Mr. Speaker, I move—

To the relief perhaps of the hon. the Minister of Finance I do not propose to use this opportunity in order to reply to some of his rather fatuous remarks made in his reply to the Second-Reading debate. Instead I should like to direct attention to two matters, matters which I feel should now be raised because there will in all probability be no other opportunity for raising them before the Budget debate. These matters are veiled in some uncertainty at the moment and I feel this uncertainty should be resolved.

The first of these matters is the Simonstown Agreement, the second the position of Coloured representation in Parliament now that the Commission which was appointed to go into the matter has tabled its report. In regard to the Simonstown Agreement, it is common cause that that agreement exists firstly because of historical reasons and, secondly, because of the strategic importance of Simonstown as a naval base. I believe that up to a certain point this agreement worked well, even after the Security Council’s resolution banning the sale of arms to South Africa. It worked well because, inter alia, of a formula devised by the British government of the day enabling them to make available to us sources of arms which we thought were necessary. A former British Prime Minister, Sir Alex Douglas Home, is on record as having said that as far as he knew no government had ever complained to Britain about its interpretation of that agreement. So the years have rolled by and in the meantime Simonstown has become of overwhelming importance to the Western world, particularly as a result of the British withdrawal east of Suez and the closing of the Suez Canal. In fact, in recent months we have seen developments which have accentuated the importance of this base beyond all measure, perhaps beyond what anyone imagined might be the case even a few years ago.

We see a build up at the present time of Russian military and naval strength in the Mediterranean, a build up quite obviously designed to facilitate Russian military presence in the Indian ocean by means of domination in the Middle East. Of course, one realizes that that would mean domination of the Dardanelles as well as of the Suez Canal. It is worth noticing in this connection that Aden has already been offered to Russia as a base after the British evacuation. We have also heard of the plans announced by the British Prime Minister to withdraw east of Suez for all practical purposes by the end of 1971, thereby leaving a power vacuum in the Indian ocean. Of course, France has bases in Malagasy and French Somaliland but it is common cause I think that French policy is somewhat ambivalent—one can never be certain in what direction it will be going. Recent history shows how small countries tend to succumb to communist pressure where such countries are not bolstered up by the possibility of military support from the West.

I think we might have regard to two other matters. The one is what the objectives of Communist China at the present moment may be. Clearly India would be an added liability to her. Her moves must therefore be in a south-easterly and south-westerly direction— possibly Australia, Indonesia and New Guinea may be her immediate objectives. In a southwesterly direction the east coast of Africa is an obvious objective, one in which she already seems to have gained a foothold. The other matter to which I think we should give attention is the fact that although the Vietnam war, a war in which the United States of America is so heavily involved, may be waging on another continent, it is only across an ocean from us, an ocean which at the moment seems to be unprotected by any superior naval force. We are faced with the problem that in Canberra as well as in Washington alarm has been expressed at Britain’s withdrawal from the Indian Ocean. The Australians have made it clear that their financial ability to take over Britain’s role is limited while the Americans have made it clear that they are very heavily committed already at the present time. And yet it is the position that of all the ships in the Indian Ocean, of those diverted from Suez, probably 40 per cent sail under the British flag.

There are possibly at any one time in the Indian Ocean at the present time 800 ships flying the British flag. We know that Great Britain has certain treaty commitments. She speaks of plans for flying assistance out to those countries with which she has commitments. That means overflying rights over countries which may not always grant her those rights. It also means bulk maintenance to be shipped round the Cape, accentuating once again the importance of Simonstown.

We all know that the Simonstown Agreement was a gentlemen’s agreement and that there could be different interpretations on how it should be implemented. We saw that at the time of the Buccaneer contract and the difficulties it involved. We also know that there were conversations last year when there were representatives of the British government out here. However, we did not raise the matter at the time because of the delicacy of the situation. Since then there have been statements by the hon. the Minister of Defence, by the Prime Minister and by the Acting State President in the speech opening the present session of Parliament, statements indicating that the agreement might have to be reviewed in the light of the changed attitude of the British government, especially in respect of future planning. Imagine, therefore, our puzzlement at a statement by the British Prime Minister on 6th February, that he had not received any communication from the Prime Minister of South Africa about the future use by the Royal Navy of the naval base at Simonstown, that he attached importance to the agreement and regarded it as being in force. Sir, this seems an extraordinary state of affairs. We are considering reviewing the agreement, but the British Prime Minister tells us he has had no communication from our Prime Minister in this regard. It seems to me this is no way to conduct diplomatic negotiations. Is it possible that no use was made of the accepted diplomatic channels, and that we are conducting delicate discussions by means of public statements? I think we are entitled to know where we are at the moment, and I think the public has the right to know.

I think three things seem clear. The first is that the strategic importance of the Simonstown base is probably greater than it has ever been for the Western world. The second is that in view of Britain’s withdrawal east of Suez, her continuing treaty commitments and the necessity of protecting her own shipping, especially in the Indian Ocean, the facilities provided by the Simonstown Agreement are of even greater importance than they were in the past. I think the third thing is that in spite of all this, the present British Government, although under pressure from the official Opposition in Britain and from some of its own people, is not making available to us as readily as in the past arms vital to the defence of this route and for our own defence against aggression. I want to say straight away that to me the attitude of the present British Government is inexplicable and indefensible. I think it is causing bitter feelings amongst many people who are anxious to be Britain’s friends. Surely they must appreciate the threat to their own oil supplies in the Persian Gulf, and surely they must appreciate that South Africa is a primary objective of the communist offensive in the eastern half of the world. There are critical factors which it is difficult for us to evaluate. There is possibly the economic preoccupation of Britain and the United States, and possibly the nearness of the presidential election in the United States, and possibly the uncertainty over France’s attitude, and possibly the refusal by the present British Prime Minister to discern the interrelation between economic and strategic problems. I take that no further, but I want to say what our attitude should be at present.

When one asks what our attitude should be, that raises two points. The first is how effective was this agreement negotiated by the Government through the late Mr. Erasmus. The second is whether alternative steps should not have been taken to safeguard our needs and to ensure the safety of the base and of the route round the Cape. I do not propose to expand on those, except to ask whether there is some flaw in this agreement, or is it just a difference in interpretation by different British Governments?

You gave the answer yourself when you called it a gentlemen’s agreement.

Unfortunately that is not entirely the answer. After 1961, when the late Prime Minister withdrew from the Commonwealth, he indicated privately—it has now become public—that he stood by his promise to maintain that agreement. He must have felt it was important to make a statement of that kind. Then it must have been obvious for some time that things were not going entirely in the direction we had hoped. Have we been shopping elsewhere to ensure our supplies? Have we been looking to other friends, and have we perhaps other treaty commitments to ensure the safety of this route and of our own naval base? Sir, seeking alternative sources of supply has complications for us and also for Britain. There is a lot we can manufacture ourselves. Quite clearly this agreement has certain advantages for us in peace-time, and certainly potentially in war-time. If we were involved with the Communist world we could naturally expect to get the fullest support possible. What should our attitude be now? It seems to me that the right attitude would be not to move in the direction of hasty reviews or hasty abrogations, but to use all our persuasive powers to influence the present and future British Governments to honour this agreement not only in the letter but in the spirit. As the hon. the Prime Minister said, it is a gentlemen’s agreement. I believe that in this matter right is on on our side. I believe time is on our side. I believe that we have to keep perservering, but at the same time we have to protect our rear. I put the situation as we on this side of the House see it. I think the time has come for the Government to take the public into its confidence in regard to this matter. That is the first matter I wanted to raise.

The second matter, which we shall not have an opportunity of discussing until the debates following the introduction of the Budget, as things stand at the moment, is the future of Coloured representation in this House in the light of the report tabled on Friday of the recent Commission of Inquiry appointed as the result of an agreement between the hon. the Prime Minister and myself. Here may I say that when that Select Committee was appointed and converted into a commission, I had high hopes of a new approach and a more realistic solution of this problem with which we have been faced for so long. I may say that having been through this report—I have not read it as thoroughly yet as I would have liked—I am bitterly disappointed with the majority report which is now before this House. There is no new thinking. The whole philosophy seems to be that if a thing is difficult to carry out and if it is difficult to get it to work, then it must be abolished and replaced by something else. But all is not yet lost. Despite the statements made by the hon. the Prime Minister in the past, we have as yet had no statement from him on this report, and therefore I take the opportunity of raising this matter to-day because it must be well known to everybody that the Prime Minister need not accept this report, either in principle or in detail. I think it is right that I should draw to his attention the fact that it is the opinion not only of this side of the House but I believe of large sections of the public of South Africa that he would be well advised not to accept this report. He would be well advised, in the first place, because the recommendation for the abolition of the representation of the Coloured people in this House and the Upper House is a recommendation which is contrary to the weight of evidence submitted to that Commission. In fact, I would go so far as to say that there is not one single representative coloured organization of any standing which favoured the abolition of the representation of their people in this House.

That is not true.

The hon. member is obviously referring to the District Six Committee.

No.

I know of no coloured organization of any standing which favours it. We may disagree as to which organizations have standing, and possibly in that regard I will be a better witness than the hon. member. I go so far as to say that the overwhelming volume of evidence is that the coloured people bitterly resent being deprived of representation in the sovereign Parliament of the Republic of South Africa. I notice, on going through this evidence, that even Mr. Tom Swartz, the president of the Federale Kleurling-volksparty, whose origin has been a matter of great interest to us on this side of the House, gave evidence that support for this proposal would mean disaster for his party. He said—

That is, if representation of the Coloured people were supported by his organization. I go further. I think the hon. the Prime Minister should bear in mind also that the late Dr. Verwoerd made it clear that he stood for the retention of the representation of coloured people in this House. Here is a record of his interview with Allen Drury, in his most recent book, “A Very Strange Society”—

Sir, I think that is as firm an assurance as you can wish to have. But I think there is a second reason. Look at the blue print with which the Prime Minister will be left if he abolishes the representation of coloured people in this House. He will be left with no Colouredstan, no separate area for the coloured people where there can be a so-called coloured state no independence for the coloured people, the most advanced non-White group in the Republic, no say for them in this Parliament, the one body that really controls their destinies and in which they have been represented since Union, over 58 years ago, and for some 50 years before that. For over a 100 years they have had representation in the Parliament that controls their destinities.

A section of a section.

The Coloureds in the Cape Province, and in Natal since 1893, were the most erudite portion of the Coloured people. It meant that we had their friendship, that we had their support and their loyalty. Is the abolition of any representation at all a blue-print for racial peace in South Africa?

It all depends on what you give them in return.

Exactly.

What are you giving them in return? You are giving them R50 million a year to dispose of through a Coloured Representative Council which will have very limited powers. I do not know whether the hon. the Prime Minister is going to accept the recommendation that it should have powers of taxation. There will always be matters in which they will have no say at all, matters which essentially affect the well-being of both the Coloured people and the Whites.

Sir, I go further. There are recommendations from this commission in respect of improper interference. This is a matter which the hon. the Prime Minister and I have discussed before, but in the whole of the discussions before the commission it seemed that there was no practical or acceptable definition of “improper interference” not already covered by the electoral laws. Because they could not define “improper interference” what is the recommendation of the majority? The recommendation of the majority is: “That all participation and assistance by one group in the political affairs of another should be banned.” Surely, Sir, that is utterly unrealistic and utterly impracticable. If this is going to be the central Parliament that is going to decide the future and the well-being of all the groups concerned, it is inconceivable to me that a group with the history and the background of the Cape Coloured people should be the subject of a report that proposes that they be treated in this way. Take their past record of loyalty to the Republic, to the white group in South Africa.

Remember Sharpe-ville.

The hon. the Prime Minister will remember Sharpeville and their loyalty at that difficult time. They speak Afrikaans and very largely they have our religion. [Interjections.] I am talking of the Coloureds, not the Indians. My hon. friend over there has an obsession about the Indians. The culture of the Coloured people is based on our culture; they should be our firmest ally. Is this the way to get it? The hon. the Prime Minister has said that we shall have an opportunity to discuss this report at length.

Yes, if necessary I will create that opportunity.

I want the hon. the Prime Minister to know that I do not regard it as an opportunity to discuss the report in full when the Prime Minister and his party come before Parliament with legislation in respect of which they have committed themselves and taken up position, because then we get no proper discussion; then we get attack and defence on preconceived opinions and attitudes.

You committed yourself at Bloemfontein, even before the commission’s report came out.

Sir, the Prime Minister committed himself before he appointed the commission and while it was sitting.

At any rate, I am still of the same mind whereas you have changed yours.

How funny!

The hon. the Prime Minister says that he is still of the same mind whereas I have changed my mind, but has he not changed his relation to the policy of the party when Dr. Verwoerd was Prime Minister, or is he giving me to-day what was the policy of Dr. Verwoerd? Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister must not talk to me about changing his mind. By the time I have finished with him he will have no mind left. Mr. Speaker, if I could have an assurance now from the Prime Minister that we will have an opportunity to discuss this report, a similar opportunity to that which was given to discuss the report of the Tomlinson Commission in this House, in other words a full-scale debate for one or two days …

I will discuss it with the Leader of the House and if it is at all possible, we will do so.

Sir, I am afraid that is not sufficient. The hon. the Prime Minister knows very well that he hardly has enough work to keep us busy until the Budget comes along; nobody knows it better than he does.

I will discuss it with the Leader of the House.

Have I the Prime Minister’s assurance that this matter will be discussed.

Yes.

I hope that that opportunity for debate will be given to us as soon as possible. I hope it will be before the Budget, because I believe it is time the uncertainty in respect of this matter was resolved.

If you will give me your assurance that you will state your policy, I will arrange it for next week, if possible.

Sir, I wonder sometimes whether the hon. gentleman listens when I speak from this side of the House, when he makes a remark of that kind. He knows very well that I stated my policy very clearly in my reply.

Yes, in your reply when it could not be discussed; when you knew nobody could reply to you.

Sir, the hon. the Prime Minister is going to be here for five months; he will have lots of time to discuss that policy, and I can give him the assurance that by the time he has finished discussing that policy he will be very sorry that he ever raised the subject. If I have the assurance of the Prime Minister that a day or two will be set aside to discuss this report …

I will discuss it with the Leader of the House and time will be set aside as soon as possible.

Sir, then I do not think it is necessary for us to take the matter any further at this stage. I am grateful to the hon. the Prime Minister. I think it is time this matter was resolved and an end put to this uncertainty.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition raised a very important issue in regard to which I should like to make a statement and, in making this statement, I hope to reply to most of the points he made about Simonstown. I think the time is ripe to give a proper picture of the Simonstown Agreement as such, because most people are under the impression that the Simonstown Agreement only deals with a specific naval base. What is generally referred to as the “Simonstown Agreement” actually embodies several closely inter-related agreements.

Firstly, we have an agreement relating to the transfer of the Simonstown Naval Base. This part of the Agreement refers to facilities, installations and working conditions at Simonstown and elsewhere. Secondly, there is an agreement on the defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa. Thirdly, there is an agreement on the need for international discussions with regard to regional defence. I wish to refer in the first instance to the Agreement on Regional Defence.

With regard to regional defence both the United Kingdom Government and the South African Government agreed that, “Southern Africa and the sea routes round Southern Africa must be secured against aggression from without”. It was also recognized by both Governments that the defence of Southern Africa against external aggression lies not only in Africa but also in the gateways to Africa, namely in the Middle East. Having recognized this fact it was, and I quote from the documents—

It was furthermore agreed that, and I quote again—

I quote further: “The adequacy and security of logistic facilities and communications within Southern Africa and particularly along the lines of communication to the Middle East” were considered of such importance that both Governments undertook to sponsor a conference to integrate forward and to develop the planning that had already begun at an earlier conference in Nairobi. Matters to be further discussed included “base facilities, for instance storage and stockpiling arrangements, repair facilities, etc., on the lines of communication through and around Southern Africa.”

However, owing to the rapid and unfavourable political developments in the Middle East, which led to the total collapse of the concept of a regional defence set-up for the defence of the gateways to Southern Africa, the projected conference never materialized.

With regard to the “declared policy” of both Governments to “contribute forces for the defence of Africa, including Southern Africa, and the Middle East”, whilst I cannot speak for the United Kingdom Government, I believe that they have adapted themselves to the new situation which has developed since 1955, when this Agreement was signed, by establishing a highly mobile force based in the U.K., capable of rapid transportation to distant places. Apart from our own commitments flowing from the Agreement on the Defence of the Sea Routes round Southern Africa, I am not aware of the adequacy of the security of U.K. lines of communication and logistic support, through Africa, to theatres of operation East of Suez. In view of the importance of air transport, I have no doubt that British defence planners have considered a number of alternative routes to various parts of the globe. I have no doubt that the route through the Republic offers the most secure of any of the possible alternative routes from West to East. We have at no time been approached by the U.K. Government with regard to an understanding on the use of our air facilities in time of need. We have, however, on numerous occasions been requested to furnish overflying facilities, not only by the U.K. Government, but also by other countries. This fact alone points to the importance of the Southern African line of air communication from West to East. I am sure that the R.A.F. must be well aware of the value and adequacy of the facilities that we have always gladly placed at their disposal.

As far as our own contribution of forces in terms of the agreement on regional defence is concerned, we intimated at the time a resolution was embodied in the agreement that we were proceeding with “building up a task force for use outside South Africa against external aggression.” In pursuance of this undertaking we purchased Centurion tanks from Britain to the value of more than R10 million. I may say that, faithful to our undertaking this task force is in being, equipped and trained for conventional war.

An important stipulation with regard to our joint concept of regional defence was the agreement that “the internal security of the countries of Southern Africa must, however, remain a matter for each individual country concerned”. Hon. members are well aware to what extent the U.K.’s policies have contributed towards the deterioration of the internal security of Southern African countries bordering on our own. We. for our part, have steadfastly and at great expense improved our own position, and we have every intention of maintaining this state of affairs. We are doing so from our own resources and with the assistance of friends who are not blind to the importance of Southern Africa and its defence to the free word, in a global conflict.

I take it for granted that the premise on which this agreement was based, namely that “Southern Africa and the sea routes round Southern Africa must be secured against aggression from without”, is still valid. We have certainly at no time been informed of any change in the U.K. Government’s strategic thinking. Hon. members are also bound to agree that the internal security of a country can hardly be divorced from its capability to withstand external aggression. It is in the light of the clearly stipulated premises of a joint interest in the security of Southern Africa within the context of a wider field of common security interests that the obvious need for the continuing supply of the necessary implements of war from our main source of supply at that time, namely the U.K., was neither stressed nor even mentioned in any of the agreements under discussion. For the same reason the question of the supply of spare parts for the Centurion tanks purchased from the U.K. in pursuance of our agreement with an undertaking towards the U.K. Government, and which had previously been refused to us, was raised during the Cape Town discussions last year, which took place towards the end of January, 1967. The U.K. Government could not see its way clear to change its attitude on this point. I may say that we are quite capable of making other arrangements for keeping our tanks in fighting condition. I do not visualize the need for these tanks within the foreseeable future but the need for training our task force in the use of conventional weapons of this kind, remains important to the efficiency of our Defence Force.

Perhaps the most important conclusion to which both Governments arrived in this Agreement was that, in order to implement the policy of securing Southern Africa, Africa and the Middle East gateways to Africa, “the lines of communication and logistic support in and around Southern Africa must be adequate and securely defended”. I have already pointed out the lack of any clear international understanding on the use of our air facilities. With regard to sea communications, this was regarded as being of such importance that, and I quote from the agreement—

This brings me to the most important of the series of agreements which were arrived at during the discussions on defence matters between the United Kingdom and South African Governments, in 1955, namely the agreement on the defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa. I would again like to invite the attention of hon. members to the fact that the agreement relating to the transfer of the Simonstown Naval Base constituted only one integral part of the series of discussions and exchanges of letters on the various defence matters between our respective Governments. In fact the first paragraph of this latter agreement starts off by stating that—

It is on the grounds of our agreement on the defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa, in which it was assumed that we and the United Kingdom would be allied, possibly together with other nations, that we agreed to place not only the naval base at Simonstown at the disposal of such an effort, but also other shipping facilities of South Africa. This clearly proved our willingness to play a major part in any global conflict.

The agreement on defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa must be examined. This agreement started off by both Governments “recognizing the importance of sea communications to the well-being of their respective countries in peace and to their common security in the event of aggression,” whereupon both Governments entered into various agreements, and whilst the agreement made no specific mention of the supply of arms, we nevertheless looked upon it as a “gentleman’s agreement” between two allies, and the fact that we afterwards left the Commonwealth did not change that agreement.

We, from our side, agreed to expand our Navy to a stipulated size. In this connection I refer you to paragraph 3 of the second agreement. I quote “The Union Government will place firm orders in the United Kingdom for the purchase of these vessels, costing some £18 million (R36 million).” With minor variations agreed to by the United Kingdom Government this expansion programme has been completed. We carried out our obligations. Apart from the cost involved in connection with the vessels, millions have been spent by us on British aircraft and other equipment in pursuance of our agreement between our two Governments to safeguard Southern Africa.

The agreement embodied an understanding on a suitable joint command and control structure, and the demarcation of joint and separate South African strategic defence zones in the South African area, involving also implied co-operation with other nations concerned in the adjoining areas. The agreement also involved the continued use by the British Navy of the wireless telegraphy installations in the Cape area.

Obviously, if we are to play our part in the defence of the sea route round Southern Africa we need not only the ships and the aircraft required for this task, but also the weapons that go with these ships and aircraft. We did, in fact, during our discussions last year, offer to accept an even greater responsibility for the defence of this important sea route, an offer that was accepted by the United Kingdom Government with alacrity. The only request from our side was for an assurance from the British Government that we would be in a position to rely on the supply of our material needs to enable us to fulfil our obligations.

I wish to reiterate what I said in a statement on the 2nd February, 1967, in this House—

We accordingly presented the British Government, in the light of these talks, with a “shopping list” for maritime defence equipment we would possibly require during the next 10 years.

The British delegation took note and gave an assurance that this would be considered urgently. I have been in correspondence with the British Defence Minister on this matter, but in spite of several reminders the only reaction thus far was Mr. Wilson’s statement in the House of Commons that the arms embargo still applies. We did not get one official communication. It was only after Mr. Wilson’s parliamentary statement that our Prime Minister reacted as he did.

The defence of any country, not the least South Africa, needs forward planning. In the light of the British Government’s decision we accordingly have no choice but to develop more rapidly our own resources to provide as far as possible for our defence requirements. And in so far as our supply of weapons from overseas sources is concerned, those countries willing to co-operate with us will naturally reap the benefit. The importance of the sea routes around Southern Africa is illustrated by the volume of shipping that has passed through South African waters since the closure of the Suez Canal in June, 1967. Merchant and passenger ships which docked at South African ports from June, 1967, to January, 1968, numbered 8,652. Of these 5,953 visited our harbours under normal trading relations and 2,699 due to the closing of the Suez Canal.

Secondly, it is estimated that 9,600 vessels used the route round Southern Africa without making use of our harbour facilities. As far as warships are concerned the following docked at our ports as from June, 1967, to January, 1968: Britain—46, France—4, Portugal—3 and Belgium—1, which totals 54, and there were also 41 auxiliary naval vessels. Fourteen warships and two auxiliary naval vessels sailed past South African ports.

These statistics amplify the importance of our strategic position. This position has recently been enhanced by the British announcement on her withdrawal from East of Suez, and thereby creating a serious power vacuum in the Indian Ocean.

From my account of what was involved in the Defence Agreements of 1955, it should be quite clear to hon. members that we have throughout honoured these agreements both in the letter and the spirit.

Could you make those agreements available to us to study?

Yes. I will gladly do so. If there has been an abrogation of these agreements the responsibility therefor must be laid foursquare at the door of the British Government.

Whilst we have always been prepared to carry the burden of our responsibilities in accordance with the clear understanding reached in 1955, and subsequent discussions, and whilst we continue to be prepared to do so in the interests of the defence of the free world, I am now constrained to say that in view of the attitude of the United Kingdom Government in the matter of the supply to us of defence equipment for the implementation of our agreement on the defence of the sea routes round Southern Africa, the United Kingdom Government cannot continue to rely on our benevolent acquiescence to the use of our airfields, or the naval base at Simonstown, or any of our other harbour facilities in peace or war, except when we deem it in the interests of South Africa to make them available.

Mr. Speaker, I have nothing more to say at this stage. I hope that the leaders of great countries like the U.S.A. and Great Britain will eventually accept the fact that we have a joint task as regards the sea routes around the Southern African coast. Perhaps in time to come people will come to their senses. Unless they do, it can easily be too late, also for them.

The hon. Leader of the Opposition raised this afternoon the very important question of the future of the Simonstown Agreement. In doing so, he declared the attitude of the United Party for the benefit of the people of South Africa and he called on the Government to declare its attitude to the future of this important agreement. We have had in reply a full statement from the hon. the Minister of Defence, a statement which, in all fairness to the hon. the Minister I must describe as an important one. In view of this, in view of the implications of this matter, the statement made by the hon. the Minister requires careful consideration from us on this side of the House. For this reason we do not wish to proceed further at this stage with this matter. [Interjections.]

Order! The hon. member may continue with his speech.

In view of the fact that the other important matter raised by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon is to be the subject of a separate debate, this matter also will naturally be left by us in abeyance until that debate commences.

I now wish to go on to another subject entirely, a subject which whilst perhaps not of equal importance with the other two matters raised this afternoon, is nevertheless also a matter of importance. That is the question of housing in South Africa at the present time. I wish to make it quite clear at the outset that I believe that South Africa faces at the present time a housing shortage which, if not properly and adequately dealt with, will fast approach crisis proportions. What worries us on this side of the House, is that we do not see any signs that the Government is really aware, first of all, of the magnitude of the shortage or, secondly, that it is prepared to introduce sufficiently extensive and dramatic remedies to deal with this shortage satisfactorily.

The third point that I wish to make, and on which I will elaborate, is that the Government is entirely to blame, and I repeat, entirely to blame, for the present state of affairs. It cannot pass the buck, it cannot pass the responsibility on to anybody else or any other bodies.

The fourth point which I wish to make and upon which I will elaborate, is that I doubt very much that the concessions which have been made by the Government are sufficiently far-reaching or adequate to deal properly with this housing shortage. What is the attitude of the Government to this?

First of all, let us look at the statement which was made by the Acting State President on the occasion of the opening of Parliament this year. This is his statement—

The first question which arises from that statement, is: What is the source of this so-called “reliable information”? I hope that the hon. the Minister of Finance will disclose this source when he gets up to reply to this Third Reading debate …

I will do that.

