because I think that is of primary importance. That ought to be improved before these other things are done. I do not think that the results achieved by way of double sessions are so poor that it necessarily makes their elimination essential as an educational measure.

I have already said that in regard to technical training, we are increasingly doing more. I am not going to expatiate on that again. With reference to the remarks of the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), I have already indicated that privately paid teachers is nothing in Bantu education. That has been the case ever since the earliest years. That is the way in which these people work. They establish a school, appoint a teacher, and thereafter the Department subsidizes the school. Often they pay the teacher for a year or 18 months, and thereafter we take over. Therefore there will always be between 2,000 and 2,500 unsubsidized teachers, depending on how fast the Bantu in their own areas and elsewhere establish schools. We later provide the subsidy. One can never quite eliminate it. It is not a sign of a lack of interest or unwillingness to assist on our part. It is in fact an indication of the willingness of the Bantu to take the initiative themselves and to provide educational facilities for their children.

It was also asked here that we should increase the percentage in the higher classes. The first priority of Bantu Education was to eliminate illiteracy. It was our standpoint right from the beginning that it was wrong to give a small number of Bantu higher education, while the masses remained illiterate. Therefore the first priority was to eliminate illiteracy. We have now almost completed that process and therefore we can now start concentrating on improving the standards. That is why we are now busy giving better training to teachers. We are also concentrating on improving the standards in regard to secondary education. I said earlier to-day that I was not willing to put thousands more of Bantu children in the secondary schools if we could not make them pass their examinations, because that would be a waste of money. I am prepared to create the facilities only on two clear conditions. The one is that the teachers should be able and sufficiently keen to get the children through their examinations, and, secondly, if the opportunity for employment exists for those educated Bantu. To the extent that those opportunities for employment are provided—and that is being done increasingly—to that extent will we create more facilities for the education of Bantu children and we will assist the teachers to educate more of them.

The hon. member doubted my statement that we have 80 per cent literacy among children of school-going age, because she says we take the lower primary school standard, i.e. Std II, as the basis of literacy, whereas the U.S.A. takes Std. IV as the basis. What one takes as the basis is an arbitrary choice. I quite agree that the U.S.A., which is a highly developed country, wants to take Std. IV as its basis of literacy. But I base my norm on the norm which UNESCO, the educational organization of UN, sets for the less developed communities of the world. UNESCO has taken Std. II as the basis of literacy. I made my statement on that basis. I agree with them. Any Bantu child who has had a four-year course which brings him to Std. II can read and write in his own language. He can understand enough Afrikaans and English to teach himself to read and write further. The hon. member for Houghton, however, thinks that a Bantu is only literate when he can read and write English fluently. That is her yeardstick. My yardstick is that he should be able to read and write his own language properly and that he should have a reasonable knowledge of the two official languages. As he gets older, he then has the foundation for developing his abilities further and for doing elementary arithmetic. In fact, I am supported in my standpoint by the yardstick used by UNESCO.

Then the hon. member also doubted the figure I mentioned that 83 per cent of the children between seven and 14 years attend school for a shorter or a longer period. Here I can only tell her that it was not just a guess on my part, but a figure calculated by the Bureau of Census and Statistics on the basis of the number of children who in a given year—it was in 1962—were the age group from seven to 14 years. No accurate figure is available, but the Bureau of Census and Statistics has available figures which they from time to time divide into age groups. They then frame their estimates on that every year. Their estimates are usually very accurate. According to those estimates, I have taken the children between seven and 14 for that year, and as against that I took the number of children between seven and 14 who were in fact at school during that year, and that worked out at 83 per cent.

The hon. member also stated that the decrease in the cost per capita was due to the fact that the number of students in the lower primary school increased more rapidly than in the higher classes. If that were so, I would have agreed with her, but it is not. It remained constant. She should remember that I said that was one of the reasons. There are other reasons as well for the decrease in the cost per capita. Just let us look at the figures. In 1954 the percentage of children in the primary schools was 95.59 per cent; the percentage in post-primary schools, vocational schools and technical schools was 4.4 per cent. In 1962 the number in the primary schools was 96.63 per cent, and the number in the post-primary, vocational and technical schools was 3.37 per cent. There is a difference of more than 1 per cent in the number of children in the lower primary schools in that period. One per cent of a total of almost 1,800,000 makes a very big difference. One per cent of that number makes a tremendous difference to the per capita cost. The hon. member should work it out for herself one day. I am not going to do so now. [Interjections.] I did not say it was the only reason; the hon. member should be reasonable. I said the control had improved; double sessions were introduced. I mentioned various reasons. This was only one of the contributory factors.

The hon. member for Durban (Berea) (Mr. Wood) referred to Bantu pharmacists. He asked that we should make available loans and facilities for Bantu to qualify as pharmacists. Let me tell the hon. member and also the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) that there are great possibilities for Bantu children to study further. In the Southern Transvaal area alone, i.e. the area including the Johannesburg-Pretoria area, we made a survey in 1962 and found that 811 bursaries had been made available in that area to the value of approximately R20,000 by Bantu bodies like school boards, etc., and by municipalities, churches and private individuals. Just let me point out these figures to the hon. member: 100 per cent of the students at Fort Hare receive loans or bursaries; 99 per cent of the students at the Zululand University College receive loans or bursaries, and 90 per cent of the students at Turfloop. But all those loans are not provided by my Department. They are made available by various bodies. My Department only provides loans to students needed by my Department, i.e. those who want to become teachers. We only provide loans for them, and they must repay those loans. Loans are made available from the Bantu Trust Account to Bantu who are needed for the development of the Bantu areas. Many other bodies make loans and bursaries available. In regard to pharmacists, it is not my duty as Minister of Bantu Education to make loans available for that purpose. I think the bodies which should do that, and which in fact do it, are the provincial administrations, which will in the first place make use of these Bantu pharmacists in their Bantu hospitals. They should provide those loans. They should assist these people to be trained. If such people are required in the Bantu areas by the Department of Bantu Administration, then loans should be granted to them from the Bantu Trust Account. These bodies will require the services of those people to provide the loans, and not the Department of Bantu Education.

The hon. member for Rosettenville said that the Minister of Education, Arts and Science had said that there was something wrong because the Bantu were not educatable; they were not fit for secondary or university training. I do not know what the hon. member referred to. It may be that the Minister of Education, Arts and Science referred to the report of Professor Gordon in regard to the non-White Medical School at Durban. It is true that particular problems exist in regard to the medical training of Bantu. Experience has shown that the Bantu are less able to pass those examinations than members of other racial groups, but that is not so in every case. I have before me the results of the university colleges. Hon. members should bear in mind that these are examinations set by the University of South Africa. The examinations of the University of South Africa apply to both Whites and non-Whites. The standard is laid down by the Senate of the University of South Africa, which consists of representatives of all the universities in South Africa. Nobody can have any doubt as to that standard. In 1963, 362 students sat for the first year examinations at the University of the North and 66 per cent passed. Ninety students wrote the second year examination, and 79 per cent passed; 37 wrote the examination for the third year and 86 per cent passed. In the case of Fort Hare, 69 students wrote the first year examination and 91 per cent passed; 27 wrote the examination for the second year and 85 per cent passed; 34 wrote the examination for the third year and 88 per cent passed, and ten students wrote post-graduate examinations and 90 per cent passed. In the case of the Zululand University College, 47 wrote the examination for the first year and 64 per cent passed; 25 wrote the second year examination and 70 per cent passed; ten wrote the examination for the third year and 90 per cent passed; two took postgraduate courses and both passed. These figures compare favourably with those of any university in South Africa. But hon. members should remember that these courses are mainly in faculties where the Bantu can pass his examination by study and reproduction. The moment one gets to faculties like engineering, medicine, etc., where the Bantu are faced with extraordinary problems, they experience difficulty. I am informed by people who know much more about it than I do that a Bantu medical student can very easily diagnose and treat the text-book cases, but the moment there is the slightest deviation he is quite lost and does not know what to do. It therefore appears to me that a real problem exists. We shall have to consider seriously whether the solution in regard to providing Bantu to comply with the need for medical men in the Bantu areas should not be sought along some other way rather than making them out-and-out medical practitioners who can work on their own. We must give them that opportunity, but at this stage I am just wondering whether we should not perhaps seek the solution in the greater utilization of clinics in the Bantu areas with a White doctor in charge, with four or five or more clinical assistants who are Bantu, people who have had medical training which is precisely the same as that of the White students but which perhaps does not go quite as far, but training which will enable them to help the doctor by taking over more of the routine work. I think with one qualified doctor and a number of assistants one would be able to provide medical services to many more Bantu than is the case to-day. I am just posing the question as to whether the solution does not lie in that direction. I think it is necessary to devote serious attention to it.

The hon. member for Transkeian Territories (Mr. Hughes) raised the matter of the payment of teachers’ salaries and asked me to devote personal attention to it. I want to assure the hon. member that on various occasions I have already devoted personal attention to it, but he should remember that where he gets two letters I get 20. He should also remember that, whereas we are aware that such things happen, we post about 28,000 cheques every month and we are dependent on information supplied by the secretaries of school boards. That is where the great problem comes in. It so often happens that a teacher is transferred from one school to another by the school board without the secretary of the school board informing my Department. Then the salary cheque goes to the old address, and only after two months is it discovered that the person is no longer there, but at another school. Then inquiries are made and it takes another month or more before one can get that information from the secretary. Therefore the fault does not lie with my Department. In all the cases I investigated, and there are several, the delay was always due to the fact that the school board secretary did not send the information to the Department. In the Department there can be a maximum delay of only a month, because we use a mechanical system and one cannot switch over and feed these machines with new information at any time during the month. These Hollerith machines can only be adjusted once a month for the making out of cheques, and if that date is past one must wait until the next month. So there can be a delay of a month or six weeks in the Department as the result of this mechanical system. But for the rest, in all the cases I investigated, the fault lay with the school boards or the teacher who did not inform the school board secretary, and not with my Department. So if there are other cases of which hon. members perhaps know, I shall be glad to learn about them because then I will go into details, because my Department has instructions that particular attention should be given to this matter and that there should be no delays on the part of the Department as far as those can be prevented.

The hon. member also asked me what the position was in regard to the White teachers in the Transkei and whether they do not receive the territorial allowances certain public servants there receive. I just want to say that the White teachers are no longer in the service of Bantu Education, but in that of the Department of Bantu Administration. They were transferred to that Department so that only one department would second officials to the Transkei, and it is not done by various departments. That arrangement was made for administrative purposes. But these teachers in the Transkei come into consideration for promotion throughout the Republic. If posts become vacant, they can be promoted and transferred to any place in the Republic. Like every other White teacher, they can at any time ask to be transferred to another school. They are not regarded as key officials who were sent to the Transkei to render particular services, and it is only the key officials who qualify for this allowance. These people still have full opportunities to be promoted or transferred and we therefore consider that there is no justification for paying them a special allowance. But in any case that is not my job but is the responsibility of the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

That finally brings me to the hon. member for Orange Grove (Mr. E. G. Malan). He spoke about the supply of periodicals and literature to the Bantu schools, and as usual he was the Afrikaans-speaking person on the opposite side who had to attack Afrikaans institutions in South Africa. What does he want? All he seeks is sensation. He spoke about two matters which I want to deal with. He said here to-day that he had no objection to literature being supplied to the Bantu. His only objection is how it came about that certain Afrikaans institutions got the contracts. He wanted to know why others did not get them. My reply is that it is literature in the Bantu languages which we supply to those schools, and the other publishers who support that hon. member and his party have never yet taken the trouble to make available decent reading matter in the Bantu languages in the form of periodicals. No, they print only Drum and things like that, which are published in English because they want the Bantu to read English. We had to supply them with reading matter in their own languages because there is a lack of it. There is no lack of literature in English or in Afrikaans. That one can find everywhere.

What about newspapers in the Bantu languages?

The hon. member knows as well as I do that one cannot provide the schools with literature in the form of newspapers. Surely a periodical is the suitable thing. But what does he want? He wants something which he can again exploit in his article, “Padlangs”, which he writes for the Weekblad. Just listen to what he wrote in the Weekblad in regard to the same matter—

So he continues in a jocular way in order to get in the dig which must impress the public, but which is quite different from the standpoint he dare adopt in this Committee. He says the following—

That is what he wants to do. He wants to stir up ill will among the public by telling them that the Minister of Bantu Education gives these little Bantu books, these periodicals to read gratis, and the taxpayers have to pay for it. That is the type of shameless propaganda he makes in public, while other hon. members opposite plead in Parliament that more money should be spent on Bantu education.

