Yesterday the hon. the Minister made a plea to this side of the House to help him in his endeavour. His exact words were—

Well, as the Opposition it is of course our duty to consider the question of whether we should support the hon. the Minister in this matter In fact, this is a duty which is encumbent upon all of us, i.e. the duty to consider matters. Let me say at once that the United Party wants to see as many Natives in the homelands as possible. The number who should be there, depends on how many of them can make a decent living there. We say that we shall do much better than the hon. the Minister does as regards creating opportunities for keeping the Bantu there. [Interjections] On that point I want to ask my hon. friends opposite in all sincerity what the relevance is of the figures the hon. the Minister quoted yesterday. What is the relevance of the fact that, as he put it, at the moment just over 50 per cent of the Bantu population are living in the homelands and the rest are living in the White areas? What is the relevance of that, viewed in the light of the endeavour of the hon. the Minister and the course they are following? Does it mean that we have in any way become less dependent upon the Bantu? Surely we have not for two-thirds of our labour corps are still comprised of Bantu. Has there been a downward trend in this respect? No; instead of that there is an upward trend, for hardly a day, hardly a week passes without our hearing that a certain kind of job was filled by a Bantu for the first time in the existence of the Republic. At present it is even the policy of the Government to control employment; in other words, slowly but surely they are going to employ even more Bantu. Let me quote here what was said in 1963 by a prominent supporter of the party opposite, i.e. Dr. A. L. Geyer: “If the economy of the White man can in fact not manage without the mass of Native workers …” Can our economy manage without them? The facts refute this. We cannot manage without them. Dr. Geyer went on to say: “If their numbers in the cities cannot be drastically decreased .. Well, have we decreased their numbers drastically? No; on the contrary, their numbers are growing and growing and growing. But Dr. Geyer went on to say the following, and this may perhaps be of assistance to the hon. the Minister: “If the Native homelands cannot carry even half of the population so that more than half would have to live and work among the Whites, then there would be a question in regard to separate development to which the reply has not been given.” The keystone of the Government’s policy is that there should be fewer Bantu in our economy, that we should be less dependent upon them. But this is not happening. I want to pause for a moment at the numbers of the Bantu in the homelands as against those in the White areas. I want to relate these numbers to the statement made by the hon. the Minister yesterday. Admittedly, there are a number of Bantu in the homelands, irrespective of whether they are living in Mdantsane, in Umlazi or in Ga Rankuwa. They are counted along with those who are in the homelands, but they form just as inherent a part of the White economy as they have always been. There are approximately 150 000 of them in Mdantsane, approximately 120 000 in Umlazi, along with the hundreds and thousands of them in other places. The whole idea and policy of the Government was that the Bantu states should have an independent existence; that they should not be inseparably bound up with the White state and the White economy. Let us just analyse the figures which the hon. the Minister mentioned. He said that the night before last he had made certain calculations and that his calculations had caused him to arrive at this conclusion. Let us ignore the fact that there are thousands upon thousands of Bantu in the White cities and areas. Bantu whose presence there is illegal and who were not incorporated in the census. Let us ignore the fact that places such as Mdantsane and Umlazi, etc., are still tied to the White economy hand and foot. Therefore, what is the relevance of these figures? If there is any significant figure, according to the late Dr. Verwoerd, then it is the ratio of Whites to Bantu in White areas, and today that ratio is worse than it has ever been before, i.e. 8 million as against fewer than 4 million, and we are supposed to reach parity by the year 2000. Even if we were to manage that, the fact remains that our economy is completely dependent upon the Bantu.

Then we come to the question of consolidation. The Government is proceeding with this policy, but the prerequisites for that policy simply do not exist. Sir, I refer to our dependence upon Bantu labour, but there is also the question of consolidation. Take a place such as Zululand, with its 29 pieces, scattered all over Natal. Does anybody want to tell me that Zululand is going to become an independent state? Take Rosslyn, the shop window of this Government’s policy. Does any hon. member opposite want to tell me that a quite independent sovereign state is going to be established within 12 miles of Pretoria? That makes the whole thing ridiculous. The Tswana territory is scattered over an area of 400 miles.

Sir, I want to conclude. As regards the hon. the Minister’s appeal to us to help him with his policy. I would rather tell hon. members opposite that they would be doing the country a favour if they brought their policy into line with ours. There is no doubt that there are good Nationalists who support the federal idea, and I want to tell hon. members opposite, as my hon. the Leader did on a previous occasion, that obstinacy is not statesmanship. If they do not do this, the electorate will take the reins out of their hands.

I just want to refer very briefly to the matters broached by the hon. member for Pinelands. First of all. I come to the question of numbers in the White area. I think it is very clear that the policy of the National Party is that there is interdependence. White initiative, skill and enterprise create employment opportunities for the Bantu, and we accept that they have to come into the White areas in certain numbers, because mostly they have nothing but their labour to sell. But what is the most important, the basic difference between the policy of that side of the House and the one of this side of the House as far as the Bantu who come here to work are concerned? To us the economy is not the dominating factor; there are many other factors. Those Bantu who come here to work do not get political rights here. They exercise their political rights in their own territory. The next point is that they do not get land ownership here. I am just mentioning this very briefly so that we may once again appreciate what the difference in approach is between the two sides. It is true that we want to reduce the number of Bantu in the White area, hence the hon. the Minister’s request for co-operation. I think it is in the interests of the Whites as well as in the interests of the Bantu, for the number of Bantu here to be reduced.

As far as the other matter broached by the hon. member is concerned, i.e. the question of consolidation. I indicated earlier this year that the Government was doing everything in its power to quicken the pace, and possibly I shall get the opportunity here of giving more attention to this matter. Sir, I want to leave the arguments of the hon. member at that, but he should most decidedly appreciate this difference in the approach of the National Party and the approach of that side of the House, as far as political rights and the question of land ownership are concerned. In other words, these people are not here as citizens of the Republic in the sense in which Whites are citizens of the Republic; they are citizens of the homelands where they exercise their political rights. The difference is this; if they are to obtain rights here, as the United Party advocates, that will be the beginning of the end of the Whites in this country. There cannot be the least doubt about this.

Sir, I want to pause for a moment at another matter which was broached here by the hon. member for Transkei in regard to certain Bantu at Dimbaza in the vicinity of King William’s Town, because a minister of one of the churches had made representations in this connection, as the hon. member mentioned here yesterday. I just want to tell the hon. member that the gentleman came to see me. I went into the matter thoroughly; the department was instructed to investigate his complaints. He had three complaints. He had a complaint concerning allowances; he had a complaint concerning health services, he had a complaint concerning nutrition. He had carried on a correspondence with us on this matter before. I told him that we were working on the matter, that we were doing everything in our power and that I would let him know what the position was. But, Sir, just look at the negative attitude adopted by people who are often inspired by that side of the House. What did he go and do?

† He goes to the St. George’s Cathedral and sits on the steps there, like so many Micawbers on the other side, waiting for something to turn up. Nothing positive is done.

*While he was sitting there, the department was solving all the problems there were, as far as we could see, expeditiously. I can tell you what was done. Sir, and in addition I want to bring to the attention of hon. members the principle involved in this matter. The department created employment opportunities, where possible. The gentleman had complained primarily about widows with large numbers of children who were sitting there. They receive rations, but he said the rations were not sufficient, nor were they good. The Department of Health works out a balanced ration for these people. Sir, when a minister has something to say about the nourishment of the soul, we cannot complain about that, but the position becomes simply impossible if a minister takes it on himself to tell us what kind of food people should get, how much they should get and when they should get it. I tried to bring home to the gentleman that if he really wanted to render a service he was to return and encourage those people first to avail themselves of the clinical services provided there so that they might receive the necessary guidance. They do not avail themselves of those services. He told me there were 17 graves of children who had died recently. We checked on that. Two of those children came from these poor families about whom he complained; 15 of them came from well-off families, whose heads earn good salaries. The problem is not that one does not offer assistance; the problem is that that assistance is not used in the right way. I asked the gentleman to inform his people; I pointed out to him that that was his task as minister, and that the Government was doing its best as far as the other side of the matter was concerned.

Sir, earlier this year the hon. member for East London City also spoke of crowded conditions at Dimbaza. I have not been there yet. The hon. member for King William’s Town told me he was going to visit the place and that he would then talk to me about it. I want to give hon. members the assurance that this kind of problem is enjoying the attention of the Government, and that everything which can possibly be done is being done. But we must kindly refrain from exploiting this problem for political gain at every possible opportunity, as was in fact done by the gentleman who came to see me.

Sir, I want to ask hon. members to take a basic view of this problem of large masses of people we have in Africa, and in this country as well. The numbers of these people are increasing enormously and their productivity in the economy is very low. This is not peculiar to South Africa alone; it is peculiar to Africa and to large parts of Asia. I think the time has arrived for us as Whites, who, in the main, are the entrepreneurs in this country and who have the responsibility of providing guidance, to face up to this and to carry out our task of education among these people. We cannot expect the small number of Whites here to maintain a reasonable growth rate, and at the same time to absorb in this process an uncontrolled increase in the population numbers of underdeveloped people. Here I want to put it as follows. We get that kind of person who says the Government must provide more food and more balanced food and more pensions. But when there is a specific case of a widow with six children on her hands, what is the cause of the problem? Is the cause the organization of the State, or is it the fact that a woman who is hardly 30 years old has six children? This population increase among our underdeveloped people is not a problem of South Africa alone, it is a problem throughout the rest of the world as well. It is the task of those people and of all of us to see to what extent we can succeed in introducing family planning. This is a task which has to be performed throughout the world and something to which these people may definitely give a great deal of attention instead of just cricizing. It will get us nowhere to have the small number of 3,7 million Whites exerting themselves to the utmost and to have their growth rate and production capacity absorbed by an abnormal increase in the number of people who are unproductive in their own territories and in the whole of our economy. I say this is not a task for the Government alone, i.e. the task to educate, to feed, to pay pensions and to keep the people alive by some means. Where the increase is too rapid, we ought to see to it that proper planning is introduced.

I want to continue by saying I am convinced of the fact that the Government has, by means of medical services as well as through our missionaries and ministers in their activities in the missionary field and through the wonderful work they are doing, created the position where the mortality rate among the natural increase has been reduced to a great extent. Now, through these actions of ours, the natural increase has become very large, and that increase in turn gives rise to major problems as far as productivity, employment opportunities and education are concerned. In other words, this whole matter cannot be approached from one side only. In the first place we have to do everything possible to educate, feed and house these people and to provide employment for them, but there is also a second task. Personally I feel this ought to have my attention, but I also want the co-operation of that side of the House—because this is also a simple question of economy and of humanity—not only to make demands, but also to ensure that there is planning, so that we shall not be saddled with too large numbers with which we cannot cope with the best will in the world and which handicap the people themselves and us as their guardians. [Time expired.]

May I have the privilege of the second half-hour? I am very glad indeed that the hon. the Deputy Minister has spoken and I hope that as I have listened to him intently he will listen to me, too. He has raised the whole issue of Dimbasa, and Dimbasa is of course only one of many of the so-called resettlement areas which are dotted around throughout the whole of South Africa in the Bantu areas. They are to be found in Natal, in the Northern Transvaal, in the Western and Eastern Transvaal and in the Eastern and Western Cape, and they are without exception places. I say, of misery and despair. It is all very well for the hon. the Deputy Minister to tell this House that people like the Rev. Russell, who sat on the steps of the Cathedral, do this for political motives. Let me tell him that the Rev. Russell wrote to the Minister at the beginning of February this year, bringing to his notice the deplorable conditions of the widows and other people living at Dimbasa and asking that urgent help be given to these people. It was only after an exchange of letters between him and the Deputy Minister, to whom he was afterwards referred, that he took this extreme step of coming along here to try in that way to arouse public conscience and to get the department to do something about it.

Now I am glad to learn from the hon. the Minister that something is apparently being done.

Was done.

All right, “was done”. His last letter to the Rev. Russell said that the matter was under consideration and that the matter of pensions and maintenance grants was being considered. It is not only the question of pensions, as he well knows. The main issue which was taken up was the question of the payment of maintenance grants to widows and unmarried women who were living in the urban areas, who were in receipt of maintenance grants and who were moved to these resettlement areas and then lost their maintenance grants.

Unmarried women.

I mentioned unmarried mothers, and for the benefit of the hon. member for Carletonville. I want to tell him that there is provision under the Children’s Act for the payment of maintenance grants to unmarried mothers of all races. It will shock him to hear that we are actually as advanced as that in South Africa, that we realize that a woman who is unmarried but has dependent children requires some support from the State. And let me tell him that that is done by every civilized country in the world. But in South Africa, when these people are moved under our removal schemes, to the rural areas, they lose their maintenance grants. This is one of the things that the Rev. Russell was anxious to get set right by this Deputy Minister. Take the question of rations. I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to know that only recently has that position been improved. It is only recently, since the Department of Health stepped in and able people in Pretoria like Dr. Erasmus and others started examining the rations handed out to paupers, that the rations were changed and improved. Before that they were extremely had and inadequate. Tins of condensed milk have now been replaced by skimmed milk powder, so that at least they get some proteins in their diet.

The hon. the Deputy Minister said correctly that there should be some scheme of family planning, and I could not agree with him more. Of course we should have properly planned families, and of course we should try to encourage very poor people in our midst, of all races, to limit their families. But in South Africa, again we set about this in a different way. We go about persuading Whites to have as many children as possible, irrespective of their income level, and we then turn it into a sort of pseudo-political issue by trying to encourage non-Whites to limit their families. It does not work that way. That is No. I. But, secondly, as I said before, the Government’s own system of migratory labour is an absolute guarantee of a baby a year in the homelands. If you send the male head of the household to work in the urban areas as a migrant worker and he is only allowed to go home once a year to visit his family, and he can in any case only afford to go home once a year, it is almost certain that his wife will have another baby.

