I move—

I have great pleasure in introducing this measure in the House to-day because I regard this measure as a very important step for the promotion of the social progress of the Coloureds.

Available information indicates that there is to a large extent a lack of purposefulness on the part of young Coloured adults. Experience has proved, however, that existing legislation is not adequate to meet this situation. It is regarded as a matter of urgent necessity to take action against those who are not necessarily guilty of disorderly or criminal conduct, with the very object of preventing them from lapsing into juvenile delinquency and clashing with the law at a later stage. The factors that contribute towards the lack of purposefulness are mainly deficient education and disciplining of children by parents, misdirected leisure time, etc. There are many parents from all levels of society who do not perform their duties as parents properly, and this is to be ascribed in particular to a spirit of indifference towards the children, but to some extent also to ignorance and other circumstances beyond their control. Nowadays parents are no longer concerned about the whereabouts of their children, what they do outside the house, what time they come home at night, and with whom they associate. Even if pathological symptoms in the behaviour of children are brought to the attention of parents, it frequently comes up against a spirit of total indifference. Many parents regard deviate behaviour as something peculiar to modern youth and modern society.

Apart from this spirit of cold indifference some parents harm their children through their own irresponsible behaviour. Many parents are chronically absent from home and are continually in pursuit of some form or other of pleasure. Many are guilty of excessive use of alcohol and lead an unstable moral life; others show no respect for institutions such as the church and the school. Idleness was ever the parent of vice. There are considerable numbers of youths who are badly equipped as far as education is concerned, who display no inherent urge to improve their own position and who frequently even fail to realize what meagre prospects they have. They are usually unwilling to venture into fields of healthy and constructive youth activities where spiritual, mental and physical attributes are regarded as virtues and achievements. Because they realize their inadequacy and do not feel competent to participate in that field, much less to excel, they seek some other form of cheap and frequently noisy entertainment among their peers. These activities frequently culminate in objectionable and criminal behaviour. If such youths, who are sometimes obviously on the downgrade, can be forced timeously into healthy training and pastimes under supervision in centres, it may contribute towards making them regain their confidence and stop shirking the demands made on them in an orderly community. Because voluntary attendance at such centres is most improbable, compulsory measures have to be taken by legislation to ensure attendance.

As you may recall, the position regarding the young White adults in the Republic was also giving rise to great concern some years ago, and lack of discipline was rife among them. It was known as the ducktail problem and assumed such proportions that an interdepartmental committee was established in 1958 to inquire into the question and to submit proposals for its solution. The committee found that the phenomenon of juvenile degeneration and juvenile misconduct did call for legislation, not by way of “new legislation”, but through amplifying or augmenting the existing relevant laws. Since the committee completed its task, the Work Colonies Act, 1949, has been substituted by the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act, 1963, and the Children’s Act, 1937, by the Children’s Act, 1960.

Despite the revision of the above-mentioned Acts and also the existence of statutory measures for the control and regulation of youths who are no longer availing themselves of higher education, there is ample reason to believe that the phenomenon of a lack of purposefulness is still present to a large extent in the ranks of the Coloured youth.

If school-leaving can be succeeded by employment the problem will certainly be solved to some extent, but from a survey made of a Coloured community in the Western Cape it appeared that 20 per cent of the economically active population was unemployed at the time of the survey. That was in accordance with the 1960 census. Further analysis revealed, however, that more than half of those who were unemployed were youths under 20 years of age, that more than half of them had never worked before, and that only a very small percentage were registered as unemployed with the labour bureau.

As far as the Whites are concerned, military service was expanded, which had a most salubrious effect on the problem, because it has been possible to draw in much larger numbers of the young White adults. Something similar is now envisaged for the young Coloured adults in order to lend some direction to their lives and to train them for some kind of work.

It may be mentioned here that representations calling for action have been received from both Whites and Coloureds. Thus, for example, the Education Council for Coloureds, which consists exclusively of Coloureds, adopted a resolution reading as follows (translation)—

Mr. Tom Swartz, chairman of the Coloured Affairs Council, had the following to say about the problem on the occasion of the twentieth session of the Council on 29th September, 1964—

The Bill before you to-day was then submitted to the Executive Committee of the Coloured Council on 19th August, 1966, and was accepted unanimously by that committee. The chairman, Mr. Swartz, then stated that it was something positive, that they had made representations for it, that the brown people were all in favour of it, and that the Whites would also welcome the measure.

Now as far as the objective of this measure is concerned, I want to state briefly that the Bill purports to meet the statutory deficiencies and to canalize and control young Coloured adults on a large scale. The major objects of the Bill are firstly to compel all Coloured males between 18 and 24 years of age, called recruits, to register for training. This age group was resolved on because statistics indicate that most of the persons in need of training fall in this group. Furthermore, the Children’s Act, 1960, youth camps, attendance centres, etc., provide for children under 18 years of age, and when necessary action can be taken against persons at 25 years in terms of the Retreats and Rehabilitation Centres Act of 1963 and the Criminal Procedure Act, 1955, etc.

With regard to selection and registration I should like to say the following. Registration is introduced in order to call up recruits for training for a period of one year, which in individual cases may be extended by a further year in certain circumstances, at a centre where they will make their powers and abilities available for the promotion of national interests. I want to remind you that this concept is already embodied in the Defence Act of 1957, by which every white citizen is required to devote himself to training for a year. It is estimated that the first registration will draw in approximately 90,000 persons, and after that approximately 20,000 a year. It goes without saying that it will not be possible to provide training for all 90,000 persons who will register initially, and a selection system will therefore be applied by a selection board. As it is intended to make undisciplined and aimless persons undergo training first of all, exemption will be granted readily to those who can prove that they are still studying or are performing productive service. Selected persons who have been called up, called cadets, will be placed in training centres where a programme will be offered which will be concomitant with their aptitudes, educational qualifications, physical condition and customs, and which will be adapted to their abilities and needs.

A differentiated system of training centres is contemplated. Two State centres will be commenced with, one of which will be a reception centre and will have room for approximately 250 cadets. Here they will stay for three months and be taught elementary parade work, etc., and will undergo aptitude tests and receive occupational guidance. Upon the expiration of this period they will be classified with the aids of authorities, according to aptitude, abilities, interests, etc. Those who are regarded as suitable for training as mechanics, for example, will be apprenticed to private garages in consultation with the Department of Labour. Cadets who cannot be classified as suitable for training in a craft or scholastic field, however, will go to a training centre where they will perform some form of useful labour, for example by providing assistance on localized tasks such as irrigation works, soil reclamation, tree planting, construction works, etc.

Because 250 cadets will leave the reception centre every three months, it means that it will be possible to accept a thousand cadets a year. The centre for the second stage of training will therefore be established to accommodate approximately 750 cadets. The expansion of the proposed scheme will be dependent, of course, upon available funds, accommodation, staff, etc. Cadets who are placed in employment with a view to training in the private sector but who fail to perform their duties or to make satisfactory progress, will have to go back to the State-controlled training centre.

Now as regards penalties, the Bill provides for fairly severe penalties for failure to register, failure to report for training when called up, failure to give notification of a change of address, etc. These penalties are necessary to prevent evasion of the provisions of the proposed legislation, particularly by the aimless persons who are in fact the ones that should be drawn in. The fact that the Act will make it easy to bring a person who has failed to register before the court and to make him register for training, should have a most salubrious effect on aimless persons. Regular raids and large-scale prosecutions are not envisaged, however. I shall come back to this aspect in a moment.

It will be appreciated that the Bill holds considerable financial implications. It is estimated that the capital expenditure involved in the establishment of the proposed first two centres, i.e. the initial centre for 250 cadets and the following-up centre for 750 cadets, will amount to approximately R1 million, while the annual recurrent expenditure in respect of salaries for staff, clothing, footwear, commodities and maintenance, particularly at institutions, will amount to approximately R380,000. It is more advantageous, however, to spend funds on the rehabilitation of the group of young Coloured adults concerned and to make useful citizens of them rather than to allow them to lapse into crime first and then to spend large amounts on keeping them in gaol, where they are lost to society. If it is succeeded by way of the proposed legislation to encourage a few hundred young Coloured men every year to achieve greater responsibility and industry, it will make a basic and positive contribution to the elimination of many future social and economic problems.

In view of the fact, therefore, that social elevation is the main object of this measure, it is to be deplored that certain parties have endeavoured in recent times to bring the measure into disrepute.

Blaar.

I cannot refrain from mentioning certain English-language newspapers which even described it as a system of forced labour, a description which is not only completely and utterly false, but which is also aimed at discrediting this social aid with the Coloured population in advance.

It is Blaar.

One wonders what such critics have in view with such derogatory comments. Must any measure taken by the National Party Government in the interests of the Coloured population, no matter how well-intended, always be represented as a negative step? I cannot but wonder whom such critics seek to influence by such discrediting comments, and with what object. Let me therefore say unequivocally that persons who brand these training centres as forced labour camps are not only guilty of a scandalous misrepresentation, but are also doing the Coloured population and South Africa a disservice. [Interjections.] Apart from the criticism I have just referred to, I also want to refer to a petition drawn up by a number of Coloured leaders and brought to my attention by the Coloured representatives.

In this petition certain misgivings about this measure are expressed. Thus the registration of all Coloured men between 18 and 25 years of age is objected to. It is pleaded that it is actually only the skollie element which should be consigned to these centres. I cannot refrain from expressing my disappointment with this attitude. Should not any nation accept responsibility for the behaviour of all its people? Should not the good citizens of any nation help to elevate the less good ones? Surely no nation can simply seek to transfer such a fundamental responsibility, the elevation of its less good ones, to the State. But apart from this fundamental point, the plea that only a certain type of Coloured should be registered raised the question: How are those who need training most to be identified unless everybody is registered? Surely a general registration in conjunction with the selection board system is the only practical way to sort out the bona fide students, pupils, workers and workseekers, and to exempt them from training.

Another misgiving which has been expressed is the fear that there will be injudicious prosecutions. In this regard I want to point out to the House that we have for years had similar measures in that the White youth is under an obligation to register for military service and to be prepared at all times to produce proof of registration upon demand. To my knowledge no large-scale raids or prosecutions have been carried out in this regard. I want to give the House the assurance that in this case, too, it is not the intention to employ raids, general interrogation in the streets and large-scale prosecutions. Selection will be carried out on a meticulous basis and will be applied only to those for whom the measures may be of positive value. It is by no means intended to force cadets into certain fields of employment. After basic training the cadets will receive differentiated treatment and will be placed in a field of employment according to their choice, or enjoy further training according to their intellectual abilities, skills and aptitudes. The Coloured need not feel concerned about a possible stigma that may attach to the training centres. The reputation of an institution depends on the character it displays to the outside and on what it achieves. Thus any organization may destroy or enhance its own reputation regardless of its initial constitution. My own attitude is that the last thing that may happen is that these centres should be known as camps for loafers or skollies. For the sake of the part the centres should play in developing pride on the part of the Coloureds, I shall do my share to see to it that they will not be known as such. It is my sincere wish that the training centres to be established will serve to stimulate the Coloureds’ pride in their own abilities. And in view of the fact that labour will play an important part in this training, it must surely be received in an appreciative spirit, because no people can have self-esteem and pride unless they are proud of labour. The training centre will therefore be able to build up a reputation on the basis of the quality of the cadet it sends out into society.

I am therefore introducing this measure in the hope that it will help the Coloured population and the country to build up an industrious and proud nation. I have no doubt that, as in the case of other elevating measures taken in this House in past years, in respect of which we had to hear many unfounded fears, this measure, once it has been put into operation and has shown its salubrious effect, will enjoy the same appreciation as those measures, which met with such treatment in the past, are now enjoying. In the conviction that the training centres to be established will within the foreseeable future be regarded with esteem and pride by the Coloured population and by the country as a whole, I now move the Second Reading.

Before the hon. the Minister sits down, could he tell us where the receiving depots are to be? Is he in a position to tell us?

They will be erected in the Cape Peninsula area.

Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which gives the Minister fairly wide powers, powers which have to do with the freedom and the rights of people, and these are things which we should at all times value and guard, to ensure that they may not be misused. I take it, however, that it is the intention of the Minister to use this Bill to train certain people to be better citizens. As stated by him, we accept that there are a large number of Coloured people who are to-day not good citizens. I do not want to use bad terms in regard to these people, but there are many of them who are not good citizens to-day. I think it will be in the interests of those people that they should be put into training camps and trained properly. Therefore, in those circumstances their rights and freedom may have to be curtailed. We accept that. If this Bill is, as I understand it, one which has as its object to train the Coloured people to become better citizens and better individuals for their own sakes, this Bill will have the support of this side of the House. To give this side an opportunity to consider the Bill further, I move—

Agreed to.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first opportunity which is available, and before the hon. the Minister moves the Second Reading of this Bill, I wish to raise a point of order. The point of order I wish to raise is: “Whether, in view of the provisions of section 114 (b) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 1961, and in the absence of appropriate petitions from the provincial councils of the Republic, it is competent for this House to consider the National Education Policy Bill, or, alternatively, whether the Bill is not irregularly before the House, and whether the Bill may be further proceeded with in this House.”

The validity of this point of order rests upon a true construction of section 84 (1) (c), section 114 (b), and section 59 (1) of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, read with the provisions of the National Education Policy Bill. The relevant part of section 114 provides that Parliament shall not abolish any provincial council or abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under section 84, except by petition to Parliament by the provincial council concerned. The relevant part of section 84 reads as follows—

All the authorities which are set out in the case of Harris and Others against the Minister of the Interior and Another, to be found in South African Law Reports, 1952 (2), at page 428, agree that in construing a constitutional document, such as you are here called upon to do, Mr. Speaker, it is proper to take cognizance of the historical events that preceded and led up to its passing. In that regard, of course the records of this House will be of assistance.

I submit that it is important to look at the history of section 114. It was the old section 149 of the South Africa Act. As it was passed in 1910, it provided simply that Parliament may alter the boundaries of any province, divide a province into two or more provinces or form a new province out of provinces within the Union on the petition of the provincial council for every province whose boundaries are affected thereby. Sir, you will note that there is no mention whatever in that original section of the powers of provincial councils. Provincial powers were not dealt with in the original Act in that section. They were dealt with in section 64 which, you will recall, Sir, dealt with the power of the Governor-General. It was mandatory that the Governor-General, in relation to all Bills abolishing provincial councils or abridging the powers conferred upon them under section 85—which is now section 84—had to reserve them for the signification of the King’s pleasure, in other words, for the decision of the King of Great Britain as advised by his Ministers in Great Britain. After the passing of the Statute of Westminster had conferred sovereignty on our own Parliament, it became necessary for us in 1934 to pass the Status of the Union Act.

The provisions relating to the reservation of Bills for the signification of the King’s pleasure (which included Bills relating to the provincial powers) were obviously not in accordance with our new status and had to be repealed. They were in fact repealed by the Status Act. When the Status Act was before this House, the Minister in charge of the Bill, the hon. Oswald Pirow, K.C., then the Minister of Transport, and a most eminent lawyer at the time, in columns 1868-9 of Hansard of 28th March, 1934, said in relation to the abolition of section 64 by the Status Act—

That was the opinion at that time. He went on—

Mr. Speaker, in my submission it is very significant that what the hon. the Minister was saying at that time, and this was the intention of that legislation, was that he would like to have given it exactly the same status as an entrenched clause, as our language rights are now entrenched in sections 108 and 118. That is what he would have liked to have done but the feeling was then that this was not a good or effective safeguard, as was decided at one time by the Appellate Division in the Ndlwana v. Hofmeyr case. The significant thing is that what he wanted to give was something of more effect, to make it more of a safeguard and to entrench it even more than the entrenched clauses relating to the language rights. Section 149 was not so entrenched and section 114 in our present Constitution Act is not so entrenched as the language rights, simply because it was considered that this was a better protection and was intended to have all the effect, if not more effect, than the entrenchment of the language clause.

Do you believe that?

Yes, of course I believe that. I can only look at the intention of that Act. The Minister introducing that Act, the hon. Oswald Pirow, as the hon. the Prime Minister will concede, was an eminent lawyer. That was his intention and that of the Legislature and that was what was done. In accordance with that intention as declared when the Status Act was debated, the South Africa Act Amendment Act of 1934 was passed which provided for a new section 149 which is of course the present section 114. When this Act was before Parliament, the same Minister was in charge. In Hansard (Col. 4145 of the 24th May, 1934) he said in introducing the Bill:

That was the intention of Parliament.

You read the whole speech.

Yes, I read the whole speech except the part in which he states that the end of the session was drawing near and he hoped that the Bill would be passed fairly quickly which I do not feel is relevant to the argument. That was the intention and the section was passed in the form in which it now stands. Section 149 remained unaltered until the Republic was born and was then reenacted word for word together with the relevant provisions of the section dealing with provincial rights. That is the position in which we are to-day. My submission is that Parliament both in 1934 (I think that is fairly clear from what I have just dealt with) and in 1961 intended that no future Parliament should abridge the powers of provincial councils or a single provincial council except upon a petition from the provincial council concerned, until and unless section 114 was repealed by this Parliament. [Interjection.] Mr. Speaker, to the hon. member who says “Ah” I ask why otherwise was it that this Parliament re-enacted in 1961 as part of our Constitution and as part of the document which dealt with our Parliament and its powers, section 114 in our Constitution. I may say that the rights referred to in section 114 in 1961 were the rights contained in section 84 in 1961, which section was specifically referred to, and the rights there were the rights which provincial councils exercised when we became a republic, and it indubitably included the right to determine policy so far as education in our schools up to standard ten was concerned.

I submit, Sir, that it is incontestable that, firstly, this Bill abridges the right of provincial councils to legislate upon policy matters relating to education, a right which, I say, is the most important of the remaining rights of the provinces, and secondly, that there has been no petition addressed to this Parliament from any provincial council—to my knowledge certainly not from Natal. Ex facie this Bill, that is the position—ex facie the Bill there has been no petition; otherwise it would have been referred to in a preamble. In fact, one can go further, as far as Natal is concerned, and say that the body representing the majority of the provincial council in the council has in fact totally rejected this Bill.

I wish at this stage to state that it is not part of my argument and should form no part— with respect—of your ruling that the question of the sovereignty of Parliament is affected. In my submission the question of the sovereignty of Parliament does not arise at all in a consideration of this point of order. It is merely a question of how Parliament exercises its sovereignty, through what procedures it must work, and in what manner must it act in exercising its powers.

To determine such a matter one must look at the Republic Constitution Act. It is the fons et origo of Parliament itself: without it there would be no Parliament, there would be no House of Assembly, there would be no Senate, and there would be no courts. So, Sir, one has to look at this document, the Constitution, as a whole. As authority for this proposition I should like to quote His Lordship the late Mr. Justice Van Den Heever in the Appellate Division in the High Court of Parliament case where he said—

If one substitutes for the South Africa Act the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act then that, too, is the position. If then Parliament has no powers other than those enumerated in the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act it must act in accordance with that Act. It has no other powers. It cannot act, in other words, otherwise than in accordance with the document that created it and that gives it its powers. If Parliament cannot, a fortiori this House cannot do so either. I think that the case of Stockdale v. Hansard has put that beyond doubt.

Having regard to such a history, this Parliament in 1961 passed as part of one document, namely our Constitution, section 84 (1) (c) and in the same document section 114. If one reads section 84 (1) (c) it does say that provincial councils may make ordinances in relation to matters coming within the following classes of subjects, namely—

I repeat, Sir: until Parliament otherwise provides. What one has then to determine is how did this Constitution determine that Parliament should or could “otherwise provide”, as is provided for in section 84. This is the question. One has to determine how Parliament otherwise provides in relation to education. To do so, one has to look at section 114, not only because section 84 begins with the words, “Subject to the provisions of this Act …”, which means the relevant provisions (and it means certainly section 114) but also because both sections are part of the one document. One cannot look at one part of a document unrelated to another part of the document. This is a fundamental canon of the construction of any document, and certainly of any statute, and most certainly of this particular statute. The whole document was the solemn pact, not only one or two sections of it.

Also in this regard, Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to the fact that section 114 specifically refers to section 84, and where it says in subsection (1) (c), “until Parliament otherwise provides …”, one must have regard to section 114 which specifically refers to that section, and there is a cross-reference as to what Parliament is and as to how Parliament shall act.

So, Sir, in my submission, section 114 provides how Parliament shall deal with the powers conferred upon provincial councils by section 84. I draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that the language employed here is peremptory, because it says in section 114 that Parliament “shall not … abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under section 84 except by petition to Parliament …” I repeat, Sir: “Parliament shall not …” My submission is that the intention could not be clearer.

The only other provision to be looked at in this regard is section 59 (1) upon which similar rulings have been founded in the past, and that provides that Parliament is the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic and shall have full powers to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic. In my submission, though, this does not help one at all, because the same Constitution provides how such power shall be exercised. So it does not help one to know that Parliament is the sovereign legislative authority. We know that and we accept that. But that sovereign legislative authority, so says the instrument which creates that Parliament, must act in a certain way in respect of certain matters. In relation to the matters referred to in section 84, only on a petition from the provincial council whose powers are to be affected can that Parliament act. The existence of section 114, which has been the argument before, does not detract from the sovereignty of Parliament. It does not, as was suggested by the President of the Other Place in a ruling on a similar matter in 1962, detract from the discretion of Parliament in all matters. It merely lays down the procedure which must be followed for the time being—and I emphasize the words “for the time being”—by Parliament in relation to matters set out in section 84. In proof of this there is the fact that Parliament may by a simple majority at any time it pleases repeal section 114 but, Sir, until and unless it does so, it remains the procedure in these matters; it remains binding; it affects the procedure by which Parliament may act in relation to these matters. Sir, all sovereign legislatures have a machinery through which they operate; a machinery through which the operation of the supreme will is in fact projected.

With submission, Sir, one must not allow oneself to be misled by the British example. The British Constitution is one without parallel in this world, and all the wonderful things that have been said about the sovereignty of the Parliament of Great Britain do not necessarily apply here. In fact, here again, His Lordship, the late Mr. Justice Van den Heever, put it very succinctly in the High Court of Parliament case when he said: “Only British bias could prompt the thought that since such a power resides in the legislature of Britain, our Parliament as ordinarily constituted must necessarily have it too.” I think that is a fair statement of the position. I submit that the position in Great Britain was correctly stated by Prof. Wade, who is a most distinguished constitutional lawyer and who, as you will recall, was called upon to advise the Government in the recent constitutional crisis of the 1950s. At page 56 of the seventh edition of the authoritative work “Wade and Phillips on Constitutional Law”, he said so far as England was concerned—

The same author, two pages later, says this, at page 58—

In my submission, Sir, that is a correct reflecion of the situation and of the law. May I say, Sir, that the question which you have to decide is really no different from the procedures which we have in this House. We follow certain procedures which our rules enjoin us to follow. So long as those rules stand we are bound by them, but, of course, we can at any time change or suspend those rules, but until and unless we do so we are bound by them. A fortiori these rules as laid down in the Constitution we can change, but until we change them we are obliged to follow them.

I want to say that section 114 and the principle of laying down certain special procedures is not unique in our Constitution. Section 63 of the Constitution provides what is to happen when there is a disagreement between the Senate and the House of Assembly. If a bill, not being a money bill, is rejected by the Senate, then the law cannot be passed unless the bill has been passed in two successive sessions by this House and by the Other Place. It is not possible, if it is rejected by the Senate in one session, for the House of Assembly to introduce the bill again in that same session, because the procedure for the passing of that law is laid down in the constitution, and it would not be competent to do so. If such a bill were introduced I suggest that you, Sir, would have to rule it out of order on a point of order raised, because it offends against section 63 of the Constitution because that is the procedure which is laid down. No one would suggest that this affects the sovereignty of Parliament. It does not simply because that provision can be repealed by Parliament if it does not like that rule. Another example is, of course, the obvious example, the example of section 118 which provides for a special procedure. It restricts Parliament as ordinarily constituted from passing a law which detracts from the equality of language rights. This is also a restriction on parliamentary procedure but it can be altered and you will recall, Sir, that when the Transkei Bill was first introduced in this House in 1963 or 1961 the first bill offended against the Constitution. In other words the procedure as laid down in the Constitution was not followed, and what happened there was that we met and, in accordance with the special procedure laid down in the Constitution, we changed section 108 and then the bill proceeded normally because it no longer conflicted with that precedure. In my submission this is precisely what should properly be done in this case. If section 114 is not to the liking of the Government of the day, then it is for the Government and for Parliament to repeal the provisions of section 114 and then there will be no encumbrance on the passage of a bill such as this, but until and unless that is done, that provision is a procedural provision which binds this Parliament. I submit to you, Sir. that there is no difference whatever between Section 63, Section 118 and Section 114. I go further. If section 114 was not intended to be applied, then you must also hold, Sir, that Section 118 which deals with the equality of language rights, can also be ignored.

That being so, it remains for me just to examine the nature of the procedural device which is contained in section 114. I think what it does, to put it in as simple terms as one perhaps can, is to provide a condition precedent to the passing of a bill dealing with provincial powers, to the passing of a bill such as the one that we now have before us and therefore to the introduction of such a bill. It provides for a condition precedent to the passing of such a bill and that condition is part of the enacting process or, to put it another way, it is one of the rules which, unless repealed, governs the legislative process so far as the provincial rights set out in section 84 are concerned. Sir, in this regard there is a direct authority in point. I refer to a decision of the High Court of Australia in as reported in volume 44 of the 1931 Commonwealth Law Reports. [Time expired.]

On a point of order, Sir, is there a time limit? The hon. member is just concluding his speech.

I refer the hon. member to Rule 112.

Mr. Speaker, if you will allow me to do so, I want to reply in brief to what the hon. member for Durban (North) said on the point of order. The first statement I want to make is that our Constitution should not only be read as separate, individual sections, but as a whole. But before coming to that, I want to say that we heard the same argument before when the National Education Council Bill was introduced in 1962. On that occasion you, Mr. Speaker, gave a ruling to which the hon. member for Durban (North) did not refer but to which I should like to refer. I want to relate this statement to the fact that section 84 (1) (c) itself already makes provision for the alteration or abridgement of the powers of the provinces in this regard; because section 84 (1) (c) refers to education, other than higher education, education for Coloured persons as defined in section 1 of the Coloured Persons Education Act, 1963, and Bantu education, until Parliament otherwise provides. Those are the crucial words, “until Parliament otherwise provides”. On the previous occasion you, Sir, based your ruling on those very words. May I quote what you said on that occasion when you gave a ruling on the particular objection which was raised at that time? You said—

Now we have to investigate the matter further: What is Parliament? Here I want to refer to section 24, which gives a clear definition of Parliament. Section 24 (1) gives the following definition of Parliament—

There is no possibility that Parliament may be anything else or that it may be bound by other conditions. If Parliament acts as such, it is sufficient.

But, Mr. Speaker, even if you were to rule now that in this case this section did not give a decisive answer to this issue, I should still want to make this further statement and that is that this measure does not abridge the powers of provincial councils and that there is no question of any abridgement here. The provincial councils will still be able to exercise all their legislative powers, but in terms of the measure now before this House, only a further procedure is being laid down and that is the procedure that has to be done after consultation with the Education Council. Then they may exercise those powers. This in itself is no abridgement of their powers to pass legislation then on all these matters. I do not want to dwell on this at length, because I think it will take us a long way if we were to argue that such a condition might abridge their legislative powers. I do not believe that to be the case, because the provision in our Constitution that their ordinances have to be assented to after they have been passed, does not affect their legislative powers at all. It is a condition of what is to happen after legislation has been passed by them; this is a condition which has to be satisfied before they exercise their legislative powers.

I come to the third statement. If you, Sir, were to rule that the powers were in fact being abridged by this Bill, I should nevertheless want to contend that Parliament, as the sovereign legislative authority in terms of section 59 of our Constitution, may pass this legislation. In section 59 of our Constitution there is a clear provision in regard to sovereignty. It states that Parliament shall be the sovereign legislative authority in and over the Republic, and shall have full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic. Subsection (2) of that section states that no court of law shall be competent to inquire into or to pronounce upon the validity of any Act passed by Parliament, other than an Act which repeals or amends section 108 and 118. In other words, this section 59 which empowers Parliament to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Republic, imposes only two restrictions on the exercising of that sovereign power, and they are those of sections 108 and 118. If the Government deemed it fit to introduce this legislation for the peace, order and good government of the Republic, and this House deemed this legislation necessary to ensure peace, order and good government, then the Government may do so even if it were to abridge those powers of the provincial councils. But, Sir, if you were to decide that Parliament was nevertheless bound by certain procedures which it had to follow, as the hon. member for Durban (North) argued —he said the Constitution prescribed certain procedures which had to be followed and that for that reason we were bound by such procedures until such time as we amended them by means of legislation—then I should once more like to refer to a decision given by you, also in 1962, when a similar objection was raised. At that time you ruled as follows—

Then I say that where certain procedures are prescribed they have to be read in conjunction with section 59, which provides that Parliament is a sovereign body, and a sovereign body, if it is properly constituted, and is functioning in its normal way, cannot be bound by other rules. Those other rules are merely conventions at most, as the British Parliament also has conventions.

Now it is my submission that this condition precedent, that action must be taken on petition, is nothing more and nothing less than a convention which has to be taken into account, and if it is not taken into account it renders no legislation null and void, provided Parliament has acted in its sovereign capacity; that is all that is required.

I do not think that it is necessary to refer to section 118, because in that section we find the entrenchment of the two exceptions which require a two-thirds majority. The hon. member for Durban (North) advanced the argument that the original intention of the provision contained in section 114, that action must only be taken after a petition has been received from the provincial councils, was to introduce a type of entrenchment. He quoted from the speech made by the late Minister Oswald Pirow when he introduced that section at that time. He said that it was really an entrenchment. I really think that the hon. member is reading more into this section than it contains. We cannot accept, because it was the intention at that time to introduce a type of entrenchment, that it is in fact an entrenchment. We must read the Act as it stands, and not as it was the intention of the persons who passed the legislation at that time. Their intentions were not written into the Act. That might have been their intention but legally it could simply not have been written into our law. Our law, since the decision that followed upon the political dispute about our Constitution during the fifties and subsequent years, showed … [Interjections.]

Order! I want to hear what argument the hon. member is advancing.

… that there were only two entrenchments and that they were the entrenchments with regard to the franchize of coloureds and with regard to the language question. Those were the only entrenchments which were recognized in our legislation. Those entrenchments were taken over in our Republican legislation. To say now that there was another type of entrenchment, such as that Mr. Pirow intended to write in at that time, is outrageous. A great deal more than ought to be read into this section is being read into it.

In connection with the final argument, the hon. member said that Parliament had no greater power than that conferred on it by the Constitution. Everyone realizes that, but then he must realize what Parliament is. Parliament has no greater power than that conferred on it by the Constitution. But Parliament is not a body which is sovereignly bound to certain conditions with which it must comply. If that were the case, it would no longer be sovereign. If it had to subject itself in advance to other conditions it would no longer be sovereign. Those conditions would then offend against the particular section in our Constitution which makes Parliament sovereign.