Why should we support the Nationalist Printing Press?

Then he also referred to a speech which I recently made in Somerset West, and the hon. member said that I did not know what I wanted to do, that I was uncertain, and that I say here that I will not spend more on Bantu education, but at Somerset West I said that we were not spending enough on it. Let me put it very clearly to the hon. member that in the way in which he put it again in the Weekblad of 28 February 1964 he of course took the whole thing out of context, and he of course again tried to create quite the wrong impression in the minds of the public and to make cheap political capital out of it. What I said at Somerset West, and I stand by it, is that if we want to ensure a future for the White man in this country we can only do so along the road of separate development, and only if the Bantu areas are properly developed so that they can become the homeland for the increasing number of Bantu, and that can only happen if the development of those areas and of those people goes hand in hand and takes place faster than is the case at the moment. But then I further mentioned the reasons why it was not possible to spend more on it at the moment: Lack of manpower, the danger of an unbalanced development, where the area is developed faster than the people are developed. I mentioned all those things, although of course everything was not reported. But the hon. member saw fit to take out this little part: “Willie Maree says we are spending too little on the Bantu.” On that he bases a whole article in the Weekblad. I repeat that we should spend more on the development of the Bantu and on his education if we can, but we should spend it in a balanced manner, so as to ensure that the results achieved when the Bantu leaves school—that the Bantu who passes through the secondary school or through the university can be absorbed fruitfully and productively in his own community. To that extent we must expand and will expand, and we will spend more. But we will not just do it blindly. But I will not allow myself to be deterred by these stories that the hon. member for Orange Grove tells in “Padlangs.”

The hon. member for Randfontein (Dr. Mulder) put two questions to me, one being whether in the curriculum for Bantu education we do enough to foster a national pride among these students, and whether we do enough to impart knowledge to them in regard to the various population groups. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that we are convinced that one of the most priceless possessions which any nation or community can have is its anchors, the anchors tying the individual to his own community and the traditions and customs and religion of that community, and in order to provide those anchors for tying the youth not only to their environment but to their people and thereby making them law abiding, conscientious people who are proud of their own nation, we devote thorough attention to those matters. I would like to invite the hon. member to look at the curriculum for social studies in our Bantu schools. I see the Transvaal wants to abolish social studies for White children, but I think that if they had the type of social curriculum which we have for the Bantu, adapted to the Whites, in which we teach the Bantu the history of its own tribe and all about the environment in which he is growing up, and in which we teach them about the important laws to which they and other races are subject in this country—if they had had something along those lines, I do not think they would have abolished social studies. Then they would perhaps rather have made it an extra subject. It is not that I want to belittle geography and history as subjects. I have a particularly high regard for those subjects, but I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that the matters he mentioned are receiving the attention of my Department.

May I put a question to the hon. the Minister? Can the Minister tell me what he thinks of the fact that 82 per cent of the witnesses before the Transkeian Commission declared themselves to be in favour of education through the medium of one of the official languages after Std. II, and whether he will implement the recommendations of the commission against education being given in half the subjects through the medium of one official language and in the other half through the medium of the other official language in the secondary schools, which the commission regarded as being too great a burden on the children? They wanted one or other of the official languages to be the medium. Thirdly, I want to ask the Minister whether he can give us the assurance that it is not his intention to expand the use of the vernacular to the secondary schools, something to which the commission was very strongly opposed?

I have not yet taken any decision in regard to all those matters, and deliberately so, because I should first like to discuss it with the Bantu Education Advisory Council. I do, however, want to say that the fect that a large percentage of the evidence given before the commission was in favour of stopping mother tongue education in a lower standard was to a large extent inspired evidence.

Inspired by whom?

I do not know whether the hon. member and her party are quite so innocent in that regard.

Vote put and agreed to.

Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account, R21,170,000, put and agreed to.

On Vote No. 30,—“Indian Affairs”, R3,540,000,

Last year when we considered this hon. Minister’s Vote we could not get very much information because, first of all, it was a new vote, and the hon. Minister was not able to tell us much about what this portfolio really meant, and in what direction he was going. As a matter of fact, you will remember that he said that he was just the link between the other Departments in so far as the Indian people of South Africa were concerned. But this year he has taken certain steps, and he has started to go in a direction, and we want to know from him this year whether the impression with which he left us last year was right of wrong. That impression was that he was just another means of implementing the apartheid policy of this Government rather than the Minister who was there for the purpose of looking after the interests of the Indian community, whom he is supposed to represent. This year we want to know a number of things from the hon. Minister. We want to know, for example, what steps he is taking to help the community that he has been put in office to represent and whose problems he has to deal with. We would like to know something about the National Council for Indians which he has appointed during the last year. It is a controversial council. It obviously has no powers. We want to know from the hon. the Minister if he intends to give it any powers, or is it forever to remain a consultative body? We want to know, too, what the hon. Minister is going to do for the Indian community in relation to job reservation which is being applied to them. As he knows they are already suffering from unemployment on a scale probably larger than any other race group in South Africa, and with the application of job reservation it tends to take away those jobs which have the better pay rates for this population, which is already living on a very low level. The hon. Minister will probably remember that, during the debates last year, I quoted that, during an investigation in Durban, the Indian leaders themselves said that some 93 per cent of the Indian people were living on or below the bread line. Whilst that figure might be exaggerated to some extent, and even if we discount it to the extent of 50 per cent, it still means that a considerable portion of the Indian population are in fact living below the bread line. I want to know what this hon. Minister is going to do about fuller and better employment for these people, and what he intends to do about the application of job reservation to them?

Then we want to know from the hon. Minister what he has done to help the Indian people in the application of the group areas determinations to them. I would remind him that Proclamation No. 272 of 4 October, last year, whilst displacing 2,000 White people from their homes in Durban, it is estimated that that same proclamation will displace some 49,000 Indians from their homes. What is the hon. Minister doing in this regard? I want to refer especially to the effect of this proclamation on the businesses of the Indian people. We have had before from another hon. Minister the fact that they are entitled to occupy their premises during their lifetime. But what is that, what does the future hold for them? The hon. Minister knows as well as I do that the Indian population cannot live off the Indian population alone. That is a known fact in Natal, and if the Indian community are going to have any chance to survive on any standard at all, he knows as well as I do that they must be allowed to trade in their traditional manner and with the other race groups of this country. But the indications we have had are that their trading is gradually being confined to their own people. How are these people going to live when the bulk of their people don’t earn enough money to make a business lucrative or to give a return which will at least give them a decent standard of living? These are some of the things that we want to know from the hon. Minister. But one of the things that I want perhaps to know more than anything else is what his policy is in connection with Indian education in Natal. We have had various statements about the appointment of a certain school inspector to investigate the question of the taking over of Indian education by the Government, and we do not quite know where we stand in the matter. I would like to refer to a statement by Mr. Wilkes, who has for many years dealt with this subject, to make my point clear to the hon. the Minister. Mr. Wilkes says that he believes that the province should have been fully consulted before any move was made by the Government to take over Indian education, and that, in fairness to the Indian community, the Government had a moral duty to consult them before taking any steps. He also indicated that the Indian community itself, since 1953, had contributed R2,000,000 towards the schooling of their own children. Sir, we have a position here that the Province of Natal for many years, and this hon. Minister knows it, because he was vitally concerned with it, has been struggling under a heavy burden. It has had a higher proportion of non-Whites to Whites to educate, to supply hospital services and the like, than any other province, and yet, in spite of this, it has provided educational facilities for the Indian people, with the help of the Indian people themselves, on a scale of which the province can be very proud. It has not fulfilled all the requirements, but the hon. Minister surely, in contemplating the taking over of Indian education, could have consulted more widely than he has. He does not appear to have consulted at all, because here we have a statement from Mr. Wilkes in which he says that the Minister did not consult the province. The Indian people say that they have not been consulted, and yet the hon. Minister has appointed an inspector to investigate the position. At the moment the province is pushing on with the building of Indian schools, there are two schools being built in my area alone in this coming year at a cost of some R70,000 each. With the movement of population, the province is becoming involved in great expenditure in re-establishing schools in new areas, or supplying new schools to provide for the requirements of people who are being moved under the Group Areas Act, and yet the hon. Minister starts such an investigation, and it would appear from a later statement of Mr. Nel, whom he appointed, that he does in fact intend to take over Indian education in Natal. Yet, he does not consult the people most vitally concerned, the Indian people themselves and the province that has supplied them with the educational facilities they have had up to the present. Why could he not have gone to these people? Why, if he is so interested in improving the standard of Indian education, could he not have seen to it that his Government gave a better subsidy to the Province of Natal for the provision of Indian education? The Indians are quite satisfied. Furthermore, the Indians are quite satisfied that this hon. Minister is not going to provide them with better education. I would like to hear what he has in mind for them. They believe, and they have said it, perhaps rightly so, that this move is not to improve the lot of the Indians, but it is to move them further away from the White people and their means of livelihood and the contacts they have had for over a century in Natal. These are some of the questions of policy, and we want a very good statement of policy from the hon. Minister. We have had no statement up to now.

You had my statement last year.

That is not correct. We did not have this hon. Minister’s statement of policy last year. [Time limit.]

Last year the hon. the Minister said that his Department would help the Indians as much as possible. What is wrong with that? They will mediate as much as possible for the Indians with the other Departments, and they are doing so, and what objection has the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) to that? At that time already the Minister envisaged the establishment of an Indian Council, and I should like to congratulate the hon. the Minister most heartily for having succeeded in establishing that council, because there was a fantastic agitation among the Indians that they would have no part of the council, and that they should not cooperate with the Minister. An attempt was made to make every prominent Indian scared of this council, and the Indian Congress did so. The Minister then, in December last year, opened this conference in Pretoria, and some of the leading figures among the Indians attended it, and it was a gigantic success.

But what did those people say?

They decided, by an overwhelming majority, with two votes against, that the Minister should establish such a council.

They had no other option.

Why not? What else did they want? Surely they could have refused to serve on the council. But the Minister succeeded in establishing a council of 25 or 26 members and he has already appointed 21 or 22 members. But the reason why those hon. members are so disappointed, is because the leading Indians of Johannesburg, Natal and the Cape are serving on that council, not all of them people who are favourably disposed to the Government’s policy, but the Minister has succeeded, and it was a fantastic achievement on his part, in breaking through that wall of prejudice. But what disappoints those hon. members so much is that the Indians are accepting this council, and accepting the policy of the Government, whereas they refused to accept the policy of the United Party. When they came forward with the Pegging Act at the time, and when the Indians of Natal were to be given a sop of three representatives in this House, they were dissatisfied because they wanted to limit them to certain areas. Now the hon. member says the Government wants to compel the Indians to trade with one another. What else was General Smuts’ Pegging Act than a Group Areas Act to peg the Indians in certain areas in Natal? And those hon. members or their predecessors supported it, all of them. But then General Smuts came along, and in order to compensate the Indians for the fact that he wanted to prohibit them from acquiring any further land in Natal save in certain areas, he introduced a Bill aimed at giving the Indians three representatives in this House, and half the Natal members of the United Party walked out and refused to vote for that Bill. [Interjections.] Of course this was so. General Smuts had to force them to vote for that Bill, and what happened then? When the Act was promulgated, the Indians marched through Johannesburg and Durban and said they would have no part of Smuts’ “Ghetto Act”, and they refused to accept those three members. That is the record of those hon. members, and of their Government. That is how they co-operated with the Indians. But when they were defeated, and this Government came into power, and the Prime Minister decided to establish a Department of Indian Affairs, and announced that he desired to develop the Indians along the same lines as the Coloureds, and when the Minister attempted to constitute such a a council, those hon. members and the Press supporting them and the Indian National Congress went out of their way to incite the Indians not to co-operate with the Government. But the Minister has made a break-through and succeeded in getting the Indians to co-operate with the Government, and to-day we have an Indian Advisory Council, and I once again wish to congratulate the Minister. It is a council of eminent Indians, and the attempts of those hon. members to write off those people as stooges of the Government will not succeed, because they know they are not stooges.