… or perhaps the hon. the Minister of Community Development will do so. In this regard I will point out to the hon. the Minister of Community Development that the sphere of the housing shortage that I wish particularly to deal with this afternoon, is not so much the housing for which his Department and the National Housing Commission, are responsible, namely subsidized housing, but the other housing of the middle and lower income groups for which funds must primarily be sought from building societies, in other words, from the private sector as opposed to the Government sector. This is the first thing we should like to know: What is the source of this “reliable information”? We ask this particularly because the Government through the hon. the Minister of Community Development has made it clear that it has no reliable statistics as to the extent of the housing shortage. It does not have reliable statistics in relation even to the housing for which the hon. the Minister’s Department is responsible.

How can you say that?

I will quote the hon. the Minister’s own words if he does not accept this statement. In reply to a question put only this Session, on 9th February, by the hon. member for Durban (North), in which the Minister was asked what the estimated shortage of houses was for the various sections of the population, the Minister said—

So the Minister has said himself that he has no reliable statistics.

May I ask you a question?

Perhaps the hon. the Minister will allow me to elaborate on this. I have already indicated to the Minister that the aspect of the housing shortage that I wish to deal with particularly this afternoon is not the housing for which his Department is responsible.

But in your next breath you said that I did not know what the position was and that I was responsible.

The Minister said that he did not know the extent of the housing shortage in the sphere for which he is responsible, and I have quoted his own words back to him, from which it is clear that he does not know.

There are no Government statistics whatsoever, reliable or otherwise, in regard to the extent of the housing shortage in the sphere for which the hon. the Minister of Community Development is not responsible, and for this the Government must take full blame, firstly because no attempt has been made by the Government to obtain proper statistics.

That is not true.

The hon. the Minister says it is not true. Perhaps, if he speaks in this debate, he will tell us what is being done. I am talking about the sphere of housing for which the building societies are responsible. The Government has been warned for some time of this deteriorating position, and what has it done? Apparently nothing. If the hon. the Minister disputes that, let me quote to him what the president of the Association of Building Societies of South Africa has had to say. In a statement which was issued towards the end of January, after the Association of Building Societies interviewed the Minister of Finance, the president said this—

That statement was made round about 20th January this year. In other words, the Government was warned some time prior to 20th January. The first question I would like the hon. the Minister of Finance to answer is: When did the building societies first advise his Department or the Government of the difficulties they were beginning to face? The second question I would like the hon. the Minister of Finance to answer is this. What steps did the Government take to deal with this deteriorating position? And I suggest that the Government did nothing at all. Not only that, but the delegation from the Association of Building Societies interviewed the hon. the Minister of Finance, as I said, round about 20th January and the alleviatory measures which the Minister of Finance has introduced, were taken almost a month after. In other words, the position was allowed to deteriorate for a further month before this Government took any action. I am not the only one to blame the Government for the situation that has arisen. In its recently published appraisal of the economic and market situation in South Africa last year, a responsible merchant bank, Hill & Samuel, had this to say—

I suggest that this is an extremely cautious and polite statement, because after all the immigration inflow was not only something which the Government could have foreseen but something which it had actively encouraged. and quite rightly so, in our opinion. It should have done so many years ago. But at the same time it is no good encouraging immigrants without making adequate provision for housing the inflow of extra people. Secondly, the Government must take the blame for the outflow of funds from the building societies to its R.S.A. bonds scheme, and it must stop trying to shelve this responsibility. Let the hon. the Minister of Finance answer a few questions for us on this subject. The hon. the Minister of Finance was at great pains to say that he does not believe that extensive funds left the building societies to go into this scheme. Well, let him tell us, if he is so certain, what was the extent of the funds that flowed out of the building societies into the R.S.A. funds.

The Minister has told us that a lot of this money came from the banks and he does not believe that much came from the building societies. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister of Finance is saying that a lot of this money came from the banks simply because the R.S.A. scheme received this money by way of cheques drawn on the banks? If that is the Minister’s reason, perhaps one ought to point out to him that that does not necessarily mean that those funds were invested in the banks. They could well have been invested in the building societies and then deposited in the customer’s bank, from which cheques were withdrawn. But this is really beside the point. The representatives of the building societies, who ought to know, are satisfied that substantial funds left the building societies to go into the R.S.A. scheme. If the Minister denies this, let him quote chapter and verse to prove his case. But up to now he has made no effort to do so at all.

I wonder whether the Government really realizes the seriousness of this situation. I very much doubt it. Let us look at one of the concessions the Minister had made. The Minister of Finance has said that he will provide for the building societies an amount of R8.5 million in cash to be used for housing. This is all very well, but surely the Minister knows that this is a drop in the ocean, or at any rate a very small amount in comparison with the amount which is needed right now, at this very moment.

Is the Government required to finance building societies?

No, but it is required not to compete too keenly with them.

This is a very interesting attitude on the part of the Minister of Finance, because it indicates what we have been suggesting all along, namely that the Government is not seriously concerned about the housing shortage that exists at the moment. Surely it is the responsibility of any Government in any country, if a serious housing shortage exists, to do something about it. to assist in some way to provide the housing. Surely that is so, but here we have the hon. the Minister of Finance asking me whether the Government is supposed to do something about it. Of course the Government must. This of course supports my contention earlier that the Government neither appreciates the seriousness of the situation, nor is it prepared to take adequate steps to remedy the position. What did the building societies tell the Minister of Finance in regard to their needs at the moment? This is what the president of the Association said—

I want to draw attention to this, because we have had speakers on the Government side who have pointed to the fact that the inflow of funds into the building societies during 1967 exceeded the inflow of funds during 1966, and that therefore the R.S.A. scheme did not draw out any funds. But I would stress the fact that it was pointed out to the Government and to the Minister of Finance that despite the fact that building societies had this large inflow of funds during the bulk of 1967, they were still short, by many millions, of the funds required to satisfy the demands made upon them. In other words, the need for housing has outpaced the inflow of funds, despite the fact that there has been an increase in the inflow of funds. The shortfall was mentioned to the hon. the Minister apparently by the Association of Building Societies, and this is what they told him. They told him, apparently, that during the second six months of 1967 the loans which were granted totalled R157 million, as compared with R199 million during the first half of the year—R42 million less. They also said that the inflow of funds during the fourth quarter of 1967 was well below the average for the year, and consequently a further decrease in the availability of funds for loans during the coming months will arise. The Association of Building Societies made the point that the shortage of funds available to building societies for housing could have serious repercussions throughout the Republic on the growing population and on immigration and that the housing problem would deteriorate if the problem of the shortage of funds was not remedied.

Sir, how realistic is this amount of R8½ million? It has been estimated, first of all. that at R10,000 per house—and that is a fairly low figure for the type of housing which is the subject of discussion, i.e. housing for the middle and the lower income groups (not subsidized housing)—only 850 houses can be built. It is estimated by one building society that the requirements of building societies as a whole throughout the country at the present time, in other words, the amount of money that they require to meet the applications which they already have for building loans, amounts to very nearly R50 million, and the Government has provided R8½ million. The House will therefore see that the provision made by the Government is entirely inadequate to meet the present situation. The hon. the Minister had other funds available; out of last year’s Budget he had available R52 million for housing which the local authorities have not used.

No, that was the total amount that was available.

If I am wrong, let the hon. the Minister of Finance tell the House, because I am not the only one who is under the impression that that is the figure. This is the figure which has been published in newspapers throughout the country. If that is not so, perhaps the hon. the Minister of Finance will tell the House what is the amount which the local authorites have not used from the amount made available in the 1967-’68 Budget?

But the financial year has not ended yet.

I am sorry, I meant the 1966-’67 Budget.

In 1966-’67 there was a deficit; they used more than the allocated amount. I had to obtain R8 million extra from the Minister of Finance to finance it.

Sir, this is not a very satisfactory way of dealing with an important question like this.

I agree.

As I said, it was published in newspapers throughout the country that R52 million was the amount which the local authorities had allocated to them for housing and which they did not use. If that is not correct, then the country is entitled to a statement from the Minister when he makes his speech, not a statement by way of interjections.

I want to assist you; you are completely off the rails.

It is no good the hon. the Minister continually saying that I am completely off the rails. Let him tell the country what the facts are.

Sir, the other thing that I think the country is entitled to know is this: A delegation from the Association of Building Societies considered the housing problem so important that they interviewed the hon. the Minister of Finance roundabout the 20th January. The Association of Building Societies has not told the public exactly what requests they made to the Government and what changes they asked for. Quite rightly they did not wish to make this a public issue and possibly jeopardize negotiations between themselves and the Government. But since the Minister came to this House and made a statement in regard to housing and volunteered certain concessions, I submit that the South African public is now entitled to be told precisely what the Association of Building Societies told the hon. the Minister of Finance; exactly what concessions or changes to the Building Societies Act the Association asked for; and which of these requests the Government intends to accede to and which of these requests the Government intends to refuse and why it refuses. [Time expired.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Musgrave who has just resumed his seat, is an excellent example of the way the Opposition has lately been exaggerating the so-called housing shortage in this country. In an irresponsible manner the hon. member simply alleged here that the hon. the Minister of Community Development and the Government had been warned from time to time that a housing shortage would arise in the country, and that apparently nothing was done about it. Then he continued and made wild allegations across the floor of the House and he mentioned statistics which the hon. the Minister was able to invalidate at once by way of interjections. I do not know whether we should take much notice of the hon. member for Musgrave if he cannot even control his figures and statistics in regard to the housing position. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will at a convenient time bring him to book and show the country and this House how faulty the hon. member’s figures are and how these attempts of the Opposition at rousing the workers and the man in the street against the Government, have been exaggerated. We know why they are doing it. They are doing it because there are a few by-elections in the offing, particularly in workers’ constituencies, and since the housing shortage really and truly affects the ordinary worker, they are hoping to gain a few wretched votes in this way.

Then the hon. member for Musgrave also made a great fuss there about the fact that the R.S.A. savings bonds had supposedly been responsible for the drop in the funds of building societies. By way of a statement made outside this House, the hon. the Minister said very clearly that the R.S.A. savings bonds had in fact had an effect on the funds of the building societies, but it did not have the effect the hon. member wanted to suggest here. The fact that the Minister had discussions with the building societies when they approached him, shows that this Government is aware of the needs of the country and of the necessity of funds for housing. He acted immediately and made this large amount available in order to help the building societies. Sir, since when has it been the task of the Central Government to finance the building societies? This has never been the position, nor will it ever be the position in a private enterprise country. But there is another aspect to the criticism on the R.S.A. savings bonds. The Opposition is continuously criticizing the Government because the Government had supposedly not acted in good time to combat inflation. Now they are criticizing this very important measure which the Government has introduced to encourage the nation to save. How is one to understand them? They ramble so that the public does not know what their policy is in regard to combating inflation and what solution they are offering to the so-called housing shortage.

What is the backlog as regards housing?

I shall deal with that presently, if the hon. member for Green Point would only display a little patience. This housing shortage question is a world-wide phenomenon, as an hon. member on this side rightly said in the Second Reading Debate, and if the hon. the Minister of Community Development joins this debate, I am sure that he will be able to show with the aid of figures that during his latest tour of the world, which included America, he found this to be a universal phenomenon. As far as I know there is to-day not one single country in Western Europe where a housing shortage does not exist, and this also applies to America and Canada. The housing position in South Africa is in good hands, in the hands of this Government. I think that we can consider ourselves fortunate to have a Government such as this one, a government which has devoted as much attention to this question as has been done by this Government over the years it has been governing this country. I do not want to bore hon. members with figures and statistics; I have the figures here, but I just want to say the following: Although previous governments were also sympathetic towards the question of the provision of housing, it is particularly in the last 15 years under this Government that we have been making phenomenal progress in regard to the solution of our housing problem. I just want to mention a few figures in this regard. Out of a total amount of R419,282,201 voted which was by South African governments, as from 1920 to 31st March, 1963, for a total of 397.000 houses, no less an amount of more than R313 million was made available for the construction of 310,000 houses under the National regime in the past 15 years. Therefore, in the past 15 years approximately three times as much was spent on housing by this National Government than was spent in the previous 28 years, and if this is not a reply to this accusation which is being flung about so gaily for political gain, then there is no reply.

We admit that there is a small shortage of housing. There are good reasons for that. We are catching up with the shortage. There is a shortage; that is obvious, and there are many factors which have contributed to it. One of the most important factors, as has already been pointed out here is the large-scale influx of immigrants into this country. Instead of helping us and suggesting constructive ideas as to how we may catch up with this small shortage, the Opposition comes forward with this unfounded criticism in which so many holes can be picked. Even a chairman of a building society was infected by the Opposition, and he came forward with wild allegations which the hon. the Minister of Community Development was obliged to repudiate on a certain occasion. For instance, one of the chairmen of the building societies made the wild allegation that there was a shortage of 180,000 houses in this country. Where that gentleman obtained his figures, I do not know. It is likely that he obtained his figures from, and made his inquiries of the hon. member for Musgrave.

I want to deal briefly with the question of the so-called housing shortage. This is a relative concept. I am saying this for the benefit of the hon. member for Green Point—this so-called housing shortage is a relative concept. This is so because many of the people whose names appear on the waiting lists of the Department of Community Development, have already found accommodation. They are already living in flats or have other accommodation. That is why one has to be careful not to claim without more ado that there is such and such a housing shortage in South Africa. Because, as I have already said, many of those who applied for housing have already found accommodation. But as we all do, they also want their own homes eventually.

Another aspect is that there are specific factors contributing to the existing housing shortage, factors for which this Government cannot be held responsible, but which are nevertheless receiving attention from the Government—the elimination of bottlenecks, for instance. In the first place there is the shortage of building sites. This is a matter which requires serious. attention from all of us. I know that the hon. the Minister will also devote his attention to this. On the Rand, for instance, the wildest speculation with building sites is going on at present—in fact, matters have got so out of hand that it is virtually impossible to-day for the man in the middle income group to obtain a building site at a reasonable price. We find that town developers are buying up sites in order to sell them again at enormous profits to prospective house-owners, while they themselves are living in huge palaces, smoking thick cigars in their offices and driving about in Cadillacs. In the meantime they are preventing prospective house-owners, such as young married couples, from obtaining at a reasonable price a piece of land on which they can build a home for themselves. I wonder whether the time has not arrived for the Government to give thought to putting a stop to this sort of speculation in land by way of legislation. I myself have no proposal to make in this regard. But to me it appears to be a matter to which attention should be paid in some way or other. To-day we need not only speak of land barons in the rural areas—we also find them in the cities to-day. In some way or other we must curb the activities of these people. Since this major shortage of building sites at reasonable prices does exist, I want to make the suggestion to the Minister and his Department that they should consider the construction of large blocks of flats on the limited number of vacant sites that are available, as is being done in many places in Europe where sufficient building sites are not available. In America they call it “high rise development”. In South Africa the trend is still for South Africans to flock to the cities. Everybody wants to settle there, although sufficient land for houses for everybody is simply not available. That is why we should begin to give serious thought to this aspect, to what I want to call “density housing”.

Another idea I want to express in this regard, is the possibility that flats can generally be bought by persons who are interested in them. I know that there are many difficulties involved in this—for instance, the problem of the registration of ownership, etc. I nevertheless think that it ought to be possible to surmount all these difficulties so that we may be able to sell flats to prospective buyers on a large scale.

I also want to mention another aspect which aggravates this housing shortage, an aspect for which this Government cannot be blamed either. It is a legacy from the past. I believe that if it is at all possible, the Government will pay attention to it. I am referring to the fact that there is to-day a major shortage of schooled labour in the building industry. From time to time builders resign from the building industry on a large scale when there is a recession. This is a matter which requires our attention, and we must see whether methods cannot be found whereby the builders can be kept in the building industry in South Africa on a more permanent basis. With further reference to this, I think that if a constant flow of funds to the building societies can be ensured, it will be a possible solution. As we know, a recession in the building industry results the moment funds for construction work are no longer available. Stagnation results and the builders resign and seek other employment. The only way to cope with the large-scale continuation of this phenomenon, is to create more stability in the building industry. In this way we shall attract and also keep in this industry our young men who wish to make a career of the building industry.

I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is possible to eliminate the delays experienced in the proclamation of townships and to expedite these proclamations. I know that the hon. the Minister has given attention to this matter. I do not know how much progress he has already made. In my constituency there are two cases in respect of which we have been struggling for five years to have those particular townships proclaimed. [Interjections.] What I am saying here now, is not criticism of the Government. There are more than 40 bodies that have to be consulted before proclamation can take place. They are all bodies which have to be consulted. But perhaps there is a method whereby the proclamation can be expedited and the delays can be diminished. I do not want to say much more about this matter. I am sure the hon. the Minister himself will reply to the Opposition’s unsuccessful attempts here in this House at making us believe, and therefore the outside world as well, that this Government is doing nothing about providing the nation with housing and seeing to it that every person in this country is happy because he and his family are living in a house and have a roof over their heads.

Arising out of the hon. the Leader of the Opposition’s reference to the Simonstown Agreement earlier this afternoon, I should also like to say something. I know they said that they did not want to discuss it any further at this stage, but that is the Opposition’s affair. I should like to say that after the clear exposition from the Minister of Defence, this matter is crystal-clear as far as this side of the House is concerned.

We on this side do not need a few extra days for giving deep thought to this matter. I want to emphasize that it is a good thing that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition apparently agrees with the Government to-day as far as this important matter is concerned. Let me add, however, that this is the impression he gave me—I might have to review my opinion once he has spoken again. The sting that was concealed in the Leader’s speech, namely that we did not contact the British Government or negotiate with it, has already been replied to decisively by the Minister of Defence. To my mind the hon. the Prime Minister handled this matter under great provocation in an extremely exemplary way and with a great deal of circumspection, as was reflected in his New Year’s message. But as the hon. the Minister of Defence said here, we have always relied on the fact that Britain would observe the gentleman’s agreement in regard to the Simonstown Agreement. To us England’s word of honour has always been sufficient, and we believed that they would also keep their word in this regard. As the Minister said, we observed our side of the agreement very carefully. Now we unfortunately have the position that in Britain there is a Prime Minister who is so eager to force South Africa to its knees that he is even prepared, in his blind prejudice, to jeopardise the safety of the whole Western world. This sad state of affairs gave rise to the fact that the Minister of Defence had to make this very important statement here this afternoon. Now I want to say that to my mind the time has come for Britain to reflect on her attitude. Britain must realize that the time has arrived for her to put a stop to the attempts made by the meddlesome U.N. to dictate to her. I think the time has arrived for Britain to decide, in her own interests as well as in those of her friends, that she will no longer allow herself to be pushed around by the U.N. The hon. the Minister of Defence told us how we had made available to Britain “a ready-made shopping list” as regards armaments. But what a bad businessman Harold Wilson is! His country is on the verge of bankruptcy. Like manna from Heaven he is given a shopping list for millions upon millions of rands—I assume—but he is so dazed by his prejudice against South Africa that he is not prepared to continue to make arms available to us, arms which are important to us for honouring faithfully our obligations in terms of the Simons-town Agreement. I think the time is gradually arriving when South Africa will no longer beg on its knees for arms, which are not proposed to be used internally, but which we want to use to defend ourselves against attacks from outside and which will also benefit the Western countries. The time has passed when we have to go on our knees to beg for arms of that type.

We have a strong and powerful economy, and we are prepared to and capable of paying for those arms. We are not like some independent African states which are also asking for arms and other gifts and which subsequently ask with cupped hands whether they can have them for nothing or on the never-never system. No. we are prepared to pay for what we require.

I want to conclude with the following. I am glad that in certain circles in England a change in attitude and spirit is at least taking place nowadays in respect of this matter. As hon. members know, a former British Prime Minister, Sir Alec Douglas Home, visited South Africa recently, and we know what he said. I have been privileged to converse with one of the leading and most famous newspaper editors of Fleet Street, namely John Gordon of the Sunday Express, and in a private conversation he also told me that he hoped that we in South Africa would act cautiously and would not sever the line of communication with Britain altogether. According to him he is convinced that the Wilson Government with its unsympathetic attitude towards South Africa will be something of the past in two years’ time when the old traditional cooperation between South Africa and Britain will be restored. I hope that he is right in his forecast. However, we cannot bargain on that. We must be prepared for contingencies. We cannot wait too long to see what the future will bring, because, as the hon. the Minister of Defence rightly said, it might be too late.

Mr. Speaker, there is a very old English saying, “Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.” As far as the Simonstown Agreement is concerned, I think I leave the hon. member at that point.

The hon. the Minister of Community Development has interjected frequently during the course of this debate. He also had the temerity to interject during the Second Reading Debate on the subject of housing. When we introduced our amendment dealing with the question of adequate housing, the Minister made quite a few interjections.

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, recently we have been hearing a great deal about the Government’s outward-looking policy directed at the outside world. There is no doubt whatsoever that the outward-looking policy directed at the outside world has made an impression on people in countries which were normally critical of South Africa. But I believe that what we still lack now is an outward-looking policy directed inward. That is my aim with this motion on the Order Paper this afternoon, which reads as follows—

The crux of the motion is really contained in the last part, in which we request the Government “to take all the steps required to bring all education”, that is to say knowledge of life and civilized values, within reach of as many as possible of our people and of all our population groups so that we in South Africa can create a wider population that is generally literate and well-informed.

In the second place the motion requests the Government to take cognizance of advanced plans which exist in other countries for reaching this goal. In particular I should then like to refer to the plans in Britain to establish an “Open University of the Air” which is aimed at bringing the greater amount of education within reach of the entire population. Let me say at once that I am not adopting the attitude that our Department of Education consists of a number of people who do not know what is going on around them, and that no steps are being taken by the Government to expand educational facilities in South Africa. I am quite aware of the fact that our Heads of Department are doing their best to keep abreast of developments in other countries, and that in our country we are witnessing further progress in the field of training and education each year. That is the least any government can do. There must be progress in the field of education and training. One is tremendously pleased to see that there is a virtual stampede to our universities this year, a stampede by all the population groups, and that the number of applications for admission to our universities has reached a new record.

The University of the Witwatersrand is attracting 8,500 this year, which is 500 more than last year. The University of South Africa, which already has almost 20,000 students, is admitting 800 more than last year. It is rather disturbing to find that there are so many students who cannot be admitted, particularly in the medical and associated faculties. I think that this is not something which ought to happen in a growing country, and is something which we will have to overcome. But nobody in the House will deny that there has been progress in the field of education, particularly university education. I also concede that it is quite easy to stand up here in this House and prove with statistics that we are doing a little more than Ghana for example, or Tanzania, or other countries on the Continent of Africa. But I want to inform hon. members on the opposite side straight away that this kind of comparison does not make the slightest impression on anybody, for the very simple reason that there is a world of difference between the circumstances here and those in the Africa countries. What is more, our natural riches are so much greater than those of the other countries in Africa, that any comparison between Africa states and ourselves is to my mind, naïve. I would never dream, for example, of comparing the Unites States of America with certain of the mini-states in South America. Such comparisons prove absolutely nothing. Nor is it of any avail comparing the education received by the white population here with statistics affecting the total population in other countries. That is an equally inadmissable comparison.

As far as privileges are concerned, we, the white population, form the uppermost layer of the population; and one cannot skim off the privileged layer of the population of one country and then compare it with all the layers of the population of another country. Comparisons are easy to make but I believe that a comparison between one country and another is only valid if it is done on the basis of the entire population in the various countries and if all the circumstances are the same, including their national riches. The prosperity of the uppermost layer of the population in South Africa definitely depends to a large extent on the labour co-operation of the bottommost layer. That is why it is quite impracticable to skim off the one group, and make comparisons with other countries solely on that basis. To my mind there is no sense seeking consolation in statistics which indicate that we are so much better off and are doing so much more than other Africa states for example. I believe that our progress must be measured against our own possibilities and nothing else. Now it is indisputably the case, and nobody can deny it, that we are an exceptionally wealthy country, that we have at our disposal natural resources which are the envy of other countries. We do not have an exceptionally large population—18 million, or slightly more. That is nothing in comparison with other countries. There is no question of teeming millions. I have seen what that means in a city such as Bombay. There one wonders, if one sees how thousands of people have to sleep in the streets, how one can, with the best will in the world, control and govern so many people. We have no problems of that nature. We do in fact have problems of distance, but even that is not such a terrible disadvantage, because the vast majority of the population, all races and groups, is concentrated in and around about 20 large towns and cities. Without denying that there has nevertheless been progress, as there ought to have been, I say that, measured against our own ability, our vast resources and the comparatively small population we have, we are, in my opinion, lagging far behind what we are capable of achieving in the field of education in our country.

As regards the Whites, I believe we are lagging behind as far as the quality of the knowledge we are disseminating is concerned. As regards the non-Whites, we are lagging behind as far as both the quality and the quantity is concerned. For some reason or other which has its roots in the fact that this Government is so old-fashioned, we are not utilizing all the means available to us in order to keep pace with the developments of modern times. I do not think a thing like this is fair to South Africa, to the youth of our country.

Towards the end of last year, for example, it was reported from America that “President Johnson has signed the nation’s first Public Broadcasting Act”. As you know, broadcasting there is in private hands. He has now signed a public Act which will entail “the use of computers and satellites in the cause of education. Under the plan, students in small colleges could tap the resources of large universities. Physicians in remote areas could contact distant laboratories via the network. It will try to prove that what educates, can also be exciting.” A further report from that source read as follows—

These are imaginative steps, but if we ask for similar imaginative plans to be made in South Africa to bring education and training within easy reach of all, rich and poor, White and non-White, regardless of their father’s income, then it is said in advance that we are being too idealistic. This kind of practical idealism in the United States has already led to the establishment in that country of new colleges at a rate of one new college per week. The popularization of education has already resulted in an increase in recent times of 12 per cent in the number of young people from indigent homes who are now going to university.

Are these not comparisons?

