In the course of the discussion on Vote 6, Cultural Affairs, I mentioned the education of very young children and I was referring particularly to what is called the integration of immigrants. I shall leave that for a moment because the hon. the Minister has undertaken to give us an explanation. I have asked him to apply the principles laid down in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that is to say, that the parents will decide how their children are to be educated. Now I come to another point, now that we have come to the Education Vote, starting again at the bottom, with the admission of children to schools. The hon. the Minister has published regulation No. 2356, which says that children can be admitted to schools in the year in which they attain the age of six, provided they attain that age before the end of June. I take the case of a child who was born on 1st July. He cannot go to school that year. He can go to school the following year, when he will be 6½, and of course he will go into a class of children of 5½. He will have 12 years in school, which will make him 18½. He will have one year of military service, which makes him 19½. So before he can go to a university, if he is a normal child, he will be almost 20. I ask the Minister to revise that, and while he is revising it I ask him not to restrict private schools by making them carry this out; because I understand that in one province the Department of that province has said that in private schools they will have to admit children at the same age as in Government schools. Well, so much for that.

I now come to the hon. the Minister’s Department. I have had an opportunity of having a glance at these reports we have received, a cursory glance only because we received them only yesterday afternoon. I should like to refer to what is happening in his Department. I am going to quote from his own National Education Advisory Council. This council was established some years ago to advise the Minister and gradually it has become part of his organization. He has an excellent staff of public servants, but the National Advisory Council came along to give him advice and to be an extra part of his staff. Now, what is happening to them at present? If one looks at the Estimates, the cost has increased tremendously and now we have this statement in the Annual Report that the Public Service Commission has agreed to create a division of national education financially separated from the Department of Higher Education and directly responsible to the Minister. I am quoting from page 2, paragraph 254

The Division is, inter alia, responsible for the secretarial duties of the Council. It also has certain links with the Department of Higher Education, while it was a subsidiary part, an advisory body, in the beginning.

And then we come to this point. They give the staff. The staff is increasing as well, according to Parkinson’s Law that I quoted last night. That law is operating now and we find paragraph 256 on the same page, saying—

There you have Parkinson’s Law in operation, as I quoted it to the Minister last night. There is no question about what is happening in his Department. The work expands so as to fill the time available for its completion. That is Parkinson’s Law, i.e. more and more extensions to the Department. And while this has been going on and the Minister is establishing a separate Department of Cultural Affairs, we find that one of the most important sections of his own Department, the National Bureau of Educational and Sociological Research, has now been established as the Human Sciences Research Council, quite independent of the Minister, excepting that the Minister, as usual, will appoint the members of the Council. The cost, according to the Estimates, will be R1,640,000, to be given to them as we give money to the universities and to the C.S.I.R.

Now I think the time has come to call a halt. The Minister has been streamlining his Department by creating his new Human Sciences Research Council, and in addition he has sloughed off his responsibility for secondary education. We passed that Bill in 1967. It was Act No. 41 of 1967, when our educational services were handed over to the provinces. And whilst he has been sloughing off his responsibilities he has been building up a separate Department. I think it was quit unnecessary for the hon. the Minister to allow his Department to develop in this manner.

I have another point I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, this question of higher education and the establishment of boards. Let us see what boards are established and are operating now in education. We have a number of them. I am just going to give the names of some of them. One is the National Advisory Education Council. Then there is the Committee of Educational Heads, and when they sit together they have another name; they become the contact body. As if that were not enough, we have another body, the Permanent Inter-Departmental Committee for the Coordination of Educational Services for All Races. That, I understand, is called P.I.C.C.E.S. being the first letters of this new title, Permanent Inter-Departmental Committee for the Co-ordination of Educational Services. Sir, here we have all these boards, and I cannot understand how the Minister can control them all. I think what the Minister should do immediately is to streamline his Department. He does not need them. He has the Committee of Educational Heads and a good Department; what more does he need? The fewer the better It is like an army that has all its forces behind the lines, and not enough at the front. I want to see more men going to the front in education and fewer sitting in offices.

The hon. member for Kensington mentioned the fact that there are many bodies and committees which issue reports. I consider it very important that he referred to that, because it merely illustrates to me how dynamic this respective Minister is and how dynamic the Department has become. This is specifically being done for the additional streamlining of the Department’s operations. Sir, last night, in his short speech, the hon. member for Kensington referred to the increased financial assistance to the universities, and labelled this as a “gift”. He also referred to the part-played by the hon. the Minister in obtaining increased contributions for the universities. I should like more emphasis to fall on these increased financial contributions. I should like to refer to page 32 of the Estimates, the item “Financial Assistance to Universities and Bursaries for University Education”. The assistance-to universities has been increased from R21,762,000 in the previous Estimate to R31,039,000 in the present one. This is an increase of R9.3 million or approximately 41 per cent. Sir, I should like to make use of the opportunity, on behalf of the universities as well, because I am also serving on a university council, to thank the Government very heartily for this increased assistance, but also to thank the Minister more directly for the tireless zeal which he has displayed in order to obtain this increase of the subsidy.

To-day I want to congratulate the hon. member for Kensington, and you will be surprised to hear what I want to congratulate him on. I want to congratulate him on still being the United Party’s chief speaker on educational matters; that his head did not roll, during the rejuvenation which his party underwent, like those of some of the other senior members of his party. I want to say that as an ex-teacher and an ex-inspector the hon. member is a very competent ex-educationist and has always spoken with authority about educational matters, but if he were to drop out I really do not know what would become of that party as far as educational matters are concerned. [Interjections.] Sir, who will have to take his place is not my problem; it is the Leader of the Opposition’s problem. But while I am making these few well-intended remarks about the hon. member, I nevertheless want to say that I shall not refrain criticizing and attacking him if his views do not accord with those of the governing party, and neither will it restrain me from attacking him about uncalled for attacks which he has made on the hon. the Minister. In this connection I should like to refer to a report which appeared in a newspaper as a result of a meeting which the hon. member addressed in Durban on 1st October, 1968. This report comes from an English language newspaper, the Rand Daily Mail, of 2nd October, 1968. The report appears under the following heading: “De Klerk made a hash—M.P.” The report reads as follows—

Despite the hon. the Minister’s wonderful achievements as Minister of Education, the hon. member, who only yesterday praised the hon. the Minister, said on that occasion that the Minister should resign because of the intervention of the hon. the Prime Minister. I think the remark was far fetched, presumtious, misplaced and in addition an unreasonable and nonsensical one. I merely want to say that, in respect of the specific matter, the hon. the Prime Minister has already explained the reasons in Parliament on 18.6.1968. (Hansard, column 7590). The hon. member was present here and merely made two insignificant interjections. He had the opportunity of criticizing the hon. the Minister in his presence, but he did not do so. He subsequently went outside and criticized the hon. the Minister in this way. I really think the criticism was misplaced. The hon. the Prime Minister expressed himself as follows on that occasion, according to Hansard, Volume 24 (column 7592)—

I am an ex-teacher and I came to Parliament in 1961, the same year in which the hon. the Minister was appointed Minister of Education. I, this side of the House and the country outside appreciate the work of the Minister. For the first time in the history of our country the Minister has proved that education is something dynamic, that it is not static.

Let me highlight a few of the outstanding pieces of legislation which were piloted through by the hon. the Minister. [Interjection.] Mr. Chairman, I do want to ask you to silence the hon. member for Durban (Point); he is talking so much that I cannot hear myself, and I have a loud voice. In the first instance I refer to the National Advisory Education Council Act of 1962. This body brought a new tone into education. In the second instance I am referring to Act No. 39 of 1967, the National Education Policy Act. This Act gave a new national content to education, it brought about uniformity in secondary education and it eliminated the divided control of education. Thirdly, I am referring to the other two acts of the same year, the Educational Services Act, Act No. 41, and the Advanced Technical Education Act.

The hon. member also referred here, inter alia, to the National Advisory Education Council. The council tackled a comprehensive task and through the medium of the council the Minister and the Government did something positive for education. This council set its machinery in motion and at a very early stage appointed four sub-committees, after thorough investigation of the aspects on which they had to report. The one had to do the work in connection with the recruitment, selection and wastage of teachers. The second sub-committee worked on the training and certification of teachers. The third one gave attention to a very important subject, i.e. the status and prestige of the teacher. The task of the fourth concerned the conditions of service of the teachers. I want to say again that never before has such a sweeping investigation been instituted in connection with the teaching profession as a whole. Subsequently this fine report was issued, i.e. the Consolidated Report on the Teacher. The reports contained in this were drawn up by educational experts and not by laymen. As a result of these investigations salary increases were, inter alia, granted. These increases were a result of the report of the committee concerned and not a result of pressure by United Party members. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Koedoespoort has devoted a large portion of his speech to remarks made by the hon. member for Kensington. I know that this hon. member is quite able to look after himself in this respect. I would say to the hon. member for Koedoespoort that the hon. member for Kensington is not given to making irresponsible statements. His experience is based on an intimate knowledge of all aspects of educational matters. We on this side of the House stand by what he said.

I want to refer the Minister to a matter which I believe falls under his portfolio in terms of the National Education Policy Act of 1967. I do so because I believe, too, that it falls within the ambit of many of the institutions which are mentioned in these particular Estimates. On Tuesday of this week I attended in Durban the Durban Conference on the Abuse of Drugs. It was an all day conference. It was convened by the Durban Chamber of Commerce, the Natal Chamber of Industries and the Natal Coastal Branch of the Pharmaceutical Society of South Africa. It was chaired by the Mayor of Durban, Councillor Trevor Warman, and people journeyed from Johannesburg, Cape Town, Pretoria and Bloemfontein to attend. Invitation was extended and limited to 200 odd people who were considered to be representative of various walks of life. Admission was therefore limited to these particular invited people. The people who were present represented educational, church, police, medical and pharmaceutical interests. The universities were also represented, as well as the South African National Council for Alcoholism, Alcoholics Anonymous, sociologists and highly placed officials in the Departments of Health and Social Welfare.

My main impression of what emerged from this conference was that stress was laid on education. The mayor in his opening remarks indicated that he felt that in this particular subject, the abuse of drugs, the education of parents was necessary. Now, Sir, I know you might rule me out of order if I deal with this matter, because the National Advisory Council for Adult Education, a body which could deal with this matter, was discussed under a previous Vote. I shall not pursue that matter.

But I want to draw the attention of the Minister and place before him certain aspects which deal primarily with education and which stemmed from this conference. The first speaker on the programme was a minister of religion, a dynamic, dedicated and deeply worried young man. He was worried on account of the youth of Durban and the fact that there seems to be such a large incidence in the indiscriminate use of drugs. He had made investigations which had led him to personal danger. I believe that in some instances in his determination to see for himself the actual position, his life was threatened. He said among his remarks that he was satisfied that all large popular high schools in the Durban area had a problem of drug taking and the indiscriminate use of drugs. He pointed out that he felt that this was a problem that concerned schools throughout South Africa, but that possibly Durban and Cape Town were the main focal trouble spots by virtue of the fact that these two ports, after the closing of the Suez Canal, had become areas in which dangerous drugs could be obtained much more easily than hitherto. He said that there were too many parents at their wits end and too many children who were confused. He was followed by a city councillor, who commented that in her experience with youth the time had come to hold a conference at each high school to discuss this problem.

Then came a university student who expressed the view that information should be disseminated through schools and universities. He even believed it desirable to start at prep, school level. We also had the comment of a social worker, a member of the National Advisory Board on Alcoholism. She advocated a youth conference, planned by youth. She appealed for a programme of education and pleaded for adequate funds being made available. Billed on this particular agenda were doctors, psychiatrists and professors, all of whom stressed the dangers arising out of the growing use of drugs by young people. Furthermore, most of them stressed the need for education in the schools. At the end of the conference certain resolutions were passed. I have a copy of them here, and I should like to refer only to two, because I believe that both of them will be of importance and interest to the Minister. The first resolution I should like to read is—

This resolution was proposed by the Durban Chamber of Commerce. The second resolution has even more bearing on the Minister’s Department, as he will notice. It requests—

I know this resolution will reach the Minister in due course through the normal channels and that it will receive his consideration. But my appeal to the Minister this afternoon, on this occasion when his Vote is being considered, is for him to give this matter his serious and urgent attention. I believe it is necessary and possible for the Minister to set the tone and pace of this campaign to eliminate a problem which is becoming increasingly dangerous to the youth of our country. I also want to ask him to favour us with his opinion on this matter. I believe opinions on this matter have changed. In 1951 an inter-departmental committee brought out a report on the abuse of dagga. This is what it had to say in regard to propaganda—

This view is subscribed to by the International Agency on Narcotic Drugs. Well, I believe we have come a long way since then. A very serious problem has grown up amongst our people since then and those people who have given this problem their serious thought think that the time has come for education on these matters to take place within the schools themselves. I should like to ask the Minister to give this his sympathetic consideration. In this connection I should like to draw attention to the R176,000 which is being set aside for research by universities. If the Minister has any authority in the allocation and use of this amount, I should like him to urge that some of this be spent on this particular problem.

Judging from recent newspaper reports, this injudicious use of drugs, the matter which the hon. member for Berea has just discussed, has assumed disturbing proportions. The education policy which is unfolding under this Minister emphasizes the Christian and the national aspects. Perhaps this will produce good results in regard to this matter as well. Otherwise it is more of a socio-logical than an educational problem.

As a person who is associated with a university, I want to join with the hon. member for Koedoespoort in focusing the attention of the House this afternoon on the large amount which is being set aside for university education this year, viz. R31 million, an increase of more than R9 million on the previous year. This is an important breakthrough for our universities, and towards the hon. Minister who has to act as champion of the universities at the Treasury I want to add my congratulations to those of the hon. member for Koedoespoort for the success with which he has played his role. University education to-day is expensive. A country which needs highly specialized scientists, technologists and other professional people must realize that the knowledge and ability of these people can only be acquired by sacrifice, hard work and sufficient funds. It is fortunate then for South Africa that we have a Government which, as far as this is concerned, is doing more than its duty and does not skimp on education, a Government which is prepared to support our universities in such a way that they need not take second place to-day to any other university anywhere in the world, and which in some respects have even taken the lead. We have reached the position where we can in fact say that the doors of our universities are open to any young person to-day. The doors are open to any person who in any way has the intelligence or the willpower to study further. How much of our best brain-power was not lost to us in the past because parents simply did not have the financial means to send their children to a university? Fortunately those days are past now, and any young person, man or woman, can to-day study at our universities with the help of bursaries. They can, with the help of these bursaries, study as far as they want to. I want to express the sincere hope that our people will take cognizance of these facts and that they will avail themselves of these opportunities, because we cannot afford to lose a single young person who can in any way receive university training because ne or she did not have the means to do so. In this connection I also want to plead for more generous provision of bursaries for university students by the State; not only for our own students, but that consideration should also be given to our making bursaries available to students from abroad so that they can be attracted to our universities. If that can in fact be done the students will of course have to be selected very strictly so that we will not find ourselves saddled with inciters and disturbers of the peace, but will have only genuine students. It is an acknowledged fact that British and European universities are inundated with applications from prospective students. Some of these universities can accept only one out of every 14 applications. Now, many of these students can be attracted to our universities by means of bursaries. I am convinced that many of them will remain in South Africa because the opportunities offered by South Africa are so much more rose-coloured than those elsewhere. In this way we could also do much towards supplementing our manpower shortage. With the greater opportunities which exist to-day for young people, our universities have in fact become national universities, in contrast to the situation a few decades ago when university training was intended only for a small privileged group.