This migratory labour system also leads to illegitimacy, because the women left behind in the Reserves are obviously going to seek other men, and the men who come to the urban areas to work here as migratory labour father additional children in the urban areas. So the Government’s own system is leading to immorality, to the breaking down of tribal customs, to illegitimacy and to a vastly increased birthrate amongst the African population. To rely on the mortality rate to wipe out those additional children is, I believe, absolutely wrong. We should improve the standards of living, we should improve the nutritional circumstances, and then the chances are that the families will be limited by the patents themselves.

What chance is there of that?

In every society in the world it has been found that if the standards of living go up, the number of children in the families decreases. Surely the Deputy Minister knows that. And this applies to non-Whites as well. [Interjections.] It is happening all over the world.

Where?

Let me say that the Negroes in America, who live at a higher standard of living, have much smaller families than those who are living on or below the poverty datum line. Everywhere this is happening. In India, where families are living at a higher standard of living there are fewer children than in the families of the poor people, this is a known sociological fact, and it happens also among Africans in the urban areas. You will find that the families of teachers and the better-paid urban Africans are smaller than those of the lower-paid labourers and the people in the Reserves.

It is a heck of a job.

It is a heck of a job, as the hon. the Deputy Minister says, but it would be made much easier if those hon members would stop pushing people back into these resettlement areas before certain conditions there have changed. And I want the hon. the Deputy Minister to know, as well as the Minister—and I assume that this is his responsibility—that Dimbasa is only one; there are at least 24 resettlement areas. I am going to give him some figures and facts. I have taken the trouble to read the reports of the mission hospitals that are responsible for the welfare of the people in those areas. The picture is almost universally a dismal picture and something must be done before more removals of these “superfluous appendages”, to quote the words of a predecessor of his—who is no longer here, thank goodness—or before any more of the “Black spot” removals are undertaken, as a result of which they are simply pushed back into resettlement areas.

What is the position in these Black spots?

Mrs. H. SUZMAN: Some of them are bad, as I have admitted before.

They are all bad.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN: They are not all bad. Some of them were perfectly respectable areas, where people were at least living within travelling distance from their jobs. Take Schoondrift, or whatever it is called, as an example. Seven thousand people were moved from this area to Kuruman, which is miles and miles from Kimberley where they work. They have now all become migratory workers, whereas before they used to be able to travel the short distance to the mines and stay with their families. I mention that to name just one example. In other cases rural people have been affected, who were living in a far better position than in the areas where they have now been moved to. The hon. member for Wolmaransslad painted the picture of a fine removal scheme that had worked although, many misgivings had originally existed in this regard. This may be so, but facilities must be provided for these people and they must be allowed to know that they are going to an area which is better, not an area which is as bad as or worse than the area they came from. Nobody really moves willingly, despite what the hon. Minister said over the radio in a programme, which I think was called “Top People”. He said: “They all go willingly.” Their water is cut off, as the irrigation water has been cut off at Majeng. The school is bulldozed to the ground, so that the children have no school to go to. The huts are knocked down. Then the hon. the Minister says they go “willingly”. They do not go willingly; they are given an ultimatum. Some go willingly, but some say: “No, this has always been our place and we want to stay here." Then the carriers and lorries move in and the people move “willingly”. What else can they do? As they say, pathetically: “You cannot say ‘no’ to a White man.” This does not mean at all that they move voluntarily.

I want to talk to the hon. the Minister about some of the “Black spot” removals and the resettlement areas. I want to make an urgent appeal to him and to the hon. the Minister and the other hon. Deputy Minister not to move another single, solitary person into those areas until conditions have been cleared up in the existing resettlement areas and until adequate houses—not tents!—have been provided.

We have already done so.

Not in every case. There are still people living in tents. New people are moving into tents, because the houses are not ready. No more people should be moved until schools have been built and are ready. Many people were moved before the schools were built. No more people must be moved until clinics have been set up; until adequate transport at reasonable rates has been provided; and most important of all, not until alternative employment is available. I am not referring to the very old or disabled people, but many of the widows, for example, who have been moved were doing jobs in the town. They were charring, doing laundry work, etc., and earning a few cents which helped to keep them going. There is very little work in most of the resettlement areas. The most they can earn is R6 a month, if they are among the lucky ones that are given weed-clearing jobs or jobs picking up stones on the roads. That is the work they have to do. For the rest, there is very little work. Some of the men do road-building. The maximum they were earning was R16 per month, which, I am glad to say, has now gone up to R19 per month. They are also given work in building houses, but that is the maximum amount they can earn. I might add that these people receive rations, not cash, and that they only get rations when they are absolutely paupers and have no other income whatsoever. In circular No. 25 issued by the department, it is laid down that rations are only to be given in the most extreme circumstances. As I say, the rations have improved a little. One hopes, as a result of that, that some of the malnutrition will be wiped out. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that until the end of last year conditions were absolutely parlous. I think that this book “The Discarded People” by Father Desmond, who has now incidentally been deprived of his passport—which of course has nothing to do with this book— should be made compulsory reading for every member in this House.

I also want to say that I believe the hon. the Minister refused to look at the film “The Dumping Grounds” when he was asked by the television team whether he would like to see it. I think I shall be in possession of a copy of this film very shortly, and I should like to invite him, his two deputies and any member of this House who is interested to see the film “The Dumping Grounds”. He will then be able to see how much exaggeration there in fact was in that film. It is true that they speak about the mass movement of four million people. This may be an exaggeration for the present, but a former Deputy Minister stated that there were at least three million superfluous appendages in the urban areas. He stated that at least a million people would have to be moved in Natal. Four million is therefore not too bad a guess, for the future any way.

[Inaudible.]

No, you did not say that. Mr. Froneman said that.

He did not. The newspapers can say what they like.

Really? Then why do you not deny it and say that this is not so?

I am not going to deny all the lies you and your people tell.

I do not tell any lies, and the hon. the Minister is perfectly entitled, if he thinks …

Order! The hon. the Minister must withdraw that.

I withdraw that she is telling lies, but her people spread lies.

No, Sir, they do not. The hon. the Minister has every single medium of communication at his disposal and he can deny any statements which he feels are untrue. When he does not do so, one is entitled to believe that these figures are in fact correct.

Sir, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister what some of the conditions were like at Kuruman, for instance. This is an area where 100 000 people are living. It is semi-desert and it has suffered from a chronic drought practically for ever. More and more people are being pushed into this area. Why push them into an area where there is no possible chance of employment inside the area, even on the agency basis, which the hon. the Minister was telling us about so proudly yesterday? There is certainly no possibility of any border industries there. Nobody is going to go to the borders of Kuruman to establish industries. Why move anybody else there?

They are working in the mines all over that area.

Let me toll the hon. gentleman that the asbestos mines there have such a bad reputation for pay and working conditions that the local people refuse to work there.

That is not so.

The mines have to recruit labour. They cannot get the local people to work there because they have such a bad reputation. The mission hospitals have said that the people who come back from those mines are in fact in a state of malnutrition. Now I want to ask the hon. the Minister: Will he send an inspector to see what the conditions of work and pay are like in those asbestos mines so that more people living in the Kuruman area will be attracted to work locally? Fewer people will then go off as migrant workers leaving, as a mission doctor has said, a state of social devastation behind. She did not in fact use those words, but I use them to describe what she said. Prostitution has become rife because of the recruited workers who come into the tribal areas over the weekend, and the rate of illegitimacy is increasing all the time. There is an air of despair, despondency and social degradation in that area. Now why push more people back into that area? In that area the mission hospitals at one stage …

Can you tell us what the asbestos mines pay their labourers?

You tell me.

But why did you make that statement?

Because that is what is in the mission report and I have no reason to disbelieve it.

Can you tell us what their wages are?

I said that the mines have a bad reputation for paying and working conditions. You tell me the wages. This mission doctor writes: “Tuberculosis and syphilis flourish. Malnutrition is rife. We had an appalling number of cases in 1969."

Let us look at the position at St. Cuthbert’s in the Transkei, which is 37 miles from Umtata. There too there is an epidemic of T.B. A doctor there says: “There is a great deal of malnutrition, especially …” [Interjections.] I do not think this is a laughing matter. I wish the hon. the Minister would listen for a change.

I am not laughing at you.

Well, then listen and stop laughing.

I am laughing at Harry Oppenheimer who does not pay his people.

That would be no laughing matter either. [Interjections.] It is the Government’s duty to see that minimum decent wages are set.

Well, you tell him to pay his people …

I shall tell him nothing. I am telling the hon. the Minister what his job is. [Interjections.]

Order! I want to appeal to hon. members to give the hon. member for Houghton a chance to make her speech.

The report, dealing with the Transkei, states: “There is a great deal of malnutrition, especially kwashiorkor and pellagra. Both ignorance and poverty are the causes.” Of course we can do with a lot of education. I agree with the hon. the Deputy Minister there. Of course ignorance plays some part. But the real reason for this is poverty.

What is the reason for the poverty?

The reason for the poverty is that people are being pushed I into areas where there is no work for them.

That is not the only reason.

The Government is implementing these removal schemes. Who on earth else should take the responsibility? It is the Government that moves these people. They are moving them from the urgan areas to these areas. The report says there is a moral drift affecting many people, more especially the educated people. There is a lack of discipline caused largely by the absence of so many men who are migrant labourers. This is the story everywhere. From the Ciskei at Keiskammahoek, from Dimbasa, as I have already said, from Zululand, from the Charles Johnson Memorial Hospital we have exactly the same story. In the months between February, 1969, and 31st January, 1971, over 400 cases of kwashiorkor were admitted to that hospital. There were 172 cases of marasmus, which is another nutritional disease. The total number of malnutritional disease cases were 668. I have said before and I say again that since the Department of Health has stepped in, matters are improving and skimmed milk is being made available in greater quantities to these areas. But this is only the curative side in respect of people and children in particular, who have already contracted this disease. But we should stop adding to the pressures in these places until proper conditions of employment for these people have been established. More and more are having to go away as migrant workers. It is a system that I utterly deplore. I do not believe that resettlement areas should be chosen which have no hope of ever providing work for the people where those people live or for border industries to be set up. I was delighted to hear from the hon. the Minister yesterday that Hammanskraal is coming along so nicely and that shortly employment will be offered to, I think he said, 10 000 people in that area. That is very good. I am all for that. More people can possibly be sent to those areas where the local residents have been properly catered for. But areas like Dimbasa where there is no local employment, should not be chosen. We should not choose areas like the Kuruman area where there is no local employment, except for the asbestos mines which, as I have said, use recruited labour. Stop these removal schemes until proper accommodation can be arranged in every possible way for these people.

I am against removals in principle. The hon. Ministers know this. I have mentioned it over and over again. I think it is cruel and inhuman to move people who have settled in the urban areas back to the tribal areas when they have lost all contact with the areas which they or their forbears might have come from. They are stranded in those areas as old people or as widows with children. The hon. the Minister may think that they “verlang na die tuislande”. I have never met an urban African who “verlang na die tuislande”. The ones that I meet are people who want better education for their children and better opportunities in the urban areas. They do not want to go back where they “belong” any more than the hon. the Minister wants to go back to the little “dorp” that he came from years ago. I wonder if he “verlang na sy tuiste”.

Are you longing back?

No, not at all.

They are only longing for you.

Well, I am glad to hear that. Everywhere in these areas you see the same picture wherever you look. It is a picture of poverty, lethargy and idleness. I say that it is nothing to boast about to say that thousands of peoples have already been removed to these areas and that thousands more will be moved.

I want to turn to another question. Yesterday we listened to the hon. Ministers giving us a very interesting resume of their activities. The hon. the Minister and his deputies have been as busy as bees. They have been creating things, they have been moving people, they have been consolidating areas and they have been entraining people. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us about all the journeys which have been taken by people visiting the homelands. These journeys involve a vast pyramid of committees and absorb very much required manpower which could be put to productive use elsewhere. This is a perfect example of the Parkinsonian law. In fact, I have never seen quite as good an example as this. I want to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister whether he would give me some information about the cost of the transport which the hon. the Minister has been talking about. I am not talking about the suburban transport now. I would like to ask the hon. the Minister please to spare me the details of what it costs a man to travel from Durban to Umlazi or from Mdantsane to East London or from Ga Rankuwa to Pretoria. I am not interested in those.

The hon. the Minister can tell me something about the cost of transport where people have to travel from Johannesburg back to the homelands, areas which are far from Johannesburg. What is he doing about helping those people to go home and visit the people who have now been sent hack to these lovely country estates near Kuruman and places like that? I would like him to tell us something about that. I know that the transport is being subsidized.

Heavily.

Yes, they are subsidized heavily. Who pays for it? Is it the benevolent Government? Oh no, I think it is paid for by the liquor account. It is paid for by the urban Africans.

Not only by the liquor account.

Quite a lot of it is paid by the liquor account.

It is infinitesimal.

Oh, is it infinitesimal? That means you are waiting for them to drink more hard liquor. As far as I know they are taking all that money from the urban areas, and I know that they are financing services in the homelands. I presume that transport is one of them. I want to know what these people have to pay to travel backwards and forwards to visit their people who live elsewhere. I would like to know what they pay to travel from Pretoria to Stinkwater. Let us have those figures as well.

I will give those figures.

I would be very interested indeed in those figures. I wonder whether hon. members realize that these people have to maintain two places of residence; one where they live and one where they work. Are they getting any subsistence and travel allowances like M.P.’s get? They, because of Government policy, have to maintain two homes.

I wonder if I can persuade the hon. the Minister to take up the question of urban wages with the Minister of Labour. I have been trying to get him to realize that the minimum wages which are laid down by Wage Boards and industrial councils are far too low to maintain the family in the urban area. However, the man has also got to try to maintain his family in the rural area which provides no additional subsistence whatsoever, and I therefore feel that wage levels should be raised.