No, I am prepared to measure the possibilities here against our own ability. [Interjections.] The emphasis lies in this that nobody need, on the grounds of his father’s income, or his race, be deprived of the opportunity of developing his talents to the best of his ability. I think that this is a way of looking at things that is still lacking amongst us. If it does exist amongst us, then we are hiding it under a bushel. Yet we are the one country in the world which has a greater interest in the upliftment of the masses than any other country, because there is no doubt that illiteracy, no matter to whom it applies in the country, or backwardness, is a burden to the country which has to be overcome. We have a great deal to say about the maintenance of the white civilization, and then we rely almost exclusively on the power of legislation to safeguard our future. I believe that in the long run there is only one way to ensure the preservation of standards in South Africa in future. We must help to teach the non-white population groups in the shortest possible time to appreciate the same high standards, and side with us in defending them if it should ever be necessary to do so. Contrasts of identity, of colour, or language, these we will always have, but there need not necessarily be such a wide gap and contrast between people as far as the quality and quantity of education is concerned. Certainly, one of the quickest ways of closing this gap between people, is the idea which has now originated in Britain, namely that of establishing a “University of the Air”. One need not stay long in Britain to-day to realize that tremendous developments are taking place in the cultural sphere. The “Inner London Education Authority” launched a scheme a year ago to link the 1,350 schools and colleges under its control by means of television. This scheme is being repeated in other parts of the country. In this way the network is being expanded further and further so as to include as many educational institutions as possible. The object which is being pursued is to interconnect universities by means of television in such a way that the best available lecturers and facilities on every subject will be available for a wide student audience, instead of merely for a small audience in a specific university. The purpose is also to make specialized training generally available to all. I see that Professor Gerrit Viljoen, principal of the new Rand Afrikaans University, recently discussed at a simposium in Johannesburg—I am reading from a report which appeared on 15th February, 1968 in Die Burger—the “knowledge explosion” and the great possibilities for co-ordinated higher education which are being offered by the five neighbouring universities on the Rand. He added that, to achieve this, closed circuit television between institutions for higher education in the Transvaal was an “unavoidable necessity” for the exchange of specialized knowledge. One is pleased to see that, but we should like to hear what kind of encouragement the Government is giving the universities to develop in this direction. In England the developments are now reaching this high-water mark, a high-water mark which one can describe as a revolution in education and in adult training. It is namely the idea of a “University of the Air” or rather a television university, one in which television will play the major role. The idea was put forward a few years ago by the British Prime Minister. Subsequently a committee of inquiry was appointed by their Department of Education, in conjunction with educationalists, which made its report to the British Parliament in 1966. Obviously I cannot read the entire report here, but I shall read only a few extracts from the report on this “Open University of the Air”. It is stated that—

By that they mean television; “broadcasts” in Britain now mean television—

What is important, is the following—

A whole new world is opening up in education, which is of greater importance for a country such as South Africa, with its mass of people who have lagged behind, than for any other country. One can think what one pleases about Britain in the sphere of politics, but in other fields and particularly in the material field, it is quite incorrect to say that she is going backwards and that as a country she is deteriorating. My observation was that as far as modern human development was concerned there was hardly any field in which she was not ahead of us and where we could not learn something from her. In regard to this “University of the Air”, this television university, I just want to add that a few months ago the Government there appointed an “Open University Planning Committee” consisting of picked educationists, who have to take the final decisions in regard to how this should be proceeded with and everything that is necessary to have the undertaking achieve its purpose, namely to create a population which is generally informed and well educated. It is expected to come into operation in 1970. As it happens it will then coincide with the appeal made recently by the United States and 17 other countries to make 1970 an “International Education Year” with a world-wide campaign for the expansion of education. Inter alia, the question of an administrative centre for this University of the Air must be decided upon. To me it seems obvious that in our country we should make use of the University of South Africa as the most suitable instrument for something like this, and since new buildings are being constructed, one hopes the hon. the Minister will keep an eye open to such possibilities. Recently, to my regret, I saw that Professor S. Pauw, the principal of the University of South Africa, was forced to complain that the great work which was being done by the university was, as it were, being concealed from the population of South Africa. The report reads as follows—

This is certainly something which must be rectified. What we need is for the Government to live a little more in our own time. Then the University of South Africa can become an instrument which will place South Africa on the path of a revolution in education. When I say that the Government should become a little more of a government of our own time, I am not saying this merely in order to be derogatory. Just listen to this, Sir, and you will understand what I mean by that. Here is a report which appeared in Die Beeld on 14th January this year (translation)—

Well I never! It seems to me Government members regard it as a charge against them if someone suspects them of being progressive. Let me say in parentheses, this is the sort of conduct which from time to time causes one to be confronted by the humiliating position as Afrikaner, not only overseas, but sometimes in South Africa as well, where one has to hear people say that the Afrikaner is a backward-looking person and is afraid of modern civilization. It is attitudes like this which make for opinions of this kind, and I want to tell the hon. the Minister of Education this. He has in his hand a portfolio which is one of the most exciting portfolios in the entire Cabinet. What I am saying here to-day in regard to a university of the air should really have come from the Minister.

I say again, I am not suggesting in any way that the hon. the Minister or the Government is not doing anything and that there is no progress. I know that the Minister also has, as all governments have, to contend with a shortage of trained teachers, and that there is a limit to the funds a government can spend. But such a university of the air is precisely the one means of overcoming this kind of problem, as we have seen in Australia and New Zealand, where the best possible education is being provided by means of television for the children who cannot attend large schools, particularly those in the remote districts, where the distances are great and where there is a shortage of teachers. And we find in our country to-day that children in the rural areas very often have to do without the benefit of certain subjects, such as Latin, owing to a shortage of teachers, a shortcoming which can easily be solved by a television university. To-day use is already being made overseas of one teacher to give physical training, music, art appreciation, and other subjects simultaneously to a series of classes in a wide network of schools.

I do not think it is necessary for us to attach too narrow an interpretation to the concept of a television university. It can also be introduced for the purpose of providing pre-university training. I know that we are already making use of the radio for the purpose of school lessons, but the radio has limitations, and nowhere are the limitations of radio lessons better described than in the educational journal of the Department of Bantu Education. This also applies to the Whites. They state (translation)—

Those deficiencies can all be overcome by means of television. As far as radio lessons are concerned, one also finds a further disadvantage. Before a radio lesson on, for example, the Orange River Project can be given, the teacher must first take five or ten minutes to show the children on maps what is going to be discussed; or, they must take out illustrated books and show them so that the children can understand what is being taught over the radio. All these problems can be overcome by the introduction of a television university with wide terms of reference. Just think what a tremendous advantage it would have been if even the radio lessons which there are to-day were in fact television lessons; because in comparison with what television can offer, radio has already become an anachronism.

I want to conclude by saying this. I was in Berlin a few months ago and while the guide was showing us around he stopped at a building and showed us where. 31 years ago. the first television broadcast in Germany had taken place. Thirty-one years ago! In Britain they have now progressed as far as a television university, but we in South Africa are nowhere. And then the hon. members talk about progress! We are years behind in this field in South Africa and whose fault is it? It is the fault of the Government which does not see its way clear to providing us with this development. That is why we want to bring it to the attention of the nation.

This motion does not lay emphasis on the closed circuit, but on an open university of the air, because what is being taught on television through such a general university of the air, may just as well be placed at the disposal of the entire nation. And if, as it is being done on television, life broadcasts are offered, it would become a powerful means of dissemination of knowledge and information to the large bulk of our population. I agree with that person who described this development overseas as just as important a milestone in the development of man as the development of printing was generations ago. That is why I am moving this motion in the hope that the hon. the Minister will rise, not to present us with his problems, but to recognize and recommend these opportunities and take the lead in persuading his Government that the time has now come for an outward looking policy directed inward.

If ever there was proof of the truth of the adage that the cobbler must stick to his last, then it was provided to-day by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, who showed throughout his speech that he really knew very little about education. I want to ask a single practical question by way of illustration. I ask the hon. member to inform me how one can teach Latin by means of television in the rural areas of the Transvaal. What foolishness that a man can stand up here and talk such nonsense in this House!

It is being done in Britain.

I was in Britain along with the hon. member and he cannot tell me anything about what is happening there. That is the hon. member’s difficulty. This University of the Air which the hon. member talks about is not yet in operation in Britain. It is being planned at the moment and will only come into operation in 1970, and it has already presented numerous problems, so that many of its aspects are being reconsidered. It may only come into operation in 1970, but the hon. member wants to force us into it straight away as if we would be backward and orthodox if we did not rush in at once and implement this novelty which has not even been tested in Britain yet. The hon. member says that we are living in a previous century because we do not want to utilize television for education. In the first place this is, of course, not true. The hon. member himself quoted the fact that closed circuit television was already being used at some universities. It is already being used, and there is no objection to that either. But there is a tremendous difference between closed circuit television in universities for a specific purpose and the Open University of the Air which he talks about, with all the cost it involves and all the various other aspects which I cannot enter into in the few minutes at my disposal.

But the use of television in education is not an unmixed blessing. Educationists of great repute, persons with experience of it, say: “Keep it out of your country!” I want to quote someone from Britain in this connection, namely Professor Harwood, who was here, and had the following to say. I quote from a report (translation)—

He said that television was about the worst thing that could be brought to South Africa.

Order! I just want to point out that the hon. member must not discuss the general principles of television, but must confine himself to its educational aspects.

The hon. member brought television into a discussion on education. and I have now quoted an educationist on the matter of television in education. But let me proceed. Every educationist of repute will tell you that there is no substitute for the actual presence of the teacher in his classroom. There is no substitute for the personal contact between the teacher and the child because one is not only concerned with the imparting of knowledge; the object of education is to educate the person as a whole and for this one needs direct. personal and intimate contact between the teacher and the child every day, and television can never achieve this.

I want to take my argument further. In short the hon. member’s motion boils down to three points. We must take cognizance of educational and social developments. This implies that we are not taking cognizance of these developments, because why would we otherwise be urged to take cognizance of them? Is the hon. member totally unaware of the tremendous progress we have made in this connection? Is he totally unaware of the modern techniques in education which we are already applying? To mention a few examples, is he totally unaware of the modern trends in arithmetic in our educational system, which represent a brand-new approach in the field of mathematics? Is he aware of the work being performed by the audio-visual services, where use is made of the school radio, with films being sent beforehand to schools and where they are then screened to coincide with transmissions over the radio. Then one has the two elements combined and synchronized, just as in the case of television, but at much lesser cost, and practically applied in the particular classroom. We already have language laboratories, a modern technique, one of the most modern in the world, to teach people languages. The hon. member says that we must take cognizance of what is going on in the outside world. We have modern research techniques. South Africa is so far advanced in this field that we lead the world in medical science, with heart transplants for example. Must we not for a change ask the outside world to take cognizance of what is happening in these fields in South Africa? Sir. not everything that one takes cognizance of is good. Too often things have happened which we took cognizance of and introduced into our educational system without due consideration, and which eventually proved to be great failures. We must be very careful not to make our children the quinea-pigs of overseas developments. I want to mention one specific example, and that is social studies, which was introduced precipitably from overseas and announced here with great acclamation, and which has now fortunately been done away with because we have realized that it was a total failure. We believe in keeping an eye on things, but we also believe in taking over only those things which are to our benefit, and that we must not take over everything holus bolus simply for the sake of supposedly being modern or in the forefront of technical development. It would be foolish of us to take over such things indiscriminately. and it would be foolish for a specific reason. Our South African conditions and situation are peculiar to this country. There is no other country which is precisely comparable to South Africa and therefore we must deal with South Africa and its problems specifically and separately and solve our own problems in that light. The hon. member says that we must take all the steps required to bring all education within easy reach of everyone. What more must we do than we are now doing? The only suggestion that the hon. member can make is that we establish an Open University of the Air; that is all that needs to be added. Does the hon. member accept that all the other steps have already been taken? Let me just mention them quickly; To place all education within easy reach of everyone means that the school must be located as near to the child as possible, and this is precisely what is being done. The 106 high schools that there were in 1947, for example, have increased to 471. In this way the Government has placed schools within reach of the children to bring all education within easy reach. As a result the number of pupils has grown from 69,000 in 1947, when the United Party was in power, to 274.000, which proves that education has been brought within easy reach of the children; we have already done so. National schools have been placed within reach of pupils. Where there used to be 29 there are now 66. There used to be eight technical courses; they have now increased to 84. Technical knowledge has been brought within easy reach of pupils. The amount provided on the Vote of the Department of Education, Arts and Science in 1947 was R5½ million, for educational facilities only. In 1967 the figure stood at R45½ million. We are therefore bringing education within easy reach of evervone. Take buildings. For buildings alone buildings for educational purposes, the United Party Government made R½ million available in 1947: in 1967, R35 million was made available. For the education of Whites the Government has done everything possible within the financial means and capacity of the country. Everything that could be done has been done, and the results prove it. We to-day have outstanding research workers in numerous spheres in the world. We often hear the reproach that our best men are leaving the country: that there is a “brain drain” in progress. Why do they leave this country? They are enticed away by other countries because they are better than those already there. This is very clear proof that our facilities here are adequate and good enough. I do not say that one must not keep pace with modern developments, but one must be practical and realistic.

However, the hon. member’s motion goes further and refers to all sections of the population. I want to take the section which he would regard as the bottom layer; this is not a term that I want to use. The hon. member divides the population of South Africa into layers, probably to get away from the question of colour. The bottom layer is the Bantu, according to the hon. member. How have we brought “all educational opportunities,” in the terms of the hon. member’s motion, within easy reach of the Bantu? Let us look at a few figures. Bantu education was taken over by the Department in 1953. I am not comparing South Africa with other countries now: I want to compare what was done under the United Party Government with what has been done under the National Party Government. and then I want to ask if any reproach can be levelled at this Government. Bantu education was taken over in 1953. At that stage there were 5,665 Bantu schools; by 1965 the number had grown to 8,722. This is how education was brought to the people; the number of pupils had increased from 858,000 to 1,900,000. The number of teachers, who, in terms of the hon. member’s motion, must impart knowledge to all, had increased from 21,000 to 34,000 in these few years. Sir, the Government is doing what it has to do; it is doing more than it has to do.

Let us look at a few of the African states about which the hon. member is so boastful, states using television to bring education to the masses. If it was so effective, then surely it would have been used long ago for this purpose by all the states of Europe which are to-day interested in the emergent African states. If television is really so effective, then surely they would have introduced it long ago. Let us look at the number of pupils attending schools in the various African countries. In Liberia 17 per cent of the children of schoolgoing age are attending school, in Somalia 4.5 per cent, in Mali 18.5 per cent, in Kenya 49 per cent, in spite of all the facilities they have; in Nigeria, in spite of its television, 34 per cent; in Algeria, which has television, 55.8 per cent. In the Republic of South Africa 85.3 per cent of the Bantu children of schoolgoing age are attending school. Can we be reproached with not having brought education within reach of everyone?

Mr. Speaker, in actual fact the sting of this motion is in its tail. In his motion the hon. member asks that we should create “a population that is, generally literate and well-informed”. How does South Africa compare with African countries where television has already been introduced? Television has been introduced in those countries, not for this purpose, but purely for the sake of being able to boast and to say to the outside world, “We have one of the most modern technical developments, namely television.” It is purely a question of prestige and nothing else. Here are the true facts: In 1952, 21.8 per cent of the Bantu population in South Africa were literate. At present almost 60 per cent of the Bantu are literate. In the age group seven to twenty years, i.e. the group which could obtain its education during the term of office of this Government, the literacy rate is 80 per cent. The reproach is directed at us that we are not doing enough; we must do more and introduce television to bring literacy to the people. But how does South Africa compare with African states that do have television? In Algeria 20 per cent of the population are literate, in spite of its television; in Tanzania 20 per cent are literate; in Gaboon, 35 per cent; in Botswana 30 per cent; in Ethiopia 2 per cent.

The more television, the less the child can write.

Let me quote from a Unesco report, “Africa Prospect”—

But the hon. member wants to suggest here that we must do much more. I want to say at once that we are doing everything that our funds permit. We are doing what falls within the framework of our policy, and that is that we want to set and keep each population group in this country on its own feet, but we refuse simply to follow every new fad in the world slavishly for the sake of supposedly being modern. We still firmly believe in examining and taking cognizance of every development and making use of it if it is good, and not making use of it if it is not good, and the very fact that we do not follow every new fad is an indication of our responsible and mature attitude in South Africa.

The hon. member who has just sat down has quoted figures to show what other countries in Africa are doing. I do not think those figures mean very much. You cannot take the most advanced country in Africa and compare it with countries which are struggling under new Governments. It seems to me to be no argument to say that television is no good because those countries happen to have television. Perhaps they are not even attempting to use television in those countries for the purposes of education. They use television to provide entertainment, not as an educational medium. It is true, as the hon. member says, that they use television for prestige. But, Sir, prestige does not fill empty stomachs nor does it educate people. What the mover of the motion means to imply, I believe, is that while we are doing a great deal for the majority—in fact, for nearly all the people of the country—we are not doing enough. We are not searching out the unfortunate individuals who do not fit into the pattern of the ordinary school. One way or another, physically or mentally, they are handicapped. We deal only with the majority; we deal only with the school-age group and with the university-age group. I feel that we should go out of our way to seek out the unfortunates who have not been able at the ordinary school-or university-age to obtain the training that they would wish to have had. Perhaps they did not mature early enough to appreciate the discipline that a university or a secondary school demands. All these people deserve extra consideration. In other words, we must try to provide education for the individual. The Education Department provides for the group, but modern educational facilities, particularly radio and television, do make it possible for the Department to give individuals, whatever their age may be, at least some educational facilities, particularly those who are far removed from schools and universities. By using modern methods you can bring to these people as good an education as perhaps they would receive anywhere else.

We can do it by means of a much cheaper method than by sending individual teachers to these people, even if it were possible to do that, which it is not. So I think greater use should be made in this country of the radio. The radio broadcasts very few educational programmes, and it should be the business of the Education Department, I believe, to have always available a channel on which to broadcast. Various times will suit various people. During school hours the channel could perhaps be used for transmitting programmes to schools. But I am not thinking so much of the schools; I am thinking rather of the housewife. The housewife is tied to her house. She could have an hour, or, if need be. make an hour in the morning in which to listen to the radio for the purpose of improving her cultural knowledge, her education, and even perhaps her cuisine. All these things could be done shall we say at 11 o’clock in the morning. If the educational authorities had a channel available at all times, it could even undertake the training of businessmen during the times when they are away from their businesses. The radio could educate the man who has served his apprenticeship and is a journeyman artisan but who wishes to better himself. There are things happening in the world to-day of which all of us need to be informed. These developments occurred at a time when most of us had left school. For instance, how many of us can appreciate the intricacies of the space exploration which is going on? How many of us would not be delighted to take a course in nuclear physics? How many of us are secure in our jobs when we are faced with electronics, automation and computers. Even a senior wrangler finds that he is no longer required to do mathematical calculations—there is a machine to do it. Humans cannot calculate rapidly enough the flight of a projectile on its way to, for instance, Venus, because by the time the calculation was made the projectile would probably have collided with some other planet. So it seems that none of us can be certain that the machine will not replace us. and to avoid that all of us must be educated further. However, the State cannot afford to take us back to school because we are needed in the jobs which we are doing. But at the same time we must prepare ourselves either to improve our knowledge, or to stand back while some machine takes over. We have this conflict between the machine and the human being, and there is a danger that the machine may take over. The only way of avoiding it is to provide education, and that should be done by means of communication media available to all of us. Up to a point the radio can, if properly used, instead of broadcasting quizzes which lead to the awarding of prizes, fulfil that need. All day long one hears quizzes or music of a special character. Radio in this country has a very limited field at present in which it is used for educational purposes, and yet I am sure there are large numbers of people in this country who would gladly sit and listen to a lesson in modern sciences or art or in any other form of culture rather than be tied down to recorded music or tinned lectures from some other country. I hope this motion will bring the realization to the hon. the Minister and the officials of his department that the use of radio on a wide scale to deal with individuals, the individual citizen in his wants, has much to commend it. Give him an hour a day. Broadcasts of this nature could take place fourteen hours per day, and there are at least fourteen different groups of people who want something badly. If a little study and investigation were carried out by this department I am sure they would find gratitude amongst large numbers of people who are sick and tired of the use to which the whole, or almost the whole, of the S.A.B.C. is devoted.

When it comes to the use of television in this way it must be appreciated that there are certain matters in which groups of people must be trained but in regard to which they cannot be adequately trained without risk to themselves or to others. As hon. members all know, we have a man with a transplanted heart here in Cape Town. I did not intend to refer to this matter, but the hon. member who has just sat down referred to it and I wish to add a few remarks to what he said. There was a picture of the fortunate patient in yesterday’s papers, and with him there appeared a medical attendant in sterilized gowns and wearing a mask. I mention this to illustrate how the patient is completely protected against infection, and no nurse can be trained to nurse him whilst these measures are in force. His condition is such that the nurse who nurses him must already be fully trained. But she has to have training and those who follow her and others who, as science is developed, will be required, must also be trained. But they cannot be trained, as doctors and nurses usually are, with the assistance of the living patient—they have to learn by observation indirectly. And here we see need for television in education. By making use of television, the equipment in the patient’s ward being well sterilized before hand, it is possible to train nurses. They can be guided and taught how to do work of the nature referred to, without endangering the health of the patient. The introduction of television would open a wide field for the education of medical students, and for people who work in dangerous surroundings. People who work in laboratories do not like having the public or students about the place more than is necessary. Laboratory work often is a dangerous occupation. However, those who are being trained, the students, can be taught quite safely by means of television. Above all things I want to draw attention to the fact that it is very difficult nowadays to get through to people by merely talking to them. The modern child wants to see something, he likes to see movement. It is interesting to watch a baby looking at a screen in front of it. It looks at the screen, but it does not listen to what is said very much. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that his department investigate very carefully the question of interim training, whether kindergarten and infant children should not start by learning to look at television and to learn that television is not something only for their amusement—they must not be shown conjurers and similar entertainers. They will indirectly and slowly learn firstly the discipline of listening and looking with attention. As far as the use of television and radio in the field of teaching is concerned, I feel the prospects and possibilities are unlimited. Above all the department can think of the isolated individual. I think, for instance, of the housewife in her home who is for most of the day alone in her home busy with the housework. Let us not only give her music all day. I think if a good lecture were broadcast at the time when bridge-playing ladies take a break for tea, perhaps few of them would continue with their bridge playing. Their interest might be kindled in some other subject. They might then prefer to pursue some educational subject. I feel the field is unlimited, but it needs exploring and it needs a great deal of thought.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Durban (Central) has just pleaded that further provision should be made for the individual to increase his knowledge and to further his studies and that television should be introduced for that purpose. He also referred to the housewife who works alone in her house during the day. If a television service were to be introduced for her sake, it would actually be introduced for entertainment and recreation. I say this because nobody can study without concentrating. For that reason the thoughts and pleas we had from the hon. member will not achieve anything. In order to provide in the said educational needs, we have, for example, the University of South Africa which, with its correspondence courses, have always achieved good results.

The hon. member for Bezuidenhout asked that the Government should take cognizance of educational and social developments in other countries. He referred to the Open University of the Air which will offer courses. In other words, the hon. member wants this type of television service to be employed on all levels of education in South Africa as well— that is how he actually put it. He actually wants this to be not only in the primary classes but also in the sphere of secondary and higher education. The hon. member, during his recent wanderings in Britain, came across this idea of the Open University of the Air and he was enormously impressed by it. It had made such an impression on him that he subsequently introduced his private member’s motion in order to inform us about it here in the House of Assembly. He went even further and assured the hon. the Minister of National Education that this was the very thing our education needed and that it would be the proper incentive for bringing education on all levels within easy reach of all.

The hon. member for Randfontein also concerned himself with the ideas of the said institution during his visit overseas. As we all know, education is the one subject in which he is particularly interested. As a matter of fact, he is the leading speaker on educational matters on this side. The hon. member for Randfontein also observed the work of the Open University of the Air in its initial stages, but he was not nearly as impressed as that hon. member was, because he saw it merely as a means of aid, similar to the other means of aid which are already being used in connection with audio-visual education. For that reason he does not go into raptures about the matter.

According to the wording of the motion, the means of aid advocated by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, will be used not only in White schools but also in non-White schools. If the service were in fact introduced in due course, could the hon. member for Bezuidenhout tell us what the cost of the service would be? Has the hon. member or anybody else ascertained whether it would in fact be such an effective means of aid that it would justify the enormous cost it would entail? In other words, Sir, has it ever been established beyond all doubt that, as a means of aid, it would be so suitable and so effective that we simply must accept it without more ado? Education must be dynamic and this we all believe, but one cannot accept something like this without investigation and study. If a means of aid of this nature were accepted in a particular province or—as we should like to advocate as we want more uniformity in education—throughout the Republic of South Africa, it would create a slavish uniformity in the school time-tables. I now want to speak as a person who has had many years of experience of time-tables in high schools, as a teacher and also as a former principal. Subjects in high schools, for example, will have to be offered in a fixed order, at fixed times and during fixed periods and then school life as such will in point of fact have to be regimented. Is that what the hon. member wants to propose? Does he want to recommend something like that? In France, for example, a time-table for schools within a particular category has been laid down on a country-wide basis. In that country subjects are offered over television in a fixed order. But this definitely amounts to regimentation and definitely entails a slavish uniformity. This means of aid about which the hon. member waxed so lyrical is, as I have said, not an extra-ordinary means of aid. In this respect I want to associate myself with the words of the hon. member for Randfontein. This means of aid can never replace the teacher. The hon. member said a short while ago that the problem of the shortage of teachers can be solved by means of television. I just want to tell the hon. member what a misconception, what a ridiculous remark that was. The teacher cannot be replaced. The teacher cannot be replaced by any means of aid. That hon. member may know a great deal about other matters but I truly believe, and when he makes a statement like that, it convinces me even more, that he knows nothing about education.

But, Sir, the hon. member probably has an ulterior motive for introducing this motion. The hon. member probably regards this as the thin end of the wedge. If television were introduced for educational purposes, it could pave the way for its general introduction. That is why I detect an ulterior motive in the motion moved by him.

That is quite correct.

Yes, the hon. member admits that I am quite correct. I am very grateful to the hon. member for having reacted in such a positive manner to my statement. The second leg of the motion moved by the hon. member reads as follows—

To me this part of the motion contains an accusation. This accusation is that the present Government does not bring education within easy reach of everyone. When speaking of “everyone” the hon. member, as he himself also said, naturally means all the other races as well. The hon. member for Randfontein dealt with Bantu education and while the hon. member for Bezuidenhout apparently is such an expert on the Coloured people and matters concerning them, I want to try to tell him in brief what this Government has done over the past number of years as far as education for the Coloured people is concerned.

We all know that Coloured education was transferred to the Department of Coloured Affairs in 1964. The United Party, as the official Opposition, was violently opposed to that. This is still fresh in our memories. We remember the United Party’s opposition to that step. The United Party made dire predictions that Coloured education would deteriorate. I wonder whether that still is the attitude of the Opposition? The Government, after consultations with prominent Coloured people and authorities on education, felt that all facets of Coloured education, including the University College of the Cape, had to be placed under the control of the Department of Coloured Affairs. Emphasis was laid on how essential it was for Coloured parents in particular to play a leading role and take an active interest in the control of the education of their children by serving on school committees, school boards and even on the Education Council for Coloured Persons, for example. The Education Council for Coloured Persons was established as well as school committees on which Coloured persons serve. The pattern which existed in the primary schools at that time was continued. There were no deviations from the then existing pattern. Enormous progress, particularly in respect of secondary education, has been made since the take-over by the Department of Coloured Affairs and the appointment of a director of Coloured Education. The Department of Coloured Affairs is doing a great deal in respect of academic and vocational education, particularly in respect of the latter in both the technical and commercial spheres. Remarkable progress has been made particularly as far as technical education is concerned. An effective system for the training of apprentices has been evolved in co-operation with the Departments of Labour and of Education, Arts and Science, as the Department of National Education used to be called. The Government is taking active steps to provide the Coloureds with facilities for technical training in order to prepare them in that way for rendering services to the Coloured community in their particular area in the first place and, through that, also to the Republic. Without tiring this House with too many statistics, I should nevertheless like to quote some statistical data in order to illustrate what progress has been made in respect of Coloured education since its take-over by the Department of Coloured Affairs.