Mr. Speaker, during the course of my address to you, I shall be answering various points made by the hon. member for Heilbron. I should like to start by dealing with one of the points he made. He says that the provisions of this Bill do not in fact abridge the powers conferred on provincial councils under section 84. In that regard, I refer to various clauses in the Bill, namely clauses 2—particularly clause 2 (2) (b) —, 3 and 7.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Heilbron pointed out that you had given a ruling in a similar matter in 1962. That is indeed so; in regard to the National Education Council Bill. Sir, you will be only too aware that the highest court in our land, the Appeal Court, has been prepared, where new arguments were advanced, or where it came to take a different view of a decision which it had given, to agree that it is not only right, but most proper that it should take that decision or ruling into review. I would suggest that is the case here. The hon. member for Durban (North) has brought much additional argument to bear in his submissions to you, Sir. I should like to bring other arguments to your notice. The ruling of 1962 proceeded, I submit, on the basis that provincial councils did not have the exclusive right to legislate in regard to education. That may be so, but I would suggest that the right of Parliament to legislate is most definitely placed under the limitation which is contained in the constitution. It may be envisaged that there can be an alternative body which can legislate in regard to education, but the relevant sections of the Constitution Act lay down clearly the limitation which exists, namely that while that section stands, there must be a petition from the provincial council concerned. It would thus be perfectly possible to have this petition from one or more provincial councils, but not from all. I suggest that this was intended to be a most important safeguard. Reading the ruling of 1962, one sees that the main basis for the ruling was the view that Parliament was completely sovereign. Section 59 is used, not unnaturally, to support that ruling. This has indeed been the argument of the hon. member for Heilbron. He has said again and again that Parliament is sovereign and that therefore there can be no limitation of any kind. But I submit that Parliament derives its authority from the Constitution. Such sovereignty as it has is laid down in the Constitution. In this respect, as has been pointed out, our position is entirely different from that in Britain. In Britain there is no written constitution. It is perfectly true that the words of section 59 are extremely wide. They do suggest the greatest measure of sovereignty for Parliament. But, Sir, what do we find in section 114? In the very same Constitution we have the clearest statement:

My submission in the first place is that where you have a later provision of the same Act and secondly a special and detailed provision of the same Act in regard to a certain matter, the correct approach of our law is that such a later and detailed provision is preferred to the earlier general provision. In that regard I wish to cite to you the opinion of our present Chief Justice in the third edition of his well-known work “Die Uitleg van Wette”. The author is Chief Justice Steyn. On page 175, he says: “By onbestaanbaarheid gee latere artikels die deurslag.” There is in fact a contradiction here, or a conflict, perhaps. Section 114 is a subsequent section to section 59. Secondly, the maxim of our law is generalia specialibus non derogant. In other words, you have the position that a special provision has precedence over a general one. It has been put in this way by the learned Chief Justice:

Here we have not only a special provision, but a later provision.

Order! If hon. Ministers do not keep quiet now so that I may pay full attention to this matter, I shall ask every one of them to withdraw from the Chamber, regardless of the fact that they are Ministers.

Mr. Speaker, here we have the position that section 114 is firstly a later section and secondly a detailed provision dealing with the situation regarding the powers of a provincial council, including that of education. In those circumstances I submit that the more detailed provision clearly qualified and limits the general power of sovereignty granted under section 59. That need not dismay us in any way, because in fact there is no limitation upon the power of Parliament in regard to the amendment of the Constitution, save in regard to the entrenched clauses. In other words, it would be possible for Parliament by a simple majority to amend section 114. It would be possible, but that is not the course the Government has chosen to take. It would be possible to amend that provision and then to introduce the Bill as it stands, but that is not the course the Government has chosen to take. As the hon. member for Durban (North) pointed out, only so recently as the Transkei Constitution Bill, it was felt by yourself, I think, Sir, that such a Bill required a joint sitting of both Houses. You, Mr. Speaker, did not take the view that Parliament is sovereign and that therefore there is no need for a joint sitting. Now, I concede that the nature of this limitation is different, but it was intended to be extremely effective. I do not doubt that the people of Natal, and perhaps the Free State, were persuaded to come into Union upon the basis of this protection. This was therefore intended to be an effective protection. It was not intended to be absolutely effective in the sense that Parliament could not change the Constitution and then if it liked change this particular power of the provincial councils. My submission is, while that section 114 stands upon the Statute Book as it does at present, there is a limitation upon the power of Parliament to introduce this legislation. That limitation is that there must be a petition from one or more provincial councils. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I submit that if you come to take the view that has been advanced from this side of the House, you will not hesitate, as the Appellate Division did not hesitate in overruling Ndlwana’s case, to take a different view now.

I think I have been well served with advice on this point now.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with one point only and I shall be very brief if I have your permission to put it before the House.

The hon. member may proceed but I hope that he will be brief.

Mr. Speaker, I merely want to deal with the point which arises from the Bill before us, namely that the question of Parliament creating a condition precedent to certain action being taken, as is provided for in our Constitution Act, is also provided for in this very Bill. If I may draw your attention to clause 3 (1) which reads as follows:

That I submit is an instance of a condition precedent being laid down. If I or any other member of this House were to introduce oy means of a private Bill, a Bill which ran contrary to the provisions of this particular section, in other words if it had not been approved by the Minister and upon which there had not been consultation, I venture to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that you would be constrained to rule that it was out of order. If in fact the situation arose that the hon. the Minister were to introduce legislation without prior consultation with the executive committee created in terms of this Bill, I submit similarly that you would have to rule that as being out of order. But that does not for one moment mean that the sovereignty of Parliament is affected because Parliament itself can then alter this particular Act so as to make that prior consultation unnecessary. I wanted to draw attention to it because this is another instance of where Parliament in legislating creates a condition precedent to further legislation being considered in this House. It does not affect the sovereignty of Parliament but it affects the procedure which must be adopted before that legislation can be considered. I submit this in support of the point of order raised by the hon. member for Durban (North).

I have listened very carefully to the arguments adduced by hon. members. The matter, as stated, is not a new one and has been very ably argued on the floor of this House previously. It was also exhaustively and ably argued to-day, but I regret that hon. members did not advise me earlier of the new matters they intended to raise in the House this afternoon. I have, however, taken all the new arguments into consideration but I see no reason to depart from previous rulings on this point. Those rulings have stood the test of time. In my opinion therefore the House is competent to proceed with the National Education Policy Bill.

The hon. the Minister may now proceed.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, with the National Education Policy Bill we have to-day reached, probably, the most important milestone in the history of the development of primary and secondary education in the Republic of South Africa. On such an important occasion I shall probably be permitted to sketch at some length the background leading up to this important measure and in the process also to focus attention on the importance of education and the teacher.

The great evils in our education are divided control and the lack of a pattern adapted to conditions peculiar to our country which is knit together through a common purpose with national standards and a national approach and inspiration. That this is the case is proved by the reports of the numerous commissions and committees which have investigated educational problems since the National Convention in 1909. The most important of these were the Jagger Commission of 1916, the Hofmeyr Commission of 1924 with the subsequent Durban Conference of 1924, the Roos Commission of 1934, the De Villiers Commission of 1948 and the Interdenominational Committee of 1955. The findings of these commissions have been placed under the magnifying glass on so many occasions in this House that I do not want to spend any more time on them, except only to mention that the fact that effect has not yet been given to the intention implicit in the Constitution of 1909, i.e. that the divided control and lack of a country-wide educational policy should again receive attention after five years, has in large measure contributed to country-wide dissatisfaction and impatience. All these factors contributed to the National Advisory Education Council Act ultimately being passed by Parliament and a start therefore having been made with eliminating the two major evils which have been so incalculably prejudicial to the youth of our country over a period of more than 50 years.

Since the National Advisory Education Council came into being at the beginning of 1963, it has given attention to a wide variety of educational problems in accordance with its commission as contained in section 7, subsections (1) up to and including (5), of Act No. 86 of 1962. It was realized at once that the numerous problems could not be tackled simultaneously and that priorities had to be determined. Priorities were determined and it was decided to concentrate initially, while preparations were simultaneously being made for other tasks and facts were being assembled, on two extremely important matters which had already been heavily emphasized during the Second Reading debate on the National Advisory Education Council Bill in this House, namely (a) the termination of divided control over our secondary education and the development of a national educational policy and (b) the study of our system of teacher training with a view to proposals for the termination of possible unjustified dissimilarity and overlapping, as well as the development of a national policy in this connection.

Because Act 86 of 1962, in terms of which the National Advisory Education Council functions, prescribes that action be taken “in consultation with” the Department of Education, Arts and Science, the provincial education departments, education bodies and organizations and even persons who are concerned in education matters, the Education Council, initially through its Executive Committee, consulted every Administrator-in-Executive-Committee in order to ascertain from them what they regarded as the most urgent problems and what they saw as possible solutions.

After the first round of consultations had been made it was clear to the Education Council that the termination of divided control over secondary education and the development of a national education policy were also regarded by all these bodies as being the most urgent problem and, furthermore, that consultation should rather be carried out in a different way. The Council then recommended that for more effective consultation a body should be established (later called the “contact body”) consisting of the Executive Committee of the Education Council and the heads of all education departments (the head of the Education Department of South-West Africa was also included as an observer). The Council submitted the recommendation to me shortly after its third meeting in Durban on 29th November 1963, and subsequent to that five meetings of the contact body have up to now been held with my approval.

At these meetings the procedure for consultation was as follows: In the first place, attempts were never made to vote so that a majority could compel a minority into any particular direction, but negotiations were held until a mutually acceptable solution was found. I want to emphasize this very strongly—even Natal was not compelled. In the second place the acceptable solutions with regard to specific problems were then submitted to the various “mandators” for their approval. In the case of each provincial education head the mandator was his Administrator-in-Executive-Committee, and not only the Administrator. In the case of the Secretary for Education, Arts and Science it was I myself and in the case of the Executive Committee of the Education Council the mandator was the full Education Council. In the third place, if the mandators accepted the recommendations of the contact body, the next problems were proceeded to. If the mandators did not find the recommendations acceptable, further negotiations in regard to the matter were held until a generally acceptable solution was found. Never at any time were instructions given by the Minister, the Cabinet or anybody else that some or other point had to be accepted. Matters proceeded in this way until by July, 1965, a draft of principles on which a Bill could be drawn up had been prepared. I want to emphasize that the draft was unanimously acceptable to all members of the contact body and therefore to all their mandators as well. In August 1965 the draft was submitted to the full Education Council consisting of 26 members, and with minor amendments in respect of less important matters it was accepted unanimously there too and submitted to me. It was not a draft Bill but a draft of principles.

If education is of vital importance—both in the life of an individual and to a nation—it is obviously also of the utmost importance that it should function as effectively and with as few hindrances as possible so that the maximum benefit may be derived from it. Every obstacle in its way, every deficiency therein, makes it less possible to utilize its full effectiveness. One such obstacle is the so-called divided control over our secondary education in South Africa. There is actually divided control in two respects or senses—in the first place there are the four separate provinces, each with its own control and its own policy, and in the second place there is the Department of Education, Arts and Science, which exercises a fifth form of control of its own within the geographical areas of the provinces in regard to certain aspects of the education of the same type of pupil. This annoying position has been in existence since 1910, in other words, generations of our nation’s children have had to endure all the disadvantages connected with it.

It is only when divided control is removed that we shall be able to develop a national education policy, and that can hold exceptional advantages. I shall try and enumerate some of the advantages. It may have the result, amongst other things, that we shall be able to achieve greater uniformity in respect of syllabuses and curricula; that we shall be able better to maintain equivalent examination standards; that we shall be able to achieve agreement on a national basis in respect of our educational objectives, also as far as the various levels and directions of education are concerned; that we shall be able to deliberate jointly on the underlying principles, such as the Christian character and national nature, of education; and it may also result in our dealing with administrative and organizational matters on a national and co-ordinated basis, with all the major advantages which that inevitably and obviously must entail for our country and our people. The unanimity and unity which must be born out of this, particularly because it is the generally accepted ideal, is in itself reason enough for it to receive top priority.

But the great privilege of having a national policy will also enable us to build up a nationally acceptable system of differentiated education which can provide our children with the maximum benefit of good education, in that each one of them can be faced with the challenge of a programme which takes into account, in a scientific way, his personal aptitude, ability and interest. To be able to do that we will of course have to develop a nationally co-ordinated, authoritative system of guidance and vocational guidance, but there will be no obstacles in the way of achieving that, because a national education policy and country-wide co-operation will make it possible. In respect of the more material aspects as well it will hold the enormous advantage of nationally co-ordinated planning of buildings and other facilities, particularly through the elimination of unnecessary overlapping and through standardization where necessary and desirable.

Mr. Speaker, I now want to deal with the following aspects of the importance of education in South Africa and the challenge it offers: (1) The replies to the question: “How important is education?”, are of a tremendously divergent nature. They range from an extremely negative point of view (education is capable of doing nothing more than conveying facts) to an extremely positive point of view (education is of decisive importance in the lives of people and nations). (2) The National Advisory Education Council also adopts the attitude that it is a matter of vital importance—and I think the following factors have contributed to that attitude. (3) Although we as believers (Christians do not) hold the view that man can purify and raise himself to perfection by, for example, making use of education, we nevertheless believe that the Christian has a duty to equip himself to fulfil his task here on earth as well as possible and that this is in fact done (in so far as it can be done by man himself) through education. (4) We also know that every individual is born with specific potentialities which can develop to a certain individual level and that good eudcation is the means or method whereby the potentialities (positive abilities) are stimulated and best developed. In this way then education serves to develop the intellect, the emotions and the will, promotes the acceptance and application of certain values and principles, cultivates attitudes, develops a taste for beauty, serves to promote willingness to adhere to well-proven moral norms and traditions; and in this way strengthens faith, a sense of justice and the ability to love one’s neighbour and get along with him—in other words, it builds the entire character. (5) In this way—with the blessing of the Almighty—man comes not only to gain a vocation, but also to accept a calling, and the individual sense of having a calling envolves into a national calling. (6) Seen in this way the right education is not only a prerequisite for enabling individuals to be equal to their task, but also for a nation’s ability to hold its own in every sphere. It forms the basis of economic productivity and welfare, of effective military striking power, of the ability to carry democratic freedom and responsibility—it is even, humanly speaking, an indispensable component of our Chrstian way of life. (7) It is my experience, however, that this kind of general statement no longer grips our people’s imaginations to-day. Our time requires more concrete, more specific indications—preferably statements substantiated with statistics. But this is a surprisingly difficult thing to do in the case of education. However, I nevertheless want to make an attempt, and I ask for your kind attention for a moment to examples and statements taken mainly from one sector— the economic sector—where I want to indicate how important education is, even though it is only on one level thereof, namely that of the university, while realizing that education at university level is impossible without the equally important education on the secondary and primary levels. The increase in scientific and technological knowledge has assumed tremendous proportions during the-past few decades. The volume of our knowledge, so it is said, is being doubled approximately every 10 years. It is a so-called knowledge explosion.

This increase in knowledge, made possible by education and training, is so important for progress and development that, inter alia, tremendous amounts are being spent by the world powers on education and in particular on research—not only for the sake of prestige, but also for the economic advantage which it brings. The Government of the U.S.A. is this year spending the equivalent of more than R 10,000 million on research and development, while the amount being spent in Britain, despite economic worries, totals approximately £300 million. Those are only a few figures chosen at random. As far as Government institutions are concerned, it goes even further. The advanced governments of to-day are being served by special scientific and technological advisers and advisory boards, and have full-fledged ministries of science and/or technology, as well as special organizations for the judicious financing and organization of research and development programmes, such as, inter alia, the National Science Foundation, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration—and on a smaller scale the C.S.I.R., the Atomic Energy Board, the Scientific Advisory Council, the Bureau of Standards, etc., here in this country. The increase in knowledge is being further accelerated by means of highly specialized and sophisticated techniques for opening new fields of knowledge, and also by the development of highly refined apparatus through education, such as, inter alia, the electron miscroscope and spectrophotometer, not even to mention the powerful nuclear reactors, accelerators and radio telescopes. To this must be added the computer, the wonder child of mathematics. Further proliferation of our knowledge is facilitated by the practice of having co-operation between teams of scientists and technologists who collectively represent highly specialized knowledge in a variety of associated fields and can therefore make all the more effective progress. Such teams work together on a national and even on an international level and their collective action is highly conducive to the mutual stimulation of ideas, the rapid exchange of knowledge, the so-called “crash programmes” and “break-through pursuits”. Various other reasons for the rapid increase in our knowledge and its significance can be indicated, and I mention particularly the fact that theory and practice are being combined more rapidly as a result of the shorter time lapse between the test tube and the assembly line. The growth and burgeoning in the field of application is therefore equally sensational, and numerous spheres of man’s activities are being radically altered and developed—things like transport, radio and television, agriculture, warfare, etc., etc., and of course industry above all. In the latter field contributions in respect of new processes, both mechanized and automated, and thousands of new products, including an endless list of synthetic products, have been so great that there is in fact talk of a second industrial revolution.

(8)But enough—it is definitely sufficient to indicate, without fear of contradiction, what tremendous significance the results of education and training have had in practice. Our enlightened economists have for that reason been aware for some considerable time already that in respect of economic growth there are, in addition to real growth factors such as capital investment and productive labour, also important invisible factors, called “intangible inputs”, which determine development. These are pre-eminently education, training, scientific research and technological development.

(9)You have undoubtedly realized that I have up to now referred exclusively to the influence of education in the field of the natural sciences and technology, that is, too, education as a means of developing a highly specialized knowledge and manipulation of physical things. However, man is more than a skilful worker or a robot in this field alone. He is also a human being, a spiritual being created in the image of God—a being with a God-given task and destination.

To remain masters of the changes in our century we must also think and plan so that we may maintain our spiritual equilibrium. Halfhearted action, patchwork and opportunistic short-cuts simply cannot be tolerated, and our gaze dare not be focused only on investment, productivity, production, profit-making and economic growth. In order to ensure our survival, particular attention must be devoted to man’s spiritual and cultural needs. In particular the structure of well-proven values on which the Christian Western civilisation is based must be kept pure and reinforced in order to safeguard posterity against the mass processes of dehumanization and brutalization. That means that we must always see to it that the humanities, the arts and the social sciences are also developed to new maturity—and what is even more important, that these fields of knowledge and those of the natural sciences and technology are reconciled where necessary and, to an increasing extent, mutually stimulate and support each other.

This too can be done through the right education and training on all levels, that is to say, on the primary, secondary, tertiary and university levels, as I indicated at the outset when I made a general statement of the significance of education and training.

If it is true then that education and training are as powerful a force as I have indicated, if it is really so important, the question arises whether we in South Africa are utilizing and appreciating it accordingly. I do not think so, but I do believe that we are convinced of the importance of education and training, particularly if we are forced to examine the matter closely; generally speaking, however, there is a kind of unwillingness to act.

Although our education and training are, in my opinion, sound and compare favourably with the best that I have come across in the world, there is nevertheless considerable room for improvement and that improvement is, to my mind, an extremely urgent and compelling challenge which we as a nation must accept or suffer both spiritual and material loss. But in order to effect the necessary improvements we shall have to get rid of our unwillingness and develop an active, significant interest which will compel us to take positive steps.

I want to make specific mention of a number of extremely important matters here in order to prove that the Government and the people in our country will have to do more than just take an interest and be appreciative—that is to say, they will have to take positive action —if we are really to believe that training and education are so very important.

(a)In the first place there is the existence of divided control over our secondary education and the absence of a national education policy. As I have indicated, almost a dozen official education commissions have pointed out that this is a canker which is detrimentally affecting our youth and causing great damage to our nation, but in spite of everything it still exists to-day. We must now put an end to it.

(b)A second canker is this. At present we are spending approximately 4.5 per cent of our total national income on education and training at all levels for all races. Apart from the fact that we are aware that other countries, according to the latest statistics, are spending more (for example, America is spending approximately 7 per cent, Russia 6.8 per cent, the United Kingdom 10.3 per cent, Ghana 3.5 per cent), it remains a question whether 4.5 per cent is enough—particularly if we accept that education and training are in fact such a powerful force and that we, perhaps more than other nations of the world, are dependent upon, are committed to, citizens of quality so that, amongst other things, the 3½ million Whites can supply the leadership for a total population of approximately 15 million.

(c)Further to the previous question, it also strikes one to what extent we are neglecting the vitally necessary research in connection with education and training. While the Government is spending an annual amount of R22½ million on scientific research and 4,800 experts are giving their full-time attention to the matter, we are spending only R840,000 on social science research, to which only 238 people are devoting their full-time energies. Education is only one of the many social sciences—consequently the money available for research in this field is a mere drop in the ocean. More than three quarters of our teachers are trained at colleges where the salaries of the lecturers compare unfavourably with those of lecturers at universities which are doing the same kind of work. We cannot justify there being any economizing in this field. All things being equal, i.e. if a sense of calling is left out of account, it must necessarily mean that we are satisfied with lesser services for the training of by far the greater number of teachers. That definitely does not testify of significant interest or appreciation. We are to-day training the vast majority of our teachers for a period of only three years after matriculation, while the demands of the profession in our time have increased greatly and while we are training our veterinary surgeons for periods of four and five years. I do not want to draw any comparisons, but I am merely mentioning that.

In the fifth place, too many of our young men and women are leaving school prematurely. Of the 31,096 girls who were in Std. VI in 1959, only 11,024 reached Std. X in 1963. There was therefore a loss of 20,072 girls. Of the 29,945 boys who were in Std. VI in 1959, only 13,451 reached Std. X in 1963—a loss of 16,494. Therefore 36,566 of our boys and girls who were in Std. VI did not reach Std. X. Can we afford that?

But what is more, the latest available survey for 1963 indicates that 90 per cent of our English-speaking boys who passed the matriculation examination went to university. As against that only 75 per cent of our Afrikaans-speaking boys went to university and only 60 per cent of the English and Afrikaans-speaking girls. These are disturbing figures which cause us of the Afrikaans-speaking group, of whom there are so many on this side of the House, much soul-searching. We are falling behind and all is not what it should be. In addition the Steyn Report in regard to the co-ordination between schools and universities indicates that almost 50 per cent of the students do not obtain their degreees within the prescribed period plus two years. The universities themselves feel that represents an unjustifiably high percentage of failures.

But however telling these facts may be, they still do not disclose the lack of interest and appreciation as clearly as the indifference or ignorance in regard to education and training on the part of so many parents. Many of our parents do not know the names of their children’s teachers, and do not know them at all. Many of them do not know what subjects their children are taking, what those subjects comprise or what methods or criteria are being applied. In other words, our parents do not know what the educational ideals of the school are. I know of no school in our country where parents and teachers consult one another in regard to these vitally important matters, for surely there is more to it than merely the facts and the skills our children are being taught. Surely these matters concern the training of an individual, a specific kind of individual, who differs from the product desired by the communists or even by the Americans.

I think that this makes it clear that something must be done. The hon. the Opposition which, according to Press reports, are apparently going to argue that this is not necessary, will, I hope, themselves have to bear the disgrace and the damage which that will cause. We cannot help them to bear it. Something must be done, and for me that means that we must accept the challenge, that we must invest heavily in our human resources, that we must in our national economy give top priority to education and training and that we must see to it that the quality of that education and training is developed to the highest possible level. How will we accomplish that?

The National Advisory Education Council has investigated the matter very thoroughly and has come to the conclusion that if we want to bring about really significant interest in and appreciation of education in South Africa, if we want to take positive steps, we will be compelled to try and create a new public opinion. Only when that happens and when we realize that education is too important to be the responsibility of educationists alone, will we be able to succeed in really utilizing it in accordance with the great significance which it can have for us.

Accordingly a vast, country-wide project is being considered in order to achieve this objective. It includes, inter alia, the following undertakings: (1) The establishment of parent-teacher association at every school in the Republic where it does not already exist, with the object of inspiring our teachers and our parents to greater and more significant cooperation than ever before. (2) Co-operation with all suitable existing associations and organizations in South Africa with the object of making them, too, accept it as a task in their own way and in their own circles. Our churches and teachers’ associations are included in this. (3) Co-operation with all the mass communication media, such as the radio and the Press, etc., with the object that they should also accept as their own responsibility the fine task of education and should cease making it a political matter. (4) An education foundation, i.e. an education fund more or less analagous to the Carnegie Foundation or the Ford Foundation, so that we can by those means keep this great project in motion until it succeeds and also so that we can undertake large-scale educational research. (5) A conference of representatives of all teachers’ associations, or possibly a national conference of teachers, in order to afford them an opportunity of considering the matter in its entirety and determining what contribution the teachers must make in that regard. (6) A national congress or people’s congress on training and education whereby the entire undertaking can reach its culmination and whereby South Africa can be given the opportunity to state as authoritatively as possible what it expects from its education and training and what it is prepared to do about it.

However, it is of cardinal importance to realize that this new public opinion will never be brought about if joint action is not taken. It is also necessary for a new awareness in respect of purpose and task, content, method, etc., to be brought about not only in regard to the education and training in our schools, but also in respect of the education and training in the family, in the church, in the colleges and in the universities. It must also include the training of apprentices as well as all who are able to enjoy further moulding and training outside of the schools, i.e. the adults as well. If it is not possible to undertake all these things simultaneously, priorities will have to be laid down. There is therefore work to be done if we want our education to serve its purpose properly, i.e. to lead our youth to the pinnacle of achievement. The most important initial step in this regard is that the National Education Policy Bill and the measure which supplements this Bill, i.e. the Educational Services Bill, be placed on the Statute Book without delay and brought into operation.

As I have stated, the second important question to which the Education Council is giving its serious attention is the training of teachers. If we want to elevate teachers to a status worthy of the teaching profession and want to ensure that they will be regarded with the same respect as are medical doctors, dentists, engineers, lawyers and the like, it is, in my humble opinion, essential that we move purposefully in the following direction: In the first place there ought to be certificates with the same designation for each of the categories of teachers, for example secondary, primary, nursery and special education, instead of the variety of designations which exist at present. In the second place the training of secondary teachers should extend over a period of at least four years so that there will be adequate opportunity to impart a more comprehensive measure of knowledge of the subjects which the students will teach than is at present the case at the training colleges. As a result of the present training system of teachers, which is mainly a three-year course, there is a great shortage of vocational teachers. In the third place, the training of secondary teachers ought to take place at or in close co-operation with universities. That will restrict to a minimum the duplication of highly skilled vocational staff at a time when manpower is scarce and at a time when two new universities are being developed.

I regret that an agreed, satisfactory solution could not be found in regard to the training of teachers. We miss this training of teachers as far as a national policy of education is concerned. I am extremely sorry that could not happen. I believe that with the training of teachers a state of affairs has developed which is as undesirable as the divided control and policy of education up to and including the Std. X level. If the child forms a foundation-stone for sound and effective education, the teacher is probably a cornerstone. I can hardly imagine any successful system where these two elements do not go forward together hand in hand. That is why I hope that these thoughts will be sufficient incentive for the Education Council and the other bodies concerned to succeed, through extra hard effort and co-operation, in finding a solution for the remaining problem, i.e. the training of teachers, before the end of 1967. I am firmly resolved to rectify this matter next year by means of legislation.

Before making a few observations about the Bill as such, I want to convey my sincere thanks to the Education Council, its Executive Committee and the Committee of Educational Heads for their excellent work and the progress, almost beyond expectation, which was made in so short a time. There is no doubt that the Council was instrumental in bringing about an ever-increasing measure of goodwill and co-operation—something which no other body has ever succeeded in doing. I want to ask hon. members to examine the 26 names. If they do so, they will see that 26 of the most highly qualified recognized educationists, not only in South Africa but throughout the rest of the world, are attached to that Council. May that good spirit persist for the sake of our children, not for our own sake. The Bill recommended by the Education Council is aimed at meeting the following requirements: In the first place, to make provision for the progressive development of all school education up to and including St. X or matriculation for White persons. In the second place, to establish the broad general principles of sound education on which the national education policy, in the interests of the individual as well as of the community, should be based, and the way in which such policy is to be determined. In the third place, to obtain a greater measure of national coordination in respect of courses in order to adapt to the aptitude, ability and interest of the pupils and the needs of the country, and also in respect of the limits of compulsory education, education without levying of school fees in public school, provision for education through the medium of the mother-tongue, the conditions of service of teachers, the equivalence of certificates, the assigning to the parents of a place in the education system, and the share of the teacher in education planning.

At approximately the same time as the recommendations of the National Advisory Education Council were received, both the Economic Advisory Council of the Prime Minister and the Scientific Advisory Council strongly recommended that there should be a greater measure of co-ordination in the field of education for Whites in respect of vocational guidance and school syllabuses between the four provinces, South-West Africa and the Department of Education, Arts and Science. In order to ensure the necessary co-ordination the National Advisory Council recommended that the Minister of Education, Arts and Science be empowered to determine the education policy in respect of schools and colleges (excluding universities or university colleges established by statute). In this way he will also be able to ensure that the continuation of vocational education, as hitherto applied, on a national basis is not interfered with. The recommendations of the National Advisory Education Council include the establishment of a committee of educational heads to advise the Minister and an Administrator on matters regarding the application or implementation of the national education policy (clause 6). This development entails certain minor adjustments having to be made in the functions of the Council. That has been done in clause 4. In order to avoid unnecessary and wasteful duplication of auxiliary services, clause 8 has been inserted. The rest of the Bill merely contains clauses which already appear in Act 86 of 1962, or consequential provisions.

I want to conclude. With the introduction of this Bill a great moment has arrived in the history of education in South Africa. I recommend the adoption of this Bill with my whole heart and a clear conscience as the commencement of a new era in the interest of our country and our people, but particularly as something which will be of the greatest benefit to future generations. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we have listened attentively to the speech the hon. the Minister has delivered in moving the Second Reading of the Bill now before the House. I understand it has been mutually agreed that at this stage of the debate we should adjourn and that the debate will be resumed on Wednesday. I therefore move:

That the debate be now adjourned.

Agreed to.

Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment as printed in my name—

Mr. Chairman, we on this side of the House are very pleased indeed that the hon. the Minister has moved these amendments, of which he gave notice a few days ago. They have been on the Order Paper for some time and we, therefore, have had an opportunity to study them. We are particularly pleased to see that provision is made for municipalities and similar bodies of local government to participate, in terms of the powers conferred upon them, in the planning for the administration and control of such places as are enumerated in the measure now before us. The fact that municipalities and similar bodies shall now have this power is very much appreciated by this side of the House. We are very pleased to see this amendment and we support it strongly.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Clause, as amended, put and agreed to.

Bill reported with amendments.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Prinshof, who was the last speaker on Friday last week, described this measure as being most important to ensure that we allowed only the better type of immigrant into the country, as well as the better type of visitor. He went on to say that the department could not be held responsible for the actions of dishonest officials. Now, I do not think that the House, and certainly not the hon. member for Umlazi, was worried on Friday when we discussed this measure about dishonest officials. What hon. members were worried about was the incompetency of certain officials in this department. I know that this is not the occasion on which to discuss the inefficiency within the department, except to say that unless the Minister sees to it that his department is more efficient it is of no earthly use passing legislation of this nature hoping thereby to close loopholes in existing legislation. The unfortunate lapse which was discussed here some little while ago has nothing to do with faults in the legislation which was in force at the time. I say this, Sir, because the individual concerned did not creep in at a point unguarded by a passport official but he actually received a permit with which to enter the country. I say that legislation of this nature will be quite useless for the purpose for which it is intended unless it is properly administered.

When the hon. member for Prinshof sat down on Friday, there was barely a minute left before the House proceeded to discuss a private member’s motion. It was quite clear to me that the hon. the Minister was hoping for that minute to pass without it being necessary for him to reply to the questions put to him by the hon. member for Umlazi. That is why I then rose to see that the Minister was given every opportunity this afternoon to deal with those questions. The Minister might remember that one of the points put to him by the hon. member for Umlazi was the question of the Transkei. Because when this legislation was originally passed, I think in 1913, the Transkei was, of course, a part of the then Union and its citizens, the people resident there, were also citizens of the Union. But, as the Minister knows, the Transkei now has its own constitution and that the Bantu residents of the Transkei, and not only the Bantu residents but all those who speak the Xhosa language, are citizens of the Transkei. They now have their own citizenship there. The hon. member for Umlazi and this side of the House wanted to know if the department and the Minister were fully conversant with the position that obtained there. When the Transkei Constitution Act was passed, and acting in a spirit of friendliness towards the Transkei and the offer of gradual development towards ultimate complete independence, the present Government handed over to that authority a form of control it had over the entry of people other than Africans into the Transkei. That resulted in the existence of a vacuum as far as that aspect was concerned. Nobody, including the Transkei Government itself, could control the entry of non-Transkeians into the Transkei. This Government gave up its control over people entering the Transkei. In the result legislation was introduced last year. I am not sure that legislation is effective as yet. I do not know whether it has been promulgated and is being applied. I should like to know from the Minister whether his department is working with the Bantu Administration and Development Department to see that there is no conflict taking place, no over-lapping. Because, Sir, there will now be two bodies responsible for the issue of permits to those who wish to enter the Transkei. I take it that, although the Transkei is part of the Cape Province, it will be for all purposes be treated as a separate province. I should like the Minister to go into this question fully when replying during the Second Reading Debate.

Mr. Speaker, both sides of the House are agreed on the necessity for this legislation and its objectives. That is how it should be when we are dealing with such an important matter as border control. The hon. member for Transkei repeated some questions which the hon. member for Umlazi asked the hon. the Minister, and I leave it to the Minister to reply to those particular points. Like the hon. member for Prinshof, however, I want to associate myself with a request made by the hon. member for Umlazi. That is, Sir, that we feel, and all of us who have made a study of this legislation are agreed on this point, that the time has in fact come for these measures to be consolidated in order to facilitate reference work. It will be easier not only for members of the House of Assembly and lawyers, but also for the officers who have to implement the legislation and who deal with it in other respects.