Why do you not talk to Harry Oppenheimer?

It is not for me to talk to Mr. Oppenheimer.

You are the one who should talk to him. [Interjections.]

Just a minute; let me explain to these naive hon. Ministers how the capitalist free enterprise system works. It works by means of competition and employers unfortunately are not philanthropists. The wage levels are set by the minimum which is laid down by the State and the State has the statutory machinery to lay down minimum levels. The State, the Government departments and the local authorities should all set the tone by laying down minimum wages, wages which are at least at the subsistence level. If I were an entrepreneur I may he a good employer and I may pay my employees a decent wage, but I may not be and in that case I will pay the minimum laid down by the State. I shall pay no more than my competitor is paying. If I do pay more than my competitor, I am likely to find myself out of business. [Interjections.] This is the sad but true story of how the free enterprise system happens to work. Unfortunately, what l have said is the truth.

Then I want to ask the hon. the Minister how he arrived at the figures he gave us to the effect that more people were living in the homelands than outside the homelands? He told us he had been doing some arithmetic. His arithmetic revealed that 50,1 per cent of the Africans were living in the homelands and 49,9 per cent outside the homelands. All I can say is that I wish he would get on to a hot line to his colleague, the hon. Minister of Statistics. The hon. Minister of Statistics’ figures told us quite a different story. On 4th May this year the hon. the Minister of Statistics gave me the following figures. I presume that these figures are based on the 1970 census. I cannot imagine that he would have used any other statistics. He informed me that 6 998 234 people were living in the homelands while 8 060 773 were living in the White urban and rural areas.

What about the foreign Bantu?

He said “excluding the foreign Bantu”, you will excuse me. He made a point of saying “excluding the foreign Bantu”. In any case we are talking about the population of the Republic, which does not include citizens of other countries. I want to know who was right, the hon. the Minister of Statistics or the hon. Minister of Bantu Administration and Development. Has he been adding a few de factos to a few de jures, or something like that?

His computer went wrong.

Well, I do not know. I am just interested to know, because, as he says, it is the first time this figure has ever been produced, and to the best of my knowledge, it is not correct. Or else the hon. the Minister of Statistics is not correct. I think the two gentlemen ought to correlate their results and see if we can get a figure which is in fact the correct one. Somebody is wrong. Either he is wrong, or the hon. the Minister of Statistics is wrong.

I have been talking all along about the position of Africans in the homelands. I tried to deal with Africans in the urban areas when the Labour Vote was under discussion. I want to spend a few minutes —that is all I have left—on the very important question of farm labour, Africans working on farms in the White areas of South Africa. Here I know my popularity is really going to soar in this House. I am going to make myself very popular with the 66, I think, members of this House who have farms. I understand that from some article, which might of course have been incorrect. I wish I had a farm to offset all those taxes that I am paying, but I have not. Anyway, I believe 66 members of this House have farms, and no doubt my popularity is going to rise. According to official figures, there are something like 1 300 000 African workers on White farms, of whom about 880 000 are regular workers and the remaining half a million odd are casual workers. I want to know what protection is given these people to see that decent pay and living and working conditions are afforded them.

It is the inbuilt decency of our farmers.

Is it indeed? Then the hon. members should read some of the stories I have been reading lately in the Press about how farmers treat their labourers, but we will not go into that matter. The point I am making, is that they have no Industrial Conciliation Act which looks after them and which lays down minimum wages, however much too low they are. It at least sees that they get holiday pay, that they do not have to work seven days a week, that they get bonuses and that they do not have to work more than eight hours a day. I want to know exactly what protection is given to farm labour in this country to see that they have decent conditions of labour. Do you know how many inspectors of farms there are in the Minister’s department? Will the hon. the Minister give me his attention for a moment? I am correct, am I not, in saying that there is exactly one inspector in his department who is supposed to inspect all the farms in South Africa to see that farm labourers have decent conditions? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the attitude to life of the National Party and the United Party finds expression, as far as I am concerned, in the story of the two mice that we learned as children. The one mouse was a Nationalist and the other mouse was a United Party supporter. Those two mice accidentally fell into the same cream-can. The United Party mouse said: “Well, I must be realistic. I have no solid ground under my feet, and I must accept the fact.” He did so, sank and drowned. The Nationalist mouse, on the other hand, said; “No, I must be realistic. I have here a specific problem situation and I must solve it, because I want to live.” He began working, hustling and bustling. His ideal was to have ground, or perhaps butter, under his feet. That Nationalist mouse kept to his ideal, won through and stayed alive.

How?

That is the basic difference in the attitude to life of the National Party and the United Party. It has been many years now that we in South Africa, the two foremost parties, have been holding discussions about solving our population question. This is not a problem that we alone are struggling with; the entire world is actually struggling with it too. It was again interesting to listen to hon. members of the Opposition.

However, what one must infer is that they present and interpret the National Party’s policy incorrectly. On the one hand they do this purposely. There are people who purposely present the National Party’s policy incorrectly. Others again are ignorant in that respect. The hon. members for Pinelands, Zululand, Mooi River and Maitland are among those, in my opinion, who are relatively ignorant of the basis of the Nationalist Party’s policy and the solution it offers. The realities in South Africa are sui generis on the one hand; on the other hand there is a great deal of similarity with the situations we encounter in other countries and among other peoples. Let us take as an example the inter-dependence of peoples. We already find in the early history of large parts of the world, for example Europe, that peoples were dependent on each other in certain spheres, while politically they were autonomous states. We find this in the Americas and in Asia. What is of importance here is that those peoples all find themselves at more or less the same level of development.

We also find inter-dependence between the so-called developed countries and peoples, as well as between the so-called developing countries and peoples. There was, for example, the relationship between Britain and its former colonies, between France and its colonies, and between other European countries and their colonies. This relationship arose from the colonization policy of those countries. But in the 50’s and 60‘s developed countries also began to form relationships with the so-called developing countries and peoples, either out of necessity or for reasons that are not relevant at present. Here we think particularly of the relationships that America formed in this connection with various countries of Europe and with the East.

In South Africa both elements are present. As a result of historic circumstances there was an inter-dependence between ourselves and the old British Protectorates, including Botswana, Lesotho, Swaziland, Rhodesia and even countries further north in Africa. But at the same time there was an inter-dependence between ourselves and the Bantu areas such as Zululand, Tswanaland, Vendaland, Xhosaland and others. History placed us in that situation, just as history is responsible for the fact that our relationship with Swaziland today is different to that with Zululand. This is so because of history. However, there is no difference in principle. There are yet other examples of inter-dependence, with Botswana, for example, and even with Malawi. My remarks now are general, it is true, but I can substantiate all of them. In a debate such as this one naturally does not have the time to do so.

Let us therefore accept the fact that the inter-dependence of peoples is a reality, that it cannot be argued away, and let us then gauge its value. Here I want to address myself, in particular, to the hon. member for Pinelands. While we, in our policy of separate development, are adopting an evolutionary course, this does not mean that there is not a degree of interdependence between us and a particular Bantu homeland. We find this inter-dependence at the material as well as the spiritual levels. We can analyse it even more closely and in greater depth, but this is unnecessary for the purposes of my argument. In the first place we are economically interdependent. This inter-dependence aspect is the most striking, particularly in the light of the situation in Southern Africa. For more than 100-200 years members of these Bantu peoples have come to the country of the Whites to sell their labour.

200 years?

100 years or 150 years—I do not have to be specific now. As I have said, they came along to this country to sell their labour to the Whites. The Whites agreed to this under certain social conditions. For example, this had to take place without the Bantu being a threat to the Whites and vice versa. From the inter-dependence that consequently developed, not only the individual benefited but also the communities as a whole. In fact, the economic inter-dependence that existed had its effect on all the facets of our economy, facets that I do not want to examine further at the moment.

However, there is also another kind of inter-dependence that we find in Southern Africa, and that we shall probably have for all times. I am speaking of agriculture. What is important there is, on the one hand, labour and, in addition, joint responsibility for the combating of agricultural plagues that ravage Southern Africa’s agriculture. These are joint questions and as such they create an inter-dependence between us. Then there is still our common task of subduing nature where necessary, whether it be in respect of a river or a mountain. This task also makes us inter-dependent; it keeps us together. Another sphere in which there is interdependence, is in the sphere of education and training. We find that the Bantu, from whatever national group he may come, was taught directly or indirectly to do specific jobs. I do not think that we can sufficiently emphasize this today. It is specifically the Whites of Africa who trained the Bantu and taught them to adapt to the structure of Western economy and the Western way of life This had the effect of the training of their people in the homelands being stimulated, for example in the building of schools, in the technical sphere, or whatever the case may be. [Time expired.]

I associate myself with the hon. member for Rissik where he says that here in South Africa we have a situation where various peoples must co-exist. It is a unique situation, and if it is not handled properly it can develop into a problematic situation. To handle this situation we have the two parties in our country. On the one hand there is the United Party with a policy which, by and large, amounts to allowing the uncontrolled influx of non-White labour into the White areas. This also means that the Bantu will obtain increasingly more political rights here, until they will eventually be able to submerge the Whites. That is what the result will be with the policy of the United Party. Then we also have the Progressive Party, represented here by the hon. member for Houghton. I am sorry that she is not here in the House at the moment. Earlier this afternoon she said how difficult people of another colour are finding it in South Africa. Instead of telling her what we think of that, I want to reply to her in the words of a foreigner. That foreigner wrote a letter under the heading: “The Government is the country’s best” … With respect to the non-White question in South Africa he states (translation)—

Sir, it is a Greek who wrote that. His name is E. Kritzas.

Sir, in short the policy of the hon. member for Houghton is one of criticizing South Africa abroad and besmirching her in the eyes of the world at large, in order to create problems in this country. Fortunately for South Africa and its people of all races we have a government in power that is an honest government. The National Party is a very honest party, a party that told the people of South Africa years ago: “We shall give you a Republic”. Hon. members opposite will remember how they were opposed to a Republic. Today they acknowledge that the effects of becoming a Republic were so good that almost all of them sitting there today are good Republicans. Thus the National Party has also said, as far as the position of the non-Whites in South Africa is concerned, that we shall lead the Bantu; that we shall not only lead him to his own homeland, but that we shall take him by the hand, leading him and helping him to help himself.

Sir, in the short time at my disposal I want to try to dwell in this connection, with reference to particulars, on three corporations established by this Government to help the Bantu in his own area. In the first place we have the Bantu Investment Corporation. Its paid-up share capital at present amounts to several million rand. Its undertakings employ more than 7 000 Bantu persons. There are more than 500 Whites employed by this Corporation. The Corporation has already established a large number of businesses and industries in the homelands. There are thus furniture factories at Oshakati in South-West, Letaba and Empangeni. These three Bantu furniture factories last year had a turnover of R700 000, almost a million rand. In the Northern Transvaal the B.I.C. saw to the establishment of three Bantu bakeries, which processed 43 000 bags of meal last year for a turnover of R518 000. They established workshops at Oshakati, Temba and Letaba where young Bantu men are trained as motor mechanics in order to serve their own people. The supplies in these shops are handled by Bantu clerks themselves, and the turnover of these three workshops was R317 000 last year. This organization also established three Bantu beer breweries. The turnover of these breweries last year totalled 38 million litres of Bantu beer. And so there are also numerous other activities of the B.I.C. that I could mention. A five-year plan, for which the capital requirements total RI04 million, was launched on 1st April of last year in order to speed up the development in the homelands to a greater extent. With this programme alone the intention is to place 24 000 Bantu persons in employment in the homelands. The B.I.C. is also mobilizing the Bantu’s own capital with the establishment of 23 savings banks in which R5 million of the Bantu’s own motley had already been invested last year. Their own insurance company has also been established in the Bantu homelands.

Sir, then we also have the Bantu Mining Corporation. This corporation was established to give special attention to mining development in the Bantu homelands, and also to give expert advice to the Bantu within the constellation of the Bantu Development Corporation, specifically as far as mining is concerned; also to offer the Bantu higher posts in the homelands, such as mine manager's posts, etc. The object of the Mining Corporation is to develop mineral sources in the homelands for the benefit of the inhabitants, so that in itself this creates more labour opportunities, and also in order to lead the Bantu towards self-management in the mining industry. Last year far more than 30 applications were handled, and options were taken on almost 150 farms over an area of almost 200 000 morgen.

Then we have a third organization, i.e. the Xhosa Development Corporation. Sir, when the National Government announced self-government for the Transkei, the Government also promised that a body would be established that would make the economic and industrial development of the area a reality, and so the X.D.C. came into being. Its object and functions are also to define the general economic condition of the areas concerned and then to plan accordingly; to determine the nature and extent of the natural resources such as labour, land, minerals, metals, water, wood, agriculture, fisheries, etc., and then to apply itself to developing the resources further. The provision of capital to new and existing businesses is a further function of this organization, which also provides the Bantu with expert advice in his own area. The training of Bantu as employees, officials, managers, etc., is a further function. In 1968 an amount of R1 692000 was voted for existing undertakings in the interests of the organization, and in 1969 an amount of R2 762 000 was spent on taking over existing undertakings. For commencing new undertakings the X.D.C. spent R310 000 in 1968. and in 1969 this was increased further to R1 894 000, almost R2 million. In 1967 the Bantu staff totalled 489, and the rapid and prosperous growth of this organization is evidenced by the fact that the staff had increased to 2 030 in 1969. [Time expired.]