I should like to go further and congratulate certain members of the Indian Council on the statements they have issued thus far. It is very clear that they are not the stooges of the Minister, but that they have agreed to serve on that council because they feel they can do something for the Indian population. The Minister has managed to achieve what those hon. members’ Government was never able to achieve, and he and his Department deserve the highest praise for it.

The hon. member says the council has no powers. Of course it has no powers at the present time; it is merely an advisory council, but the Minister and the Government have made no secret of what they are aiming at with this council, namely, that this council should develop in the same direction in which the Coloured Advisory Council has developed. This year further legislation was passed conferring certain legislative powers upon that Coloured Council. There is no secret about the intentions of the Government as to how this Indian Council should develop. It has to develop in precisely the same way as the Coloured Council.

Will you give the Indians representation in this House?

No, the Government has decided against that, and not only that, but the Indians themselves have decided against that. Will the hon. member deny that when the United Party Government wished to give the Indians three representatives in this House, they said they did not want them? I should like to ask the hon. member for Houghton whether she does not think this council appointed by the Minister is a good council?

No.

Yes, she says that because her leftist friends are not on that council. Here I am speaking from experience, and I say this to the credit of the Indians, that they are now co-operating with the Government to an increasing extent, in the same way that the Coloureds and the Bantu are co-operating with the Government to an increasing extent. In regard to group areas and the development of their housing schemes, they are inclined to co-operate with the Government to an increasing extent.

In regard to this council, I just want to put one request to the Minister. I do not think there is a single place where the Indians co-operate better with the Government than in the Vereeniging constituency. In Vereeniging there are more Indians than in any constituency except Johannesburg, and the leaders of the Indians there are the most responsible people. I should like to suggest very seriously that the Minister ought to consider giving one representative on the council to the Indians of Vereeniging-Vanderbijlpark-Southern Johannesburg. I know what the difficulty is, but I really do think that the southern part of the Transvaal ought to be represented on that council.

As regards the taking over of Indian education, the hon. member for Umlazi again comes along with this stupid story they had before, that the transfer of Indian Education to the Department of Indian Affairs will not promote their education; it is merely to estrange the Indians from the White people still more.

I merely said what the Indians themselves said.

Which Indians? The group of communists there. Those are the only people those hon. members listen to. When an Indian agitator says something, they say the Indians say that. They predicted the same thing in connection with the transfer of Bantu education, but who will deny to-day that the Bantu are to-day receiving better education than they ever had before. [Time limit.]

If there is any dissatisfaction existing at all among the Indians, it certainly exists to a very high degree to-day, and it is nonsense for the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) to say that the Indians are satisfied with the establishment of this Council. Does the hon. member know that the Indians are still faced with virtual economic ruin as the result of the decisions of the Group Areas Board?

You are talking nonsense. Tell me of one Indian who is being ruined.

I am not talking nonsense. These communities in the Transvaal are facing economic ruin as the result of the decisions of the Group Areas Board. I am not talking about the residential side of it now. In Johannesburg, the town which the hon. member quoted, he knows himself that the question as to whether they will be permitted to continue trading in the places where they are trading now is still the subject of very grave concern to them. There was an amendment to the Act which enabled the Minister, if he so wished, to differentiate between trading occupation and residential occupation, but we have had no declaration yet in this regard.

That does not fall under me.

I am just answering the point made in regard to the satisfaction with the establishment of this Council. What is a community to do when it is faced with economic ruin? It must do something to try to save something from the ruins, and therefore in the last resort they will co-operate if the Minister will give them an opportunity to place their views before him and if he will give some sympathetic consideration to their problems. The Minister is responsible for the welfare of the Indian community, and that is why all these matters are pertinent, and that is why the hon. member for Vereeniging leaves aside the vital problem of the economic life of the Indian community. Last year, in trying to give some statement of policy, the Minister said this. After some wishy-washy replies on his part, and after being pressed by this side of the House to make a definite statement, he finally said that he undertook to appoint a two-man interdepartmental fact-finding committee, in collaboration with the Minister of Community Development, particularly when there are bona fide cases of hardship as the result of the implementation of the Group Areas Act. That is the important issue which the Minister must reply to to-day: What has he done for the welfare of the Indian community in respect of the hardships with which they were faced under the Group Areas Act? That is the most important question facing the whole of the Indian community to-day. If one looks through the activities of the Departments for which the hon. the Minister is responsible, one is surprised that the most important issues concerning the Indian community are placed in the hands of other departments. This question of Group Areas Act which vitally concerns the economic life of the Indian community is something which the Minister must deal with, and we expect a reply from him to-day, particularly in view of the appointment of this committee, as to (a) whether that committee has been appointed, and (b) what that committee has done, and what recommendations they have made to the Minister, and what the Minister intends doing in regard to these economic difficulties.

In the educational field, the other responsibility resting on the Minister is to ensure that there is adequate and satisfactory employment for the Indian community. Can the Minister tell us what steps he has taken to ensure that those who have reached any particular standard of education, whether it be in the professional field or in the scientific field, or whether it be the ordinary matriculant, will be adequately employed so that they can make the best use of their educational qualifications? That is also a responsibility resting on the Minister and it is his duty to ensure that that community is fully and satisfactorily employed. It is not sufficient for him to say, as he did last year, that this is a matter which concerns the Department of Labour. It concerns their welfare, for which he is responsible.

Then there is the health of that community. There also the Minister should give us a reply as to what he has done to ensure that their health needs are adequately served. The problem that seems to surround the whole of the Minister’s Department is that in looking through his Estimates which comprised .003 of the Budget you find that he merely has administrative work to do in regard to the disbursement of funds. I do not know that his portfolio is justified, unless he can tell us something much more concrete than what the Votes actually indicate. Obviously there must be some responsibility and the Minister’s Department cannot be there merely for the disbursement of funds to subsidize institutions, pensions for blind persons or child welfare, etc. There must be something much more, and I want to quote what he said last year when he said that the welfare of that community was one of the things to which his Department should devote attention.

There is a great deal of concern as to what is going to happen to the trading rights of the Indian community. It is a well-known fact that a considerable number of Indians are employed in the various undertakings of the Indian community, and there is complete uncertainty even to-day as to what the Group Areas Board eventually intends doing about the rights of occupation for trading purposes. After so many years it is high time, particularly now that there is a Minister calling himself the Minister of Indian Affairs, for him to tell the House that some concrete steps have been taken to ensure their economic future, and secondly, that there will be some form of assurance to them which will not leave them in the state of uncertainty to which they have been subjected for so many years. If the Minister can make a policy statement on these issues that have been raised, it will not be necessary to listen to the hon. member for Vereeniging trying to draw red herrings across the trail as to what happened 20 years ago and how satisfied he thinks the Indian leaders are. We want to know what the Minister intends doing with this Council, what its future is, and will legislation be introduced here to give them some form of representation somewhere, and is he going to do something about their political future as citizens of South Africa? They are no longer people to be repatriated, but they are now regarded as citizens of this country. More particularly we are concerned at this stage, before we even deal with some of the nebulous political rights which may be envisaged for them, with their economic future, because under the Act and according to the policy pronouncements made hitherto, the direction of the Government’s thinking has virtually been to emasculate them from an economic point of view. That is something which must be the concern not only of this side of the House but of the Government itself, and of the whole of the country. We must deal with them justly and fairly as citizens of the country, and I hope that the Minister will be in a position to-day to give us some information and to make a policy statement in that regard.

Coming from Natal, I am naturally interested in Indian affairs. No Natalian can afford not to be interested in the future of the Indians in our community. I believe that the formation of the Indian Council is the biggest step forward for the Indians since their arrival in Natal some 60 years ago. The Government is coming to grips with this problem and is facing up to it. I do not believe that any other previous government has made anything like the contribution towards the welfare of the Indians as this Government has done. Increasingly more Indians are realizing that their future development and fulfilment of purpose lies in the Indian Council. This first real consultation with the Indians through the council is working very well on a level of mutual trust and we are finding out what he is thinking and what his problems are. We are now understanding him better, and he is understanding us. The Indian University in Natal is working smoothly and well, in spite of the prophets of doom and the Jeremiahs who said that it would never work. Some even said that the Indians would boycott it. That University College was started in 1961 with 114 students. In 1962 this was increased to 291; in 1963 there were 681, and in 1964 there are 898, and what of 1965? I believe that this figure will be well over 1,000. What is the alternative? A completely multi-racial university. I do not believe that there can be any half-measures, and I think the Progressive Party realizes this more fully than the United Party. Would it have been possible to accommodate these 900 students in the Natal University? What conditions could have been offered them, and what accommodation? But now they are developing on their own, in their own culture, and it will certainly benefit race relations more than if they were all thrown together. The trouble in the U.S.A. over integration should be a lesson to us. I recently had the privilege and the pleasure of inspecting a newly-declared Indian area in Pietermaritzburg known as the Mountain Rise complex. What do we find? One of the best areas in Pietermaritzburg has been given to the Indians. There are first-class houses comparable with the best. There is a first-class club house which is to be taken over by the Indian community, with all the sports facilities, tennis, bowls, etc. In that area there is one of the best primary schools in Natal for the education of Europeans, and this is now available to the Indians. It is hoped that some enterprising Indians will take this over and possibly develop it as a private school, as it was before, but for Indian children. All this shows that the Government is doing its best to give the Indians a fair deal. Not only is there a residential area being developed in Pietermaritzburg, but an area is being developed especially for Indian industry, and I know that many Indians are interested in this and there is every possibility of their establishing a factory. There we have full facilities, with houses available to accommodate the workers and the Indian managers, and if necessary even the Indian directors of their own companies. All this is being done in Pietermaritzburg for all to see. From what has been done for the Indians, it is clear that the Government is aware of the part they play in the overall development of South Africa. They are not just being pushed out to the worst parts, and I believe that this is a wonderful start, where people can see what is being done for these people. They need it and they deserve it. We have also established in Pietermaritzburg the new M. L. Sultan technical college entirely for Indians, which is another step in the right direction. No South African can shirk the challenge of the Indian in South Africa. He is here to stay and I am glad that the Government is taking the lead in this matter.

It is very nice to hear hon. members assuring us how happy the Indian community is under existing conditions, and particularly to hear from the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) that the Indian community as a whole is completely satisfied with the idea of an Indian Council and is co-operating with the Minister, and that if it were not for the fact that a few communist agitators are running around the country telling the Indians that they are being badly treated, there would be no complaints whatever.

I did not say that.

The hon. member did infer that the only people who were against the Indian Council were a few agitators and communists. Of course, any one who agrees with the Government is reasonable and realistic, and anyone who disagrees with the Government is irresponsible or a communist. I want to ask the hon. member for Vereeniging what he would feel like if he were forced out of a business by group areas, a business which he had occupied since the turn of the century, and how he would feel if he were one of the residents of Vrededorp, which has now been proclaimed as a White area, and which has traditionally been an Indian area, when as a matter of fact when the proclamation took place there were 5,000 Indians living there and 13 Whites? But this is the traditional White area hon. members spoke about. How would he feel if he were one of the Ventersdorp Indian community of 15 families who are being given notice to quit their homes by the end of April under the Group Areas Act, and how he would feel if he belonged to the vast group of Indians along the East Rand where this tremendous mass movement is taking place, where the entire Coloured community is being moved to one town on the East Rand and the entire Indian community to another town? How would he feel if he had to go and live at Lenasia, which is 21 miles outside the centre of Johannesburg and is allowed only to continue to run his business which he has had in the centre of Johannesburg under a permit system which can be withdrawn at any time? Would he be co-operative, or would he feel insecure? I must say that I cannot bear any longer to hear hon. members who sit here, completely secure in their own lives, telling everybody else that the Indians and the Coloureds and the Bantu are happy, and if it were not for agitators there would be no trouble in South Africa. Now I know that group areas does not fall under the Minister, but I am discussing it in the context of the ludicrous generalization of the hon. member for Vereeniging, who said that there was no dissatisfaction among the Indians, and that what dissatisfaction there was, was caused by agitators.

I did not say that. I said they were co-operating much better now.

They have no option but to co-operate, because even when they try to interview the Prime Minister they get police dogs put on to them.

Why did they not cooperate with General Smuts, and why are they co-operating now?