This brings me to a subject which I should like to discuss to-day. I should like to discuss the question of co-ordination and planning as far as it affects our universities. The size of universities has become a problem throughout the world to-day. Leading educationists think that it would be unwise to allow a university to become too large. An expert in this field, Professor A. C. Cilliers, states—

Some of the old universities in the world have grown into disturbingly large establishments to-day. The University of Calcutta for example has 117,000 students; the University of Sorbonne, 78,000; the University of Mexico, 70,000, etc. Even some of the universities in the United States have more than 60,000 students. It is significant if we note that many of the student riots which have taken place in recent times, did in fact take place at these large universities. Fortunately for South Africa our universities have not yet assumed such vast proportions. The reason on the one hand is because our universities, in terms of universities, are still relatively young, and on the other hand because our white population is so small. However, if one bears in mind the fact that a university must not be built and planned for 10, 20, 50 or 100 years, but for centuries, it is imperative that South African universities should not simply be allowed to expand on an ad hoc basis, according to the need, but that they should really be planned on a coordinated, long-term basis. Now the question arises as to how large a university should be allowed to become. This question ought really to be solved on a truly scientific basis. A few of our universities already have 10,000 to 12,000 students, and are still expanding rapidly. How large should they be allowed to become?

How large?

That is what I am pleading for, i.e. that there should be proper scientific research aimed at solving that problem, because it is a real one. we know that the problems of a large university are legion. There is traffic congestion. The students become lost in the masses. There is administrative congestion. There is the question of levels of authority. There is a chancellor, and a vice-chancellor, and others. This is a problem which has to be solved. Nevertheless our small country cannot afford to establish universities each and every time the occasion arises; the establishment of a new university costs millions of rand. The well-equipped, modern library alone costs millions of rand. I think, in all humility, that the University of Port Elizabeth has during the past five years solved many of these problems by means of research in regard to university planning. The solution we have found there, is that the planning should be such that on this large site, these expensive establishments such as research laboratories, a library, community halls, etc., should be placed on a central campus, and that around this central campus there should be a series of small universettes, each of which will form an integral unity of approximately 4,800 students, and that these universettes should be established round the central campus. [Time expired.]

I have no quarrel with what was said by the hon. member for Algoa, except when he says that the Government is doing more than its duty. We do not believe this to be the case. We still believe that if you examine the percentage of the national income being spent on education in other Western countries and Russia and compare it with what is being spent in this country, we are still lagging behind. But we are making progress and we are grateful for it, and we hope that this progress will continue. But I want to deal with an entirely different topic, and that is the question of bilingualism.

I believe that our object should be to ensure that every South African achieves the highest possible degree of bilingualism. I believe that the responsibility for providing the necessary facilities lies with the Government. The present position is this. When a child goes to school he is taught in his mother tongue. At the same time he is taught the other language, and I prefer to call it “the other language”, because I do not like the expression “the second language”. The word “second” may denote something inferior, and there is nothing inferior in Afrikaans in relation to English, nor is there anything inferior in English in relation to Afrikaans.

But the one is the mother tongue.

The two languages are taught on a different level, so when a child leaves school he finds himself in this position. He has a wide knowledge of his own language, and at the best a moderate working knowledge of the other language. In practice we find that the bilingual person is usually an Afrikaans-speaking South African who lives in the city, or an English-speaking South African who lives in the platteland. I presume the reason for this is that in those cases there is opportunity to use the other language. But an Afrikaans-speaking South African who lives in the platteland and an English-speaking South African who lives in the city is not bilingual. I think we have been looking at the position for a long time through rose-coloured glasses. We have been trying to convince ourselves of the strength of bilingualism in this country but I do not believe it to be the case. When the child leaves school and goes back to his normal environment, you will usually find that the little knowledge of the other language he has acquired at school is very soon lost and he ceases to be in effect in any degree bilingual. I think we must look at this problem in relation to the facts in South Africa to-day, and what are they? First of all, that to play a full part in the life of South Africa, it has become more and more essential for a person to be bilingual, and this is rightly so. We are a bilingual country and whether one is in commerce or in industry or in the professions or in public life, courtesy alone, if not practicability, demands a working knowledge of the other language.

Bilingualism, I believe, has become an absolute necessity because when any person has a job of work where he comes in contact with the public, he must of necessity be bilingual. Members of the legal profession today are finding that they must be bilingual. You cannot go to the court to-day as a unilingual attorney, and we are finding this in all walks of life. There is at the same time a sincere desire on the part of most people to become as bilingual as they can, and so we are faced with the question what do do about it.

There are a number of courses open to people. One can have private lessons in the other language, and many people do; courses are run at the technical colleges and many people attend these courses; the language laboratories are being used effectively. I was told in Johannesburg that in one day there were 21 English-speaking people who telephoned the laboratory asking for a language laboratory course. They could not be taken, however, so we have to improve the situation in this respect. Courses are run by a lot of private organizations, service organizations like Rotary, Round Table, Union of Jewish Women, and some of the churches. It is, fortunately, becoming a popular thing. I believe that this method of teaching is not intensive enough. There is not sufficient opportunity to speak the language and to live with the language, and that is the way to learn the language. I would like to see an extension of what we are doing to-day, so that facilities are provided for full-time intensive courses, both in English and in Afrikaans, and these should be provided by the Government. I believe, and I am sure every member will agree with me, that this question is as vital to the future of South Africa as any other topic that we have ever discussed in this House. I believe that we should have courses where it is possible for the student to live in. I do not say that when one lives in, one should not pay for board and lodging. There should be courses of two or three months’ duration, entirely devoted to the study of the other language. They should be intensive, hard 12- hour-a-day courses, because I believe that this type of course will provide the best opportunity for the South African to become really bilingual. It will be welcomed by a great number of people in South Africa. It will be heartily supported by commerce and industry. The trouble with part-time courses is that they are too infrequent, that they are spread over too long a period, that there are too many reasons for missing lectures—social functions that one has to attend and business appointments that one has to keep. What we want is a full-time intensive course, where, as I have said, one can eat, live and sleep the language. Sir, this is nothing new; these are not new proposals. Israel, faced with the problem of 56 foreign languages in its country, through its immigrants, has set up the Ulphan, and that is what I am really suggesting here. In other words, institutions where immigrants to the country come to learn a common language. We can use this system for immigrants as well, but what I am concerned with at the moment is the South African. Sir, the professions are doing it; the legal profession, the dental profession and accountants are doing it. I have a list here of summer schools. Here is one for accountants, namely a General Computer Appreciation Residential Course. Old accountants like myself do not know too much about computers; we have to be up-dated so we have to go to these courses where we learn the job with our fellow-accountants. Sir, I believe that the question of accommodation is not a serious problem. There are the hostels of the high schools during the holidays; there are the hostels of the universities; there are hotels, that out of season would be grateful and glad to have people living there at a nominal fee and at a price to suit every pocket. If the professional man wants to pay RX for his board and lodging those facilities should be provided at, say, one of the hotels; if a person in the lower income group or a person sent by an employer wants to go on a course, he can go to a hostel at a lower fee.

Sir, I believe that the question of bilingualism is one of the fundamental factors of what we call South Africanism. Without bilingualism you will never really get a true South African. I believe that the time has come when we in South Africa, particularly the Government in whose hand it lies, must take every step to ensure that the object of the fullest bilingualism of every person in South Africa must be one of its guide-fines, because therein lies a future good for us all. I hope the Minister will react favourably to what I have suggested.

I merely want to say a few words about what the hon. member for Parktown said. I have no fault to find with that and his is probably a good appeal. But we shall have to see whether what the member proposed we should do in practice can be worked out and implemented as easily as he said. Without discussing this matter at length, I want to mention something of great importance. The Government can provide facilities, we can try to put the matter right with courses and all those aspects, but there is something else of great importance which must be added. This is the question of the right attitude One must approach these matters in a spirit of goodwill, and if there is no goodwill we shall perhaps not be able to achieve success, even though we feel exactly as the hon. member does. We must therefore also cultivate the right attitude in respect of the language and the culture of our fellow-citizens in South Africa. I believe that this is the basis. We must always give pride of place to the love of what is our own, but then we must also remember what Langenhoven said: “Hoe meer tale ek ken, hoe meer male is ek man.” (You are worth as many men as you know languages.) I have no fault to find with what the hon. member said. It is something praiseworthy which we can pursue. We shall just have to give the matter careful thought before we tackle something over-hastily which is perhaps not practicable.

Please allow me to refer to another matter which I believe also deserves the attention of the House, of the hon. the Minister and of his Department. We in South Africa are in a unique position. Here the amassing of knowledge and the possession of learning are, to put it like that, of tremendous value to us. You know that we have the problem of numbers, the numbers of Whites as against the numbers of people of other colours. Even though we cannot keep ahead of the numbers we must try to balance them out with our brainpower and capacity for knowledge.

It is probably not necessary for me to say the following. The educated man, no matter in what occupation he finds himself, does the best work, after all. He is more productive and is the man to whom one can, in the majority of cases, entrust the responsibility. A country’s level of development in the world is also measured according to the numbers and quality of its educational institutions, especially its universities, and according to its number of graduates produced by those universities. We in South Africa are doing a lot in order not to lose a single student who perhaps possesses the talent to obtain a degree. We create the facilities; we want everyone who can possibly reap the benefit of higher education and training to have that opportunity. On occasion in this House this year we discussed the question of university entrance qualifications. We asked that this matter be looked into to some extent, especially in our modern setup, so that not even one single student will be prevented from going to a university as a result of the wrong choice of subjects or other requirements which are laid down. We also know that the hon. the Minister gave us a very favourable reply. We saw what the newspapers wrote about it. We heard what people had to say about it. That this matter is receiving attention has been generally welcomed. Mention has also been made to-day of the position of South Africa in respect of its university training and the facilities which we are making available. By comparison with comparable countries, we probably do not stand back for anyone. If we look at the products of our universities, at our students, we find them to be of good quality. Take note of the research work that our universities are doing. We are ahead of the world in many fields. We spend a lot of money on our universities. Today reference was again made to the amount of money going to our universities.

But now I have read here and there about a matter which I want to raise here. I have also heard references to it in conversations. I should like to bring it to the attention of the hon. the Minister. I now want to say very clearly, without causing misunderstanding, that the examples which I shall mention, as I have analyzed the matter, are more relevant to commerce, to private industries. It is a known fact—it is not merely a story—that there are graduates in South Africa struggling to get jobs. I have even read the statement made by a personnel manager of an undertaking which employs thousands of people. He said the following: “We know there is a great mass of these chaps floating around, but we have no jobs for them”. I do not say that it is really as bad as that, but that is what this person said. Some graduates find that a degree is actually a disqualification and a stumbling block for them. If he did not have the degree, if he was an ordinary school leaver, he would probably have found it less difficult to get work. There are cases of graduates having returned to University to take a higher degree in order to see whether they could not in fact obtain a job with that. It is said by those in commerce, and more so in private industry, that the graduate is the product of education, not of training. They mean that those people are not actually prepared for the work they come looking for in commerce and in private industries. Attention is rather focussed on the school leaver. They say that he is more amenable to discipline, because the graduate who comes along gives himself airs to some extent. He already throws his weight around a little and, as they say, wants to come and “take over” just like that.

There is a known case where an advertisement was placed for persons to be trained as retail managers. Applications were requested from graduates and school leavers. Sixty graduates applied to have themselves trained as retail managers. Of those sixty who applied, only one was accepted for training in that direction. Then there are people with degrees such as B.A. (Public Administration), people who have, inter alia, psychology, for example, with other subject combinations, people who can in fact work in the personnel field in large undertakings. This position worries one if it is true. As I have said, it is not simply a story; there are known cases.

This now entails the following dangers. People, and especially young people, can very easily gain the impression that education and the amassing of knowledge no longer count. They can just as well stay away from university. A person can very easily obtain work as a school leaver, and does not have to attach any importance to university training. Even if the numbers are small, even if we can count them in tens, it is still a matter which should receive attention. Education no longer counts; training, only the preparation for a specific job, is what counts. Our manpower position simply does not allow us to waste any brainpower or to leave it unutilized. One then asks, if this is so, whether the guidance services at our schools are poor. I do not think so. Or could it be that people disregard the guidance which they receive and then choose altogether wrong subjects which do not tie in with their eventual careers? Training is expensive and we must make use of everyone. It is bad enough that we have student riots everywhere in the world. Our students also become a little hot under the collar at times. Individuals such as those do not have work with which to occupy themselves, and we cannot afford not to have those who have been trained working either.

We on this side have little fault to find with the case presented by the hon. member who has just resumed his seat. Indeed, we have advocated for a number of years that every talented youth should be afforded the opportunity of achieving the greatest degree of education so as to equip him for the future. It is indeed a pity that a number of young people leave school at an early age, while they are still completely illequipped to meet the future. These persons in many instances turn out to be misfits in the labour market. I know we have juvenile affairs boards which are prepared to give these people aptitude tests and vocational guidance. But it is alarming to see of what a low standard the education is of those who present themselves for employment. However, I do not intend pursuing this particular aspect any further, because I should like to move on to a separate aspect of the responsibilities of the Minister of National Education. This is connected, to a certain extent, with the productivity of our community. Here I refer to the responsibility of the Minister in administering the departmental schools for special education and the State-aided schools for special education. We have a system to assist the physically handicapped. Thus we have schools for epileptics, for children suffering from cerebral palsy, for those with sensory handicaps, for the deaf and for the blind. Most of these schools are subsidized and aided by the Minister’s Department. If one looks at the Loan Vote programme it is pleasing to see that a considerable amount is to be made available to the existing institutions in order to enable them to extend their work in their particular fields.

However, the question of the physically handicapped child is a charge on the hon. the Minister which gains added significance by the transfer of schools for the physically handicapped to his control. In the past provincial administrations have endeavoured to build and extend many of these schools. We know that these schools render a tremendous service to the physically handicapped. Experience has shown that the educational standards of such children are enhanced by attending such a school. Hence the efforts of provincial administrations to extend these facilities and to provide a dedicated staff to attend to the needs of these children. The important aspect here is dedicated staff. A certain amount of apprehension has been caused amongst parents and also amongst certain teachers with the transfer of the control of these schools to the Minister’s Department. This apprehension revolves around the traditions that have been built up in some of these schools. For some of these schools there are active parent/teacher associations and trustees appointed to administer prizes which are allocated each year. At the Open-Air school in Durban, for instance, they have a prize-giving ceremony where a large number of prizes are donated. The benefit of such a prize-giving reflected in the improvement of the general standard of the pupils, because these prizes are handed out as an encouragement to them. It is to be hoped that the hon. the Minister will allow these traditions which have been built up over the years to continue. Unfortunately, children at these schools stop after having reached a Std. VI standard of education. It is to be hoped that the Minister will give due consideration to the extension of the education for these children to Std. X. Some of these children after having reached Std. VI and who then have to attend an ordinary high school for their secondary education often fall by the wayside. The question of staff is, I believe, perhaps the most important aspect of this added responsibility of the hon. the Minister. As I mentioned earlier, the question of dedicated and properly trained staff is a vitally important question if these schools are to fulfil their true function. We know there are a shortage of teachers, especially those with a calling for this aspect of education. In the latest report of the Department of Higher Education, some indication is given of the shortage of staff existing in various schools. On page 32 reference is made to the departmental and State-aided schools. There it is reported—

An important observation to my mind is—

Here, I believe, there is a serious gap in so far as the provision of trained persons and their training to perform this most important, specialized work, is concerned.

In the few minutes left to me I should like to raise another aspect where I hope the hon. the Minister shall be able to give us some information. It does not concern physically handicapped children, but the training of doctors and medical schools. This matter was also raised last year, and the hon. the Minister in his reply then mentioned that the matter was being investigated by the Scientific Advisory Council under the Minister of Planning with a view to the possibility of establishing another medical faculty at one of the universities. We know that the shortage of doctors is causing grave concern in South Africa. We know that the training of doctors is being hindered by the fact that in many instances medical schools are unable to accept suitable applicants for a medical course. Out of 2,696 applicants in 1968 only 1,087 were accepted. Can the Minister give us any indication of the prospects of establishing another medical school at one of our universities? In Natal we have a medical school, but this is strictly for non-white students. It is a source of disappointment to many parents in Natal if they find that their children cannot be accommodated when they endeavour to enroll them at one of the English language universities. In this way the talents of many young people are being wasted while these can play a very important part in alleviating the shortage of doctors and dentists which exist in South Africa at the present time. We believe that, as far as the position in Natal is concerned, the Addington Hospital would be ideal for the training of medical students. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I should like to support the hon. member for Umbilo in his plea for the extension of medical faculties in South Africa. I do not once again want to use the arguments which were used in previous debates in order to plead for a medical faculty at the University of the Free State. The matter has been investigated thoroughly and we believe that the Minister will shortly give a decision about it. It is with great confidence that we leave in his hands the consideration of the report which was drawn up. I have no doubt that the next medical faculty will be at the University of the Orange Free State.