Sir, the Committee has now had the privilege of listening to the hon. members for Rissik and Heidelberg. The hon. member for Rissik told us the story of the mouse. I would not like him to think that I am being personal, but he does prompt me to tell him that Waterberg gave birth to a mouse. [Interjections.] Sir, hon. members on that side must not get so irritable about Waterberg. We know very well why they get irritable, because they do not have a candidate there. We leave the matter at that. The hon. member for Heidelberg quoted to us from a magazine in which a certain Greek said that the Bantu in South Africa are living in a paradise. I take it that the hon. member agrees with that Greek’s words. If he agrees with those words, I want to ask him to rather listen less to the Greeks in the future and more to the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who asked here this afternoon for the co-operation of the entire South Africa, specifically for the improvement of the socioeconomic position of the Bantu. If South Africa is such a paradise for the non-Whites, as this Greek states, then I wonder what my hon. friend says when the Deputy Minister speaks of a totally different situation. Incidentally, this afternoon the hon. the Deputy Minister said that it is in the interests of the Bantu and the Whites that the number of Bantu in the White area be reduced. I should now like to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister (and let me remind him that the economic position of the Whites is the very flame that must keep the whole pot boiling), if he consequently finds that the removal of the Bantu adversely affects the economic position of the Whites, would he continue with it? [Interjections.] That is interesting. Sir. Apparently the Minister will “push on regardless”.

But I should like to come back to another position. The hon. the Deputy Minister told us today of the economic and social lot of the Bantu, and I was glad that he did so, because it is a very fundamental matter in South Africa. When the hon. the Minister spoke about it, it specifically occurred to me where the biggest single mistake lies, a mistake the Nationalist Party made in respect of Bantu-White relationships in South Africa. Do you know what that is. Sir? Two years ago the hon. the Minister stood up in this House one day and said: We are engaged in developing peoples. It was a very big task that he undertook. In the process of developing peoples the hon. the Minister and his party’s biggest single mistake was the fact that they allowed—no, more even, that they worked towards—a situation where, in the first place, the political development of the Bantu by-passed his economic development and, in the second place, far exceeded the Bantu's development as a person. That is the biggest single mistake they made. The second mistake is that this Government, deliberately and with preconceived purpose, although they meant well, placed the Western political instrument, which needs great discretion, in the hands of people who are not yet able to use that instrument effectively for their own benefit.

Have you ever been in a Bantu homeland?

Why did the hon. the Minister and his party allow the political development of the Bantu to by-pass his socio-economic development? It was because the Nationalist Party found that they could not give any body whatsoever to the policy of separate development on the economic and territorial fronts. Their only way out was to establish a display window, and that was done by giving political rights to those people. Now we find the conflicting situation in South Africa where the Government is making political adults of the Bantu, while keeping them children in the economic and social sense. And what is the result? Where the Nationalist Party has allowed this imbalance to develop and where it has allowed such unbalanced development of the Bantu, we find that the Bantu consequently has a political instrument with which, in the first place, to measure the lag in his socio-economic position and secondly, and just as important, that he is also using the political platform, which the Government gave him, to exploit the lag in his socio-economic position for party political purposes.

You are now saying a very dangerous thing.

These are ideal and classic situations in any part of the world for the creation of clashes and friction. The Minister may investigate the matter; where one has gone and placed the Western world’s democratic instrument in immature hands, one finds that that instrument is abused for personal and party-political gain. Recently Chief Matanzima came along and made certain demands to the hon. the Minister, who is now enjoying his discussion over there so much. Sir, do you know what amazed me? Not the fact that the hon. the Minister became angry, because that often happens, but that he had not expected something like that. It was a product of his own hands, and when he was faced with it he almost got the fright of his life. Then he became angry in this House. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that.

What about Waterberg?

You can keep quiet about Waterberg. You are a kindred spirit of the people in Waterberg. Do not make any mistake. I want to tell the hon. the Minister that he has received one demand from Chief Matanzima, but if he thinks that Chief Matanzima and his colleagues have now been silenced or put in their place, he is making a big mistake. As a result of the instrument the hon. the Minister and his Government made available, we must in future expect to have similar demands to an increasing extent, specifically because we find the instrument in the hands of people who have now learned to abuse it. That is only the beginning.

The Nationalist Party is now hanging the political mantle on the shoulders of the Bantu. But the Bantu does not only live in the Bantu homelands. He leaves the homelands, and when he does so the political mantle does not remain behind. He takes it with him. What do we now find when the Bantu comes here to work? The hon. the Deputy Minister then says that he will obtain no rights here. We must now visualize the position of a citizen of a foreign country, who has been made a fully-fledged citizen by the Government, coming to one in order to work, while one discriminates and differentiates against him in numerous instances. Suppose an Italian or a Swiss comes to work here, as my hon. friend there has argued. What right would a person have to differentiate against the Swiss on a social basis? What right would a person have to tell the Swiss or Italian: “You are a fully-fledged citizen of a foreign country, but you are not allowed to stand in my pay queue”, an aspect the hon. member for Brakpan spoke about. “You may not attend my cinemas and you may not take part in my social activities”. The Nationalist Party thought that by establishing this system the separation between Whites and non-Whites would become increasingly more pronounced. That is the mistake they made. Now they find that the more separation they bring about in the political sphere, the closer they will have to stand to the Bantu, specifically here where they work with him. The more rapidly apartheid progresses, the closer they will have to be to the Bantu as full-fledged fellow citizens created in terms of the idealism of that Party. Here we have a second situation that is ideal for friction and clashes. The Nationalist Party will have to foot the bill. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me as if the hon. member for Maitland has Waterberg on the brain to such an extent that he cannot state his case properly this afternoon. He spoke of Waterberg giving birth to a mouse, but I wonder why the hon. member and his party got cold feet and did not nominate a candidate in Waterberg. I was incidentally in Waterberg myself last week, and I must tell the hon. member and his party that the single United Party supporter who still remained in Waterberg is as absolutely behind the National Party candidate as all the Nationalists there are. They have no chance if they want to conduct this politics of theirs there.

My time is very limited, and I should very much like to come back to another matter which the hon. member for Houghton raised here this afternoon. Unfortunately she is not here at the moment. She seems to me like one of the small yapping dogs, because she just comes in, gives a few barks and then gets out again. She just came to make her speech and now again she is no longer here. What the hon. member raised in connection with farm labour, testifies very well to the fact that she has not the faintest idea about Bantu farm labour. It is true that she did speak of farms, and although she herself does not have a farm, she mentioned the fact that 66 of the members present here do have farms. I wonder why she involves herself in the matter if she does not know what she is talking about. She wanted to know, inter alia, what protection there is for the Bantu farm labourers. She wanted to know what the conditions are and she did not want them to work seven days a week. I want to ask the hon. member right from the start how she will have milk in her coffee on Monday morning if she does not want someone to work seven days a week. Who is going to look after the animals on a Sunday? On a farm one also works with animals, in case she did not know it, and those animals must be looked after seven days of the week. The labourers, who help the farmer to do the work, not only get full protection, but they have many more privileges than many of the urban Bantu outside. They have different kinds of benefits, as many of the farmers on that side and this side of the House will know.

As far as protection is concerned. I should like to refer to a few of these aspects. When a Bantu under the age of 18 is employed, and he is recruited in the Bantu homelands, the permission of that person’s parent or guardian must he obtained. In the absence of their permission, the commissioner must give his permission before such a Bantu can be employed. The remuneration, conditions of service, etc., are then arranged. The hon. member, therefore, does not have to worry as far as these Bantu who are under age are concerned. They are looked after very well.

In respect of squatters, several arrangements are made. I am now thinking, for example, of Act No. 18 of 1936. Regulation 4 (3) of Chapter 3 of Government Notice R1892 of 1965 also provides that such a Bantu must render service to the owner of the land on which he lives for a minimum period of four months or 122 days in any period of 12 months before he is regarded as being a squatter. Then all the various rules are very clearly laid down. The hon. member therefore does not need to be concerned about the fact that there are not proper conditions of service for these people.

What the hon. member also does not know is that there are many other ways in which these Bantu are actually privileged. If they perhaps run away it is very difficult these days to institute legal proceedings against them. The legal proceedings must still be instituted in accordance with certain pre-Union legislation in every province. These people actually have much more protection than the hon. member could give them. I also want to refer her to the other benefits they have, for example accommodation. The farmers now receive a loan of up to R400 from the Department of Agricultural Credit and I and Tenure for providing those Bantu with accommodation. Many of the farmers make use of that.

I must add, however, that there is an aspect in this connection that I should like to bring to the Minister’s attention. Perhaps he will be able to do something about it. When a farmer applies for such a loan of R400 there are long drawn-out forms that he must fill in. He must draw up a statement of all his assets and liabilities, just as he must do when he is applying for a loan to buy land. I want to ask the Minister to go into this and to see whether there is not a simpler way of making such loans available. The farmers would welcome it very much.

There are a few other matters in connection with Bantu labour on farms that I should like to mention. In 1968 the labour bureau systems were introduced, and we must admit that at the time there was violent criticism in that regard Gradually this criticism decreased, and although there is still some criticism today, it is quite a bit less than it was initially. There are several reasons why the criticism has decreased. I am thinking, for example, of the old cry we so frequently heard from the farmers, i.e. that the Bantu were trekking away from the White farms to the Bantu homelands and thence to the cities, or that they were becoming squatters in the Black spots or in the Bantu homelands. This position has now been greatly improved. The proclamation regulating the settlement of such new arrivals in the homelands has, for example, been amended so that a person unlawfully allowing such settlement can also be prosecuted. This contributed greatly to a reduction in the number of squatters. We want to thank the Minister for that, because I think it is a very big improvement. In my own area I know of cases where Black spots of squatters have been cleared up. Those squatters then returned to the White farms. We are very grateful for that.

As far as the recruiting of Bantu labour is concerned. I also want to make a few practical suggestions. As far as personal recruiting is concerned. I want to say that the farmers like to retain this method of doing the recruiting themselves, for several very good reasons. For example, when a man goes and recruits his labour in the homelands year after year, he builds up a kind of goodwill as far as these labourers are concerned. When he returns the following year, the labourers know him and would like to go and work for him again. That is why the farmers would like to retain that goodwill; they would like to retain that personal contact with the labourer and they would like to do the recruiting themselves. I therefore want to ask that this door should not be closed completely, but that the farmer should retain this privilege.

Another matter that has recently become a very topical one, a matter that I want to lodge a plea for, is the question of the registration of the labourers. I want to advocate amelioration in this regard. I particularly think that a registration official should be appointed who would go round from place to place in a certain area, particularly the denser settlements. The official could perhaps arrange to be at certain places at certain times. The registration could then be done there. This would greatly ease the farmer’s task, and it would also save them the many miles they now have to travel in order to do that registration at the registration offices. What is more, the rand which the farmer has to pay per person for a year’s labour can then be paid over to that registration official and not to the Bantu chief. The reason for this suggestion is that many malpractices have developed as far as this rand is concerned. So many farmers pay the rand to the chief and then obtain the labour, but after a week or two that labourer runs away. It is then an inordinate amount of trouble and vexation to get back that rand, or a portion of it. The farmer then leaves the matter at that and forgets about the rand. I now want to ask that this rand be paid over to the registration official. If that Bantu labourer then runs away, the farmer would very easily be able to get his money back from the registration official. If the labourer concludes his contract with the farmer, the rand can then be paid over to the chief. I think it would be a very good improvement if anything at all could be done about this matter.

In the short time at my disposal I also want to lodge a plea for another matter. I am referring here to the roads in the Bantu homelands and Bantu areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in the debate that has thus far been conducted, and also in previous debates, the United Party has used a general point of attack against this Government, saying that the policies of this Government are only creating problems for the future.

Hear, hear!

The hon. member who is now saying “Hear, hear”, over there, yesterday also attacked the basis of this party’s policy in respect of peoples and its homeland orientation. A further charge is now made to the effect that the policies of this side of the House are no more than illusions and phantom images. According to them, the realization of those policies will never become a reality. On the other hand, that side of the House comes along with apparently easy solutions. When their solution is presented, it is presented in such a way that we actually have to see it as an instant solution. What is the basis of the solutions that are offered? The basis is that controlled property ownership should be given to the Bantu in the White area, chiefly the urban Bantu. Thereby the Bantu must now obtain greater security and also a greater measure of permanence in the White area. Thereby he must be given a fuller family life. The Bantu must be able to live a fuller family life, particularly all the unmarried Bantu who find themselves in the White area. They must, in addition, be granted participation in the elected institutions, so that they can accept administrative and executive responsibilities. It was even said on a previous occasion, by the hon. member for Durban North, that the Bantu should be given a substantial share in that community in which they live and which they form a part of. Then the Bantu must be paid better wages, as if the Government is the only employer of the Bantu. That is what one deduces from what the hon. member for Houghton said today. Moreover, a middle-class Bantu, a sophisticated group of Bantu, must come into being in the cities. It sounds very fine and very censorious when the hon. member for Turffontein says that the policy of this side of the House is creating new nationalisms.

But no new nationalisms are being created. The nationalism already exists. The fact that there is a Xhosa group, if the hon. members do not want to call it a Xhosa people, with its language, its history and its traditions, implies more than mere membership of a small unimportant group; a small group without the tics involved in being a nation and a people. The United Party says that the urban Bantu have none of these things. They say that the urban Bantu have lost their ties with their national group and their home area. They simply form a homogeneous group that is no longer aware of its national origins. The history of the world and of this Continent show us the opposite. Africa’s history is still fresh in one’s memory, and it shows that even smaller groups, the numbers do not matter, still know their national origins. As they develop this slumbering nationalism emerges. This nationalism also emerges under the pressure of particular circumstances, and it is not something created by the policy of a particular party. There is an orientation, as far as nations or peoples are concerned, among all people, and in developing young peoples that feeling is even stronger than it is in the older peoples. Every individual seeks contact somewhere, he seeks his national lies, and if he has lost them to a certain extent the circumstances arise under which he goes looking for them.