They did not co-operate with Gen. Smuts because they were against the idea of being treated as a separate element in the population, and I understand that attitude, because I am against the idea of communal representation, and I am against the idea of separate councils for racial groups. The Indians have now officially been acknowledged as citizens of this country, and I believe that they should be treated as such, and that they should be allowed to move freely around the country, and that they should be allowed the privileges of citizenship, depending on individual merit. But I want to tell the hon. member that when a group of Indian women, 2,000 of them, tried to see the Prime Minister, and then were sent to the Minister of Community Development, and he refused to see them, there was that disgraceful fracas at the Union Buildings, where police dogs were put on to an orderly procession of Indian women, and that it was the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs to intervene in the matter. He sits there with a look of a little innocent angel on his face. Anything that is remotely contentious belongs to somebody else. Group Areas belongs to the Minister of Community Affairs. Job reservation belongs to the Minister of Labour, but anything that is good belongs to Indian Affairs. I have a shiny little brochure here, put out by the Department of Information and labelled “Indian South Africans”. There are beautiful proteas on the cover, and inside we have one page after the other telling how well the Indians are treated. The Minister of Indian Affairs will be glad to hear that all the achievements are attributed to him. What interests me is that there is a long article about housing for Indians. So that does not belong to the hon. the Minister either. That is quite right. It belongs to the hon. the Minister of Information, but the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs will be delighted to hear that all the achievements in here are attributed to himself. Now, what interests me is a long article in here about housing for Indians. It tells about all the fine new townships which have been laid out for Indians; Lenasia, Northdale, Asherville, Merebank, etc. But there is not the slightest reference in here to people being forcibly removed in terms of the Group Areas Act—not a mention! The article says that these townships have “naturally been declared Indian group areas”—as if it is a privilege which has been bestowed on the Indian community. But, as I say, there is not a single word in here about forcible removal of Indians. There is no word in this about the fact that 40,000 Indians out of the 50,000 in the Transvaal are living under the shadow of eviction under the Group Areas Act. The hon. member over there has had a lot to say about lying reports, etc., and about false impressions being created…

I put Victor Norton down!

A report the hon. member, and others, quoted in proof of this was a report which was sent out of this country to the effect that Indians were being oppressed. “Scandalous”, they said. “Unmitigated lies!” Well, I should like to compare the record of this Government in connection with group areas, job reservation, lack of mobility and the other restrictions under which Indian labour, with the fine picture presented in this shiny brochure. Let us then see where these “lying” reports come from. Nothing in this is not true, but unfortunately it presents only one side of the picture. I know it is not the Department of the Minister of Indian Affairs that is to blame for group areas, but I should like to know what the hon. the Minister is going to do about the result of group areas. What is he going to do, for instance, about the loss of their trading licences and about the loss of employment of traders who, themselves, employ Indian employees? What is he going to do about the isolation of the Indian communities? I know he says that this is the way in which the Indian must learn to develop “a community spirit”. But I say this is one of the nicer ways of disguising persecution. You push people to one side while telling them that it is good for them because they are, in that way, going to develop a nice community spirit! What is the Minister going to do about the question of unemployment amongst Indians? I know that he, in this connection, refused to accept the figures of the Natal University. He said these figures were grossly exaggerated. It is true that another piece of investigation was done by the Bureau for Industrial Research, and that it was found by this investigation that the figures of unemployment were less than the figures determined by the University of Natal. That I am prepared to grant. But even this investigation found unemployment amongst the Indians to be a problem, and therefore I should like to know what the Minister intends doing about finding jobs, not only for the existing unemployed amongst Indians, but, and this is most important of all, also for the future generations of Indians. I have articles here by Indian benevolent societies which find it impossible to cope with the problem of Indian poverty; poverty caused by various factors including the fact that it is difficult for Indians to get jobs in certain categories. They either have not been trained—because it is difficult for them to be apprenticed and to find White masters to train them—or they cannot get jobs as labourers anywhere except in trade and as employees of their own people, and except for a few specific occupations which have traditionally been reserved for Indians, such as waiters, and even there there is going to be job reservation for barmen in Natal.

These are the factors for which the hon. the Minister should share responsibility, or else I do not see any point in his Department existing. If he does not accept responsibility for these factors, then I see no point in the existence of his Department at all. [Time limit.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed her seat, as well as other hon. members opposite who spoke before her, once again concentrated upon what they call the “disabilities”, that is to say, the restrictions upon the Indian community in South Africa. Permit me first of all to put this to the hon. member: Where she complains that the brochure of the Department of Information only presents the bright side. I charge the Opposition with presenting only the dark side, that is to say, without attempting to paint a balanced picture of the position of the Indian in South Africa. A further submission I wish to make, is that the problems the Indian community in South Africa have to cope with in South Africa at the present time, are largely due to the fact that this community for a period of 10 years or more stubbornly refused to accept the laws of this country in the spirit. When there is a political debate on the desirability or not of the principle of group areas, it is a matter which can be argued out on the political level. However, the Indian community went further and tried to retard the administration of the law of the land in all kinds of ways. If the Indian community had co-operated with the Group Areas Act and with the basic principles of this Party, namely that separate communities and separate freedoms have to be developed in this country, the Indian community would have escaped many of the problems they have to overcome to-day. The problems they have to overcome to-day must therefore also be attributed to the stubbornness of the Indian himself, and not only to the views of this Government as to how the country should be administered.

The real reason for my rising is the fact that the hon. member for Florida, the hon. member for Houghton and to some extent also the hon. member for Umlazi adopted the attitude that the Minister of Indian Affairs should really be a special champion of the cause of the Indians with the Government of the country. According to them, it should be his moral task to ask for relief in respect of the Group Areas Act, to see to it that illegal processions are not dispersed by force, and to procure this and that benefit for the Indian. As we are now dealing with the attitude of passive resistance of the Indian community in respect of the application of the law of the land, and in respect of the policy of the governing Party, I cannot imagine anything more fatal than to allow the idea to take hold in the Indian community that they have a trojan horse within the Government of this country, in that the Minister of Indian Affairs should be such a special champion of the cause of the Indians, a cause which is in conflict with the general policy of the country. Nothing can be more dangerous, for experience has taught us.

Is the appointment of this Minister your idea of consultation with these people?

I shall come to the aspect of consulation later on. At the present moment I am still dealing with the suggestion made here that the Indian community have a claim on this Minister to act as their champion within the Government for the promotion of divergent views on the part of the Indian community. I say this is a dangerous idea to propagate, and because the events of recent years have taught us that the Indians have persevered so much in their passive resistance to the application of the laws of the land that they have not allowed an opportunity to slip by to find a further channel for representations. Now I come to the question of the hon. member for Umlazi. The function of the Minister of Indian Affairs is firstly, to persuade the Indian to seek his welfare within the system which has been established by the law of the land in accordance with the policy of the Government. His first task is to seek the co-operation of the Indian and to get it within this existence framework, and not to be the Indian’s mouthpiece with a view to stultifying or combating this framework. The Minister has already taken the first steps towards securing this co-operation, and having succeeded in securing the co-operation of at least a responsible element among the Indians within the existing framework of our policy, then and to that extent he becomes the mouthpiece whereby the specific view of the Indian’s interests is conveyed to the various departments. That is our object. So it is not the task of the hon. the Minister to resist e.g. the proclamation of a particular group area, but after consultation with the Indian, to bring about the best utilization and development of that group area which has already been proclaimed.

Will that be their only representation?

Do hon. members opposite wish to give the Indian other forms of representation too? Surely this is a tremendous concession to the Indian community which was regarded until very recently, for historical reason, as an exclusive foreign community. They are told that they will have a helper and a mouthpiece, not in the House of Assembly, but in the Cabinet, in the Government itself which surely is worth infinitely more than representation in the House of Assembly, on the basis of co-operation with the Government’s policy. Surely that is an infinitely great concession.

Now it is said that the main interest of the Indian community is not to develop and promote a separate community life, but that the hon. the Minister should also have regard to the economic life of the Indian as it is affected by the various factors. To this my reply simply is this, that the moment the Indian gives his co-operation within the existing framework of legislation and policy, it becomes the task of the Minister to co-operate with the Indian community. This is shown by the many good things already achieved.

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity to emphasize the Indian’s own responsibility in connection with his economic lot in South Africa. The first aspect arising from this is the acceptance of the facilities of the Group Areas Act and not the defiance thereof. They must tell the Government to give them their share in such a way that they can make use of it. The Indian himself is responsible for the diversification of his fields of employment. It is not enough to say that the Indians have no opportunities to become apprentices. How many other fields of semiskilled labour are there not in South Africa for which the Indian could present himself? That is a question the Indian community should ask itself. Is it the task of this Government to seek a solution for the Indian to his labour problems only in those directions preferred by the Indian? Or should the Indian community also diversify its labour supply? There is the question of the utilization of the capital of the Indian community itself. To what extent have the indisputable sources of capital present among the Indians themselves, been applied to labour creating undertakings in industry? No Indian can lay a charge against a Department or against a South African institution that they have not been accorded an opportunity to exercise their enterprise for the employment of people in the manufacture of things. On the contrary. Indian capital insists upon being applied in certain conventional directions only, for instance such as the stock-piling of goods for trading purposes and for the acquisition of fixed property. Another factor is the tremendous birth-rate of the Indian. Must the White community with its limited birth-rate create unlimited employment opportunities for the multiplication of the Indian community and of other non-White communities whose increase is so tremendous that the greatest stimulant the Whites can give to the national economy will be inadequate to provide employment for all? In this respect too there is a responsibility upon the Indian community.

After listening to the hon. member for Kempton Park, it is obvious that his interpretation of Government policy in so far as Indians are concerned, is that the Indian must remain completely politically voiceless. The position to-day is that an Indian Council has been appointed by the hon. the Minister but in actual fact they still remain completely politically voiceless. The fact remains that these people have been appointed by the Minister and it should be realized by the hon. member for Vereeniging and the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) that people appointed by the Minister are hardly likely to utter any severe criticism of the Government or of the Minister. These members rely on the Minister for the positions they occupy.

The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg went even further and said that the council was a great success, but how he can formulate such an opinion after the council has had only one official meeting astounds me. After all, as far as I know this council has had only one official meeting so far. It is consequently still very much in its infancy, too much so to enable any opinion on its functions even though in an advisory capacity. While on this point, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister when he is going to allow the Indian community to elect their own representatives to the council? You will find that the moment that is done and the new council criticizes the Government; there will be a different view of that council on the part of hon. members opposite. They are said to be a success but only so long as they accept Government policy.

Another matter I wish to raise with the Minister is the question of the effectiveness of his portfolio. This point has already been mentioned by some hon. members and I should like to illustrate it by referring to certain aspects connected with the welfare, the wellbeing and the happiness of the Indian community and to test whether the Minister can do anything to alleviate that position and to be an effective Minister of Indian Affairs. Now, we know that the Indian population in this country, about 500,000, is now the responsibility of this Minister. When does the Minister intend issuing the first annual report of his Department so that we may have a guide as to what the purpose is of his Department?

Now the laws passed in this Parliament affecting the happiness and well-being of the Indian community should be of the utmost importance to this hon. Minister. The aspect with which I am mostly concerned is that of the degree of unemployment amongst the Indian community. One of the main factors responsible for unemployment is the lack of opportunities for furthering their own economic position. In 1962 the Institute for Social Research of the University of Natal carried out a very important survey and highlighted the fact that unemployment was perhaps one of the most serious problems of the Indian community. This survey brought to light the fact that there were more work-seekers than there were opportunities for work offered. In fact, the finding is that the fundamental difficulty of the Indian community lies in the paucity of opportunities afforded it by the society in which it lives. Moreover, in addition to this paucity of opportunity we find that the hon. the Minister of Labour is still closing certain avenues of employment to the Indian, rather than opening up more avenues. Here I want to refer to the determination by the Minister of Labour in regard to job reservation as far as it affects barmen. We know that the catering trade is a natural source of employment for the Indian community. As a matter of fact, it has for many years been recognized as one of their main avenues of employment. Now, as far as this determination is concerned, we find that the Minister of Labour is having difficulty in applying the reservation of barmen positions for Whites because he has had to grant no less than 40 exemptions under that determination. The action of the Minister in this respect has blocked a very important avenue of employment for the Indian community. It seems ridiculous that an Indian can serve you at a table in a bar lounge but in terms of the legislation of this Government cannot do so over a bar counter. Apartheid in this respect is causing a great deal of dissatisfaction amongst the Indian community, because with the closing of this avenue of employment to them we are causing their social position to deteriorate. The 1960 census shows that the Indian population in Natal was some 400,000 of which 130,000 were children under 15 years of age, i.e. 40 per cent. So what will be the position in four or five years’ time of those people if fewer and fewer avenues of employment remain open to them? In 1963 there were 7,000 Indians in Durban who left school and sought employment.