The hon. member for Umlazi also asked the Minister what special motives there were for this amending legislation. I do not think there need be any special motives. This is legislation which from its nature compels us to revise it from time to time and to make the necessary adjustments. It is self-evident that this kind of legislation cannot be static. If one studies this legislation one finds that amendments were made in 1927, in 1937, in 1955, in 1956, in 1960, 1961, 1962 and again in 1963. That proves, therefore, that this is the kind of legislation which needs tightening up continually and which demands new adjustments. But an analysis of this legislation also shows that it has the following characteristics. In the first place the particular measure before us is sound and realistic. It takes cognizance of a changed and changing set-up in international law in Southern Africa. It takes cognizance of the economic demands in respect of border traffic and of temporary alien labour. It takes cognizance of the demands of a smooth-flowing tourist traffic and of transit traffic to neighbouring states and elsewhere. It takes cognizance of the hazards of a smuggling trade in prohibited persons, the visits of international criminals, the political agitators and other undesirable elements, and while the measure before us takes cognizance of all these realistic aspects, it does so without sacrificing efficiency, but on the contrary enhances efficiency, and without disrupting the economic considerations in respect of alien labour and without hampering normal border traffic. This Bill provides for greater efficiency and at the same time for discretion and flexibility. That is one of the special characteristics of the amending Bill before us. While eliminating obstacles and reducing possible hitches, it ensures at the same time that there will be stricter supervision. It tightens up the existing machinery, also in respect of the entry of prohibited persons. It also provides for their removal and it closes up the loopholes for the possible abuse of persons under 16 years of age by subversive organizations. But the most striking fact is that while this Bill seeks to provide for all those things, it deprives no one of any existing due or privilege. That is a special characteristic of the Bill we are dealing with. What it does provide is a more streamlined system of control, and in addition the legislation is characterized by the fact that it is consistently and correctly founded in international law. The amendments in this Bill can be objectionable only to the following persons: prohibited persons, prohibited organizations and hostile visitors.

We are under no obligation to offer such persons any apology. South African law in the sphere of border traffic must be among the most equitable in the entire Western world. Anyone making a study of similar measures in the Western world or who is acquainted with them from personal travelling experience will be able to testify to that, and we may therefore accept this legislation with an open mind as being in accordance with the pattern of international law and the most equitable requirements of border traffic. Two great principles in law lie at the root of the principal Act and also of this Bill. Those principles in law, which are also principles in international law, are the following: Firstly, the right of application with a view to investigation as to whether the person complies with the requirements for entry or departure; secondly, the right of entry as such, subject to the conditions that may be imposed in respect of such entry and sojourn. These are fundamental principles in respect of border traffic, and these two principles pervade this legislation. I think they are clearly defined in the legislation, and justification for the incorporation of those principles demands no further argument.

This Bill has the following special characteristics. South Africa places no obstacles in the way of the tourist; in this legislation South Africa welcomes the tourist. She offers the visitor and the transit traveller ready transit, and she offers the temporary alien worker an economic opportunity to be able to perform his work within the framework of certain equitable control measures, but concomitantly the legislation demands certain things for South Africa. If we study the Bill very closely, we find that South Africa makes the following demands: In the first place South Africa demands that this territory shall not be a haven for prohibited persons and that it shall not be a playground for the activities of undesirable persons. We want to keep the political or the criminal adventurer outside our borders as far as possible. The machinery established by the legislation is a filter to prevent potential and actual troublemakers from entering our country as far as is practicable. International criminals are beginning to visit our country; international hostile elements are turning an eye on us. All countries of the free Western world claim for themselves the necessary powers to stop such elements at their borders, because the generally accepted and sound principle that prevention is better than cure is fundamental to this legislation.

In conclusion I want to state that the characteristics of this legislation, the principles on which it is founded, are strictness without unfairness, efficiency without complexity and alertness without inflexibility. Those are the principles on which this measure is founded and which this Bill seeks to put into practice as far as possible.

I want to express my gratitude to the Opposition for having supported the principles contained in this Bill. I also want to express my gratitude to the hon. members for Prinshof and Odendaalsrus for their contributions to this debate which facilitated my task to such an extent that it is hardly necessary for me to reply to the Opposition. To the hon. member for Transkei I just want to say that I did not expect the representative of the Transkei even at this late stage not to be acquainted with the legal position as regards the citizens of the Transkei. He was worried that I might not reply to the questions asked by the hon. member for Umlazi. The position as regards the citizens of the Transkei is that they still are South African citizens, too; consequently this legislation does not change or interfere with their position as regards entry into and admission to the Republic because they are treated in exactly the same way as South African citizens.

The hon. member for Umlazi appealed to me that we should see to it that all laws dealing with entry into and departure from the Republic should be amended and consolidated. I may give the hon. member the assurance that my Department has been engaged in that for a considerable time and I hope that we shall make sufficient progress to be able to comply with the hon. member’s request before long.

Still during this session?

No, not during this session. A tremendous amount of work is involved but we have made a great deal of progress. I am afraid that it will not be possible to introduce that legislation during this session and I do not want to promise that it will be introduced during the next session. The hon. member also asked that we should expediate the issue of passports and visas as far as possible. I want to tell the hon. member that the Department of the Interior is not the only department which is concerned in the issue of passports. The Department itself does not have at its disposal all the replies to the questions it has to ask itself. The Department is, to a large extent, a co-ordinating department which co-operates with other departments. The Department has to obtain a great deal of information from other departments and consequently it is not always easy to issue passports or visas as expeditiously as people want the Department to issue them. It is the policy of the Department, however, that there should be no unnecessary delay in dealing with applications. It will be my constant endeavour to streamline matters more so that applications may be dealt with more expeditiously.

The hon. member also raised the question of controlling movements between one province and another. Provincial control exists already and the position is not being changed as regards provincial control. This is merely being divorced from the control which is exercised when a person enters the country.

What is the reason for that?

We are merely doing so to bring the laws, in respect of the movement of Bantu in particular, into line with other laws and other regulations which affect that population group in particular. The existing general measures of control do not make provision for that, and what we are doing now is merely to divorce these two things so as to facilitate, and not to obstruct, the flow and the entry of those groups to whom permits are issued. The underlying idea is to expedite the issue of permits instead of having unnecessary delays and causing people to wait unnecessarily at certain points before informing them whether they will be admitted, for what period they will be admitted, etc.

The hon. member also wanted to know whether this legislation would keep people like Tsafendas out of the country. I do not want to go into the entire Tsafendas story once more. When Tsafendas arrived at the port of entry, he possessed a return visa. His name had been placed on the list of prohibited persons a long time ago, but while his name appeared on that list he obtained a permit for permanent residence from another department. Because he had a permit for permanent residence the woman in the control office who issued the visa simply thought that if a person had a permit for permanent residence one did not refuse him a visa. I think that is how it came about that she granted him a visa. If the passport control officer finds that the name of a person appears on the list of prohibited persons and he recognizes that name but the person is already in possession of a return visa, he cannot stop him. In other words, it was not a mistake on the part of that person to admit him. If an error was made, that error was that he should never have obtained a return visa or a permit for permanent residence. Nevertheless, we are trying, and I think that if we also take the human factor into account and realize that no one is infallible, then we may say that we are trying within the bounds of possibility to control and prevent the entry and departure of people who are harmful to the country. I think this measure will also be instrumental in enabling us to do so more effectively.

The hon. member asked a further question. He asked a question regarding forged documents, about which there was a report in the Press, and the issue of forged passports. That matter is being investigated at the moment. We do not have full particulars. I think a great deal which will be sensational will be brought to light, but in the meantime we have to regard the matter as being sub judice. That investigation was ordered by the Department when it ascertained that there was reason to suppose that wrong things were happening. The police were then informed of that and they instituted an investigation, and if there are people who acted wrongly they must be brought to book and must bear the consequences.

I think I have now replied to the questions to the best of my ability. All that remains for me to do is to move the Second Reading and to express my thanks once more for the support which this Bill has enjoyed.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

The Bill before the House amends only one section of the original Wattle Bark Industry Act of 1961. It does not in any way amend any principles of the principal Act, which established the Wattle Bark Board. Moreover, section 8 deals only with the powers of the Minister to make certain general regulations in the first instance. These amendments are limited to certain specific powers of the Minister to make regulations as originally outlined in only four of the thirteen subsections of section 8, (i), (j), (k) and (1), dealing respectively with, in (i) the activities of inspectors, (j) the prohibition of the use of wattle bark other than from commercial wattle trees and its export, (k) the description of grades, and (1) the inspection for export. This amending Bill, therefore, is restricted to these particular limited aspects. Up to now the most urgent needs of the industry with regard to regulations were met by my using ministerial powers under the Forest Act. Therefore this section was the only one not really implemented under the Wattle Bark Act. The stage has now been reached where the Wattle Board has advised that it now wishes to implement this section, and because their Act does not provide sufficiently for the draft regulations it considers necessary, a small additional amendment to section 8 (i), (j), (k) and (1) is now being proposed. I shall now go into more detail about the particular features of the amendments involved in this Bill.

The existing provisions of paragraph (i) of section 8 of the Wattle Bark Industry Act prescribes in definite terms the activities of wattle bark inspectors. Experience has shown, however, that in this industry, which has to accommodate itself to changing market and other conditions, it would be wise to have the duties and powers of inspectors re-defined from time to time, broadening and restricting them as circumstances may dictate. This will naturally be done only after full consultation with and on recommendation of the Wattle Board, at whose request the present amendments to the Act are in fact being put before Parliament. Although the amending paragraph originally altered this paragraph as proposed, hon. members will notice that in respect of (i) there is an amendment to the original submission on the Order Paper. As it reads in the Bill before the House, the powers and duties of inspectors were to be prescribed by the Minister. Although it was pointed out to me that by prescription I could exclude dwellings, I nevertheless felt that these should be excluded in the Act rather than by prescription by the Minister. This the amendment on the Order Paper does by specifically excluding any place “used exclusively as a dwelling”, so that even I as the Minister cannot depart from this condition by regulation.

The existing paragraph (j) prohibits the use of bark of wattle trees other than commercial trees, whereas the Board feels that the prohibition should be broadened and also include “the sale or other disposal or processing” of the bark of such wattle trees, i.e. other than commercial wattle trees. There is a qualification that a permit is necessary if this is to be waived, whereby wattle bark from such non-commercial wattle trees could be used. Such permit, however, can stipulate certain conditions under which the prohibition is relaxed.

The proposed addition to paragraph (k) of the words “and the manner in which different brands or grades of such products shall be designated”, makes it now possible to designate the various grades for export besides merely prescribing them as the paragraph read previously. A new paragraph (KA) also in this connection will allow the Minister to prescribe how these graded products shall be marked.

In the case of (1) (i), the inspection of wattle bark remains, whereas the remaining words which laid down that inspection fees should be prescribed in the regulations, have been deleted. However, an additional sub-paragraph (1) (ii) was added as the Board thought it more practical that the fees, if any, should be determined outside the regulations, but in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I am satisfied that these proposed amendments to the Wattle Act, 1960, which, as I have already stated, were submitted to me by the Board, are necessary and in the best interests of the industry as a whole, in order that the Board can conduct its affairs as effectively as was intended. I move.

In so far as this short Bill before us can claim to provide for procedure which will result in a higher level of quality in our export product, or the maintenance of high levels of quantity, it is to be welcomed. With what is happening in the world in regard to vegetable canning materials, it is quite clear that we in South Africa have to produce a high quality product which will hold its own on merit among the other vegetable canning materials coming from other countries. In particular, seeing that wattle is now being grown under various names in other countries, we have to have a very high quality product produced from our bark industry. One of the things which has been worrying the industry, however, was a statement which gave all growers quite a shock recently, when it was stated that from the manufacturing side there was little to be said for the present regulations governing the grading of the bark; that there was really no reason why they should pay more for Grade 1 bark than for Grade 2, and that in fact the trade did not recognize that difference between those grades and that Grade 2. for all practical purposes, was just as good as Grade 1. Now, we have complained about the grading of the bark in the past and the question. I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is this. Where under (k) provision is made for prescribing the grades and the manner of grading according to quality in regard to processed wattle products intended for export, that is. I presume, processed wattle bark and wattle extract. How does the Minister suggest that these qualities will be determined? Are there chemical analyses which are readily applicable to the products, so that from such analysis it will be possible to determine whether a consignment of processed wattle bark or of tannic extract is of top grade or second grade? The point I want to make is that in so far as the grade of bark is concerned, I do not think, quite honestly, that if you went to the growers there is any confidence whatever in the present system of grading, for various reasons which I will not go into now. But the fact is that an actual slur has now been cast in official quarters on the value of the grading of top grade wattle bark. We have been told that for all practical purposes it may just as well be second grade. It is not recognized and the traders do not want to pay more for it. If that is so. where do we go in regard to the grading of the product? Is there an easy method of applying to our export products a test which will permit us to nut into the world, in competition with a like product from another country, a quality as good as or better than that of other countries, or is it again going to be a case where the buyers will come along and say they do not like this method of grading and they will not pay that price for that grade, because it is not a reliable test as to quality and they are not accepting it? We want a high quality, the highest quality we can produce, to compete in a depressed world market. There must be one basis upon which we can compete, and that is that our quality is as good as or better than that of any other country. Then we will have nothing to fear. But we want to know that in fact that will be the position, and that is what is intended here in terms of the regulations to be promulgated. This enabling clause will provide for just that.

We accept the amendment moved by the Minister in (i) and we approve it: we think the principle is a good one. The Minister has been at pains to see that inspectors do not go into premises which are used exclusively as a dwelling, for the purpose of carrying out their work. We think that is a good thing.

I want to move on to another provision. In the new subsection (2) proposed to be added to the existing section 8 it is provided that in respect of any inspection in terms of regulations made under subsection (1) (1) the fees, if any, determined by the Minister from time to time in consultation with the Minister of Finance shall be payable. In other words, the Minister of Forestry must consult with the Minister of Finance for a determination of the fees payable for an inspection of processed wattle products. Sir, I realize the necessity or the Minister of Finance keeping a finger in many of these things but surely, Sir, this is not a department which comes under Customs and Excise. These inspectors are inspectors who will deal with the inspection of processed wattle products intended for export. Therefore, these inspectors must be of a special kind, with special knowledge and with special qualifications. We cannot expect an ordinary member of the staff of the Department of Customs and Excise to be able to undertake this kind of inspection. Therefore I am not quite sure that it is necessary for the Minister of Forestry to consult the Minister of Finance. To me that does not seem to be very necessary, unless, of course, there is a special reason for this arrangement. We would, therefore, be pleased if the hon. the Minister could explain this stipulation. There are, therefore, two points about which we are very concerned; firstly, the question of the adequacy of the system of determining the grades and quality of the processed products, and secondly, why there should be consultation with another Minister in regard to the fees payable for inspections.

I should like to deal in brief with a few of the matters raised by the hon. member for South Coast. The first of these is the aspect of grading. If the hon. member reads the regulation correctly, he will see that this provision is being introduced for the very reason that a very clear definition of “bark”, as it is marketed, does not exist. The result is that when a grower produces bark of an inferior quality—bark, for instance, which has not yet attained the required age or which has been grown under conditions which cause the final product to be of a lighter colour— the seller of that product is adversely affected overseas. The product is bought overseas on account of its colour and on the basis of a scientific analysis of the extract. Now, if the Minister has the power to prescribe to the inspector, it will be possible to prevent what is happening amongst growers at the present time, namely the processing of the tips, of the tops of wattle trees, with other bark, as a result of which the eventual colour of the product is affected, something which makes it difficult for us to compete on the overseas market. The hon. member for South Coast is right: There must be a scientific method, and this does exist, according to which buyers purchase their bark. This is that they analyse the bark using ripe bark, i.e. mature bark, as a criterion. Where trees used to be marketed at the age of six or seven years they are now marketed at an age of nine, ten, 11 or 12 years, because the bark of such trees satisfies the requirements of the overseas buyers of bark. This measure empowers the Minister to provide inspectors with a definition in terms of which they may then classify or grade bark. The problem with which we as producers are faced still remains, of course, and that is that the human factor is always present in whatever way the grading of bark, while it is in its unprocessed condition, is carried out. The problem is to restrict to a minimum errors which may creep in this way. Now we are going to prescribe regulations, as was also done by the Meat Board, for example, when it experienced a similar problem with regard to pork. At that time it was prescribed how thick bacon had to be in order to qualify for a particular grade. As regards wattle bark, a formula will also now be prescribed in terms of which it will be possible to determine what bark will be able to qualify as first-grade bark. Then there still is another provision which lays down the bark of what type of tree may be used. Here I just want to tell the hon. member for South Coast that he may perhaps not be aware that they in the south as well as in the midlands may not have to deal with silver wattle to the same extent as we in the north of Natal have to do. Incidentally, this silver wattle has already been declared a weed. This tree has a very thick and fine bark. Its tanning qualities, however, are very inferior. Now, it has happened in the past that farmers have mixed the bark of this tree with the bark of the ordinary wattle tree. [Interjections.] Yes, it is being done. There are always complaints about that. If the inspector, or the grader, is not very careful this bark slips through unnoticed. The trouble is that this cannot be noticed until the final stage, namely that of the extract, is reached. The extract then has a lighter colour and consequently it is not suitable for export For that reason I do think that it is a suggestion to compel farmers, as far as their green bark is concerned, i.e. bark which has not yet reached maturity, although the tree may be mature according to all given norms, bark which may very readily be classified as being grade I bark if it has the necessary thickness …

Will that save their bacon?

Yes, but not completely. We must remember that there are other products overseas which compete with our product. For that reason it is essential that this bark, a bark which yields a lighter dye, must be marketed separately. That may offer a solution. In any event, under this Bill the Minister is empowered to issue regulations with regard to this type of thing. In the past there has never been any such regulation. Therefore, we from the north of Natal have no misgivings about this measure. We regard it as being in the interests of the wattle bark industry. We should naturally like to see that we would be able to sell all our bark even though that may be at a somewhat lower price. Unfortunately the demand abroad is such that we are only able to market one-sixth of what our trees produce. Consequently this industry has become very uneconomic. The world demand for wattle bark extract has decreased to such an extent that we are only able to market approximately 3½ per cent of the production of the total area under trees. For that reason I think that unless we have better times farmers will leave this industry of their own accord. Grading and all the other measures will not make up for the losses suffered by them as a result of the synthetics, the Argentine product, which compete with wattle bark. I do agree, however, that the powers of inspectors must be extended. Producers hide their bark in all kinds of buildings and up to now inspectors have not had the authority to enter those buildings. Inspectors are now being specifically empowered to do so and this is a good thing because then one can get to all the bark. Bark ages if it is kept in a building for a period exceeding one year.

Mr. Speaker, firstly I want to refer to what the hon. member for South Coast had to say. I fully appreciate that the quality of the export extract is most important in a highly competitive world. The new subsections (i), (j), (k), (kA), and (1) are merely designed to give the Minister power to make regulations which can ensure that high quality extract is exported. The hon. member will realize that the Wattle Bark Board itself is the body which has to look after its industry. But the discussions which I have had with them made me realize that not only the manufacturer, but the grower himself understands the fact that quality is an essential factor. Although wattle bark grading and the matter that the hon. member mentioned, with regard to the fact that there seems to be no difference in the prices of grade 1 and 2 of wattle bark, are not under discussion, I would like to point out to him that on various occasions the Department and the growers themselves have realized that research into the type and quality of bark sold for processing must be conducted. Growers must always be on guard to see that they themselves produce the highest quality raw material so that the highest quality finished article can be available for the export market. On the matter of the fees, I might point out to the hon. member that it is recognized that in respect of fees payable for inspections for export, the Minister of Forestry should prescribe these in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

So it does not alter in any way the approach. It is purely what one could call a fiscal policy in respect of a regulation, covering fees that is laid down in our Statutes. Because an export inspection fee is charged, the Minister of Finance has to be consulted. It cannot be done just by the Minister of Forestry on his own. He must do it in consultation with the Minister of Finance.

Is it a fiscal measure?

Because finance is involved, it becomes a fiscal measure. I realize that there are many facets of this wattle bark; industry that hon. members would have liked to discuss. Unfortunately, this amending Bill limits the discussion very rigorously. I understand that and I appreciate it. I only hope that the hon. members will have the opportunity on the Estimates or the Vote to raise matters which are outside, shall we say, the scope of this amending Bill.

Are you going to bring in another amending Bill this Session, with the support of this side of the House?

I am not prepared to answer a hypothetical question like that.

Order! I cannot allow horse trading to take place in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. member for Vryheid. I realize that the matter of grading for quality of an extract is chemical and scientific. It carries with it the matter of colour which is so difficult to define in grading regulations, but the Wattle Board itself consists of both the growers and the bark manufacturers and processors. No doubt, in due course they will submit to me the basis on which these regulations for grading should be prescribed. The hon. members will notice that they have now included the matter of designation in addition to grading. I can only presume they felt it was necessary, not only to prescribe the grade, but the designation which should appear on the drum, or whatever is used as a cover when exporting. There can be no opportunity, shall we say, of a lower grade being exported with a higher grade mark. These are purely matters of administration and I would say to hon. members that I am hoping that the very things the hon. member for Vryheid mentioned, namely, the mixing of wattle bark in bales—which apparently does take place, not only in the case of wattle bark alone, but in other commodities—will gradually be overcome by regulation and inspection, so that South Africa’s name as a quality exporter of wattle extract, or whatever it is, will stand high in the world market. Mr. Speaker, that is all I have to say. I commend the Second Reading of the Bill.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Although I am proposing at present that provision should be made by way of legislation for the preservation, care and maintenance of war graves, it does not mean at all that we are making provision for a new service now. On the contrary, a service which has been arranged administratively for years will now—and this is the gist of the matter—be given statutory recognition. Almost 30 years ago the then Minister of the Interior appointed a committee with the terms of reference of (a) undertaking an extensive inquiry into the entire question of war graves; (b) gathering information in that regard, and (c) making recommendations to the Government in regard to the desirability or otherwise of establishing a Central War Graves Commission. As far back as February, 1939, this Committee made its recommendations of which the most important one was that a permanent body had to be established and that the preservation, care and maintenance of war graves had to be entrusted to that body. However, the Committee did not make any recommendation to the effect that legislation had to be adopted for that purpose; consequently the work was entrusted to a permanent committee on which various bodies, which exerted themselves for the preservation of war graves, were represented.

This permanent committee has developed into the South African War Graves Board under the chairmanship of the Director of Archives. The Board functions through two executive committees, namely the Civil Graves Committee and the British Forces Committee. The chairman of the War Graves Board is also chairman of both committees, and each of these committees does its own planning and sees to the implementation thereof itself. The War Graves Board co-ordinates and controls the work of the committees and also authorizes all expenditure. The Board allocates the funds at its disposal to these two committees proportionately on the basis of the number of known war graves in the Republic. This system works excellently and the co-operation between the two committees is splendid. It gives cause for absolute satisfaction, not only in this House, but also amongst members of the public. It has gradually become clear that the War Graves Board was charged with a permanent task. Restored graves and already established gardens of remembrance require constant attention; otherwise they will once again fall into a state of disrepair after a few years. This fact was an important reason for deciding that the War Graves Board should become a corporate body. The War Graves Board has already done very good work and, although I do not wish to review its work in great detail here, I nevertheless want to refer to a few of its achievements. The first comprehensive task undertaken by the War Graves Board, was that of converting the concentration camp cemetery at Irene into a garden of remembrance in honour of the women and children who had died there during the Anglo-Boer War. Gardens of remembrance have also been established at Kroonstad, Brandfort and Turffontein. The British Forces Committee has also converted the military cemetery in Bloemfontein into a beautiful garden of remembrance, and has for the most part transferred all of the scattered graves in the Transvaal, the Free State and Natal and, to a lesser extent, on the Eastern Frontier to central graveyards in those areas. On 10th October, last year, the State President inaugurated the garden of remembrance at Bethuli. Owing to its location the old concentration camp cemetery would disappear under the waters of the Hendrik Verwoerd Dam, and therefore it was decided to reinter the remains of those people in a new and higher site. The Department of Water Affairs has undertaken to bear the cost of the reinterment, and I want to avail myself of this opportunity to convey my special thanks to this Department for its whole-hearted co-operation in the execution of this undertaking.

As regards the Bill itself: Clause 1 of the Bill contains the customary definitions, but I particularly want to refer to the fact that the maintenance of the graves of exiles is also being entrusted to the War Graves Board now. Up to the present the maintenance of prisoners-of-war graves situated in Italy, Ceylon, St. Helena and in Bermuda, has been the function of the Department of Public Works, but it was considered that this function should be assigned to the War Graves Board. The remaining definitions in this clause are self-explanatory. Clause 2 of the Bill establishes the War Graves Board and vests it with jurisdiction. By virtue of the powers and functions which are being entrusted to the War Graves Board in this Bill, it follows inevitably that it should also be vested with jurisdiction, because clause 4 provides, inter alia, that the War Graves Board may own property, may invest money, and so forth. The objects of the War Graves Board are set out clearly in clause 3. The Board has to maintain war graves and may establish gardens of remembrance and erect memorials in honour of those who died in active combat and those who died in concentration camps in this country as well as abroad. Clause 4 sets out the functions of the War Graves Board. In terms of these functions the War Graves Board is being granted the right to own, alienate, take on lease or hire out any property. In addition it authorizes the Board to enter into contracts, to accept donations and, subject to certain provisions, also to invest money. An important function which is now being entrusted to the War Graves Board, is that it may in future make recommendations to the Minister in regard to the declaration of certain areas of land as National Gardens of Remembrance. This provision is very necessary because, as you will notice from clause 17, such declaration will have the effect that a garden of remembrance may be protected against alteration and destruction. Clauses 5, 6 and 7 deal with the constitution and the period of office of members of the War Graves Board, and provide, inter alia, that a member of the Board may be appointed for a maximum period of five years, at the expiry of which he may, of course, be re-appointed. In terms of the Bill, the chairman will be appointed by the Minister, as has been the case up to now. Provision is also being made for the election by the Board itself of a vice-chairman, and clause 8 prescribes by whom and in what manner a meeting of the Board may be convened.

Clause 9 of the Bill requires an explanation. Subsection (1) provides that the Board may take a decision by a majority of votes and also that, in the event of an equality of votes, the chairman will have a casting vote at any meeting, but subsection (2) provides explicitly that a decision will not be invalid by reason of a chance vacancy on the Board or the absence of one of its members. It provides further that the presence on the Board of a person, who is not a member of the Board, at the time when the decision is being taken, will not have the effect of rendering such a decision invalid. This provision is essential because, as hon. members will notice from clause 11, the Board may co-opt persons to serve on the Board, persons who may be present at meetings and who may take part in discussions. Such co-opted members are, of course, not entitled to a vote. Therefore it is necessary to provide that a decision of the Board will not be invalid because persons who are not members are present when voting takes place. Clause 10 provides that the Board may appoint committees and that the Board may assign its powers to those committees. As has already, been explained, the Board has been functioning very effectively up to now through the agency of the Civil Graves Committee and the British Forces Committee, and this clause is now making provision for this system to be continued. Clause 11 authorizes the Board or any of its committees to co-opt a limited number of members. In this way it is possible for the Board to enlist in its meetings the services of local persons who have knowledge of a special nature. This is an essential provision because the membership of the Board itself cannot be extended unrestrictedly. Clause 12 contains the usual provision in regard to the payment of travelling and subsistence allowances to members and co-opted members of the Board; clause 13 provides that the secretarial and administrative work of the Board will be done by the Department of Education, Arts and Science, and the funds of the Board are defined in clause 14. At present the funds of the Board consist of an annual grant of R70,000 by the State as well as a grant from the British Government. In the past three financial years the grant made by the British Government consisted of an annual amount of R20,000, which, however, is subject to review. In addition the interest on an amount of R20,000 from the Maintenance of Graves Trust Fund is at the disposal of the Board for the maintenance of the graves of Free State subjects and British soldiers who died in active combat or in concentration camps in the Free State or in the Cape Province during the Anglo-Boer War. Moreover, it has always been the practice of the Board to collect funds from the public in any area where it is undertaking a major work, and to utilize such funds in that area. Against the background of this information clause 14 is self-explanatory.

A large number of graves which fall or ought to fall under the control of the Board, are situated in graveyards which are privately-owned or at places to which there are no public roads. Clause 15 of the Bill now authorizes the Board to enter into agreements in order that it may repair and maintain those graves or transfer the maintenance of such graves to a local authority. The Board is also being granted the right to construct and maintain, by agreement with the owners in question, access roads as well as fences. The Board is not being granted the power to expropriate land. All it may in fact do, is to enter into agreements with the owners for the purpose of achieving its object, namely the repair and maintenance of graves.

Clause 16 grants the Minister the right, on the recommendation of the Board, to declare any area of land on which war graves are situated, to be a National Garden of Remembrance on the same basis as that on which the Minister may, in terms of the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act of 1934, declare an area or a building to be an historical monument. Before making such a recommendation, the Board must notify the owner of the proposed declaration, and should the owner raise objections to such a step, the Board has to submit such objections to the Minister along with its recommendation. The provisions of this clause correspond to those in respect of the proclamation of monuments as well, and you will notice that a provision has been inserted in the clause imposing a restriction upon the owner in respect of alterations while the recommendation for declaration by the Minister is under consideration. Clause 17 provides that nobody may alter any National Garden of Remembrance without the written consent of the Board. Should the Board refuse to grant an owner the right to make minor alterations, the owner may lodge an appeal with the Minister, and the Minister’s decision will be final and will be considered to be a decision of the Board. Hon. members will remember that we incorporated the same provision in the Natural and Historical Monuments, Relics and Antiques Act of 1934, when it was amended by this House recently. Clause 18 makes provision for an annual report to be submitted; clause 19 contains the penalties for damaging or destroying a grave, a national memorial or a monument which the Board may have erected. Clause 20 is the usual clause which provides that the Minister may make certain regulations. Clause 21 repeals a resolution which was taken by the Volksraad of the South African Republic and which dealt with the maintenance of the graves of those who died in active combat. Clause 22 is the short title.

Now I want to make a few observations in regard to the few amendments which were printed in the Order Paper. There are two improvements which were effected at the instance of the Treasury, since it is being provided in clause 2 that the Board will be a corporate body. I may just explain that this provision was inserted at the eleventh hour and that it did not appear in the text which is customarily submitted to the Treasury for comment. Since parts of this clause may, in terms of section 60 (1) of the Constitution, only be brought up for discussion in the House of Assembly, it was decided by all concerned that such amendments for the Committee Stage should be moved here instead of being effected in the Other Place. The new clause which has been printed between brackets and which has to follow on clause 11, requires no comment. I also move that clause 13 be negatived, because the provision that the administrative work of the Board would be done by officers of the Department of Education, Arts and Science, would amount to a covert subsidy being granted to an autonomous body now that it has been decided in clause 2 to make the Board a corporate body. However, in terms of section 13 (6) of the Public Service Act, 1957, officers of that Department are capable of performing the work of the Board as a corporate body, and therefore the need for clause 13 disappears. The clauses which appear in brackets and are to follow on clause 13 and to be added at the end of clause 20, respectively, are once again meant to be in compliance with section 60 of the Constitution; they concern the financial implications of the Act which we could not dispose of in the Senate. As a result of the fact that the Board will become a corporate body now, it is also necessary to insert a new clause after clause 17 to make provision for the auditing of the books and statements of account of the Board by the Controller and Auditor-General, and to make provision in clause 18 (1) for an annual statement of income and expenditure. At the Committee Stage I shall move a further amendment to the effect that the word “white” should be inserted before the word “persons” in clause 3 (a) (i), because the present Board for South African War Graves has in the 12 years of its existence been exclusively charged with the responsibility of maintaining the graves of Whites and it is not the intention to extend that function in this respect. The new board, too, will only take care of the graves of White persons. In clause 4 there are two amendments for the purpose of re-inserting the words which appear in brackets, and in addition to that it is my intention to move that the power in terms of (d) viz. to open a banking account, should be made subject to the approval of the Minister, and that the Board may not alienate its immovable property without such approval.