In this connection I shall deal with three years only, namely 1962 as the year prior to the take-over, 1964 as the year of the take-over, and 1967. In 1962 there were 1,694 schools for Coloureds. There were 347,730 pupils and 10,793 teachers. In 1964 there were 1,743 schools with a total number of 386,732 pupils. There were 11,686 teachers at that time. In 1967 there were 1,810 schools, 429,526 pupils and 13,358 teachers. I quote these figures merely for the sake of pointing out to you that the number of pupils increased by 11 per cent from 1962 to 1964, and by 23.2 per cent from 1962 to 1967. This represents a constant and steady growth. The Opposition made a big fuss about compulsory education at that time. The Minister concerned made it quite clear at that time that although the Act did leave the door open for compulsory education, it could not possibly be carried into effect because of the fact that the facilities did not exist and because there were not enough Coloured teachers. But I may point out to hon. members that compulsory education is being enforced to a certain extent this year. The Director of Coloured Education informed me that pupils who enrolled with a particular class at the beginning of the year were compelled to attend that class until the end of the year.

What is the position now as far as the University College of the Western Cape is concerned? In 1960, 164 students were registered at that university college, of whom 131 were allowed to write the examinations. Of that number of 131, 83 passed. In 1966, 508 students were registered and of that number 431 were allowed to write the examinations and 236 passed. We see, therefore, that 54.8 per cent of those who wrote the examinations passed. In 1967, 566 students were registered, of whom 480 were allowed to write the examinations and 333 students passed; that is an excellent pass figure of 69.4 per cent. I quote these figures merely to illustrate to you what remarkable progress is being made at university level, what purposeful work that is being done by the lecturers and students and what excellent results are being achieved.

I should very much have liked to discuss Indian education as well, but I notice that my time had almost expired. I should have liked to draw the parallel in that respect as well in order to illustrate to you what progress has been made in Indian education since its takeover by the Department of Indian Affairs. I want to conclude by saying that it is quite clear that the details I have furnished within the short space of time at my disposal, belie the accusations made by the hon. member that we were allegedly neglecting the education of the other groups.

Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss television as an audio-visual aid in education. We have been warned about that. I do not intend to discuss the progress that has been made in regard to secondary education in South Africa, because the progress that has been made goes to the credit of the provinces.

Primary and secondary education were the function of the provinces and they were responsible for the progress referred to by the hon. member for Randfontein. In this progress no particular political party was solely responsible because in the provinces we had proportional representation. Both parties cooperated in establishing schools and extending the whole system. I am also not going to speak of vocational education because the Government took over vocational education and now it has seen the error of its ways. Vocational education has now been returned to the care of the provinces. I think that on the whole one can avoid discussing those matters.

I should, however, like to refer briefly to a point made by the hon. member for Koedoe-spoort in regard to the education of Coloured children. I do not know a great deal about that but I have discussed the matter with members from the Cape Province who are principally concerned. Their complaint has always been that funds were not available. It was a question of provincial financial relations. I do not think that that falls within the orbit of what we are discussing. I am also not going to fly to the heights and discuss university education. If we are to discuss university education in terms of this motion, we would naturally discuss Unisa, because Unisa has done very valuable work in this direction, But I am not going to discuss the services of Unisa either. I should like to make a special appeal to-day because the hon. the Minister is now responsible for policy in education. I am going to take an aspect of policy and seek his support and sympathy. I want to refer especially to the wording of a particular part of the motion, namely:

The other countries to which I am going to refer are not the highly developed countries of Europe or the U.S.A., but countries situated rather as we are situated here. I want to make an appeal for certain children on the platteland We have made very great progress in South Africa in education for our rural population] We have seen the policy as my hon. friend wisely pointed out, whereby we brought the school to the child. We then had the system of small schools. Later we developed the system of transport. That was very well done Throughout the years all this has taken place We are concerned of course about the depopulation of the platteland, which is always a problem in providing education on the platteland. The children I wish to discuss now are those who are not covered even by the provisions we have made so far. I think of the children living on lonely farms. I will give three examples of children of families which have come within my own experience.

Firstly, I want to deal with the children of a Native commissioner. As I knew him this Native commissioner lived a lonely life. He had four children, and as these children grew up they had to be educated. They lived many miles from a suitable school. The second example is the children of, for example, men who are working in our national parks. They live there and their children grow up there, but what are they to do about their education? The third class is the children living on lonely farms especially in the Karoo. What provision can we make for their education? There are people who say that when a child reaches the age of six or seven, he should be sent away as a boarder. Psychologists and parents differ on this matter and when I seek guidance in education I go to the parents. There are some parents who are anxious to give their children early education. They can educate them up to a certain standard. I would say, and the hon. the Minister will understand our professional standards, that they can educate them at home up to say the end of Standard II. Many parents have done that and many parents are capable of doing it. The difficulty is that they are not always well instructed although some of them are. I have been reading the Cape Ordinance on education. because I was thinking particularly of the Karoo, and this is what it says about compulsory education:

I have been told in my travels that the Department says that unless the teacher, the mother or the governess, has a primary teacher’s certificate the Department will not accept her as teacher in the system of education. The child must then go to a school. I do not agree with that. There are parents who say that we must keep the child at home, especially on the platteland, so that we can inculcate a love of the land in him. We must inculcate the spirit of “O, boereplaas, geboortegrond, jou het ek lief bo alles”. Secondly, they feel that the child is not morally and ethically sufficiently developed to leave home at the age of six or seven. But I must say that I have seen children who have gone away to boarding school at the age of six or seven who are living happily and whose parents are quite satisfied. There is another section of parents who do not like this. I am trying to consider them. Ours is not the only country which has this problem. I wish to refer to other countries in the spirit of the motion moved by my hon. colleague, the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. I Should like to see our Education Department, and I feel that it should come from the Central Education Department, assist these parents to educate their children. Provision for that was made in Australia thirty of forty years ago. Lessons were broadcast, but they were not teaching the children; they were teaching the mother. The broadcast is not to the child, but to the mother. Of course television is out of the question. It lacks the range. Television is for the urban population. I am speaking of the radio, which we can use for the mother. In Australia they not only make use of the radio, but also of correspondence courses. Then Australia did this: I remember this being described at our National Conference in 1935. Once a year mothers were given a free ticket to Melbourne or Sydney where they met the people who broadcast and sent them the instructions in the education of their children. Assume for the moment that they were English-speaking children. The mothers would then be taught during the week they spend at Melbourne or Sydney—or in our case Cape Town, Port Elizabeth, Johannesburg, Durban, and so on—the new methods in their system for arithmetic, or to read the English I.T.A.— Initial Teaching Alphabet. They will therefore have this close contact. It is not only Australia that has done that. I am told there are 17 members of the Education staff in Rhodesia broadcasting lessons to parents or even to governesses who might not be fully qualified teachers and helping them through correspondence. I feel something of the sort could be done here. But the educational authorities take un too professional an attitude towards this matter. I like the professional attitude, but I think in this case they insist too much on it. I will give one example—a reliable example I am told—of a mother who had two children, whom she educated. When the children reached the appropriate age, they were sent to boarding school and eventually to university, where they did very well. Then that mother had a third child—what wine farmers call “a late harvest” and mothers an “afterthought”—whom she was anxious to educate in the same way. But the authorities said, “No, you do not have a primary school teacher’s certificate.” I will tell you what she did have. She had a university degree and a H.O.D. certificate. She had all that, but because she did not have the primary teacher’s certificate, the authorities said she could not educate the third child herself. Another important qualification she did have, which I have not mentioned: she was a Nationalist. She felt that she was quite capable of educating her own child. She was an important member of the community, an educated and cultured lady.

I want to help these people. I want the Government to establish a national rural educational correspondence school. After all, what will it cost? It will cost the staff of about one primary school, excluding the cost of postage, et cetera. I think we can do that. I am very anxious to have this done. I am also anxious to have the facilities they had in Australia in the early days extended to parents here, namely that once a year they can meet the teachers and the people who conduct the correspondence classes to discuss their problems. They could bring the children along if they wish, perhaps when they go on holiday to the coast. Thereby a very happy relationship could exist between the teachers in the correspondence college and the parents of the children. The hon. the Minister will realize that one cannot extend this to all children, but only where it is possible for the mother to carry out the scheme under the direction of the Department. I have seen children educated in that way. I will mention one example, the case of a Native Commissioner who had three sons and a daughter. The mother educated them up to standard three or four. They then went to a boarding school and all of them did exceptionally well. She was an educated woman and of course, as the hon. the Minister will understand, school-teachers were anxious to help. I did a little to help them too by bringing them in touch with methods and so on. Everybody was prepared to help but that was not organized assistance. I want the thing organized on the lines which I have mentioned. If the hon. the Minister will give his attention to that his staff I think would be able to study the systems in other countries. I hope he will be able to do something for my lonely South African child.

Mr. Speaker, there are two matters about which I am very pleased to-day, and the first one is that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has placed this motion on the Order Paper. The second matter about which I am, however, more pleased, is that as a result of this motion we are in a position to furnish the public outside with the correct information. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout submitted a motion here which was really not debated and substantiated properly, and which is in fact still in the air. It was only the hon. member himself who developed the motion uo to a certain point, whereas the other two hon. members on the opposite side of the House did not give him much assistance as regards the contents of his motion. As regards the hon. member for Kensington’s very friendly request, I can give him the assurance that I shall go into that matter. There is in fact something to say for it, but it does not really fall within the scope of this motion. At first I almost felt annoyed at the motion when I read it. However, I was very glad that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout immediately relieved me of my annoyance right at the beginning by admitting frankly and openly that this Government had done its duty in respect of the care for the youth and even in respect of those who had outgrown their youth. With that admission he really …

[Inaudible].

No, but it is so. He intimated that we were not sitting here and growing rusty, but that we were most certainly taking cognizance of what was happening in the world. I may just add to the introductory words used by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that educationalists are regularly sent abroad; there is probably not one single educational magazine which is not being received by all education departments and schools; there is an exchange of learned persons, university graduates and others, and missions are being sent abroad. But one thing this Government and I and my Department will most certainly never do, is to follow overseas ideas slavishly and without more ado, as has already been said.

Nobody is asking for that.

No, we know that you are not asking for that. Even if methods are being applied abroad with the greatest of success, we are taking into account the fact that circumstances in South Africa are totally different. In view of these changed circumstances it does not necessarily follow that successful applications abroad can also be applied here. In this request I can merely point out our strange position. We are a White population with two language groups. Each group has its own culture, educational opportunities and traditions which have been built up throughout the years. We have tremendously great distances. The hon. member for Kensington pointed out that in the rural areas, in the distant Bantu areas, a White child was deprived of opportunities. In spite of that I can, without fear of contradiction, issue a challenge to comparable European countries, namely that in certain respects we are not only keeping pace with them, but are far ahead of them and—allow me to mention this—we even regard ourselves as leaders. Just think of our physically handicapped in Kimberley, for instance; the school for weak-sighted people in Pretoria; our schools for the cerebral palsied and our educational methods for committed children. This is where we take the lead. It is in this regard that other countries of Europe are coming to see what is being done in South Africa. It is not only so in the field of heart and kidney transplants and other important matters relating to the natural sciences or biology, but also in the field of education. In the motion which was for the greater part debated here by the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, reference is made to radio and television “to create a population that is generally literate and well-informed”, and further it particularly refers to the so-called University of the Air, which was subsequently called the “Open University”. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout went into raptures in recommending it strongly for consideration and application in South Africa. The hon. member for Randfontein rightly pointed out to him that in spite of the fact that it was not even an accomplished fact as yet, they wanted us to follow suit. It will only be in 1970 …

But, surely, I said so.

No, I know that the hon. member said so. But in spite of that the hon. member wants us to decide at this early stage that we are taking cognizance of that and should also follow suit. It is very likely that the hon. member does not have the same information I have at my disposal. I have clippings here taken from British publications which are already raising their misgivings. According to the White Paper which has been tabled in the British Parliament and of which we are also aware, it is clear that so far they have not even reached unanimity in regard to the matter as a whole. But let us leave it there. But what worries me, is that we have had no evidence of a truly profound study of the subject on the part of the hon. Opposition— something one would at least have expected from the introducer of the motion—and that he did not distinguish between the two forms of education. We have formal and informal education. All I heard here, was that the formal aspect was only touched upon indirectly. And this is really the main point of education. We shall deal with informal education later. It is unnecessary for me to give a lengthy account here. Any educationalist or anybody who wants to risk talking about a motion on education, should at least know the difference between formal and informal education. And now I should like to read out just one quotation. In a discussion of the open university in the magazine New Education, dated August, 1967, the author says the following—

And that is exactly where the trouble will start. If an attempt should be made by means of any form of television, or by means of the radio or even by means of films, to achieve immediately the same goal and the same results with these two types, then it would not succeed, as I shall indicate in a moment in my further discussion. Let us look first of all at the question of informal education. An aim of the British Open University is to contribute to the educational, cultural and professional standards of any person who wants to look and listen. This is the real major aim. This is a praiseworthy ideal which nobody can criticize. The general public, the post-school public, the man and woman who really want to be an asset do the country, never stop learning. The hon. member for Kensington is a person who is still studying and is still making progress.

There is hope yet for the future.

He is always improving and is always talking more sensibly. Now, in the field of this informal education and of the culture of the country, the State is continuously doing a tremendous amount. I can call it a praiseworthy ideal when any attempt is made at bringing knowledge home to the population. But we are doing a great deal. In the references made here to-day to the Broadcasting Corporation and its contribution, there has not been very much evidence of praise and conviction. I think it was the hon. member for Durban (Central) who pointed out that more should be done for the housewife. But I can say that the regular listeners to the radio can learn a tremendous amount. Unfortunately we are too busy and too tied down, but during the holidays when we can in fact make use of the radio, that institution does its duty thoroughly. We have the Department of Cultural Affairs, adult education with its organisers in this field, the cultural agreements with certain Western countries, the visits of learned persons to our country, the colleges for advanced technical education where everybody can continue their studies after std. 10, colleges for vocational education and aided schools. A whole series of informal educational courses is offered. Often at our universities open lectures are Offered, lectures which do not have a specific bearing on a certain subject. In regard to the colleges for advanced technical education, I can say that if there are only 15 persons in a group—no matter where they may be living— a course can be introduced. In this way approximately 8 courses have already been introduced in Pretoria. I can only say that everybody who wants to listen and who wants to attend classes and learn, is being afforded good opportunities for enriching and enhancing in an informal way his educational, cultural and professional life. But as far as formal education over the air is concerned, I want to make it quite clear that I am not belittling its value. I am not belittling it at all, but on the other hand I do not want to over-estimate it either. I shall try to give my reasons why not. We should not use closed-circuit television, of which the use as a teaching aid has been proved, as an argument for defending the University of the Air. And, incidentally, Professor Viljoen referred to “closed-circuit television” and not to the Open University of the Air. But I want to say further that it is not such a big secret that this is being used in Pretoria. A few years ago the Transvaal Department of Education sent a mission abroad in connection with closed-circuit television. This is being used in certain training colleges in the Transvaal, and there are a few high schools in the Transvaal where this is being used experimentally. It is openly admitted that this is an expensive installation, but closed-circuit television is really an asset to the educationalist because it enables the student to see and hear, so that the teacher will be able to fulfil his task much more successfully. Audio-visual education is an acknowledged educational aid, but then we should not use it as an argument for the Open University of the Air. We had experience in this country of school radio lessons which subsequently developed into radio-vision lessons. The radio lesson came and later on use was also made of films. The teacher was there, and when it was shown at the right time, when it suited the teacher and could fit into the school programme, it was done. But hon. members know that about a year ago this was abandoned in all the provinces. It is no longer being applied. As an educational aid it proved to be ineffective. Now that it has been stopped there is nothing to take its place. I shall come back to this point later.

Let us look at that Open University of the Air. The English scheme aimed at offering ten major subjects on a two-year basis and an unspecified number of subjects on a one-year basis. I have made a study of their scheme. What they will be able to obtain, will be a two-year degree, and it will consist of eight courses. Our university degrees in South Africa require a three-year course. Therefore, if we accepted something of that nature, a large number of third-year courses would have to be added. Along with the radio and television lectures—this is also the British system which they are envisaging—correspondence lectures will have to be provided, and they regard these as indispensable. During a conference on the Open University of the Air, Mr. D. Jackson, director of the National Extension College in Cambridge, said the following—

It cannot be visual only; it has to be followed up by correspondence. In these studies which will have to be done according to this method by the student who wants to obtain a degree, the most important part is not what is presented, but self-study and the handing-in of assignments which will have to be corrected by experts. The fact that the correspondence section will quite easily be the most important element of such a university, is also proved by the experience gained by the Chicago City Junior College, where during the first eight years of their experiment only 95 students obtained a degree exclusively by means of television tuition. Please note, only 95—and this was done experimentally—obtained a degree in a case where use was made of television exclusively, whereas the number of people viewing those television broadcasts in 1964, was estimated at 200,000. Surely, this is a damning figure. This proves that through television alone one cannot achieve good results. This is the first point.

But now I shall deal with a second difficulty. Did the hon. member for Bezuidenhout take the trouble to calculate the cost of this Open University of the Air he is recommending?

But England bears the costs, and that is probably why it is bankrupt.

We are not bankrupt, but the hon. member should just listen a moment to what I have to say before we decide to do such a thing. The cost of such a university was obviously not taken into account by the hon. member. It was calculated in England that up to six television channels would be necessary in the morning and at least one extra channel for the whole day. Mrs. Lee, who is handling the entire matter, calculated it in this way. The capital cost of such an extra channel in England is estimated at R60 million, for one channel only. Now we must see what services we can provide with that R60 million and what the services are we are providing to-day. The hon. member should listen attentively, then he will realise that it is a very ill-considered idea. If we had had television, such a channel would probably have cost in the vicinity of R100 million owing to the great distances and the size of our country. Lectures over 40 weeks per year and eight hours per day for five days per week give us a total of 1,600 lecture hours per year. That would require one television channel. One channel will give us 1,600 lecture hours per year, and it will cost R100 million. But now I just want to compare this with a few figures I have been able to obtain in the short while since this motion was placed on the Order Paper. Compare this with the 10.000 lectures of 40 minutes each which the University of Pretoria offers its pre-graduate extra-mural students. One channel gives us 1,600 hours only, but Pretoria’s extra-mural section alone provides 10,000 lectures of 40 minutes each solely in respect of its extra-mural students. And take the University of South Africa which would have served the purpose of the correspondence section They offer 547 pre-graduate courses. Only one lecture each of 40 minutes per subject per week would require more than 14,000 broadcasting hours. Now the hon. member should work out for himself what it will cost As regards the running costs of the Open University of the Air, the British Minister of Education calculated that it would be between R6 million and R8 million per year. Add to this the interest on the capital investment. I made my own calculation, and do you know what I found? If we were to use the amount it would cost to introduce such a service in South Africa for ordinary education, then we would have been able to grant a bursary of at least R1,000 to each matriculant in this country, White and non-White, every year. Is this not clear proof of the rashness of this motion? That is what one finds when a person goes to England, spends a few weeks there, sees and hears television and then thinks that he has found something with which he can corner the National Government and with which he can turn the nation’s head, because there are a lot of “verkramptes” or conservatives here who do not want television in this country.

Is there any need in this country for such formal university training over the air? My reply is a definite no; it is unnecessary and this is so for the following reasons: The State, the universities, all other bodies and private persons are doing a great deal to make bursaries and loans available to students. Some universities offer extra-mural courses. The University of South Africa offers excellent correspondence tuition. Mr. C. A. Bedemeyer, a world recognised expert in the sphere of this type of education, recently spent three months at the University of South Africa, and he found that as far as the activities of the University of South Africa were concerned, South Africa was the leader; not a follower, but a leader. When necessary we establish new universities. In the past few years we established two universities. In fact, one of them will be opened officially on Saturday. Radio and television can be aids for class teaching, but as the hon. member for Koedoespoort said, they can never become a substitute; that is simply impossible. They are additional but they can never become the chief aim of education. The hon. member for Kensington will be the first to agree with me. Those people whose heads are being turned by television or audio-visual teaching aids, are betraying their ignorance, because the personal contact between master and child can never be eliminated.

We have had an interesting debate, and as is customary shall now withdraw the motion formally.

With leave, motion withdrawn.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Select Committee on the Immorality Amendment Bill, I move as an unopposed motion—

Agreed to.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday afternoon I was dealing with the interjection made by the hon. the Minister of Community Development. I am sorry he is not here to-day. He knew that I was going to deal with the interjection made by him yesterday.

He has just entered the Chamber.

As usual, he is late on the job. In the course of the Second Reading Debate the Minister of Community Development, in addition to the interjection which he made during the course of the address by the hon. member for Musgrave, made this interjection while I was speaking, “You should withdraw your amendment”. Hon. members will remember that during the course of the address of the hon. the Minister of Finance he indicated that certain concessions had been given to the building societies. We asked that more be done in the way of housing, and when I moved that amendment the hon. the Minister of Community Development interjected, “You should withdraw your amendment”, giving the House the impression that the proposal of the Minister of Finance to advance the building societies R8½million was going to meet their difficulties. He gave the House that impression and he meant to give the House that impression. But the following day the same Minister gave an address to the Building and Construction Advisory Council in Pretoria. The difficulty is that when he made his interjection here he was on his own, but the following day when he gave that address at Pretoria, he was reading a speech no doubt prepared for him by his Department, in the course of which he said that the backlog in housing since 1964 amounted to R257 million. I have since been able to get hold of the typescript of the Minister’s speech, and this is what it says: During the first ten months of 1967, private sector plans amounted to 14,926 houses and 59,963 flats, but the houses that were built amounted to 11,559 and 39,277 flats, a shortage of 3,267 houses and 22,686 flats. But the Minister went on to say this: “But the backlog since 1964 grows bigger.”

Read it in its proper context.

The Minister gave the impression that our amendment was not necessary, and not more than 24 hours later, the Minister, in a speech to this Council in Pretoria, indicated that the backlog was of the order mentioned by him. The Minister went on to say this:

“South Africa will have to put up more buildings in the next 30 years than it has since the landing of Jan van Riebeeck more than 300 years ago.” Sir, that is our case. Our case is that the Minister of Community Development is not meeting the problem. The position has become worse since 1964, and on his own admission there is a backlog. How can the Minister come to this House and suggest by way of interjection that enough is being done when the Minister of Finance gives an amount of R8½ million to the building societies and ask us to withdraw our amendment and then have the audacity the following day to say in an address to an outside organization that there is a backlog. This R8½ million is only sufficient for the building of 1,700 houses each costing R5,000, a very small house indeed. Surely the Minister must be more realistic. He must not come to this House and make an interjection on a serious subject and then go outside and make a speech showing how serious the position is and expect the House to take him seriously. No, the hon. the Minister must do better than that. When he decides to make an interjection in this House, he must be able to back it up with hard facts.

During the course of his reply to the debate the hon. the Minister of Finance said he was disappointed with what had been said by this side in the debate because he thought we would deal with matters of principle where our principles differed from his. The difference is this. We on this side believe in the private enterprise system and the Minister said he and that side believe in the private enterprise system too. Whilst dealing with the hon. member for Musgrave, the Minister of Finance asked whether the Government are required to finance building societies. The Minister of Finance knew very well that the hon. member for Musgrave was not implying that we expected the Government to finance building societies. But we on this side do want to know from the Minister what he intends doing regarding finances in this country. During the second reading debate we raised this point and said we wanted to know what the Minister’s policy is. But unfortunately the Minister’s right hand does not know what his left hand is doing. On the one hand the Minister indicates that he wants the R.S.A. savings scheme, and he said he was very pleased with the success of the scheme, but on the other hand the Government are investing in unit open-end trusts. On the one hand the Minister’s policy is aimed at obtaining Government loans, and on the other hand the policy is to go into the private sector and encourage open-end trusts. Does the Minister regard the last-mentioned exercise as part of his duty? Does he regard it as part of the duty of the I.D.C. to go into the stock market and to concern itself with open-end trust investments? During the Second Reading Debate I mentioned that we have invested over R61 million in open-end trusts. The Minister did not deal with that point during his speech, yet he claims that this side did not deal with financial matters. The Minister is adopting the role of an ambidexterous conjurer. One moment he is in the Government sector, the next moment he is in the private sector, and he tries to operate in both simultaneously. The private sector wants to know whether the Minister has drawn a line as to how far he will go. The private sector does not know when the Government is going to compete with it. Surely we are entitled to ask whether the Minister was really serious when he suggested that new policies are required from this side of the House.

We on this side have always been in favour of the private enterprise system. This side of the House in fact established the I.D.C. as an aid to developing industry and as an aid in providing the necessary finance when the private sector could not raise it. But one suspects that during recent years a climate of national socialism has been developing in South Africa, that the Government intends to compete in all sections of the private sector. The private sector never knows when the Government will compete with it, and the private sector feels it is entitled to a clear policy statement from the hon. the Minister concerning how far he intends to go with this practice of investing in the private sector. The Minister cannot criticize the private sector when it becomes speculative, when the private sector embarks on expenditure with an inflationary colour, when the Minister’s own department, through the I.D.C. —which to-day in effect is one of his departments—embarks on financial ventures which compete with his own loan-raising schemes.

To the extent of R60 million.

I do not suggest that the I.D.C. is investing R61 million, but, according to the recent Reserve Bank report, the amount invested in open-end trusts totalled R61 million. But the Minister’s department, through the I.D.C., took a share of that amount. We are entitled to know just how far the Minister is serious when he suggests the private sector should discipline itself, when he himself is so active in the private sector. The Minister requires us to take the position seriously. He demands that the private sector should discipline itself and not engage in unnecessary expenditure. The private sector should retard its development. The Minister himself through the I.D.C. is competing with his own Treasury when his Treasury is trying to get loan funds. The Minister, during the course of his second-reading reply, said there was nothing to answer. Those points were raised during the Second Reading Debate and were pertinently brought to his notice. But the Minister, for some good reason, either through an oversight or deliberately, did not answer those points.