Sir, the question of finding avenues of employment for the Indian community is one of vital importance. But what do we find? We find that yet another avenue of employment is going to be affected. The hon. the Minister of Labour recently tabled a recommendation from the Industrial Tribunal in connection with the application of job reservation to lorry drivers in the Durban area. The recommendation is to the effect that Whites will have the sole right to drive lorries of over 8½ tons while Coloureds and Indians are limited to lorries under 8½ tons and Bantu to lorries under 7 tons. The evidence before the tribunal shows that 50 per cent of the lorry drivers in the Durban area are Indians. So here is another avenue of employment for the Indian community which is being adversely affected by actions of the Minister of Labour.

Due to the concern amongst the Indian community about its lack of opportunities, I placed a question on the Order Paper for the Minister of Labour and in reply was informed that only about 3,000 Indians were registered as being unemployed. But this is only the figure of Indians who were in fact registered as unemployed. The Minister also stated that they enjoyed the same privileges as anyone else who were unemployed. But there appears to be a lack of co-ordination between the Minister of Labour and the Minister of Indian Affairs in regard to this matter. In the Daily News of 17 April 1964, an article appeared with reference to a letter which the Minister of Indian Affairs wrote to the chairman of an Indian organization. This article quoted the Minister from his letter to the effect that the Government was carrying out extensive investigations into ways of relieving Indian unemployment. Then an indication is given of the various steps already taken in this connection and those contemplated. However, I then put a question to the hon. the Minister of Labour arising out of his reply to my earlier question, but he said he had no knowledge whatsoever of any such investigation. Now it becomes more difficult to try and assess the value of the Ministry of Indian Affairs for the advancement of the welfare of the Indian community. The letter which the Minister wrote to the Non-European Welfare Railway Passengers Association contains some important observations. It said that some of the measures which were being investigated were urban industrial areas for Indians, more land for Indian farmers, etc.

Out of this arises an important question as to the Government’s policy in regard to the future of the Indian community. We want to know whether this hon. Minister and his Government intend establishing Hindustans, and whether they intend proceeding along the lines of establishing separate Indian areas, because, in this letter, it is clearly stated that one of the measures being investigated is urban industrial areas for Indians and more land for Indian farmers. Now, as far as industrial areas for Indians are concerned, surely the hon. the Minister must realize that the present position, particularly in Natal, is that you can go to almost any factory in an industrial area and you will find persons of all racial groups working in that factory. So how they are going to establish separate industrial areas for Indians remains somewhat of a mystery to me, because, as I say, almost in every instance you will find that the Indian people are integrated with the industrial development taking place in Natal. How the Government intends unscrambling this economic integration remains to be seen.

It was also stated in the letter that it was hoped the Railways would soon provide 500 posts for Indians in the Durban harbour area as labourers. The opening of new avenues of employment was also receiving attention, the letter mentioned. Here, to my mind, lies the crux of the Indian problem. When you discuss this matter with Indians who are not agitators, they emphasize the point that the lack of opportunities for them is their greatest stumbling block to their playing an important part in the economic life of South Africa. We know that the strain this puts on the various welfare organizations who have to face this growing problem of unemployment is a severe one. And, therefore, I should like to mention one thing the hon. the Minister might do to alleviate the position amongst some of the poorer sections of the Indian community. [Time limit.]

The approach of the hon. member for Umbilo and other hon. members on his side of the House on this matter is based on two facts. The first is that those members of the Indian community who coperate with the hon. the Minister are stooges. That, of course, is the old story. As soon as there are members of a non-White community who turn to the Government for an opportunity to work for the welfare of their own people, they become stooges of the Government. On the other hand, if there are members who rant against the Government and its policy, they become the source from which the Opposition derives its information, and they are then presented as the people who are representative of their own particular community.

The second impression the hon. member creates, is that the Indian community are a poor, unemployed and neglected group of people in South Africa. Indeed, all his questions to the Minister are based on the assumption that we are concerned here with a group of unemployed people and people for whom there is no future in South Africa. But what is the truth, and what are the facts in this connection? A number of years ago the City Council of Durban made a survey and ascertained that Indians own immovable property to the value of R50,000,000 in Natal. Is the hon. member aware of that? The survey also revealed that 21.7 per cent of all trading licences in Durban are held by Indians. That hon. member, who is a Durbanite, surely is aware of the extent of Indian trade in Durban, and surely he is aware of the extent of the prosperity of the Indians there. Surely, therefore, it is unfair to refer to that community as a community of paupers. By doing so, he is doing, not only the country as a whole an injustice, but the Indian community itself, too. But it was found also that 58 per cent of all buses in the municipal area of Durban undertaking public transport, belong to Indians. In addition, 44.7 per cent of all taxis in Durban belonged to Indians. Does that look like a poverty-stricken, unemployed and neglected community?

Yes, but the Indians are the largest population group in Durban.

If we go further into Natal, we find that the ratio of trading licences in the hands of Indians to the trading licences held by Whites, is in favour of the Indian. In fact, it frequently is out of proportion to the numbers of the Indian community. We know there are 500,000 Indians in South Africa. But if we take the position in Natal only—and he ought to be concerned about his own people in Natal—then we find that the trading licences are completely out of proportion to the population groups in many municipalities. I mention two examples to the hon. member. In Stanger, which is very near Durban, there are 211 Indian trading licences as against 32 White licences. Is that in proportion to the population group there? In the second place, I mention a little place in Natal which is well known to me, namely Dannhauser. The hon. member has probably never been there. In Dannhauser there are 60 Indian trading licences as against eight White licences. Is that in proportion to the population groups of that area? Does that look as if they are a group of poverty-stricken, unemployed people settled there, when they possess all those sources of prosperity? It was found, furthermore, that the income of the Indian in South Africa is four times as high as the average income in India or in Pakistan, and here I take no account at all of the position of Indians in other African states. In other words, the prosperity of the Indian of South Africa is comparable with the prosperity of any other group of Indians in any country in the world, and it is four times as high as that of the people in India and Pakistan, their countries of origin.

The hon. member also referred to the population statistics. That is a matter about which we are in fact concerned, namely the population explosion to which the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) has referred. We find that in 1953 already there were more Indian children than White children at school in Natal. In 1953 there were 66,500 Indian children at school as against a little more than 54,000 White children. That is a process which is accelerating. But when we come to the political implications of this, what is the attitude of hon. members opposite? What are the political prospects for the Indian in Natal according to the policy of the United Party? The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) very clearly adopted the view that the Indian and the non-Whites in Natal should get a greater share in politics in Natal. Is it the policy of hon. members opposite to continue working for greater representation for Indians on their local authorities? A short while ago a sub-committee of the Estcourt City Council passed a resolution as follows: (I quote from the Natal Mercury)—

How far are the hon. members opposite prepared to go; to what stage do they wish to take the principle of representation on the Natal City Councils? Mr. Chairman, we are dealing with an autogenous population group, people for whom we have to provide certain services. The policy of this side is very clear. Everything possible is being done on traditional lines to solve the problem in South Africa. We believe that this solution does not lie in the conglomerate way in which hon. members opposite want to share their political rights with other minority groups in South Africa. Let the hon. members put their alternative clearly to us. They must tell us clearly how far they propose to go with that principle which has been advocated by the hon. member for South Coast, and which has already been accepted in principle on their councils in contrast with the policy of this side of the House.

The hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg (Mr. J. W. Rall) suggests to this Committee that what is under discussion here this afternoon is the policy of the United Party towards the Indians in South Africa. Sir, this is the same old convolution to which we are accustomed—that rather un-clever political somersault. The moment we say, as we are entitled to say, that we want the Minister of Indian Affairs to tell the Committee what, in fact, is the policy of the Minister and the Government towards the Indians, the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg wants to know: what is our policy towards the Indians! Sir, I ask him for the umpteenth time: Who claims to be ruling this country—the Government or the Opposition? I know who should be ruling the country. Surely one cannot be expected to answer that childish argument, and I say this with great respect to the hon. member, for whom I have a personal regard.

Now I want to deal with another point that he made. He said in effect that if you take into account the number of trading licences in any part of Natal, you will find that there are so many Indian traders and so many Whites, and that the Indians in fact have the preponderance of the trade. As far as licences are concerned, the fact remains that for every Indian trader there would probably be from 300 to 400 Indians who are not traders. What about those Indians, who represent the vast majority of the Indians and who are called in this brochure of the hon. the Minister of Information “Indian South Africans”? Should not the income of any South African—and I emphasize that we now talk about “Indian South Africans”—approximate that of the average South African, taken as a member of the whole national group, or does the hon. member suggest that because they are Indians and because their income is greater than than of Indians in India, that that satisfies him; that he can salve his conscience by saying, “Well, our Indians are better off than the Indians in India”? Is that a good answer? We say that they are “Indian South Africans”, to use the Minister’s own phrase. How then do you account for the fact that there is such a tremendous amount of unemployment among them, and that their general standard of living, say, in the province of Natal is so low, leaving out the traders who are a handful compared to the 480,000 of the entire Indian population? This is something which the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs should answer. Whether he will, Sir, is another matter—according to the hon. member for Kempton Park, who spoke earlier, the Minister of Indian Affairs is not there to speak for the Indians, because it would be an extremely dangerous thing to have the Minister of Indian Affairs as a Trojan horse in the Cabinet. Sir, I do not want to talk about a horse or another kind of equine animal, but I want to tell the hon. member for Kempton Park that if the Minister is not there, as we believe he was, placed in the Cabinet to do, to speak for the Indians, then he is a horse of a different feather; in fact, he becomes Caligula’s horse—and Caligula’s horse was a horse that was made a Senator by Caligula for no other reason than that he was a horse; he had no other use. Now, Sir, what kind of horse is the Minister of Indian Affairs going to be? Is he going to be the Trojan horse or the Caligula-type of horse?

Or a dead horse?

No, I am not going to flog a dead horse. I think the hon. member for Kempton Park, who, we understand, is now within striking distance of Cabinet rank, has—perhaps unwittingly—let the cat out of the bag. He said, “How can we, the White group, be expected to provide greater employment opportunities for the Indians? If you bear in mind the fact that their birth-rate is so much higher than that of the White people, it would become a dangerous thing for the White people.” And so, Sir, you have the only possible explanation for the situation just described by the hon. member for Durban-Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield), which is that not only are employment opportunities for the Indians very limited, but that the Government, in one way or another, seems to be taking steps to close off existing opportunities—in Natal, for example, for Indians to be employed as bar stewards or as lorry drivers. One is entitled therefore to ask the hon. the Minister of Indian Affairs, who will undoubtedly speak for himself in due course, whether the point by the hon. member for Kempton Park—that is to say, this great birth rate of the Indian population, this threat of an increase in the population of fellow-South Africans, the Indian South Africans—is the reason why employment opportunities for the Indians must be restricted, and the reason why existing employment opportunities for Indians must be diminished. Sir, this is a very interesting consideration, and the answer can only be “yes” or “no”; there is nothing in between, and I do not wish to pursue this before I get some sort of answer on this issue from the hon. the Minister.

When I heard the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) (Mr. Odell) describing the condition of the Indian population of Maritzburg and when he told us about this heaven-on-earth at Mountain Rise …

He made a good speech.

Not a bad speech, except that somebody had once again written it for him. However, what I want to ask is this: Is the same Minister, the same Government, responsible for, say, the Indians in Mountain Rise in Maritzburg and for the Indians in Lenasia in Johannesburg? I would like to know, because as far as the Indians of Johannesburg are concerned—and I think they represent about 40 per cent of the total Indian population of the province of the Transvaal—their condition does not nearly approximate the condition of the Indians in Mountain Rise, in Maritzburg, as sketched to the Committee by the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City).

Nor 95 per cent of the Indians in Maritzburg.