Mr. L. G. MURRAY; I was privileged towards the end of last year to attend the function at Kimberley where a garden of remembrance was opened. It was an impressive ceremony. I was privileged after that to visit the area of Paardeberg accompanied by certain members of the board as it is now constituted and to view one of the historic battlefields in the history of South Africa. The country still bears the scars of trenches and so on, but in addition to that one found emphasis of the need for the existence of the board in the state of certain graves of soldiers who were killed in that combat. Certain graves were almost washed away in dongas; there were others that were on the side of ploughed lands with the fences very much neglected. But what impressed me was that in one area, on a hill, there was a very well-cared for, small graveyard, in which approximately equal numbers of British and Boer soldiers were buried. The surrounding fence was very well tended. The area was tidy and clean, and when one of the members of the board thanked the owner of the farm for what he had done the farmer’s reply was: “Meneer, dit is deel van ons geskiedenis”. In that spirit we of the Opposition support the measure which the hon. the Minister has introduced here this afternoon, in order to preserve part of the history of our country. We support the Bill as printed. At a later stage I will deal with certain amendments of which notice has been given. Sir, we also support this Bill because it is in keeping with the traditions of both sides of the House that the memory of a nation’s war dead should be honoured and respected. That feeling is common to both sides of this House.

I also have particular personal pleasure in speaking to this measure this afternoon in that I was a member of the deputation which called on Dr. Döonges, the then Minister of Public Works, in 1954 to establish some active board to deal with war graves. As the hon. the Minister knows, the following year that board was in fact established after a conference which was held in Pretoria. Sir, it is interesting to refer to the functions which were given to that control board as it was then named. The first one was the compilation and the keeping of records in respect of war graves; secondly, the responsibility for the care of graves etc. I want to pause for one moment to deal with the first responsibility and that is the compilation and the keeping of records in respect of war graves. I think one of the difficulties of the board which has functioned so far has been the lack of information as to the location of a number of these war graves. Considerable time and energy have been spent in compiling these records. I should like to see that this responsibility is added in the Committee Stage to the board’s other responsibilities to ensure that records are retained in the Archives for all time. I know that in the Cape Province, for instance, it was purely fortuitous that it was possible to find a photographic copy of a very old record of the location of war graves in the Cape Province, and this has been of great assistance to the board. Dealing with the board as it is now constituted I would like to say that I think the country is deeply indebted to the voluntary bodies which over the years have been doing their best under very difficult circumstances to maintain these graves. I speak particularly of the Burger Grafkomitee and the South African Soldiers’ Graves Association which has functioned for some 50 years. Their work has been difficult. They have had to find the funds to do this maintenance work and they have, of course, been fortunate in having the assistance throughout the years of such bodies as the Voortrekker Movement, the Scouts and other similar bodies. This work in the provinces was done by voluntary committees, except in Natal where the Provincial Administration spread its wing over the committee and gave the committee considerable assistance. I might mention to the hon. the Minister who has referred to certain revenue that is available to the board that functions in the Free State that the revenue from a similar fund which remains from the early days of the history of this country is also available to that board through the British Forces Committee. That revenue is also available to assist the board in the work it is undertaking.

Sir, I would like also to avail myself of this opportunity of paying tribute to the chairman of the board which has been functioning for the last 12 years, that is to say, the chief archivist, Dr. Kieser. I think he has had a difficult task, but he has been able to weld together and to co-ordinate the work of somewhat conflicting interests. I as an English-speaking person am particularly indebted to General George Brink and Brig. Kriegler for the extent to which they were able to give their assistance as members of the British Forces Committee. They have done a good job when one realizes that approximately 60 per cent of the graves in the Transvaal have now been attended to. Natal has made tremendous strides with the work that is being done there. In the Cape and the Free State there are also plans afoot. In the Cape we are a little behind. I am sure it will be welcome news to the people of the Western Cape, particularly, that this Bill through the establishment of this Board, will give an opportunity for clearing up some of the neglected historical cemeteries in the Western Cape. A lot of work has to be done, and that work will be undertaken in the near future.

As far as the Bill itself is concerned and the details of the Bill, I want to raise a matter with the Minister, and that is the definition of “garrison troops”. As far as I have been able to ascertain, the last of the garrison troops as defined in this Bill left South Africa just prior to 1914. There are a number of them who, in the intervening period, between 1910 and 1914, died for various reasons and whose graves are in the war cemeteries, particularly in the Western Cape. I wonder whether the Minister will not consider extending that definition by substituting the year 1914 for the year 1910. I am sure it will facilitate the work of the Board. I think it is desirable that extension should be included in the Bill.

Now I must raise one aspect of the amendments at which I must express grave concern, and that is the proposed amendment of which the hon. the Minister has given notice, to restrict the activities of the Board to dealing with white graves only. I do so for several reasons. I want to say, first of all, that I believe that the Board will be faced with innumerable practical difficulties if this stipulation is included in the Bill. From the history of our country, and particularly the history of the Cape with its Kaffir Wars, it will be extremely difficult to be able to differentiate without doubt as to the colour of the persons who may be buried in some of the graves in the Cape Province. I mention it because it has been traditional, as the hon. the Minister is aware, that the Cape Corps, for instance, was always officered by Whites and to a great extent its non-commissioned officers were white, with Coloured personnel, but they are all recorded as members of the Cape Corps. There may be grave difficulties arising if one has to try to find some means of identifying the races. But apart from that, I do believe that the history of this country is studded with feats of service by the Cape Corps and there seems to be no reason why their efforts should be omitted from recognition in the activities of the War Graves Board. I do not propose to go into great detail, but I think it is necessary that I should perhaps emphasize the long history of the Cape Corps in fighting on the side of the Government of the Cape Colony up to the turn of the century. As early as 1799 in Graaff-Reinet the Cape Corps was fighting under General Vanderleur in operations against the Kaffir chiefs and rebellious Hottentots, and later the Coloured opposed Sir David Baird when he landed at Simons-town.

They were called the Pandoers.

The one regiment was called the First Hottentot Light Infantry and the other was the Malay Artillery. Then in the Kaffir Wars, when Landdros Stockenstroom was assassinated, it was in fact the Cape Corps which retrieved his body from the Kaffirs and brought it back into the lines of the Government forces. So one can go on through the history of the Cape, particularly the history of the Frontier Wars, and one finds the part consistently played by the Cape Corps, and that pattern continues right through. I cannot see the justification for this amendment. I cannot see that the Board itself has run into any difficulties up to this stage in dealing with these graves, and I want to make an earnest appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this amendment. It seems to me unnecessary. The Board is able to do this job, and it is unnecessary to exclude one section of the people who fought in all these campaigns. I trust the Minister will see his way clear on reconsideration and on consultation with the members of the Board to have this amendment withdrawn. Subject to those comments, we on this side of the House welcome the Bill, and will support it.

It is fitting that all due honour should be paid to persons who gave their lives in defence of their country, and in so far as this Bill seeks to do that I support it and welcome it. I am indebted to the hon. member for Green Point for the short synopsis he gave of the part played by the Coloured people in the various wars, and it is really because of the amendment on page 134 by the hon. Minister that I rise to take part in this debate. We talk about separate development as the policy of this Government, but it appears to me that even in death for one’s country there has been separate development. I do not understand how the Government can overlook the part that was played by the Coloured people in all the conflicts. They died for their country. The hon. the Minister must know the history of the Voortrekkers. I do not have to remind Afrikaans South Africans of the gallant Voortrekkers. The Coloured people went with the Voortrekkers and fought with them. They played their gallant part with those gallant men and they died for this country. But now that does not mean a thing to this Government. What difference does it make if the Coloured people did die? They only want to look after the graves of the Whites, according to this amendment. It is an unfortunate amendment. As a Coloured Representative, I can call it nothing else but a studied insult to the Coloured people who have fought gallantly for hundreds of years for this country. I cannot understand hon. members opposite shaking their heads. Do they not realize what this amendment means? Do they not realize that the original Bill said:

It does not say that you had to be a soldier to die. It does not say that you had to wear a uniform and that it had to be an act of service in the true sense of the word. There are one or two places, I am told, where there are memorials to Coloured people. Are they to go to wrack and ruin? Who is going to look after them? Is it now intended that the Minister of Coloured Affairs must bring in a similar Bill to look after the war graves of the Coloured people where there are one or two memorials? I believe that there is one in the middle of Market Square in Umtata. I believe that is in a white area and that Coloured people cannot even go there. But that is not the point. I say that the explanation which the hon. the Minister gave in his introduction that this amendment became necessary because in the past few years the War Graves Commission dealt only with White people, is no excuse at all for the importation of this word “White” into this Bill. I think it is necessary at times to remind hon. members opposite that the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his department are doing everything possible to try to foster a good relationship between the Government, the White people and the Coloured people of this country. Every time they try to do something good, legislation of this kind is introduced which makes a fraud of their so-called gallant attempt to foster goodwill. As a Coloured representative I want to say that I will not be silenced when I see this sort of thing happen in the Parliament of South Africa, in a Parliament which should pay homage to all these people, of whatever colour, who have died in wars or rebellions in the defence of this country. It is a poor world which will not honour the glorious deeds rendered by the Coloured people of this country. Why should this happen? I do not wish to deal at great lengths with the points raised by the hon. member for Green Point about the services rendered by the Coloured people as far back as 1795. I am not even concerned about whether it is going to be difficult to find some of these graves. I want to repeat that there are some but if there are none, then they have no work to do. Why include the word “White”? Does the Minister who is now amending the law feel that it is justified in view of the advance which we have made with the Coloured people to include this word “White” merely because, as the hon. the Minister said, 10 or 15 years ago the board dealt only with Whites, as I understood him to say? The Minister now feels that it must be perpetuated. But we are now amending the law and will the hon. the Minister not feel it his duty to show the Coloured people that they have not been overlooked in this very important matter. Do not let them feel that they died in vain. Do not let them feel that the services which they rendered and that when they gave their lives, it was done for no purpose and that they are merely Coloured people and of no consequence.

Let us do the right thing and honour all dead because that is the wording of the Bill. The Bills says “all persons” and it does not talk of people who died in active service but all those who died in the wars and rebellions which occurred. That is all right and we welcome it. But now we have this amendment. I am going to make the same appeal which the hon. member for Green Point made. I want to say this to the hon. the Minister. The Coloured people will watch the attitude of the Government members in regard to this amendment. They will ask themselves, if this amendment is passed, “Is the Government really sincere with the Coloured people of this country?”. They would be entitled to say that it is not. Every one of us who has lost relatives tries to honour their memory by putting up tombstones and looking after their graves. You cannot have the Coloured people of South Africa going around the country putting up tombstones. It is the Government’s duty to do so and I make a very serious appeal to the hon. the Minister in regard to that one little word, so innocent but so dangerous in its effect. I plead with the hon. the Minister not to hurt the Coloured people or heap further indignities upon them. He will be doing so if he forces this amendment through.

Mr. Speaker, I enter this debate, partly because of knowledge and personal experience which I have had in regard to this matter during the past years, and partly on account of a particular reason to which I would like to refer presently. The hon. member for Green Point referred to the fact that in Natal we had been able to give the present War Graves Committee some assistance from time to time. I should like to go back into history for a few moments to explain the set-up in about 1934 and onwards, that is approximately 33 years ago. The position was that there were committees associated with various regiments, that is, with the Natal Carbineers, the B.M.R., the Durban Light Infantry and so on, who more or less took an interest in the war graves which were associated with the history of their own regiments. But there was a vast number of graves which did not come under the attention of those regimental groups because the regimental history was silent on any losses in that areas in which those graves were. The position therefore was that round about 1940, the executive in Natal decided to erect a monument at the site of the Battle of Ulundi. There were no Natal regiments involved at that time. I remember going with a member of the executive as we were both on the executive at that time.

Ask the Minister to listen.

Mr. Speaker, I would be grateful if the hon. the Minister would give me a chance. This is a matter in respect of which I feel very deeply indeed and I should be very grateful if the Minister would give me his attention for a few moments. I went with the late Mr. W. M. Power. I will be quite frank with the House. We went first to the Piet Retief memorial. From there we went to the site of the battle of Ulundi. The Piet Retief memorial was a dignified and wonderful memorial to the people who fell there. It was a model in so far as it represented the care and attention of the people who had come after and who were intent upon maintaining that monument in a proper and a dignified manner.

After that we went to the site of the battle of Ulundi which had been fought by British regiments. A very prominent historian has said that the battle of Ulundi, when the power of Cetewayo was finally broken, was the most decisive battle in the history of British arms because it carried not only the most far-reaching effects, but such a small number of casualties. We went to the battlefield and there were four fencing standards which had been coupled by three strands of barbed wire. They were flattened and were lying on the ground. Inside some 13 or 14 small iron crosses had been erected. There were no names on them at all. Many of them were bent over and were lying flat on the ground. One or two had been pulled out, but the mounds of the graves were there. A few Native herdboys came along as we got out of the car and walked down— there was no road—down to the graveyard. In their hands the Native boys had some old Martini Henry cartridge cases, mostly flattened. They tried to sell them to us for 3d. each as mementoes. We asked: What is this a memento of? Why are you selling us these cartridge cases? They said: These are mementoes of the battle which was fought here. So I said to them in their own language: Which battle was fought here? They replied: Cetewayo and our Zulu impis fought the English people. I asked what the outcome of the battle had been. They said: Our impis wiped the Englishmen off the face of the earth— simply scattered them. I then said: Whose graves are these? They said: These are the graves of the Englishmen that were killed here. I replied: There were not very many of them killed if you wiped out the whole army and you buried only 13 or 14. They replied: That is what happens when you give us a tickey each for our cartridge cases. The contrast between what we had seen at the Piet Retief memorial and what we saw where British arms were concerned made a terrible impression on our minds. I was ashamed. I speak from memory again. I think two of those buried there were English soldiers. The rest were Zulu levies.

Only one was White.

Yes, one was White and the rest were Zulu levies. They had stood there in the squares along with the British, and that was the sum total of the British casualties. Something like 6,000 Zulu were killed there and nobody worried about burying them. In that little graveyard one white man was buried and the rest were Zulus. The Natal Provincial Administration, at the time when Mr. Heaton-Nicholls was Administrator, erected a monument there which we believe was a fitting monument in keeping with what should be done to record the memory not only of the battle but also of those who died there. But the memorial records the bravery of the Zulus. When Mr. Nicholls unveiled the plaque on that monument, Zulus who had fought at the battle of Ulundi were present. Speaking again from memory, I think the battle was fought in 1879. The monument must have been unveiled in 1942. Present too were three white men who had fought at the battle of Ulundi. We brought them along so that they could participate in this unveiling. Approximately 500 or 600 white people were gathered there for the unveiling, and approximately 5,000 or 6,000 Zulus. In passing, as a matter of historical record, may I say that one of the Zulu indunas suggested that we had the fight over again there and then. He was so imbued with the spirit of history that he thought this was a good opportunity for a second round.

When we consider a Bill such as the one before us, I look back into our history, particularly in my own province, in regard to matters in which I have had a personal interest. My mind goes further. It goes to the battle of Spioenkop where British graves had suffered from sheet erosion to such an extent that almost whole rows of those buried there were exposed. They had to be exhumed and re-interred if we were to show any consideration whatsoever for our own dead. I am not certain about the date but round about the year 1945, when this work was done, it was extremely difficult to find where the people were buried and whom we should honour. In the first place there were those who were associated with the Zulu wars, and then there were those who had fought in the First and Second Boer Wars. We had to find where they had been buried. In the course of trying to identify them, I had an inquiry made in Natal —I was Administrator at the time—to find out what we had in the records. We had nothing whatsoever to help us.

At that time, I found that, apart from cases which concerned the regimental associations, if the graves were alongside our roads, the Roads Department had informed our road overseers that they should do whatever was necessary to demarcate the graves, to keep them in a tidy and proper condition and to have them cared for as far as they were able. They were to keep away encroaching vegetation, generally mark them out, and so forth. A survey was initiated over the whole of the province. We found, for example, the graves of the two men who, after the battle of Isandhlwana, swam the river with the colours of one regiment wrapped around the one officer. These men were Lieuts. Chard and Bromhead. Their graves had simply disappeared. It took us months of investigation before we eventually found the graves of those two men. The history books simply recorded that they had been buried on a bank of the river. They are not actually buried on the bank of the river. That is what misled us. They were probably both shot by Sebepu himself. We found their graves. We found numbers of other graves. Spread throughout the whole area in which the recent war—the Boer War— had been fought, we found the odd grave dotted around on the veld with no kind of mark at all except a little iron cross. There was nothing to indicate who was buried there.

Farmers came to us. Various people who had knowledge of these things came to us. In passing, may I pay a tribute to a man who for years and years has made a study of these things. He helped me tremendously in those days and ever since.

I am speaking of Dr. Robert Stevenson, a man who is probably the outstanding authority to-day not only on all those troop movements, but on this question of war graves. Eventually I had a plan prepared, covering, as far as was possible, every grave we had been able to find in the whole of Natal. I want to say quite frankly that in many instances, particularly where farms were concerned, the graves were there. I myself went to see many of these graves. The graves were there, and the farmers had taken all the crosses and put them together in a heap. We asked them: Can you tell us which of these crosses belongs to which grave? They replied that they could not. Some of those crosses had inscriptions on them, such as “Here lies a gallant Boer”, or “Here lies a brave British soldier”. There was another word, but let us use the word “brave”. Nobody can now tell which of those little crosses belongs to which grave. They have been carefully gathered up and the number of crosses tallied with the number of graves that were there. In regard to the people that were concerned, I may say that in no place did we find anything except care and attention for those graves.

But what about the graves in the veld? Here one finds a single grave by itself, miles away from anywhere; there one finds two or three graves together in one spot, half-a-dozen graves in another spot; there are small graveyards here and there, and also peaceful cairns, but the whole of their history is completely lost. They are there, and by general and common repute in that neighbourhood they are regarded as Boer War graves. If one goes way down in the Tugela Valley, people say the graves there are graves from the Zulu Wars. That is all that we have to go on.

The Roads Department prepared this map trying to establish where all these graves were. I then placed the care and maintenance of those graves under the Roads Department. The position gradually improved from then onwards, until latterly, during the last few years, pressure was brought to bear with a view to having the Administrator handing over to a sub-committee of the Natal Parks Board, a body which is charged with caring for historical monuments, the responsibility for dealing with what are called “historical graves”. Dr. Stevenson is on that body, together with other gentlemen, and their task is to care for these graves as they are found, to mark them, and so forth, and if we can manage to obtain from the owner of the land concerned the right to care for the maintenance not only of the immediate graveyard but also for the land in the vicinity, the position would be much improved. I may say that in some cases 500 to 600 acres have been handed over, and the area virtually becomes a nature reserve containing the graveyard and the interred bodies. That is one picture.

The other picture that I have to paint is the one at the top of Spioenkop. Rows and rows of skeletons were lying there on the top of the kopje because of wind erosion. Something had to be done, and was in fact done to get the bones properly reinterred.

These are the bare, hard facts which face the committee to be established under this Bill. May I now make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. I hope that the Minister will not take amiss what was said by the hon. gentleman who has just sat down. I do not think there is any intention on the part of the Government or anybody else to belittle the part played by Coloured soldiers in the past years of our history. I do not believe that for one moment. I also want to plead for those Zulus who lost their lives fighting with us. That is why I ask the Minister please not to proceed with his amendment. At Ulundi where we have that monument there are one white man and thirteen Zulus buried side by side. In life they fought together for white civilization here in South Africa, and in death they were buried side by side whilst the bugler sounded the Last Post over all of them. A monument has been erected over them. How can we now say that a body whose task it is to care for those graves must care for one of the graves only, namely that of the white man, and that it must not have anything to do with the care of the other 13 graves because they contain the remains of non-Whites? That is not in keeping with our history, it is not in keeping with our thoughts in this country. Those people fought and died there—and no man can do more than that. A similar position obtains also with regard to other races who died for the same cause from time to time.

I appeal to the Minister not to proceed with this amendment, Sir. Let him omit the word which it is proposed to insert. Let the section remain as it is printed. I feel sure that one of these days this Parliament will come with another measure which will be linked to this, namely a measure aimed at preserving the sacred places of the Zulu people. Those places enjoy no protection to-day, apart from such protection as is afforded by administrative measures under the aegis of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. Certain of these places are very sacred indeed. What would we do in regard to the grave of Chaka? This Bill deals with the graves of men who were killed in battle, in wars, in rebellions. Chaka was killed in a rebellion even though it was a rebellion against himself. There lies his grave in the very centre of Stanger, a sacred place for the Zulu people. He was surely one of the greatest men that Africa has ever produced, perhaps one of the greatest men that the world has ever produced. His grave should be adequately protected by an act of Parliament. So, too, the graves in the Makosin valley. As far as I can see those graves fall outside the scope of this Bill. But they are the graves of men, irrespective what colour they were, who fought in those wars, who fought in those rebellions, and they fought with our people, they defended them in playing their part. Where their graves are alongside those of other people, no matter what colour they may have been, let us say to the War Graves Commission, “Here are the graves, please care for them all and treat them in a fitting manner. See that they are maintained with proper dignity, because they are a share of the history of South Africa”. Because all those men played a part in the history of our country.

Mr. Speaker, with this discussion I do not want to take up the time of this House unnecessarily. I just want to add a few words to what has already been said in regard to this Bill. I think that it is necessary that we pay homage and express gratitude to the hon. the Minister here, on behalf of the South African nation, for the fact that this legislation makes provision for the graves of the heroes and heroines in the history of our nation to be properly preserved and cared for.

Our history is one of grand moments and low points, grand moments of victory and low points of conflict and mutual struggle. If I consider this measure, I say that we find ourselves here on the sacred acres of our nation, and therefore we must not become involved in a fierce political debate when we deal with this specific subject. For that reason I want to appeal to the Minister to put through this legislation. To that I want to add that it has been our experience throughout the years that various private bodies and persons have made it their endeavour to preserve graves in their own vicinities. I know that in many cases people have acted on their own initiative. I know that at many places Day of the Covenant committees made it their responsibility to maintain the graves of Voortrekkers or the fallen of some war or other. They regard that as being a debt of honour which they want to pay voluntarily. Therefore they have undertaken this praiseworthy work of their own free will. I know of various Voortrekker commandos at various places in our country who have themselves taken on the responsibility of caring for certain monuments or certain graves. I know of the Civil Graves Committee. There are also various other bodies and persons who have made it their task to render this great service to the nation and to the fatherland.

In view of the fact that this legislation contemplates the co-ordination of all these matters and establishes a board which may receive contributions and funds, and in view of the fact that this matter is now going to be undertaken on a national basis, I want to pay homage to the Minister for having taken this step. I have nothing but praise for the great work to be carried out by this committee. I want to conclude with this one thought: A nation that honours its heroes will never be held in contempt by anyone.

Mr. Speaker, I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister. After the 1914-1918 War and the 1939-1945 War, the Imperial War Graves Commission was responsible for the maintenance of all soldiers’ graves, and they dealt with all those graves irrespective. Now, we are dealing with graves of those who died before 1914. I ask the Minister in all sincerity not to accept the amendment which purports to insert the word “White” in this Bill. He must take it out. The Minister is doing himself an injustice, because I think, that this Bill has considerable merit and it has considerable depth of feeling for many people. I do not think that non-Whites should be excluded from the operations of this enactment, no matter how many, or how few there may be. I think that it is an error to do so, when we deal with a measure such as this, a measure which relates to events of such distant dates. I think that it is wrong to discriminate on the grounds of colour against certain of the fallen. I am not going to enter the field of controversy at all. I only make an appeal to the Minister, a sincere, genuine appeal. Because over many years in public life I have in my own small way assisted wherever I could, to care for the graves of persons who died in the conflicts of the country, of which there have been many of various kinds. This country has a wide and varied history, Sir. You may not know it, Sir, but I have been responsible for the caring of the graves of those internees of the concentration camps who died during the Anglo-Boer War of 1899-1902 at Kimberley. I was responsible for looking after those graves for many years, long before anybody ever thought of doing anything about it. When it was suggested that something should be done about the cemetery of the Highlanders buried at Magersfontein because it was in such a bad state, and also at Enslin, Belmont, Orange River and at Modder River, it might surprise you to hear, Mr. Speaker, that a few men, of which I was one, asked why we should not deal with the Boer graves as well. And they were dealt with. It is immaterial who did it. Persons who were interested felt that something should be done.

The hon. member for Green Point paid a tribute to the City Council a body of which I was a member for thirty years. We maintained war graves long before anybody else even considered it. They lie there in rows. We looked after the graves of the victims—if we like to call them that—of the concentration camps, or the refugee camps, as they are called by some of us. We did all these things. It is history. It cannot be changed. Nothing can roll history back, be it good or bad.

The Minister knows that when Piet Retief was done in and murdered by Dingaan thirty Hottentot “agterryers” who were with him also lost their lives. Something like 500 non-Whites were murdered by the Zulus at Blaauwkrans, Weenen, and Bushman’s River. They had no weapons with which to defend themselves. They are part and parcel of our history. Why, then, Sir, discriminate against them?

I will quote another instance. Waterboer sent a force of 200 men to assist white people at Kuruman and Littakoo, just outside of Kuruman, to deal with a marauding tribe of Bantu, who were overrunning the Western Free State, Western Transvaal and the Northern Cape. If these graves should be discovered, surely they should not be neglected because of the fact that they were who they were? They made a contribution to the defence of civilization in this country, the same as many others. I hope that the Minister will not put a blot on the record of our efforts to try and live amicably with the non-White people, by specifically excluding them from the operation of this Bill, by the insertion of this word “White”.

This came as an afterthought. I think that the Minister had good intentions. I think that his intentions were sound and honourable in every possible respect, and that he intended doing the best he could by setting up this board and commission. I am sure of that. But since the Bill has come here from the Other Place, we find this amendment on the Order Paper. I say to the Minister, and I say so sincerely, that as white people we should be ashamed of ourselves if we pass this measure with this amendment. I hope the Minister will withdraw this amendment. I sincerely ask him to do so.

Mr. Speaker, I want to convey my sincere thanks to hon. members on the other side for the support they have lent this principle, for their praise of it, and for the cordial words they addressed to the War Graves Committee, which did the work previously. I want to give them the assurance that we appreciate their words very highly. The hon. member for Green Point, who was able to speak from first-hand knowledge, knows under what conditions these things happened. When I became Minister of Public Works in 1955 and had the honour to establish the first board, at first under the Department of Public Works and later under my own Department, I co-operated very closely with them. The amount of money we received annually was rather small. I also want to pay tribute to the men who did the work, and particularly to the public who made the contributions. I think we South Africans have the right spirit, in that we want to honour our dead for what they did for their country and for their nation, and for what they did in the conviction that it was right. I therefore want to thank everybody who took part in this debate and said such cordial things.

I want to tell the hon. member for Green Point at once that the graves of the garrison troops are actually the responsibility of the Department of Public Works, even to-day. All that we are taking over now is the care of graves of garrison troops of before 1910. Because the Department of Public Works is concerned with the graves of the 1914-1918 War and the 1939-1945 War, they will also be responsible for looking after the graves of garrison troops of between 1910 and 1914, We are aware of the fact that there were garrison troops up to 1914. This aspect has been duly covered, and it is an arrangement which was made inter-departmentally. I hope that will satisfy the hon. member.

Will they be the same graves?

No, they will not be the same. We take only those of before 1910. I should like to subscribe to the hon. member’s idea that we give an instruction to this newly established board which now gives us the legal power and authority to compile a list of war graves.

I am very grateful to hear from the hon. member for South Coast that this has already been done and is still being done in Natal. We are grateful for that. But, Sir, I think we should also centralize this aspect, for according to what I was told by the previous chairman, Dr. Kieser, one of the greatest problems is determining where the war graves actually are. That is something we may consider. If the hon. member moves such an amendment, I shall be quite prepared to support it.

A minor question that has given rise to some difficulty is that of “white persons”. Now I have to tell you where that originated. The board which has functioned in this form for 12 years functioned only in respect of Whites. It functioned only in respect of white graves. The hon. member for Green Point acknowledged that we still have to cope with great problems merely to discover and renovate the graves of Whites. But when the hon. member for South Coast mentioned an example of where there are non-White graves, it made one consider that there have in fact been such instances in our history. The hon. member for Karoo mentioned an example of Hottentot outriders.

If we study our entire history we frequently come across cases where those people had done their share. But the difficulty is to find the graves. I see that Simonstown itself has now made a start with the renovation of the cemetery for sailors. Because of our restricted means we could not put a hand to the Simonstown cemetery previously. The terms of reference of the War Graves Board also prevented that. Under this legislation we can now renovate the Simonstown cemetery. I am pleased to see that local initiative is already undertaking that.

I want to say at once that when this legislation was introduced in the Other Place, one hon. Senator wanted to insert the word “White” during the Committee stage. I did not want to accept it and I said that I would consider it. The reason why I considered it is not what some hon. members may think, namely that we now want to discriminate against certain people. The reason was the problem involved in implementing the legislation. Because this legislation is in fact statutorily confirming the status quo of a board which was already functioning, we inserted the word “White”. I want to tell hon. members, however, that I am quite prepared to abandon that amendment, for the simple reason that the intention is not what hon. members may think. I have to warn hon. members right away, however, that for the moment there will not be enough money to look after the non-white graves. Large-scale assistance will also have to be rendered in order to determine where the graves actually are. In this regard I want to mention some difficulties. The hon. member for Green Point himself actually mentioned a few. Consider all the native wars that took place before there were any White people in South Africa. Consider all the graves that are lying there. How is it to be determined who is who? Is that really something that we should consider? But when we come to the graves of people like Chaka, Dingaan, and Moselikatse, people who did great things, we are dealing with landmarks in our history. We want to preserve them for future generations. There are many of these, however, which are impossible to trace or to determine. Nevertheless, to eliminate any possible doubt I shall drop this amendment.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Two principles are involved in this Bill, but before I deal with them I should just like to sketch the background to the position in respect of water provision at Mafeking. Mafeking derives its water solely from a spring, known as the Grootfontein, which is situated in the Transvaal, 11 miles east of the town. The water rights were acquired by purchase in 1932. At that time one-quarter of the rights to that fountain belonged to the Roux family and three-quarters of the rights belonged to various owners of the farms Grootfontein and Valleifontein. By virtue of Act No. 13 of 1932, Mafeking acquired half of this three-quarter share of the rights. Over the years they have been buying out further rights by means of negotiation. They did not buy out the rights of the Roux family, but confined themselves exclusively to buying out the three-quarter share of the rights, so that they are holding 82.3 per cent of this three-quarter share at present. The rights which are still to be bought, represent 17.7 per cent of the three-quarter share. These owners live on plots with an average size of approximately 35 morgen, and they have water rights for 11 morgen per plot. At the moment an average of two up to ten morgen are being irrigated on these plots. There is a total of 38 morgen which is still being irrigated, and of the remaining owners there are still eight persons who are concerned in this matter. I want to emphasize that these rights will not affect the Roux family. As a matter of fact, the Mafeking Municipality is prepared to enter into certain agreements with the Roux family to the effect that they will not buy their water rights. Owing to the fact that these rights have been distributed widely as a result of subdivisions and that it is particularly difficult to act in terms of section 2 of the principal Act, in terms of which all individual owners have to give their consent if the municipality wants to buy out further water rights, the municipality is now requesting the right to expropriate upon payment of compensation. The municipality requests this right in section 2(b). Legal advice has also been taken in regard to this whole matter. The lawyer who furnished this legal advice was of the opinion that these rights could in fact be acquired by way of application to the court. Therefore the object of this amendment is to determine this means of legislation.

Next I come to clause 2. During the recent drought the supply of water was weakened to such an extent, even after the introduction of strict water restrictions, that the municipality was obliged to apply to the Department of Water Affairs for permission to sink a borehole. In terms of the Act of 1932 the municipality was not entitled to use any artificial means to affect the flow of this fountain in any way. A permit for sinking a borehole was granted by the Department of Water Affairs at that time. These rights are now being applied for by means of this amendment.

In the main these are the two principles with which this entire amending Bill deals. Clause 3 only provides that the Expropriation Act will now apply here, since the fountain is situated in the Transvaal. At that time they had to take action by means of two ordinances, of the Transvaal as well as of the Cape, to apply any powers of expropriation. Now it is stated explicitly that this municipality falls under the Expropriation Act (Act No. 55 of 1965).