Let us now refer to the United Party. The United Party says that the urban Bantu no longer has any affiliation with the homelands. They say that he no longer pays any heed to the national group from which he emerged. For that reason there is an alignment, and the United Party prompt him in that, towards the White area and the White institutions. They say that the Bantu must own his land in the White area and that he must have a share in certain institutions. His attention is channelled to the White area and to what the Whites possess, in other words, away from what he has in his home area. They say that his attention must be channelled away from what he has in his home area, because he no longer has any links with the home area. I shall quote to hon. members from Hansard, because this is dished up to us every day. The Bantu are even prompted to say that if they do not have a share in certain institutions, they are being done an injustice. This fits in exactly with the United Party’s concept of a people of 20 million in one undivided fatherland.

That is precisely what you are doing with the Coloureds.

The hon. member must not speak about the Coloureds when we are dealing with the Bantu and when we comer him about his speech on the Bantu! Whenever we corner the hon. member about his speech on the Bantu he always slips out. Slipping out in that way will not let him get away when we are arguing about these matters. I want to ask that very member a question. Why does he want to give Controlled land ownership to the people who are orientated towards the White area? What does this controlled land ownership embrace? Is the size of the stand to be controlled? Does it mean control over the number of stands there must he? Will this control only apply to these sophisticated Bantu, or will it also apply to other Bantu? What do the words “controlled land ownership” imply?

May I ask a question?

The hon. member does not need to answer now. Other hon. members on that side probably also know the answer, or is the hon. member the only one who has the answer? Why must only certain Bantu be granted a family life according to those hon. members? There are certain Bantu who are now suddenly being presented as having been wronged, but there are others who apparently do not need to have a family life. I am thinking, for example, of the Bantu working there on the mines. I am thinking of the large numbers of single Bantu working in the factories. Must they also enjoy that family life? Must Bantu females come with them to the White areas, because the orientation is towards the White areas, according to those hon. members? The hon. member for Transkei said yesterday—these are perhaps not his exact words, but they imply the following—

I now ask: Are these “aspirations” only related to land ownership, the ownership of a house? Do they only relate to a family life? Do they relate to a restricted participation in certain institutions, or do those “aspirations” eventually also reach further, to the fact that they also want a share politically, to a larger extent, in full and to the very end? If the Bantu is directed towards the White area in everything, why is there a limit?

Moreover, in this debate yesterday mention was made of the “responsible class of Bantu” by the hon. member for Durban Point, this “responsible class of Bantu" that is also helping us to form a bulwark against Communism and agitators. We must build them up. We also believe the Bantu to be responsible. But now I ask him: How far does the responsibility of these urban Bantu reach? Who determines the measure of responsibility? Are they so responsible that they can have a full share in certain institutions, or must there always be limits? If there is no orientation towards the homelands, and all the orientation and affiliations point to the White area, where the Bantu will eventually have to realize themselves, why must a limit then be placed on them? It is surely the only area where they can fully realize themselves politically, economically and otherwise. Why must there be restrictions with respect to controlled land ownership on these responsible middle-class land owners? I say again, if they are directed and prompted towards full realization in the White area, why must restrictions be placed on them? If the restrictions are placed on them, and these same responsible people, who no longer have any affiliations with the homelands, who can no longer recall their national ties, come along and make further demands, what then? The United Party must tell us what they then want to do with these second-class citizens which they directed towards the White area. The basis with respect to peoples, the homeland orientation of the policy of the National Party is one that can be developed upon without future problems, unlike that basis on which the United Party presents these matters to us. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Germiston was attempting to talk away from the point that this side of the House has been making throughout this debate. Nobody yet on the other side has attempted to come to grips with the problem that the urban Bantu pose to White South Africa, to White civilization and to the future existence of White civilization. I wish to put the question to the hon. member for Germiston: How is White civilization, the standards of civilization by which we live, the inspiration of which is the Christian civilization of the West, going to survive in a country which is only a portion of South Africa, the other portions having been given away, in which the White man is permanently in a minority, totally dependent upon a Black majority your every single thing that happens inside his area? What sort of future security can there be for a civilization which rests upon standards of the mind? How can you guarantee the future of that civilization, unless that Black majority itself absorbs the standards on which that civilization rests? All the hon. members refuse to accept that the Black people, the majority in the White areas, are there to stay.

I want to ask them just one question: Suppose they all decided tomorrow that they were going to take this Government’s policy seriously and went home, what would happen to White South Africa and to Black South Africa? What would happen, that is in theory? Because the whole thing is a theory. It is all talk, a paper tiger. What has the Nationalist Party done to put these people back into the homelands, apart from measures like endorsing them out, a method whereby only the fringe of the problem is touched? The real problem is that we have living in the midst of White South Africa permanently urbanized people upon whom the entire future of South Africa depends, and not only of White South Africa. I say again as I have said in the past, that what is happening in this country is that a revolution is taking place in the lives of the Bantu population and this is one of the most important, significant and meaningful things that has happened in a lifetime. The pages of history are turning while we watch. The Bantu have been taken out of their tribal and communal way of life and put down in the urban areas where they are becoming individuals. It is only on the basis of the individual that Western civilization can survive. It is happening right here in our country because of the leadership of the White man. This is the significance of what is happening. This is why the United Party is so concerned about the future of the urban Bantu, [Interjections] Let me ask the hon. member for Potchefstroom a question. He said he was going to talk to me in this debate about investment in the homelands, about capital generation and that type of thing. Well. I hope he is going to do it. If the Nationalist Party is serious and really want to get rid of a portion of the Bantu people resident in the urban areas they have to prove in this debate that they are going to create in those homelands something real, alive, vibrant, something that is going to draw the Bantu people back.

We are doing so already.

You are doing it with a couple of bakeries, with a couple of breweries and a sack factory. But even if the Government succeeds in drawing these people back, they will have exactly the same problem in those Bantu areas. They still have to break down the tribal system; they have to get them to come and work in industry as individuals. Thus they are not solving any problems Whites and Blacks in this country are totally interdependent as they always will be. Surely to goodness, the survival and future of the White man himself demand that the standards we have established here, our spiritual heritage, should be planted, grafted on this alien stock of Africa so that they too can carry into the future the mission which we have here. I have yet to find a Nationalist who can tell me how they propose to do away with the urban Bantu, the people who are learning our ways. [Interjections.] Well, if it is not their intention to do away with the urban Bantu, can they then tell us how they propose to latch them on to their homeland governments so as to satisfy them in all their aspirations? Like by giving them a token vote? If a man has a token vote in a place 200 miles away, is that going to satisfy him; is that going to satisfy what the Nationalist Party regards as being the legitimate desire of that person for political rights? This is where the United Party attaches so much importance to the social and economic change that has taken place amongst the urban Bantu. I say again, this is a social and an economic revolution that is taking place. But we cannot afford a political revolution in South Africa; we cannot afford the removal of the one thing that guarantees the security of all the people in this country, i.e., the hand of the White man over the whole of South Africa. Without that guiding hand there is no future neither for White nor for Black South Africa. The hand of the White man is the hand of hope and not the hand of oppression, of wanting to smother out the lives of the non-White peoples. The hand of the White man is the hand of hope because we have the inspiration, the knowledge and the capital and because we can show these people something which they cannot be shown anywhere else in Africa.

Surely, this is important. This is what we all do, every single one of US, even the Nationalist Party in spite of its blundering idiocies over the past 23 years. In spite of everything they have done we are creating something for the Bantu peoples, something which gives them the one hope in Africa. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development touched on the problem when he mentioned the population explosion. In that we have something which will draw down into a vortex of rising demand the only hope people have of getting some kind of stable, economic and secure future. One can see in country after country throughout the world the demand of the mass of the people pulling down standards because they are simply unable to produce enough to satisfy the demands of that growing mass. But here in South Africa, because we are here and have taken the Bantu out of his tribal condition, because we have him in the urban areas and have shown him a new hope, a new vision and a new future, because of that there is a hope for what we call White civilization, Western civilization. Then there is a hope that that civilization can be perpetuated and can survive. The United Party says that if this is to survive, it shall have to be with the goodwill of these urban Bantu upon whom our every-day lives rest, utterly and totally, now and in the future. Surely it is only common sense for the Nationalist Party, being the Government as they are, to take cognizance of the fact that these people are here permanently and not to saw the ground away under their feet by attempting to create the impression in their minds that they are actually citizens of another country, that they have their future in some other country while we know that every single one of these countries the Nationalist Party is trying to create will be poor, struggling and under-privileged, dependent on us for their whole existence, in some cases on our charity and in some cases on our goodwill.

You really are a pessimist.

I am not; the one thing you must not tell me is that I am a pessimist. Actually I am one of the biggest optimists in this House. I know that the people of South Africa have seen through the hollow facade, the farce which this Government has tried to perpetuate for 23 years. More and more the reality of the situation is coming home to the White people, the voters of South Africa.

What happened in Witbank?

Mr. W. M. SUTTON; That hon. member should stick around. He will yet eat his words. The ideal of the United Party is that we ought to be able to take these urbanized people with us rather than having frustration being created amongst them, frustration which gives rise to the nationalism which was mentioned by the hon. member for Germiston, a nationalism which is becoming increasingly aggressive. [Time expired.]

I should very much like to react to what the hon. member for Mooi River said, but first I want to dwell for just a moment on the hon. member for Maitland, who unburdened himself of a certain statement here, viz. that as far as the political and national development of the Bantu are concerned, the pace is far to rapid.

There is no balance.

I think the hon. member shows a complete lack of equilibrium in his approach to the problem. I think that the hon. member does not take into account the fact that as far as the political and national development of a people are concerned, you cannot merely prescribe any recipe. Does he not know that the primary rallying cry, the primary demand, in Africa is for political freedom? Why is the Opposition so opposed to the national development of the Bantu? A short while ago that hon. member had a great deal to say here about independence and self-determination.

Do you want to tell me that the National Party in its approach to the matter is being led by Africa?

No, but we are part of Africa and we are part of the world, and when we formulate a policy we do not only take into account what is happening in Africa and in the world, but we ask whether that policy is scientifically well-founded. That is precisely the aspect in regard to which I want to break a lance with the hon. member today. The hon. member says that the pace of the political and constitutional development which we are laying down for the Bantu, is too rapid. That party is traditionally an ultra-conservative party. As far as the Whites, too, are concerned, that party thwarted our constitutional development. It was the National Party who were the architects of the edifice of sovereign independence in this country; it was the National Party Government which converted this country into an independent Republic. Because we are now free, and are a self-determining nation, the Afrikaner came forward with an indigenous school of thought of their own, with the policy of distinctive developments which does not result in a distorted development where political development or one thing or another is over-emphasized.

The inherent aim of our policy is self-determination. Every nation, Black, White or Yellow, has a longing for self-determination. One finds that longing for self-realization in every nation that wants to realize its inherent possibilities. You must not allow the emphasis to fall solely on political development. It is this powerful urge which exists in every nation, even if it is a Bantu nation, which leads it along the road to spiritual maturity, to economic independence and to self-determination and freedom. The hon. member has just said that we have to a certain extent upset the relationships. [Interjection.] Sir, if that hon. member kept his mouth shut, he would also learn something before long. He is still a child in politics. Sir, these are the demands which must be complied with in order to lead the people to complete self-determination and freedom. We on this side of the House regard self-determination as the birthright of every nation on earth, and that is why we have this multinational policy?

If the Bantu in terms of their rights of self-determination want to decide to remain part of the whole of South Africa, what do you do then?

The Bantu are not as stupid as the hon. member would like them to be. No nation would be that stupid. If I have self-determination then I am not going to allow another person to use his self-determination in such a way that he destroys mine, and that is the gist of the whole matter. Sir, I want to ask the hon. member for Maitland when his party jettisoned this basis of Christian White trusteeship of which Gen. Smuts was the champion? Surely, trusteeship is not permanent; surely you must give them self-determination as well. In what way do you want to give it to them—according to the way of the White man or according to the way of the Black man in which we as Whites are leading him?

In the same way as you are going to emancipate the Coloureds.

Sir, that hon. member now wants to play political football. The hon. member does not want me to place the Bantu in the fore front of political interest; he is engaged in a nonsensical political game of beating about the bush. He does not want to realize what we are busy doing. I am now dilating on the question of the birthright of every nation, the inalienable right of every nation, viz. its self-determination.

Sir, we have formulated a policy which is inherently and fundamentally sound and positive, not a paper tiger policy, as the hon. member for Mooi River termed it. Sir, this policy of ours is the very finest policy; it is a policy which was born in South Africa. Did the hon. member for Yeoville not say the other day that our policy was theoretically correct? If something is theoretically correct, is it then a tiger? No, it is not only theoretically correct. Our policy has been well-thought-out, and it has been so well-thought-out that we all admit that our policy is scientifically well-founded. That is what our policy is. Where is there a policy that is more acceptable than our policy?

May I ask a question? Can you talk to the Bantu in their own language?

Talk to the Bantu in their own language? No, but surely I am not talking to the Bantu now. I am talking to you. You must simply pay attention to what I am saying to you. But if you wanted to talk to the Bantu in their real language, do you know what the language of the Bantu is? It is the same language as the one you speak when it comes to self-determination. Every nation wants to be free. I want to discuss this Christian, just principle, the principle of self-determination, the right of self-determination. We as a party say that we guarantee those people the self-preservation of their own identity; we are placing them on the road of development to realize their potential spiritual maturity, their economic autonomy and their political independence. That is what we are doing. Do you also want to give them self-determination? You say yes, but how are you going to do so? That is my question to you. If you give it to them through the White parliamentary mechanism, these civilized institutions which the hon. member for Mooi River spoke about, then you must accept them as full-fledged partners, at your side. Had you remained in power in 1948 and pursued that course, we would not only have had a multi-racial Government in this country today, but would have been on our way to a Black Government, in the precipitous downgrade of one man, one vote. [Interjections.] The hon. members must listen to me now, because I am the only man left on this side of the House who was in opposition at that time. I heard Gen. Smuts speaking. You ran away from the policy of Gen. Smuts. He spoke of equal political rights for all civilized people, regardless of race or colour, [Interjections.] Sir, have you ever seen so much pitiable political ignorance? The United Party is in a lamentable political condition. Do they want to say that there was never anything like that?