Sir, it has been claimed that in the technological and scientific fields the world has progressed more rapidly in the past 25 years than during the previous 200 years. A virtual technological revolution has swept the world. We think, for example, of our methods of transport, our communications, electronics, nuclear power, etc. I do not have to elaborate on this. It is, therefore, a new world the youth of South Africa is entering into. That new world holds a tremendous challenge for the young people. It is our duty and the duty of this House to prepare the youth of South Africa to deal with those challenges. One feels grateful to-day to have leaders in South Africa who realize this truth. In this connection I cannot neglect to mention the name of the present Minister of National Education, who has done a gigantic task in laying down a national education policy for us, and who is guiding that policy purposefully in a certain direction. We want to thank him in anticipation of the fact that shortly he will also be piloting the Teachers’ Training Bill through this House. When that happens we shall be entering upon a new era in the world of education. Since we are now going to have a new dispensation in the world of education, we should like to see a healthy balance between university training on the one hand and post-school vocational training on the other. It cannot be disputed that the emphasis has in the past always fallen on academic education. That is why the country schools were chiefly orientated towards giving tuition in academic subjects. The technical schools are now being transferred to the Provinces, and one involuntarily asks oneself whether technical education will come into its own under this new dispensation. Figures for the year 1968, which I have obtained from the Bureau of Statistics, give one reason for concern. According to those figures there were 58,973 students at the technical colleges in 1956. In 1965 there were 46,973 students. This means a decrease of 20 per cent in the number of students. In contrast to that the number of students in the academic sector increased from 23,583 in 1956 to 44,148 in 1966. There is thus an increase in the number of students in the academic sector as against a decrease in their number in the technical sector. It is generally accepted that every scientist in industry or research must be aided by an average of three trained assistants in order to utilize his talents efficiently. I now want to suggest that according to the figures which I have just quoted, we are possibly heading for a position in which this balance will not be maintained. One may ask oneself why there are fewer students in the technical sphere than in the academic sphere. I want to claim that vocational guidance is perhaps directed more towards laying emphasis on university training, and in the second place I am not so sure that school leavers are informed of the possible higher education at the technical colleges, training which leads to the obtaining of national diplomas for technicians. One sometimes wonders whether school leavers are aware of the courses offered by technical colleges. On page 17 of this report there appears a very impressive list of the courses which are offered. In passing I should merely like to refer to the courses in farm implement techniques, which is now being offered at the Free State Technical College in Bloemfontein. This is a very valuable course and was previously offered in Ficksburg. It is a course which is doing the farmer of South Africa an inestimable service, and I am glad to read in this report as well that the extension of the course is very promising.

We are continually speaking of a manpower shortage. Perhaps this problem must to an extent be attributed to the misuse of our labour potential, and there I want to link up with what the hon. member for Germiston said. In the Burger I read that a certain Dr. P. J. Lloyd made a survey, over a period of six months, of 312 advertisement for jobs for B.Sc. graduates. His findings were published in the Rand Daily Mail of 22nd February. Of the 312 there were less than 10 per cent in which the graduates would have immediate use for his scientific training. In 36 per cent of the cases, it was doubtful whether he would ever make use of his specialized training. In the case of the remaining 54 per cent, it was very clear that the technical training would never be used. The question is now why we are training these people at very great expense if their training is being utilized so poorly. It is therefore essential that the education pattern be formulated in such a way as to meet all the real needs of the country. In magazines I notice that it is also suggested, and I also want to suggest it for consideration, that thought should be given to the establishment of an aptitude test when first year students are selected so that it may then already be determined whether the candidate has aptitude for and interest in the technical or academic sphere. Our endeavour and ideal must be to have a balanced relationship in this country between technical tuition on the one hand and academic tuition on the other.

The hon. member for Virginia raised two matters I would like to comment on. The one was the position of the hon. the Minister as a leader in the development of education in our country. It is not my intention to disturb the academic calm of this occasion. I think perhaps on another occasion we can discuss how we have felt about the Minister in the past, but I think I will leave that out for the moment.

He also raised the question of the method in which our academically trained personnel are used in South Africa. It is one of the features of our school system that we go out of our way by having two streams of education, the O and the A streams, to try to differentiate before the student reaches the university level between the sort of person who can well benefit from an academic training and the sort of person who can better benefit from a technical training. I feel it might well be said, as the hon. member did say, that a person who has attained a B.Sc. degree and takes work, the requirements of which do not directly involve the subjects in which he was trained, is in a sense wasted, but I think the important thing is that he has a trained system of thought, because that is the ultimate object of a university education. It is to train a person to use his mind; and the fact that he might not be using it in the restricted field in which he was trained at the university, I think, is not so much a waste of the potential we have. It is merely that the person whose mind was trained in a certain direction at the university is now using his mind in another direction.

I wish to follow the hon. member for Umbilo in regard to the question of the handicapped child and the provision that is made for such children. It was brought to my attention very pertinently indeed by the parents of a child who is deaf. It is the sort of thing which can bring tears to one’s eyes when one sees the look on the face of a man who tells one that as the result of the training his child has had in a special school for deaf children, it was as though a window was opened into the mind of the child. Suddenly, as the result of the training, that child can begin to interpret the world, as the result of what that child can see. Where every other normal child can see and hear, that child, restricted as it is, can suddenly begin to participate in normal life as the result of the training it receives at these schools. This aroused my interest in the training of teachers who teach in schools for the deaf, and I wrote to the Department to ask what facilities are available in South Africa. A diploma is granted in special education. Two courses are offered. At the faculty of education at the University of Pretoria there is a l½-year course in Afrikaans. In the faculty of education at the University of South Africa there is a correspondence course of two years in both languages, and these can be followed by teachers who are already qualified as teachers. Beyond that there are in-service courses of training in one or other form at the schools which are actually teaching these children. I am extremely grateful for the work that is done by the Department and for the help given to schools of this nature, but I wonder whether in fact more cannot be done to encourage people who are teachers and who wish to dedicate themselves to this kind of work; because I agree with what the hon. member for Umbilo said, that these are dedicated people. They have a special calling in life to dedicate themselves to what must be one of the most trying and, on occasion, harrowing forms of education anybody can possibly attempt. The Minister’s Department in its report sets out quite well the position in its comment on the staff calling them a dedicated corps of people constantly engaged in improving their competency in their difficult task by study and by post-graduate research. It goes on to say that the successful employment of pupils and their happy integration into the world of the hearing and the sighted are the rewards that crown the dedicated and expert services rendered by the schools and the general contributions and interest of the Department. But I wonder whether we are really doing enough in this field. It seems to me that a lot more can be done to encourage such people, perhaps by means of special allowances. The report rightly says that the school boards are controlled by boards of management appointed by the various church denominations. This I take to mean that they are in effect as our private schools are; they are not under the direct control of the Minister’s Department but they are subsidized, as the report says, to the extent of some 96 per cent, in some cases, of their total approved annual expenditure. Here we are dealing with a very special case, the education of all handicapped children, and not only the deaf. I wonder whether some kind of special dispensation cannot be given by the Department to encourage trained teachers and people who are prepared to undergo training, to take up this kind of work. I understand that overseas this kind of training has been done on an experimental basis using closed circuit television and amplified sound, because these children have got to learn through their eyes. They cannot possibly appreciate what the world is about until they learn to interpret sound through their eyes.

It seems to me that there might well be a fruitful field of research that we could go into and perhaps we could adapt certain procedures that are being followed to our own use here in South Africa. We are told in the report that according to oversea experts the special education for children with sensory handicaps compares favourably with the best that the world can offer in this respect, and I think that this is to the great credit of our country, but I do ask the hon. the Minister to consider whether this special incentive should not be given to these people, which I think this very worthwhile cause demands.

The hon. member for Mooi River must excuse me if I do not follow him up in what he has said except to state that I can now at least agree with him for once. I am sure that the hon. the Minister will inform him of what is to be done for handicapped pupils. Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I do not only want to congratulate the hon. the Minister in particular, but I also want to thank him on behalf of education and on behalf of the nation of South Africa for his interest and particular dedication to education in the Republic of South Africa. Since the hon. the Minister has held this portfolio he has made it his aim to nationalize and coordinate education, and to do what was necessary in respect of education for the achievement of optimum results. Neither can I do otherwise than to refer to this particularly neatly-compiled annual report, a report which gives evidence of intensive study of the Statutory Committee of Heads of Education. This is an exceptional piece of work, and there is almost no factor in the education pattern which has not been studied, about which a report has not been furnished and about which recommendations have not been made. It is a work of an exceptional nature, a work of which the Statutory Committee of Heads of Education and all of us can be proud and for which we can all be thankful. The interdepartmental advisory committees, which also submitted reports to the Statutory Committee of Heads of Education, also deserve our appreciation. Sir, when I look at the amount which has been budgeted for the universities, I have to agree with the hon. member for Germiston when he said that people obtained university degrees in certain fields while they could have done better if they had taken another degree or another field of study.

I should like to say a few words about the problem of the influx of human material to higher education. In higher education it is very important to us that these people should have attended the right schools and also chosen the right subjects, in accordance with their capabilities and aptitudes. Through wrong tuition we get square pegs in round holes. Higher education gets the wrong people into the wrong institutions, and this causes them frustration and unhappiness and they are unable to give optimum productivity. With the handing over last year of the vocational schools to the provinces, a process which took place very smoothly, an end was made to divided control. The ending of divided control was an important step for the sake of differentiated education. The chief aim of this was to channel people, to vocational schools on the one hand and to academic schools on the other. But, Sir, there is still too much emphasis being placed on numbers. The emphasis on numbers at academic schools is one of the factors which is causing people with the necessary aptitude not to go to vocational schools. The inestimable value of vocational schools is not always appreciated. It is very necessary, especially in the times in which we live, for people to be sent in the right direction; that people be taught in the field in which their interests and capabilities lie. The phenomenal growth in the industrial field and in the business world, and the general economic growth of the country, have made it extremely essential for us to be more disposed towards sending more pupils who qualify, according to capabilities and aptitude, to the vocational schools, the technical and the commercial schools. Earlier there was a stigma attached to these institutions, but those days have passed. It has been proved time and again that people make very good progress in the commercial and technical fields and that they are very necessary among the ranks of the population. We must therefore stop emphasizing the idea of numbers at the academic schools. We must not have commercial subjects taught as an appendage at academic schools; we must allow these people to enjoy a full education in the commercial schools in order to qualify themselves. We must think more about the pupil himself, about the teacher as such, about the needs of the country and about the country’s interests.

Sir, vocational training in the country districts is very important. We must take the fact into consideration that commercial schools are emptying or that there is a decrease in the numbers at commercial schools such as those in Ermelo, Potchefstroom and Potgietersrust. The pupil must not only be taught the correct subject, he must be taught in the correct school, because this is very important. In order to achieve this object the guidance service will have to be extended. Vocational guidance plays a basic role, a particularly important role, in the training of our youth in various fields. If we do not establish the necessary facilities for the training of these psychological guidance officers and ensure that we supplement their numbers at schools, the whole matter will fail. We shall have to ensure that a structure of posts is created for the people such that we shall be able to retain their services as school psychologists. If we do not do so, education will fail in its aims. There must not only be efficient training for such people, but their qualifications must also be such that they can do their work effectively. In order to retain the services of the school psychologists, they will have to be given opportunities for promotion. They must regard this work as a career, just as in the case of teachers and inspectors. The second requirement for differentiated education is that the pupils should be selected and fitted into those schools which will qualify them for our technical activities and for the commercial world.

Mr. Chairman, I should like to put a few questions to the hon. the Minister. The first deals with the children of immigrants. Yesterday evening I touched upon this matter briefly. If I remember correctly, the hon. the Minister said last year, arising out of questions which had been put here, that the matter had been referred to the Education Council. I am not quite certain, but I got the impression that the hon. the Minister said that a study was being made of the entire question of language medium as far as the children of immigrants were concerned.

I shall reply to this.

I wanted to ask whether the investigation had reached a stage where the hon. the Minister could give us information. In addition I should like to refer to page 29 of the annual report of the Department of Higher Education. Paragraph 5.2.5 deals with the allocation of bursaries for research. For example, a bursary was allocated to the University of Pretoria for research in connection with a project dealing with the role played by Portugal in Africa, and her links with the Republic in economic and military fields. This is a very interesting subject. A bursary was also granted to the University of South Africa for the purpose of making a study of human rights, minority rights and self-determination in South Africa and elsewhere. I also notice that Prof. D. J. Kotze of the University of Stellenbosch received a bursary for the purpose of making a study of communism and of nationalism as a historical factor. Studies such as these are extremely valuable. When bursaries of this nature are allocated, are there conditions in regard to publication in the case of a university or an individual? Is there a time limit, and is the bursary-holder expected to make a report to the Department? Is he expected to publish his findings? How does this information find its way back to the public, which, after all, made the funds available for this valuable work?

One last question: The hon. the Minister will recall that I introduced a motion here last year in regard to a university of the air. The idea met with scant enthusiasm. In fact, the hon. the Minister was very unsympathetic towards the whole idea, and the present Minister of Information attacked me and stated that the idea was idealistic and unpractical and would cost too much money. However, I have now read in the South African Digest, which is published by the Department of Information, that something like this is in fact in the offing. Last year a very interesting report on this matter also appeared in Dagbreek. The headline was “The University of South Africa wants to apply for a special wave-length—People may obtain degrees by radio”. The first two paragraphs of the report read as follows (Dagbreek, 9.6.68) (translation)—

This is a very interesting report. Last year, however, there was no interest on the Government side for the idea, nor was there any indication that something of this nature was in the offing. I am not in any way trying to claim that this report appeared as a result of my motion.

Is this not a piece of journalistic ingenuity?

It is for the hon. the Minister to say that, but I would be amazed to find any “journalistic ingenuity” in the South African Digest, which is an official Government publication.

You quoted from Dagbreek.

The piece from South African Digest I unfortunately do not have with me now, but I shall have a copy made and forward it to the Minister, or discuss it when the Information Vote comes up for discussion. This subject is a very interesting one, and I will not claim that the report appeared as a result of my motion, but last year the motion met with such a negative reception in this House, and it was labelled as being so unpractical, that I should like to know from the hon. the Minister now whether *there are any grounds for this report.

Mr. Chairman, it will probably not be expected of me to follow up on what the hon. member for Bezuidenhout has said. He put a number of questions to the hon. the Minister, and I shall therefore leave it at that.

I want to begin by stating that South Africa, a young and rapidly developing country, which is making rapid progress in many fields, cannot afford facilities which are being created at universities to remain unutilized or even wasted. I should like to explain what I mean by this. What I have in mind of course is the large number of failures at universities. I will classify failures into two groups. The first group is the large percentage of failures among first year students. I think this matter was dealt with at length last year by the hon. member of Algoa, and I do not want to go into the merits of that matter. All kinds of reasons are suggested for this phenomenon, which is a disquieting one, such as maladjustment, that the gap between university and school is too wide, and even that students are going to university at an age when they are still too young and do not have a sufficiently strong sense of responsibility, etc. I am concerned about the large number of students at universities who, after their first year, still make no progress. These students take up the available accommodation at the universities. In spite of this they make no progress. Reference was made here, and quite rightly so, to the fact that the amount intended for university subsidies has increased tremendously. We must bear in mind that the State makes a large contribution. It has already been pointed out in this debate that university training is not always usefully applied. These are all factors which cause one to reflect and ask oneself if this is the case, whether we should not institute an investigation in depth in order to try to eliminate the difficulties. This student who remains for a number of years at university—I know there are cases where a university warns a student who is not making progress to do something about it—merely enrolls for another course and then remains on at university. When things begin to get too difficult for him again, he simply enrolls for a different course. Among these students who make no progress we often find the adventurous person, the person who has too much enterprise in the wrong direction and the person who might lend himself too easily to causing the disturbances we often find in our time. It is perhaps among that group in particular, if we were to investigate the matter well, that we would find the tendency which we regard in general as being a deplorable one. When I say that I do not want to impute anything to anybody. Nevertheless the question arises as to whether it is not time that we gave this matter our thorough attention. Often this type of student keeps other promising prospective students out of the university. We must accept that a person’s achievement in the subjects which allow him university entrance, and his intelligence quotient will be adequate guarantee that if he goes there with the right disposition and has a serious desire to get on he must succeed. Among many this is not the case to-day.