I shall now deal with clause 4. In terms of section 9 of the Transfer Duty Act, local authorities are exempted from the payment of transfer duty on acquisitions. Accordingly section 15 of the principal Act lapses.

Clause 5 validates the sinking of boreholes for which permission has already been obtained from the Department of Water Affairs. Clause 6 contains consequential amendments arising from our constitutional changes. Other words are substituted for “Union”, “Governor-General” and “Crown”.

This is briefly the background to this amending Bill. I have also discussed this Bill with the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs. His Department has no objection to the introduction of this Bill, on condition that it will remain subject to the Water Act of 1956. Notice of the amendments I shall move during the Committee Stage, has also been given in the Order Paper. I am mentioning this to hon. members so that they may look at them. I move.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House have no objection to the Second Reading of this Bill. The hon. member is a new member in this House and I should like to say that we appreciate the manner in which he has put forward his case. He has strengthened his position, I think, by the promise he has made to include in the Bill in the Committee Stage the amendment which is already on the Order Paper. That strengthens his position. It does away with the difficulty which we on this side of the House had foreseen. Therefore we wish him well in the passage of this Bill through Parliament.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned yesterday I intimated that we would support a Bill which intended to train Coloured people to equip themselves to be better citizens and to be better employed. We realize and we know that there are young Coloured people who are “don’t works” and “won’t works” and who are idle. I am sorry to say that I think the proportion of these people amongst the Coloureds is unduly high. These people are no credit to their own people and they are certainly not an asset to the community as a whole. There is a class amongst them which is inclined to be lawless and every now and again they clash with the law. I do not want to use the term “skolly” when referring to these people. I want to avoid using any term which has a derogatory meaning at all. I would not like to have any stigma attached to this whole scheme or operation of the Minister. The Minister stated yesterday that 20 per cent of the economic active population of the Coloured people are unemployed. This is an abnormally high figure when there is so much work to be had and there is such a shortage of manpower and there are so many avenues of empolyment today. Then he stated that 20 per cent of these unemployed are under the age of 20 years. Most of these people are people who should be gainfully employed. One asks oneself the question “why is this the position?” Why is there this large percentage of unemployed amongst the Coloured people? The Minister puts this down to the fact that their parents are not sufficiently interested in them, to the lack of education and discipline, and in many cases the fact that parents are quite indifferent to the welfare and future of their children. The Minister described that as one of the main causes for this development that has taken place amongst the young Coloured people.

I accept that what the Minister says is to a large extent correct, but I think that one of the main reasons for this is the lack of compulsory education or schooling amongst the Coloured people. It is during schooling that they are disciplined. The children are properly disciplined. They are kept occupied. It is schooling which equips them for future employment, including self-employment, and to become useful citizens. Coloured youths who have had schooling are mostly employed. They are employed when they are very young as messengers. Many of them are employed as clerks, and so forth. Schooling is of paramount importance for the employment of the Coloured youth of to-day. If they are at school, I have no doubt that their parents are far more interested in their children. They keep them off the streets. They play their games at school. They go home of an evening or an afternoon tired after their games. They are happy to go home afterwards and they stay in during the evening. Consequently they are not on the streets and they do not become liabilities.

To-day 88 per cent of the Coloured children are at school, but of these only 40 per cent reach Std. II. About 35 per cent of the Coloured children therefore reach Std. II. To put it in a different way, 65 per cent of the Coloured children do not reach Std. II This means that 65 per cent of the Coloured children must leave school at the age of about nine or ten years. At that age 65 per cent of the children are out of school. They run around and have nothing to do. These are the children who start forming gangs and go wrong. According to the Minister’s speech yesterday, Mr. Tom Swartz said in 1964 that he welcomed youth camps to deal with the problem of youngsters who leave school before they should. In other words, he also makes the point that these children leave school before they should and that they then drift into crime and delinquency. There can be no doubt that the lack of schooling is one of the major reasons for the problem we have amongst the Coloured people to-day. We realize that there are difficulties in connection with compulsory schooling. We realize that it is not something which can be put into operation overnight. There are not sufficient school buildings. But the Government has been in power for a long time and I think that more could have been done and I definitely think that more must be done in the immediate future to provide the necessary school facilities for these youngsters.

We also realize that there are not sufficient teachers to-day to cope with the problem but if the children had been at school over a long period and if they had some compulsory schooling, then there would have been more children in the higher standards who would then automatically have taken up the teaching profession and we would not have had the shortage we have to-day. I believe that Coloured children should be kept at school at least until they are 14 years of age or preferably 16. If they can be kept at school until that age then they will be properly disciplined and they will then find jobs more easily. The period will then not be there when they run around with nothing to do and become a problem with crime and delinquency as the consequence.

I think that another reason for this problem is the economic position in which so many Coloured people find themselves. Amongst other things this leads to miscegenation. We have already discussed the matter here that the amount of miscegenation, particularly among Coloured women and Bantu men, is abnormally high. The Bantu men who are mostly migrant labourers and far away from their families father illegitimate children and leave the cities and return to their homes, leaving the Coloured mothers with the illegitimate children. They are not in the position to look after them and these children particularly grow up undisciplined and drift into crime. I think that the tendency to-day is for the better class of Coloured person to improve and progress but the lower class is sinking lower. This socio-economic position is also to a large extent the cause of the problem with which we are faced to-day. The problem with which we wish to deal is not a very old one. I do not think that we had this position ten or 15 years ago. It is one that has developed since then. Since then this undisciplined element has come forward.

We are dealing to-day with young people who grew up under the present Government and they must share their responsibility for the situation and do what they can to eliminate it and to provent its continuation. Unless we attack this problem at its very root, we shall always have to deal with it. The gap between children leaving school at ten years to 18 years is too big. This is the time when they go wrong and it would be ever so much better if they could be prevented from running around at that time and drifting into crime, than to have to reform them at a later stage. Keep them at school and uplift the Coloured people socially and that will instil into them a greater measure of self-respect. This Bill may deal with the problem at hand but we shall always have it unless we embark on a long-term policy which will prevent these people from going wrong. Put it into effect with the least possible delay.

This Bill is designed to deal with a particular section of the Coloured people. Clause 2 states that the object of the training centres is to train cadets for any kind of employment. With this intention the Bill will have our support. We want a Bill which will be to the benefit of the Coloured community, one which will better equip them to become better and more useful citizens in their own interests, in the interests of their community and in the interests of the State as a whole. The emphasis must be on training for their betterment and not to fulfil labour shortages which may be caused by the removal of the Bantu. If the underlying motive is to supply labour, it will fail to do the Coloured people a service. It is a great pity that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration made a statement which implied that the object of the Bill was to supply labour to fill gaps caused by his policy. I think that the matter is clearly stated in The Cape Times of a week ago—

Then in his interview with the correspondent, he goes on and says this—

I did not speak of a Work Camp Bill. That is all nonsense. I never mentioned those words. [Interjections.]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the hon. the Minister looks upon this Bill as a means to supply the Western Cape with labour to implement his policy in removing the Bantu. [Interjections.] The hon. member for Piketberg made a very similar statement, namely that they look upon this Bill as a means to supply the labour for those places from which the Bantu are to be removed. I feel that these statements have caused great harm and it will be a good thing if the Minister of Coloured Affairs will speak unequivocally and tell us that this is not the object and that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration was wrong and that his statement conveyed the wrong impression.

The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs made a rather vicious attack on the English language Press for their criticisms of this Bill. I hold no brief for the Press but I think it would have been better if the hon. the Minister had directed his criticism at the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education in regard to his statement. It did more damage to this Bill than anything else. The hon. the Minister cannot blame the Press if they reacted to the Deputy Minister’s statement. [Interjections.] If this Bill fulfils its object, that is to train Coloured youths, they will become skilled or semi-skilled and there should not be very many trainees available to replace unskilled Bantu labour. In a Press statement the hon. the Deputy Minister himself stated that this Bill was not specifically designed to provide for gaps left by the removal of African labour from the Western Cape. I would have preferred the Minister to state that this Bill is specifically designed to train Coloured people for their betterment and that any labour which may be supplied is incidental thereto. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will not object to putting this in a positive form, rather than in the negative form in which he stated it. I know that the Minister is very keen to have a good reception for this Bill throughout the country and to achieve that he would certainly have to clear away many of the misunderstandings that exist to-day.

This scheme must not be looked upon as a work colony scheme but as one for the benefit of the Coloured people, and if this is done, this scheme will have the support of the Coloured people as well as of the white people. It must be a scheme to which no stigma attaches and the trainees must be proud to be trained under the scheme. They must be men who are sought after by employers.

There are certain clauses which we on this side shall want to have amended during the Committee stage. For one thing, we do not think that the word “cadet” is very suitable because we feeel that it refers more to a military or naval organization. I use the word “trainee”, a word which we think might be more suitable, but that is something that can be discussed during the Committee stage. Clause 3 (1) refers to the committees of management. Will the members thereof be White people only or will Coloured people also be appointed to these committees of management? As regards clause 6, we on this side feel that preference should be given to a Coloured medical practitioner. Clause 8 (5) is one which we view with some alarm and we think that it be amended so that time is given for a trainee or any other Coloured person to produce his certificate rather than that he should always have it on his person. He should be given, say, 48 hours or even longer in which to produce his certificate. As the subsection now reads it creates the impression that a pass is to be carried, and that causes a good deal of resentment. I feel that the certificate should be treated on the same lines as our identity cards and that time should be given for the production thereof. Amendments to clauses 10 and 11 will be proposed, and other hon. members will go into that. We feel that clause 15 should be amended because we think it can be improved. We want to tie to that clause the training for certain types of work, i.e. the performance of any kind of work incidental and necessary to some kind of employment. Clause 29 also worries us. I will not go into details as other hon. members will raise the matter. Amongst other things the question of apprenticeship will be gone into and discussed by other hon. members.

We on this side support the principle of this Bill so long as it is intended to train Coloured people who require training.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House welcome the fact that the United Party supports this legislation, even though the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) added the usual number of “buts”. He is of the opinion that compulsory education will remedy the position. That may be the case as far as the future is concerned, but for the next ten years compulsory education will not solve the problem we have to contend with at present.

The hon. member made a nasty accusation here by saying that the position amongst the Coloureds—the debilitation and deterioration which have set in—has arisen under this Government. When I was a child …

That was not so long ago.

Actually, it was not long ago, but it was under the United Party regime. In those days a District Six already existed and at that time the position was such that the police, who were not armed in those days, did not dare to go into District Six at night. As I have said, that was under the United Party regime. This situation which we have to cope with in South Africa, is a very old one. The position has not improved; on the contrary, it has deteriorated. That, Sir, is why it is time we took action.

The hon. member settled a very big point here with the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. But what is wrong with what the Deputy Minister said? The hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs told us here that 20 per cent of the labour of the Coloured population was not being utilized productively. If that 20 per cent could in fact be utilized productively, it would mean an extra 300,000 workers. We would then replace all the Bantu in the Western Cape with them. What is wrong with this argument?

But should they not be trained?

Of course, they should be trained. They should be rendered fit for employment.

It is not necessary for us to take a roundabout way. This legislation is a result of the socio-economic programme for Coloureds, as announced by the previous Prime Minister in 1961. From the nature of the case this will cost a great deal of money. The Minister announced here what the proposed buildings would cost. He said that at the very outset it would cost more than R1 million, whereas the maintenance thereof would amount to R380,000 per annum. That is why this question may rightly be asked—and this question really embraces two significant points: What is the value of this great expense which is being incurred, in the first place, to the Coloured population and, in the second place, to the country as a whole? As regards the Coloured population nobody can deny that there has been neglect in the past, that enough has not been done to uplift the Coloureds and to help them and to enable them to uplift themselves. It is true that the majority of the Coloureds leave school at an early age. It is also true that a large percentage of them—I think a figure of 20 per cent was mentioned, and I think this figure is still conservative—never do any productive work. Many of them become loafers and eventually hooligans and ducktails, as we also find among other population groups.

It is a fact that we have a manpower shortage. I do not wish to suggest that large-scale loafing is to be found amongst the Coloureds. People who know better or ought to know better, say that this is not the case. But what I do in fact know, and even the people who say that they know better cannot refuse it, is that too large a percentage of the Coloured population does not perform productive work.

Owing to the great economic prosperity we are experiencing in our country as a whole and the low standard of living of a very large section of the Coloureds, the position is deteriorating instead of improving. There is a congestion and a concentration of Coloureds in our cities and our towns where many of them do not perform productive labour, but occupy their time with casual and routine work instead, and for the rest they live on the pensions of the aged and the disabled. These young men who are now forced to register and who are called up for training, can play a tremendously great part in the upliftment of their communities to which they return after receiving that training. I foresee that this training of young Coloured men will have more or less the same effect as the old S.S.B. had in the thirties. That was the time of poor-Whiteism in South Africa and that was also a period of large-scale unemployment. Many young men who lounged and loafed about uselessly in the rural areas, were called up and that training meant an infinitely great deal to them. It also meant a great deal to the communities they had come from, and after that training many of those young man were able to fulfil their task in society efficiently, and they made their mark in life. But since we have a manpower shortage, the training of these Coloureds may increase their labour productivity, and in this way they can make a tremendous contribution to the development of the country. Sir, we can draw comparisons. Every white boy has to register when he reaches the age of 17. We had a ballot system formerly. The hon. the Minister of Defence announced that the ballot system would disappear next year and that every boy would be liable to military service as from next year. Let us compare the position as regards exemptions under this legislation with the position as far as young white men are concerned. As regards young white men, there is actually no exemption. Higher education is not a reason for exemption. This Bill provides that a young Coloured man who wants to further his studies, may not be called up because he is improving his position in life. Neither Coloureds who have apprenticed themselves, nor those who are in full-time employ are called up. Therefore we can draw a comparison; we have nothing to hide in this regard. This legislation may be judged on face-value. The intention is that it should be of some significance to the Coloureds and, secondly, to the country as well. From this point of view I welcome this Bill. I have also pleaded in the past that something should be done in this direction. All things have a small and modest beginning, and the amounts mentioned here by the hon. the Minister are already large sums of money, but to my mind this problem is so great—as a matter of fact, it is deteriorating—that the Government should not shrink back from the money which has to be spent on this. I am only disappointed that the amount is not much larger. I am disappointed that the numbers which can actually receive training, are not much larger. I am convinced that this measure will yield large dividends. In this respect we should not think in terms of a thousand Coloureds who have to be trained; we should think in terms of tens of thousands. At present 90,000 of them can register already, and if one is merely able to train 1,000 out of the 90,000 it is still nothing but a drop in the ocean. I say that we should not shrink back from the money which has to be spent on this, since I believe that this measure will yield greater dividends than those of any measure relating to the Coloured population we have ever taken here; it will yield dividends for the Coloured population itself as well as for South Africa.

There is no doubt that the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs in his introductory speech yesterday succeeded in clearing the air considerably with regard to the objects of this Bill. His assurances have helped to reduce a great deal the suspicion and antagonism of a large section of the Coloured people of this country with regard to this measure. In all fairness to the Coloured people, however, I say that they cannot be blamed for adopting that attitude. Both our Afrikaans Press and our English-language Press high-lighted the deteriorating labour situation in the Western Cape and indicated that this Bill would be initiating a new system of forced labour to fill the labour gap caused by the withdrawal of African labour in the Western Cape. I repeat that picture was presented to the citizens of this country and to the Coloured people by both sections of our Press. As though that was not sufficient, great publicity was given to a statement alleged to have been made—and I use the term “alleged” advisedly in view of the repudiation by the hon. the Minister this afternoon—by the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration in which he referred to this Bill as the Coloured Work Camp Bill.

I did not.

I unequivocally accept the hon. the Deputy Minister’s assurance; I do not want to become involved in an argument with him. I accept his assurance but it is a great pity that repudiation was not made earlier because that statement was published throughout the country and it helped to create this wrong impression in the minds of the Coloured people.

It does not matter what he calls it; what matters is the intention underlying the Bill.

You will appreciate, Sir, that this caused a great deal of unnecessary alarm in the minds of the Coloured people and of the Coloured leaders who immediately saw in this Bill a threat that their young men would be compulsorily removed to work camps. I want to repeat that the assurance given by the Minister of Coloured Affairs in this House yesterday will no doubt ameliorate a great deal of the hostile feeling which was unfortunately created in the minds of our Coloured people. The hon. the Minister assured us yesterday that the object of this Bill was to provide genuine training centres for Coloured youths and not work camps or work colonies, and I unequivocally accept his assurances. He assured us that there was no intention to establish forced labour camps; that there was no intention whatsoever to force cadets into a particular avenue of employment. He went on to say that after his basic training the cadet would be placed in work of his own choice or would do further training in accordance with his intellectual abilities and his competence and his interests. I am very glad indeed that the hon. the Minister availed himself of the opportunity in an early part of his introductory speech to set out the objects of this Bill. His statement will help a great deal to eliminate the hostility towards this measure. Having said that, I would like to say from my own personal point of view that whilst I agree with the general principle underlying this Bill, I am of the opinion that the Bill in its present form leaves a great deal to be desired. Before I deal with my own criticisms of this measure, I would like to say a word or two in regard to what I consider to be the original, real purpose behind this Bill when it was first adumbrated.

The hon. the Minister himself has referred to the circumstances which gave rise to this Bill. I would say that it is fair to say that the whole idea originated with the object of getting the Government’s help in compelling a small section of “won’t-works” among the Coloured people, the indigent and delinquent section, to undertake some form of compulsory training so as to fit them for the part they could play in their future lives. There is no doubt about it that responsible Coloured people were growing more and more alarmed at the number of—for want of a better term T will refer to them as “skollies”, because the Coloured leaders themselves call them that—who were bringing the Coloured people into disrepute. Responsible Coloured leaders were alarmed at these gangs of young Coloured men who were roaming the streets and creating a great deal of unlawfulness. In the recently established Coloured townships on the outskirts of this city it became more and more dangerous for respectable Coloured people to venture out at night. They were violently attacked and there were many cases of violence executed by these gangs against these law-abiding, decent people. It became almost impossible for the police to cope with the terrible situation which had developed. Unfortunately these assaults were not only confined to the Coloured areas. These skollies became more and more brazen as time went on, and even now it is by no means rare to see these gangs operating in well-established white areas, and even in the centre of our city. In these circumstances the Coloured leaders themselves urged the Government to take the necessary steps to rid our cities and the new Coloured townships of these unruly elements. I am sure that every responsible Coloured leader and, indeed, a very large section of our white population, would wholeheartedly support the Government in giving effect to this reasonable request by Coloured leaders to try and eliminate this danger.

If this Bill had confined itself to that object—and here I want to repeat that the hon. the Minister himself drew attention to the fact that the chairman of the Coloured Council, as far back as 1964, in very well chosen words, moved a resolution urging the Government to take steps to relieve the situation; if the Government had carried out that original idea behind the Bill, they would certainly have received the approbation of all well-disposed persons, both White and non-White. But I want to say at once that the Bill before us goes far beyond that original object. As the Minister explained yesterday, the aim of this Bill is to give direction and purpose to Coloured youths and to equip them for employment. I fel that the powers taken under this Bill by the Minister are far too wide. Much of the Coloured opposition to this measure stems from the fact that all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 will now have to register. It was all very well for the Government and for the hon. member for Malmesbury to say that this is comparable with the registration of white youths for military purposes, but we know that this is not the case and it is no good bluffing ourselves. We know that the original object of the Bill was what I have already described, and we know that it is intended to deal with that element of “won’t-works” among the Coloured people. Surely this cannot be compared with the honourable purpose of registering for military duty? I do not think we must bluff ourselves in that regard. The Coloured people feel that by placing an onus upon all Coloured youths between 18 and 24 years to register, they are being categorized as potential “won’t-works”. In terms of the Bill the onus is put upon all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 to be exempted from the scheme, and all Coloured youths will have to carry an exemption certificate. The Coloured people regard this as objectionable, because they regard it in the nature of a pass, and we know how from time immemorial people have resented that type of thing. They feel that this pass might be constantly demanded by any policemen at will, and will bring unnecessary humiliation on a large section of the law-abiding Coloured people, even those who are in permanent employment. I think this will cause a great deal of unnecessary friction and trouble. It will cause resentment on the part of the decent, law-abiding Coloured youths. Surely we can devise a better scheme to deal with the situation the Minister has described. Here I want to say that I am wholeheartedly with him when he says that a scheme has to be introduced to improve the conditions I have described. But I say that we could devise a better method of dealing with the situation, a method which would not exacerbate the feelings between the Whites and the Coloureds of this country. I would suggest that the object behind this Bill can be attained, and the matter can be remedied, by saying in simple legal terms that all Coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24 who do not fall under the exemptions outlined in clause 14 of the Bill shall be obliged to register as recruits for undergoing the training contemplated in the Bill. In other words, instead of compelling all Coloured youths to register, the obligation should be placed only on those who do not qualify for the exemptions under clause 14. This, to my mind, would remove a great deal of the stigma which compulsory registration places upon the entire Coloured population. It would remove the fears that exist in the minds of Coloured leaders that Coloured children may be arrested without warrant if there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that they have contravened the provisions of this Bill. I suggest to the Minister that he gives some consideration to reversing the process outlined in this Bill, and makes it apply only to those Coloured youths who do not qualify for the exemptions outlined in clause 14. This would mean that if a Coloured youth within that age group is receiving full-time instruction at a school or university or is in full-time employment, or is serving an apprenticeship, or if he is unfit owing to a physical or mental defect, there is no obligation on such a youth to register as a recruit. This will mean that the law-abiding Coloured youths who are engaged in full-time occupation or who are medically unfit will not have to register themselves. Registration would only apply to those Coloured boys who are not protected by these exemptions.

I say the Minister should give some consideration to reversing the process along the lines I have indicated here. He would then remove the unnecessary stigma which undoubtedly will attach to the entire Coloured population having to register. I am reminded of the great service rendered to this country some 30 years ago, when the old Special Service Battalion was formed. It was the means of helping countless maladjusted and misdirected White youths—White youths who would not work—into becoming useful South African citizens. It will be remembered however that the system enforced under the Special Service Battalion did not compel all our South African youths to register and to carry exemption certificates or passes. It certainly did not deprive all our White parents of their parental control over their own children, and it did not place them under the control of some selection board, which is envisaged in this Bill. It merely dealt with the mis-directed White youths who would not work and over whom their parents or guardians had lost control. That is what I am suggesting should happen here. Those boys who will not work and those boys over whom their parents or guardians have lost control are the boys who should have to register in terms of this scheme. Those are the boys the Government should deal with on the lines indicated by the hon. the Minister in this Bill. I feel that we should strive for some similar system, on the lines of the old Special Service Battalion, rather than to have the all-embracing powers envisaged in this Bill, which will virtually control and guide the entire destiny of the Coloured population in future.

Surely a method on the lines of that old Battalion would be the means of combating this unfortunate problem. It would indicate that any one who is not engaged in a lawful occupation would have to register. He would have to register as a recruit and would have to undergo the training at a proper training centre, which the Minister has in mind in this Bill. It would certainly eliminate the stigma of all Coloured youths having to register whether they were employed or not. I am quite certain that an approach to this problem on the lines that I have mentioned will receive the whole-hearted support of most of our citizens in this country. Certainly it will receive the whole-hearted support of our Coloured leaders. In regard to the Coloured leaders, I should like to say that there is no one more concerned than these Coloured leaders about the ever-growing problem of delinquency among the Coloured youths. They are fully aware of the grave situation which obtains at the moment. There is no one more concerned than they are about preparing their youths for useful and legitimate work and keeping them off the streets. I would suggest that if we could evolve some scheme which would not necessarily cast any reflection on the whole community, but only deal with those boys who are not willing to work, we would accomplish a great deal as regards winning back the goodwill of the Coloured leaders.

I do not want to go into the reasons which necessitate our having to deal with this matter. They have been dealt with by previous speakers, namely the hon. member for Gardens and the hon. the Minister himself. They dealt with the unfortunate circumstances which have brought about this grave situation. I think it can be summarized by saying that it is the lack of compulsory schooling and education which has brought this about. It must be remembered that these Coloured youths have not had the benefit of compulsory schooling. Many of them have had no schooling whatsoever. That is the human tragedy of the situation. Many of them have had no schooling whatsoever. They come from the poorest environments imaginable. They have not been taught any self-respect or discipline. The Coloured leaders realize only too well that the time has come for inculcating in the minds of these boys the necessity of receiving a proper course of training and of discipline so as to fit them for becoming useful citizens in this country. I want to emphasize this point. I think it is necessary that the hon. the Minister should bear this in mind. The necessity of acting on the lines that I have indicated only applies to a small percentage of these Coloured youths. It only applies to those Coloured youths who will not find employment, who have no desire to find employment and who have no desire to engage themselves in any honest work. It is that section of the Coloured community that has to be dealt with.

The hon. the Minister yesterday referred very briefly to a petition, a copy of which was given to him, I think by myself, signed by some of the leaders of the Coloured people in this country. It is perhaps appropriate that I should quote one portion of the petition, because it will give to the House the idea of what these Coloured leaders have in mind. The petitioners, in one portion of their petition to the hon. the Minister, say:

I mention this as proof, if any were needed, of the fact that Coloured leaders are very anxious to co-operate with the Government to find some way to deal with the unfortunate “won’t works” in their midst. They feel that it is unnecessary to have a Bill with these extremely wide terms, as it creates an unnecessary stigma upon the decent, law-abiding members of their community.

There are many other matters in regard to this Bill which I feel will require elucidation. I want to deal with one or two of them as briefly as I can now. I know that the hon. the Minister will afford us an opportunity in the Committee Stage to deal more fully with these various points. The Minister will realize that many Coloured youths have to wait some time before they get suitable permanent employment. It often happens that they are kept on a string for some time before they can obtain a suitable form of employment after they have left school. What is going to happen to that type of boy, a boy who has had a decent education, who has applied for a job and has to wait for the decision of his future employer before any final decision is made? What is to happen to that type of boy? If, during that period of waiting for the job, which may be a month, six weeks or two months, he is in a decent home, cared for by his parents, and he is selected for training in terms of this Bill, he will lose whatever chance he has of entering into permanent employment or of becoming apprenticed or of obtaining any decent job which might have been promised to him. Surely we should strive to give some protection to such a lad.

Then again, there are many men between the ages of 18 and 24—that is the category envisaged in this Bill—who have become married. What is going to be the position of these married men? Is it intended that clause 14(d), which is very wide in its terms, is wide enough to exempt these married men? These are matters to which the hon. the Minister should give some consideration, and which he should deal with either in his reply or in the Committee Stage.

I should like to obtain some information as to what the hon. the Minister has in mind in regard to the pay, allowances and gratuities which these boys are to receive. In terms of clause 20 of the Bill, the Minister will determine this pay in consultation with the Minister of Finance. Is it intended that there should be a flat rate of pay applicable to all these trainees, or cadets, or whatever you want to call them? If so, is it fair that the youth of 18 who has obtained a Std. VII school leaving certificate and who might have been able to obtain a good job or an apprenticeship, should be paid the same rate as a youth of 18 who, by reason of not having had any compulsory schooling, is absolutely illiterate? Surely these are matters which call for differentiation in the pay and gratuities which these youths are to receive.

Under clause 15, one is entitled to ask what type of training these men are to be given. I should like the hon. the Minister to make it clear what he has in mind in regard to these training centres and particularly to make it clear that it is his intention that these training centres and those responsible for the control of those training centres will act in the closest liaison with the Department of Education in order to ensure that each youth’s individual potential will be investigated, discovered and developed in the best possible manner. The words “any kind of employment” in clause 15are very vague indeed. It is not possible for us to know what the hon. the Minister has in mind.

Under clause 17 a cadet can be compelled to undergo his training “at such other place as a committee may determine, whether or not such other place is a training centre”. I do not know what the hon. the Minister has in mind in that regard. Is it intended, for instance, to place such boys on individual farms? I do not know. Further, what provision is there in this Bill for the placing of these cadets in permanent employment after they have completed their training period?

These are all matters which I think the hon. the Minister could clarify to the House, with great advantage to the whole situation, to the Government and to winning over the goodwill of the Coloured people. I particularly commend to the hon. the Minister that he should give very careful consideration to a most excellent article which appeared in Saturday’s Cape Times, dealing with South Africa’s economy. I refer to the article by Prof. S. P. Cilliers, the professor of sociology at the University of Stellenbosch, under the caption “Place of the Coloured people in the South African economy”. Prof. Cilliers has dealt most carefully with the broad details of the work of the Coloured people in the South African economy. There are some valuable suggestions made by the learned Professor in this article. I am sure that if the hon. the Minister gave his attention to this article he could use some of the suggestions in getting eventual avenues of employment for these boys.

I should also like to obtain from the hon. the Minister information as to why in terms of clause 26 the provisions of the Workmen’s Compensation Act will not apply to cadets. What would happen if a cadet is permanently injured or killed during his training? Is there any reason why the Workmen’s Compensation Act should not apply to these boys? There are many other aspects which will require a great deal of clarification and which I am sure we will receive from the hon. the Minister in view of his earnest desire to try to make this a workable Bill, acceptable to the Coloured people. I do hope that in the Committee Stage he will give us the fullest information in regard to all these matters. For the present and especially in view of the assurances which the hon. the Minister gave us in his opening remarks, I do not propose to oppose the second reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, initially the hon. member for Peninsula also intimated clearly that he supported the principle of this legislation. He also added quite a number of buts. He levelled a few points of criticism at the Act in particular. Amongst other things he said that the Minister’s powers were too wide. He said that he felt that the prospective recruit himself should determine whether he actually qualified for being recruited for the purpose of being trained. To me that is a very strange attitude. It seems to me as though he wants the recruit himself—a person against whom a certain measure of action is already being taken or for whom provision has to be made because he does not work—to be given the right to be his own judge. I do not think that it is a sensible person who argues in that manner. Then I should like to clear up another matter. To me it is not a disgrace that reference is being made to a camp or to an institution where people are taught to prepare themselves for better opportunities for work. I do not know why the military aspect is being praised so highly. The very thought of people being prepared to work for their country is almost being regarded as a disgrace. This measure for the training of Coloured cadets in these centres makes provision for a very small group of our Coloured population. The idea is to make useful citizens out of our Coloureds—and especially out of those who do not want to work—namely those between the ages of 18 and 24. It was stated clearly that there would be 90,000 of them at the first registration and 20,000 after that, but that only 1,000 could be selected for training. That is a percentage of a percentage, i.e. 5 per cent of those who become available annually. Through the census it was determined in 1960 that approximately 15 per cent of our Coloureds were unemployed. Later it was found that it was approximately 6 per cent as a result of the better conditions which prevailed by 1964. But it was also found that approximately half of them were work-shy. It is for these people that provision should be made. Now, and this has already been mentioned, the Press criticized this Bill from the very outset. The following was a heading in the Post—

A “but” is being added now. It will supposedly subject these people to humiliation. Even a quotation from the hon. member for Houghton appeared in an edition of the Post of 12th February. I want to mention to you some of these people who will be insulted by this—a percentage of a percentage. In District Six somebody went about and read the Bill to them. They stood about and in words which cannot be used here, so I am told, they said that they worked at sea for two to three months and that they then had enough money to relax for the rest of the year. The same position applies to tramps. Idleness is the parent of vice, and I hope the hon. member has heard that saying before. Yesterday I received a letter from one of my voters in which reference was made to the way in which these Coloureds loitered about at the pub. If one tries to give them work, they are not prepared to do it. That is why I am so glad that there is a clause in this Bill which provides that the pay of these recruits may not be ceded or made over to any person. The hon. member for Malmesbury gave us to understand very clearly, and this is the truth, that quite a number of them sometimes lived on the disability grant of one person. I am glad about this clause. It is for this type of person that this Bill is being introduced, because it is only 5 per cent, as I have already said. But one has to register the good ones along with the bad ones because one cannot always identify them. That is not so easy. That is why this measure can be regarded as a supplementary measure for making better people out of our Coloureds, for their own benefit and not necessarily for other purposes. There is sufficient reason for doing this for their own benefit. But if it is the intention to make them more serviceable so that they may be a better labour force for our country, and if it also happens to be the intention that they may supply deficiencies in the Western Cape, then nothing is wrong with that. At present it is always being harped upon that compulsory education will solve the problem. The Coloureds form a very important part of our population. There are almost two million of them at present. In the Western Cape alone opportunities for work for approximately 10,000 of them will have to be created annually. They are entitled to a share in the advantages the State is able to offer to those for whom it is responsible. But as far as education is concerned, I want to suggest that they are already receiving that, so to speak. Theoretically it may perhaps not be possible to make a calculation so that one may say that every one of them is being educated, but 90 per cent of their children, as the hon. member for Gardens has already said—he actually said 88 per cent—are already receiving free education, i.e. approximately 400,000. Fewer than 10 per cent of them do not receive it. At present there are as many as 12,000 teachers who provide them with this education at the various institutions. Before the take-over of Coloured education by the Department of Coloured Affairs. only one college in the Peninsula provided them with technical and vocational training. To-day there are institutions for higher education in the Cape and in the rest of the country, and plans are in the process of being carried into effect to create facilities for vocational training for at least 1,200 students. This rapid development gives rise to bottlenecks. One cannot expect to put everything right in one day, especially in view of the fact that, apart from these 12,000 teachers, there is still an acute shortage of teachers, and in view of the fact that we do not have school buildings for these people. The State has to accept many financial commitments in respect of education, commitments for which the funds are not available at this juncture. In spite of that I still want to say that at present there are facilities for good training for every Coloured person who shows the ability and has the intelligence.