It was Rhodes who said that.

Ask your own Leader of the Opposition what was said during the by-election in Hottentots Holland. As he lost the election there at the time, so the United Party and the Hert-zogites will lose in Waterberg. On the same platform with Sir de Villiers Graaff’s what did Hofmeyr say, the crown prince of the United Party? He said that it was his personal policy that Indians should be represented by Indians, Asiatics by Asiatics, Coloureds by Coloureds, Bantu by Bantu in this Parliament.

It is Dr. Malan who said that.

Sir, do you know the United Party? Does it not seem different? Not only the expressions on their faces have changed, but they have undergone a metamorphosis. No wonder the Sunday Times takes them to task from morning to night. I see the hon. member for Houghton is taking a delight in the political sufferings of the United Party. [Time expired.]

The simple and archaic logic of the hon. the Chief Whip of the Nationalist Party is always good for a laugh, but it does not bear a moment’s examination. His thesis is that there are only two roads: Either you have the Black people living in your country and enjoying their political rights there, which leads automatically to a Black Government, or you give them an outlet to their aspirations in separate states which are independent from us. Then they can get to the top, and the White man is safe, the Black man is safe and everybody is happy. But the key to this logic, of course, is the position of the Coloured man and of the Asiatic in South Africa, and as soon as the point was put to the hon. member …

Coloured Affairs is not under discussion now. We are discussing the Bantu Vote now.

What is the situation? I put it merely to test the logic and the sincerity of those hon. gentlemen. If that theory is correct, they are asking the voters of Waterberg to accept a policy which leads on their own admission to one man one vote for the Asiatic and the Coloured man in South Africa, and by the turn of the century, a Government in South Africa which is dominated by the Coloured man and the Indian.

In their own territory, of course.

It will be very interesting indeed to see during the course of the by-elections at Waterberg precisely what is preached …

May I put a question to the hon. member?

I am sorry. Sir, … to see precisely what is preached to the voters of South Africa in regard to the position of the Coloured people. But let us leave it there.

So far as this debate is concerned. I think we should be concerned with the position of the Bantu people over the rest of our lifetime, that is to say from now until the turn of the century, a period of some 25 or 30 years which will see out the lives of most of us here present. During that time we will have the population of this country grow to approximately 40 million. I believe, a doubling of the population. The vast majority of that population will be Bantu. What are we busy doing with regard to these Bantu at this moment and what will we he doing increasingly over the next 30 years? We will be educating them, training them and absorbing them into the industrial life of South Africa. We will be bringing them closer and identifying them more and more with a modern, industrialized society. Where will we be doing this? We will not be doing this in the heart of the Native Reserves, but in our White metropolitan areas of South Africa and in the so-called growth points where growth is taking place at the present time. Not in the time of our children, but at the end of our lives, there will be a population in South Africa who will be overwhelmingly Black who will be educated to a measure and associated with a modern, industrialized, civilized state. They will be living either in the White metropolitan areas or on the periphery of those areas. I refer to the border industrial areas and the so-called new growth points.

Let me mention for a moment the annual report of the Bantu Investment Corporation, a body upon which the hon. the Minister pins so much of his hope for the future when he says industry will be taken into the homelands. Let us refer for a moment to Sithebe, one of the new growth points, which is not in the middle of the homelands, but on the very fringe of a homeland near a large White industrial centre, Mandini. Sithebe will grow up in every respect the same as Soweto or Umlazi as a dormitory suburb of a White area. We are led to believe that with all this development taking place …

Do you only want it in the centre of the homelands?

Of course I do not want it only in the centre of the homelands. But the theory of the hon. gentleman opposite only has validity if that industrial development takes place not as an appendage of a White industrial area, but as an area which is sui generis and grows up as a viable point on its own. These new growth points are not that.

Now the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday with great authority and aplomb, as though he were announcing a matter of great moment, gave figures relating to the increased services between the Bantu residential areas and the places where they work, which shows that there is an increase in the migratory labour which is supporting our industrial areas. What is solved in this way? The migratory labour system has a validity only when the place from which the people come is remote from the area in which they work, in terms of the philosophy of hon. gentlemen opposite. The faster the buses move between the places of residence and the place of work, the closer you bring the place where the people are living to the place where they work, and the greater the bonds between those two areas. This development is not bringing about separation, but it is bringing about a closer link between the two, which means that we are moving further away from the philosophy of the hon. gentlemen opposite and not closer to it. When all these industrial centres are established, be they in the White metropolitan areas, be they in the border industrial areas, or he they in the new growth points which are being developed by this Government, what will the position be over the next 30 years? You will have large urbanized communities living in Bantu areas or in Bantu townships which are part of the White areas. These communities will provide virtually the entire work force for White South Africa, and all the time these communities will develop tastes and habits which will tie them irrevocably to the society for which they work, that is to say the White parts of South Africa. Whether such communities exist at Umlazi in Durban, or at Soweto outside Johannesburg, or in the Native Reserve near Rosslyn, these people will, as they become more educated and more trained, and as they advance up the economic ladder, find that their interests will become ever more closely and irrevocably tied to those of the community and the society in which they spend their working lives. These are, of course, the White areas of South Africa. This will mean a constant drawing away of their interests from the so-called homelands.

As I said earlier, the hon. the Deputy Minister yesterday maintained that increased transport, increased facilities of that nature, would further the philosophy of separate development. This is something which escapes me entirely. We were not told, either in respect of the figures of 51 per cent and 49 per cent which the hon. the Minister gave us, or in respect of the figures relating to transport, whether these pertained to areas which are in reality dormitory suburbs of the White towns, like Umlazi or Kwa Mashu or the Native Reserve near Rosslyn, or whether they related to the genuine homelands, the more remote areas such as Hammarsdale. Until we are given information in that regard, these figures are meaningless. I hope that the hon. the Minister at some stage during this debate will tell us in detail how the figures of 51 per cent and 49 per cent were arrived at, and what they represent, because as figures alone, they represent nothing at all. The important thing is not merely where a man sleeps at night. The fact that he sleeps at night in a scheduled Bantu area does not mean that the Government’s policy has succeeded, especially if, to an every-increasing extent, he is spending his working life in the White areas and if he has not developed an attachment in his mind for the Bantu areas as being the areas in which he can fulfill his future. [Time expired]

Mr. Chairman, the figures in regard to transport which I mentioned yesterday, relate not only to Umlazi and the other areas which are situated close to the urban complexes. I stated emphatically that they included those areas, but that they also related to 26 districts, which I mentioned, spread over the Eastern Cape, the Western Cape, Natal and the whole of the Republic of South Africa. However, I want to leave this matter at that now, because I want to inform this House this afternoon about another matter which is equally important. We are for ever being forced to listen to accusations in regard to the urban Bantu. I explained the matter of transport yesterday, and hon. members can, as far as I am concerned, go and mull over that as long as they wish. The fact of the matter is that by making transport available in this way you are also enabling the Bantu to become homeland-centrically orientated, for they are then among their own people, and in that way they remain anchored to their homeland. If hon. members cannot understand that, I cannot help it if they are obtuse (toe).

We have for the past 12 months been working on another project in respect of the urban Bantu, a project which is producing exceptional results, and which has to do with the national representative councils. The object of the national representative is to establish a living link between the homeland government and its nationals working in the urban areas. Their powers, functions and duties are very clearly set out in the Act. These are as follows; In the first place they must supply the homeland government in question with advice in regard to matters relating to the general interests of the homeland government in question in the areas of the urban local authorities in White areas. Secondly, one or more boards must be constituted to assist the national representative in the performance of his functions and duties. He must therefore constitute a board in the White area. Thirdly, he must service as a representative of that homeland government with the ethnic unit in question and he must, on its behalf, look after the interests of that unit within the areas of those local authorities. In practice these functions can be classified into two very important categories. In the first place there are all the functions which relate to the social, cultural, the national and the political aspects within that ethnic unit in question. These functions are related to tradition and are determined and put into effect by an exchange of ideas between the representative and his board on the one hand and the executive council of the homeland government on the other. These include women’s organizations, youth organizations, and burial societies, which all play a very important role in the White area, particularly as a result of their ties with the homelands. This includes for example the organizations of a festival such as that of the Sekwatis of Bapediland, to which the hon. the Minister as well as the hon. member for Houghton have been invited. The second category is that where the function of the representative brings him into contact with the administration. Certain aspects of administration have been decided on, in which such a board and its representatives may interest itself. This is very important. The first is the settlement of disputes between nationals in a traditional way. Secondly it includes labour matters, excluding the application of laws and regulations which, inter alia, relate to the Bantu Labour (Settlement of Disputes) Act. Thirdly, it includes the establishment of merchants and elderly people in the homelands. Fourthly, it includes the matter of identification and identity documents. Fifthly, there are educational matters such as school committees, school boards, youth movements, vacation camps and youth conventions in the homelands. Sixthly, it includes assistance to persons in regard to material interests in the homelands. Now hon. members will note that there is a considerable difference between the functions and duties of the National Representatives Councils and those of the Bantu Urban Councils, because the National Representative Council is of a socio-political nature whilst the Urban Bantu Council is of an administrative and municipal nature. That is in brief the background to this matter. There is a great deal to be said about this, but my time is limited.

Now the question arises: What progress have we made with this over the past 12 months? It has only been in operation for 12 months. The progress which has been made in regard to this very important matter is a wonderful narrative and simply knocks the feet from under all the arguments hon. members on that side of the House have advanced.

Arc they elected?

Yes, the boards are elected. As far as the Tswana are concerned. Mr. S. S. Modise has been appointed as their representative by the State President. He has his headquarters at Thembisa. The Germiston Town Council has made a house available to him at the nominal amount of R1 per year. His territorial authority has placed a decent motorcar at his disposal, and he receives a salary of approximately R3 000 per year. He also has an assistant, appointed by the State President, in the person of Mr. T. Mathlape, at a salary of R2 880 plus the other normal benefits. Now, the important fact is that this Tswana nation has during the past 12 months, after this national representative and his assistant were appointed, already put 24 boards into operation which are functioning very well indeed. These boards are at Alberton, Benoni, Boksburg, Carletonville, Fochville, Germiston, Thembisa, Germiston Katlehong, Johannesburg Meadowlands, Johannesburg Soweto, Johannesburg Diepkloof, Johannesburg Alexandra, Krugersdorp, Nylstroom, Pretoria Atteridgeville, Pretoria Mamelodi, Randfontein, Roodepoort, Springs, Stilfontein, Vereeniging Sebokeng, Vereniging Sharpeville, Warmbaths and Westonaria. The number of members of these boards vary from between 15 to 20. They are all elected boards. In the urban White areas 24 of these boards Have been established.

In the same way a representative for the Venda nation, viz. Mr. B. M. Mudau has been appointed. He has the same benefits as the Tswana representative. He has also been appointed an assistant. The Venda nation already has 13 boards, the number of members of which also vary from between 20 to 15, established at Alberton, Benoni, Germiston Thembisa, Germiston, Katlehong, Johannesburg Diepkloof, Johannesburg Chiawela, Krugersdorp, Pretoria Atteridgeville, Pretoria Mamelodi, and others, also in the Witwatersrand area. A representative, Mr. P. A. Maredi, has also been appointed for the Lebowa. The same benefits which apply to the other representatives, apply in his case as well. They are at present engaged in appointing their boards; these are in fact merely awaiting our approval, which we shall shortly confer on them. The Ciskei has appointed their representative, Mr. D. Sibeko. He has his headquarters at Germiston and has all those benefits which the other have. He has an assistant, Mr. A. Dunjwa, who has his headquarters in Cape Town. Then, too, the Transkei has appointed its one representative and three assistants on a provincial basis. We are merely waiting for the State President to give this matter the necessary ratification. The people of Witsieshoek have appointed their representative. The Shangaan nation has appointed their representative, and we are just waiting for the State President to finalize this matter. That of the Zulus is under consideration. In this way we have already given all the ethnic groups national representative councils, with the necessary degree of finality. Here in my hand I have the first report of the Venda national representative to the Venda Government. I wish I had the time to read out this report, which is an historic document in the sense that it is first of its kind, to this House. I should just like to quote a few passages from this report. I quote—

This report was that of the representative to his government. It is a pity I do not have the time now; I should very much have liked to have quoted more from these Special Meetings of the Venda people. I should have liked to have referred to their interest in school matters which is apparent from this report, and I should also have liked to have referred to the sections which deal with the Venda traders in the urban centres, Meetings with officials, Liaison with other organizations and Community service. They are rendering wonderful service. I should like to read to hon. members the recommendation of this council to their government. Firstly there is the following—