As regards education in general, I just want to express this one idea. In recent times we have made tremendous progress in the field of education. The salary scales of teachers have been improved so that to-day everybody can feel satisfied. For those who are not yet satisfied I feel sorry. We cannot measure the success of our education in terms of fine school buildings, or efficient and adequate sporting facilities or the high salaries of teachers. For years I was a teacher myself, and I want to impress upon everyone the fact that we must not forget it is young Johnnie and Annie, in other words the child itself, who is after all involved here. The other things are necessary, but are more concerned with the external. In the past we debated a great deal of attention to that. From now on we must also think, and think seriously, of the child itself and devote our attention to the child.

The item on the Estimates for the Minister’s Department I should like to deal with is the item of R525,400 for audio-visual education. In this connection I should strongly support the constructive suggestion made by the hon. member for Parktown on the question of bilingualism and should like to know from the Minister to what extent audio-visual educational aids are being used in the Government service and in quasi-Government services to improve proficiency in both languages. We all agree, I think, that it is essential that there should be a higher standard of bilingualism. In this connection I should like to suggest that there is no better place to start than here in Parliament itself. Has the Minister ever thought of having an audio-visual language laboratory installed in Parliament? Many of us have been making an effort to become bilingual since we have become Members of Parliament. When I went to school I could not take Afrikaans. In those days it was still Hollands. Afrikaans was not yet recognized as a language in those days. But thanks to the help I have had from my colleagues in Parliament and to the lessons I have taken while in Parliament, I have attained a certain standard of proficiency in Afrikaans. However this could still be improved if there is the opportunity to use it.

Because when one converses with one’s fellow-men in Parliament if one makes a mistake it is not corrected, if one makes a mistake in pronunciation it is not corrected. When one makes an effort to try, sometimes it is appreciated; I would say in most cases it is appreciated. There is the occasional ridicule, but that is by the way. In most cases appreciation is shown by both sides of the House. We do not have the opportunity that we would have had if there were a language laboratory in Parliament. It is important that our standard of bilingualism be improved. Recently I travelled with other hon. members to Australia,. New Zealand and the Far East. My colleagues spoke Afrikaans most of the time and assisted me with the language. I lived Afrikaans for the best part of six weeks. I can fully subscribe to the remarks made by the hon. member for Parktown when he says that living with a language really helps to improve one’s knowledge of the language. We had a very fine example of that during our visit to Nationalist China. We found that our consul there had realized that a language was a very important medium of communication. He had been in China for a matter of 2½ years and he spoke Chinese Mandarin. We saw him being congratulated by the Prime Minister of Nationalist China on his command of the Mandarin language. It is very important that we improve our knowledge of a language as a means of communication.

Generally English-speaking and Afrikaans-speaking people can understand each other’s language. It is important that we have the use of a language laboratory to gain mastery of the other language in this country. Many officials of Government Departments have to converse daily with Bantu people. Many people have picked up a knowledge of a Bantu from their youth. In Natal, where I come from, we say that most of us Natalians are bilingual—we speak English and Zulu. Of course, we hear and use the Zulu language from infancy. It is important that our youngsters should not only have a command of English and Afrikaans; they should also have a knowledge of the local Bantu language. It is more important still that adults who have a command of the two white languages should not stop at that point, but should realize the importance of having command of another language as well, namely one of the Bantu languages. Often our most successful civil servants are those who can converse with the Bantu in their own language, so that they can get to know their point of view. When one understands what a Bantu has to say, one gets to understand better the problems that are worrying him.

Language is the only means of communication between people, and in a multi-racial country like South Africa every encouragement should be given by the Department of Education to give languages top priority, not only as means of acquiring a better education, but as a means of communication between the various groups. We can thus build a better South Africa because through languages we can gain a better understanding. I hope when the Minister replies to the debate he will indicate to what extent audiovisual education is being generally applied. I should also like him to tell us whether, as an experiment, we can have a language laboratory in this House to improve the standard of both languages in the House, in the interests both of the House and of the country as a whole.

Mr. Chairman, they say “life is just one damned thing after another”. Actually I find it strange to hear from the United Party side to-day that bilingualism has become so important in South Africa.

I am grateful that the hon. member for Hercules raised this subject. He spoke about children in the lower age groups, particularly in the transition from primary to high schools, who are, for some reason or other, placed in the wrong school. We are all agreed that any child who has necessary ability must be afforded the opportunity of receiving the best possible training in that direction in which he one day wants to qualify.

The hon. member stated that numbers are such a major consideration at many of these schools. He said that in order to keep the numbers at the school high, children are often prevented from attending the right school, whether a commercial or a technical school. That is not all. Perhaps I could just elaborate on this a little. Many school principals sometimes try to get rid of certain children, and they advise the children to go to a commercial or technical school. Usually these are the less gifted children for whom he sees no chance of success at the academic high school. But —and this is quite shocking—if such a child is good at sport, whether a good rugby player or a good athlete, or whatever, the child is persuaded to remain on, and is then good enough for the academic school. It is a pity that this should be the case, but we do come across the phenomenon. As soon as the schools grading is at stake, the principal becomes concerned, and the children are prevented from attending the kind of school they should really attend. Actually the school’s achievement in the field of sport, and the school’s grading are the decisive factors. The factors which play a major role, instead of the interest of the child.

I should like to elaborate a little further on what the hon. member said here, i.e. in regard to unnecessary subjects which those children are taking at the academic high schools. If a child wants to enter the field of commerce one day, would he not be better equipped if he attends a commercial school where he can receive more specialized training? Is this not better for the young boy who perhaps does not have the ability to attend university one day to go to a technical high school where he can, from his 12th or 13th year, equip himself for the trade which he will one day have to ply? Is it not time we introduced a common policy of differentiated education for the entire country so that we could make the best use of the aptitude, the ability and the talents of our children? I actually want to advocate that we should place our children in the school which would be best for their future and for South Africa at as early a stage as possible.

There is another little matter which I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. By now we have progressed quite far with a national education policy. I am thinking now of a few aspects of this. There are, for example, uniform conditions of service. May I say to the hon. the Minister in passing that I think our teachers are in general —I think I can say 100 per cent of them—very grateful and very satisfied with the fine salary increases which we introduced. I believe these improvements will prove an incentive to them to render even better services than those which they have already rendered.

We are grateful for the fact that basic curricula have been produced for many of the subjects, for primary as well as secondary schools, but there is something which still causes me concern in regard to these basic curricula, and that is that the sequence in which the teaching matter should be presented has not yet been determined. I am speaking from experience now when I bring the following to the attention of the hon. the Minister. As a result of this failing, the children suffer. In the Transvaal we have uniform curricula which have been fully worked out. In my own town there are two Afrikaans-medium high schools. Not even a child in Std. IX or Std. X can go from one school to the other because the presentation of the teaching matter of virtually all the subjects is not the same. Even in a subject like Afrikaans or English, where all the prescribed works are the same, the sequence of treatment of those prescribed work is not laid down. It depends upon each teacher in what sequence he wants to deal with them. Now a child can, for example, be in Std. IX, and half of the prescribed work are dealt with. If he is in Std. X the next year at another high school those same books are dealt with, because the other half had been dealt with the previous year. It is even worse when a child goes from one province to another. I do not want to advocate here that the same work should be done at the same hour throughout the Republic, but can we not determine such a sequence that a child, when he changes schools, can at least catch up on the work he has fallen behind with during the course of one term? I know that the counter argument is often put forward, i.e. that it can lead to stagnation and that it can undermine the individualism of the teacher a little. But I do not want to agree with that, because I believe that a curriculum must nevertheless be dealt with. All the prescribed reading matter must nevertheless be dealt with. It may just as well be dealt with in the same sequence. I do not believe that the sequence in which it is presented is the most important factor. I do in fact believe that the way in which it is presented by the teachers is of the utmost importance. I just want to say in passing that every teacher, male or female in South Africa would prefer it to be like this. One experiences that problem, in whatever province one might be, that if a child comes from another province, the work which he must do at the new school, is absolutely strange to him. He may perhaps have to tackle it from scratch. I should also like to state that I believe that education is not for the sake of the teacher, but the sake of the children. So I would definitely like to ask the hon. the Minister whether we cannot give our serious attention to this matter. It would eliminate a great deal of inconvenience for parents as well as teachers, but perhaps, most important of all, for the children.

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank hon. members on both sides of the House very sincerely for their participation in this debate. The discussion included a wide range of topics, but I shall do my best to reply as fully as possible to each of them. The discussion was conducted in an atmosphere of calm. At times it was too calm. At times I felt as if I should make an interjection in order to fan the flame to a certain extent, but I think that education matters deserve to be discussed in a calm atmosphere.

An important point was raised by the hon. members for Kensington, Parktown, Bezuiden hout and De Aar. Questions were put and certain statements were made in regard to this point, i.e. that education and teaching are concerned with the child. The point was, in the first instance, that the child had to be served by way of the best available means, and these were, in particular, the language used in order to impart knowledge to that child. That is why it is a very great pleasure to me that it so happened that at this very stage, only yesterday, I received the final answers which had been arrived at subsequent to all the consultation, firstly, with the National Advisory Education Council, the Administrators and the Committee of Educational Heads, as to precisely how we should deal with the mother tongue in our schools in respect of our own children and also in respect of immigrant children. This question was raised last night already, and today I immediately prepared this answer by way of a statement which I shall make to the Press, but to which I do think this Committee has the first claim since we are in session at the moment. It will be published in the Government Gazette by way of proclamation. It reads as follows—

This will come into operation on 1st January, 1970—

The above relates to Afrikaans and English speaking South Africans. Now we are gradually moving towards the other group—

This is as far as immigrant children are concerned.

Does Dutch count as Afrikaans?

If the Dutch or Flemishspeaking child knows and understands Afrikaans better, he attends an Afrikaans medium school. The following is the important part—

The education departments are to integrate immigrant children educationally and by means of purposeful programmes as soon as possible with the South African children with a view to eventual acceptation. Immigrant parents are also to be involved in these programmes. Provision should, however, be made for the retention as far as possible of the tradition and character of the existing schools by maintaining a balance in the numerical proportion between immigrant and other pupils.

This is an important point, as there have been many objections to the effect that in English language schools in particular the balance is being disturbed completely by immigrant children, especially those who do not understand either of the official languages, and that as a result teachers have to devote more attention to the language proficiency of such pupils, to the detriment of pupils of South African parentage. But now we have the following important administrative arrangement—

That is, over and above the normal scale of provision—

Now we come to the prescribed medium of instruction in relation to the other official language. In this regard the hon. member for Parktown said that this was not the second language, but the other official language. This is a very important provision. This will strike a new note, particularly as regards the hon. member for Pinetown as well, to assist in encouraging children to master, from an early age, the other language as well. This is a provision which will be promulgated and reads as follows—

In future we shall simply take very strict action. In this regard I have obtained the cooperation of all the education departments in the whole Republic of South Africa. Language teachers will in future have to acquit themselves properly of their task. We shall not allow broken English or Afrikaans to be used. Then I may also mention the school types. There are Afrikaans medium schools, English medium schools and schools in which the medium of instruction of some pupils is Afrikaans and of others is English.

This statement will be handed over to the Press. It will also be published in the Government Gazette. I think that I have now furnished proper replies to all the questions put to me in regard to immigrant children, i.e. in so far as their training and education in our schools are concerned. I just want to emphasize once again that, if such an immigrant child knows or understands one of the official languages, that child will be sent to the school where the medium of instruction is that language in which such a child can make himself understood to the best advantage. If he does not know or understand either of the two languages, the parent may choose what school such a child should attend. The proclamation also contains a lengthy indication as to how such a child can be transferred from the medium into which he was placed by his parents, should he be able to make better progress in another medium of instruction.

Now I shall reply to the questions put to me in the order in which they were asked. The hon. member for Kensington wanted to know whether we could not, in granting subsidies to universities, follow the example of the University Grants Commission of Great Britain. I think that our system is much better than theirs. We have received a great many inquiries from other countries about our Holloway formula and its implementation. In terms of our formula it is possible for universities to prepare themselves long before the time for their having to try to make ends meet on such and such a basis and with such and such a grant. Now I want to say what the problem actually is. The A. C. Cilliers Report to which the hon. member for Kensington referred, is a report which the universities felt was not acceptable to them. It was on that very basis that the Government appointed the commission of inquiry into universities as a whole. The Government also stipulated that by the middle of the year the universities had to submit a report on the financing in respect of the next five years. This will be applicable as from 1970. In addition an ad hoc arrangement has been made with the universities in respect of this year, i.e. 1969.

I do not wish to say much in regard to the annual report which was not published in time. I just want to say that my Department’s report was completed by January of this year already. However, there was delay on the part of the printers. That is why the report has not reached us in time. The report contains a great deal of statistics and it had to be proofread twice. However, the printers received the report back in January. We are very sorry that it had to happen this way. This work is given out on contract and is not printed by the Government Printer. Since it is not relevant here, I would rather not mention the name of the printers either.

The hon. member for Kensington actually wanted to know to what extent we endorsed the statement of human rights. The hon. member knows that we are no longer a member of UNESCO, and for that reason we are not interested in UNESCO’s statements at all. Besides, we are not prepared to endorse it. In regard to compulsory education the hon. member said that a child who turned six on 30th June, could gain admission to a school, whereas this was not permitted in the case of a child who turned six on 1st July. After all, the line has to be drawn somewhere. If we were to provide that the first of August would be the dividing line, exactly the same thing would happen. As I have already said, we had to draw the line somewhere, and consequently the middle of the year was decided on. I do not think the hon. member need worry about that. If children were to be allowed to do their whole first year of school at the age of five, it would be totally wrong educationally.

What about the admission of children twice a year.

That does not happen any more. In any case, it is unnecessary. Once our preprimary system of education is in operation and once the provinces are in a position to carry out their tasks in regard to nursery schools, I want to predict that the intelligent child who may not have attended school for that half year, will make up for that loss very quickly.

The hon. member for Kensington kicked up a row about all the councils. He kicked up a row about the Human Sciences Research Council. However, when we voted on this legislation last year, he welcomed it. I do not know what sign the hon. member is manifesting now! Is it forgetfulness or is it a rejuvenation cure which makes him live in the future. I do not know. The hon. member is kicking up a row and saying that we have too many councils and that my Department and I should do the work. The hon. member knows, surely, that he is conveying a totally wrong impression to that side of the House. Surely, he knows that education is such a thorny matter that the national pattern cannot be arranged from the top. Surely, there are quite a number of bodies which have to be consulted. The Education Council merely advises, and then the educational heads have to implement that advice. This council should be able to tell me whether it is in fact practicable to implement something. The interdepartmental committee of all the other education departments is merely a coordinating body. I cannot understand why the hon. member raised something of that nature; to me this was quite a bolt out of the blue and, besides, it was also unnecessary, too. The hon. member said that the N.A.E.C. now looked like a separate department. Surely, this is not the case; I asked for this to be dealt with as a separate department in the Estimates so that hon. members might know what the actual expenditure on education was. Disciplinarily and otherwise the Education Council still falls under the Department of Higher Education.

Then the hon. member for Durban (Berea) made a plea with which I am in complete agreement, and that was in regard to the tremendous abuse of drugs, not only by adults but also by schoolchildren on school grounds. I want to tell him that we are doing our best in that we have a special section on dagga and the use of these drugs in our hygiene syllabus. But, of course, the authorities cannot do everything; the major part of this task rests on the shoulders of the parents who have to ensure that this tendency is counteracted. But I shall devote the most serious attention to this request. I have written down these two requests myself, and they will be forwarded officially. I want to promise him that I shall have this matter investigated properly to see what can be added to the curricula over and above what can be done, apart from our calling in the police, to stamp out this evil. I fully agree that this is a great danger to our country.