This legislation is actually intended for the school-leaver. It is not intended for the person who will in any case be subject to compulsory education. It is directed at the person who has passed that stage long ago. Therefore the compulsory education argument might as well be set aside. At this stage, and having regard to the circumstances under which we find ourselves, that is a point which does not count. That does not count to-day. It may perhaps count to-morrow or the day after that. We received from Dr. Sieberhagen from the Department of Coloured Affairs the figures in respect of school-leavers. It appears that 27 per cent reach Std. 5, whereas only 2 per cent reach Std. 10. Quite a number of them will perhaps land in these training centres. However, not all of these school-leavers will land there, because some school-leavers are able to prove that they are good workers. It is not the intention with this legislation to force that man, who holds a permanent position and does his duty, to receive training. Hon. members may read that in the measure itself. School-leavers are usually, as the hon. the Minister put it, the product of a parental home where there is a lack of discipline, ignorance and indifference. The parents themselves set a bad example. The children simply take the line of least resistance, the road leading to laziness, to the abuse of liquor and things of that nature. Yet some people want to suggest that such parents should retain full control over their children. They are concerned about those parents. If those parents were Whites, the Department of Social Welfare would have taken away their control over their children. What is wrong with taking it away in this case?

There are many shortcomings in the way of life of our Coloureds. One of them is excessive drinking. I must admit that we Whites may perhaps also be a party to the degeneration of the Coloureds. The excessive drinking and poor background of some of them caused 15 per cent of them to be unemployed in 1960. In my opinion that can more or less be regarded as the most important reason. But we should not always try to put all the blame on one factor. There are other reasons for the fact that Coloured children do not get a good background. There are, for instance, the small family income, the working conditions, housing conditions, the distance from their homes to the school, the standard of education of the parents, and so forth. These factors have the result that many of these children are placed in employment before they are really fit for it, both physically and mentally. Since this is the case—because of factors for which this Government or the State are not to blame, because of factors which have to be attended to over a long period—these conditions develop.

As regards this legislation it is my only regret—in view of the fact that side has dealt with the matter of free education, which they consider to be so important and lay down as a condition—that in the implementation of this measure it is not possible to admit enough of these people to the training centres. Some hon. members feel that registering all of them is unnecessary. To my mind this general registration widens the scope of this legislation. If they are registered it will naturally make more responsible citizens out of them from the very outset, and this is not a sword hanging over their heads, but a kind of responsibility which will rest on their shoulders. Perhaps many of these people will never see the training centres, because the fact that they have been registered, will prompt them to greater serviceability.

I think that, if the smooth operation and the existence of this institution—if this is what is being envisaged—is not regarded with suspicion, this institution will have the result that it will yet be a matter of pride for a Coloured to be able to say, “I was there”. Because, Sir, the Coloured population has exceptional potential. It was mentioned to me that they display particular ability as machine operators, to such an extent that a certain industrialist wanted to take his Coloured operators abroad to work in his factories there. Unfortunately trade union problems arose and he had to send them back. If one makes enquiries from major employers, one always gets the reply that the Coloureds are reasonably intelligent and susceptible to training, especially as operators in industries, in the field of building construction, in motor mechanics and as electricians. Their potential is emphasized. But there are certain shortcomings to be found in the Coloured labour market. It is being said that they change employment easily, that there is loose discipline, and then there is also the old story about excessive drinking. All these things lead to a vicious circle. I hope that our farmers will get together one day and then we can have a very thorough, a very serious and a very responsible discussion of this matter of the tot system as well. This absence from work, this poor sense of loyalty and this poor sense of thrift are things which affect the Coloureds. I think the education they will receive in the training centre will be very good. Where one is being equipped for employment, one is also being educated. It will lead to this legislation having a very beneficial effect.

I think this measure is a praiseworthy effort on the part of the State to extend a helping hand to our Coloureds. In the period of laissez faire they deteriorated physically, mentally and otherwise. When we want to help them, even if it is merely a drop in the ocean, we need the help, the assistance and the spiritual support of everybody in this House in order to carry such a thing into full effect and to make it operate smoothly.

Mr. Speaker, before I deal with my own case, I cannot refrain from referring for one moment to the hon. member for Malmesbury who sat down very smartly in the middle of his half-hour. I am not surprised, because the hon. member had the temerity to say, among other things, that the United Party was very largely responsible for the deterioration amongst the Coloured people as far as their schooling was concerned. I should like to remind the hon. member that it was the United Party in 1945 which introduced an ordinance in the Cape Provincial Council, in terms of which Coloured children between the ages of seven and fourteen years were to be given compulsory schooling in undenominational schools, provided there was accommodation available within a three-mile limit of where they lived. [Interjection.] In 1953 the United Party appointed a commission of inquiry into Coloured education; it was our commission under the chairmanship of the late Dr. De Vos Malan. That report was not issued until 1956. The hon. member knows its findings as well as I do. What was set out in the findings were the results of the activities of the United Party. I agree with the hon. member who suggests that the hon. member for Malmesbury is not worth very much more comment than that.

I am not going to say much about the detailed clauses of the Bill, except to draw to the Minister’s attention certain specific things which we on this side think—as the hon. member for Cape Town Gardens said—should have the Minister’s attention. I must say that we are not at all happy with this word “cadet”. I do not know how the Afrikaans translation fits in, but if one consults the Oxford English dictionary, as some of us do from time to time, one finds that the meaning of the word “cadet” is given specifically as—“a student attached to a naval or a military academy”. It can hardly be said to apply to the trainees involved in this instance. A cadet, in ordinary English usage, when not applied to someone involved in military or naval training, is applied to someone who is in a superior position. We talk, for instance, of a cadet reporter, a cadet in the diplomatic service, a cadet in the colonial service. The word never merely means a lower-grade trainee, as is suggested in this Bill.

Subsection 3 (3) deals with the committees of management. There are civilians who may very well be involved here, namely employers of factory personnel, or farmers, etc. We take the view that the names of such people, such committee members, should be published from time to time, with their addresses, occupations and qualifications in the Government Gazette in exactly the same way as anyone who serves on the Juvenile Affairs Board or any similar body. We also consider this necessary in terms of the wider implications contained in clause 17 which says that these people may be trained not only in training centres but in any place other than a training centre, which is left to the decision of these committees. Then in clause 6 provision is made for the appointment of a doctor to look after the health and welfare of these trainees. We consider very definitely that preference should be given to the appointment of a Coloured doctor provided he is properly and professionally qualified. On Clauses 8 (4) and (5), which provide for the production of a registration certificate on demand by a policeman or a registering officer, the hon. the Minister stated very clearly yesterday that there was no intention to follow up these men in a general punitive sense. I was very pleased to hear the hon. the Minister make this point as clearly as he did, and we would like to tell him that we will give notice of an amendment in the Committee Stage to give these people something like 48 hours in which to produce proof of their registration or the registration certificate itself before any criminal proceedings can be taken against them. I think that is a reasonable request.

Under clause 10 we consider also that the names of the members of the selection board, which is to be a very important body, the body which is to decide who is to be called up and who is not, and for what reason, and who is to be exempted, should be published in the Government Gazette in the ordinary way. Then clause 11 deals with the functions of the board, and the Minister may determine, by regulation, from time to time what those functions are going to be. At the risk of being repetitive I would say that we consider that those regulations as drafted by the Minister should also from time to time appear in the Gazette so that the general public and those of us who are interested can find out precisely what he has in mind.

Clause 13 is a bit of a joke, of course; it is couched in such bad English that it means that “the chief registering officer may, by written notice, addressed to and served upon him …” that is to say he may serve the notice upon himself. What is intended, of course, is that the officer may serve the notice upon the trainee and not upon himself. That is merely a matter of English usage, Sir, but I point this out for what it is worth. We are very proud of our language standards in this country. We consider also that clause 14 should be redrafted altogether, but I am not going to deal with that in any detail. The same applies to clause 15. They should both be re-drafted to make them appear in a rather more positive and a little less negative sense than they read at the moment.

In regard to clause 17, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will make a point in his reply to this debate of telling us what is meant by these trainees being able to undergo their training “at a training centre or at such other place as a committee may determine, whether or not such other place is a training centre”. I think that is a little bit vague. Are they going to be sent to industries, to factories and to farms? They will be under the control of these committees of management, on which civilians will serve, but I think that the public, and the coloured people in particular, deserve some kind of explanation as to what is intended here.

As far as clause 26 is concerned, the question of the Workmen’s Compensation Act has already been raised. I would just like to ask the hon. the Minister what he has in mind by eliminating the terms of the Apprenticeship Act. The hon. the Minister stated that one of the objects was to prepare these trainees for some kind of apprenticeship. Well, the hon. the Minister must know that he can keep them in the camp for one year or for a period of two years, if the authorities think fit, but what is to happen to them after that? Supposing they are working for some private employer as part of their training under the discipline of this Bill, then what happens; do they remain under the jurisdiction and control of their employer to whom they are apprenticed? As the hon. the Minister knows, in terms of the Apprenticeship Act, they can be held to their contract for a period of anything up to five years. We would like to know what this is about because the majority of the juveniles who are collected for training purposes under this Bill will probably not have anything like the educational qualifications which are demanded by the Apprenticeship Act.

With regard to clause 29, we feel that if leave is to be granted under certain circumstances by the principal of the training centre, where they are sent should bear some relationship to their place of domicile. There are various other small amendments that we are going to move in the Committee Stage, but under clause 29 (5) (c), which provides for the forfeiture of one meal per day for not more than three days when they are serving a sentence of solitary confinement, which we know is part of the Defence Act, we consider that paragraph (c) should be eliminated altogether. Sir, these trainees are youngsters; what is the point of depriving them of one meal per day when they are already subject to fairly severe penalties?

Sir, having dealt with the Bill briefly in terms of the clauses as they now read, I must say that we find this a slightly puzzling Bill.

We are prepared to support it, as the hon. member for Cape Town (Gardens) and others have said. If the hon. the Minister sticks to the word “cadet”, then it seems to me that our coloured folk, if in fact this were some kind of military training, would have every reason to be extremely proud of the fact that they will be participating in a form of practical national service, particularly those not already training in an educational institution or engaged in full-time employment, as the term “cadet” would seem to imply. But it is quite obvious that the Bill is not based on these lines, although the Minister made various comparisons in the course of his speech, and in some ways I think this is a pity because I think it would give our coloured people a very great sense of pride if they felt that they were in training for national service, not necessarily for war if the Republic were ever involved in a war, but for emergencies, on the same sort of basis on which the white civilian population can be mobilized in terms of the Civil Defence Act which we passed here last year.

Sir, no one has pleaded more earnestly than I in the few years that I have been in this House that something practical should be done about the many profound sociological problems which now beset such a large section of our coloured community in South Africa. This Bill professes to be a means of dealing with certain aspects of that problem, and I must confess that I have grave doubts about it. I think that we delude ourselves if we think that a measure of this kind provides any real or lasting answer to issues which lie far deeper than the mere registration of idle youths and their training and discipline for 12 months in what is called “a centre or some other designated place”. It is perhaps a sad thing to say but it is my honest conviction, for what it is worth, that we in South Africa often fail, where admittedly other nations in the world fail as well, in not giving precedence, as I have said so often before, to the essential human problems in this country—in this materialistic 20th century in which we live. We seem to have lost sight of the problems which beset human beings as such. The hon. member for Gordonia said that he was in favour of these won’t-works being pulled in. Well, of course, so would we be if we felt that this was going to be a long-term measure that would really produce long-term results. Sir, here in the Republic a great deal has been done for the coloured people by the European community over the years—there is no doubt about that—and some of it has been philanthropic, but not all of it by any means. If we are honest we must admit that a lot of it has been done for motives of what is rather euphemistically known in modern language as enlightened self-interest.

But in any event, few, if any, people begrudge the coloured community—I doubt whether anybody would—what progress they have made as a result of the assistance which has been given to them. But for years and years in this House—I was not here at the time but I read the debates and we used to talk about it in the Provincial Council—arguments raged back and forth when it came to the coloured people and the question of their political representation and that wonderful status symbol of the 20th century, the vote. To-day, after all this rather sterile discussion, we are faced with what I would call the reductio ad absurdum of our obsession with power politics with regard to the coloured people, linked as it always has been with colour, so that there has been a monumental neglect—I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me—of the sociological side of the lives of this small community of 1½ million people, to such an extent that to-day their activities—violence, crime, drunkenness—have become a threat to our whole way of living in South Africa. This threat is a real one. The Government and the Opposition are quite alive to it, but what are we going to do about it? The need to introduce a Bill of this kind, I must confess, is to me amongst other things an admission of failure—failure to deal with people and the needs to which we are all subject whether we are white or coloured. In order to deal with what is essentially a sociological problem—and the hon. the Minister referred to it in those terms; he said it was “’n gemeenskaplike saak”—if you are going to deal with it as a sociological problem it is also an educational problem, as the hon. member for Gardens said. We are now forced, as the result of these years of neglect, to introduce a system of labour camps—all right, call them training colonies and make it sound as nice as possible—as part of South Africa’s economic and social life. No doubt the Bill is worth supporting …

Why? You have done nothing but talk against it.

We do so in the hope that of all those dealt with in terms of this Bill, there may be a proportion, at least, who will become more responsible citizens with a better knowledge and capacity of how to work and to comport themselves in their daily lives. There will be such a percentage; there is no doubt about that. The Minister made much of the automatic conscription of our white youngsters in military service and he said that if our white boys could be called up and have to sacrifice a year of their lives in training, the Coloureds could do the same. That is a perfectly logical and fair argument, and if the Bill made provision for 12 months’ compulsory semi-military training there could be no objection to it; but the sad part about it, and I say this with regret, is that it is neither a form of national service nor is it a form of rehabilitation, because the time allowed is not long enough, and it certainly does not pretend to be an educational Bill either, so what is it? It is a sort of mix-up. We are all agreed that the crime rate among the coloured people is higher than for any other population group, and we are all agreed that something must be done about it, and that is why we on this side of the House are supporting this Bill.

I sometimes wonder whether the situation of at least part of the coloured population, having been neglected in this regard for so long, is retrievable at all. But 12 months in a labour camp or in a training camp is not sufficient time to train these youngsters, the majority of whom will have had little or no schooling at all. It will not be long enough to teach them to master any trade properly, or to equip them to become skilled workers, and that is the unfortunate part about it. That is why, I imagine, the Apprenticeship Act has been excluded in terms of this Bill. Any social worker or teacher will tell you, Sir, that 12 months or two years is seldom, if ever, a sufficiently long time to rehabilitate youngsters whose feet have already been set on the road of crime. I do not question the Minister’s motives in this regard at all, but I just wonder how effective this Bill is going to be. I would like to suggest that the Selection Board be a little careful in their choice of recruits in the first instance, because we have had this difficulty in terms of the Reformatories and Prisons Act in the past that the throwing together, which this Bill proposes, of habitual delinquents—and there will be quite a number of those—with those who may just have had no chance of going to school and who simply lead reasonable lives but who are not working for one reason or another, can have very dangerous repercussion upon those people if they are thrown together with habitual delinquents. I may be told that education has nothing to do with it, that there are simple peasants in many parts of the world who lead good, hardworking lives and that education is not really necessary.

That is a point, of course, but the answer to that is that the background of that type of community is a stable background, and the background of this section of the coloured people we are dealing with here is anything but stable. That is the unfortunate part about it. I do not refer to the 25 per cent of the coloured elite, who are first-class people, nor to the hundreds of thousands who live disciplined and good lives. I refer to the remainder, with whom the Minister is trying to deal in terms of this Bill. Only those people whose job it is to work daily with delinquents, with the poor and the under-privileged and the semi-criminal, will be able to tell you that this is an enormous social task that faces us. I just wonder, for all that this is a well-meant attempt to deal with the problem, just how far it will succeed. The coloured people have no cohesive pattern keeping their family lives together. That is one of the sad things about them. The Bantu people in the urban areas are rapidly coming to the same point. In the rural areas they have their tribal hierarchies and their patterns of living which keep them together. The Malays and the Indians are the same. They have their Islamic religion, which keeps them together as homogeneous groups and they have a discipline which they impose upon the whole community. But the coloured people have no similar pattern. They have no pattern except the Western pattern, and we have rejected them in so many ways, and the Christian churches, I am sorry to say, seem to have lost their hold upon the coloured community. So, in spite of the Government’s announced intention—and we accept that the Minister’s motives are sound and sincere—for their socio-economic uplift we are witnessing a sad deterioration, particularly in the towns, of the whole fabric of coloured family life. The hon. the Minister laid his finger right on the spot when he talked about irresponsible parents. They may be irresponsible, but among the lower-class coloured people their family structure is highly unstable and in many urban centres it is reaching the point of breakdown. It is this that turns youngsters into delinquents.

I must say as a woman that one thing is quite certain, and any psychologist or social worker will tell you the same thing, namely that the degree of care and affection and discipline—and this is where the schooling comes in—and security and instruction given to any single human being, irrespective of colour, in the first ten years of their lives, and not between the ages of 18 and 24, invariably sets their feet upon the path they are going to follow for the rest of their lives. So this Bill only touches the fringes of the problem. If a section of our coloured people have taken to crime, may I warn the hon. the Minister—I suppose he has the figures—of the enormous majority of them who have become recidivists?

Our National Bureau of Social and Educational Research regularly investigates the position and they issued a report in August last year. Perhaps the Minister has seen it. It is News Letter No. 10, and let me read very briefly one of their findings. In paragraph 1 they say that from an analysis of juvenile crime according to population groups—and the Coloureds form the second smallest group in the country—it emerges that the coloured population has the highest crime rate in respect of serious as well as juvenile crime for both age groups. Then, under the heading of research into the success achieved in reform school treatment of male juvenile delinquents, it goes on to say that, in respect of coloured juvenile delinquents, the follow-up period in all cases is five years after leaving the institution. Then they say that of the Bantu, white and coloured juvenile delinquents, 29.6 per cent Bantu, 26.3 per cent Whites and 19.7 per cent Coloureds were successes and 10 per cent Bantu, 10.1 per cent Whites and 8.5 per cent Coloureds were classified as partial successes, and thus at least 60 per cent of all the delinauents came to grief during the follow-up period and they relapsed into serious crime. These are people who were in institutions for several years and who were, after their release, followed up by the Department of Social Welfare for five years. These are facts we have to face. Broken marriages, coupled with the high rate of illegitimacy and other factors, contribute towards a position where Government institutions and welfare workers are unable to cope with the number of coloured children who are abandoned, who are simply not cared for at all.

I do not intend saying very much more on this Bill. However, I still want to ask how many coloured children—and the Minister made a great point of this yesterday—live with both their parents until they are 14 or 15 years of age? This is where we ought to start. Let us accept that this Bill will assist in some degree. The rate of alcoholism—as the senior welfare officer of the Minister’s own Department reported last year—is high. This affects the families and contributes to turning the children into delinquents. In this connection let me state how struck I was with what Mr. Justice Van Wyk stated in his report, on the assassination of the late Dr. Verwoerd, about Tsafendas. In chapter III, paragraph 3, the Commissioner stated—

In the next paragraph, i.e. paragraph 4, he points out—

These are the people whose feet are inevitably set up on the road of crime when their background is of this nature. For this reason it is imperative that we as the legislators—and not only the social workers and the parents— should be made to realize that we have to concentrate more and more upon this aspect of these problems.

As far as the age group covered by this Bill is concerned, there will be many, I must say, for whom this rather curious and unspecified type of training will already have come too late. In any event, we say that the Bill is welcome in certain respects. I may sound as if I give my support a bit grudgingly. But it is not that. It is simply because I believe that in conjunction with this Bill we should get down to fundamentals, to the basic things. This will mean long-term planning in the sociological sense in addition to legislation of this kind.

In the course of the discussions on the Vote “Coloured Affairs” last year, I pleaded with the hon. the Minister for the establishment of a training camp with a view to taking in hand those Coloureds who are a problem not only to their parents but also to their community. Therefore I want to thank the hon. the Minister for this legislation. We are getting the support of the United Party, and we are in fact grateful for that, despite the continual “but …” In fact, I wonder whether these are the lean years that they are experiencing. Take the hon. member for Wynberg, for example. She asked how many times parents would have an opportunity to see those youngsters. She also mentioned all kinds of other minor matters as though they had anything to do with this measure. That is what we get, instead of their expressing their gratitude to this Government for the fact that it is now setting right those things which the United Party bungled through the years and of which, to be short and sweet, they made a mess. It was said here that those institutions would be used as labour camps in order to replace the Bantu who are to be removed from the Western Province. Now I see matters this way, that the attempts made by this Government to raise the standard of living of the Coloureds are not to the taste of the Opposition. The lower the standard of living, the cheaper the labour available, and that is precisely what they want. Through the implementation of the Group Areas Act perhaps one of the greatest benefits is being conferred upon the Coloureds. Just as any other population group experiences problems with its juveniles, the coloured community is also experiencing problems with its juveniles, juveniles who want to lead a life without restrictions. who want to fit in nowhere and who do not want to submit to the demands imposed upon them by a normal and healthy life. In this respect conditions in European countries are already much worse. There juveniles act in organized gangs and terrorize the community. In most cases the origin of this spirit in juveniles may be traced back to a maladjusted family life, a family life which lacked all parental authority. We know that where there is no parental authority one cannot expect to find any discipline in the children. In many cases, of course, there is deliberate indifference on the part of the parents and the children become the victims of that indifference. The children fall in with bad company and indulge in all kinds of objectionable pastimes. We know the proverb: “Idleness is the parent of vice”. Thus it is with our youth—when they have nothing to do they lapse into crime and their lives are ruined.

Here we have a measure which provides that such won’t-work types will be submitted to proper discipline and supervision for at least a year. There they will be taught to appreciate the fact that they also form part of an organized community, a community in which everyone has to do his share in an orderly fashion. This is the type of juvenile— who has already been dubbed “skollie” by the Coloureds—who in many cases gives coloured communities a bad reputation. Here an opportunity is presented to obliterate that. This Bill does not interfere with the studies of young people in any way, because a young man and a young girl are free, if they so wish, to continue their studies. They will be granted exemption for that just as exemption is granted to those who are already in employment.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 30 (2) and debate adjourned.

The House proceeded to the consideration of private members’ business.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the motion standing in my name on page 151 of the Order Paper. It reads as follows:

I am sure that it is not necessary in this day and age, speaking in a Parliament in a modern country operating within the framework of Western civilization, to remind members of the advantages of having an educated population. Indeed, Sir, I do not intend to dwell at any length on this basic premise. I am sure we are all agreed on the need for an educated population, although we may differ profoundly as to the methods whereby this should be attained and even as to the objectives of having an educated population. South Africa, over the last 40 years, has been engaged in transforming herself from a rural economy into a modern industrial economy. This process, I am sure we will all agree, is not a process that can be reversed. Indeed, I am sure not one of us wishes to reverse the process. It is this transformation of South Africa from a rural economy into basically an industrial economy which has resulted in an improvement in the standard of living of all our people. For instance it solved the poor white problem of the 1920’s, and not, I might add. the setting up of the S.S.B., as was suggested earlier this afternoon. In transforming herself from a rural into an industrial economy, South Africa has of course followed the same pattern that other industrializing countries have followed. There has been a steady increase in the proportion of population engaged in white—collar work, both professional and clerical. There has been an increase in the proportion of people doing skilled industrial work and a corresponding decrease in the proportion of people doing unskilled work and a very marked reduction in the number of people engaged in agriculture.

The second report of the Education Panel of 1961 pointed out that our present —day economy could never operate with a labour force in which the proportions of secondary school, technical college, and university educated persons were the same as those of 1930. It is interesting to note that to—day just on 50 per cent, that is one out of two, of the white population leaving school and entering the labour market have completed the secondary school course as compared with one out of six Whites in 1930. Our present economy could therefore never have functioned to—day as it is functioning had we the same proportion of educated white people as we had in 1930. I think what we must note as being of extreme importance is the fact that if South Africa is to enjoy further economic expansion, such economic growth simply cannot take place unless at the same time there is a constant and rapid expansion of education. I may say at this stage that the sooner we get on with the job, the better, because naturally many years elapse between the adoption of an education programme and the first appearance of additional skilled workers as a result of these measures. People are converted into skilled workers first by their having the basic educational training and secondly by having specialized vocational training. As Osler, who is an educational expert, put it:

There are some in this House who look to immigration as the solution of our manpower shortage. The Bureau of Economic Research of Stellenbosch University points out that despite the present buoyant immigration, the number of workers actually added to the labour force by immigration is small in proportion to the total labour force. There are others in this House who believe that increased mechanization and automation are going to solve the problem of the shortage of labour in South Africa. They forget that increased mechanization and automation do not in fact reduce the overall demand for human labour. All that happens is that there is a transfer of demand from unskilled labour to semi—skilled and skilled labour. Thus we are going to have to look to our own population to provide the necessary educated labour force which we have to have if we are going to sustain economic growth in the future and particularly in view of the great technological changes that are taking place in the world to—day.

I now want to turn to the sources of future educated labour. This means of course those people who can be educated to increase the availability of an educated labour force. The peculiar structure of our education in South Africa is of course something with which I am profoundly in disagreement. I speak now of the principle of separation of education on racial lines, in other words Coloured education, Indian education, African education and White education. I believe basically that education is education and that we should not differ in the type of education that we give to the different racial groups. Let me turn firstly to an examination of the white group. I am not referring to higher education or to technical or vocational training. My motion is in any case restricted to school education. As far as school education for Whites is concerned, we are steadily moving towards the maximum pupil potential. The great period of expansion in white school education is over. Universal education up to Std. VI has already been achieved. Universal education up to Std. VIII is not far off and the maximum practicable enrolment in Std. X is in sight. The only limiting factor is the ability of the student himself to stay at school, and to have the necessary I.Q. to absorb the training and education which he would obtain if he stayed in school beyond Std. VIII and up to Std. X It follows therefore that if the overall rate of education expansion is to continue as it must do if the overall rate of economic growth is to be maintained, it is the rate of non—white school education which must be increased, and more particularly secondary school education. Great improvement, needless to say, can be obtained both qualitatively and quantitatively in all three of the non—white racial groups.

I want to turn now to a detailed examination of non—white education. I hope in so doing that I am going to anticipate some of the arguments which are going to be advanced by whichever Minister is going to honour me by replying to this debate. I see by the smile on the face of the tiger—the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education—that he is likely to be the gentleman to reply.

Is he not rather a leopard?

Well, I would say that he is just a little pussy-cat. The arguments which I anticipate are of course that I am in too much of a hurry, that a great deal is being accomplished already in the field of non—White education, that we should continue to build steadily on this foundation and that we are getting the growing cooperation of the Coloured, the Indian and the African groups, that this is how we should continue, and that there is really very little to complain about. I am assuming that the principle of universal education some time, even if it is in the distant future, is common cause with all of us. I cannot believe that there is anybody sufficiently “verkramp” in this House not to believe that it is important for everybody in South Africa to enjoy education. I am therefore assuming that universal education is common cause in this House. I want to show at once that what has long been promised to the non-White people is long overdue and falls very far short of the recommendations that have been made by many education commissions in the past both under the present Government and when the previous government was in power. I shall start with Coloured children. We heard a great deal this afternoon about the education of Coloured children. I wish to add a few words to what has been said. In 1956 the Botha Commission on Coloured Education recommended that compulsory free education for children between the ages of 7 and 14 or up to Std. V should be introduced throughout the Cape Province within a ten year period. More than ten years have passed and we seem to be nearly as far from general compulsory and free education, since the two obviously must go together—one cannot impose compulsory education on people without making it free education as well—as we were when the Commission reported. There are provisions in our statutes for extending free and compulsory education to all Coloured children, but these provisions have been used only in the most limited fashion. They have in fact been implemented in the Cape in only six areas. There is compulsory education for children throughout the whole of the Cape Province in six small urban areas. Only in Natal is there compulsory education for Coloured children. Elsewhere, in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State, there are no provisions whatever that have been implemented for compulsory education for Coloured children. I say that the period between 1956 and the present day is a period of disgraceful indifference and neglect as far as the Coloured community is concerned. By now, if the recommendations of the commission had been carried out, compulsory education for Coloured children between the ages of seven and 14 years should have been an established and smoothly—working system. Instead we find that the wastage through school drop-outs is as rife as it was in 1956. Almost half of the Coloured children who go to school leave before standard two, so that they do not even enjoy four years of schooling. My contention is that unless a child has enjoyed a minimum of four years at school, the money spent on that child’s education is to all intents and purposes wasted, and the child is functionally illiterate. Indeed, the Eiselen commission on Bantu education also stated that it considered that unless a child spent four years at school, any money spent on that child’s education and any time spent in the school were to all intents and purposes wasted.

The distribution over the classes in Coloured schools still shows practically the same imbalance as existed in 1954. As in 1954 about 40 per cent of the pupils are in the sub—standards, and as in 1954 about ten per cent are in standards five and six. Less than five per cent are in standards seven to ten, and 92.4 per cent of Coloured children in the Cape leave school before they are 15 years of age. This is an indictment of neglect as far as Coloured education is concerned.

Let us turn to Indian education. Twenty years ago the Natal Education Commission recommended that the principle of compulsory education for Indians should be accepted, and that as an interim first step all Indian children who were enrolled at school should be legally compelled to continue in attendance until they had passed standard four, or until their thirteenth birthday. Twenty years have passed since that commission reported. Natal has handed over Indian education to the Department of Coloured Affairs without ever having provided for compulsory education. Not even the interim measure has been carried out. There is no free and compulsory education for Indians anywhere in South Africa. In April last year regulations were gazetted relating to compulsory school attendance of Indian children of specified age groups. So far they have not been applied to any area. Despite the phenomenal contributions made by the Indian population themselves—they have contributed over R2 million to school buildings —there is still a tremendous shortage of school accommodation. Despite the fact that Indian pupils’ school attendance has increased quite considerably over the years and that the cost of Indian education has risen considerably, the point still remains that compulsory education for all Indian children was regarded as a desirable and practical goal 20 years ago. Since then, the Indian birth-rate has declined quite steeply, making the problem so one would believe, even more manageable than it was when the commission reported 20 years ago. And yet to—day the provisions for compulsory and free education for Indians have not been applied anywhere in the Republic.

Would it not be very cruel to insist upon it?

The hon. member does not think it very cruel that white children must be sent to school. They have compulsory and free education. I am prepared to apply exactly the same standards as those applied to white children to Indian children and take the consequences of being called cruel as a result.

Now I turn to African education. It is here, of course, that the greatest need for expansion exists. A week or two ago the hon. member for Randfontein gave this House a glowing report of what had been achieved under the Bantu education system since its introduction in 1954. I want to give the House rather a different picture, not quite such a glowing picture. I should like to ask the hon. member, or the Minister, what has become of the scheme envisaged by the Eiselen commission in 1951 whereby sufficient places were supposed to have been provided by 1959 in the first four classes of primary schools to accommodate the entire Bantu population in the age groups eight to 11. I want to know what has happened to the further objectives of providing the necessary places thereafter in the lower and higher primary schools. What has happened to the need laid down by the Eiselen commission for the training of the necessary additional teachers? What about the thousands of children turned away each year from high schools in South Africa? What about the scandalous double sessions that are held in at least 60 per cent of the schools? What about the lack of teachers and the low standard of education of the teachers?