Naturally, since that hon. member represents Maritzburg and is now on the Government side, the miracle must happen in Maritzburg, in this constituency. I do not have that good fortune, Sir, but I would like to ask the hon. the Minister what, in fact, is the position of the Indians in Johannesburg.

Or in Maritzburg.

Or in Maritzburg. I see the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (District) (Capt. Henwood) is going to ask some other questions about the conditions of the Indians in Pietermaritzburg, but as far as the Indians of Johannesburg are concerned, the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) this afternoon delivered almost word for word the speech which he delivered here on 14 June 1962.

You are nearly as good as your next-door neighbour.

Who is my next-door neighbour.

Order! The hon. member may carry on.

Sir, one wishes to know what the hon. member for Rustenburg (Mr. Bootha) is saying. Sir, in June 1962 the hon. member for Vereeniging made his speech in reply to some points that I had made about the situation in which the Indians in Johannesburg found themselves, and on that occasion he said almost word for word what he said here to-day. He said that Lenasia, too, was one of the heaven-on-earth situations, like Mountain Rise; that I had exaggerated the position, that the Indians were very happy there, and he thanked the Minister of Community Development for the fine progress which had been made in regard to the welfare of the Indians. On the assumption, Sir, that the Minister of Indian Affairs had taken the trouble, which I assume he has done, to inform himself about the position of the Indians in Johannesburg and in Lenasia, I wonder whether he will agree, if he were outspoken to-day, with the hon. member for Vereeniging in regard to some of the things which he said about the Indians of Lenasia. For example, every time a complaint has been made about the fact that Indians who are employed in rather lowly occupations in the city of Johannesburg, but who have no other place to live except Lenasia, which is the only group residential area for them, have to travel 22 miles by car, the hon. member for Vereeniging said that this was not true; in fact, he said it was a lie; that Lenasia was only 12 miles from the centre of Johannesburg. Sir, one of these days the hon. member for Vereeniging may set out, as I did quite recently, from the site of the Johannesburg General Post Office in Jeppe Street and take what is recognized as the shortest route to Lenasia, and if he watches the speedometer of his car—I happened to go in a fairly good car like a Jaguar, 3.4 litre, a new car with a good speedometer (I must say that it is not mine)—he will find that the distance from the General Post Office to the site of the Lenasia Post Office is 19.2 miles by the shortest route, not 12 miles. Does he know, for example, that train fare, first class, between Lenz and Johannesburg is 41 cents return? The fact that Indians do not want to travel third class is based on very good reasons. For example, it is not safe. Recently, or within two years, two of them were murdered on the train. They feel that for the sake of safety they should not travel with the Bantu. Sir, certain facts must be established once and for all—where are the bowling greens, the community centre, the golf courses, the cinemas and what-have-you in Lenasia? Maybe the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) can tell us, but I hope the hon. member will tell us because I would take that from him as being authentic. [Time limit.]

Sir, what a long way we seem to have come since the cry of the Nationalist Party about the Indians, was coupled with the cry of “die Kaffer in sy plek en die koelies in die see!”. How wonderful it is to hear hon. members opposite praising the hon. the Minister, singing the praises of the Indian Affairs Department and to hear their praises of what this Government has done for the Indian population. Sir, I am very indebted to the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) for a remark which she made to the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee). The hon. member for Vereeniging, when he was asked whether these people would have representation in this House, said, “Oh no, they will not,” having said that the policy of the Government towards the Indian is the same as the Government’s policy towards the Coloureds. He said that they would not have representation here because 20 years ago it had been offered by the United Party Government and it had been refused, and therefore the Government was not going to offer it to them now. That is what the hon. member for Vereeniging said. I am indebted to the hon. member for Houghton for asking, “Have you asked them now? Why not try asking them now,” indicating quite plainly that if the Government did ask them now, their attitude would be very different from what it was 20 years ago. Sir, what has happened to these people? Why would their attitude be any different 20 years later? What has this Government done to these people?

Given them security.

There you have it, Sir! They have given them security!

We give every man and every woman security in this country.

Sir, the hon. member talks about security. The hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield) quoted some figures here which are disgraceful figures from any point of view in any country which is as developed as South Africa, as to unemployment amongst the Indian people.

Was the position any better when your party was in power?

The hon. the Minister laughed when reference was made to the report dealing with the survey made by the University of Natal. He said that he had no reason to doubt the figures of the University of Natal regarding unemployment because we had no other information at our disposal. Sir, that is even more disgraceful. What is this hon. Minister doing? Last year the hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) asked him what his policy was, and the hon. the Minister could only say that the Department of Indian Affairs was a sort of link between the Indian people and the Government. I will not make the obvious comment in that regard. Then the next day he read out a policy statement relating to these people. Sir, when the hon. member for Kempton Park (Mr. F. S. Steyn) says that we must not indicate that the Minister is a Trojan Horse in their midst then I want to tell the hon. member for Kempton Park what the hon. the Minister said last year as to what his policy was in this regard. He said (Col. 6422)—

Let me ask the hon. the Minister what influence has he exerted? Is he responsible for the Group Areas Proclamation in Durban, to which the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) referred, where they are cut out of the heart of the city—all those trading sites in which large numbers of Indian merchants live and where they conduct their livelihood. Is that a part of his policy? Sir, the hon. member for Vereeniging has the impertinence to come here and tell us that we only deal and talk with the agitators amongst the Indian people. Let me tell the hon. member that if he wants to know about the Indian people let him come to Natal; we have to work with these people; we have to deal with them; they are a part of us; they are our problem. We are in touch with them every day of our lives.

The Indians are not interested in you. They chucked your laws back in your teeth.

The hon. member for Vereeniging must remember one thing when he talks about Indians having thrown our laws back in our teeth. He must remember that no Indian under the United Party Government was ever deprived of his livelihood. Let me tell the hon. member that one of the ways in which the Indians got around the Pegging Act was to say that their residence was in fact a shop; they put in a couple of bicycles and a couple of spanners and then they said, “These are business premises and you cannot therefore touch them under that legislation.” That is the difference, Sir.

Sir, let me ask the hon. the Minister whether he is exerting his influence in the other Departments of State. What does he say about job reservation? What has he done about those matters referred to by the hon. member for Umbilo? Did he advise that job reservation should be introduced. This is the Minister who talks about setting up industries and who says that industries are necessary. As long ago as August when he arrived in Durban for the Nationalist Party congress, he said that facilities should be provided to Indians to start their own industries and give employment to their own people. Where are these people going to be trained? Has he made any representations in relation to the Apprentice Act as far as Indians are concerned? What is his attitude towards these people? What is his policy relating to the training of artisans? What is his policy relating to job reservation and to the Group areas?

Sir, the hon. member for Umlazi has indicated very clearly that you cannot put these people into another area and pretend that they will be able to trade there as they did in the past. This is one of their traditional means of livelihood. This is something at which they excel and, Sir, if you do not believe me look at all the Nationalists who go and trade with the Indians in Natal, particularly in the northern districts. You can go into their shops at any time and you will see them there. The Indians are extremely good traders, and Nationalists trade with them because they know that they get a good deal there. Sir, what was the hon. member for Bethal-Middelburg trying to imply? He was trying to imply that this should not be their traditional means of livelihood; that they should have some other means of livelihood. What means of livelihood? Will the hon. the Minister tell us that? Sir, while I am on this, the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg (City) said that no other Government had done as much for the Indians as this Government has done. Sir, what this Government has done is to take away from the Indian his ability to help himself. And what is the Minister’s policy in this regard; what is he going to do about this; how is he going to advise the other Departments of State?

Sir, a great deal has been said here about the political rights of the Indians. I think the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) put her finger on the spot while the hon. member for Vereeniging was talking when she said, “Ask them now whether they would like three representatives here.” What prospects have the Indians, except consultation in the first place through this Minister, this Minister who apparently advised the other Departments to apply all those laws which deprive them of their livelihood. What a wonderful means of consultation! At the other end, above us all and in the clouds, there is going to be consultation at a sort of Commonwealth level between the representatives of the Indian people, the representatives of the Coloured people, the representatives of the Bantustans and the White people of South Africa. [Time limit.]

I have seldom listened to a debate on a Vote in which hon. members so often far exceeded the ambit of that Vote, but that is perhaps still understandable.

Is that a reflection on the Chair?

If the hon. member for Durban (Point) (Mr. Raw), who so often gets on to his feet immediately, would listen to what I am saying, he would: not be so quick to make such unsavoury interjections. I said that it was understandable that this happened, because this Department is the Department which acts as the liaison between the Indian community and the other departments, and therefore one can understand it. But there is something else which I cannot understand, and that is the multitude of untruths spoken by hon. members opposite during the short time of this debate, untruths aimed at putting the Indian community up in arms against this Government and this party: untruths aimed at vilifying the good name of South Africa overseas. I am going to mention certain of these untruths here and I want to start with the hon. member for Durban (North) (Mr. M. L. Mitchell), a member who practises law and from whom one can at least expect that he will confine himself to, the truth. What does he insinuate here? He insinuates that this Government by means of the Group Areas Act has cut out from the heart of Durban the area where the Indian community trades, thereby meaning that those Indians who trade in the heart of Durban cannot be there in terms of the Act and therefore have to be removed. Where does he get hold of that? That is the greatest untruth which has ever been told here.

Can they expand?

Of course they can expand. I shall come to that. I shall deal with that matter fully.

Can they expand their present buildings?

The hon. member went further. He asked me what I had done to make the training of apprentices among the Indians possible. There is nothing under the present Act which prevents or prohibits the training of Indian apprentices in South Africa. Any Indian may become an apprentice in any direction; there is nothing to prevent it. When the hon. member participates in debates of this nature, he should at least confine himself to the truth.

But I prefer to try to reply to the various questions asked here in general, instead of replying to every hon. member personally, because they all practically covered the same terrain. I should like to try to deal with the various arguments and the various terrains they covered one by one. I want to begin with the Indian Council. I do not want to refer here to the unsavoury remark made by the hon. member for Umbilo (Mr. Oldfield). I did not expect that of him. I refer to the unsavoury remark he made in regard to the members of the Indian Council as if they just have to agree with the Government because their appointment depends on me. That remark is unworthy of the hon. member. It is unworthy of him to say that about members of the Indian community who, over the years, have done much more for the Indian community than he has ever done for his own community. There are members of that Indian Council who, over a long period of years, did self-sacrificing work without any compensation for their own community, and now the hon. member comes here and insults the members of that Indian Council in that way, where they have not the opportunity to protect themselves. But, apart from that unsavoury remark made by the hon. member. I just want to say this about the future of the Indian Council: Hon. members have asked whether the Indian Council will now forever remain just an advisory body. But hon. members have surely seen reports in the Press of the opening speech I made on that occasion when the Council convened for the first time. Surely they have seen the various statements we have made on different occasions, in which we expressly said what our intention was, and I repeat it. I quote from what I said on 23 March, when I opened the First Session of this Council—

That has repeatedly been said; we have said it ad nauseam, but now hon. members ask the same question again, just to create the impression that this is purely an administrative body which will always remain an administrative body. Their only object in doing so is to sow suspicion in the minds of the Indian community. The policy of the National Party is a clear one, and the attempt of hon. members opposite to sow suspicion in the minds of the Indian community will not succeed. Instead of that, there is a growing goodwill on the part of the Indian community.

The question was further put to me as to what my attitude and that of my Department are in regard to other Departments in connection with decisions they have to take in respect of the Indian community, and various matters were mentioned here. There was reference to job reservation, and what guidance I had given in that regard. But the hon. member for Durban (North) clearly tried to create the impression that it was really I and my Department who advised the Department of Labour how to apply job reservation in respect of the Indians, and that the decision really rested with us and not with them. That hon. member knows that this is not the case. The hon. member should realize that we are acting within the pattern of the Government’s policy. The duty of my Department is to bring the circumstances of the Indian community to the notice of the Department concerned; to advise that Department as to how such a decision or any other decision will affect the Indian community, but the decision taken is the decision of that Department and not of my Department.