Secondly they recommend the following—

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, various hon. members on the opposite side alleged yesterday and today that there has been no development, and that there are no training facilities in the homelands. In addition, they said that nothing is happening there. I came to the conclusion that the hon. members of the Opposition are either completely misinformed as to what is taking place in the homelands, or that they do not know what development is. When they wish to determine whether there is in fact development in the homelands or not, those hon. members make the mistake of comparing those areas with Western countries which have for centuries already been engaged in a process of development. They then come to the conclusion that there is no development. The Secretary of the Nutritional and Agricultural Organization of the United Nations Organization defines the development of an under-developed country as follows. He says that it is the gradual acceleration of the rate at which literacy increases, the gradual raising of standards of living, the slow growth of political and sociological establishments, the accumulation of technical skills and the gradual acquisition of self-confidence and of stability. Now I want to assert that in the homelands of South Africa each of these requirements has been complied with in a phenomenal way. I want to confine myself to the agricultural development which has taken place in the homelands, because that is the basis of the economic development of any under-developed country and, in fact, of any country. The hon. the Minister told us yesterday that the real development, the agricultural development and the other development only really began in the homelands with the application of the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission. Although they say that they are going to develop the homelands, the United Party did absolutely nothing in respect of the development of the homelands. The National Party had to come into power first and appoint the Tomlinson Commission to devise plans and to lay the foundation for the future development. After that the National Party had to tackle and begin to carry out that development in an active, phenomenal way. That is why one must view this matter in the light of the fact that the agricultural development in the homelands has only been in progress for 15 years. Now, one cannot compare it to the development in South Africa or in any other Western country which has for 300 or for thousands of years been experiencing that development. The first step which had to be taken was to change the traditional outlook on life of the Bantu, that agriculture was merely a way of ensuring a subsistence, and to bring them to realize the economic value of agriculture. For that purpose training facilities for the Bantu had to be supplied. Now hon. members are saying that there are no training facilities in the homelands; but they do not know that at this stage there are already 750 trained Bantu agricultural extension officers who are in the homelands making the necessary information available to the farmers. They do not know that there are five agricultural colleges within the homelands where these people and farmers are being trained. Nor do they know that since 1968 civil and agricultural engineers have been trained at Pietersburg who will be able to cope with this planning of the homelands, agriculturally and otherwise, themselves. I think hon. members on the opposite side would be astonished to know what results these 750 extension officers have accomplished. In the year 1967 alone these Bantu extension officers in the homelands paid 58 820 visits to individual Bantu farmers to help them with farm planning. But what is of particular importance is that 23 820 Bantu farmers went to visit these extension officers in their offices. This is a very significant phenomenon. It indicates that the Bantu themselves are hungry for knowledge and that they go to see the extension officer in his office. I think that if the hon. member for East London City, who is a farmer, wanted to be honest today, he would have to tell me that he would not have thought that the Bantu farmers were so interested in acquiring agricultural knowledge that 23 000 of them went to see extension officers in their offices in order to get that information from them. What is more, if he wanted to be honest, he would have to admit that he would not have thought that in the same year, 1967, 90 000 Bantu farmers had attended lectures arranged by these extension officers. This information service of the Department and of the authorities of the homelands made 271 000 contacts in that year with Bantu farmers in South Africa in various ways. There were 102 000 farmers who attended meetings. In addition they made use of displays, colour slides, films and mobile units which move from place to place and hold lectures and demonstrations. I think it is phenomenal that that contact has been made with the Bantu farmer. This has also, at this early stage already, yielded results. The Bantu farmer is implementing that knowledge which he has acquired. In 1967 the information service of the authorities and of the Department made it their aim to persuade 2 980 Bantu farmers to sow improved seed. We all know what the value of improved seed is. The result was that not 2 900 but 3 800 farmers planted improved seed during that year. That proves to you that those people are susceptible to development. They are susceptible to the knowledge and they apply it in practice.

As far as fertilization is concerned, 72 000 fanners in 1967 applied 125 000 tons of kraal manure to 95 000 morgen. In that same year, 48 000 Bantu farmers applied 8 000 tons of ordinary fertilizer to 78 000 morgen. This is just the fertilizer alone, the chemical substances, i.e. 213 lbs. per morgen. Not so long ago, about the same time when that development began. I was a second-year student. Our professor then told us that in the Western Transvaal not more than 200 lbs. of fertilizer should be used on a morgen. Today that view is already obsolete because the farmers are already using 400/500 lbs. per morgen. At this juncture already the Bantu farmers realize the value of fertilizer and how it can promote production. As far as rotational grazing is concerned, the information service requested 65 communities to apply rotational grazing in 1967. In actual fact, they found 67 such communities. Up to that stage a total of 3 000000 morgen in the homelands had been placed under grazing control, 30 per cent of the total. In 1967 the Bantu farmers bought 623 bulls, bulls of excellent breeding quality. In addition to that they purchased 368 rams. The Bantu farmer today realizes the value of technology. As far as the reclamation, conservation and utilization of the soil is concerned, the position is that the authorities are, with trained people engaged in soil classification and soil utilization classification in the homelands and have already made good progress. In 1970 50 per cent of the homelands had already been planned accordingly. In 1968 there were already 24 000 kilometres of contours of embankments to combat soil erosion; 93 000 kilometres of grass strips; 64000 kilometres of soil and veld conservation fencing; 3 865 conservation dams and 6 500 boreholes for belter veld conservation and utilization. By the end of 1970 18 000 hectares were already under irrigation; 13700 hectares under sugar cane; 12 500 hectares under sisal and 18 400 hectares under afforestation. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Lichtenburg devoted most of his speech to the improvement of the homelands in the agricultural sphere. We do not want to argue about that because we have a twofold duty to the Bantu. In the first place we are their guardians and, in the second place, they are living in our country and were ruining the soil to such an extent that we were forced to intervene and do something about it. That is why we are pleased that progress has already been made, very pleased. This is essential progress which had to be made, otherwise we would ultimately have had no watersheds left. But the hon. member omitted to mention to how many people these improvements in the agricultural sphere would afford a livelihood.

If you would give me an opportunity of doing so, I shall tell you now.

The hon. member can speak again. Even if I accept the figures furnished by the hon. the Minister yesterday, it still means that there are 7 500 000 Bantu within the homelands and 7 500 000 within the White areas. If we accept the census figures, then there are 6 900 000 in the Bantu areas and 8 100 000 in the White areas. Whichever calculation is correct, there are at this stage 7 500 000 Bantu in the Bantu areas for whom work opportunities have to be created. To how many of the 7 500 000 can agriculture offer a means of making a living? Suppose agriculture absorbs as many as it possibly can, that could at the most be 2 500 000. [Interjections.] Very well then, if the hon. the Deputy Minister feels that it is 5 000 000 then I accept it like that. Suppose it is 5 000 000, then it means that there are still 2 500 000 left. Now, according to projections, there will be 30 000 000 Bantu in South Africa by the end of the year 2000. Let us assume now that 15 000 000 of them are able to live in the Bantu areas, that the Bantu areas will by then have been industrialized to such an extent—if that is possible in this short period of time—to absorb that total. That means that in 30 years they would have to industrialize at a faster rate than we developed the Witwatersrand in 70 years, and it also means that there would be 15 000 000 within the White areas. It is at this point that the argument of the Government side seems a very strange one to us. They are encouraging a national consciousness among the Bantu in the White area, and want to have us believe that those 15 000 000 people are members of other population groups. But the fact remains that since you have 15 000 000 Bantu here among 7 000 000 Whites, it will be impossible for us to control the situation by implying that they should exercise their political rights in other areas. Generation upon generation of these people have been born here, and generation upon generation are still to be born here, regardless of what the hon. the Deputy Minister intends doing in regard to their transportation back and forth. I should like to know how the hon. the Deputy Minister sees this future situation. Does he think that he will be able to convey 5 000 000 of the 15 000 000 in the White area between their homelands and the White area? Is it possible to conceive of such an absurdity? Why did the hon. the Deputy Minister mention this? Was it because he projected the situation into the future and saw that as the population increased more and more of these people would have to be conveyed?

Do you want to allow all those 5 000 000 to live here in the White area?

If they are not allowed to live in the White area, how would it be physically possible to convey them? It simply cannot be done. Or do they want to do it by means of a pipeline? Or perhaps by means of a tunnel?

In London they are conveying 2 000 000 per day.

It is time that hon. member kept quiet.

The first requirement for the creation of a Bantustan is consolidation. In this respect I want to refer to the area where I live, the Transkei/Ciskei area. Could the hon. the Minister tell me when they are going to consolidate the Ciskei, to mention only one area, so that they may realize their aim of independence?

May I ask you a question?

I have already replied to one question. Let us take the magisterial districts in the Ciskei and see what happened there. In Stutterbeim there are two reserves, Ungwali and Wartburg, which form a sore in a White area. In Cathcart we find the same thing in regard to the Goshen reserve; and the same at Keiskammahoek; in Queenstown perhaps one-third of the district is Bantu area and may perhaps be consolidated. Then there is Fort Beaufort with its Bantu area, Healdtown, from Blinkwater to Lovedale, and Middledrift looks like a patchwork quilt. The same applies to Peddie and King William's Town. Sir, it is no use saying that there are only 26 separate areas. There are infinitely more, which have to be consolidated. In Victoria East you find the same kind of thing, with the Sheshego areas, and East London is still saddled with areas like Mooiplaas, Newlands, Kwelera and so on. The clearance of these areas has been the topic of discussion for a long time now, but the areas have not yet been cleared and exchanged. I want to ask the hon. the Minister for how long he thinks the farming community in these 12 districts which I have just mentioned should still continue in this uncertainty? In the process of clearance a certain quantity of land has been exchanged. We know that in the Cape in 1969, 85 000 hectares were purchased, and in 1970 85 800 Hectares. In terms of the 1936 legislation 644 000 hectares still have to be purchased in the Cape. Sir, we ask ourselves, if the Ciskei as such has to be consolidated— and the Ciskei is an infinitely more difficult area to consolidate than the Transkei—how long this area will have to wait before it is ultimately declared an independent area?

No.

Then I want to ask how a sovereign independent state, which consists of a lot of separate spots, is going to be administered. Are we relying on such an area which receives its sovereign independence always remaining a friendly state and co-operating well with us so that the people may move freely between our area and its area, or how must a thing like this be administered? Sir, how long must the farmers of Indwe and Cathcart and Queenstown remain in the uncertain position of not knowing whether their farms are going to border on a Bantu area? If the Administration does not purchase their farms, they will not find it easy to find purchasers. We ask ourselves what is going to happen if consolidation should continue at the rate at which it has proceeded recently. [Time expired.]

The hon. member wants to know how long it will take to consolidate the Ciskei. I want to ask the hon. member whether he is going to cooperate and help to have the area consolidated. He has just spoken about a “sore” now. According to their policy the world must be full of sores, for when it suits them, then the National Party has to solve certain problems. The hon. member for Zululand stated previously in a debate here that the Bantu should be able to obtain land anywhere. But if the hon. member agrees that the area should be consolidated, in accordance with the policy of the Government, is he going to help us do that?

Subject to the condition that they do not become sovereign independent states.

The hon. member is stating a condition. In other words, he does not want to promote the purchases specified in the Trust and Land Act of 1936.

The 1936 Act did not relate to sovereign foreign states.

We want to know unconditionally. We have never stated conditions to the Bantu. The National Party is in power and it is implementing this policy; it never states conditions. I must accept now that the hon. member for East London City will not co-operate. Sir, that is the attitude we get from that side of the House. They want to make use of National Party policy to solve local problems, and then they speak against the National Party policy as a whole, when it suits them. But I want to return to the same type of thing which happened in regard to a speech which I made at Kroonstad in regard to the purchase of land. The hon. member for Transkei mentioned it here. But the first member to mention it was the hon. member for Newton Park. I was not here, but the hon. member said the following (translation)—

The hon. member for Transkei also referred to that yesterday, and I then asked him where he had heard this. He then said: “It was in all the papers.” I now want to ask him whether he believes what he reads in these newspapers.

I put a question to the Prime Minister and he did not deny it, nor was it denied by any member on that side.

The hon. member for Newton Park did not ask a question; he stated that I had in fact said this.

I asked the Minister where he was going to purchase laud.

I am now asking the hon. member whether he believes what he read in the newspapers.

It depends on the newspaper. I read it in Die Burger.

The only conclusion I can draw, is that they believe it. Sir, this is not the first place this was mentioned; they also wanted to derive benefit from it at Witbank. There Mr. Harry Schwartz went and told this story. That hon. member knows what I said in reply to the motion he introduced here. I said that the Government and the National Party would comply with the 1936 legislation as soon as possible, and that it was going to accelerate the pace. I also said there, as far as the Transkei was concerned, that the 1936 Act is there, and that their territory is specified in that Act. I also referred to what the late Dr. Verwoerd had said in 1965, when he said that we would get demands of this type from Bantu leaders, but that we were not going to pay any heed to them. I said those three things very clearly here. I said the same three things at Kroonstad, but I added to that that the Bantu leaders in the Bantu areas must realize that they cannot continually be making demands on the White man. Chief Matanzima should first increase the productivity of his area, which has a very high production potential, and in that way create work for his people, instead of continually making increased demands. The Bantu must therefore be taught that they must deserve, and that they must pay for, progress. The statement was made here by the hon. member for Newton Park that I had said that Matanzima, after the requirements of the Act had been complied with, could obtain additional land if he paid for it. I stated very clearly what the position is.

Did you see it in the newspaper yourself?

I never saw it in the newspaper.

Never?

Never. Sir, that is the position in any case. I understand that it did appear in the newspapers, but the hon. member for Newton Park stated here that I had said this, and I object very strongly to the fact that the United Party, owing to its lack of policy comes forward with this type of story and pretends that I had actually said certain things although they merely read about it in the newspapers and then merely go ahead and draw conclusions from that, which they use to their benefit. But I leave it at that, Sir.

I discussed the development of the Transkei and its potential. I want to refer very briefly to this question of potential. The hon. member for Lichtenburg indicated very clearly here this afternoon that development had taken place in the homelands. I hope that I shall have a subsequent opportunity to elaborate on that and to indicate that we are contemplating major development there. It was said here by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition that the Bantu own only 13 per cent of the surface area of South Africa. That implies that these people do not really have a chance of becoming viable; that they do not have a chance of standing on their own feet. The hon. member for Mooi River intimated in his speech this afternoon that the Bantu did not inherently have that possibility.