The hon. member for Randfontein forgot to tell us that whereas the pupil/teacher ratio in 1962 in White schools was 22—1, in Coloured and Indian schools it was 36—1, and in Bantu schools it was 53—1. In the lower primary schools, where the vast majority of Bantu pupils are, it is 65—1. We heard nothing from the hon. member about the low standard of African teachers. He did not tell us that only 32 per cent of African teachers in training colleges and secondary schools are graduates, or that only 15 per cent had any post—matriculation professional qualifications at all, or that over 52 per cent were not even matriculated. Of the teachers teaching in these schools, more than half of them are not even matriculated. And, of course, the hon. member did not tell us anything about the abysmally low salary scales for African teachers. He did not tell us anything about the appalling drop-outs, the wastage, the tens of thousands of children that drop out in sub. A in sub. B, in standard 1, and in standard 2. Let me give the House some official statistics given to me by the hon. the Minister himself. Out of 361,440 African pupils in sub—standard A in 1958, more than a quarter failed to proceed beyond sub—standard A, more than a third failed to get beyond the sub—standards into standard 1, and just on half failed to get as far as standard 2. So they have not had four years at school, and I say that therefore the money spent on their education, as the Eiselen commission put it, is a waste. Something like 40 per cent only got beyond the lower primary school into standard 3, three per cent of these children advanced to secondary school, and two in 1,000 reached standards nine and ten. Is this the glowing accomplishment of Bantu education over the past ten years? We did not get those figures from the hon. member for Randfontein. In 1964 fewer than 300 Bantu students qualified for university entrance, and probably not more than a quarter of those have passed in mathematics and can enter the faculties of science, engineering, and medicine. Where are all the graduates to come from, may I ask the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development, to man the high posts in those halcyon areas of separate freedoms that we hear about? Where are all these people to come from? Where indeed are the high school teachers to come from to provide a system of secondary education reasonably adequate to meet the needs, not only of our African population but of our economy as a whole?

I say quite categorically that all these claims that 80 per cent of the African children are literate are nonsense. The letters written overseas, the State Information Department reports about African children practically all being at school or being able to attend a school within a few miles from their homes, I say categorically are nonsense. These stories are simply not true, and I say that the Government has scandalously neglected African secondary education to the detriment of all sections of the community. The Government seems to think that by putting the majority of African children of school—going age into sub—standards, into grades I and II and Std. I, it is fulfilling its duty in the provision of education for African children. The whole emphasis is wrong. It is essential to increase secondary education; that is where the emphasis should be so that one can provide the source of more teachers and then go back to providing more primary education, instead of doing it the other way around and turning out of our Bantu schools children who have had less than four years of schooling, who are functionally illiterate and quite incapable of taking their place in a modern economy which is going to need far more and better—trained people. Sir, the most important factor responsible for this quite deplorable state of affairs in Bantu education, is the pegging of the State’s contribution to Bantu education at R13 million a year, that is to say, for school education. Sir, this amount was hopelessly inadequate ten years ago when the principle was adopted; R13 million was inadequate in 1953. How much more inadequate is it now with the larger number of children that this R13 million has to cater for and with the reduced value of the rand? Can anybody in this House tell me that the rand to—day buys what the rand bought 13 years ago?

What about the general tax?

Let me say this to the hon. member as far as the general tax is concerned. The principle that the Africans, who constitute the poorest section of the community, should pay for their own education while no other section has to pay for its education cannot be justified morally, economically or in any other way. Africans make their contributions to this country in many ways other than by direct tax. They contribute by means of indirect taxation on every purchase that they make; they contribute by their labour and they also pay taxes. If they earn taxable income they pay exactly the same tax as that hon. member over there on the back bench. In fact, proportionately they pay a good deal more because they do not get tax—free subsistence and travelling allowance as the hon. member does.

And as you do.

And as I do, but I am quite prepared to pay more in order to educate the African children; that is the difference. Sir, Government expenditure per African child per annum has actually dropped from R17 per child in 1953 to R13.5 per child in 1960, as compared, of course, with the R114 per white child spent by the State and the R74.50 in respect of Coloured and Indian children. I might say that we spend just over 4 per cent of our gross national product on education. Sir, that is not enough. It bears no comparison to what is spent by other Western countries. But I want to point out to hon. members opposite that it is estimated that the African—and this is a Government estimate —contributes R 1,085 million to the gross national product. If we take the 4 per cent that we spend on education generally then on a pro rata basis, according to the contribution of the African to the gross national product, we should be spending something like R44 million on Bantu education instead of the miserable R13 million at which the Government has pegged its contribution.

I realize that the ideal of universal education for all our children irrespective of colour cannot be achieved overnight. I realize that it took us a considerable time to reach the present stage of free and compulsory education for white children. As we all know in the case of white children the law provides for regular attendance between the ages of 7 and 16 years or, in the Cape and Natal, until the completion of Std. VIII. Indeed, I might say that free and compulsory education up to Std. VI for white children was only achieved fairly recently, but it has been achieved, and we are on our way to achieving Std. VIII and Std. X. We had to use all sorts of devices to implement the provisions which had been laid down many years ago in our law. We had to use local options; we had to use a gradual extension of age limits; we had to use the so— called two or three mile radius system; in other words, compulsory education was introduced in such a way that children living within a two—mile radius or sometimes a three—mile radius of a school, were compelled to attend school. All these are devices which I feel will have to be used increasingly in order to provide the necessary facilities for nonwhite children. The provision of boarding facilities for children also played its part. The progress in the provision of non—white free and compulsory education will be determined by the supply of teachers, the provision of school buildings, transport facilities in rural areas, etc., and above all, of course, we have to be prepared to spend more money on non—white education. What is desperately needed, apart from school accommodation etc., is an improvement in teachers’ salaries, the encouragement of families to keep promising youngsters at school by the payment of maintenance allowances, school feeding and free books.

Sir, having said all this and having conceded right away that this ideal cannot be achieved overnight, I say once again that we have been going far too slowly in this all— important field; that the progress made, as sketched by the hon. member for Randfontein, is nothing like the progress that should have been made; that the progress in Coloured and Indian education falls far short of the recommendations made by Government commissions in the past. I want to emphasize finally that part and parcel of my entire thesis this afternoon is, of course, the basic premise that in an expanding economy there can be no immovable boundary between the work done by Whites and that done by non—Whites. This was emphasized also by the 1961 Education Panel. In other words, no obstacle should be placed in the way of non—Whites to use their education once they have acquired it. Job reservation, legislative and customary colour bars and all these things obviously have to disappear if we are to make full use of our entire population in this country. If once our people have been trained to take on higher jobs, there would have been no point in giving them that training if we are then going to enforce legislative and customary bars which prevent them from making full use of their productivity. I believe, of course, that this is part and parcel of the requirements for developing the potential of South Africa to the full. It is essential that all the barriers that we have placed in the way of the proper utilization of our human resources be swept away if we are to make the best possible use of our labour force. Let us, as Sir Eric Ashley put it, “invest in man”; the returns to South Africa will be great.

The motion of the hon. member for Houghton refers to all the population groups, but it was very clear from her speech that she is not concerned with white education in South Africa. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, it has already been accepted in principle that there will be free and compulsory education, and the same applies to the Indians. Accordingly I do not want to deal with those two population groups, because it has already been accepted in principle. In actual fact I want to confine myself to the Bantu group, because the hon. member for Houghton devoted the major part of her speech to that group.

In the first place I want to go into the financial implications of the hon. member’s motion, particularly as far as the Bantu group is concerned; secondly I want to go into the economic implications and thirdly, into the general implications as far as Bantu education is concerned. I want to deal briefly with the hon. member’s motion under these three headings. There is a fundamental difference between the National Party Government and the Progressive Party, which is represented here by the hon. member for Houghton. The policy of the National Party Government is one of separate development of the various population groups, while the Progressive Party advocates integration. This fundamental difference gives rise to different interpretations of the requirements of the situation as far as our economy is concerned. It also leads to differing approaches to the problems that arise, for example in education; it leads to differing policies in education which are quite irreconcilable. The hon, member for Houghton as well as the National Party Government believes that the education service for the Bantu is fundamental, but it is only in that respect that there is some agreement. There the similarity stops, because the Government believes that the service must be rendered to the Bantu as Bantu, while the hon, member for Houghton sees it as a service to a multiracial community, not as a service to the Bantu for the Bantu, but as a service to a multi—racial community consisting of all the population groups. There are two principles underlying the Native Revenue Account which was introduced as far back as 1925. As far as the Government is concerned those two principles are fundamental. What are these two fundamental principles embodied in the Bantu Revenue Account of 1925? The first principle is that the Bantu peoples should to a large extent provide the means for their own development themselves. The second fundamental principle is that it was sound education policy that the Bantu should develop responsibility by accepting financial responsibility for their education. In other words, in terms of these two fundamental principles, we want to help the Bantu to help themselves. If the Bantu is given too much assistance one will frustrate this natural development that the Bantu will learn to help themselves; an unnatural development will result if they are assisted too rapidly in this process, if they are given too much, because if they are given too much they will again become dependent upon white assistance, and if they become dependent upon white assistance they will no longer be able to help themselves and will lose their self—reliance. Their self—reliance will be undermined, their self—respect will be destroyed and they will become nothing but beggars from the Whites. As an example of this I may mention the Black states of Africa, which are given various forms of assistance on a platter. In that way their self—respect is destroyed and they become nothing but beggars from the major nations.

Parasites.

The hon. member’s motion is in fact intended to speed up the present process of development, and that may lead to the entire policy of separate self —development—not only separate development, but also separate self—development—being wrecked. Disraeli said: “On the development of the people rests the education of the country”. The amount spent on education should therefore keep pace with the level of development of the particular people to be assisted thereby. We must reject the reproach levelled across the floor of this House this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton that the amount per Bantu child is too low. Likewise we have to reject the reproach that a rich country like South Africa spends too little on Bantu education. The Bantu themselves determine what amount is to be spent on Bantu education.

Order! It seems to me the hon. member is reading his speech.

Mr. Speaker, I am only referring to notes I have made.

It seems as though the hon. member is reading his notes word for word.

No, Mr. Speaker, I am not.

The hon. member may proceed.

Bantu education is financed by the Bantu and there are two ways in which that is done. The first is that a fixed statutory amount is voted. That is the assistance given by the Whites. Then we have the general Bantu tax, which is spent on Bantu education. All of that tax is spent on Bantu education. Then there is miscellaneous revenue which is also spent for that purpose, but it is only a small amount and we need not take it into account. The two main funds are the fixed statutory appropriation, which had always been R13 million, but which was increased to R14 million during the past two years, and the general Bantu tax, which has also shown an enormous increase in recent years. It has increased since 1956—’57—I do not know whether the hon. Mr. Speaker meant that I should have learnt these figures off by heart, but I have to refer to my notes here. In that year it was R4 million. It has gradually increased to an amount of RIO million in 1966—’67. An amount of R15.75 million was spent on Bantu education in 1955—’56, while an amount of R23.5 million was spent in 1963—’64, but then the Transkei still shared in it. Now that the Transkei has been granted self-government it provides for its own education out of the funds allocated to it. Since then the funds spent on Bantu education amounted to R20.8 million in 1964—’65 and to R23.4 million in 1965—’66, while it is estimated to be R25.3 million in 1966—’67. That is how the amount has increased, but the Bantu themselves are responsible for this increase. The statutory amount is fixed and the increase comes from the Bantu themselves. In other words, the Bantu are being trained to bear the responsibility for their education themselves and the more education they want the more they will have to contribute towards it. If there is to be compulsory education for the Bantu, it is clear that the Bantu themselves will not be able to finance it at this stage, because all these Bantu taxes are already being used to pay for their education. The Bantu make no contribution from that tax towards the other services they receive; the other services are paid for by the Whites and not by the Bantu. Compulsory education for the Bantu is therefore not possible at the moment within the Government’s view of things. The attitude of the Government is that the Bantu should accept responsibility for their own education, and within that attitude the Bantu is not yet in a position to shoulder the entire financial burden of compulsory education.

I now want to deal with the economic implications. That is the second aspect of the motion with which I want to deal. Here too I want to stress the fundamental difference between the hon. member for Houghton and the Government. On the basis of her motion it is clear that she was very impressed by this little book from which she quoted repeatedly, namely the Second Report of the 1961 Education Panel of the University of the Witwatersrand. When I received this little green book, Sir, if you have read it—and I may just add that every one of us in this House received this book as a gift from that panel of Wits—I said to myself: “I wonder for what motion of the hon. member for Houghton this is to serve as a basis”. I shall now show that this is, in fact, the basis of her entire motion. It is understandable that she made ample use of it, and I can forgive her for doing so, because it was given her on a platter, but something I cannot forgive her for is that an attempt was made here by the learned gentleman of Wits to hawk the policy of the Progressive Party. Briefly, this is how this report approaches the problem. They say that on the basis of the economic objectives of the Government as laid down by the Economic Advisory Council, the aim should be to have a sustained rate of growth of 5½ per cent per year for the next five years, and then this Education Panel calculates what the education requirements should be for the year 1980, and those are the requirements on which the hon. member has based the whole of her motion.

The report refers to the rapid industrialization of South Africa and states that more and more skilled labourers and fewer unskilled labourers will be required. I can quote that from the report. In fact, the hon. member referred to the fact that this rate at which we are developing will demand certain educational requirements in future. This report points out that of the number of skilled workers which, according to their calculations, will be required in 1980 in order to maintain the rate of growth, the White population group will hardly be able to supply half, but through natural increase and through immigration, and the report states further that the rest will have to be supplied by the non—White population group. For that reason this report demands compulsory education for all races, and that is why we have this motion of the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon. Of course, it was very kind of the learned gentlemen of Wits to furnish her with this report and to prepare it for her, but let me quote to the hon. member just one small passage written by another learned person in an article which appeared in Modern African Studies: Manpower, Education and Economic Growth. In this article the following is stated about these speculations about the future requirements—

That is what the hon. member wants to be supplemented by means of non—White education.

I merely quote this to show how dangerous these speculations about the future requirements which now have to be supplemented by non—White education can be. One may forgive these gentlemen of Wits their blunder, but something I really cannot forgive them is that in this report they state, inter alia, the following (translation)—

Because they say the emergency measures which have to be taken are compulsory education—

Then they give three schedules, the first indicating the pupil/teacher ratio at the primary level. They compare us with Gambia, Ghana, Kenya, Mozambique and all the countries which have no compulsory education, but when dealing with South Africa they do not show the pupil/teacher ratio for all the population groups in the so—called multi—racial state, but they show it in respect of the Bantu only in order to get some sort of comparison. The second schedule indicates the percentage of the gross national production spent on education. In this case they again do not compare the gross national production of the Bantu alone as they do in the case of the other states, but when it comes to South Africa they take all the races, so that it is out of proportion as far as the Bantu are concerned. The last schedule indicates the percentage of the various education groups attending school. They take all the different countries which do not have compulsory education and compare them with South Africa as far as only the Bantu are concerned. This is the unequal comparison they draw. It makes me think that these scientists did not behave as scientists in this respect, but that they are, in fact, Progressive hacks because they may be political donkeys for the hon. member for Houghton.

What is the Government’s attitude in regard to this matter? The Government approaches each population group separately and tries to determine the requirements of the economy of each population group separately. The economy of each Bantu population group is in its germination stage, in its initial stage. There is only a limited need for skilled and unskilled labour, white—collar workers and technicians and technologists at present. As the Bantu develop their own economy and as more requirements develop within their own separate economy, more money will have to be spent on their education and then that education will be made available to them. If we now have compulsory education we will also have an unnatural growth which we will have to take into account. Compulsory education will mean that an enormous number of pupils will be produced which will be out of all proportion to the Bantu economy and which that economy will not be able to absorb. The attitude of the Government is that there must be natural growth, which necessarily means that the road leading to compulsory education will be a long one, much longer than the hon. member for Houghton would wish it to be. But if we do not take this long road and if we introduce compulsory education at this stage, we are going to create many more problems in the cultural, political, spiritual and all other spheres than we will solve through it.

Throughout the speech of the hon. member for Houghton this question was approached from the point of view of the white economy. She completely lost sight of the limitations of the Bantu and how this matter should be approached from the point of view of the Bantu. When one looks at Bantu education, one should view it firstly from the point of view of the Bantu community and not from the point of view of a multi—racial state. I want to stress that when Bantu education is considered the first question should be, What are the requirements of the economy of the Bantu at this stage? Bantu education must only meet with those requirements. The motion of the hon. member, of course, stems from the fact that she supports and contemplates integration. After all, that is clearly stated in this report from which she quoted, although she was very careful not to quote that. She said that all the barriers in the economic field, barriers such as the “Colour bar”, should disappear. But what do these people say now? They give all these facts, but they also state what the requirements of the white economy will be by the year 1980. According to their calculations, half the number of workers required will have to come from the non—white population groups, and then they go further (translation)—

They suggest that recruits be obtained among the Bantu. However, they approach the matter exclusively from the point of view of the requirements of the white economy and not from the point of view of the requirements of the economy of the Bantu. For that reason we say that the education of the Bantu should not be harnessed in the service of a multi—racial state; neither should it be harnessed in the service of the economy of the Whites or in the service of any other economy. We say it should be harnessed only in the service of the economy of the Bantu themselves. I want to formulate the most important objectives of Bantu education as regards its nature and scope as they have already been formulated in our policy. According to that the school should form an integral part of the Bantu community. Schools should be established out of and by the Bantu community and should meet the requirements of the Bantu community, economically and otherwise. The Bantu themselves should take the initiative in the erection of their schools, and also as regards the control thereof. Bantu education should be centred in the Bantu community. For that reason the Bantu should accept responsibility for the finances and administration of their education to an increasing extent. This last point leads to the conclusion that the Bantu should be given compulsory education only when the Bantu themselves want it, when they themselves ask for it, when they themselves can afford it and when they themselves can provide it. Those are the requirements laid down by us.

I may continue indicating what the present education system has already meant to the Bantu, but on the one hand I do not have the time to do so and on the other hand it has already been discussed under the motion of the hon. member for Randfontein the other day. For that reason I want to content myself by moving the following amendment—

I should like to express my pleasure at being able to take part in this debate although much that has been said so far was also said when we discussed the motion by the hon. member for Randfontein a few days ago. I am glad that both hon. members who have spoken so far made reference to the 1961 Panel. That was an excellent piece of work. The analysis they gave and the plan they projected for the future are worthy of the attention and study of every member in this House.

It was one-sided.

I would not say it was one-sided. I think it is a vision of constructive thinking, especially the analysis they gave, and the graphic representation and hopes of the future. This is worthy of our attention. I cannot praise it too highly. It is an excellent piece of work. I disagree with the hon. member for Heilbron where he said that the Bantu must be responsible for his own education, that he must get his own share of the economy. We have discussed all this before. I cannot possibly accept that view. It is not a view one should take in a state such as South Africa. We cannot do it. We have to lift them along. We have to change our minds about this as we are changing our minds about admitting white capital into the reserves. It is part of the same outlook. These people have to be assisted and it is our duty to do that. I do not understand the question of self—respect. What about the self—respect of every white man who has his children being educated free right up to the secondary stage? He does not lose any self—respect. People who have been educated that way seem to have maintained their self—respect. Therefore, there is no danger in that. The financial side we have discussed over and over again. Consequently, there is nothing new to be said on that. The hon. member seems to think that compulsory education would create problems. I agree that it will create problems but they are problems in the school. I do not think that will create problems in society. It will, however, to my mind create problems in the school.

I now come to the speech of the hon. member for Houghton, the mover of this motion. When we speak of the Panel, we must realize that the vision they had was education in 1980—in other words, progress towards 1980. They worked out a 14, 15 year plan. As far as I am concerned, I would be prepared to see us working together on a 10 year plan. In Parliamentary government the modern tendency is to establish committees for departments. In this way, I think we should establish a committee of this House on education, a committee representative, of course, of both sides of the House. It should be a committee similar to a select committee but sitting regularly throughout a session or throughout the year if necessary. That is done in America and it is also now being done in Great Britain. I think that could be done. There are things we could discuss together. For instance, we could examine proposals that are made and we could put forward constructive ideas. I think we need this in Bantu education because it is unfair to place this very heavy load only on the officials administering this system. Theirs is a very heavy task and, as far as I am concerned, I should like to be placed in a position where I could be of assistance to them. If I could give them any assistance, however modest that may be, I would be delighted to do so. In all my criticism of the present system of Bantu education throughout the years there has never been any suggestion of any criticism of the administration of this system. My criticism is that it is a system which is too difficult to administer. When I come to the motion—I do not agree with the hon. member for Houghton —I think that education is education. No matter whether you are educating a white, brown or black person, education, that elementary preparation for life, is the same for them all.

When we come to this question of expansion we are anxious to see, that is what I regard as the real problem. I should like to offer a few thoughts on that which I have been able to gather as I heard the speeches here to—day. In the motion the hon. member says that the Government should “consider the advisability” at present. I think we should say the “desirability”. I would be prepared to discuss that at length, but to expand Bantu education at present I think would be inadvisable. I am sorry to say so, but I think it would be inadvisable at the present time. I would like to say a few words about that, Mr. Speaker. I think that every official in the Bantu Education Department and in the other Departments regards compulsory free education as the ideal for the system. Their ambition for the future is that what they are doing, will eventually lead to that. I think we all agree. We cannot conceive of a system where we have education for a section of the population without that system being expanded so that everybody will be included. That is the ideal. I think they have that ideal. But how did we develop our Bantu system? We developed it by saying at the beginning: “We will get as many children as possible into the schools.” That is where I think, not that we went wrong, but that we did not plan properly. We brought all these children into the schools in order that we could say: “We now have half a million children in the schools. We can now advertise in the British national Press that the Republic of South Africa has this large number of children at school. Look at Ethiopia, Ghana and Nigeria. They cannot compare themselves to us. We have more children in the schools.”

We have, but they are not being educated. The hon. member for Houghton has pointed that out. They are not being educated. There are what we generally classify as two systems in education. In formulating a system of education—not for an old long—standing system, but for a new system—there is the English plan. In the English plan they believe in developing an intellectual élite. They produce the leaders of the people who will then gradually extend the system over a long period of years. It was too long a period of years in England, but that is what they believe in. Then there is the American system, where they believe in having a broad basis, gradually getting as many pupils in the school as possible and educating them a little. I think in South Africa we should have to compromise between those two views.

I met a leading educationist, a lady, in Tanzania a few years ago before their full independence. I asked her which system she preferred. She said the English system. She believed they should educate an élite, she was one of them, and that they would direct and rule the nation in the future. And, of course, that is what they have done, and they made a great mess of it. That is how the British colonial system is operating. If we are going to develop for the Bantu a system similar to ours, thus having a broad basis, we must get teaching staff. As the hon. member for Houghton has pointed out, you must have buildings, equipment and teachers. The important thing is teachers. When you start a new system, you must provide in your system for the production of teachers.

The hon. member for Houghton says that we do not have the number of secondary school pupils we ought to have. Of course we do not! We do not have teachers for them! We have white teachers assisting and it is suggested we should have coloured teachers assisting in Bantu education. But to produce the teachers is the greatest difficulty and that is the problem of our Bantu Education Department to-day. How did they tackle it? They said: “We will provide our teachers by keeping Std. VI pupils after they have passed Std VI and training them for a period of three years. Then they will go into the schools as lower primary teachers.” I have never condemned it. They had to find a plan, but I prefer the plan that was introduced in England when they introduced compulsory education almost a hundred years ago. They decided on a pupil-teacher system, which was in the old days extended later to the Cape Province. I think the pupil-teacher system could be developed in a community such as Soweto. We could have outstanding headmasters in charge of schools with a number of pupil teachers working under them. The pupil-teacher system was developed in England and Matthew Arnold in the Matthew Arnold Commission which provided them with a scheme for compulsory free education in England, said that the basis, the strength of the whole system was the pupil-teacher system.

When we blame the Bantu Education Deportment for having teachers with very poor qualifications, we must remember they cannot do otherwise. They have not been able to produce them. We have expanded too rapidly, well, I will not say we have expanded too rapidly, but we have lost quality by extending as rapidly as we have. This is how I feel about it. To put children in school as we are doing to — day with a hundred children under one teacher, who is not well qualified, with 50 in the morning and 50 in the afternoon, I feel is not getting very far. I do not agree with the Eiselen Report to which the hon. member for Houghton referred and which reported that from that kind of education no benefit is derived. I do not agree with that. I think they do derive benefit from it. Even if they go to school for two or three years only, they do pick up something. They will probably spend three years for about one year’s work; that is what I think it comes to. They do get something, but they do not get what they ought to get. The question is: “What should we do?” I do not condemn the motion of the hon. member for Houghton. It is no good “considering the advisability” at present. I am prepared to say it is desirable. We all are for compulsory education, but it cannot be introduced now. We must have a plan, a programme. We must look to the future. I would say this: “We must find some way of establishing what progress we are making.” When I have criticized the Bantu education system and the Government for the manner in which they have run it, as I have done regularly, I have realized the difficulties of the staff. What can we do at this stage to see how we are approaching the ideal of better teachers, a better type of school, and how can we get the necessary money? I would say that in any annual report on education, not from the Department of Education, Arts and Science, but from the Department responsible for coloured education and from those responsible for Indian and Bantu education, there should be a section describing how far they have progressed towards our ideal of free compulsory education. What progress is being made? That is what I want to put to the House this afternoon. I think we can do that. I am not going to combine with that the suggestion of a parliamentary committee, but I am going to move this amendment, which I think will express that view.

Mr. Speaker, I move as a further amendment—

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pick a quarrel with the hon. member for Kensington about educational systems, because what the hon. member has forgotten about them, I must still learn. That is very clear. But I now want to associate myself with the statement that no government in South Africa has done or could do more for Indian, Coloured and Bantu education than this Government has done. There is not the least doubt about that.

This motion deals with compulsory education for all races, and it includes the Indians, the Coloureds and the Bantu. Of course it is obvious that in the short time at our disposal for a discussion of this motion, neither the Minister of Coloured Affairs, nor the Minister of Indian Affairs can participate in the debate. I have been asked to reply to that motion. However, I did consult the two Ministers and asked them for their reaction to the hon. member’s motion. For a while now I shall have to read what those Ministers had to say about the motion. The comment of the hon. the Minister for Indian Affairs was that section 23 of the Indians Education Act, Act No. 61 of 1965, provided the following—

As far as the Indians are concerned, therefore, the principle of compulsory school attendance has already been accepted. Regulations in respect of compulsory school attendance for Indian children were promulgated in April, 1966 already but up to the present it has not yet been possible to put into operation the relevant section of the Act because sufficient school accommodation was not available.

When the Department of Indian Affairs took over educational services in Natal on 1st April, 1966, there was a considerable shortage of school accommodation. The Department was therefore compelled to continue with the then existing system of double classes, the so—called “platoon system”. It is obvious that compulsory school attendance cannot be introduced before sufficient school accommodation is available.

It is the policy of the Department to eliminate double classes as quickly as possible, and as soon as sufficient school accommodation is available compulsory school attendance will be introduced. Since the taking—over of educational services in Natal the number of pupils in double classes has decreased from 24 to 20 per cent of the total number of school—going children. That took place over a very short period of time. In the central area of Durban, for example, the number of double classes in six schools was reduced from 29 to eight at the beginning of 1967. Considerable progress has also been made.

Is that the double period?

Yes, that is in respect of double periods.

But they have different teachers.

Yes, the aim is to eliminate double classes completely as soon as possible. With that object in mind a comprehensive building programme has been drawn up. Eleven new primary schools and five new high schools, which will be completed in 1967, are at present being erected. Apart from that additional classrooms are being built on at 12 existing schools at least.

The statutory provision is such that compulsory school attendance can be introduced in any specific area as sufficient and suitable school accommodation becomes available. It follows therefore that the introduction of compulsory school attendance need not be neglected until it can be introduced in a province as a whole. The present building programme of the Department is calculated to make it possible to introduce compulsory school attendance as soon as possible.

The Education Section of the Department of Indian Affairs is already undertaking a survey of areas where sufficient school accommodation will be available for the introduction of compulsory school attendance in the near future. The education planners of the Department are also at present giving consideration to the age group to which the regulations can initially be made applicable. In this regard consultations are already in progress with the Natal Indian Teachers Society.

Free education for Indian scholars in Natal has already been introduced. No school fees are being collected up to and including Std. X. School books are also being provided free of charge in primary as well as in high schools by means of a monetary per capita grant which is aimed at enabling the schools to purchase all the textbooks over a period of two to three years and subsequently to maintain their stocks. The textbooks are being lent out to scholars free of charge. That does not of course include prescribed books for language subjects or stationery.

Mr. Speaker, after I obtained this information there was not the least doubt in my mind that rapid progress had already been made amongst the Indians in Natal falling under the Department of Indian Affairs. I maintain that no other government could have done it any better. It is much more than was done by the Natal Provincial Council.

I agree with that, but the Government should have done more.

The hon. member is now saying that this Government should have done much more. If there was any neglect then it occurred while the hon. member for South Coast was administrator of Natal. The progress there was made since the Department of Indian Affairs took over, and I think the Department is deserving of the highest praise for the work which they have done. Every responsible Indian is proud of the achievement of this Department of Indian Education and is quite satisfied with the progress which has been made.

I come now to Coloured education. Information in this regard was furnished to me by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs and his Department, to whom I am grateful. In certain areas in the Cape and Natal compulsory education was introduced even before the Department of Coloured Affairs took over. However, it was not possible to apply it in practice chiefly as in the case of the Indians, as a result of the tremendous increase in the number of school—going children and the problems in connection with accommodation. But I want to point out that the same applied in the case of the Whites in years gone by. Compulsory White education was introduced in the Cape in 1905 by the School Council Act, and that Act made it compulsory for children between the ages of seven and 14 to attend school. It was only nine years later, in 1914, that a start was made with the implementation of that compulsory education for Whites. The progress which has been made with Coloured education in the Cape, as well as throughout the Republic, is simply fantastic. I want to mention a number of figures here. In respect of the Cape Province I want to compare the number of pupils in 1945 with the number of pupils in 1966. In 1940 there were 124,000 while in 1966 there were almost 350,000 pupils. That is an increase, within a period of 26 years, of almost 300 per cent. The number of schools increased from 972 to 1,646, which proves that the increase in the number of school-going Coloured children outstripped the ability of the State to build new schools. In the Free State the number of pupils increased from 1,700 to 5,609 over the same period of time, an increase of more than 300 per cent. In the Transvaal they increased in number from 10,200 to 29,500, that is to say by almost 300 per cent. In Natal they increased from 4,400 to 15,800, in other words an increase of almost 350 per cent. It is obvious therefore that in view of this tremendous influx of pupils the accommodation problem has made any compulsory school attendance quite unrealistic. The hon. member spoke about the “detestable system of double sessions”. Does she want the system to be abolished? She wants more schools to be built, but one can only build schools within the limits of the finances which are put at your disposal. The hon. member knows that very much greater progress has been made under this Government than was ever the case before. The progress made was as great as the economy of the country allowed. I just want to tell the hon. member what will happen if her request were complied with. It is calculated that to introduce compulsory education gradually, beginning from 1968, there will, over and above the normal growth rate over the nine years after introduction, be ½ an additional demand for 3,139 teachers, and I that 3,139 additional classrooms, over and above the present rate of growth for which R6 million per annum was voted, will have to be built. The cost per classroom is at present R7,000. Therefore in addition to the present provision, which is already ample and can hardly be supplied, additional buildings will have to be built for an amount of almost R22 million over the following nine years, i.e. R2,440,000 per annum just to supply the necessary classrooms. I have referred to the number of additional teachers which will be necessary, and the hon. member for Houghton knows as well as I do that it is totally unpractical to introduce compulsory education at the moment or even in the near future. As progress is made, however, it will be introduced. The other limiting factor is of course the factor of the provision of staff. There are in fact sufficient training facilities for Coloured teachers, but the number of successful recruits from the senior certificate classes is very small. May I just illustrate this. In 1960 there was a total number of school-going children of almost 400,000 Coloured pupils, but of that total only 1,323 were in the senior certificate classes and of that number only 775 passed. The fault is not only to be sought with the Government or the authorities; the fault must also be sought amongst the Coloureds themselves, and I think it is very shortsighted, unscientific and in a measure childish to put all the blame on the Government.