The hon. member for Algoa sounded a serious warning in regard to the size of universities. The hon. member for De Aar once again expressed his concern about the large number of failures, and I want to deal with these two matters simultaneously. Both of these matters were dealt with in the report by Professor A. C. Cilliers which was not accepted. These were perhaps the most important objections raised by the university principals, i.e. that in this essentially financial measure he dealt with two matters which were not related to finances at all, namely the size of universities and the large number of failures. Hon. members will recall that these were the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry into universities, of which Mr. Justice Van Wyk de Vries is the chairman, and which has already started with its inquiry and will only submit an interim report on the financial position by the middle of this year. Then they will proceed with the remainder of their terms of reference, i.e. to investigate properly the size of universities as well as the large number of failures. His concern is actually with the length of the academic year. I think that once this investigation has been completed, with the expert evidence which will be given and the expert advice which will be taken, we shall have a proper report from the Commission, before we discuss these matters now and say that the university should be so big or so small, or that the academic year should be lengthened or shortened by so much. I think we must bear in mind that the Commission’s activities are sub judice.

The hon. member for Parktown made a fine and moving plea for bilingualism, and I now want to tell my old friend of many years’ standing—for we have come together a very long way since we were members of the Provincial Council—that I appreciate this very highly. As this comes from an English-speaking person, who made the plea which we as Afrikaans-speaking people have always made but which has at times fallen on deaf ears, I want to say that I am very glad that he did so, because I know him as a sincere person without ulterior motives. I cannot differ with him on any point, except that I want to be a little more careful than he was and say that one should not be in too great a hurry to find a solution and then think that one can solve the whole matter in that way. We are in fact doing something. I have already mentioned today the language provisions in regard to immigrant children. This is one of our greatest problems. We must make them bilingual too. I think that both language groups, the members of which are citizens of this country, have since our becoming a Republic realized more than ever before that we should really be bilingual and that we should leave no stone unturned in order to become bilingual. We are doing so now by providing these facilities to our immigrants through language courses in English and in Afrikaans for adults, where it is possible to do this. We are doing so through the language laboratories and we are doing so in our autonomous technical colleges. I have a long list here. We already have language laboratories in East London, Vereeniging, Vanderbijlpark, Sasol burg, Port Elizabeth and Welkom, and in the next few months another one will also be established in Springs. Since the establishment of these language laboratories, as many as 12,000 immigrants have received instruction in English and Afrikaans in the various laboratories. This does not mean that one is satisfied with the position and that one should say that this is the last word that has to be said in this regard. For instance, the hon. member for Pinetown made an urgent plea to the effect that we should also have a language laboratory here in the Houses of Parliament. This is a very expensive under taking, and I do not know whether I shall obtain stop orders from the members of the House of Assembly for the purpose of contributing towards the cost, if we were to do this. But half a mile from here we have the Cape Town Technical College, and there they have a beautifully equipped language laboratory. I shall most willingly and gladly arrange for special times when it will suit Members of Parliament to go there, whether they are English-speaking or Afrikaans-speaking. I shall make arrangements with the Director of the Technical College, while we are in session here, for special attention to be paid to members in regard to language instruction. I do not think that it is infra dig for us to go there. I think it is magnanimous on the part of anybody who wishes to improve his knowledge of language. I can say from experience, from what I myself have seen, that the language laboratory is a fine aid for promoting knowledge of language. The hon. member for Park town suggested ways in which he thought it ought to be done. I want to give him the assurance that we shall investigate it and see what the possibilities are, but they must rest assured that all of us are very desirous, as I also said in regard to cultural matters, of promoting bilingualism. We believe that it is only when a means of communicating with one another does exist, and for that purpose language is the best, that we can learn to have real understanding and appreciation for one another. We shall do everything in our power to effect this.

The hon. member for Algoa also pleaded for bursaries. I have here a very long list of bursaries and loan bursaries which the Department grants to the universities’ endowment fund, and which are granted by the Public Service Commission, the Railways and State institutions such as the C.S.I.R. and the Atomic Energy Board. These amount to almost R1 million a year. The amount of R500,000 alone merely represents the amount which has been paid into the study fund, and now I am not even mentioning private organizations, and there are many private organizations. The number of bursaries is increasing, but I do not want to say that they are adequate. I am one of those who believe that we should encourage to the highest degree every person who wants to study, and this is being attended to all the time.

Now I come to the hon. member for Umbilo who spoke about quite a number of matters. First he spoke about the training of doctors. I just want to say that good progress is being made. We are making rapid progress. The number of doctors who completed their studies in 1968 were as follows: 328 Whites, 17 Coloureds, 11 Bantu and 31 Asians. At the moment the number of students enrolled at medical faculties is as follows: Whites, 3,137; Coloureds, 131; Bantu, 133, and Asians 312. The report of the committee of inquiry into the establishment of another medical faculty is expected shortly. We have not received it as yet. I may just tell the hon. member that the claim of the University of Natal is receiving the special attention of this committee of inquiry.

The hon. member for Umbilo is, as we have come to know him over the years, a person who is interested in deviate and handicapped people. He did not speak about industrial schools this year, but he spoke about those people, and we are always appreciative of that. I think he put forward a good case for them. The whole matter has now virtually been finalized between us and the provinces. On 1st April we took over the Meerhof School in Pretoria and the Open Air School in Durban as fully subsidized Government schools. The latter has 110 pupils and the Meerhof School has 89 pupils. We also took over, as Stateaided special schools, the Hope Homes School in Johannesburg, with 220 pupils, on 1st April, the Uplands School in Pietermaritzburg on 1st April and the Martie du Plessis School in Bloemfontein on 1st January. The latter only has 15 pupils and the Uplands School has 18. Now I just want to say that in taking over schools, we respect and retain the traditions of those schools and have no intentions whatsoever of effecting any changes there. As regards these people we want to be sure that we have their cooperation, because all those people do their work with the greatest measure of dedication.

The hon. member for Virginia furnished rather alarming figures here as to how a steadily increasing percentage of people were inclined towards the academic sphere, but I must say that I am satisfied with our figures. In 1947—I am taking it in 10year periods—we had no technical courses and no students. In 1958 we had eight courses for technicians, 360 students. In 1968 we had 93 courses for the training of technicians and 4,200 students. If that can happen in ten years’ time, I almost want to give the assurance that in another five years’ time the number will not be 4,200, but three times as many. I think we should be satisfied with that.

The hon. member for Mooi River associated himself with what the hon. member for Umbilo had said. I may just add that we are giving these teachers additional remuneration. I know that money is not everything. What the hon. member pleaded for in particular, was that these people should regard them as dedicated persons, and I fully agree with him that the concern here is not with money, but with being conscious of a calling in life, to do the work for love. But financial encouragement and training are nevertheless relevant factors, and we are trying to do as much as possible in those ways.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Bezuidenhout that the publications mentioned in the annual report, used to be done by the Bureau for Educational and Social Research and are now being done by the new H.S.R.C. They publish them and they are on sale to the public. When a sound piece of work is done, a publication allowance is even granted. If the hon. member is interested in those publications which are lying in front of him, then he merely has to write to the Director of the H.S.R.C. and he will then obtain them as and when they are published.

The hon. member for Hercules raised the question of vocational guidance in schools. I just want to give the hon. member the assurance that this matter is receiving the urgent attention of the Education Council and the Committee of Educational Heads. I agree with the hon. member that scientific guidance is the source and the origin of the whole matter. If the guidance is wrong, one finds failures. If the aptitude tests are not conducted properly and if the child is encouraged to take a course for which he has no natural aptitude, it must lead to failure. If the talents which the child has inherited or with which he has been endowed, are not discovered and developed by experts along the right lines, one finds failures. A great deal of attention is being devoted to this matter by the Education Council.

The hon. member for Boksburg referred to basic curricula. I just want to tell him that we have already made good progress in this regard throughout the Republic. We have made good progress in introducing the same curriculum from grade I to standard 10, not curricula which are boring and monotonous, but curricula which ensure that one knows at each standard what is expected from the pupil in each subject and what the sum total of his knowledge ought to be. One cannot make these curricula too uniform by stipulating that in every school in every province this or that subject is to be dealt with on this Monday. As an ex-teacher the hon. member also knows that this simply cannot happen. The possibility of also giving pupils the same prescribed books, is a matter which we are investigating, and every effort is being made in order to make this possible. We admit that it is an expensive process if new books have to be bought all the time.

Mr. Chairman, I hope that I have now replied satisfactorily to all hon. members and I should just like to express my thanks for the pleasant hours I have been able to spend here with the Committee.

Would you kindly reply to the question of possible radio lessons.

My reply in this regard is still exactly the same as it was last year. I myself believe that this is wishful thinking. I described it last year as “journalistic ingenuity”. I do not wish to say that it is totally impossible, but we in the Cabinet who have knowledge of this matter, know what it costs to establish only one broadcasting station. If a broadcasting station were to be established for the whole of South Africa, one would have to broadcast on various wavelengths. One would be able to begin by giving radio lessons on a limited scale. One would be able to do so in a confined area on an F.M. transmitter or a transmitter which can easily be picked up. But pupils in areas which are far removed from the broadcasting station, would not be able to receive these programmes and many pupils would be excluded. Besides, as an educationist I want to submit that it is already a tremendous disadvantage if one has to receive one’s lessons by means of correspondence only, and it would be an even greater disadvantage if one could merely hear the teacher; one should be able to see him.

And if television is introduced?

No, one cannot see him on a flickering television screen. One must be able to speak to the teacher individually. If one has a problem, one must be able to put it to him immediately. Personally I do not believe in that, nor do I believe that it will be introduced very soon.

Votes put and agreed to.

Chairman directed to report progress.

House Resumed:

Progress reported.

I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill has reached the Third Reading Stage without any amendment of the provisions contained in it since we commenced the debate on this Bill. I want to say at the outset that nothing has been said by the hon. the Minister of Community Development and that nothing that has been said by any of the other members on the Government side, has caused us to give our support to this Bill. Sir, this Bill will empower the Minister to exercise powers which are presently vested in the local authorities and in the provincial administrations. It is as well that we should remind ourselves that the Minister will be dealing with the established rights of councils elected by the local community; that he will be concerning himself with the fine balance in municipal finance between expenditure and rate income. He is proposing to assume power to override the priorities which have been settled by councils and by their sub-committees over years of planning. The hon. the Minister, in discussing this matter, has adopted the attitude of “I will show you who gives the orders” as regards getting on with community development. Sir, this is amusing when we hear it here in this House, but I want to say with respect to the hon. the Minister that those remarks are not appreciated by those persons who are concerned with local government in South Africa.

I challenge you to show where I said that.

Sir, the hon. the Minister can read his own Hansard in this debate. This attitude which is adopted by the Minister is merely an attempt to shift the blame for the unsolved housing problems in South Africa on to the shoulders of the local authorities when it is the responsibility of this Government.

He is to blame for it.

The hon. the Minister has suggested that these powers are necessary, and he has attempted to justify this Bill by attaching to local authorities the blame for delayed action, and he has mentioned two specific municipalities in the course of the debate; he has mentioned the Cape Town Municipality and the Cloetesville area in Stellenbosch. Sir, the delays which have taken place in these two municipal areas are not attributable to the municipal councils concerned. I have indicated to the Minister already, and I wish to repeat, that when one finds the Department of Planning making no less than 41 variations or proclamations or reproclamations of group areas, then one can ask oneself what the cause of this delay is. Sir, there is evidence that the determination of group areas has not been done as it should have been done. When one turns to Stellenbosch, the municipality which is blamed by the hon. the Minister as being responsible for this legislation, I would like to remind him of two letters. On the 5th May, 1958—I repeat, 1958 —the Stellenbosch Municipality addressed a letter to the Group Areas Board in these terms—

Sir, that was in 1958, and what action was taken by this Government in solving housing problems On the 16th February, 1961, the municipality found it necessary to write to the board again, and this is what they wrote—

This is the municipality that this Minister accuses of delays in proceeding with its housing schemes. Sir, I will come back to Stellenbosch a little later because I want first of all, If I may, to deal with the position of the Cape Town Municipality which the hon. the Minister has publicly and in this House accused of neglecting to take action in so far as the District Six area is concerned. Sir, I would like to place the facts before you to show where the blame lies for the non-clearance of the slum areas of District Six. Before the last war, which is a long time ago, the Cape Town City Council commenced with the clearance of the slums in District Six. Before the war it had built no less than 483 flat units for Coloured persons. The war then intervened, and the Group Areas Act of 1957 was introduced and passed by this House, and immediately that Act was passed and the council continued with its housing schemes, it received a directive that 40 per cent of the housing that became available for Coloured persons should be used for displaced persons and not for those persons who had residences in District Six, and that they should not go on with this slum clearance. In 1962, when the council again commenced with the replanning of the District Six area, it submitted its proposals to the National Housing Commission and to the Department of Community Development, but they were not passed, because the Group Areas Board had not yet decided what group areas they were going to declare in the District Six area. Sir, the council made further recommendations, which are on file in the Minister’s department, to the National Housing Commission and the Department of Community Development, but they were turned down because of this lack of decision as to what was to take place. Three years later, in 1965, the Department appointed the Corda Committee, the committee of inquiry into the rehabilitation of depressed areas, and it then commenced its investigations in District Six.

Were those units that were built before the war for Coloured people?

Yes, for Coloureds in District Six; in a Coloured area. There were no group areas then.

What becomes now of your amendment to have separate group areas for the groups?

Sir, the hon. the Minister is trying to get away from the point.

No, you are trying to get away from your amendment.

He has accused the municipalities of not cooperating and of causing delays. Sir, I had reached the position where this commission was appointed in 1965. What happened eventually in 1966? District Six was proclaimed a white group area. In 1966 District Six is proclaimed a white group area and a year’s grace was granted to the nonwhites to move out. 45,000 inhabitants were involved and had to be rehoused. In 1967 the Secretary of the Department of Community Development took a more realistic view as to what was to happen in District Six with the vast number of people involved and at a public meeting he made it clear that the nonwhite residents would be allowed to stay in the area for another three or eight or possibly 15 years if their living conditions were decent enough, that is, if they had a roof over their heads of a suitable nature. In March, 1968, the arrangement was first made whereby the Council was put in the position where they had enough financial support to provide housing for these large numbers in District Six. Those are the facts as far as District Six is concerned. I want to say that the officials of the department have adopted the proper attitude, namely that until there is suitable alternative housing available for these people they cannot be moved out of Distriot Six. These are vast problems affecting human individuals. It is not a question of a municipality being un cooperative as regards the policy of the Minister or the Government. Councillors and those who work on councils give a vast amount of their private time to this work and they are entitled to be a little upset, to say the least of it, at the abrupt manner in which the hon. the Minister refers to them in this House.

I want to go on to the question of Stellenbosch. I have mentioned that in February, 1961, die Council wrote to the department and said they wished to take action in regard to housing in these two areas, namely Idas Valley and Cloetesdal, and that they wondered whether it would be a waste of expenditure. I am sorry that when we are dealing with this matter the hon. member for Stellenbosch is not here in this House. The hon. member for Stellenbosch was approached after this discussion in February, 1961, and he was asked whether he could not possibly help to bring about a decision in so far as the group areas in Stellenbosch were concerned. He was good enough to render this service to the Municipality and he was able to report to the council on the 15th March, 1961, that “die saak is nou in die finale stadium van afhande ling”. He reported that he had seen the then Minister personally and that the matter was receiving the Minister’s attention. What was the immediate attention and action in so far as the Minister and his department were concerned? One finds that the proclamation appeared not; as one would have expected in 1961, but that a decision was only taken on the 28th September, 1962. This was 18 months after it was said that the matter was receiving the urgent attention of the Minister’s department. In the intervening period this council was not idle. It was dealing with a serious problem of a shortage of housing in Stellenbosch. They did what they could. There were, for instance, requests in March and June, 1961, and in August, 1962, asking the department to expedite this decision. In fact, on the 29th August, 1962, the council said that they would at their own expense send a deputation to Pretoria to see the Minister to finalize the matter. It was at that stage that the proclamation appeared. In passing I want to state that the information regarding the two areas proposed in the proclamation of the 28th September, 1962, was sent by post to the Municipality of Stellenbosch on the 26th September, 1962. The hon. the Minister and the Government, however, tell us that there is consultation with local authorities.