I now want to ask the Minister a specific question. Does the Minister favour the I.D.C. going into the open trust market? Does he regard it as sound that it should compete in the private sector? Does the Minister prefer the private sector through the I.D.C. to obtain funds in competition with funds for R.S.A. or has the Minister got sufficient funds in R.S.A.? You see, Mr. Speaker, the Minister suggests there has been double talk. I do suggest that the Minister’s own Department is acting in two different ways. Surely the Minister cannot be serious when he suggests that open-end trusts, the stock market and speculation in shares or similar matters concerning the I.D.C. are matters which are encouraged on the one hand by his Department, while on the other hand he is trying to get short, medium and long-term funds. So long as there are speculation profits, so long will the time be delayed before we can get long-term loans. We cannot say that our finances are sound until we have a long-term capital market and the Minister knows what I mean by a long-term capital market. He knows what we mean when we talk of a long-term capital market where we can get loans for a period of 20 to 30 years. I appreciate the argument used by the Minister in his reply. In his reply the Minister said that long-term loans were out of the question at present because interest rates were too high. I appreciate that. As long as there are profits to be made on these short-term ventures, and these short-term ventures are encouraged by the Minister’s own Department, then we are entitled to say to the Minister, “physician heal thyself". That is the difficulty. The Minister must not come to us with advice and doctrinaire teachings without himself putting those teachings into practice. I suggest to the Minister that he has a case to answer. The case was put to him in the Second Reading Debate and he omitted to answer it. I suggest that he was superficial in his arguments. He probably played a little politics, but I suggest that he still has to answer those questions. Is he in favour of the I.D.C. going into the private sector to the extent that it has been during the past three or four years? Does he think it is healthy that the I.D.C. should encourage this open-end trust competitive market? All this has the effect of pushing up the prices of shares. As the Minister knows we have a very small market in this country. When we have two or three organizations all buying scrip which is in short supply, the tendency is for that scrip to go up in value and the values to be inflated. The Minister warned the country that the values were inflated and that some people would get their fingers burnt. But who are stoking the fires? These organizations are trying to buy the scrip. In that climate the Minister should be setting the example, rather than putting the precept to us. I suggest that the Minister has a case to answer and that he should answer it this afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, over a period of almost 20 years I have quite often had occasion to feel astonished at the United Party in this House. But I have even more often had occasion to feel astonished at the Natal members of the United Party. I am myself a Natalian and sometimes I feel a little ashamed at the way in which they are acting here. If only that hon. member sitting at the back there would afford another member the opportunity of making his speech, he might derive more value from the debate. I am not going to pay any attention to him. One of the basic requirements for participation in a debate in this House is surely that a member should at least make certain that the premises on which his argument are based are correct. To snatch an hypothesis out of the air here and build up a lot of arguments around it is surely something that any baboon can do. [Interjections.] Let me indicate now what hon. members are doing here. The hon. member for Pinetown who has just resumed his seat, said that during the Second Reading Debate I had said to him by way of an interjection that he should withdraw the amendment dealing with inadequate provision in regard to housing because the Minister of Finance had made R8.5 million available to the building societies. That is the statement he made here. But surely that is untrue; surely it is not correct. Surely the Minister of Finance did not make only R8.5 million available to them.

What else did he give?

If that hon. member does not know, then he will never know what is going on here in this House. Over and above that the Minister of Finance announced that that method of shares would be worked out for them, which could earn an investor a tax-free income of up to R400 per annum. For the investor who intends investing those amounts it entails a great deal of work, and it will attract considerable amounts for the building societies. The building societies are very satisfied with that, but those hon. members are not. They wanted to suggest to the world at large that it was only R8.5 million, and how many houses could one really build with R8.5 million? That is the impression they tried to create in the country. They deliberately suppressed the important second leg of the concession which was the most important leg of the concessions being made to the building societies.

Then the hon. member for Pinetown went further and he referred to a speech which I made at the first meeting of the Building and Construction Advisory Council in Pretoria, and he quoted one sentence only. He wrested the entire argument I was engaged on, altogether out of its context. It is correct that I indicated that in respect of housing, of other construction, commercial buildings, factory buildings and so on, there had been an increasing backlog since 1964, for which I quoted figures. The figures I quoted were mentioned to indicate that there was reason to suppose that the building industry was unable to deal with the overall demand for construction in the country. That was the argument leading up to the fact that I said that we in South Africa should make more use of preconstruction methods. But I did not say that there was a serious housing shortage. I said that there were serious problems in regard to the construction industry, in regard to the total demand in respect of that industry. In fact, I went even further and said in connection with housing that the figures which I had mentioned there, should not be regarded as indicating an actual shortage of housing, but could and should also be prescribed to other factors, such as the fact that a person who had had a plan approved, would subsequently decide not to proceed with construction, or to the fact that he could not obtain a loan in time, and would then devise other means, such as buying a house for example. All those arguments have to be taken into consideration, and that is why I said in that speech but it was not an accurate representation of the backlog in the building industry. I did in fact say so, but the hon. member suppresses it when he quotes here.

But let us see what the position is. The hon. member for Musgrave, as did the hon. member for Pinetown, tried to indicate with a great spate of words here that the housing situation in South Africa had reached a critical stage. They were completely alarmist in regard to the position. They want to imply that we were heading for a serious disaster as far as housing in South Africa is concerned. But this is totally untrue. These are exaggerated statements. I have just returned from a visit to various overseas countries, and I can inform you that in none of those countries which I visited was there such a sound housing position as in South Africa. In many countries one finds that people have to live in squatters’ camps for up to two years before they can even get their names onto a waiting list. But I do not want to discuss the position in other countries. I want to discuss the state of affairs here in South Africa.

The hon. member for Musgrave alleged that because I had said in reply to a question in this House that there was no scientifically calculated estimate of the housing requirements of all population groups, there was no planning. The hon. member then went and made this statement.

I did not say there was no planning.

The hon. member stated very clearly that in this connection we allegedly did not know what we were doing; that there were no calculations or planning.

That is not what I said.

I really think the hon. member should go and read his own speech again, because that is what he said. I made a note of it while he was talking. The fact of the matter is that it is simply impossible for any country to determine at a given juncture what the housing shortage at that juncture is. Shortages are caused by various circumstances. In this way there are people who already have accommodation, but who now want another form of housing—such as people in flats, for example, who now want houses. There are also people who already own a house, but who now want a larger house. All these cases are included when housing requirements are discussed. But in reality it need not necessarily imply a shortage of houses.

What housing shortage is there in South Africa at present? We had a survey made by all municipalities of that income group for which the National Housing Commission is responsible. This revealed that there were 4,250 Whites on the waiting list within municipal areas. That is for the entire Republic. Compare with this the fact that during the present financial year we are making more than 7,000 houses available for Whites through the municipalities—in other words, the backlog as regards economic housing is smaller than the building programme for one year. That cannot be regarded as being a serious state of affairs.

Was it not the President of the Association of Building Societies who said that there was still a shortage of 27,000 houses for Whites?

It was a president of a building society who said that. But at their congress, where all building societies were represented, I pointed out that that figure had been snatched out of the air, that it was a guess and that as such there were no grounds whatsoever for saying that. Let me give the proof of this. We are not only building according to the waiting lists of people who fall within the ambit of the Housing Commission Act. My Department went further than that. In 1966 we asked the C.S.I.R. to make a projection on the basis of population increase, with the purpose of determining what the average annual need for houses for the period 1966 to 1970. 1971 to 1975 and from 1976 to 1980 would be. On the basis of a careful investigation the C.S.I.R. made a projection of this nature and included an estimated shortage which, according to their calculation, would have been worked off by 1970. The conclusion they arrived at was that 28.200 houses would have had to be made available annually for Whites for the period 1966 to 1970, 27,000 for the period 1970 to 1975, and 30,000 annually for the period 1976 to 1980. You must take note of the fact that the average annual requirement for the period 1966 to 1970 is put at 28,200 in order to make up the backlog. If provision had to be made for the actual population increase only, that figure would have been 25,000. According to the latest calculations the State and the private sector supplied Whites with as many as 27,200 houses in 1967—that is to say, approximately 2,200 houses more than required by the normal population increase. We are therefore making up the existing backlog. It has also been my experience that we are in fact doing so. People come to me. Last week a builder from one of the Witwatersrand suburbs came to my Department. He said he was sitting with 10 houses which he had just completed, houses in the price group of R5,000 to R10,000. He said he could not find buyers for them. I went to have a look at a very attractive scheme in one of the suburbs of Pretoria, a scheme offering houses at competetive prices where a building society guaranteed that it would advance the necessary money for every house sold. And yet the houses which are being built there, are being sold very slowly. Just look at newspapers and see how the number of advertisements under the column “Houses for sale’’ have increased during the past few months—there are lists of houses stretching over columns which are being offered for sale, or for lease. In contrast to that the number of advertisements for houses being requested is decreasing. These are things which we are taking into consideration. In Port Elizabeth we have had to slow down the building programme a little because we began to experience difficulties in getting the houses which were being built there by the State and the municipalities occupied. It is true that in Port Elizabeth there is a shortage of sub-economic housing. We are giving attention to that. But in general there has been a considerable improvement. There are only certain places where there is still a considerable backlog, such as in Cape Town, but there the backlog is the result of a shortage of suitable land for development. There have been long negotiations for the purpose of acquiring land, but I shall return to the question of land later on. I want to make it very clear, therefore, that when I say that there is not a serious shortage of housing, that we are making up the backlog, there are still certain places in the country where the shortage is still a real one, but in general this is no longer the case because we have overcome that problem. In this regard I could perhaps just quote from a resolution taken by the Associated Chambers of Commerce, which held a congress in November of last year, and stated the following by way of a resolution—

But the hon. member for Musgrave has also accused the Government of possibly having to surrender R52 million to the Treasury, and he referred to newspaper reports in that connection. I want to admit that the headlines of newspapers could, in some cases, have created that impression. But I would at least have expected a man of his calibre to have read the report fully and carefully, and he would then have seen that those reports were based on a radio talk which the Secretary of Community Development held on 15th January. There the Secretary stated (translation)—

With the best will in the world one cannot read into this any reason for saying that it would entail a surrender of R51 million. The present position, as far as we are able to judge at present, is that on a total spending of more than R50 million, where we were faced with a tremendous number of problems, approximately R4 million will possibly have to be surrendered. We must remember that in the previous financial year we had found ourselves in the problematical position that local authorities were making more rapid progress with their programmes than they had originally thought, and that we then had to obtain R8 million on the Additional Estimates in order to meet those needs. That is of course an unhealthy state of affairs, and we warned the municipalities to be careful and not spend too much on their approved programmes, because that could cause serious problems for the Treasury. Now it may be the case that municipalities have been somewhat overcautious this year, but in many places problems were experienced in regard to the obtaining of proper tenders, and they had to negotiate with the Tender Board in regard to the obtaining of a proper tender price. In other places on the other hand, the land was not immediately available and the services had to be introduced, all of which made for delays. But the situation is by no means a serious one, and I think that we might even succeed in having to pay back less than the expected R4 million at the end of the financial year.

But we are considering what steps we should take in order to eliminate the problems being experienced in making housing available. One of the matters which is at present receiving serious consideration from my Department and myself, is the possibility of planning on a long-term basis. Now I know that my colleague, the Minister of Finance, and Parliament will not be satisfied with the scheme in terms of which one binds Parliament in advance in regard to the spending of money because the money has to be voted annually. But nevertheless there is in the National Housing Fund, which is a revolving fund, an annually increasing reciprocating amount. We are now investigating the possibility of making a certain measure of allowance for municipalities to be able to plan in advance, on a basis of that annual reciprocating amount which is at present in the region of R14 million per annum, because planning in advance is essential if one wants to ensure that one makes delivery on time.

Another matter to which we are giving attention, is the availability of land. Hon. members are aware that it has already been announced that we are negotiating in regard to the possibility of making timeous purchases of land around the metropolitan areas and around towns and cities where there are points of growth so that it is possible for sustained and systematic development to take place. This matter is now being carefully investigated, and, in conjunction with the municipalities, this matter will be taken further so that we will not have to delay essential schemes as a result of the problem of land shortage. I want to state clearly that this will also be a method of eliminating speculation in land which is earmarked for the middle and lower income groups. It is not the intention to buy up all the land surrounding the cities, or to eliminate private initiative. It is merely the intention to make provision for a certain measure of orderly progress. In addition we are also doing everything in our power to expedite the declaration of townships. Hon. members know that I have appointed a committee to go into this matter. The committee has not yet made its report because they have not yet received all the information from all the municipal areas and all the provinces. But the mere fact that we are engaged on this, and have also induced the provinces to realize the seriousness of the matter, has already had the following result: We have the position that recently, on 21st January, the stage was reached where the proclamation of townships in the Transvaal will be able to take place more rapidly and more easily because the Transvaal Local Authorities Section has in the meantime itself instituted an investigation into the delays which could arise and are eliminating those delays. We are therefore making progress in this field.

Then I just want to make it clear that although there are no disturbing shortages in respect of white housing, the matter which will in future have to receive our attention is the improvement of the living conditions under which our people are living; in other words, the elimination and clearance of slums, and the renovation of areas which have fallen into decay, but I do not want to discuss that today. We shall have another opportunity of doing so. But as far as Coloured housing is concerned, there is a serious shortage, particularly in the Peninsula area. We are aware of that shortage, but despite the fact that we have come up against the problem of suitable building land and areas in which services can be provided we have nevertheless in the past few years expanded the provision of housing considerably. In 1965-’66 R2.9 million was spent on Coloured housing. In 1966-’67 it was R7 million, and the estimated expenditure this year will be R10.8 million. So, you can see that as the land becomes available, our building programmes are intensified considerably. But here in the Peninsula especially, it is almost a bottomless pit which one has to deal with. As rapidly as one removes Coloureds from their hessian shanties or the bush and accommodates them properly, as rapidly does the influx from the rural areas to the urban areas take place. This is therefore a serious problem to which we will have to give our attention, and we will have to see whether something cannot be done to discourage, in some way or other, the influx of Coloureds before proper housing is available for them.

In the previous debate the hon. member for Parktown made a serious plea here to the effect that we should proceed immediately with the Sectional Titles Act because that is allegedly the reply to our entire housing problem, or at least the reply to a large extent.

Part of the reply.

I want to make it very clear that in principle I have nothing against that, but sectional titles are not the reply to the housing problem of the lower and middle income groups. The reason for that is the following: We have had very careful analyses made. The construction costs of a detached house for the middle income group are at present R5.8 per square foot, whereas the construction costs of flats of the same quality are R8.05 per square foot.

Who undertook that research?

My Department, which has experience of building of both kinds, in conjunction with the Building Research Institute of the C.S.I.R. I can mention to you the example of a two-bedroomed flat of 750 sq. ft.; it costs R5,832, whereas a three-bedroomed house, which is detached, with a surface area of 983 sq. ft., in other words almost a third larger, costs approximately a R100 less, i.e. R5.700. The reason for this is the large circulation area for which one has to make provision in flat buildings—the corridors, the lift shafts and all those other things. These are all factors which entail additional costs. These are actual figures which have been verified experimentally over a period of time.

They are quite wrong.

Surely hon. members cannot tell me that I am quite wrong when these figures have been proved experimentally; they are based on what actually happened. My observation in overseas countries was also that sectional titles are something which are useful and popular in the upper income group, amongst those people who have a reasonably good income and who want to stay in a luxury flat, but who want to own it. One finds people of that type making use of sectional titles all over the place, and in America in particular they form condominiums, which are a very good idea. This works extremely well, but it is principally the upper/middle and the upper income groups which make use of them. There are of course countries where this is taking place because the density of the population is such that one can no longer make use of single dwellings; there one has no choice, but where we still have the choice, I say that the detached house, particularly for the lower and middle income groups, is still the most economical, and remains the solution to the problem. [Time expired.]

I was interested in many of the things said to us this afternoon by the hon. the Minister. Firstly, I want to deal briefly with the question of sectional title. It has never been the contention of this side of the House and certainly not mine that sectional title is going to cure the housing shortage. We have never said that. What we have said is that it is one of the best ways to help solve the problem. The hon. the Minister has given us certain figures. If I took them down correctly, he said that the cost of a 750 sq. ft. flat would be R5,832 and that the cost of a 983 sq. ft. house would be R100 less. Is this the actual cost of the building or is this the cost of the land as well?

Both.

Sir, with all due respect to the hon. the Minister, I do not know how he can calculate a figure in regard to housing and calculate a figure in regard to a block of flats and then say, “I have included the land as well”, because the land is the unknown factor to-day. I do not know what he is equating with what, and I hope he will have an opportunity of telling us how, including the land, he can get an equation.

I agree with the hon. the Minister that the granting of sectional titles will not help the person who is being catered for under National Housing, sub-economic housing and assisted housing schemes. As far as the principle of sectional titles is concerned, I think we are at one and I want the Government to get a move on. I believe it is going to help not only the upper middle class and the wealthy class but people from the middle class upwards, and it is the middle class that is faced with the problem of a housing shortage to-day. Sir, if I were an objective observer who had just walked into the House this afternoon, then having listened to the Minister, I would say that there was no housing problem except for the one or two areas in which the Minister said that he still had problems. Apart from that, however, I would have said that there is no such thing as a housing problem in South Africa, and that our position is better than anywhere else in the world. Sir, this leads to a very important question. Why is the hon. the Minister of Finance now going out of his way to make additional funds available to the building societies, at a cost to the fiscus because he is going to lose tax, if money is not required by the building societies?

They must be able to maintain a certain level.

The hon. the Minister knows as well as I do that there are still funds flowing into the building societies; he knows that their recoupment of payments is of the order of R220 million per annum, which is available for re-investment. It is not only a question of maintaining a certain level, it is a question of creating additional housing. People are not going to building societies today for bonds, to stick the money under the bed, as the hon. the Minister of Transport wants to do with his Rates Equalization Fund. They go to a building society because they want a bond to purchase or to build a house. If there is no shortage, why are people doing these things; why is there this run on the building societies; why is everybody screaming that there is no money? There is something wrong somewhere and I hope the hon. the Minister will not become too sanguine on this question of housing, because there is still a very great deal to do.

The hon. the Minister told the House this afternoon, as I think he or his Department did in a Press statement, that it was now the idea to buy areas of ground on the boundaries of the larger cities in order to ensure that ground would be available at a reasonable price. Sir, we have no objection to this in principle but I hope we will have a lot more information from the hon. the Minister on this point. There has been a lot of money made out of land. Whenever there are shortages money is made. The land speculators have done extremely well, but at the same time they are performing a service. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us when he has finalized his plans in this connection how he sees the sectors for which he is going to cater for will benefit through state-owned land, municipal-owned land and privately-owned land. One of the difficulties is this. Hon. members will remember that after the war certain areas of land were set aside for ex-servicemen, land which they bought very cheaply. There was a prohibition on their selling the land for a certain number of years, but thereafter that land and the property thereon became as expensive as everything else in the surrounding area. It takes long-term planning to see that there is a follow-through so that when one section of land is acquired, it is not left at that but provision is made for further acquisitions so that the whole area does not blow up.

I was also glad to hear from the Minister that at least the Transvaal is getting on with its townships. I made certain inquiries some while ago and I gave the Minister a certain amount of information on this point. We know, from debates which we have had in this House, that there have been delays for up to seven years. I hope the Minister who, I think, has an interim report in his hands from his own committee, will get this matter cleared up as early as possible. There is too much delay and, as the Minister knows, the delay is in Government departments. The townships board has to make its submission after approaching many Government offices. Last time I spoke on this issue I said 30 but was taken to task in the Press and someone wrote, “No. 84”. Perhaps the Minister will tell us what the correct figure is. The townships board and the townships sections of the provincial councils have to approach, shall I say, innumerable Government departments before they can approve a township. There are cases and the Minister knows of them because I gave him the particulars, where a township has been delayed for six years because the Department of Transport could not make up its mind whether it would put its road along the eastern side of the area or the western side of the area. They said, “Until we know whether we are going east or west, we cannot delimitate the township”. This is a shocking state of affairs. We on this side often wonder what the function of the hon. the Minister of Planning is. Perhaps he can use his offices as Minister of Planning to co-ordinate those Government sections which have to deal with the establishment of townships. Then we on this side will know he is doing a job of work. If he did this, he would be performing a very fruitful function.

I announced yesterday that the Government has decided to co-ordinate planning between the Departments of Planning, Community Development, the provinces and the municipalities.

Why did you not tell Parliament that?

I told the people who are directly interested and did not have the time …

But we are directly interested. [Interjections.]

Order!

I am glad to hear that from the Minister. We have a common objective here. We want to build homes for the people of this country as cheaply as possible, as quickly as possible, and as satisfactorily as possible. We on this side accept that is what the Government wants to do, and, of course, we want to do that as well. Let us hope we can make some progress.

The hon. the Minister of Finance in his reply to the Second Reading Debate was, I think, a little critical of the contribution made by this side of the House towards combating inflation. Now, I wonder whether the Minister really meant what he said. I wonder whether he did not make such statements in the belief that attack is still the best method of defence? The hon. the Minister knows better than I do that there are three classical methods which are employed to combat inflation. There are monetary methods, fiscal methods and physical methods. I hope I am correct when I say that everyone in this House has strong objection to physical methods of control. We on this side certainly object to them. We have had certain controls, and we still have certain controls. We have import control, building control and, fortunately only in a small measure, we have price control. I think the wish of everybody concerned with this problem of inflation is that we will be able to discard controls at the earliest possible moment. So we are left with two methods with which to fight inflation, namely fiscal and monetary. What we have to understand is this. If we are going to make an all-out attack on inflation then we must use all measures. Fiscal methods alone will not produce results. Equally, monetary measures alone will not produce results. In the same way physical methods alone also will not produce results. The truth of the matter is that one cannot work without the others, and, as I said, the Minister knows that better than I do. The three measures must be utilized together in order to produce results. We as the Opposition have a very special function in this matter. Our task is to see that the Government does its job. When only half of the job is done properly then I think the Minister will be the first to admit that it is the Opposition’s duty and task to point to the other half that is wrong and try and help the Government to do the complete job. That is our function as an Opposition. Moreover, I think we can claim that we on this side have been reasonably successful in doing just that, and I mentioned a number of factors during the Second Reading Debate. Now. the basic problem in the past has been that the Government have not tackled the problem of inflation as a whole, they have not seen the problem as a whole, on the fiscal side or on the monetary side. The result has been that when they have taken steps to correct one problem, they have suddenly seen another problem popping up somewhere else, because the solving of one problem has led to additional problems. This is so because the Government’s monetary fiscal and physical policies were not coordinated. I am going to give hon. members an example of this.

After the first relaxation of import control our foreign reserves started to drop very fast. What happened? The Government suddenly panicked and they reimposed import control. What effect did that have? The reserves immediately started to swell and, helped by large-scale spending by the Government, which was not curtailed, and the creation of credit by the Reserve Bank, the liquid assets of the banks became too high again. So what had to happen? The Government imposed import control again to try and help the reserves, but this in turn created excess liquidity. So the Government then had to impose credit ceilings on the banks to help restrain the surge forward which resulted. This is the sort of thing which we have to be careful about. We must see that we have co-ordination on all these fronts.

I think the hon. the Minister in his remarks to us during the second-reading debate was a little unkind. I really think he should have been grateful to the Opposition. He said we on this side would never suggest anything that is unpopular. But that is not our function. We are not in possession of the facts which the Government have. If something goes wrong, the Government have to take steps to cure the trouble. I think the Minister will agree that we have not been critical of those steps which we considered to be correct. We on this side have not been critical of high interest rates, and it is a very popular cry to-day to be critical of high interest rates. The building societies are complaining, the farmers are complaining, the householders are complaining. We on this side have never said to the Government to reduce the rate of interest. We will say so when the time is ripe. The Opposition never criticized the Government for restricting bank credit. As I say, when the Government does the right thing we will not criticize them. But on the other hand, when they do the wrong thing, then, in the interests of South Africa, the Opposition will indeed criticize the Government. We told the Government what to do with R.S.A. bonds. So far it has been fine. We have not criticized them on this issue yet, but we may have to in time to come. But that is something for the future. We did not criticize the savings levy, except to urge the Government to ensure that it is repaid promptly with a reasonable rate of interest. Therefore I say the hon. the Minister must not complain that we on this side have done things that will harm the fight against inflation. We have accepted those things that were necessary and we have criticized those things which were wrong and which we considered should be put right. We will continue to do that.

Now I want to turn to an entirely different matter. On the 6th February of this year I put a series of questions to hon. Ministers seeking information on commissions of inquiry which had been appointed by the Government. Some of these replies are quite enlightening. I have made a summary which I think the House might be interested to hear. We have for example a commission of inquiry appointed into the training of land surveyors. The commission was appointed in June, 1964, and it has not reported yet. I do not know what the peculiarities and the difficulties are in deciding how land surveyors should be trained because I have no knowledge of land surveying, but it would seem to me that after nearly four years, one should be in a position to know something about it. There was a commission of inquiry into the alleged threat to plant and animal life in the St. Lucia Lake. The hon. member for South Coast will no doubt know something about this matter. This commission was appointed in January, 1964. It reported in December, 1966 and the report was tabled in 1967 but no action has yet been taken. That took another four years. Perhaps the hon. member for South Coast will take the opportunity of telling us whether there is any plant and animal life left in St. Lucia Lake. I do not know. It was a long time ago that this commission was appointed. We also had a commission of inquiry into chiropractics. I know that this is a very difficult subject. This commission was appointed on the 19th October, 1962, which is nearly six years ago. The Minister of Health reported on the 7th February that the report had been received, but he gave no date as to when it had been received. No action has as yet been taken. We had a commission of inquiry into nursing. There is no more serious problem in South Africa than the question of nursing. When was that commission appointed? It was appointed in October, 1964 and it has not reported yet. A commission of inquiry was appointed into dental services and the training of non-white dentists. Is this a matter which can go on interminably? This commission was also appointed in October, 1964. It reported in January. 1968. In reply to my question as to what action had been taken, I was told by the Minister of Health that it “falls away”. I do not know what has fallen away unless the teeth have fallen away after four years.

The hon. member for Transkei will no doubt be interested in my next point. He probably knows much more about it than I do. There is a commission of inquiry in regard to the Europeans in Transkeian territory. That commission was appointed in August, 1962. It reported in May, 1963. We have had no report laid upon the Table, but we had in June, 1964, a memorandum of its contents. That is all we have had in six years. What action is now being taken? In reply to my question, I was told action is being taken “in terms of the memorandum”. We had a commission of inquiry into stock exchange matters appointed on the 15th June, 1962. It reported in February, 1965 and the report was tabled in May, 1965. When I asked what action was being taken, I was told “the recommendations are accepted in broad outline and draft regulations are being prepared”. This is what we have after six years.