In regard to job reservation, my Department requested the Department of Labour to reserve certain of the catering services for Indians because there was an intrusion of Bantu labour in the catering trade, particularly in Natal. At the request of my Department, those services were reserved for Indians in order to protect them from competition by the Bantu. The only section of the catering services which were not reserved for Indians is in the case of barmen. But a very small number of Indians are employed as barmen in Natal. The overwhelming majority of barmen are Whites. Not a single one of the Indians doing that work has been dismissed. They all received exemption. They were expressly granted exemption so that they would not lose their employment. Just as the Indians has to be protected against being ousted by the Bantu, who work for lower wages, from their traditional employment, the Whites in certain respects have to be protected from being ousted by the Indians in certain types of work. One needs that protection for all racial groups. In any case, this is a matter for the Department of Labour. My Department in fact advises them in this regard, but the whole matter in regard to lorry drivers which was raised here has not been decided yet. My Department is going into the whole matter and is still trying to ascertain what the effect of it will be and how the Indians will be affected by it. I have not yet received the report; I am still awaiting it.

Take group areas. Such a great fuss was made about that, as if my Department were directly or indirectly responsible for the demarcation of group areas. Here I have to say very clearly again that although the officials of my Department are consulted in regard to planning, that is merely consultation, just as any other body is consulted, because my Department is not the only body which is consulted; other Departments and bodies are also consulted. The final decision lies with the Department of Community Development. Now hon. members say that as the result of the declaration of group areas we must now offer the Indians an opportunity to make a living. The hon. member for Durban (North) said in his tirade that no Indian was deprived of his livelihood in their time. But he knows just as well as any other member of this House that the Minister of Community Development also stated that he would see to it that no Indian of the present generation would be deprived of his livelihood under the Group Areas Act. In other words, he gave an assurance that this fear which certain hon. members opposite want to instil into the minds of the Indians need not exist at all.

What is the position in Durban? That is the area in regard to which the hon. member for Umbilo, Umlazi (Mr. Lewis) and Durban (North) made such a fuss, as if we had done something terrible there which would so detrimentally affect the Indians that large numbers of them would be deprived of their livelihood. On 4th October 1963 there was a total number of 3,191 Indian traders in Durban. Of this number, 340 were in proclaimed Indian areas. A further 2,057 were within controlled areas. Of these 2,057, 427 were in industrial areas, i.e. areas which are controlled areas because they have been declared industrial areas. The Department of Community Development has given an express undertaking that no single Indian trader will be removed from a proclaimed industrial area and made to settle elsewhere. If he sells his site of his own free will to an industrialist who wants to establish an industry, that is his own affair, but under the Group Areas Act he will not be forced out of that industrial area. The remaining 1,530 who are in controlled areas are in the Grey Street complex. That Grey Street complex was declared as a controlled area with one object only, and that was to control the residential occupation, because one could not allow large-scale residential development for Indians to develop in the middle of Durban. There is a lack of open space; eventually it will just become a slum, something which we cannot afford in this country. Therefore residential occupation in that area must be controlled. That is why that Grey Street area was declared to be a controlled area. The Minister of Community Development clearly stated that that area was being declared as a controlled area in order to retain it as an industrial area for the Indians and to develop it further. That means that only 794 out of a total of 3,191 Indian traders are affected by the demarcation of group areas in Durban—say 800 out of 3,200, or one-quarter. But hon. members, including the hon. member for Umlazi, tried to create the impression that the entire Indian trading community of Durban has been thrown to the wolves. I want to tell him clearly that these figures are authentic. The only number affected are these 794. The rest of the 3,191 are not affected at all by the group areas; they can stay where they are.

Can they stay there forever, and their successors?

They and their successors can always remain there.

That is what we try to ascertain.

That has been stated repeatedly but hon. members opposite and their Press keep quiet about it and hold out a different picture to these people. What about these 794? These 794 traders are the small traders, the man who has a small cafe with a small grocer-shop included in it. One finds them everywhere in the suburban areas. Tremendously large Indian areas are now being developed, like the Chatsworth area and the Chiltern Hill area and other areas where thousands of Indians will be settled in the near future. There will be a tremendously large trading potential. Those 794 Indian traders who at the moment are spread all over the whole of Durban will all—and many more—be taken up in those Indian areas. They will be able to make a decent living there. I want to state here that no Indian trader in the Durban area need have the least fear of what the future holds for him. The agitation in regard to the proclamation of group areas in Durban did not really come from the Indian, who in essence is a trader; it came from the unscrupulous owners of buildings who rent those buildings to the Indians, those unscrupulous people who exploit the Indians by charging them exorbitant rentals, people who not only charge high rentals but also key money and door money, and who exploit the Indian community in all kinds of ways to the utmost. I want to allege that the proclamation of group areas has for the first time given the Durban Indian hope for the future, hope to leave those galvanized iron huts in which they had to live for decades; hope of getting out of the clutches of the unscrupulous bloodsuckers from whom they had to rent a place to live. They will now be placed in circumstances where they will be able in the near future to control their own affairs. The same applies to the traders in the other areas.

In the Johannesburg area there will be certain areas in which the Indian trader can trade. They will not all be in the same area; some of them will have to close down; there will have to be development, but there are certain areas which lend themselves to development, areas where one can place many more Indian traders. In Pretoria there will be an area for Indian traders. Where we have now for the first time obtained the co-operation of the Indian Council in respect of residential segregation, we will, if the Indian community is prepared to co-operate, definitely be conciliatory in regard to permits for trading sites on the platteland. The important thing is not to remove the trading site, but to establish separate residential areas. Therefore hon. members need not make a fuss when my Department lands in trouble because another Department does things which I am then supposed to make excuses for. There is the closest cooperation between the Department of Community Development and my Department. I do not want to allege that I and my Department or the present Minister of Community Development agree 100 per cent with every proclamation of a group area and that we would have done it differently. One becomes wiser as ons makes progress. At this stage one cannot possibly tackle the whole matter ab initio. That would cause uncertainty throughout the country. One must make the best of the circumstances. We must do everything in our power to do the best for all racial groups within the framework of the proclaimed group areas. That is why I and my Department and the Department of Community Development’s resettlement section and the Department of Housing, which is now entrusted with issuing the permits, have appointed an inter-departmental committee to investigate the problems in connection with every case and to advise the Ministers concerned. There is therefore the closest co-operation in this regard.

I want to repeat that where strong methods are adopted, where one eventually has to go to court to get a ejectment order, that is in cases where there is opposition on the part of the Indians and a lack of co-operation. Where there is co-operation on the part of the Indian community, there can also be negotiations, and as the result of such negotiations problems can be solved in a manner which is acceptable to them as well as to the White community. I am convinced of that. In the places where that has happened we have great hopes of success.

Hon. members also asked me what steps we would take in regard to unemployment. Let me immediately say in this regard that some time ago the University of Natal made a survey and found that there were 15,000 unemployed Indians in Durban. Just a short while before the Natal newspapers said that there were 30,000 unemployed Indians. But the Social and Educational Social Research Bureau after a very careful investigation, which covered a much wider field that the survey of the University of Natal, came to the conclusion that in the whole of Natal there were fewer unemployed Indians than the University of Natal had given just for Durban. But the Bureau is still busy further adapting the data it collected. There is, however, one aspect of the matter I want to mention, and that is that many Indians who report themselves as unemployed are not in fact unemployed but only want to do work which in their opinion suits their status. They consider that they ought to be able to have a better job, and therefore they regard the job they have as not being a job at all. Therefore they say they are unemployed. Then it also came to light that particular problems are being experienced in regard to finding employment for Indians. One of the inexplicable things to me in this regard is that one finds the highest percentage of unemployment among the Tamil Indians, that group of Indians which is know right throughout the world as the best workers. In fact, it was for the very reason that they were regarded as such good workers and manual labourers that they were brought here to work in the sugar plantations. To-day, however, they no longer want to do manual labour. The question has arisen in my mind whether a spirit is not developing on their part that certain work should just be done by Bantu, work for which the Indian is too “good”.

That is the case amongst the Whites, too.

Yes, unfortunately the same thing can be said about the White man also. But these are matters which have to be rectified. I believe that every community should provide its quota of workers for this type of work. Why not? No community has in its ranks only the type of person who can do only the highest and most important work. Every group must produce its quota of manual labourers, including the Whites. The fact that this problem arises in regard to the Indians therefore does not mean that Indians should not do pick-and-shovel work. It is work which has to be done, and we must ascertain how it can be done. Therefore the Educational and Social Research Bureau of the Department of Education, Arts and Science is further investigating the question of the labour pattern in Natal, and unemployment and the reasons for it among the Indians. Only when one has all the data in regard to these matters can one go into the matter thoroughly and try to find solutions.

In the meantime, I am convinced that a solution can be found for the presently existing unemployment and the provision of work for the increasing numbers of Indians. At the same time that is also the solution to the other problem, namely that one finds groups of Indians spread all over Natal in places where one cannot provide work for all of them. Therefore we shall have to centralize. We shall have to plan for them on a regional basis. In regard to the question of providing work for the unemployed and the growing number of Indians, the solution lies in the establishment of industries where Indians can be employed. With a view to this, we have had consultations with various Departments, amongst others with the Department of Economic Affairs and the Department of Labour. These discussions took place on the initiative of my Department, with the object of trying to find a solution to this problem and to determine where the Indian can go to establish his industries. The question is whether he should be allowed to go to any place in the industrial areas. That is a question to which a reply has to be found.

Now the Inter-Departmental Committee appointed in this regard has submitted a report which is at present being considered by the Government. This Committee, however, overlooked one important question, a matter which has to be investigated further and to which I am now devoting attention. I am even prepared to assist the Indians to mobilize their capital, even if I have to ask the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs to get the Industrial Development Corporation to help to mobilize the capital of the Indians in order to establish industries. But I am not prepared to do these things for them and thereby to create opportunities for them to establish industries manned by Bantu. That I do not want. What I am prepared to do is to assist them to mobilize their capital for the establishment of industries to provide work for their own people. The question is still how this can best be done, and it is this matter which is still being investigated at the moment. That is the only way in which we can mobilize the capital of the Indians and create possibilities for them to earn a livelihood, namely that they should offer, opportunities for employment to all levels of their particular community.

But that is not the only thing my Department is doing. The impression has been created by hon. members opposite that my Department really has no right to exist and should therefore not be there at all. But let me point to one other important task which was tackled during the past year, namely the question of welfare services among the Indian community. As from 1 April this year for the first time homes for the aged are being subsidized. For the erection of buildings they receive from their housing funds an economic subsidy of R660 per bed, and a sub-economic subsidy of R600 per bed. The purchase of existing buildings is being subsidized on a rand-for-rand basis. For equipment and furniture they get 75 per cent of the cost up to a maximum of R60 per inmate. Then there is the Aryan Benevolent Home in Durban, which over the years has done much for the aged Indian. This institution has received a special donation of R3,000 this year. That was done with the object of assisting that institution to provide better facilities. Then we are also investigating the establishment of a trade school. We are also investigating the establishment of a reformatory. We are also investigating the establishment of a place of safety for children who are in need. We are also carefully investigating the desirability of establishing a communal farm for the rehabilitation of Indians who are only partially physically fit.

Hon. members will therefore see that we are busy with various planning projects. I can mention even more, but those I mentioned are sufficient to serve as an example of what we are busy doing.

Lastly, I want to refer to the question of Indian education which has already been mentioned by the hon. member for Umlazi. He said that a member of the Executive Committee in Natal, Mr. Wilkes, took strong exception to the fact that I was now going to take over Indian education without consulting the Provincial Administration in that regard. Where do the hon. member and Mr. Wilkes get the idea from that I am going to take over Indian education? All that happened—and the hon. member and Mr. Wilkes both know it—is that I appointed an official with instructions to investigate all the implications of such taking over of Indian education and to report to me so that I would be able to decide what course to adopt. If I think it is advisable to take over Indian education, there will of course be consultation. The official whom I appointed has already had consultations with the Natal Provincial Administration. I want to state clearly that I was requested by the Provincial Administration of the Transvaal to take over Indian education. The Transvaal Indian Teachers’ Association also requested me to do so. That is why I am having this investigation made, an investigation which must give an indication as to whether Indian education as a whole should be taken over, or whatever seems best to do. Before one takes a decision in this regard one surely has to know what the financial implications of taking it over will be. One must also know whether the Central Government will be better able to bear those financial obligations than the provinces.