Did you say that they asked to see me in Pretoria?

On the 29th August, 1962, a letter was addressed to the Secretary of Community Development in which the council said that they were prepared to send a deputation to Pretoria to have this matter settled. The hon. the Minister did not have this portfolio at that stage, but I want to point out what has happened. When this Minister took over the portfolio he told us about the drastic action he had to take because of the fact that councils do not cooperate.

Do you not think it peculiar that I have not had a single word from the Municipality of Stellenbosch?

Are these facts not correct as to what took place?

If they were so dissatisfied why did they not approach me?

They approached their own Member of Parliament. The information has been made public at a public meeting of the council. This is not secret information and it came as a shock to them that the Minister in motivating the Bill which we are discussing, should have singled them out as the reason and the excuse for this.

I never did.

The hon. the Minister issued a proclamation and he now comes to this House with a Bill which is word for word the same as the proclamation which was issued prior to the introduction of this Bill and he asks us to pass this Bill so that he can make sure that he did not trangress the law by issuing the proclamation. That proclamation was directed at the Municipality of Stellenbosch.

Let me go further into the sad history of this matter. In September, 1964, after the council had done its best to have planning done, it was found that the boundaries could not be settled because another department was involved, namely the Department of Agricultural Technical Services. What did they do? They wrote and requested that the departments concerned consult with the Department of Agricultural Technical Services and settle the boundaries. Negotiations went on and on, eventually in November, 1964—two years after the proclamation of these areas—the then Minister of Community Development wrote the following to the Town Council:

In other words, the council was pushed again and told to refer back to the Department of Planning. The Department of Planning then told them to refer the matter to the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, who had control over another portion of the ground concerned.

What else has happened? When it came to the question of tenders for the work to be done at Cloetesdal, one finds that these tenders were submitted to the hon. the Minister’s department for approval. The delay in this department was so long that the council had to go to the tenderers to ask them to extend the time of their tenders so that the department could settle the matter. These are the facts as they occurred in regard to this municipality. I can go on and on giving the history of this matter. I think I have given enough information to show that, despite the intervention of the hon. member for Stellenbosch and despite his going to the then Minister, he could not get a decision from the department in under 18 months. The hon. member knows that these facts are correct. He no doubt has the same report from which I am reading here. I am reading it because the people of Stellenbosch are a little upset that the true facts have not been placed before this House and before those who would support the Minister.

Let me say this in conclusion. The Minister has failed to justify in this House and to the persons concerned that this type of legislation is necessary. He has put up two excuses and he has named two municipalities as being the cause, the necessity for this type of legislation. I say to him there is no justification whatsoever for the accusations he made against those two municipalities. I wish to read what the responsible committee at Stellenbosch reported. They have been concerned for a number of years over housing. They have been concerned because there have been problems caused by Coloured persons moving into the town from the farms and from the neighbourhood. Let us see what are their views concerning the action that has been taken by the Minister in his recent proclamation. I quote—

The council was aware of this. I quote further—

That is the attitude of the Stellenbosch Council, of the responsible committee. The committee concludes its report as follows—

That is the position regarding the justification for this legislation.

As I said at the commencement, what has been said by the hon. the Minister, and what has been said by those who support him, does not persuade us to change our attitude, and we will oppose the Third Reading of this Bill.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Green Point said that nothing that had been said here could convince that side that there was any necessity for introducing this Bill. I want to tell you, Sir, that that really astonishes me, because right from the outset, and in particular during the Second Reading, the hon. the Minister’s explanations must have convinced anybody of the necessity for this legislation. I think any man who approached the standpoint of the hon. the Minister with a sense of reasonableness, must have been convinced by him. I say this because I do not hesitate to admit here that I was one of those people who had misgivings when I first saw this Bill. The reason for that is that I am one of those people who jealously guard against the taking away of the rights of local authorities, be they provincial councils or town councils. I have been guarding jealously against that and I shall continue to do so in future. When I first saw the Bill I had certain misgivings, like the hon. member for Green Point.

And then the whip was cracked.

That hon. member also spoke of the “big stick”. I just want to tell the hon. member that I have never discussed this matter with the hon. the Minister, so I know nothing about the whip which has allegedly been cracked. Commonsense alone has made me realize what a fine piece of legislation this is. I do not want to touch on the Stellenbosch matter at all, because I have nothing to do with that. There is, however, one thing I want to say. As a complete outsider I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point, after having listened to him this afternoon: “What is the connection between the United Party’s representative for Green Point and the town council of Stellenbosch?” As an outsider I wonder what the relation is between Green Point and the town council of Stellenbosch. I leave it at that. I know the hon. Minister will deal with them as I know he will do.

How has it come about that I, who had certain misgivings about this Bill at the beginning, feel myself free to-day to support the Third Reading of this measure? After I had made a proper study of the Bill and as a result of the way the hon. the Minister acted during the Second Reading Debate when he gave us, and also the hon. member for Green Point and other hon. members opposite, a clear explanation of the Bill, I changed my mind. He explained to us that here we were not interfering with any principle. The principle has been in existence since 1959. In addition to that the hon. the Minister said that the sole object of this measure was to deal with defaulting town councils.

There are many small towns in the constituency I represent. There are no large cities such as Cape Town and Johannesburg, etc. But I thank God that I am able to stand up here to thank the hon. the Minister for this measure, and I shall tell hon. members why I do so. I do so because I know that in the implementation of this measure the whip will only be cracked for those people who do not do their duty. Let us take a small town council such as that of Wepener. This is a town council that does its duty whenever it is required to do so. When certain Government decisions were taken and the policy was laid down, an appeal was made to the town council of Wepener to implement those decisions and that policy. As small as it is, that town council did its duty. Here I have a list of the various items and projects which have been undertaken up to an amount of more than R17,000. In this way this town council has carried out certain undertakings in implementing the policy of this Government to create better living conditions for all population groups. In terms of clause 1. this sympathetic Minister tells the town council of Wepener, “You have been faithful in doing your duty”. Circumstances beyond the control of anybody have changed. By means of this Bill the Minister informs that town council, “Because you have done your duty, I know my duty and I shall compensate you for what you have done”.

Fruitless expenditure.

One can call it fruitless expenditure. That is true. But there is no progressive man who does not undertake certain tasks of which some, as a result of changed circumstances, sometimes result in failure. Here we have a department that does not turn its back on that town council. This Minister and his Department make it possible for that small town council to recover the expenditure incurred by it in carrying out its task. Therefore we do not have the least fear that if a town council carries out its duties it need have no fear whatsoever because of this Bill.

This matter regarding the town council of Stellenbosch we leave in the hands of the hon. the Minister. But as we have such a sympathetic Minister, I have been wondering whether it would be out of place for the hon. the Minister and his Department to give attention, since we are living in times of a tremendous housing shortage, to that part of the country in which, inter alia, Wepener is situated. This area extends far beyond my constituency. Fortunately this state of affairs has not arisen in those small towns, but there are fine houses in that area which are unoccupied at present. Because they are unoccupied, they are deteriorating. We have been wondering whether attention could be given to this matter and whether a preliminary investigation could perhaps be instituted into the possibility of the Department acquiring those houses very cheaply and restoring them. Will it not be possible to utilize those unoccupied houses in some way, perhaps, in consultation with the Minister of Social Welfare and Pensions? We know that those houses cannot be occupied by economically active people. We want to concede this point. But we do think such a scheme would have social advantages.

After we have listened to the hon. the Minister, also during the Second Reading Debate, I think it is unnecessary for us to say much more at this stage, except to congratulate him with his handling of this Bill. We do not want to say this merely to flatter him. It is a fact. In conclusion I want to say that we have deep sympathy with the hon. the Minister because in spite of all his attempts, he simply could not succeed in convincing the hon. member for Green Point to change his opinion. We want to pray that mercy be bestowed upon the hon. the Minister and that something may happen on the opposite side of this House to-day which will make his attempts more successful.

Mr. Speaker, I want to reply to the hon. member for Smithfield. He said that in the early stages, when he first looked at this Bill, he himself had certain misgivings about it. However, having listened to the debate and to the hon. the Minister concerned, he is now completely satisfied that this legislation is necessary. I am very surprised to see how easily that member’s misgivings can be satisfied.

It is not surprising; it is intelligent.

I do not want to say anything further about that.

He also raised the question why the hon. member for Green Point should be raising topics that deal with the Municipality of Stellenbosch. The answer is very clear. If the hon. member for Stellenbosch has not raised these matters, I think it is quite right that the hon. member for Green Point should bring them to the attention of the hon. the Minister. So I must congratulate the hon. member for Green Point with the effective way in which he handled that particular topic.

The hon. member for Smithfield also raised the question that this legislation will only be applicable to those local authorities that neglect their duty in terms of the Community Development Act. From what I have heard in this debate, I am very well convinced that nearly every local authority in the Republic has carried out its duties. Two municipalities were mentioned and I think that we have brought adequate evidence to bear that in those two particular cases, if the Minister had tackled the problem perhaps a little differently, he would have solved their problems in terms of the existing legislation. I believe that the hon. the Minister has not made out a good case for the introduction of this very drastic legislation. What worries me most, however, is that the Minister himself does not think this is drastic legislation. He is taking tremendous powers. In analyzing the effects of this Bill, one simply cannot agree that the intention of the Bill is not to give additional powers to the Minister and to the hoard, but merely to clarify the existing powers. I am sure that if a proper analysis of this Bill had been carried out in proper consultation with the local authorities, the effects of this Bill would have been very much more apparent to the Minister. Had that consultation taken place and had there been sufficient time for it, a better Bill might possibly have emerged, or perhaps it might have become clear that there was no need for this Bill at all.

Will you give us examples of powers I am now taking which have not existed under section 17?

In the case of the city of Port Elizabeth, which I represent, this Bill, containing these far reaching powers, was merely forwarded to the city council as a routine matter. They were certainly not asked for comment, whereas, in fact, I know that they have very serious reservations about accepting the provisions of the Bill in its present form and the effects which this Bill now has on their authority. Talking about consultation, I am very surprised that hon. members on the Government side who represent that city did not see it fit and proper to consult with the City Council of Port Elizabeth. If they had done so, they would have realized that that city council was not in favour of this Bill. I therefore feel that it should have been their bounden duty to get up in this House and say what I am going to say now. We are confronted with a certain problem. The hon. member for Port Elizabeth (North) has acknowledged that the Council of Port Elizabeth is very, very “verlig”. But I am afraid, in view of the fact that he may be very, very “verkramp”, he may not find it easy to have consultation with that city council. Perhaps for that reason he had preferred not to take any part in this debate and express the views of the people in the council whom he represents.

It is very apparent that many authorities were not consulted adequately about this Bill. Not only the City Council of Port Elizabeth, but the City Council of Durban has asked the Minister to suspend parliamentary consideration of this Bill to allow the United Municipal Executive time to submit representations. It shows one again that these local authorities are deeply concerned about the matter. The Provincial municipal association was unanimous in condemning the total absence of consultation. What I am pleading for this afternoon is that if we wish to introduce amended legislation of this kind, which gives so much power to a Minister, there should be adequate and timeous consultation with the local authorities concerned.

I now want to deal with the effects of this Bill. Section 17 of the Community Development Act of 1966 certainly did not permit the board to sell and use the immovable property of the local authority. However, in this Bill it certainly does so. There is no mention whatsoever made in respect of compensation.

What is meant by all the powers of the local authority?

Within the defined area.

And the proclamation can give permission.

This Bill, unlike the existing Act, enables the Board to enter upon land and property inside and even outside the defined area. It seems that the board can go on any land and carry out any work. Again there is no mention of compensation.

Did you have the power before?

Yes.

Why is this Bill then necessary? [Interjections.]

Order!

Further, the Bill compels a council to supply information and perform services of whatsoever nature. This, of course, may include water, electricity and other services. However, in the Bill, and most surprisingly so, there are none of the sensible safeguards as laid down in section 49 of the Housing Act. In this Bill there is no provision made for consultation with the Administrator. The council may be involved in substantial expenditure without receiving anything in return. It is for these reasons that I say that this Bill is giving the hon. the Minister far too many powers. I want to emphasize again that what concerns us most is that he is taking these powers without proper consultation. Another effect of the Bill is that the local authority shall take full responsibility for the action of the board, including financial responsibility. This onerous responsibility has to be accepted by the local authority whether it likes it or whether it does not. What is worse, is that there is no provision whatsoever made for the board or the municipality to consult the Administrator in respect of these matters. It is for these reasons that I wish very strongly to support the hon. member for Green Point in what he has said this afternoon. It is for these reasons that we on this side of the House very strenuously oppose the measure before the House.

Mr. Speaker, I think to begin with it is necessary to refute a statement the hon. member for Green Point made in passing. The hon. member asked the hon. the Minister to quote a certain part of his speech from Hansard. I want to do this now. To refresh the hon. member’s memory I just want to say that since this allegation about the undermining of the powers of local authorities had repeatedly been made across the floor of the House, the hon. the Minister, in his reply to the Second Reading debate, said the following—

Later on in the same speech the hon. the Minister said—

It is not the fuss made by the local authorities to which the Minister referred; he was referring to the fuss made by the Opposition about the powers of local authorities. Now I just want to say that this side of the House probably is as proud of the work the local authorities are doing as that side of the House could ever dream of being; in fact, the hon. the Minister said in the same speech that from 95 per cent of the local authorities he had received the greatest possible measure of cooperation. He also expressed his gratitude and his appreciation for that. However, the hon. the Minister also referred to a few cases, whatever the circumstances may have been, where that co-operation was not as effective as is necessary for the proper performance of functions.

In this debate we have heard a great deal about the question of levels of government. I just want to say that this side of the House is as proud of the third level of government, and that the Government has respected it in many spheres, and is still doing so. It is not only local authorities such as municipalities that are a level of government, as the Opposition would suggest, but also school boards and local transportation boards, etc. They all function in terms of delegated powers. However, somebody must be responsible for the final results that are going to be achieved in the government of a country. It is this Government and this Cabinet which must in the last instance be responsible for proper government. Merely by listening to debates in the House we can prove very easily that the Government is held responsible for this. Time and again the Opposition reproaches the Government if there are slum conditions or if the action taken in some sphere is not as desired. The Opposition do not reproach the local authorities if there are slum conditions or if clearance work has to be performed; their first reaction is to proclaim that it is the Government that does not provide houses. Even if all the possible means are provided and all the arrangements for the granting of loans are made, the Opposition still shout that the Government is not handling these matters properly.

I want to return to the clauses of the Bill. I want to discuss the effect that this legislation will have when it is placed on the Statute Book.

I want to say that, like the hon. member for Smithfield, I am glad about the provision being made in the first clause of the proposed /Amendment Bill. I am glad that the amount of R1,000 in the case of town councils is now being increased to an amount that will subsequently have to be accounted for to Parliament. This was necessary in view of the changed circumstances. The lessons learned from experience proved it to be necessary that this amount should be increased. If there is talk now of the undermining of the powers of the local authorities, I wonder what the rural local authorities, as the hon. member for Smithfield asked, would say about the attitude of the Opposition in respect of the amendment of this section of the principal Act. The hon. the Minister said in his introductory speech that local authorities and municipalities that were in a difficult position owing to circumstances beyond their control, were being enabled to demand repayment of expenses incurred in good faith. With this proposed amendment the Government has proved that it is sympathetically disposed towards those smaller piatteland towns where, calculated on a pro rata basis, heavy expenses were incurred. This applies particularly to the Transvaal, where, as you know, there are not so many Coloureds. In the Transvaal provision has been made for the resettlement of the Coloureds in some of the large centres. Certain Coloureds were removed by smaller towns to group areas within their areas of jurisdiction which had been proclaimed in good faith. It will now be possible to compensate such smaller local authorities for such parts of the work as they performed unnecessarily, in carrying out Government policy.