We had a commission of inquiry into the Companies Act appointed on the 14th October, 1963. I know a little about the Companies Act, I have had to, for my sins, and I know that it is a difficult Act. But we have the Cohen Commission of London and other commissions to use as a basis. Five years have now passed and the commission has not yet reported.

All this raises one very important fact. I would have believed that the purpose of appointing a commission of inquiry was twofold. Firstly you appointed a commission because you had a problem of some complexity and you required it to be investigated and, secondly, because there was a certain amount of urgency about the matter. You have a problem and you must do something about it. But what do we find? We find that commissions appointed four years ago have not reported yet. Commissions appointed six years ago have reported, but no action is being taken. When will this Government learn to get on with the job? I am beginning to believe that this mystical year of 1978 has become the target for the Government. Everything will be done in this mythical year. This is one of the most terrible things I have seen, namely that commissions are appointed because it is important, and it is costly to appoint a commission, and we wait years for the report and when we get the reports, no action is taken. I cannot address my remarks to each Minister individually. I only hope that the Prime Minister who is ultimately responsible for the actions of all his other Ministers will deal with this question of commissions I have not even wanted to mention the Borckenhagen Commission and the Schumann Commission, because they are so old that they do not fall into the period for which I requested details, namely from 1961 onwards. I think that it would be an excellent idea, when I have the opportunity, to move a motion for a commission to be appointed to investigate the question of commissions. Seriously, I hope that we will have some action in regard to commissions in the future.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Parktown has replied to the hon. the Minister of Community Development. He dealt with a few matters, two of which have already been dealt with by the Minister. There are a few points he raised which cannot merely be left at that. The one was in respect of the laying out of townships. He alleged that in the case of certain townships there had been a delay of as much as seven years. I just want to tell him that in the Transvaal, large towns are being laid out and proclaimed in less than three years. Is it not simply the case once again of the entrepreneur being very much to blame for the delay? In the same way as one mealie farmer obtains ten bags per morgen, and the other mealie farmer 50, so there are apparently, in the ranks of the Opposition, entrepreneurs who struggle for as many as seven years to get a proclamation, and there are others who achieve the same results in as few as three years. The blame simply cannot be laid upon the Government. I want to suggest to the hon. member that he should go and look at what the entrepreneur himself is doing.

There is another matter which he touched upon, which cannot be left at that. He made the point that we want to build houses. If it has now become the desire on the part of that side of the House to build houses for the people of South Africa, then it is a desire which had its origin fairly recently, because what do the statistics tell us if we look at the data for the period 1920 to 1948? In the 28 years from the date on which a start was made with State-aided housing in 1920, up to 1948— and in that period it was mostly that side of the House who were in power—scarcely R106 million was spent on housing. If we look at the comparable figures since 1948 up to the present, a period of less than 20 years, we find that more than R520 million has been spent. What does that mean? In terms of spending per R100, approximately R85 has been spent on housing by this side of the House in 20 years, whereas R15 was spent in 28 years’ time by that side of the House. If it were true that that side of the House now wants to say that we want to build houses, then it is a desire which had its origin fairly recently. Then that side of the House must not hurl reproaches at this Government, and try and make the voters believe that this side of the House is not prepared to spend money on the building of houses. If we were to look at the average spending over those 28 years, we would find that it amounts to a meagre R4 million per year. If we were to look at the Estimates for the present financial year, we would find that an amount in the region of R60 million has been appropriated for housing, which is 3 per cent of the total estimates. It is more than 15 times as much as the average spent during the period 1920 to 1948, the only period about which those hon. members can talk with authority. But we will be the last to say that every house which has to be built in South Africa has already been built.

We are prepared to admit, and the hon. the Prime Minister did so again to-day, that there is a backlog. We are doing everything possible to try and eliminate that backlog, seen against the phenomenal growth and development of South Africa. We are only too prepared to spend more. Over the years we have been asking hon. members on that side of the House in the Budget Debate: Tell us on what we should spend less, or alternatively, where can we obtain more money so that we can spend more? Those hon. members revealed basically two lines of thought. In the first place they said that we ought to spend less money on the pursuit of ideologies. We must not try and promote separate development. It is a waste of money. That money we can spend on other things. By implication they sometimes said that if we on this side of the House would adopt a different philosophy and outlook on life we would spend less on defence.

You have a “verkrampte” outlook.

That hon. member is so obsessed with inflation that he should not talk about “verkrimp” or “verkramp”. On various occasions in this House this year we have heard the question from the side of the Opposition: What does your separate development cost? What is its price? Various replies were made. I do not want to repeat the replies. I would like to put a question to the hon. the Opposition: Are they prepared to tell us what the costs are which are attached to the pattern of life of integration which they are advocating? They cannot and they dare not tell us what the costs will be.

I should now like, with reference to what is happening in the rest of the world, to try and indicate what the costs of integration are. I should like to do so with reference to what has been happening for years now in the U.S.A. Do hon. members on that side of the House want to tell me that separate development, or segregation, is the official policy of the United States of America? Surely it is not. Surely the policy in the United States of America is one of integration, which is being imposed by means of legislation and force. Are hon. members on the opposite side prepared to tell us what the costs of integration in the United States of America over a period of one year are? Hon. members have nothing to say. Hon. members are aware of the fact that barely 10 per cent of the population of the mighty U.S.A. consists of non-Whites, whereas in South Africa 81 per cent of the population consists of non-Whites. Are hon. members unaware of the price of the material and spiritual harm and setbacks caused by the race situation in the United States of America in one year in one city? They have nothing to say. They are aware of the cost, but they are too afraid to say what that cost is. Did they not see this edition of Life of August, 1967? The front page reads: “Negro revolt—the flames spread”. Are they not aware of the state of civil war which has been created there as a direct result of integration? Do they not know that the so-called black power, is making the following demand to-day: “We want racial separatism.” Are they unaware of that? [Interjection.] We will have to forgive that hon. member his ignorance. Did they read this article about Detroit, part of which city went up in flames as a result of the policy of integration? Did they see what the headline was? Do they want to minimize the significance of the heading to that article which dealt with the situation in Detroit, which read: “City at the blazing heart of a nation in disorder.” Hon. members on the opposite side may call it a sensational headline, but it is a headline of a magazine which has never yet been well or favourably disposed towards South Africa with her traditional policy. This is a headline which mirrors a fact in respect of a city in the large, powerful U.S.A. of which only ten per cent of its total population are non-Whites. This is a situation which has been created there through the policy of integration the policy which hon. members on the opposite side advocate by implication, a policy in regard to which they are not prepared to furnish us with the costs.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 99.

Mr. Speaker, if this debate has been of any benefit in the sphere of financial discussion, then that benefit is in fact to be found in a tacit acknowledgement which my hon. friend for Parktown has just made. The hon. member for Parktown is apparently very sensitive in regard to the allegations, or the charge, which I made the day before yesterday to the effect that we were not receiving any support from the side of the Opposition in our struggle against inflation, and in order to make an excuse for that behaviour the hon. member mentioned a whole series of matters here this afternoon and stated: “We did not criticize you, we did not criticize you and we did not criticize you.” In other words, the contribution made by the United Party to this tremendous effort to combat inflation, lay therein that they did not criticize us when we took those steps. This is so typically different from the assertion which the hon. member for Parktown made a few days ago, i.e. everything we did, we did on their advice. Now he has intimated that we did this, that and the other, and that they did not criticize us on those occasions. This is the great contribution they have made to combating inflation in the country. I am glad the hon. member has put it on record. But there is one point in regard to which I want to agree with him, and that is that in combating inflation there are various methods, that under the circumstances one has to make use of each one of those methods and that one talks about the “mix”, i.e. how one must mix these methods to suit the circumstances. I agree with him whole-heartedly that all those means, i.e. the monetary, physical and fiscal means, have to be utilized according to their proportions as required at a given moment, and of course that is precisely what the Government has tried to do. Right from the beginning we introduced monetary and fiscal methods, those two very methods in respect of which I have accused the hon. members on the opposite side of never giving us any positive suggestions, contributions or support; all they did was to refrain from criticizing us, except that they often stated that the nation was overtaxed. There were difficulties in respect of import control, and let us admit this. Let us admit that on occasions when we should really have introduced stricter import control in order to get the right mix, we were unable to do so at that stage because we did not then have the foreign exchange reserves to enable us to free import control on a large scale in the struggle against inflation. If you throw your reserves into the struggle, you must know that your reserves are strong. You must not throw in your reserves if they are weak, because then you run the danger of losing your reserves, and once you have lost them, it is not so easy to restore them again, and if you set means in motion in order to restore them, it is inflationistic. You must first assemble your forces and see to it that you have strong forces, and at that stage we were unable to find the right mix, and our foreign exchange reserves were not strong enough. But as soon as they were strong enough, we threw them into the struggle as well. I think the hon. member must agree with me that as soon as it became possible to do so we harnessed each of the three horse in the right way.

The hon. member spoke about the commissions which had been appointed. I want to agree with him that there are many of these commissions of inquiry which take far too long to complete the investigations on which they are engaged, but the hon. member must remember that we are dealing here with private people who offer their free time to work on those commissions. Once you have handed over a subject to a commission for inquiry it is to a large extent in its hands, almost as if one had handed over a case to the Supreme Court, where one cannot interfere to any great extent. We are dealing here with private individuals who often, because these things are so close to their hearts, sacrifice their free time in order to serve on those commissions. One of the reasons why they sometimes take such a long time is the long distances in our country and the distribution of our population, which makes it difficult to meet. That is one of the reasons why it sometimes take such a long time to receive reports from the commissions. I think we ought to express a word of thanks to-day to many of the commissioners who are serving on those commissions and who have offered up a great deal of their time and incurred a great deal of expenditure in order to do the work.

The hon. member for Pinetown has returned to one point in regard to the N.D.C. He asked how, in my Department, I could allow a certain body to compete in the first place with the State as regards the acquisition of long-term funds, and in the second place with private initiative. In the first place I want to tell the hon. member that the N.D.C. does not fall under my Department. I think it would be a good thing, when the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Economic Affairs comes up for discussion, if he could discuss that matter with him in detail. As regards the question of long-term funds, which the N.D.C. was alleged to have mobilised, the N.D.C. has every right to allow the public to share in its investments, as it is doing with its selections, and other companies. I must also add to that that if the N.D.C. itself succeeds in obtaining long-term funds, then it releases the State from the obligation of giving it such funds. So it simply amounts to the same thing. If it needs funds for development, it must either find them itself or we must give them those funds. As far as its competition with the private initiative is concerned, we must bear in mind that the N.D.C. is an autonomous, independent business organization with its own management, and in order to remain in operation it must also, to a very large extent, make use of the principles and the methods of private initiative. If we were to refuse to allow the N.D.C. to do so, we would be depriving it of its arms and making it weak where it must be strong in its struggle with private initiative and other bodies making use of those principles. But I want to tell the hon member one thing: What we expect from private initiative, we also expect from the N.D.C. If we expect private initiative to curtail and slow down its development, then we expect N.D.C. to do the same. In recent years the N.D.C. has curtailed, slowed down and held back many of its projects, it had to go ahead with certain projects, because these were in the long-term interests, but it held back a large number of projects at the request of the Government.

I now come to the hon. member for Musgrave, who put certain questions to me in regard to the building societies. One part of the question has already been replied to by the hon. the Minister of Community Development, but the hon. member made certain charges against me, alleging that the Government was not handling the relations with the building societies properly. It is very interesting that the hon. member, just as the hon. member for Pinetown did, laid emphasis on the R8.5 million which the Government voted in cash for the funds of the building societies. He asked how we want to save the position by that means, because R8.5 million was only a drop in the bucket. I then intervened and put the question whether the hon. member expected the Government to finance the building societies. The hon. member maintains that R8.5 million is not enough. Does he think the State should finance the building societies and supply them with funds? Is it the policy of the Opposition that the State should take over that function, and that when the building societies have insufficient money, it should be supplied by the State? That R8.5 million is calculated as the amount which we guaranteed for loans for Government officials from the building societies, i.e. the 15 per cent which the building societies advanced to public servants, and which we guaranteed. We are now returning that amount to them, and we can justify that, but beyond that we cannot justify the Government now having to invest money in the building societies in order to bring up their level of building loans to more or less the level it stood at in previous years. I do not think the hon. the Leader of the Opposition or any other member of the Opposition will agree with him that it is the task of a government to finance building societies. But then the hon. member states that it is a drop in the ocean and that one cannot save building societies with that. I just want to say this. The hon. member quoted from the statement made by the president of the Association of Building Societies, who stated—

In other words, loans for the entire year totalled R356 million, and then in a second statement the president stated that, if things went on like this—

In other words, if the present trend continues there would be a 60 per cent deficit on the previous year’s loans, and that 60 per cent works out at R213 million. Does the hon. member expect the Government to give the building societies that R213 million in order to bring them onto the same level as last year? I do not think he can expect this, because he does after all belong to a Party which is continually stating that the Government is spending far too much money. This would be a form of socialization. But I want to ask the hon. member this. Must we, as a Government, give money to people who have a good house but who want an even better one in order to be able to compete with the Joneses? Must we contribute large sums for luxury houses and luxury flats, and must we make contributions for the benefit of those people who do not like the neighbourhood in which they are living and want to move to a better neighbourhood, and who want a larger and more attractive house? Must we take it into consideration when money is loaned by the building societies, a reinstatement of loans, where people renogiate to a large extent the loans which they have paid off in order to buy a motor car with the money? I think it is interesting to note that of the total funds spent by the building societies last year, less than 30 per cent was used for new houses. One must think about this, i.e. that less than 30 per cent was used for new houses. I think the building societies could certainly make much better use of the funds at their disposal by making available a larger percentage of their funds for new houses.

Do they not finance the buying of houses?

Yes, they do, and I admit it is an essential function for them to help people to buy existing houses. A considerable portion of their funds has to be used for that purpose. But I say that 30 per cent only for the building of new houses is far too small a percentage.

Does that include flats?

No, that is for dwelling units. I am sorry. I have the figures here. It is R24.9 million for dwellings and R3.7 million for flats.

*I should just like to point out that the Government has been very sympathetic towards building societies from the outset, and still is. I regard the building societies as one of the most important financial institutions in the country, and we are proud of the fact that the building society industry in South Africa is one of the largest in the world.

Will you keep an eye on the position to see that it does not deteriorate further?

Yes, I am doing that. We have always treated the building societies with great sympathy and that is the reason why we have from time to time given attention to an improvement in the position of the building societies. But now I want to draw attention to this strange phenomenon. The hon. member announced here in the House that it was R8.5 million. That afternoon, in an early edition of the Cape Argus the following appeared, “Massive aid for building societies”. That was in the first edition. I did not see it in the second edition, but in quite a number of newspapers which I saw after that—I have not seen all of them—all that is being said, particularly in the Natal newspapers, is that R8.5 million is a drop in the ocean. It is being said that it offers no solution for the problem, but what is being suppressed, or is being printed in small type, is that these shares are tax-free. That is the important point.

How long will it last?

Those tax-free shares are more favourable than the R.S.A. savings bonds. It is for a shorter period and at a higher rate of interest, and now we are giving the building societies the opportunity of going out themselves and collecting money under the particularly favourable conditions for themselves.

But for how long will it be tax-free?

I stated clearly that it would be tax-free for three years, but that the scheme could be stopped immediately. If we see that they have sufficient funds to go on with, we may cancel the scheme, but the shares which have already been taken up will be tax-free for three years. It is really the scheme which is the most important part in the acquisition of funds but this is suppressed. The Sunday Times stated—

The hon. member and many of the newspapers suppressed this; they did not talk about it, and this is actually what we are doing for the building societies. We have always been sympathetic towards the building societies, and we continue to be sympathetic towards them. That is why I myself, and particularly my office, have been negotiating with building societies for years. But there are such things as priorities. There are other bodies which also need money, and we cannot give one particular body, if it exerts too much pressure at a certain time, all the money to the detriment of the other bodies when the building societies come to us, then we must see whether their need is really so great. What is the position? Up to the end of last year they were getting in more funds than in the previous year; they were in a more favourable position. That was not the time to act. So we waited until we saw the first signs in January, and then we acted on them. The building societies submitted three matters to me last year. I refused all three requests. They wanted to receive savings deposits from companies; they wanted fixed deposits for a minimum of six months instead of 12 months, and they wanted negotiable deposit certificates. I refused because this was inconsistent with the Bank Act and contrary to the agreement which had been made in 1965 to the effect that long-term funds would go to the building societies and short-term funds to the banks. We could not discard that arrangement. We may not accept the principle that long-term projects of building societies should be financed with short-term funds. We therefore refused the request.

At the beginning of this year they came to me with four proposals. As hon. members know I adopted two of those proposals, namely the R8½ million and the tax-free shares. The other two I refused, i.e., to borrow money outside the Republic and secondly that commercial banks may make deposits at building societies, because it would have been inflationistic to accept these proposals. It would also have been inconsistent with the principle of investing short-term funds for long-term purposes. But I accepted the other two proposals. At the moment we are considering other methods to render further assistance to them.

The accusation has been made here that the R.S.A. system has been a contributory factor. The hon. member for Musgrave stated that I would have to prove that the R.S.A. was not the guilty party. I do not know whether the hon. member is versed in law, but if accusations are made then the plaintiff must surely furnish proof. I cannot say to the hon. member:

“I had R10 in my pocket; R5 is missing; you took it.” I must be able to prove my accusation.

The building societies themselves have said that a great deal of money has been taken away from them.

Yes, that is what they are saying. I say that it is a seasonal phenomenon. This difficulty cropped up in December/January. The factors playing a role here are the taxes which have to be paid, the participation bonds, the shares trusts, the high level of the Stock Exchange, and the price war. One of the results of the price war was that people withdrew millions from the building societies and invested them in utilities such as refrigerators, stoves, etc. We are being told: You began with this R.S.A. scheme in September; now three months’ notice is required; the people were required to give notice in September and October, and the major withdrawals from the building societies and the great influx into the R.S.A. savings scheme will then occur in December/January. The figures prove that this is not true. Although we obtained R12.6 million for the R.S.A. scheme in November, we obtained R10.2 million in December; those are the months in which a tremendous amount of money was supposed to have flowed into the R.S.A. scheme.

What was the figure in January ?

In January the figure was R14.4 million, which was only R1.8 million more than in November. This is what happened in January, which was supposed to have been the month. Hon. members can see therefore that there was not really such a great inflow. Mr. Speaker, my time is short. I would just like to give this warning. It seems to me that a certain group of people have launched a campaign to-day in regard to the building societies. There is nothing which can do building societies as much damage as a campaign of this nature. It creates the impression that the building societies are experiencing a crisis. They are not experiencing a crisis; they are healthy and strong. They themselves admit that they are not experiencing a crisis. I should just like to ask that we do not allow ourselves to become the instruments of certain interested parties and create the impression that the building societies are experiencing a crisis.

Why did you lend them R8½ million then?

Surely a need is not a crisis. Surely the hon. member has also sometimes felt a need for money without experiencing a crisis. We have sympathy for the building societies, but what I do not want is that we should create a crisis atmosphere. Under the existing arrangements which we have made, I think that there are very fine opportunities for them to go ahead. But let us all co-operate and not create the feeling that the building societies are experiencing a crisis, because there is nothing which will be so prejudicial to them and which will undermine public confidence in the building societies to such an extent as this very thing.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

I move—

The “Verligtes” and “Verkramptes” Bill.

It is undoubtedly known to all members and faculty members of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns that the Council of the Academy discovered during the second half of 1967 that that Council and previous Councils elected since 1961, had no statutory status. To set this position right, legislation was requested, and this measure is being introduced for that purpose.

The Academy was established in 1909, but it was only in 1921 that an Act was passed in terms of which its affairs are being regulated. Owing to the fact that this Act was passed, the Academy acquired a higher status of dignity and significance which would otherwise not have been the case, and the Government, irrespective of the political party which is in power, has been granting it financial support for years.

The statutory recognition the Academy was granted, has also had the effect that it has to regulate its affairs in accordance with the relevant statutory provisions. The Zuid-Afri-kaanse Akademie voor Taal, Letteren en Kunst, 1921 (Act No. 23 of 1921), was substituted by the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Act, 1959 (Act No. 54 of 1959), and these Acts provided, inter alia, that the Academy may make rules as to the number of members of the Academy, the election of new members of the Academy, the constitution, the election and the terms of office of members of the Council. No rule is in force unless and until it has been approved by the State President and published in the Gazette.

In 1944 a rule was drafted and published in accordance with the above statutory provisions. However, the rule contained certain provisions, such as the names of Academy members, which did not fall within the scope of the stipulated matters in respect of which the Act granted the power to make regulations, and therefore those provisions contained in the rule were ultra vires. With the re-publication of regulations on 22nd November, 1963, this rule was reprinted word for word in the Gazette.

The Council that was in office from 1st July, 1958 to 30th June, 1961, effected certain changes in the Academy, inter alia, instead of having six members with a term of office of three years in the Council of the Academy, provision was made in a new rule for eight members with a term of office of two years, and they were elected as follows: two from the council for the faculty of arts and human sciences, two from the council for the faculty of natural science and technique, and four by the annual general meeting (two from each faculty).

However, the Council of the Academy (of which not one single member has been serving on the Council since July, 1965), overlooked an important statutory provision, namely that in terms of section 5 (3) of the Akademie Act the amended rule was to have been published in the Gazette. At the annual meeting of 1961 the Council permitted a council to be elected in terms of the new rule. The result was that the Council which was in office for the period 1961 to 1963, was invalid, and this applies to all the Councils elected since then.

The Council that was in office for the period 1965 to 1967 revised the rule which was in force then and which it regarded as being valid, and the revised version was submitted to the 1966 annual meeting. The method of electing the Council was left unchanged, and for that reason they did not regard publication as being urgent.

A new Council was elected in 1967, and on 21st September, 1967, it was discovered that that Council as well as the three previous Councils had been elected in terms of a rule which had no legal force owing to the fact that it had not been published.

The Council itself did not have the authority to set the matter right, because it was invalid itself. Nor was it legally competent to convene a meeting of members, because in terms of the 1944 rule, the only rule which was valid, a meeting, even a meeting convened at the request of members, had to be convened by the Council. The election of a new Council at a general meeting would also have created problems, because those who had become members after 1961, were not competent to stand for election or to vote and the election would have been undemocratic. In addition to that there were all the resolutions that were taken since 1961; all these resolutions were invalid and no new council had the power to validate them with retrospective effect.

The Council has now turned to the Government and requested it to set the matter right by way of legislation, and as a first step it drafted a new rule in which those part for which the Act did not make provision and which had been included in the previous rule, were omitted. This new rule was published in the Gazette in order that, when this measure was adopted, the Council of the Academy would be able to continue its activities immediately and in a valid manner.

Clause 1 of the Bill requires no explanation. Clause 2 is necessary in view of the fact that the enabling provision of the Akademie Act does not make any mention of sub-committees of the Council. In the rule the Executive, with which the Council has been working for years, is granted the power to settle matters finally, and this would be ultra vires if paragraph (g) were not added as it is being done now. In order to have statutory sanction for the division of the Academy into faculties and the making of regulations for them by the Council, paragraph (h) is necessary.

Clause 3 and 4 validate the previous Councils and the present Council. It should be noted that no actions are being validated. That is unnecessary because, if the Council is valid, its actions are valid too.

Clause 5 validates the rules that have already been published. It is necessary in view of the fact that the rules, when they were published on 29th December, were published by a council which had not yet been authorized to do so. That had to be done before this legislation was submitted to Parliament, in order to make convenient reference to it possible. Nor is it sufficient to say that the rules will in any case become valid the moment the Council is validated with retrospective effect, because they contain a few provisions which even a valid council would not have been able to make. These are the provisions which are now being authorized by clause 2 of this Bill. This clause is considered to be necessary so as to eliminate any doubt.

It seems that the members of the council of the Akademie have acted irregularly and that as a result their affairs have become rather complicated and confused. However, I feel that they have acted in good faith throughout. Perhaps their legal advice was not as good as it ought to have been. In any event, there is no reason why this side of the House should oppose this Bill. Three of its clauses are validating clauses. All of us are anxious to see the Akademie functioning again as it ought to. The second clause is an amending clause to achieve better government of the Akademie. In the circumstances we, naturally, support this Bill. Where there was a difference of opinion it was only amongst the members of the Akademie itself —in other words, it is a domestic matter and we must leave it to them to decide on their domestic affairs themselves. As far as this side of the House is concerned, we support the Bill introduced by the hon. the Minister.

This Bill has, as it was set out by the hon. the Minister, four basic objects: firstly, to validate certain councils of the Academy; secondly, to validate the election of members to the Council of the Academy for certain years, and consequently their actions and deeds as well; thirdly, to validate the rules of the Academy, as published in the Gazette of 29th December, 1967; and fourthly, to enable the Academy to expand its organization and to make it more efficient. It is in regard to the latter aspect that I want to exchange a few views.

The objects of the Academy are well known everywhere, especially to persons who are interested in the activities of that body. These objects are contained in section 4 of the Suid-Afrikaanse Akademie vir Wetenskap en Kuns Act, Act No. 54 of 1959. It reads as follows—

Order! The hon. member may not deal now with provisions which do not form part of this Bill.

I am quoting this because certain committees are being appointed in terms of this measure, committees which will have to deal with that type of work.

Order! I am sorry, but the hon. member is not allowed to do so.

I believe that owing to the amendments to the Act and what is being added in terms of this measure, these objects can be achieved better than they were in the past. I am referring to clause 2. In the Bill reference is made to faculties. With the division of the Academy into faculties and the provision of regulations for them, as stated in the Bill, the work of the Academy can in fact be organized better. In actual practice two faculties are already functioning, namely the faculty of arts and human sciences and the faculty of natural science and technique. One of the powers of the Academy is to make donations for promoting its objects. Mr. Speaker, I hope I have given you satisfaction now.

Order! The hon. member cannot deal with sections which are not affected by this measure.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to you that in respect of these donations sub-committees are now being appointed to act in connection with this matter. One of the awards is the well-known Hertzog Prize, on which I do not want to elaborate now. But whereas the legislation specifically refers—and you may look at it now, Sir—to the constitution of sub-committees of the Council and the delegation of powers to them in order to effect better functioning, I should like to address this request to the Council of the Academy and the sub-committees. Whereas the literary merits and the value of a work must be the most important requirements when that work is considered for such a sought-after prize—in other words, whereas the highest literary award should in fact be made on a literary basis— the committees which are to be appointed should keep the finger more firmly and more judiciously on the pulse of the nation and should not summarily disregard the wishes, the taste and the views of the nation when a decision is made.

Since you want to drive me into a corner again, Sir, I want to conclude by expressing my appreciation towards the hon. the Minister for this Bill. The Academy is a worthy and distinguished cultural and scientific body, and we want to have it placed on a pedestal where it will be unassailable. As an Afrikaans-speaking person I feel that this is, after all, the highest cultural body and its high standing should remain unassailable.

Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House are indentifying ourselves as strongly as possible with the view that this Bill is necessary for correcting a technical error, and for various other reasons as well. However, I do not think that I can neglect to express my disappointment at the words used by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. He tried to dictate to the Academy and to one of the sub-committees what policy should be followed in awarding a literary prize. The hon. member used the word “injudicious” in regard to the decisions made by that sub-committee in the past. I regard that as highly undesirable and decidedly wrong on the part of the hon. member.

On a point of explanation, Mr. Speaker, I did not use the word “injudicious” in my speech.

I wrote down here that the hon. member said that he hoped that things would be done “more judiciously”. These are the words the hon. member used, not so? After all, it has the same implication. We on this side … [Interjections.]

Order!

May I just quote the words I used. I said that the finger should be kept “more judiciously on the pulse of the nation”.

That is exactly what I also think the hon. member said. [Interjections.] I should like to ask what right the hon. member has to criticize the Academy here as if it had not acted “judiciously” in the past? What right has he to demand that the Academy should keep its “finger on the pulse of the nation”, or is this perhaps the view of the small section the hon. member is perhaps defending here? I am only mentioning these points in passing; I do not want to elaborate on them. [Interjections.]

Order! Hon. members should not discuss this matter too widely. I think I have already allowed the hon. member for Koedoespoort too much latitude.

Yes, he said too much, Mr. Speaker.

And you yourself should not make the mistake of going too far.

I shall therefore content myself with saying that we on this side regard this Bill as important. I believe that it will strengthen the Academy, in view of the fact that in the past it did not adopt what one can call a “political” attitude. The Academy has had prominent men, former Prime Ministers as well, from both sides of this House. The late Dr. Dönges was a member of the Academy. The late Mr. Jan Hendrik Hofmeyr too, was a respected member of the Academy. I am also thinking of Senator F. S. Malan and Dr. Engelenberg, men who donated money to the Academy. When the Academy celebrated its fiftieth anniversary a few years ago, it was congratulated by both sides of this House. That is why we are satisfied with a Bill such as this one which is going to remove certain anomalies.

Mr. Speaker, I do not believe, however, that in this regard we have heard the full account from the hon. the Minister. We heard why this measure was considered to be necessary, and I think the Minister’s reasons are based on facts. But whether he has in fact mentioned all the reasons, all the facts, is something of which I am not so firmly convinced. I think it was clear to all of us that this technical error in regard to the rules of the Academy was—if I may use the word—“exploited” by a group of people in South Africa whom we may almost label as “un-Afrikaans”. This section wanted to harness the Academy for their own purposes. That is why I am glad that this step is being taken to-day and that this Bill is before us. I am not the only one who says that the Academy is being abused in a certain respect. In this regard I want to quote what was published in Die Beeld. The observations in this weekly publication do not refer specifically to this measure, but to other occurrences. I quote (translation)—

—that is the Council of the Academy—

The report goes on and states that there was a feeling in the ranks of the Academy that the Academy was becoming “un-National and even liberalistic”. Hence the hon. member’s words to the effect that the finger had not been kept judiciously on the pulse of the nation. As I am saying, it is a good thing that we have this Bill, it is a good thing that the actions of the Academy should be executed. I want to say that none of us on this side, and I hope the majority on that side as well …

Order! How does the hon. member propose to “execute” them?

I mean “set right”, Sir. I think the execution would have come from certain hon. members on that side. As I am saying, all of us are probably in favour of the fact that the hon. the Minister now wants to set those matters right by means of this measure. I believe that this Bill is, be it directly or indirectly, a reprimand to those persons who wanted to use the Academy for their own purposes. I also want to repeat what I said, namely that we on this side will not even dare under any circumstances to dictate to the Academy to whom they should award certain prizes and what norms and values they should apply, apart from the value and norm of the merits themselves. We on this side regard it as reprehensible, and I believe that most of the hon. members opposite also regard it as such, that words were used such as those used in that regard by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat and who intended them as a slight reprimand to the Academy. I believe that this legislation is a reprimand, directly or indirectly, to those people who tried to use the Academy, in the words of N. P. van Wyk Louw, “to subjugate the Afrikaans language to a small, politico-sectarian group of super-censors”. Fortunately we have this Bill now and this matter will be cleared up in the future. Other than that I do not want to say much, but if hon. members opposite want to say something, they are free to do so and actually show us what can be said about this Bill. The Academy’s critics, of whom one heard such a great deal during the past few months, seem to be very sparsely scattered in the House this afternoon. Where are the people who had something against the Academy in the past? If we were to have had a division here on this Bill, how would they have voted? Why do they shine so through their absence? I see that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development is at least here. He is supposed to be so super-conservative.

I challenge you to call for a division.

Of course, we on this side do vote; what we do find interesting, however, is to note which persons are absent this afternoon.

I am sorry that you are voting in favour of it.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the hon. the Prime Minister is sorry that I am voting in favour of it, since the previous Prime Minister …

I do not like to have a man who drags everything into the mire voting on my side.

There is no question of things being dragged into the mire in this matter. Things were revealed which happened during the past year and which made headlines in the Afrikaans newspapers of which the hon. the Prime Minister was the chairman until recently and in which he still has a very large share.

I suppose that is one of the reasons why he resigned.

My hon. Leader asks whether that is perhaps one of the reasons why the hon. the Prime Minister resigned, but, of course, one need not even go into that matter. This is a topical question. If the hon. the Prime Minister talks about the mire in this regard, it is a charge against the newspapers of the Nationalist Party which brought this matter up. But to my mind that charge is unfair. In the interests of the Afrikaans language, in the interests of things which have been done against the Afrikaans language, these newspapers came forward and lifted the veil which concealed what was happening in the Academy. In that regard I am siding with these newspapers. If the hon. the Prime Minister criticizes me, he is criticizing them as well.

Mr. Speaker, I want to content myself with this. I do not quite want to congratulate the hon. the Minister, but I do want to express my satisfaction at the fact that he introduced this Bill, and I want to repeat that we are supporting it.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Kensington for the unqualified way in which he spoke and for his support, because this is a cause which deserves support. However, I do not even want to make an attempt descending to the level to which the hon. member for Orange Grove descended in a very poor and unsuccessful attempt at really descending into the mire to see whether he could find or gain something there. This has totally spoilt the high standard which has been maintained in this debate so far, and I would rather restrain myself from adding anything to that, for fear that you, Sir, will call me to order, because such a thing cannot meet with any approval in a place where one does not expect to find adolescents, but adults. That is why I appreciate the real support …

Did you tell that to the newspapers which raised this matter?

I have nothing to do with the newspapers. I have nothing to do with the matter. If the hon. member had deemed it fit to say that, then I shall not follow him in those arguments of his.

I am glad of the support. What we are dealing with here, is the task of a government. A bona fide review was made of certain statutory provisions which had to be observed. No evil intentions were involved. As I said, this was discovered on 21st September, 1967. The request that was made to the Government, was that it should validate what was done illegally. That is what we are dealing with here— not with the domestic affairs of that body.

Motion put and agreet to.

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

To me it is a very great privilege and a great occasion to recommend to the House of Assembly the placing of this Bill on the Statute Book. Well over a year ago I explained in a statement to the Press that the natural and applied sciences had experienced a hitherto unknown rapid development from the last world war up to the present time, while the human sciences had possibly not developed to the same extent. The Government is, however, constantly giving attention to the development of all sciences: over the entire wide front and to the utilization, by means of research, of scientific knowledge for the progress of our country.

In order to promote research, a number of statutory, autonomous bodies have been established, such as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) for research in the spheres of natural sciences and industry, the Atomic Energy Board, more specifically for atomic research, and the Bureau of Standards for the standardization of merchandize and the manufacturing processes thereof.

In order to make provision for the necessary development of the human sciences and to place them on an equal footing with the natural sciences, the Government has decided to detach the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, which is a division of the Department of Higher Education, and the National Council for Social Research which functions under that Department, from the Public Service and to convert them into an organization under the Ministry of National Education. In this way the human sciences will be able to make a full and equal contribution to the knowledge necessary for the development of the country.

The Bill embodies the functions of, firstly, the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, which is a division of the Department of Higher Education; secondly, the National Council for Social Research, which is functioning under the Department of Higher Education; thirdly, the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for Educational and Social Research, which was established as long ago as 1953; and finally, the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning, which was established in terms of a Government resolution.

Human sciences research has now reached such a stage of development that the situation not only has to be consolidated, but that a new organization has to be established outside the Public Service for further development.

As regards the origin of the present National Council for Social Research, Mr. Speaker, we must bear in mind that the first attempt to encourage and co-ordinate research in South Africa on a national basis dates from World War I. In 1916 the Industrial Advisory Council was established. Its object was the promotion of the production of war material. In 1918 this body became the Research Grants Council and its object was to promote research in general, but with particular reference to the natural sciences.

A growing realization of the need to encourage research in the social sphere gave rise to the establishment of the South African Council for Educational and Social Research in 1934. The Council was under the chairmanship of the Minister of Education and obtained its funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New York.

In 1938 the Research Grants Council became the National Research Council and although the promotion of the natural sciences was its main object, a small portion of its funds was made available to support research into the social or human sciences.

A large step forward in the organization of research was taken in 1945 when the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research was established by legislation for the promotion of research in the spheres of industry and natural sciences. There was no room for the human sciences in that organization.

In order to promote research in the sphere of human sciences, the Minister of Education established the National Council for Social Research in 1946—previously known as the South African Council for Educational, Sociological and Humanistic Research. The newly established National Council for Social Research took over the functions of the old South African Council for Educational and Social Research as well as those of the National Research Council which had not been transferred to the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research.

The National Council for Social Research was established with a view to the following objects and functions: To assist in, encourage, organize and co-ordinate research in the sphere of all human sciences; to encourage and to undertake the planning of research schemes; to ensure that moneys will be used effectively and economically; to establish, where necessary, bodies for conducting long-term research work; to encourage the training of researchers by means of grants and bursaries to selected people who will be employed by university departments, government departments and other institutions after having qualified as such; to provide information, liaison as well as statistical services and to assist in the publication of results and other material valuable to research work; generally to frame a policy in respect of research work and to keep the Government and the country informed of the needs in connection with research work; to obtain and to administer donations, and to publish results of research work through the medium of a distinguished journal, namely the Journal for Social Research.

In order to advise the National Council for Social Research in respect of its functions, a number of committees of experts has been appointed, namely for Sociology; for Education and Psychology, for Economics, Trade and Geography; for African Studies, and for History, Languages and Law.

The functions of the committees are to recommend problems and schemes for research to the Council and to assist in the co-ordination of work in their spheres; to advise the Council in connection with the drawing up of estimates and the allocation of grants to applicants; to evaluate periodical progress reports of researchers and to report to the Council; to prepare a reasearch programme for long term as well as short term projects for consideration by the Council; to recommend to the Council steps for the encouragement of research work; and to make representations to the Council in connection with all matters under the control of the Council which relate to their specific spheres of research.

In addition a committee for general affairs and an editorial committee for the Journal for Social Research have been appointed. The first body, the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research, provides the secretarial services of the National Council for Social Research, the history of which I have given a brief outline, and the director of the Bureau is ex officio a member of the Council and of all the committees of experts. He also acts as chairman of the editorial committee for the Journal of Social Research.

Social research has made phenomenal progress under the regime of the National Council for Social Research. The amounts of money spent on this, give an indication of the growth there has been in this sphere. In 1946 the National Council for Social Research started with a meagre amount of £1,300, which had been taken over from the then no longer existing South African Council for Educational and Social Research. For the financial year 1947-’48 the budget of the Council was £13,000. The funds of the Council gradually increased as the need for social research grew, with the result that an amount of £85,000 was made available for the financial year 1960-’61, and R250,000 for the financial year 1965-’66. It is hoped that the amount for 1968-’69 will be increased to R325,000.

The Council makes the following types of grants: Firstly, ad hoc grants to individual researchers and to students doing research for obtaining Master’s and Doctor’s degrees; secondly, grants for large research projects conducted by teams of researchers—a maximum of R1,800 over three years; thirdly, senior bursaries to advance researchers for research in South Africa and overseas, bursaries for directional research for training in specialized research techniques overseas and bursaries to students for Master’s and Doctor’s degrees; and finally, grants to research publications to make possible the publication of high-class research reports with a limited circulation.

Since its establishment in 1946, the National Council for Social Research has given financial support to numerous smaller and larger research projects of national importance— research which could never have taken place without this support.

In order to eliminate overlapping and to keep interested parties informed of research which is in progress, the Council regularly publishes a register of present research in human sciences in South Africa, and to make the publication of research reports in article form possible, the Council publishes the Journal for Social Research.

The National Bureau for Educational and Social Research was established as long ago as 1929 under the then Department of Union Education, now the Department of Higher Education. The Bureau was closed during the war years but was reopened in 1946.

By way of summary the functions of the Bureau are to undertake research in the spheres of education and social sciences on a national basis; to standardize and make available educational aids, such as phychological and scholastic tests; to compile and publish statistical data concerning education from all the education departments and universities; to act as central information office regarding education and research in South Africa and overseas; to act as the secretariate of the National Council for Social Research; to evaluate South African and overseas certificates and diplomas and to inform employers in this connection; to make recommendations regarding the purchase of books and journals by the National Study Library; and to advise and guide researchers in the spheres of education and social sciences.

At present the Bureau consists of the Divisions of Educational Research, Testing Services; Social Research; Manpower Research; Information; Evaluation of Certificates and Diplomas, and Publications; Statistical Analysis and Processing; and Administration.

The Divisions of Testing Services, Sociological Research and Manpower Research cover all population groups.

The third body, the Interdepartmental Advisory Committee for Educational and Social Research, was established in 1953 on public servants’ level and consists at present of representatives of the Bureau, the Department of Higher Education, all the Provincial Departments of Education, and the Department of Education of South West Africa, the Departments of Labour, Health, Bantu Education, Coloured Affairs, Indian Affairs, Social Welfare and Pensions, Bantu Administration and Development, the South African Railways, the Natural Resources Development Council and the Public Service Commission. The function of the Committee is to co-ordinate social research for Government Departments and to ensure the elimination of any overlapping.

The fourth body, the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning, was established in terms of a Cabinet resolution and this committee is dependent on the work of the Manpower Centre of the Bureau. The functions of the Advisory Committee are to co-ordinate the activities of all Government and semi-Government bodies in the spheres of manpower research, planning and training; to determine the need for manpower research and to refer their findings to specific bodies for implementation; to make recommendations, where necessary, in regard to a redistribution of the functions of Government and semi-Government bodies which are active in the spheres of manpower research, planning and training; to advise the National Bureau of Educational and Social Research which is the official body for social research on a national basis, as well as the other bodies conducting research for the Committee in regard to their activities in the spheres of manpower research and training; to obtain as far as possible, where deemed practical, the co-operation of private persons and bodies in regard to manpower research, planning and training; and to advise the Government in regard to the most effective utilization of the country’s manpower.

The Committee reports on its activities to the Cabinet through the Minister of National Education. The Committee meets every fourth Thursday of March and September, and more often if necessary.

The Chairman, the Scientific Adviser to the Prime Minister and the representative of the Office of the Economic Adviser to the Prime Minister, of the Public Service Commission, of the Department of Labour and of Bantu Administration and Development, of the Bureau of Statistics and of the National Advisory Education Council, act as an executive committee with the right to co-opt. The actions of the executive committee are subject to the approval of the Advisory Committee for Manpower Research and Planning.

Conclusive proof has been furnished in actual practice over a period of many years that research can only be conducted with difficulty as part of a Government Department, except where it is an integral part of its activities as in the case of Agricultural Technical Services. A research organization inevitably requires the highest degree of elasticity as opposed to Public Service directives in the form of laws and regulations. Consequently it is felt that the Bureau of Social and Educational Research as well as the National Council for Social Research should be modelled on the same lines as the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (C.S.I.R.) and should function under a separate Act outside the Public Service, but under the Ministry of National Education.

Consequently provision is being made in clause 2 for the establishment of a Human Sciences Research Council and for its powers. The most comprehensive definition, and one which covers the widest field, is the definition of “geesteswetenskappe” in “Die Woordeboek van die Afrikaanse Taal”, in which the traces of Van Dalen and other standard works are clearly recognizable. Clause 1 defines that word, together with other words where necessary, and the English translation of the first-mentioned word is “human sciences”.

Clause 3 lays down the functions of the Council and eliminates the overlapping of research for Government bodies. In pursuance of representations made to me, however, I have decided to remove the ban on research in subsection (3), and I shall move a suitable amendment during the Committee Stage of the Bill. Certain departments undertake smaller research projects and it would be wrong to provide that the Minister’s approval must be obtained for every small project. The Council advises me and may conduct research for an individual or the authorities—on payment of a consideration.

Hon. members will find the constitution of the Council in clause 4, in terms of which it may also establish subsidiary committees. Clause 5 deals with the functions, powers and remuneration of the president, and clause 6 provides for officers and other employees of the Council, while clause 7 deals with their pension benefits and clause 8 contains the usual provisions for transfer.

The provisions concerning inventions in clause 9 and the right to inventions in clause 10, are self-evident. Clause 11 makes provision for the required secrecy concerning new, unknown facts as well as for a fine not exceeding R500.

Clause 13 contains the usual provisions in regard to book-keeping, auditing and the annual reports, and clause 14 grants authority for the making of regulations.

Clause 15 permits South West Africa to appropriate moneys in aid of the Council and clause 16 makes the proposed Act applicable to that territory.

Mr. Speaker, we are witnessing now this Bureau being floated off not as an independent institution but an institution outside the Department. It is becoming a sister council to the C.S.I.R. The C.S.I.R. is concerned with scientific research; this is concerned with what we call the human sciences. There is much to be said for it, of course; there can be no objection to it, because to some extent it is a matter of organization. But there are one or two points I should like to make. I am concerned about the relations between this Council and our universities. For many years I have said that the universities have not received the support in conducting research that they should have had. The reply to that has been that there is research by other bodies in other directions. I think our funds should be directed chiefly to our universities and, if I may say so, I think in this Bill the universities are relegated to, not an inferior position, but to a position which does not give them the status they ought to have in the establishment of this new body. I refer, for example, to clause 3, line 39, which provides that the new Council will make grants to the universities. I think that is not sufficient. I think the universities as independent and autonomous bodies ought to be recognized as such in this Bill. The other point I should like to make is this. In clause 4 there is reference to the constitution of the Council. The members of the Council will be nominated by the Minister. I think it would be an excellent thing if the universities were represented on this council directly, perhaps, or that the Minister should consult the Committee of Principals, who would assist him in making nominations. I feel that in our higher education it is most important that we should give the chief place to our universities in South Africa, but of course we can discuss these matters in Committee.

There is one clause I should like the hon. the Minister to read again, clause 8 (1). I wonder whether reading this aloud would not be a cure for insomnia. I do not know whether the Minister has tried reading it aloud. He should read the English version aloud. It focuses attention on what I have raised with the hon. the Minister under his Vote, namely the question of translation. It is becoming a very difficult matter. I feel that this clause should be stated much more simply so that the people concerned, the Government servants who are transferred to this new body, would have their status and their conditions of transfer stated simply in a manner which everyone could follow. I think that is important. It is a very complicated statement, and I should like the hon. the Minister to look at it before we come to the Committee Stage. Naturally, of course, we shall support the principle of the Bill.

I should like to thank the hon. member for Kensington. As regards his final point, in connection with clause 8 (1), I shall go into the matter very thoroughly to see whether an improvement cannot be made. I do not think the hon. member need be so concerned about the relationship which will arise between the Bureau and the universities. It will be exactly the same relationship as that which has existed since 1945 between the C.S.I.R. and the universities in the sphere of natural sciences. The universities have their independent funds for research. They also receive additional funds from the Government for research under the Holloway formula.

Not under the Holloway formula. There is no separate section but apparently that will be proposed next time.

Yes, it will come. It is in existence already. There is a component for research at the universities and they receive a subsidy on that for post-graduate work and training. During the past two years the Government granted a special amount of R100,000 for post-graduate students. I do not think the hon. member need be concerned about that. The relationship has been created over the past 20 years or more, and we have followed exactly the same pattern as that of the C.S.I.R. Act to remove this body from the Public Service and to make it an independent body as well.

I know hon. members opposite are allergic to the Minister having to appoint people to councils. The suggestion made by the hon. member that the principals of universities should make the nominations, flows from that allergy. I just want to say that this body will inevitably be a very highly specialized one and that provision is also being made for a large number of committees. If the hon. member wants to take the trouble to examine the constitution of this Council, he will find that there is wide representation throughout South Africa. All these bodies will be duly consulted, because the Minister is not supposed to know all the best people who will be suitable to perform these functions. I do thank the hon. member, however, for his assurance of support.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Second Time.

I move—

Section 15 of the Universities Act, 1955, provides for the continued existence of the Joint Matriculation Board established by the University of South Africa Act, 1916, as well as for its present constitution. At present the Matriculation Board consists of representatives of each university, representatives of the Committee of University Principals, representatives of the Department of Higher Education, the Department of Bantu Education and the Department of Coloured Affairs, as well as the Education Department of each Province, and of the Territory of South West Africa, and of representatives of certain schools in the Republic and in the Territory.

On 1st April, 1966, the Department of Indian Affairs took over the education of Indian children from the Province of Natal and last year also from the Transvaal. As a result of that take-over the Committee of University Principals made a request for that Department to be given representation in the Matriculation Board. Consequently the relevant section of the Act is being amended by clause 1 of the amending Bill so as to include the Department of Indian Affairs. At the same time “Department of Higher Education”, as the responsible Department is now called, is being substituted for the outdated designation “Department of Education, Arts and Science”.

Similarly we are availing ourselves of this opportunity to make improvements to sections 22, 25 and 27 which do not affect the principles of the principal Act.

Clause 2 amends the obsolete wording in subsection (2) of section 22 to read that the Minister may “in consultation” instead of “after consultation” with the Minister of Finance waive any preference; in the Afrikaans version the expression “deur die verband gesekureer” is being substituted for the expression “deur die verband verseker”. This provision will then conform to a similar provision for loans in section 21 of the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967. The Treasury and the Law Advisers, respectively, insisted on the wording of that section at that time, and I readily accepted it.

Clause 3 brings the wording of section 25 into conformity with that of an identically worded section 25 in the last-mentioned Act, i.e. the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967, which provides for subsidies to technical colleges. For quite some time now the Treasury has been pointing out that the financial assistance given by Parliament to universities and colleges for advanced technical training, really is in the nature of “subsidies” and not “grants-in-aid”, because the latter amounts to an out and out donation, which is voted as a column 2 item in the Estimates, and which must therefore be avoided in connection with universities and colleges. This is a financial requirement about which I, as a layman, cannot quarrel. The remaining adjustments are of a grammatic nature, but I should like to point out that initially financial assistance to universities was granted “subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by the Minister by regulation”, but as a result of an amendment such assistance has been granted since 1959, “subject to such conditions as may in respect of each university, be determined by the Minister”. This amendment introduced by section 7 (1) of Act No. 82 of 1959 was not as complete as it could have been.

Finally, clause 4 consequently supplies a deficiency in section 27 of the principal Act in addition to substituting “subsidies” for “grants-in-aid” in subsection (2). When the expression “in respect of each university determined by the Minister” was substituted in 1959 for the expression “be prescribed by the Minister by regulation” in section 25, a consequential amendment should have been made to section 27 in regard to conditions. Hon. members will recall that section 27 (1) of the Advanced Technical Education Act, 1967. makes provision, although in a slightly simplified form, for action on the failure of any council to comply with any conditions subject to which a subsidy has been granted.

While a so-called grant-in-aid was subject in terms of section 25 to “such conditions as may be prescribed by the Minister” it was in order to provide in section 27 “if any council fails to comply with any provision of this Act”, because “this Act”, included in terms of section 1 “any regulation made in terms of section 28”. Now that a subsidy is subject to “the conditions determined by the Minister” it has become necessary to make proper provision for action on the failure of any council to comply with any such conditions. In this way the provisions of the principal Act which were applicable prior to 1959 are merely being restored and this amending Bill therefore contains no change in principle at all.

I just want to draw the attention of hon. members to a document which has been forwarded to all universities. It does not appear in the Government Gazette because it only applies to the universities concerned. The heading reads (translation)—

This gives an exposition of the entire matter and I just want to read the preamble (translation)—

The new quinquennial period will commence on 1st January, 1969. I do not want to read out all the conditions. The conditions for grants-in-aid appear on page 6 (translation)—

I am mentioning this only because a great deal of confusion has been created by the Press to the effect that the amendment introduced by this legislation allegedly had an ulterior motive and that the Minister allegedly intended imposing all kinds of conditions on the universities. This only concerns the conditions on which these grants will become payable and the intention is to follow exactly the same pattern as set out in this document.

When we come to discuss a Bill to amend the Universities Act there are obviously two questions we ask. Under section 2 of the original Act there is established a University Advisory Committee, and in section 2 of this original 1955 Act it is laid down that the Minister may consult that committee or that the committee may offer suggestions and advice to the Minister. Under section 6 of the Act provision is made for a Committee of Principals, and under section 7 this Committee has the power to make suggestions to the Minister and the Minister, of course, may consult the committee. The obvious question to ask is this: Has the Minister consulted the advisory committee; has he consulted the Committee of Principals or did they offer him any advice or suggestions? That is the obvious question one asks when one deals with proposed amendments to the Universities Act.

I think the hon. the Minister has given a satisfactory explanation. I am very sorry he did not issue a statement to the Press because, as he says, there has been a great deal of criticism and, so the Minister says, a great deal of misunderstanding. Well, possibly there is. I have read the Bill very carefully and, being familiar with the 1955 Act and the amending Act of 1959—section 7 of Act No. 82 of 1959 is referred to in this measure—I am familiar with the matter. To me there does not seem to be any difficulty. The first clause need not concern one at all because it is a routine matter, namely an amendment of the Matriculation Board regulations. That does not concern us. With reference to clause 2 it might even be said that the Minister is restricting his own powers, because originally the enactment read that the Minister, after consultation, can decide, but now he will decide in consultation. In other words, his powers are diminished rather than increased. Therefore I do not see any difficulty about the second clause. In the third clause we have this confusion between grants-in-aid and subsidies. I ask, Sir, what’s in a name? That which is called a subsidy might as well be called a grant-in-aid. In my view there is confusion about the names. I think the term subsidy has been the correct one right from the beginning. But we refer to grants-in-aid because every year in the Estimates the Minister refers to grants-in-aid to universities. That is the term he has used, and the term is that of the Act, but in fact these grants have been subsidies. Grants-in-aid are given as a gift, whilst subsidies are made, I presume, for a specific purpose. However, I do not see any difficulty as far as the change in terms is concerned—the word “grants-in-aid” being merely changed to subsidies. Mr. Speaker, I must confess I have been looking for difficulties and, having seen so much in the Press about the matter, I did my best in examining the Bill but up to clause 3 I have not succeeded in finding any difficulties. It is quite true that in the amending Act of 1959 —I have already referred to section 7 of that Act—we find the words “and subject to such conditions as may, in respect of each university, be determined by the Minister”.