Do you know how many White children reached that standard before there was free and compulsory education?

It is totally unrealistic to compare the development of the Bantu, the Coloureds and the Indians with the development of the Whites. These people have the opportunity of going to school, and they receive free schooling. The Coloureds who go to school are at least on the same basis as the Whites, but a higher percentage of the Whites reach standards 8, 9 and 10.

That is because of the economic position of their families.

As far as time allows I just want to tell the hon. members of the facilities which are now being made available for the Coloureds. In 1962 the Peninsula Technical College for Coloured Apprentices was established. In 1966 it was replaced by the Technical College in Bellville South and a vocational school was established in Cape Town. In 1963 there were 652 Coloured apprentices in the Peninsula; in 1966, three years later, there were 1,259—an increase of almost 100 per cent over a period of only three years. Time does not allow me to say very much more about this matter but similar schools are at present being established in Kimberley, Johannesburg, Durban and Port Elizabeth. I can go on in this vein but time does not allow me to do so. A catering school has been established; there are after-hour courses in Cape Town which are at present being attended, in Cape Town only, by 1,600 adults. I think that what the Department of Coloured Affairs has achieved in this regard, is really a proud record.

I come now to Bantu education. It is totally unrealistic at this stage to talk about compulsory education as far as the Bantu are concerned and the hon. member for Houghton, as an educationist, knows that it is unrealistic to do so. If she wants to do her country a service then she would have pointed out the tremendous progress which is being made in regard to education of the Bantu in South Africa. She pleads here for something which, as she knows very well, is totally impossible and she does so not—and I am saying this in all earnest—because she knows that it is possible under this Government or under any other government. She pleads for these things because it is her deliberate intention to present South Africa in an unfavourable light. I could not escape the feeling that the hon. member, with all these frightful things that she said here—“disgraceful neglect”, “scandalous double sessions”—that she was the unofficial representative in this House of the United Nations, the Afro-Asiatic group and the Organization for African Unity. It is pathetic that it should not be a source of pride to the hon. member for Houghton that we are doing more for Bantu education in the Republic than is being done in any other country on the continent of Africa. The hon. member said that we can do so because we are rich. Is England not rich? Is France not rich? Was Belgium not rich? We have in this country, for Bantu education, achieved ten times if not 100 times as much as England has achieved in the former Protectorates. We have achieved more than France ever achieved in any of its colonies in Africa. We have achieved more than Belgium achieved in the Belgian Congo and in its other possessions on the continent of Africa. With what countries does the hon. member compare us? She does not want to say that we should compare ourselves with the African States because they are poor states, but if we compare our record with that of a rich England, a rich France and a rich Belgium then I say that the Republic of South Africa stands head and shoulders above those countries as far as the furnishing of education facilities to the Bantu is concerned. I think the hon. member ought to be ashamed of the fact that she is continually presenting South Africa in this unfavourable light while she knows that we have done better than any other country in the entire world as far as the education of underdeveloped people is concerned. Fifty-five per cent of our Bantu population is literate, as compared with 10 per cent in Liberia and 5 per cent in Ethiopia, 85 per cent of the Bantu between the ages of seven and 20 in South Africa are literate. That is the record which cannot be equalled, not only in Africa, but also in certain European countries.

That is not true.

What proof do you have that that is not true?

Order! The hon. member for Houghton is not allowed to make a speech from her seat.

May I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister what the attitude of his party was to the United Party Government when we wanted to spend more money on Bantu education?

The little money which the United Party Government wanted to spend on Bantu education, cannot be compared with the money which this Government has spent on it. I shall furnish the hon. member with the figures in a moment. There is just no comparison. That was one of the reasons why I was kicked out of that party. Six years ago there were approximately 2,000 non-White students attending South African universities. That is after matriculation. To-day there are 7,000, of which 3,000 are Bantu. There are to—day more Bantu at the universities than there were Coloureds plus Bantu six years ago. It is definitely a record to be proud of. And as far as the quality of the education is concerned, I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that the quality of the education at the University colleges of the Bantu is equal, or almost if not entirely equal to, the standard at the White universities. She will be doing herself a favour if she visited those colleges and saw precisely what grogress had been made and what is being done there, instead of visiting gaols.

I now come to the amount of money which is being spent on Bantu education. In 1955 a total amount of R15.8 million was spent on Bantu education, including the Transkei. In 1966—’67 it is estimated that R25.4 million will be spent there. It is almost R10 million more than ten years ago, and this time the Transkei has been excluded. We have progressed from R15 million to R25 million, with the exclusion of the Transkei and that is approximately R5 million. If one includes the Transkei then almost 100 per cent more is being spent on Bantu education than ten years ago. I want to ask the hon. member whether that is not fantastic progress? Is that not something to be proud of? Is that not something one should blazon abroad instead of doing so in regard to the problems we have? But the hon. member is what she is, and we shall have to forgive her because to tell the truth, I have a very soft spot for her. It is the idea of the hon. member for Houghton that we should pour out white money for the Bantu in a continuous and unlimited stream. We totally reject that idea. It would, in my opinion, and in the opinion of practically all educationists, with the exception of the group of extreme liberalists in her circle, be regarded as an offence against the Bantu. I do not want to go into what the hon. member for Heilbron dealt with so brilliantly, i.e. the unhealthy aspect of continually stuffing the Bantu with money and spending more on their education than they can absorb, of giving him more education than he needs in proportion to his economic position. It has been found throughout the world, and this was the finding of Unesco too, that one of the major errors which has been made in the rest of Africa is that more money has been crammed into education than was necessary in proportion to their economic growth and requirements. We are very proud of what we have achieved and upon the policy we have, and we are willing to defend it before the entire world. No one has done better than we have. Our policy rests on four pillars. They are firstly that education for the Bantu must be undertaken by the Bantu themselves, and in the long run financed by the Bantu themselves. I want to point out to the hon. member that of the R25 million which we are going to spend today on Bantu education, R10 million is being derived from Bantu taxes, and the other R15 million is coming out of the white account. We are also helping the Bantu in another way. There are many of them who do not pay their taxes. The Minister is having a study made to come up with a better system of tax collection in order to see whether we cannot help the Bantu in that aspect by collecting much greater amounts of money for their education. But the Bantu will simply have to remember that if they want more education and better facilities they will have to pay their taxes more regularly, and all of them who are not paying taxes now will have to pay those taxes. This I regard as real educational work amongst the Bantu: To make of them not a lot of parasites living off the Whites but independent people who can serve their own nation. The next thing is that we envisage the training of the Bantu for service to his community, as I said just now. Thirdly, the Bantu must be responsible for the financing of their education, and in the meantime we are helping them to a far greater extent than they are helping themselves. The fourth thing is that the Bantu themselves determine to a great extent the rate of development of their own education, as the hon. member for Heilbron has stated so brilliantly.

I have only four minutes left, but let us hear what the Bantu themselves say about this education system. I know of no Bantu education expert, and there are many, who has asked at this stage for the introduction of compulsory education, because they realize the lack of realism which doing so would imply. Joseph Gana writes in a letter in Bantu—

Then there is Mr. T. J. Gina of the Dintuli Bantu School, Natal, who states—

[Interjection.] Certainly they support the Minister. If the hon. member for Houghton had seen half as many Bantu in the past ten years as I have seen in the past eleven months since I was made Deputy Minister, she would be proud of herself. I want to invite her to visit Bantu schools with me, but I shall see to it that a third person accompanies us. There is another from Mr. H. L. Sehlodimela, principal of the Ndlovu Community School, who states (translation)—

That is what the Bantu want. They do not want miracles or nonsense, of the type the hon. member for Houghton spoke. They want steady progress and that is what they are getting at the moment and are accepting with enthusiasm. The hon. member can say what she pleases. Outside the little circle of so—called Bantu intellectuals surrounding her and the University of the Witwatersrand, stands the bantu population of to—day who, as far as Bantu education is concerned, are solidly behind the Government. I am afraid my time is up. I could have taught the hon. member a great deal more. She was a lecturer in her day and it would have been a pleasure for me to teach her.

Mr. Speaker, I would not dream of attempting to reply to the hon. the Deputy Minister because I think that he was entirely right when he started off by saying to the hon. member for Kensington that what he knew about education was dangerous. I agree with him entirely. From: the wording of this motion and within the framework of our amendment, it is quite clear that we on this side of the House give it a degree of support. In fact, I would say that there is a very real need on the part of the Government to indulge in, what I would call, positive thinking on this particular issue. Of all the communities in South Africa, small or large, which go to make up our population, it seems to me—and hon. members may get tired of my talking about the coloured people, but I know about them—we could do so much more for the coloured community than we do. The question of Bantu education has been very adequately dealt with by the hon. member for Kensington. I do not intend to say much about that except that it seems very largely to have failed as a system. There is no question that insufficient care and attention has been given to the training of Bantu teachers which implies I think, as the hon. member for Houghton correctly said, wanton neglect of secondary schooling, with the result that for all the Government pride in having half a million Bantu children in school to-day, as the hon. member for Kensington also correctly said, the whole structure is top heavy and unproductive. That is where it has fallen down in an educational sense, because the majority of these children leave school in sub B, Std. I or Std. II. Granted it is an advantage that they should be able to read and write even in a very simple way, but the fact is that it is not good enough either in terms of their future or in terms of the economy of South Africa. As hon. members know, the majority of them receive no further training for the rest of their lives. I would say that there is no excuse whatever for the attitude adopted by this Government towards the coloured people over the years, particularly in the Cape. Attempts to have a degree of compulsory schooling introduced into the Cape Province go back a great many years. As I said earlier this afternoon I think that our failure to deal with this question has been very largely responsible for the pathetic sociological conditions in which many of them find themselves to—day. If you look back, and I was in the Cape Provincial Council for nearly ten years, at the reports of the Superintendent—General of Education of the Cape Province for the last few years, you will find that from 1953 to 1963 (coloured education was taken over by the Central Government in 1964) the number of coloured pupils who remained at school from Std. I right through to Std. VI increased at an average rate of between one and two per cent per year over this decade which is quite fantastic. In other words, at no time did more than 40 per cent of all coloured children in school get further than Std. VI. The biggest fall-out during this decade, something which I think is symptomatic, was the higher percentage who left for good in Std. IV or well before that; in other words, approximately 65 per cent of the coloured schoolgoing population never get any further than Std. IV. This is better than nothing. Hon. members may say that at least they have a degree of schooling, which is something to set them on the right road. I think that the Government has been unwise and I think also that with a little more foresight and particularly a little more financial generosity in this matter, they could have subsidized coloured schooling in order to ensure that the remaining 30,000 coloured children who are not in school in the Republic to-day, could in fact have received a basic training in the three R’s during the twenty years that they have been in power. It would, as we have already agreed, given these children a sense of discipline and remove many of them for a period from their home environment which is so often inadequate and rather pathetic.

Instead the Government has let this problem lapse. What did we find in our last Budget? We found in the capital estimates that a sum of R3,973,000 was allocated for coloured child welfare and that R3,382,000 was allocated for primary, secondary and high schools and the training of teachers. In other words, over R½ million more was needed for child welfare amongst the coloured population for indigent and delinquent children than for education itself. When I refer to these sums of money I do not refer to the Loan Votes or anything under the Public Works Vote in regard to buildings. The fruit of this neglect, as I have already said during the debate on the Coloured Cadets Training Bill, is all the Minister told us yesterday afternoon that the initial enrolment in these training camps will be 90,000 coloured youths between the ages of 18 and 24, who are not gainfully employed nor receive any specific training whatsoever. He then went on to say that there would be an annual intake of 20,000 per annum after that. I want to say something to hon. members and especially to the hon. the Deputy Minister, since he has this unfortunate responsibility here this afternoon of replying to the debate, about the story of compulsory schooling, particularly here in the Cape, where we have the majority of the coloured people. I may say that it is a very dreary record. The hon. members opposite have been in power for over 20 years. It is a very dreary record of vacillation and cynicism which seems to me to cast a stigma on the policies of the Nationalist Government on his matter more than anything else. The hon. the Deputy Minister claimed, with enormous enthusiasm, that his Government had done more for coloured schooling than any other administration. I think that this is absolutely fantastic.

Way back in 1953, the hon. member for Houghton mentioned it at the time, when we had the majority in the Cape Provincial Council, we appointed a commission of enquiry under the chairmanship of the late Dr. De Vos Malan and subsequently under the chairmanship of Professor M. C. Botha. Its terms of reference were to investigate the whole question of Coloured education. I should like to remind hon. members on that side of the House of the people who served on that commission. There were some good Nationalists among them. Apart from Dr. De Vos Malan, Professor M. C. Botha and Mr. H. S. Bowden, there was Professor J. F. Burger, professor of education at the university of Cape Town; Mr. C. J. Hofmeyr, formerly chief inspector of schools in the Cape Education Department; Mr. W. A. Joubert, formerly principal of the Paarl Training College for teachers; Mr. N. E. Lambrechts, formerly chief inspector of schools in the Cape Education Department; none other than Mr. A. H. Stander, M.P.C., who sat in this House not so long ago, who was chief inspector of schools (Native education) in the Cape Education Department, and who was the former member of Parliament for Prieska. Then there was Mr. H. R. Storey, formerly chief inspector of schools (Coloured education) in the Cape Education Department and Mr. J. de Villiers, head of the Coloured school section of the Cape Education Department. The majority of the people on that commission were Afrikaans-speaking.

There is no doubt that they had views which would line up with those of the governing party to-day. It is almost fantastic to realize, when one reads the names of the people who made this investigation and issued a first class report, from which the Government could have taken many recommendations and put them into practice without at all breaking the bank, that as far back as 1945—I refer to Ordinance No. 11 of 1945—the Cape Provincial Council made special provision for the permissive introduction of compulsory attendance at school for coloured children be.tween the ages of 7 and 14, who lived within three miles of an undenominational school, subject to the provision that there was adequate accommodation. There is always this excuse that there is not adequate accommodation. This is not an insuperable difficulty. It is quite possible to hire buildings if you cannot afford to build them. This is the current excuse and it seems to me to be a thoroughly bogus one in regard to dealing with this urgent matter. The comments of the commission make such interesting reading that I should like to quote from them very briefly. I should like to remind hon. members that it is now 21 years since the Cape Provincial Council embodied the principle of compulsory schooling for coloured children in that ordinance.

Worst of all is the fact that the position has hardly changed in the whole of those 21 years. I want to tell you why. The hon. the Minister says that there has been such spectacular progress. Just let me read him something from the Commissions report. This is a report which was issued in 1956. They quote Ordinance No. 11 and speak of children who were entitled to compulsory schooling. Then they say—

Now I want hon. members to listen very carefully to this next paragraph, because it is relevant to a reply to a question asked by me in this House last session. The next paragraph says—

Six specific places are mentioned. When I asked a question in this House on the 23rd August of last year, whether compulsory schooling had been extended by this Administration at all, shall I tell you what the hon. the Minister’s reply was? He said—

Here they all are. They are the same ones which I read out in the report which was published in 1956—ten years ago. They are the Alice Primary School, the Wilfred Scott Primary School, King William’s Town, the Douglas Ross Primary School, Keiskammahoek, the Carinus Primary School, Cradock, the Arsenal Road School, Simonstown and the William Pescod High School at Kimberley. From 1956, when this report was published until the hon. the Minister gave me his answer in 1966 there was not a single new area to which compulsory schooling was extended.

When did the Department take over?

The Department took over on the 1st January, 1964. The only province in which anything was done was the province of Natal which, of course, is United Party controlled. [Interjections.] The Coloured Education Bill was passed in 1963. The province of Natal, of course, having intelligent people running it, has compulsory schooling for Coloured children up to and including Std. VIII on precisely the same basis as the Europeans. Do you know what the hon. the Minister ended up by saying to me in reply to my question? The hon. the Minister’s final words, having given me this answer, were that this upheld “the status quo prior to transfer”. I was in the provincial council at the time when we were told that the Government was going to do marvellous things for Coloured education and that that was why we had to give it up. The Government was going to spend so much money it just was not true. What has been done? Practically nothing. First of all, let us have it put on record that there have been no further steps towards compulsory schooling for Coloured children since 1953. That may just as well go down on the record. [Interjection.] No, the hon. the Deputy Minister has a different feeling about me, I am sure. In spite of all the fuss that was made at the time, nothing has been done, according to the Minister, to change the status quo since 1953. In terms of the amendment moved by the hon. member for Kensington, we want to know how much longer this status quo is going to remain. Only yesterday we were told by the hon. the Minister of Coloured Affairs that the capital expenditure for the two training centres under the Training Centres for Coloured Cadets Bill was estimated at R 1,026,000, and recurrent expenditure for salaries, clothing, food and maintenance for both institutions was estimated at about R380,000. When I raised the question of compulsory schooling under the Vote in this House in my second session in 1965, the then Minister, the hon. P. W. Botha, said: “I also pointed out the shortage of school buildings as well as the fact that the Coloured population as such is not yet ripe …”—listen to those words—“… for general compulsory education”. I would say that this is utter rubbish. In fact, it is much more than rubbish. It is a form of wicked cynicism to suggest that any people anywhere in any part of the world are not ready to begin to learn how to take their rightful place in society, wherever they may be. When in 1965, on the same occasion, I interjected and asked the Minister whether they were not even ready for it up to Std. IV, his reply was: “No, and I told the hon. member why not. There are other means that we can employ.” What are the other means? This is very interesting. We would like to know what those other means are. Was it that he felt that he could leave these children just to rot until such time as they became old enough to be conscripted into the training camps which are under consideration? It seems to me that it is quite clear that the hon. the Minister’s predecessor—not this Minister— really did not care very much about this community in his charge. He could not have done, or else he would not have made a reply that was quite as stupid as that. As other hon. members have pointed out, ironically enough, the whole principle of compulsory schooling —in this instance for Coloureds—is written into the Coloured Education Act in Section 23 (1). It seems to me that if this Government wanted to, there is absolutely nothing to prevent them from introducing compulsory schooling in the Free State and the Transvaal for Coloured children to-morrow. I shall tell you why. Natal already has it. In the Free State, at the beginning of 1965, the estimated number of children not at school was only 808. Those were figures given to me in reply to a question in this House. In the Transvaal, at the beginning of 1965, the estimated number of Coloured children not at school was 3,181. That is all. Look at all the money we have. R 150,000 has been allocated to the Department of Sport. For what? [Interjections.] It depends on the sport, but the fact remains that there are less than 4,000 children in the Free State and the Transvaal who could be put into school for compulsory schooling, as they have it in Natal, for a very small sum of money, relatively speaking, instead of our having to allocate thousands of rand to set up training camps for juvenile delinquents. How much more profitable, from a human and from an economic point of view, it would have been to have done that as soon as this Government took over from the provinces, instead of fooling about as they have been doing ever since they took charge.

We know that the Cape Province presents a very different problem. We accept that. In the Cape Province in 1965 it was estimated that 28,300 Coloured children were not in school. Those were the Minister’s figures. Here in the Cape we are faced with the most serious aspect of all, namely the shortage of teachers, which is relevant to the whole problem. But it is all part of the general neglect, and if one looks at the figures—which are most depressing—of potential student teachers who made application to attend the training colleges and the training schools one sees how bad the position is. Far more made application than any of those colleges or schools were able to take. No real effort has been made to improve this position.

I want to point out to the Minister what the position is in regard to these training colleges and training schools. I feel sorry for this hon. Minister. I think that he has his heart in his job. But he has inherited an almost impossible problem at this stage. If one takes the businessman and the farmer, these two categories of people, then one finds that the shortsightedness of the Government’s policy in these two fields alone is quite incredible. Because, Sir, and I think that this point was made adequately by the hon. member for Houghton, for those who are mostly or only concerned with obtaining labour—let us put it only at that level—and with maintaining production, the warning has been quite clearly given to South Africa by the 1961 Education Panel in their report when they said—

Of course, Sir, they are quite right. Job reservation should never, under any circumstances, have been applied to the Coloured people. There is no doubt at all that if South Africa is going to develop at a reasonable rate economically expenditure on education will have to rise from the R 160,000,000 to R200,000,000 —the two figures between which the Estimates fluctuated during the 1960’s, for all races;—to something like R800 or R900 million within the next decade. We will have to face that. This would be a national investment, no matter who is educated, i.e. whether it is White, Coloured, Bantu or Indian. There is no doubt at all that the main target—and I put it this way deliberately—should be a degree of compulsory schooling for all races in South Africa. It seems to me that it is axiomatic that the higher the standard of non-White education generally, the greater will be their productivity as workers. With it goes a greater ambition to educate their own families and a greater sense of responsibility, whilst educational avenues are open to them. It means also that with a higher standard of living they themselves become consumers, they become an enormous potential consumer population, which benefits everybody all round.

Let us also get another point absolutely clear in our minds so that our thinking is not woolly on this subject. The extent to which the non-White people are able to contribute to the national economy of South Africa is based on how much they earn. The Minister talked about their not paying enough taxes. Well, the better wages they earn, the better they are able to contribute to the national economy, both as consumers in the first place and as taxpayers in the second. They are also less likely to remain an intolerable burden upon the European taxpayer and the State.

So we get back to the crux of this motion. As far as primary teachers are concerned, the enrolment figures of Coloured student teachers are very revealing indeed. The following figures appeared in Hansard this session. In 1965 1,594 student teachers were accepted. In 1966 1,357 were accepted, that is 237 fewer than the year before. Where is this wonderful progress? In 1967 only 1,304 were accepted, that is 53 fewer than the year before. So the numbers go steadily down, not up. They do not go up at all. So where is this phenomenal progress? It is just as well that the Minister had his say before I got up, because it is so easy to shoot him down, it is just not true. It would appear that no new primary teacher training institutions have been completed either in the Transvaal, the Free State, or Natal since this Government took over—not one. In the Cape Province one institution has been built in replacement of existing buildings. They were already there but they have been expanded since January, 1964. The Minister told me in reply to a question last year that the training college for primary teachers at Bellville is in the planning stage and is expected to be completed by the 31st December, 1969; in other words, the students will start enrolling there on 1st January, 1970, three years from now. This can hardly be described as what the Deputy Minister said was “spectacular progress”.

Let me say in conclusion that the pity of it is that if these children could be kept in school until they are fourteen, the position would be very much improved. We could make the law more flexible. Let us say they must be at school from seven to fourteen years of age. If we cannot afford to keep them at school right through to standard eight, there being such a large number of Coloured children in the Cape Province. If they can be kept at school until they are 14, they are entitled in law to go and work when they are 15. They would have been disciplined until they were 14. Then there would not be the need for all these trainees, pulling them in, pushing them around, forcing them to do things, because they will not work. More than half of them would find employment without any difficulty whatsoever if they were able to write and read, if they were able to handle agricultural machinery, and in general do things intelligently. They would be able to do all these things if they were at school until they were 14.

As things are our urban areas have become increasingly congested with these children who are growing up without any schooling and the burden of dealing with these youngsters, as the hon. members will know, is now falling more and more upon the State. I can only say that if the Government had enforced— and it is not yet too late, it can do so if it wants to—a degree of compulsory school attendance in our urban areas for these youngsters, it would be doing more for the Coloured community than any single Coloured Representative Council or any other political body. The shortage of teachers and the shortage of school accommodation sound as though they are practical obstacles. The accommodation aspect does not interest me at all because it can be found if there is a will to find it. However, the training of teachers is a different matter. It is a long-term project, and should have been started long ago.

I want to end by saying this. The danger for the community, for the Coloured community and for all of us as well, is the thousands of youngsters who have known no discipline whatsoever because they have not been taught it at school. They have had the minimum of care under very difficult home circumstances, as we know. These children, who have had the maximum amount of neglect during the first ten years of their lives, will form the recruits for these training centres which we are talking about now. Once children of this sort reach the age of 15 they are under no circumstances suitable candidates for rehabilitation, whether they are put into reformatories, training centres or anywhere else. If a child has been neglected up to its tenth of 14th year it is extremely difficult to retrieve the situation in terms of the development of the human psyche and in terms of that child’s future. I would say that the amendment is a very good one and that there is a real need for this Government to give an account of its stewardship in this field of education.

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to go into the ideas expressed by the hon. member for Wynberg at any great length except to point out that I do not believe that the application of compulsory education is in any respect a criterion for the progress which has been made in the sphere of Coloured education since it was taken over by the Department of Coloured Education. It would appear from what the hon. member for Wynberg as well as the hon. member for Kensington said that the United Party want to support this motion. That amazes me because if one recalls how very little they did in the interests of this matter which they want to support this afternoon, when they were the governing party in this country, then it is surprising that they are inclined to give this motion any measure of support.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke about the United Party-controlled province of Natal. I think it is fair to point out that in the ten years, including the war years I lived in Pietermaritzburg, not a single Coloured school was built there. The facilities were simply not provided. I think the hon. member for South Coast will know what I am talking about. I think it ought also to be asked to what extent the teachers’ training facilities were expanded in that period. I am talking now about the years just before this Government came into power. It would be very interesting to learn how many inspectors were allocated for the various race groups in that province during those years.

I now want to return to the motion and the U.N. rostrum speech made by the hon. member for Houghton. Before proceeding to a discussion of her motion I just want to say that I cannot understand how she can refer so often to the “scandalous double sessions”, which exist in Bantu education. Apparently the fact that the same method is being used in other countries of the world, in Israel for example, and probably for the same good reasons, does not worry her. This is inclined to create the impression in one that unsound political motives are involved in her motion. I am saying this particularly because the hon. member for Houghton, who introduced this motion, is a member of the élite political party here in our country—one of those who are able to purchase their own facilities of separate existence but who have a great deal to say about the numerous other South Africans who have to take into account the reality of their White survival in terms of a national policy. I wonder whether there is any significance in the fact that the Progressive Party constitution stipulates that Std. VIII must be the minimum educational qualification for a voter, and whether what the hon. member for Houghton is actually doing now is to canvass voters for herself with the Government’s money by asking for compulsory and free education for all racial groups.

That is a very good point.

I thought you would appreciate it; I only wondered whether you realized it.

One finds no concrete approach in this motion. It asks for free and compulsory education for all races in the Republic. I feel that the motion is a striking example of childish thoughtlessness. Even the mighty America has recently been made to realize the erroneousness of this view, and it is significant that recent scientific investigations made on a social and economic basis in that country were able to point out in statistical terms the dangers of this misconception. I maintain that the motion has a political tinge because I do not believe that anybody with experience of education amongst the Bantu could adopt such an attitude. Mention has been made here this afternoon of “universal education”. That is a hollow cry, Mr. Speaker.

The problem centres about the extent to which education can adapt itself to the mentality and level of development of the people to whom it is being given. Social background, culture and tradition also play a role. It is found, for example, that the thought processes of the Bantu are inclined to take place on the concrete level, more so than is the case amongst the Whites in South Africa. Hence also their inability to think in abstract terms, to theorize or to free themselves from the tangible. I may mention that as part of an exercise in experimental introspection I one day asked a B.A. student how much a quarter plus another quarter was. There was a pause, and then he told me it was a half. I then asked him to tell me by way of introspection how he had arrived at that conclusion. He told me that when he heard my question he thought of a stone, cleft it down the middle in his mind so that it broke into two, he then broke one half down the middle, realized that he had two quarters, counted the quarters together and realized that he had a half, whereupon he told me that the answer was a half. That is the thought process; it is typical of the lack of abstract appreciation of numbers which one often finds amongst the Bantu. That is why it is important to take these things into consideration when dealing with education for the Bantu. This fact is a determining factor in the kind of education and the method of instruction. I can give you the assurance, Sir, and I want to emphasize it for the sake of the hon. member for Houghton, that persons who are not professionally well-qualified find it extremely difficult to hold classes for the Bantu and work with them. It requires more of a teacher to hold classes for Bantu children than to teach Whites. In addition there is still the problem which was actually inherited by the Department of Bantu Education and which they are having to deal with at the present stage, namely that there was not much of a method of technique, of a pedagogical grounding in the education systems which we inherited in 1953 from the various provinces. The method of instruction there was often, almost in all cases, based merely on teaching through memorization, i.e. instruction from without That was the old Anglo-American psychology of learning. We are getting away from that view. It is something which takes time, however. Quite recently a Bantu psychologist told me that education for Bantu to-day is in many respects like a ripe fruit which one gives a child—the fruit is very good but the child’s stomach is unable to digest it. I am quoting in this regard from the book by Paul Giniewski. He states (translation)—

I want to maintain that what Bantu education is doing to-day is precisely to help the Bantu in South Africa, in our midst in the most sensible way possible.

Mention was made here this afternoon of an “expanding economy”. I quote from an article by the American writer Rado, where he says—

In this regard another writer, Don Piper, states the following—

I think my voice sounds sweet in the ears of the hon. member for Houghton.

The hon. member for Houghton also asked for post-primary educational facilities to be increased. She said that there are too many pupils at the schools at present, and the hon. member not only wants them at the primary school, they must also be transferred to the high school. According to an article by Arnold Anderson the correlation between postprimary pupils and per capita income for all countries is positively only .48. That testifies to the misconception that education, particularly post-primary education, means economic prosperity.

The ratio between post-primary pupils and total populations varies from 0 per cent to 7 per cent, even amongst nations with a per capita income of R250. It is a fact that where 5 per cent or more pupils receive post-primary instruction, the per capita income is usually more than R400, but then there are also high income countries with low post-primary pupil numbers. I am mentioning Japan for example. It is also a fact that even though literacy amongst adults and post-primary education correlate, there are countries with a low level of literacy, high post-primary education, but a low per capita income nevertheless. Examples of such countries are Egypt, Jordan, India and Taiwan. It would appear that other and very subtle cultural influences determine the way in which education affects the economy.

Sir, the cry for “compulsory education” is a hollow one therefore. Yet we in our country have nothing to be ashamed of. On the contrary, where the percentage of pupils to potential school-going children in four different countries in Africa is an average of 25, the figure in South Africa in 1966 was 83. Add to that 10 per cent for those who cannot receive instruction and that brings it up to 93 per cent. That leaves a meagre 7 per cent of the Bantu in South Africa who have not already been assimilated into schools. With that the argument for compulsory education practically lapses. Where the average percentage in respect of literacy in Africa varies between 15 and 20 per cent, it is 55 per cent in South Africa. I want to emphasize, although I do not have the time now to go into it, that education for Bantu in South Africa only differs from that for Whites in quantity, and very definitely not in quality.

I can prove that in 1966 15.9 per cent of the total Bantu population of 12.2 million was attending school. I will not burden you with the figures for the other African states, Sir, but they are in any case much lower. They vary from 11.5 per cent to 0.9 per cent in some countries. The fact of the matter is that in South Africa schooling is within the reach of every Bantu child.

I return to economic considerations. Hunter, a manpower consultant in South East Asia, warns against the temptation to expand economically in conditions of manpower shortage because these shortages can too easily be converted into surpluses, particularly in the earlier stages of economic growth; and once the standards have fallen to such an extent they are difficult to raise again. The numerous unemployed engineers and taxi-drivers with university degrees in countries where universities have developed faster than the economic growth in those countries, serve as warning.

Formal compulsory education is therefore not always the reply to manpower shortages and economic growth, particularly if it is injudiciously supplied. Merely to ask for compulsory education for all non-White race groups in South Africa is therefore foolish. It can cause considerable economic disruption in a few years.

That brings me to the cost aspect of free education. It is true that, of the current spending of R28.2 million in the interests of Bantu education, almost R16 million is in the current financial year being recovered from the white estimates. That means—I think it is a significant figure—that an average of R21 is to be borne by the approximately three quarter million White persons who normally pay income tax. I do not think that this figure has been furnished before. I do not think there is another African state which can approach anywhere near this figure. However, if one adds to the R28.2 million a proportionate part for the pupils who are not yet at school, plus the money which is paid by the pupils of the parents themselves, plus additional classrooms, teachers salaries, books, furniture, stationery, administrative costs and the costs of the normal annual increase in the Bantu education account, then the account for Bantu education alone totals more than R50 million. Up to now we have not mentioned the additional amounts for Indians and Coloureds.

It is unfortunately so that accounts have to be paid and the question is: Who is going to pay these accounts? Could it be the Progressive Party? That Bantu education has real problems with which it is struggling, nobody will deny. But it is not true either that progress is not being made; it is not true that those problems are not being tackled. That is why I want in conclusion to lend my support to the amendment moved by the hon. member for Heilbron.