But, as has rightly been said, the important amendments are those to section 17. As regards this section, I want to say at the outset that if local authorities have ever had any reason for gratitude, it should be in respect of this amendment. I say this also in respect of the larger local authorities that cannot be regarded as town councils, and who do not have large amounts of capital. The position is that the Community Development Board has the technical knowledge, as a result of its activities over many years, and also has the staff to render assistance to town councils that have neither the finances nor the staff to carry Government policy into effect. Provision is being made in this section for the Community Development Board, if it is deemed to be in the interests of the country, to intervene when a local authority cannot perform the work. The Minister said in his speech that some local authorities do not do the work simply because they are being wilful. For that reason there have already been delays. I am satisfied that, as regards the wilful town councils, this amendment of section 17 will cause town councils to think twice before they cause delays through wilfulness. I am also satisfied that those town councils that act in good faith but do not have the necessary means, will be satisfied if the Community Development Board should intervene in order to bring about such development of any area.

I now come to the amendment of section 17 (5). This deals with the repeal of proclamations. It amazes me that an hon. member such as the hon. member for Walmer can get up and make the statement that a town council had to perform certain work “without receiving anything in return”. Surely this is not the case, Sir. Under the old Act it was not so. Neither will it be as a result of these amendments. After all, it is clearly provided in this proposed amendment that when the Community Development Board has completed its work, and when the State President has issued the proclamation for repeal, all those assets will be returned to the local authority. Is this “without receiving anything in return”? Has anyone ever heard such nonsense in his life?

This was the first speech he had made on urban matters.

I hope it will be his last, because this House is not any the richer for it. Surely it is clear that when an urban area is developed, when the streets are laid out, the houses are erected, etc., it is an asset to the local authority. When these assets are returned it is not as if there should be an immediate payment for services rendered. Such houses and assets are then handed over to the local authority. The same conditions are then probably made applicable, and the local authority may proceed with the performance of the contract which was actually entered into on their behalf by the Community Development Board. Surely it is nonsensical to say that there is “nothing in return”. If someone offers to give me what he has erected, merely at the cost of erection, I shall be grateful. I think that such a local authority should be grateful if technical staff it cannot afford itself works for it, and if something is done for it which it cannot afford to do itself. Such a local authority should be grateful if such assets are then returned to it only at the cost of erection.

I want to dissociate myself from all this talk about the three tiers of government, the third tier of which will now allegedly be undermined, and I want to say that these powers have never been undermined. Since this Act came into force not one single case has occurred where any local authority was deprived of any powers.

If the Opposition make the accusation that was made in 1959, and is still being made repeatedly, I want them to bring one single proof, from 1959 until to-day, of a case where powers were taken away from a local authority that wanted to exercise and implement those powers. It has been made clear that this amendment is being effected to the Act so that it will be in order legally, and so that the Act that was passed in 1959 and consolidated in 1966, will be valid in law. Now we can proceed to develop also those places, if there still are such, that are being wilful. It is the Government and Parliament that accept the responsibility for the provision of housing, and this Government will most certainly be prepared to account for the way in which it has carried out its responsibility.

I cannot agree with the hon. member for Witbank at all when he says the Government and nobody else is responsible for the provision of housing. Of course he has got his legislation entirely wrong. But I must say that the Minister has completely failed to convince us of the validity of his case or of the necessity of having this legislation at all. What interests me is that, in reply to a question put to the Minister by the hon. member for Green Point, before this debate began, as to the reason for the recent proclamation covering the case in point and the taking over of the powers of the local authority in Stellenbosch, the Minister in his reply specifically referred to section 3 (b) of the Slums Act. Now I am going to quote section 3 (b) in a minute and another section of that Act as well. The Minister went on to say in that reply, which stands in Hansard, that the local authority had a duty to remove slums in terms of that Act. The Minister also insisted during the course of the debate that he had consulted the province. He said that he had written them a very polite letter. Well, the Minister’s letters are always polite, but what is a letter? That is not consultation. In effect he was dictating to the provincial authorities. We have had so many Press statements from this Minister and really they read more and more like the Press statements of a dictator every time I see them. But the Minister’s view of consultation with the provinces was not borne out or in any way endorsed by the United Municipal Executive of the Cape at their recent congress. I think it was unfortunate for the Minister, to say the least of it, that the U.M.E. was in session while this matter was being discussed. The Administrator himself, as hon. members may have noticed, made a significant statement to the congress without specific reference to this Bill, but it quite clearly had a bearing on it. He said it would be a great pity if local government were in any way to be undermined and that it must be maintained at all costs. And of course he was quite right.

And I agree with that.

That is very interesting, but the Minister is not showing any indication of doing it here. What did the U.M.E. have to say about this legislation? The comments day by day have made it quite clear that there has been no previous consultation with the local authorities at all, and I maintain that that is disgraceful. I want to quote from a Press report which appeared yesterday in the Rand Daily Mail and which reads as follows—

Order! Is the hon. member quoting newspaper comment on a debate which is taking place in the House?

I want to quote what the President of the U.M.E. had to say about the Bill, and that surely is legitimate. The President of the U.M.E., Mr. J. J. C. Kock, said the following—

Then the report simply said that Mr. Kock went on to explain that the U.M.E. had had a letter from the Minister’s office, in which he said that the amendments were absolutely necessary for the efficient implementation of the provisions of community development legislation and he was not prepared to delay their coming into law. The interesting thing is the categorical denial that there were any consultations with the local authorities, which means in effect the Provincial Administrations, in a round table discussion of this legislation, and now everybody knows it. For the Minister to say with a bland smile and a wave of his hand that he wrote them a very polite letter convinces nobody at all.

The interesting thing is that the Slums Act, which the Minister quoted in his reply to the hon. member for Green Point, has been the Act under which the local authorities are obliged to function, but it is not being used to make them carry out their functions in this instance, and I want to know why not. If the Minister had acted in terms of the Slums Act, he need never have come to Parliament for these additional powers at all. In spite of the fact that the Minister said the Stellenbosch Municipality was obliged to clear up Cloetesdal, this is not slums legislation; this is community development legislation, which in effect is based on group areas in principle. That is why we worded our amendment that way. Now, why did the Minister not act under the Slums Act? Why did he choose to introduce new powers of this kind under the Community Development Act? I would like to have an explanation from him on this point, because the Slums Act says in section 3—

Para. (b), which is the provision quoted by the Minister, says—

But then section 22 of the 1963 amending Act says quite clearly—

There the Minister has powers to give the local authority notice, and then he can suspend the notice if they start carrying out the work he demands. But he has complete power under the Slums Act to take over the powers of the local authority and to carry out the work concerned. Then there is a further provision with regard to the cost of any such work. Now it seems to me on those grounds alone, having quoted the Slums Act as being the reason for dealing with Cloetesdal in the first place, that there is no need for this legislation at all. Our amendment on the preservation of the powers of local authorities was of very great importance. If we wanted any real proof of the extent to which the general public is worried about the powers the Minister is taking, surely the heated debate and the conclusions come to by the congress of the U.M.E. are sufficient proof of that. It seems to me that the Cape Administrator in this instance has been treated with contempt by the Minister. He has ignored the powers of the Slums Act and he is asking for dictatorial powers to bully and bludgeon the Municipality of Stellenbosch when in fact he could have worked with them in terms of existing legislation.

I want to ask the Minister why he does not make it clear to us. He persists in avoiding this issue as to which aspect of housing his Department is prepared to give precedence. Surely precedence should be given to the clearance of slums and then should come the application of group areas, and not the reverse,

I do not agree with you there.

Then the Minister cannot blame local authorities if they fail to clear up their slums. He then turns round and accuses them of dragging their heels and of not carrying out Government policy properly. He cannot have it both ways. As far as we are concerned on this side, the Minister has powers under the Slums Act to clear up slum areas and this should take precedence over any group area within the scope of a local authority. I consider that the Minister has no right and no need to introduce this legislation.

I cannot understand the logic of the hon. member for Wynberg very well, but the reason for that may be that she is sitting on that side and I am sitting on this side of the House. But I simply cannot understand how one can give priority to slum areas if one does not give attention to group areas. Evidently the hon. member still does not realize that here we are dealing with existing legislation which has been passed in connection with separate development, and that we cannot clear slum areas if we do not give priority to group areas. I had hoped, and I mean this very sincerely, that the Opposition might have come to its senses by the time of the Third Reading, but to me it is very obvious that the Opposition is reading things into this amending Bill which are not to be found in it. They are not dealing with the principles of the amendment and do not realize at all that the principles contained in this amending Bill are in the interests of greater efficiency. The Opposition has launched an attack for political reasons in the sense that they would like to see relations between the State and local authorities being clouded throughout the country.

One can listen to every hon. member opposite and one will find that this idea of opposition from the local authorities, this casting of suspicion and these stories that the local authorities are opposed to this Bill, are being repeated over and over; and then the hon. member for Stellenbosch is being placed in an embarrassing position in connection with a matter with which he has had nothing to do. I do not regard it as fair that hon. members of the Opposition, in an attempt to gain popularity with the electorate, are trying to create friction. Sir, the object of this amending Bill is greater efficiency. If we look at the amendment, we find that the Opposition is accepting the principle of group areas by implication. If they accept the principle of group areas, I want to assume that they aso believe in the efficient implementation of group areas, and in that case they ought not to oppose an amendment of the Act which seeks to bring about greater efficiency. It is simply not logical to move an amendment like this. If the Opposition accepts group areas, as is evident by implication from their amendment, I take it that they are thereby admitting that group areas are in the interests of the various communities.

Perhaps it is a good thing that in this debate special attention has been given to the relationship between the central authority and the local authorities. For several years I served on a local authority and I can testify to the closest co-operation with the Department of Community Development as regards the implementation of this Act. Those were interesting and pleasant days. But I can also testify to the fact that my local authority adopted the attitude that it was its function to implement legislation and not to pass legislation. If that principle is accepted, there can be no friction. This is the basic difference. There are very many local authorities in this country that make it their object to implement this legislation, and these local authorities can never be embarrassed by this amendment. This cannot happen to any local authority that perform its duties, and it is, after all. the duty of a local authority to implement the law of the land.

Sir, this story of the hon. member for Wynberg that this Bill contains dictatorial powers is far-fetched. The provisions of this amending Bill are in the interests of the various race groups. On the level of local government it ought to be the ideal to utilize means which have been placed at their disposal. Here we are not only faced with the resistance of Official Opposition to the principle contained in this Bill, but we also find that the Opposition is trying to cause friction between the central authority and the local authorities. There also are a few local authorities in our country, Johannesburg, inter alia, that are of the opinion that they have strong powers and may do what they like. It is wrong for any local authority to adopt that attitude. I want to say here that to my mind the City Council of Johannesburg has changed a great deal. Since the departure of the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) from the City Council a big change has come about on the City Council, and I do not think that the Opposition is pleased about this change, i.e. to do its duty, in the attitude of this local authority. I think this is one of the reasons for the Opposition’s strong resistance to this Bill. Sir, let us be honest. If this legislation had been on the Statute Book in 1948-’50, what a shining example of a city would Johannesburg not have been to-day! But what happened in those years? There was constant obstruction from hon. members opposite. They made the position impossible both on the level of central government and local government.

Sir, in a country such as South Africa with its growing economy, we have certain local authorities—and I say this in all love—that perhaps cannot determine the future with the necessary foresight. To-day we have a new dispensation in South Africa. We have a Department of Planning and we are developing border industries. We find that small towns grow into large towns overnight. We are mining minerals, we have an unprecedented rate of growth in this country. One must not hold it against the members of local authorities if they think that what they are doing is sufficient. They are acting in good faith. They think that what they are doing is sufficient; their grandfathers did so and their grandmothers did so and consequently they think that what they are doing is right. The basic reasons for amending this Act is to obviate points of friction; to enable development to take place smoothly and to make efficient administration possible. Local authorities should not regard this measure as a disciplinary measure. It is, on the contrary, a measure which will provide them with the necessary information so as to enable them to think bigger as regards the implementation of this measure in co-operation with experts in this field.

Suffice it to say that I hold it against the Official Opposition when they resist innocent legislation such as this, legislation which is intended to give each and everyone a place in the sun. I hold it against the Opposition that they besmirch the hon. the Minister by suggesting that he is taking dictatorial powers for himself in this legislation. This hon. Minister is not dictatorial. [Interjections.] I know the hon. the Minister much better than I know that hon. member and I would prefer to know the Minister to that hon. member. I think—and here I am speaking for myself—that we are too democratic in this era of growth, expansion and the development of South Africa. See what patience the hon. the Minister exercised in this debate. If the hon. member for Wynberg can so spontaneously accuse the Minister of being a dictator, surely she is looking for a dictator and in that case I say it is a pity that he does not act somewhat more dictatorially by putting her in her place to some extent. Sir, I do not believe in a dictatorship; I am democratic to the core. But when an Opposition dictatorially offers resistance to what is a democratic right, i.e. separate development for each group and the right to live in decent accommodation, then I believe that such an Opposition is dictatorial. In conclusion I want to say that the Opposition will again jump on the bandwagon sometime in the future and give to understand that they are the fathers of this legislation. The Opposition wants to suggest that the local authorities are opposed to this Bill. But what is the real attitude of the local authorities? I do not care what the president of the municipal association says. One night I was present in the City Hall in Durban on the occasion of a municipal congress, and, judging from his speech, the president was one of the most ardent liberals. Do we now have to accept that he is the mouthpiece of the municipal association? Surely this is nonsense. I do not care what the president of the municipal association says. What is important to me is what is to the advantage of the local authorities. I do not care what any individual says, and I want to accept that the individual to whom the hon. member referred is. ten to one, a dyed in the wool supporter of the United Party, as the hon. members for Wynberg and Green Point are.

The hon. member for Rustenburg started off his speech by saying that we were trying to drag politics into the debate on this Bill. Of course, it is full of politics. Listening to the hon. member I wondered, with all due respect to him, whether he had had any experience of local authorities or of provincial councils, because his whole assumption was that all laws affecting the people should be passed by this Parliament.

I served on a local authority for years.

In that case, I do not understand the hon. member’s speech.

He does not understand yours either.

Sir. this Bill that we have before us is a Bill of three clauses. It has been pointed out that this Bill erodes the authority of all local governments, from the smallest municipality to the Provincial Council. The hon. the Minister himself said when he introduced this Bill that he doubted in his own mind as to whether he had the power to issue the proclamations which he did and that he was introducing this Bill to make sure that he had those powers. Those were his words. He was not quite sure whether he had these powers. Sir, the tendency of the Government and of this particular Minister is to assume as many powers as possible for the Central Government and to exercise control from Pretoria. Of course, that is not the ideal state of affairs. It is only ideal as far as the Government is concerned.

Order! The tendency is not under discussion now.

No, Sir, I am discussing this Bill.

I am glad the hon. member agrees that it is not under discussion.

Whereas in this country the Central Government tends to assume more and more powers itself, in other countries, all over the world, the tendency is to grant more and more powers to the local authorities. That is the position even in England to-day. In other countries all over the world they find that central parliaments are unable to carry out the work. They think that our provincial system and our idea of decentralizing authority is a good system. The tendency is more and more to decentralize and to hand over the administration of things such as housing, which up to now have been in the hands of the Central Parliament, to the local authorities. But this Government is going in the opposite direction. This Minister’s Department took unto itself the power to administer the Separate Amenities Act, but he has handed it back to the provinces because he found that he could not carry on with it. The Government assumes all these powers and then they find that they cannot exercise them properly. Sir, there is a political angle to this measure which the Government put on to the Statute Book and which it now has to amend. The amendments proposed in this measure, relating to the mechanics of the legislation are unacceptable to this side of the House.