Finally I come to clause 4, and if there has been misunderstanding and criticism then it has been in respect of this clause. What are the conditions which are taken into consideration? The Minister has read out to us what the conditions were in the past. Can he give us the assurance that these conditions which he has in mind in the Act, are financial conditions, ordinary conditions attached to a subsidy? One can understand what conditions are attached to a loan. If money is lent to a person there must be conditions attached to the loan, and these are financial. But in this instance, where we have grants-in-aid or subsidies, the nature of the conditions is, I think, very important. There has been a good deal of criticism concerning the nature of the conditions. I have listened to the assurances of the Minister. I presume he has had conversations with the representatives of the universities. If he has indeed had such conversations and he can assure us that they are satisfied and feel there is no sinister motive in the Bill, then I will be quite satisfied and we on this side will support this Bill. I should like the Minister to give us that assurance in his reply to the second-reading debate.

Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Kensington I have also been studying this Bill very closely and, like the hon. member for Kensington, I also feel there is nothing objectionable at all in clauses 1, 2 and 3 of this Bill. But, unlike the hon. member for Kensington, I am afraid I cannot as readily accept the assurances of the hon. the Minister in respect of clause 4. It may well be that the Minister has consulted the principals of the universities, and I hope he will tell us when he replies that he has consulted the committee of principals of universities. In his reply, too, I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us, whatever opinion he received from that body, whether it was unanimous and whether all the principals were satisfied that this Bill in fact contained nothing except a simple change in wording without any alteration in principle, as the Minister originally told us when he introduced the second reading.

I am afraid I am a little sceptical of ministerial assurances, and I say this without being personal to this hon. Minister. I have had enough experience over the years in this House to know that assurances given are not always carried out. There is a tendency for assurances, when they no longer suit the Government, to become the dead hand of the past. The only thing that interests me is not ministerial assurances given over the floor of this House, but the actual wording contained in Bills accepted in this House. If the wording is such as to give far-raohing powers to Ministers, and additional powers in the case of amending Bills, then I, for one, am not prepared simply to accept assurances.

I looked at this clause 4 very carefully indeed, and it seems to me that it does go further than the existing section 27 of the Act, as it originally appeared in the 1955 Bill, as amended by the 1959 Bill. I admit this clause is ambiguous. It is not clear at all that the Act as it reads at present, without this amending Bill, gives the Minister the power to withhold or withdraw a subsidy or a grant-in-aid, if a university fails to comply with a condition attached to such subsidy. I maintain there is a definite distinction between the words “provision of the Act” and a “condition which is imposed in terms of a provision of the Act”. Conditions imposed by the Minister do not automatically become part of the Act itself, that is, part of the provisions of the Act, and I do not believe the Minister had a clear power to impose any form of sanctions or any form of penalty against university councils if they did not comply with a condition which he laid down, whereas he did have the power to impose sanctions if the university council did not comply with a provision of the Act. What I am trying to do is draw a clear distinction between the words “provision of the Act” and the words “condition as laid down by the Minister”. I am fortified in this opinion by the preamble of this very Bill that we are discussing to-day, because it makes it quite clear that there is an additional power which is to be provided. The last few lines of the preamble reads as follows—

What is the necessity for those words in the preamble if the hon. the Minister is not extending the power he already has in terms of the 1955 Act, as amended, to apply sanctions to withdraw or withhold a subsidy if a university does not comply with a provision of the Act? I believe, therefore, that this particular section does go further and extends the powers of the Minister. I am also fortified in my opinion by the fact that when the Minister introduced (and subsequently withdrew) the University Amendment Bill in 1966, that Bill contained a clause which also made it quite clear that the Minister at that time was relying on the power to bring into operation certain provisions of the Act. That Bill specifically stated …

Order! That is not under discussion now.

No, Sir, but I am just using that as a comparison to fortify my opinion that even the draftsman of that Bill did not think it was sufficient to put in the world “condition” but that the word “provision” should be included. Now it is no longer going to be necessary for the Minister to rely on a provision, because he can simply rely on any condition which he likes to impose on a university when he grants a subsidy to that university. I am simply trying to argue, Sir, that there is a considerable difference between a provision of an Act and a condition laid down by the hon. the Minister in terms of a provision of an Act. That is why I believe that this clause goes further and I believe that the assurances that are being given today are not sufficient because of the unfortunate history attached to assurances, in particular as far as university education is concerned. Long ago we were told by the then Minister of Education that it was not the Government’s intention to impose any form of apartheid on the universities. We were given that assurance in this House as long back as 1951. We were told, for instance, that the Government was not going ahead with enforcing segregation in the universities. The then Minister disappeared from this House and later of course the assurances were forgotten and in terms of Bills introduced in this House segregation was imposed on the universities. The open universities, despite a long fight for academic freedom, were then no longer able to admit non-white students without special ministerial permission.

Moreover, this hon. the Minister has had a constant dispute, a running fight one might say, with certain of the English-language universities about mixed societes on the campus. Indeed the two Bills which he introduced in 1966, which he subsequently withdrew, were aimed at the Minister getting his way as far as the prohibition of mixed societies on university campuses was concerned, and also to enforce the universities to recognize segregated societies. I do not wish to go into the history of this because it is not relevant in detail. We only know that this matter is not yet resolved completely; we know the Minister came out with some pretty thunderous phrases against U.C.T., especially against the S.R.C. there, and talked about “curbing the unbridled liberalism” of the Cape Town University’s S.R.C.

Order! Is the hon. member not going too far ?

I will not go any further as far as that matter is concerned. I want to make quite clear to this House, and to the hon. the Minister in particular, why it is that I regret I am unable to accept his assurances that clause 4 of this Bill with the additional words now included makes no difference whatever to the situation as it existed before this Bill was introduced in this House. Therefore I regret to have to tell the Minister that I am unable to accept those assurances and I shall vote against the principle of this Bill at the Second Reading.

Mr. Speaker, of course I do not take it amiss of the hon. member for Houghton—“feminine suspicion” and “feminine intuition” are difficult concepts for us to define. Women always see matters differently, not so? Being no lawyer and anticipating the occurrence of something such as has in fact come to the fore now, I obtained in advance a legal opinion on the scope of my powers. I should like to read it to the hon. member. It reads as follows (translation)—

I am now addressing the lawyers who must assist me. The opinion reads further—

This is the legal principle. If the hon. member sees anything in this Act enabling me to circumvent this and to add various other conditions, I should like to have it pointed out to me. The hon. member for Houghton failed to point out anything to me.

The hon. member for Kensington asked me whether I had consulted the University Advisory Committee and the Committee of University Principals. I have consulted both. I remember that the university principals sent me their reply on 11th December last year. From the nature of the case I do not know when there is a difference of opinion. For example, I do not know how many were in favour. What the hon. member for Houghton really asked was how many of them were against it. I am very glad to be able to say that, as far as I could ascertain, only a few of the university principals had misgivings. Among others, the principal of the University of Natal, who also had misgivings came to see me personally. He told me that his misgivings had all been cleared up. The Director of Higher Education to-day handed me this letter, signed by Sir Richard Luyt, of the University of Cape Town. It is addressed to the Director and dated 19th February. It reads as follows:

Dear Mr. Erasmus,

Signed: Richard Luyt.

This, Sir, I think is ample proof to the hon. member for Kensington that the Committee of Principals, people who really took pains not to look for anything sinister behind this amending Bill … [Interjections.] I am not going to insult Parliament and the House of Assembly by asking them to make laws on the basis of assurances from me, and to accept my word that this is the case and that is the case. The hon. member must not make a fuss now and say that she does not believe in this kind of thing. If I say that I am giving an assurance, then it is based on facts. The facts on which I base it, are that the Minister does not have the power to go beyond what he has done here. The main problem is that in the organization and administration we have to lay down conditions when a subsidy is paid. If lists are not submitted in good time, the subsidy is held back until this is done. We are not going to saddle people with any other matters. The hon. member has just referred to this, Sir. Please allow me to mention this point. Legislation was introduced as far back as 1966. If it becomes necessary to re-introduce that legislation in future, it will be done. Those universities that transgressed by allowing quite unbridled and unmannerly things to happen on their campuses, had a fright. They came to me. They made promises. They made investigations and took a turn for the better. But if such things were to happen again, legislation will be introduced. I have not been frightened. Hon. members must not think that I have been frightened so much by the criticism as to want to get in by a back door to do something else. That is below my dignity.

Motion put and agreed to (Mrs. H. Suzman dissenting).

Bill read a Second Time.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to move the amendment standing in my name on page 87 of the Order Paper, which reads as follows:

The effect of the amendment is to lay down that the annual re-registration fee shall not be more than R5. In the amending Bill, as it stands, the amount stipulated is not more than R30. In the Second Reading I referred the hon. the Minister to another arrangement which applied to veterinary medicines. I pointed out there that a nominal fee and a nominal renewal fee were charged in connection with the registration of veterinary medicines and preparations used against pests. I pointed out that the regulations laid down an initial fee of R4 and a renewal fee of 50 cents, and that this applied for a number of years. I have established since then that new figures have been laid down, to which I referred in general. Now the registration fee is R10 per remedy, but it is for four years. The renewal fee is also R10 per remedy, and it is also for a period of four years. I understand that that fee would stand and would only require adjustment should the manufacturer of the particular remedy seek to amend the formula in any way. I do not believe that it is a good thing to offer criticism without trying to put some alternative measure to the hon. the Minister. I want to suggest to him that if he is sympathetic to the small man—and I believe he is—he should give consideration to some form of sliding fee. This is entrenched in our procedure. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to the Licences Act where, in the case of a general dealer’s licence, a sliding fee is provided. You will find that it is based on the quantity of goods held in stock. When a general dealer applies for a licence, he himself has to calculate on the application form, in terms of the stock he has, the amount which he will pay. This amount varies according to the stock he has. Where the average value of the stock is R4,000, the general dealer’s licence is R10. Where the stock exceeds R60,000, the general dealer’s licence stand at a maximum of R200.

I believe that this principle could be adapted to this particular Bill in so far as volume of sales is concerned. I want to point out to the hon. the Minister that in the draft regulations which appeared in March of this year it was actually required that an applicant for registration should indicate the volume of the sales which had occurred during the previous year, as well as the value of those sales. This has been removed from the regulations which were gazetted in December, but apparently in the initial stages the Drugs Control Council in its wisdom decided that this information would serve some purpose as far as it was concerned. I believe that this would be a fair way of protecting the small man who may one day become a big man and who will then be called upon to pay the higher fee. But I want to make it quite clear that I am not in any way suggesting that there should be any waiving of registration. I believe that that has been accepted in the Act and I feel that that should stand. Any medicine which is sold other than that sold in terms of section 14 of the Act should, I believe, be registered by the Council. But I want to quote to the hon. the Minister a comment which I received from a chemist and druggist who holds a high position in the profession and whose name is well known throughout the Republic. This is what he said—

He was referring to clause 1—

I am therefore not alone in believing that this particular system may mean the end of the small man. I say in all seriousness that from the small man the large manufacturers in South Africa have grown. These are organizations which to-day mean big money in taxes to the State and organizations which offer employment to our own people. Many of these remedies are household words to-day. It is not my intention to go into detail, because I believe that that would be invidious. I should, however, like to refer the hon. the Minister to such towns as Adelaide, Uitenhage, Ladybrand and Middelburg, all of which owe a certain amount of their prosperity to the fact that in the old days a small firm started in a small way and prospered and has gone from strength to strength. I believe that these firms can to-day well afford the maximum registration fee and could well afford a re-registration fee of R18. But I wonder when they started business years ago whether such fees would not have influenced them, and whether they would not have had second thoughts about putting certain of their remedies on the market. I do not believe that this avenue should be closed to newcomers who also wish to start in a small way and who have ambition to go on and make a success of their undertakings. I want to quote an example which has been brought to my notice. It is an authentic example which I can fully substantiate. It concerns an asthma remedy which has been on the market for 20 years. It is a remedy the formula of which was culled from an accepted medical textbook and was apparently formulated by a medical man. The ingredients are all ingredients which appear in the British Pharmacopoeia or the British Pharmacopoeia Codex. As far as I know, in the whole period in which this remedy has been on the market, no ill-effects have been reported. In those days the price of this remedy was 3s. 6d., and to-day it still costs only 35 cents. There has been no increase in price. The maker of this particular remedy decided that he would try an advertising promotion when he first produced the remedy. He undertook nominal expenditure and found that it did not produce the sales for which he had hoped. He then appointed a distributor, so that together with the advertising he could at least offer distribution on a country-wide basis. His distributor then said to him that if he wanted this medicine sold on a national basis and to become a big seller, he must be prepared to spend £1,000 on advertising for two or three years and his distributor would make it a big seller. He said that the product would become a household word. The manufacturer thought this over. Firstly, he did not have the £1,000. Secondly, he knew that if he adopted this measure, he would immediately have to recoup himself in some way and increase the price, possibly to double what it was at the time. He therefore decided against it and to leave the matter as it was. The result is that to-day he still finds that he has a demand from wholesale avenues of distribution for this medicine to the extent of about 12 dozen bottles a year. He also has a small outlet through his own pharmacy. There has been no advertising for 20 years, and yet this man finds that his remedy is still in demand. Obviously, to these people who suffer from the distressing complaint of asthma, this remedy provides relief which costs them very little in relation to the general asthma remedies, and they continue to seek this particular remedy.

I can say in all seriousness that the gross profit per annum of this particular remedy does not amount to R60 per year. It would not be in the interests of the manufacturer to register and pay this R60 registration fee, because he knows that he would not be able to recoup himself from the sales. I believe that when the Drugs Control Council announces in terms of its regulations that drugs falling in pharmacological classification No. 10 in terms of the regulations, that is drugs acting on the respiratory system, have to be registered, this remedy will simply have to disappear from the market. What happens to the people who have been gaining relief from this medicine? Must they now use something which is far more expensive? Do they have to try a variety of remedies to find something which will give them the same relief as this medicine has done? Or is the Minister going to have second thoughts on this matter and agree that the small man with his remedies, not advertised but sold by virtue of the merit and the effect which they have, should have an opportunity to continue in a limited sphere of activity? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, before we put the amendment, I should like to know whether the hon. the Minister is going to reply to the points raised by the hon. member for Berea. If he does not intend replying at the moment, I think that the hon. member for Berea should continue with his speech.

Mr. Chairman, I have only a few more remarks which I wish to address to the Minister. I thank the hon. Whip for his courtesy. I believe that this position exists in numerous pharmacies. I believe that those professional men who have manufactured their own cough mixtures, headache powders, indigestion mixtures, diarrhoea mixtures, corn paints, healing ointments and simple remedies for which there has been a demand and which have achieved success in their medication will no longer be able to perform this service to the poorer class in the community.

Do you not think that this is a good thing?

I am not pleading that they should not be registered. If these remedies do not comply with the requirements of the Drugs Control Council, I believe that they should not be registered but disappear from the market. But if the chemist is able to satisfy the Drugs Council, then I see no reason whatsoever why they should disappear from the market purely for the reasons I have outlined. I believe that in the long run the public will suffer. The alternatives that would be available to them, would cost more.

Why cannot these be registered too?

I have tried to point out that to register under the existing Act, will now cost the applicant, the manufacturer, R60 a year, whereas this amending Bill lays down that the re-registration fee, payable annually, will be not less than R30 a year.

But these patent medicines are the most lucrative thing in the world. The manufacturers make fortunes out of it.

In reply to the hon. the Minister of Transport, I am not talking about those manufacturers. Those are the big men, who started in a small way in Uitenhage, Adelaide, etc.

They charged me R25 for a bottle of zyloprim, which I think is a scandal. [Interjections.]

Bearing in mind that there will be many cases of the nature I have outlined to the hon. the Minister, I ask him sincerely to give some thought to the possibility of fixing a registration charge on a sliding scale, which could be based on quantity or on value sold. I am not pleading for any relaxation as far as registration of these preparations are concerned.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Berea has put up a plea for the small man, which I think is justified. There are companies, such as those referred to by the hon. the Minister of Transport, that are well able to pay their registration fees. I should like the hon. the Minister to tell me how he reached the figure of R30 for re-registration. I understand from the hon. the Minister’s Second Reading speech that it will cost a fair sum of money to run his council which will go into testing the merits and purity of the various drugs that are coming on to the market. That I can understand. But taking re-registration alone, if there are 25,000 different preparations on the market and the hon. the Minister is going to charge R30 as a re-registration fee per year for each, he is going to have coming into his coffers R¾ million every year. If the Minister can tell me that he can use up R¾ million a year on the examination of these drugs, then he must have a very big staff indeed to do that work. I know and he knows that his staff only consists of a handful of people. It will therefore take them a terrific long time to examine all these drugs, excluding the new drugs that may be coming on to the market. He informed the House that he would tackle the job from the top, leaving out a lot of the drugs that are in everyday use. These would be considered in the end. I still say that R30 a year is excessive when the hon. the Minister cannot spend that amount of money. The hon. the Minister will have a fund building up which will never be used. Let the Minister by all means have a fee for re-registration. That must be done. But let us, however, see the matter in the correct perspective, and not just ask money for the sake of asking money. I do not think that the amount will not be paid by certain firms. Some of the big firms will find it very easy to pay a re-registration fee of R30. The small man, however, will find it awfully difficult. Another point about which I am not happy, is how this fee is going to be passed on to the public, because that is what is going to happen. The registration fee and the re-registration fee will eventually come out of the public’s pocket. If it were possible to divide the extra fees by the number of preparations, tablets or bottles of medicine that are going to be sold over the counter, the result will probably only be negligible. But the firms producing the drugs will not be getting back only R¾ million. It will probably be doubled or even trebled. R¾ million should at the very most represent a per cent per preparation. That should be the position if you consider the number of bottles that are sold over the counter daily and you have to get it back from the public. But the manufacturer is not going to enhance the price by ½ cent. He is going to put on 5 cents or 2 cents, or perhaps he may put on 3 cents. So the amount of money which is going to be taken out of the patient’s pocket is not going to be R¾ million. It is probably going to be three times that amount. I should therefore say that the hon. the Minister should make the re-registration fee such so that it will not have to be passed on to the patient. I will be quite happy then. I therefore wish to support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Berea. I think that if the hon. the Minister gives it due consideration he will accept what we say. It is a practical thing. We want the re-registration fee but we want to do it in such a way that the small man, the small producer, will be protected and that the purchaser of the medicine, whatever it may be, will not be penalized in any way. For that reason I think that a re-registration fee of R5 will probably be quite sufficient. If the suggestion by the hon. member for Berea in regard to a sliding scale is going to be considered, the top notches could perhaps be increased while the bottom rungs of that sliding scale could perhaps be decreased.

Mr. Chairman, I want to assure hon. members opposite that this provision is not aimed at making money. That is not the object at all. I also want to assure hon. members that I have a great deal of sympathy with the point of view as expressed by them, namely to look after the interests of the small man. After all, we do know that the major portion of drugs manufactured are imported from overseas. Here those drugs are simply packaged or made up into pills, syrups or capsules. You can therefore understand that there are sound reasons for us wanting to protect the small man in South Africa. Now we are faced with certain problems. The first problem is, how is one going to protect him? Let me tell you once again that you must not think that the amount of R30 is the amount which must be charged for re-registration. The amount of R30 is the maximum laid down by the council. It is not applicable for one year, but may remain in force for the next 10, 15 or 20 years. The amount has been fixed at R30 because, as we know, the value of money continually depreciates. And we cannot and will not insult the council by making a change and asking for an increase each year. In other words, it is for the convenience of the council that we have chosen to fix a maximum of R30, which will not be applicable now, but which may well be necessary in the course of years. Possibly it will be R5, or not more than R5. That is the first consideration. The hon. member for Berea in point of fact abandoned the idea of decreasing the amount to R5 when he suggested that the fee be charged according to a sliding scale. This had to be a sliding scale with a lower fee for the small man than for the big man. There is a great deal to be said for that. As I explained to you in the Second Reading Debate, the council must act as a watchdog in respect of each drug appearing on the market. One never knows when it may be found that a drug which seems harmless when taken once or twice, may have serious results and effects after a few years. Such a drug will then have to be modified or withdrawn immediately. The expenditure involved in research and in playing watchdog is so heavy that R30 may eventually prove to be justified in the case of many of the pharmaceutical preparations. There are research which must be conducted and staff who must be appointed specially for dealing with those drugs. I should also just like to remind the hon. member for Rosettenville that though the present staff may be small, it will not remain so. It is extremely difficult to obtain qualified staff. Their numbers are limited in South Africa. But in due course, as the activities of the council become more extensive, it is most probable, virtually inevitable, that the staff and the expenditure will increase. Although I am very sympathetic towards the proposal, we are still faced with the problem that if we do have a sliding scale, how is that sliding scale to operate? If the hon. member can present us with a sliding scale, he can rest assured that it will receive our most serious attention. The maximum of R30 as laid down in the Bill, however, must be retained. If the hon. member can submit to us a sliding scale which works reasonably well, we shall give his proposal the closest attention in considering the regulations to be issued. But now the question is how we are to do so. What form will such a sliding scale take?

I think the operation of the sliding scale suggested by the hon. member will be difficult. The hon. member said that it should be done according to turnover. The fee should be lower for a person selling less, while the fee should be higher for a person selling more. But now one must not overlook the other object. As you know, the re-registration fees serve a dual purpose. The first relates to expenditure, but at the same time one must be able to tell people that useless articles which are no longer being sold and which cannot be sold any longer, should rather be removed from the register, as the Drugs Control Council would otherwise still have to appoint officials each year for the supervision of those drugs. There is, as I have said, this dual purpose. If we were to apply the sliding scale suggested by the hon. member, and were to charge no registration fees for those articles which have no market, then we would frustrate that object, namely to have the useless articles removed from the market and from the registers. That is the difficulty. I therefore want to assure the hon. member that if he were to come forward with a practical suggestion which would not frustrate these two objects, we shall give it our most serious attention.

The hon. member for Rosettenville pointed out that according to a calculation based on the number of drugs at present on the market —20,000 with an increase of 200 or more per month—a very large amount would be paid into the account of the Drugs Control Council. But this is only an estimate. Let me tell you, Sir, what the result of this control will be. Many of those articles are articles which should never have been allowed on the market. Many of those articles have such after effects—they have probably been badly tested or the after effects have not yet been determined—that one may be sure that the Drugs Control Council will eliminate many of them in order that they dared not be put on the market. In other words, we do not as yet know exactly what the effects will be. I can give the hon. member the assurance that if in fact it becomes evident that this is the case, as he said, namely that a great deal of money was to be obtained here which could not be justified, because the expenditure of that council was much lower and the cost of supervision was not as great, then we shall naturally give serious consideration to decreasing those fees—both the registration and the re-registration fees. I think I have now replied to the questions which were raised.

I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. the Minister for the offer that he has made, namely that if a system can be evolved he will give it careful consideration. That is how I understand the position. I should also like to put this point of view to the Minister, namely that most of the remedies to which I have referred are simple remedies, comprised of drugs which fall within the definition of the British Pharmacopoeia or British Pharmacopeia Codex standards. The standard and purity have therefore already been satisfied by the strict requirements laid down by these two books of reference and by the other standard books of reference and the regulations to which the hon. the Minister has referred. There is therefore no real necessity for the Drugs Control Council to be involved in testing a combination of these ingredients. I believe that once the formula has been approved and the product examined and passed by the Drugs Control Council, it would not be necessary for frequent tests to be made. I just want to make a brief reference to the question of tests. I realize that these tests could be very expensive, but I believe that in cases which would fall within the examples which I have given it would not be necessary to test frequently because of the standards laid down. And I believe that they would not be very expensive. I should like to refer the hon. the Minister to a question which I addressed to the hon. the Minister of Agricultural Technical Services on the 19th May, 1967. The question I put to the hon. the Minister was this: Whether his Department has submitted samples of veterinary preparations for testing by the South African Bureau of Standards; if so; (a) what types of preparations; (b) how many have been submitted; (c) how many were found (i) to comply and (ii) not to comply with the labelled amounts of active ingredients; and (d) what was the cost of having these samples tested? The hon. the Minister’s reply to the first portion of my question was in the affirmative, i.e. that preparations had been sent to the Department. To item (a) his reply was: Stock remedies submitted for registration in terms of Act No. 36 of 1947, mostly of the types intended for internal use and largely containing antibiotics and sulphur drugs as effective ingredients. In reply to item (b) the hon. the Minister stated: 52 samples, of which the analysis of 25 have been completed. They further found that 23 complied with the labelled amounts of active ingredients while only two did not comply. All this added up to a very small expenditure as indicated by the answer to item (d) of my question. It reads: An account for R200 has been received up to the present for the analysis of 14 samples. I feel that if the hon. the Minister is going to encourage empire building by the fact that the Drugs Control Council will now institute its own testing laboratories —and I know that the Act lays down that the Minister of Health may appoint the necessary skilled technicians to do this work—then that will be an expensive way. But if the Drugs Control Council can, as in the case of the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, use the facilities which already exist, and which apparently are prepared to give an efficient service at a reasonable price, I do not believe that the expense will be great. I therefore believe that the question of the registration and re-registration fee could well be reconsidered. I think—and I am not speaking as a highly-trained pharmacologist—that the assays and tests required to test the claimed strength of antibiotics and sulpha drugs would be far more involved, complicated and expensive than the tests which would be required to test the ingredients of ordinary home remedies which I have mentioned.

I just want to point out to the hon. member that the remedies he has mentioned are in fact simple remedies and that the testing of those remedies in the laboratories was to determine what the components were, and whether they complied with the standards. But the function of the Drugs Control Council is much more important to-day. It is not only necessary to determine what the components are. The Drugs Control Council must determine the biological action, and there is a great difference in that, because all manner of means are necessary to do this. It is not merely a chemical determination of what the elements or components are. It is a biological determination of what the effects are on humans, marmots or monkeys.

It might take years.

Yes, that is so. In other words, it is a completely different investigation and the cost is very different too. I am only mentioning this to show that the amounts laid down here are not excessive. The intention is not to exploit people or to collect more money for the State. The intention is only, in the first place, to cover the costs and, in the second place, to keep unnecessary drugs off the market.

Amendment put and negatived.

Clause, as printed, put and agreed to.