We must remember that in Natal, where the majority of the Indians live, the population ratio is one White to every eight non-Whites, as compared with the ratio of one to four in the rest of the Republic. It is the Whites who pay the greater proportion of the taxation. Because the provinces are only paid a subsidy in respect of Indian education, the Whites of Natal have to bear an unjustifiable burden, more than the White taxpayers elsewhere in the country have to bear in respect of Indian education. The result is that the position of the Indian in Natal has suffered. I can say that without fear of contradiction. Let me mention two things in this regard. In Natal White and Coloured children receive books gratis up to Std. 6, while the Indian child receives no books gratis. Is it fair to discriminate against the Indian child in that way? I do not think it is fair. I say that the Indian and the Coloured child should at least be treated on the same basis. Therefore the matter has to be investigated to see what the implications are. Another aspect is that the salaries of Indian teachers are less favourable than those of Coloured teachers. That is not fair either.

You must be fair and admit that the salaries of Coloured teachers have recently been increased.

Natal has in the meantime had the opportunity of adapting the salaries of Indian teachers also, but it has not done so yet, and I do not blame them for it either. I am actually arguing that Natal cannot afford to be responsible for Indian education unless the Government pays it a larger subsidy. It already receives an additional subsidy and it will have to receive an even greater subsidy, and if one subsidizes one must keep control.

But there is still another matter. I do not think that the Indians themselves are being fairly treated in regard to the control of Indian education. There are eminent educationists among the Indians in Natal, but hon. members cannot point out a single technical committee to me in which the Indians have any say. They have no say in regard to the curricula followed in their own schools, and I think it is desirable that they should have a say in it.

Why do the Indian teachers not want it to be taken over?

The hon. member should not say that they are all opposed to it. Those who are opposed to it do so because they have heard that hon. member talking about the inferior education which this Government will give them, and because they read it in the newspapers supporting that hon. member. That is the very reason why I had this investigation made, because I wanted to be sure that if we took it over there would be no lowering of standards. Therefore we have to investigate whether there is the possibility of getting an existing examining and certifying institution to do the examining and certification; because I know that if we were to decide to take over Indian education, and we also decided to examine and to certificate, the cry will immediately go up that it is inferior education which is being given to the Indian, and I want to avoid that. Therefore I am investigating whether it is possible that an existing body, perhaps the Natal Provincial Administration, can continue to do the examining and certifying as our agent. All these things have to be investigated before one can come to a decision. But what I do believe is necessary is that all education for the Indian, from the bottom to the top, from the sub-standards to the university in the academic direction and in the vocational training and technical directions, should be under a single control, because I think that for a community like the Indians, which consists of only half a million people, one cannot afford to have separate institutions for separate directions of study. Therefore one must think more along the lines of comprehensive schools, and one can only do that if the control over that education is in the hands of the same body. At the moment it is not. Technical education already falls under me, and also the University College for Indians, but academic education falls under the province, and the training of teachers, which should really be linked up with university training, falls under the province, and that is wrong. The people who suffer as the result are the Indians. I do not think the prestige of either Natal or of the Government is at stake here, but what is at stake is what is the correct thing to do in the interests of the Indians themselves. That is why I am having these matters carefully investigated, and I am also having consultations with the Indian community. For these reasons I cannot say now whether we will take over Indian education. I do not know. I am awaiting the report, and only when I have received it can I begin to negotiate with the relevant provincial and other bodies on the basis of that report.

Then you must tell your man not to make statements that it will be taken over.

What is the hon. member referring to now?

If that is so, why does the man who is instituting the investigation make a statement like the following: “tells the Natal Indian Teachers’ Society that he would approach the Minister of Indian Affairs to apply any new Coloured scales to Indian teachers without waiting until the Department of Indian Affairs has assumed responsibility for Indian Education”. And then again: “He could only do this, however, if the scales for Coloured teachers were raised after the Government had decided to take over Indian education, but before the transfer was accomplished.”

The hon. member has now read from a report which appeared in a newspaper. It is quite clear that what happened is that the Natal Teachers’ Association invited the official concerned to address them and to give them information. They put certain questions to him as to what would happen if it were decided to take over Indian education, and it should be read in that context. He did not tell them that it was going to be taken over. He said what could be done and what the implications should be—things he had already discussed with me—if it was decided to take over. If they give an incomplete report of it in the newspapers, neither he nor I are responsible for it. But I want to ask hon. members that in regard to Indian education we should not think of the interests of the Provincial Council of Natal or those of the Government, or the interests of any political party: we do not want to make any political capital out of it, and I am sure hon. members opposite do not want to do so either. We must deal with the matter, after it has been properly investigated, in the light of what is in the interests of the development of the Indian community. I hope hon. members will assist me by not clouding the issue in the meanwhile by giving the Indians all kinds of misconceptions, whereas no decision has yet been taken in regard to the matter.

Vote put and agreed to.

On Revenue Vote No. 37—“Agricultural Economics and Marketing (Administration)”,—R1,696,000,

Usually when a man betrays himself it makes one feel sad, but to-day I find it very pleasant to say that I am glad because of the fact that the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Economics and Marketing has betrayed himself. I say that with reference to a speech which the hon. the Minister made a few months ago when he expressed doubt as to whether an increase in agricultural prices would really benefit the farmers of South Africa. A few months ago the Minister said he thought that increased prices, and even stable prices for the farmers, were not always good for them. But this year the Minister saw fit to increase the prices of certain agricultural products somewhat. He particularly granted relief in respect of the wheat season which will start one of these days, and it was an appreciable amount, and the same applies to the maize farmers for the coming season. He also saw fit to improve the prices of butter and milk a little. Therefore, whereas generally it makes one sad if a man betrays himself, in this case it gives me great pleasure, because that is what we have been advocating in this House for a long time already. We wanted to know whether the Minister was standing by the farmer or not. Now it seems to me as if the Minister has turned over a new leaf and thinks that when it is necessary to increase the prices of agricultural products, he will be prepared to do so.

But we on this side are also concerned, and have repeatedly told him, that the farmer of South Africa does not want an improvement in his prices at the expense of the consumers in this country. In the final result the consumer is the man who has to buy those products and we do not expect the goose that lays the golden eggs to be slain. Over the year a system has been evolved according to which a decent price is fixed for agricultural products, which at the same time ensures that the consumers do not pay too much. We feel that the Minister should devote even more attention to this system, because the agricultural production is increasing every year. I need not quote figures to prove that. As the result of improved agricultural methods and greater efficiency, agricultural production is increasing every year. But now we have the fact that consumption does not keep pace with the increased production.

That is a world phenomenon.

Therefore, if there is not enough consumption, we have surpluses. There is only one way of remedying the position and that is that the Department and the Government as such should take steps to ensure that there is at least a good market for the farmer’s products; in other words, that the public has the purchasing power. In the days that lie ahead, when we will have greater surpluses and there is not enough purchasing Dower, the State has only one duty and that is to ensure by way of sufficient subsidies that the farmer’s products can be sold. Now we say that we are doing enough in South Africa in that regard. The Minister said in the Other Place that enough is being done in the way of subsidizing agricultural products, and he boasted that we in South Africa, are spending about R30,000,000 a year on subsidies. In addition to that, there are of course also certain other indirect subsidies, but if we compare our position with that of many other countries of the world, then we on this side of the House are convinced that we do not do enough in that respect. We ought to have a system in terms of which it will not be necessary at all for the farmer to be satisfied with fluctuating prices from year to year, because on the present basis in terms of which the farmer receives a high price for his product from time to time and then a year or two later he has to be satisfied with an appreciable reduction, no farmer can plan. Unless there is stabilization of the producer’s price, unless the farmer can be assured of a decent price, he simply cannot plan for the future.

Does that apply to all products?

It applies to all the main commodities which to-day we control in terms of the Marketing Act.

Mention them.

We can evolve a method according to which the farmer will be assured of a decent price for his product, while at the same time we can ensure that the consumer does not pay through the nose for that product.

That immediately brings me to the next point, and that is the question of our agricultural industry as such. We have repeatedly been told that if there is one thing which causes the farmer much trouble, it is the question of credit. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (West) (Mr. Streicher), who has just resumed his seat, expressed his joy because the Minister has now changed his standpoint or has become converted. I in my turn want to express my joy because the hon. member has now come to realize that improved agricultural methods have in fact been applied in South Africa, which gave the farmer the chance to produce more than before. Over the years, ever since that hon. member has been sitting in this House, he has always just told us that the farmers have not improved their production—it is no use shaking his head now—and to-night for the first time he agreed with us that the farmers have in fact increased their production.

The hon. member further stated that the farmer does not want increased prices at the cost of the consumer. He should not shake his head now; those are the words he used. He says that the Government should subsidize the prices of all commodities in order to keep the price low for the consumer. Sir, this is now the first time that we hear that the policy of the United Party is that the farmer should receive a fixed price, an economic price under all circumstances, irrespective of the price he paid for his land, irrespective of what his labour costs and his interest may be, but at the same time the consumer must be enabled to buy agricultural products cheaply or, to use the hon. member’s own words, “without the consumer having to pay through the nose for that product”. I do not really know what precisely the hon. member means to convey by that term, because it is a very relative term. As I said, this is now the first statement we get here in connection with the United Party’s policy of agriculture. In other words, the farmer must produce on a basis of subsidization; the taxpayer has to pay for those subsidies and the consumer must be enabled to buy agricultural products cheaply.

You know yourself that subsidies are paid on certain commodities only.

I asked the hon. member a moment ago by way of interjection whether it applied to all commodities, and his reply was: “All commodities”. [Interjection.] Sir, the hon. member has ten minutes and I hope you will give him another ten minutes, because he is making very important statements here which we would like to analyze. But the statement he made a moment ago is that the farmer should receive a remunerative price for his product and that the consumer should be able to buy that product at a reasonable price, “without having to pay through the nose for it”, and for the rest the State must subsidize. Is that correct; was that the hon. member’s statement? Sir, that reminds me of the attacks we had here recently in regard to the milk prices. In that regard the hon. member of course faithfully followed his Press, on which he is dependent for his seat in this House, because if that Press turns against him he will not be elected again. In fact, I do not believe he has the right to be here, but that is not relevant now. The hon. member noticed that a tremendous agitation was set afoot in the Press because the consumer now has to pay a little more for his milk, butter and cheese, and now the United Party has come along with this bright new idea that the State should subsidize agricultural prices. But now I want to put this question to the hon. member: If it is his policy that agriculture in South Africa should be kept going on the basis of subsidization, that farming should be made remunerative by the payment of subsidies, how far does the hon. member want to take that idea in so far as it affects our industries and other facets of our economy? Yes, now the hon. member is getting a big fright.

I have nothing against it. We protect our industries in a different way.

Oh, now industries must also be subsidized! That is the standpoint the hon. member now evidently adopts. [Interjection.] If the United Party is now going to adopt the policy that any person in South Africa can do just what he likes and if that industry is remunerative, good and well, then it can stand on its own legs and produce, but if it is not economic then it is the duty of the State to subsidize that industry—that is now the policy which the first speaker of the United Party stated here to-night. Does the hon. member realize what the implications of such a policy are? He now shakes his head; I agree with him; he does not realize the implications of what he said here. No, there is no industry which one can keep going by means of State subsidies in South Africa or in fact anywhere in the world. One can help an industry through difficult times by way of State subsidies, as is in fact done in South Africa. That does not apply to agriculture only. One can assist it to bridge difficult times.

Your bridge sags in the middle.

The hon. member says the bridge sags in the middle. I am very glad the hon. member now realizes that his bridge sags. Let me put this question to the hon. member: Supposing one has to subsidize the mealie industry for ever …

Seventy million bags.

Somebody mentions 70.000,000 bags, but I do not think that 70.000,000 bags is the peak of our production in South Africa. I believe that we will be able to produce much more than 70,000,000 bags. Supposing we produce more than 70,000,000 bags.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member should not become difficult now; he has had his chance to talk. He made a fool of himself for ten minutes. [Interjection.]

Order! Hon. members must give the hon. member an opportunity to continue with his speech.

I would give them an opportunity to ask questions if only they would not all speak at the same time, but it is very difficult to react to so many questions which are put simultaneously. The hon. member has just made the statement that the State should subsidize agricultural prices, but supposing our production exceeds 70,000,000 bags and that the price of maize overseas falls to a level far below the price in South Africa, and supposing that our consumption in South Africa remains constant, or even that we increase it a little by means of State subsidies …

House Resumed:

Progress reported.