Sir, the Minister will find that he and his Department will get very much further in clearing slums and in moving people than they are getting at the moment if there is more consultation. There must be consultation from the lowest to the highest level. You cannot just tell people, “I want you to do this or that and if you do not do it I am going to force you to do it.” Sir. there are reasons why things are held up. The hon. member for Green Point has dealt at great length with the difficulties of Stellenbosch. The Government must appreciate these difficulties. In re-building cities and villages and in urban renewal there must be this basic consultation between all levels of government. Sir, the hon. the Minister said to me, “Do you want me to go from house to house?” I said that would be the ideal consultation but I did not expect the Minister to do that, but the local authorities should certainly consult their ratepayers. The hon. the Minister knows that in the old days of the town crier, a public announcement was made whenever anything had to be done. Consultation should always take place at the lowest level of government so that the people can get together and know what is happening. Hon. members on the other side of the House say that there have been no protests from people outside. They do not know what is going on. We have had protests from the local authorities. Actually, there have been requests to hold up this Bill. I do not know whether the hon. the Minister has received them in writing. They feel that this Bill is going far too far. One thing that I, and a number of people in this country, do not like to see is the continuation of the eroding of the powers of the local authorities. I know that the hon. the Minister has common-sense.

There is just one sensible member on that side of the House.

I feel that if the hon. the Minister wanted to see progress in the work of his department, he should start decentralizing; he should go back to the basic! local authority and let them continue with the work. These powers should be handed back to the local authorities. If the hon. the Minister wants to have his policy of separate development, and the people affected properly rehoused, carried out, he should obtain the cooperation of the local authorities. The moment the local authorities turn against him, nothing will be achieved. Much of the trouble which we have to-day, for instance in District Six and the conditions that we have there, is the responsibility of this Government. Over the years these problems have grown and the Government has become difficult to approach, as a result properties in which one was able to live quite comfortably years ago, have to-day become absolute slums. The people affected should be housed elsewhere. This is the result of this Government’s policy. They are always holding up everything at the top. Now the Government wants to give more to Pretoria. When one wants anything done, one will have to communicate with the hon. the Minister. The Minister’s home address is in Pretoria; therefore, one has to write to Pretoria. When one wants to achieve anything, one has to get down to the basic facts. One must get down to the lowest level if one wants co-operation to carry out one’s policy. I know that, and the hon. the Minister also knows it. That even counts for our private lives. People are suffering as a result of this. We are not dealing with cattle or something of that nature. We are dealing with human beings. The hon. the Minister should remember that. I know that the hon. the Minister wants the power and that he would like to do all this. However, as I have told him in the beginning of my Second Reading speech, there is no such thing as Utopian power in politics. He will find that he will never get it.

Mr. Speaker, I have been following all stages of this debate with close attention. In the same way I have just listened to the hon. member for Salt River. He once again advanced this idea of “erosion of the local authorities”. He also commented on the situation in respect of local authorities in Great Britain. To me the hon. member seems to be prepared to accept the British Statutes on local authorities. I, on the other hand, am of the opinion that if we examine the British Statutes on local authorities to some extent, this Opposition will very soon sing a different tune.

I should like to come to the arguments advanced to this House in the course of this debate. The Opposition said over and over again that the real object of this Bill was to break down the position and the powers of local authorities. I want to say that this side of the House feels very strongly about local authorities retaining their powers. I myself was a member of a town council for more than ten years. I should like to associate myself with the hon. Opposition as regards certain of their arguments in connection with local authorities retaining their powers.

Why did the hon. member vote against housing in Newcastle?

Order! The hon. member should not reply to that.

I just want to say that in many respects these arguments were correct, with this one difference, and that is that this side of the House feels that in cases where local authorities do not want to co-operate in respect of the implementation of important matters of policy, they should be forced to do so. After all, it is this Government and this Parliament that have to legislate. It is this Government that will have to see to it that its policy is being implemented.

At this stage I should like to quote from a very authoritative work, “Principles of Local Government Law”, by C. A. Cross. It was published in 1959. The chapter dealing with control over the powers of local authorities opens as follows—

This is the principle we have to accept in the first place. I think this is a principle which we also have to accept in this country. The chapter continues—

This is exactly what we are doing now.

I also want to point out the various methods according to which control can be exercised over local authorities. I shall read from the same chapter under the heading “Government by Circular”. This is an acknowledged method of control over local authorities. The Opposition elaborated a great deal on methods which have been followed by the department in respect of “Government by Circular”. This is a very well-known form of control. Then we proceed to the next aspect. This, of course, is the well-known aspect of control over the borrowing powers of local authorities. In this case it probably is not relevant, but let us, for the sake of completeness, deal with the other aspects of control over local authorities as well. We now come to one of the other very important aspects. This, too, is contained in the same principle, i.e. “Control through the System of Grants”. This Act, too, makes explicit provision for this matter. I hope the hon. the Opposition will come to regard this legislation from a completely different point of view after they have heard the following very important particulars which I now want to quote in respect of the British Statute-Detailed control is a feature of specific grants. It is a general rule that a grant is not payable unless the appropriate Minister is broadly satisfied with the service in respect of which the grant is claimed, and in most cases grant-earning expenditure must be “approved” expenditure.

Then I also want to quote from the paragraph dealing with “The Power to withhold any Grants”. This is in the case of default on the part of local authorities. I should like to quote the following paragraph which deals with this very matter—

Especially the following is very important—

Where will one find more extensive powers for a Minister than in this case?

Why is a verkrampte quoting the British legal position?

Then, Mr. Speaker, I want to …

Order! Is the hon. member going to quote the entire book?

No, Mr. Speaker, I am merely quoting the aspects which have a bearing on this Bill. I shall make the other quotations as short as possible. I want to draw the attention of hon. members to the aspect of this Bill which deals with costs. Before doing so, I should like to state the principle—

Then I come to the important matter, namely—

Where can one possibly find better justification for the legislation we are discussing at the moment? In addition I want to point out that the entire 1948 British Act on local authorities is larded with powers specifically given to the Ministry.

Is it a socialistic Act?

No, it is not a socialistic Act, but I may tell the hon. member that the entire legal system in this country is based on the British system, and this is so, in the first place, because of the historic origin of our legal system. What is more, it is generally accepted as a fine system. Many arguments have been advanced to this House in connection with taking away the powers of local authorities. In this regard I should like to make another short quotation from a lecture given by Sir Malcolm Trustram Eve to the University of London. The lecture dealt with “The future of local government”. He concluded the lecture as follows—

That side of this House should realize that if in this respect they are not prepared to accept the necessary changes affecting local authorities, they will be doing local authorities an injustice as far as the future of local authorities is concerned. I want to point out to hon. members on the opposite side of this House that the big fuss they have been making here in connection with this matter, has not been worthwhile. We, on this side, acknowledge the rights of local authorities at all times. I myself should like to see that more powers be given to local authorities. But a precedent for what we are doing here, is already to be found in our local legislation and in the Statutes of Great Britain. This idea however, is no new idea. Local authorities must at all times retain their primary functions. What would have happened if that side of this House had been in power and wanted to implement their policy in connection with local authorities and certain of the towns in the Free State refused to do so? Would they not have introduced legislation in this House which would have ensured the implementation of their policy? The Government has the right to implement its policy and it should be remembered that the powers of local authorities are not a right but a privilege. We know that the hon. the Minister will not abuse the powers this legislation is giving him. We know that these powers are for a specific purpose. We need these powers only in the event of a local authority acting in an obstructive way. As the hon. the Minister informed us, there had been sufficient consultation in connection with this matter prior to the introduction of the principal Act. Therefore I see no necessity for the Minister having to repeat this whole process before this legislation, which basically corresponds to the existing Act, is passed. Hon. members on that side need have no fear, however, that these powers will be abused. Consequently we are asking for this matter to be given the full support of this House.

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member who has just sat down, on the thorough study he made of this Bill and of the background of local authorities. I can give him the assurance that he did it brilliantly.

The hon. member for Green Point has now repeatedly said that this legislation was introduced on account of the local authorities of Cape Town and Stellenbosch. Where does the hon. member get that from? I may just tell hon. members that this Bill does not contain one single new principle. I may also tell the hon. member that the principle laid down in section 17 of the Act was laid down as far back as 1959. That was long before we had any difficulty with the local authority of Stellenbosch. Of course, we have always had difficulty with the local authority of Cape Town, but now we are having less trouble. That is why I want to say that the hon. member is talking the greatest nonsense! Not one of those hon. members got up and told me where in clause 2 of the Bill powers other than those in section 17 of the principal Act are conferred upon me.

What about the “defined area”?

I shall read that to the hon. member in a moment. It says here that I may invest myself with any or all of the powers of the local authority. In this clause “defined area” means any area within the scope of a proclamation, whether within a local authority, whether outside of a local authority. These arguments are the same as those which the hon. member put forward ten years ago, in 1959. The local authorities have lost none of their powers since that time. All that has in fact happened is that we have provided brilliant housing schemes for Whites, Coloureds, Bantu and Indians; better than ever before. Now the hon. member says that I am blaming local authorities for the lack of housing. No, I do not want to blame them; I just do not want to allow any of them to neglect it. I can tell the hon. members that there is nothing wrong with our housing schemes in South Africa. We have built more houses for all race groups in South Africa over the past 15 years than we built in the preceding 40 years. Accordingly we are quite proud of the housing schemes provided by this Government. The hon. member had a great deal to say about Stellenbosch. I can tell the hon. member that group areas were proclaimed in Stellenbosch as far back as 1962. What happened? Up to this very day not one single house has been built there! The hon. member also accused us of delaying the tenders, but I can only tell the hon. member that we were not the ones to delay the tenders. The Town Council of Stellenbosch refused to accept the last tender. They wanted to accept the tender as they wanted it. But surely the Housing Commission knows better. After all, it knows the regulations, what requirements must be met by the tenders and what the standards must be. That is why that tender was delayed for so long. Now the hon. member says here that slum conditions do not exist in Cloetesdal. They laid out 104 sites there.

There are already 113 families squatting there. He says they have chopped down “a few” trees. They have indeed trespassed on our land and not only chopped down “a few” trees, but have already chopped down 700 trees. Should I allow that state of affairs to continue? They are faced with a shortage of housing for Whites in Stellenbosch. There is no more land available in Stellenbosch. There are nearly 600 people working in Stellenbosch and staying in Kuils River and the Strand and those places, as I said previously. Why did those people chop down those 700 trees of ours? Because the Town Council of Stellenbosch are not providing them with housing. I do not want to be personal now, but I think it is high time that I mentioned certain things to the House. The executive official of the Town Council of Stellenbosch is the Town Clerk. Do you know that not one of my officials have been able to contact him during the last six months? He does not even answer the telephone. When one of my senior officials had discussions with their officials recently, the Town Clerk was absent there too. Do hon. members think I am going to allow myself to be defied in this way? It is impossible. That is why these powers are being taken.

Now the hon. member talks about District Six and how the City Council of Cape Town could not develop District Six. The City Council of Cape Town bought certain slum properties in District Six as far back as 1938 with money which the Housing Fund had given to them. But up to this very day not a single thing has been done to those slum areas. In 1963 the then mayor, Mr. Honikman, wanted to launch a small “pilot” scheme there, but nothing came of it. We did not want to allow it either, because it had nothing to do with the real clearance of District Six.

Now I want to ask the hon. member for Green Point this question. What is his point of view in regard to District Six? He moved an amendment here during the Second Reading debate. District Six has now been declared a white group area. What is his and his party’s point of view: Should District Six be a Coloured group area or a white group area? This “soul” of Cape Town, this historic part of Cape Town—what is their reply?

That belongs under the Planning Vote.

No, the hon. member broached the subject here. It does not fall under the Planning Vote; District Six has already been declared a white group area. Does the hon. member agree that it should be a white area, or does he want it to be a Coloured area? [Interjections.] The hon. member for Green Point broached the subject, not I.

It belongs under Planning.

Will the hon. member for Wynberg tell me?

We will deal with it under your Vote.

Tell me now, so that I can prepare myself. Should the area be white or should it be Coloured? The hon. member for Green Point says that the Act says that within 12 months after an area is declared a group area the Coloureds have to be out of it. Where does het get that from? He is talking absolute nonsense; the Act says nothing about it. The Act says the Coloureds must remain there for at least 12 months. We only move Coloureds if we have better housing for them. I repeat the challenge which I have made so many times in this House: Show me one White, show me one Coloured, show me one Indian, show me one Bantu who has been resettled—or, as hon. members opposite say, who has been removed—who has not been moved from bad housing to better housing. Just show me one.

I say there is no new principle contained in this legislation. Our law advisers said they did not know whether section 17 would stand up to the test of the court and therefore we have to play safe. This is, after all, a normal procedure that is followed every year in this Parliament.

Motion put and agreed to (Official Opposition dissenting).

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move, as an unopposed motion—

This is merely to correct the Afrikaans version.

Amendment put and agreed to.

Bill, as amended, adopted.

(Third Reading)

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, I wish to deal with certain undertakings that were given by the hon. the Minister and perhaps he can report progress as far as these investigations are concerned and the possibility of amendments to this legislation in the Other Place.

My first query is in connection with clause 1 (d), in which reference is made to the possibility that the Rent Board when determining value of property could have regard to one of the factors only in determining value. We said this might have an unfair result for either the landlord or the tenant. The Minister said he thought this was not likely to arise but he said he would look into it.

The second point, which I wish to raise again, is found in clause 3. The Minister was good enough to say he would investigate the matter as to whether notice should be given to all tenants when the board decides to review the whole complex arising from the objection of one tenant only.

Under clause 5 we discussed this deposit for possible damages. We asked whether it would cover the contents as well, because it refers also to furnished premises. The Minister said he would look into the matter. Perhaps he can report what stage he has reached in regard to that investigation. The Minister also moved an amendment in regard to deposits with building societies. The question still exists whether the protection of the landlord is not being gained at the cost of the tenant regarding the deposits made.

There there is the question of statutory tenants who are denied the right of sub-letting for short periods, perhaps when they go overseas or something of that nature. To-day I saw a letter addressed to a statutory tenant which stated that “our client …”, that is the owner of the block of flats, “… has as a matter of policy decided that there shall be no sub-letting for any periods of time”. No reason is given and there appears to be no justification for this attitude on the part of the lessor. Perhaps the hon. the Minister could indicate how far he has got with these matters.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to deal only with the one point which we discussed during the Second Reading and the Committee stages, namely that of the possible hardship to tenants who might be asked for a deposit by the landlord. Since the debate it came to light there there has been a recent Supreme Court judgment and the court ruled a landlord can in fact take a deposit on furnished or unfurnished buildings. Nevertheless the danger exists, now that the matter has been, shall we say, clarified, and since this legislation provides for this to be done, existing tenants might find themselves called upon to pay two months’ rent in one month. The hon. the Minister and I have discussed this matter and it was also discussed here. I should like him to consider adding two provisos to this power of the landlord. One is that when a tenant states he is unable to pay a deposit equal to one month’s rent, he should be allowed to pay such deposit in instalments, spread over a period of say six months. Then a tenant could not suddenly be called upon to pay a lump sum. The other possibility is that of limiting the amount to less than a full month’s rent in regard to damage only. If the deposit is for possible damage only, perhaps the deposit could be made less than a full month’s rent. As I said, those who cannot pay the deposit in one lump sum should be permitted to pay it off in instalments.

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member discussed that with me. In principle I cannot see much objection to his first suggestion. If the legal people are happy with it, then I will include it in the Other Place. We are also considering reducing the amount for deposit to less than a month’s rent.

Regarding the first two points raised by the hon. member for Green Point, I wish to say to him that we are still in the process of considering them. I shall advise him as soon as we arrive at a decision.

Regarding sub-letting, I wish to tell him we have drafted an amendment which we think will allow sub-letting without prejudicing the interests of either the landlord or the tenant. So I think we will come to an agreement on all these points.

Motion put and agreed to.

Bill read a Third Time.

Mr. Speaker, I move—

Mr. Speaker, this Bill was introduced in this House by the hon. the Minister of Community Development under whom the National Housing Commission falls. Questions arise which I hope the hon. the Minister will deal with and which I want to elaborate upon. They arise primarily because of the wording in the long title of this Bill. Although this Bill is directed at the affairs of the National Housing Commission and the Department of Community Development, it would seem that certain powers are being asked for which in fact fall within the province of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23 and debate adjourned.