Sir, we are affording these people an opportunity of becoming less dependent on the Whites in the economic sphere. An analysis was made in 1964 which indicated that the agricultural potential in all the Bantu areas jointly was R160 million. But recently I had at my disposal an analysis by an agricultural economist, in which a number of details were made available, and I should just like to mention a few of them briefly. Seventy-six per cent of the homeland areas have more than 20 inches of rain. Only 24 per cent have from 15 to 20 inches of rain. Twenty-nine per cent of the surface area of the homelands is suitable for intensive farming. In the Republic as a whole there are 11,5 million morgen in the moderate humid climate, an area with a high production potential. Of that 11,5 million morgen, 5,7 million morgen are situated in these Bantu homelands. Half of the high-production land, with the best climatic combination, is in the Bantu homelands.

As long ago as 1955 it was stated by the Tomlinson Commission that in proportion to the production capacity of the White area, if you base that on 100, the production capacity of the Bantu areas is 147. After careful investigation it is very clear that it would be greater. In addition, I want to tell you that 27,5 per cent of the Republic of South Africa is a low-rainfall area. That represents 39,4 million morgen. Only 100 000 morgen of that is situated in the Bantu homelands. If we were to make a proper analysis now, as was done by this Mr. Geyer, who obtained an M.Sc. degree in agricultural economics in America, in a lecture delivered before an engineering group in the Eastern Cape, then we find the following. Of the Transkeian surface area of 4,5 million morgen, 941 000 morgen is at present under cultivation, while 203 000 morgen are under afforestation. But in reality a total of 1,3 million morgen of that land is suitable for intensive farming. It is arable; in other words, it is suitable for field and vegetable crops. Upon analysing it further, we find that 10 000 morgen is extremely suitable for the production of tea. It has an economic potential of R8 million per annum, for the production of tea alone. [Time expired.]

The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development has now followed the pattern which was set by his counterpart, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration. It is quite apparent that neither of these Deputy Ministers gave any answers to the questions which we have been asking from this side of the House. What do we find? The hon. the Minister and both Deputy Ministers have now spoken twice in this debate and they have stood up and have delivered set speeches. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration in particular has delivered speeches, like his Minister, which should have been embodied in the report of the department. He should not have wasted the time of this Committee with that sort of thing. It is quite apparent that they have no answers to the questions we have put to them. We have been trying to take a line in this debate, and all we have had were evasions from the opposite side, particularly from this Deputy Minister, who now tries to run away from the question of the urban Bantu and starts dealing with the Transkei, land and agriculture and that sort of thing. But he has not answered the question put to him. I want to say this to the hon. the Deputy Minister when he says that Chief Kaiser Matanzima must increase the productivity of his people. Does he honestly believe that he can do so?

Yes.

Sir, was it not this hon. member, when he was still a backbencher sitting in this corner of the House, who said that the problem with the Transkei was that there were too many feet, both animal and human, in the Transkei? It was that hon. member, and he was quite right in his assessment then. There are too many feet in the Transkei, both human and animal. But what do we find is happening? Now the hon. the Deputy Minister is at least continuing along this line and I believe he is quite honest in his endeavour to increase the productivity of the Transkei. But having accepted his earlier premise, what is his counterpart doing? He is sending back as many as he can to the Transkei. He is increasing the number of feet there. And this goes even further, when you get this new plan that the hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned yesterday again when he spoke about the new scheme for providing free residential sites to urban Africans wanting to migrate to the homelands—we are all aware of this. They have already started on the first couple of townships in the Transkei, to bring these thousands of people back from the Transvaal primarily, and also from the Cape, and they are going to settle them in townships in the Transkei. What are those people going to do? How are they going to be productive in the Transkei, as was put by his counterpart? What opportunity is this Government going to create for them to be productive?

Give them a filling station.

The hon. member for Zululand pointed out that these growth points which are being established in the Bantu areas are being established on the borders of the Bantu areas, but where are these townships being established, these rural townships or urban townships which they are going to develop in the Transkei? They are not being developed on the borders where the employment opportunities are. They are being established now in the underdeveloped towns, and on the borders of the underdeveloped towns. What sort of problems is the hon. the Minister creating with this plan of his? [Interjection.] The Deputy Minister says my ignorance is great, but why does he not advise us further, if my ignorance is so great? Am I incorrect when I assume that he is going to establish these townships in the Transkei? Is he going to establish these towns there? Must we assume that the statement he made yesterday was incorrect? Yesterday he said he was establishing them, but now he says he is not. What do we believe, Sir? I believe he does not know.

I am not going to argue with you. I will give you the facts.

The hon. member is quite right. He cannot argue with me. But I want to come back to the question which we have been debating here since this debate started, the urban Bantu. I want to speak to the hon. the Minister. In 1969 we had a Bill introduced here to amend the Housing Act, and in terms of that Bill the S.A. Bantu Trust would take over the liabilities of a local authority, like Durban in respect of Kwa Mashu. The hon. the Minister is on the same wavelength as I am. There is no need for me to explain it further. [Interjections.] I want to ask the hon. the Minister how far this has gone. He mentioned yesterday the question of home ownership for Bantu. The Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration also mentioned home ownership for Bantu, but how far have they got with this scheme of theirs?

Do you want a reply now?

No, I hope the Deputy Minister will get up and reply. There are many hours left for the debate and the Minister has unlimited time. Perhaps one of them will reply. How many Bantu have been given the opportunity to enjoy individual home ownership in these townships?

Do you support this scheme?

Of course we support the scheme. We welcomed it at the time of the Bill. Where was the hon. member then? Was he sleeping at the time? We support it because it is merely an extension of United Party policy. It is an acceptance of United Party policy by a subterfuge, the subterfuge of tying these townships to the homelands.

And please incorporate Soweto.

I will support that plea, to incorporate Soweto. And please incorporate Langa as well, so that these Bantu can settle there, so that they can have their homes and have their settled family life and so that they can serve the purpose for which we have them here, [Interjections.]

While we are dealing with that, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration yesterday said that houses had been given to Bantu and that this had kept a million Bantu out of the White areas. Is he referring to the Bantu in townships such as Umlazi and Mdantsane?

I have already replied to that.

I am afraid I never heard that reply. Of those million who have been kept out, how many own their own homes? I hope that one of the three blind mice—I affectionately refer to these three gentlemen as the “three blind mice”—will at some stage during this debate tell us how many Bantu have been given home ownership, because on this rests the crux of the settling of the Bantu in the urban areas. We, the Whites of South Africa, are as dependent on them as they are upon us. Unless we can give them permanency of settlement and develop amongst them the middle class of Bantu, which is necessary South Africa cannot continue to expand at the rate at which it has done. Tied with this is the question of amenities and facilities for them and, particularly, the provision of professional services. In this regard I want to ask the Deputy Minister in all sincerity whether he has now come to a decision on the question of the provision of accommodation for professional persons in the urban Bantu townships. We have discussed this before. The last answer I have had from the hon. the Deputy Minister was that it was still under discussion. When I alleged in terms of a newspaper report that a decision had been made, he told me that that was incorrect. I hope that he will today be able to tell us that a decision has been made and that they are going to allow the local authorities to make provision for accommodation for professional services for the Bantu people by their own people. I repeal, not by Whites, Indians or Coloureds, but by Bantu themselves in these urban areas.

In conclusion, I want to speak to the hon. the Minister about his figures: 50,1 per cent in the Bantu areas and 49,5 per cent in the White areas. The million Bantu which, according to the hon. the Deputy Minister, have been housed permanently in the townships. Mbali, Mdantsane and Umlazi, are they included in the 50,1 per cent? This same question was asked in a different way by my hon. friend from Pinelands a little while ago, but he had no reply.

Where is Umlazi?

Umlazi has been created in the homelands. But, as I was saying, is this entirely honourable? As my hon. friend from Pinelands so ably pointed out, if the hon. the Minister has included the million people in the 50,1 per cent, it is not right. Those people are steeping there, but where are they during the day? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not want to, nor am I going to reply to that nonsense. If I had to reply to that nonsense I would not be able to say anything about the good things I want to discuss. I want to begin by saying that as far as principle is concerned, we have already separated from the Bantu. We have passed the point of no return. The hon. members on that side can talk as much as they want to but in principle we have already separated. It is as plain as a pikestaff. That is the first point I want to make a second point. After we have separated in principle, we are faced by the next phase, viz. development, to substantiate the quantitative separation or the separation based on numerical strength. That is, that we are able to accommodate those numbers and absorb them as we understand it and are able to implement it within the framework and the structure of our apartheid development policy. We must ask the question whether we have by now dammed up the flow of Bantu to the White areas. I say: “Yes, definitely” and here is my proof: The numerical strength of the Bantu within the Bantu areas has during the past 10 years increased from 4,1 million to 6,9 million, that is from 37,5 per cent to 46,5 per cent. Secondly: The Bantu increase within the Bantu areas has been 78,7 per cent, in comparison with the overall Bantu increase in the White and Bantu areas of 36,3 per cent. Thirdly: The Bantu increase within the White areas has during the past 10 years increased by 16,8 per cent, as against a general Bantu increase of 36,3 per cent and against an increase of 68,7 per cent in the Bantu areas. In other words, the pressure of Bantu against and upon the Whites in White South Africa is becoming lighter. That is as plain as a pikestaff. I should like to give an indication of how that pressure has decreased. In I960 there were 223 Bantu per 100 Whites in the White areas. Last year, in 1970, there were only 212 Bantu per 100 Whites in the White area. In 1970 there was approximately I million more Bantu in Bantu areas than in White areas, while in 1960 there were approximately 3 million more Bantu. There is therefore a process of the migration of the Bantu from the White area to the Bantu areas in progress, and this process has already achieved remarkable momentum.

In respect of this migration we must ask ourselves a few questions. The first question is: Do we have sufficient land for the Bantu within the Bantu areas, and is there an agricultural potential for them there? The agricultural economy is of course an essential sub-stratum for any industrial development structure which has to be built up. In reply to that I say definitely yes. My proof is as follows: The Bantu areas in South Africa comprise 16 234 200 morgen. Seventy-six per cent of that is situated in regions with a rainfall of more than 20 inches per year. Mixed farming can be applied intensively in one-third of the Bantu areas. 5,7 million morgen of the 11,5 million morgen which lie in the moderate humid climate, with the highest rainfall, are situated in the Bantu areas. The Bantu areas contain four major farming type areas. Land which may exclusively be used for stock-farming, comprises 24 per cent of the total surface area. That which may principally be used for stock-farming, together with grain-farming comprises 27 per cent. That which can be used for mixed farming, with a preponderance of stock-farming, comprises 20 per cent, and land which may be used for mixed farming comprises 29 per cent. Mixed farming is of course the most remunerative kind of farming there is. It is calculated that every 100 morgen situated in the Bantu area has an agricultural value equal to 150 morgen in the White area. The agricultural potential of the Bantu area expressed in rands, based on the rate at which they are now proceeding, and with a little improvement, may be calculated at approximately R170 million per year. That means that 310 000 Bantu farming families may be settled in the Bantu area, each with an income of approximately R550 per annum.

Let us now draw a few parallels with the emancipated states in Africa, which have political freedom. Somalia has less arable land than Israel. If you go to Israel you can see what can be done in the desert through the use of modem farming techniques. Ruanda and Burundi have almost no cultivatable land. These are two independent states. Two-thirds of Black Africa is either too warm or too humid or too dry for any agricultural activity on an economic basis to be practiced there. In many areas of Africa erosion has already been taken beyond the limits of economic restoration.

The second point I want to make, is that these to be emancipated areas of ours possess ethnic unity which the emancipated Africa States do not possess. In Ghana there are more than 100 ethnic groups. In Nigeria there are more than 200. These to be emancipated areas of ours are all ethnic units. An ethnic unit has significance in the formation, in the economic sphere, the cultural sphere and the industrial sphere, of any people. These emancipated States in Africa do not have what our Bantu States have. Mostly their economy is based on one single commodity. Nigeria’s economy is based on ground nuts, that of the Upper Volta on livestock, that of Somalia on bananas only, and that of the Sudan on cotton.

All stable governments.

That hon. member does not know what a stable government means. The economy of Ghana is based on five commodities only. All the commodities which Ghana has to export in order to make a living, are commodities which are essential for feeding its own people. Now compare our emancipated areas with these areas. They border on an area with a powerful economic structure which affords them the opportunity of exporting labour, and that is the most permanent and most stable income-bearing export article which any country could have. The emancipated States in Africa do not have that labour which our states have.

These to be emancipated Bantu areas have sufficient land, a sufficiently great agricultural potential, and a neighbour which has a powerful economic structure to which they can export their labour, and they have a neighbour which is obliging and willing to help them to build up an agricultural economy along their borders and within their areas on a sub-stratum which constitutes a tremendous potential for their areas. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister opened the debate yesterday and gave us a glimpse of the development which has taken place in the Bantu areas during the past years. It goes without saying that things cannot stand still. We have the assurance—and we are prepared to accept it—that there has been development. I do not think anyone on this side of the House wants to disparage the development there has been or try to create the impression that absolutely nothing has happened.

But the problem we have is this: When one wants to determine the true value of development such as that of the homelands and wants to judge it, one must have a certain norm, one must know by what standard and ideal it must be measured. We know what the Government’s objective is. The Government’s objective is that the Bantu homelands must develop to a point where they are able to stand on their own feet as states. In other words, the objective is that the Bantu homelands must reach the stage reached long ago by countries such as Zambia, Swaziland, Malawi and others we can mention. The hon. the Minister will concede that if one has to compare the homelands with, for example, Swaziland, to mention one that lies near, and to take it as a norm, the development of the Bantu homelands is pathetic, to say the least of it.

That is the mistake you make.

The hon. member must give me a chance. After all, we are conducting a debate now, and if other hon. members disagree with this, the Minister and other hon. members can tell me that I am wrong, but then they have to prove that I am wrong. Taking Swaziland alone. I say the development of the Bantu homelands in South Africa is pathetic if measured by that norm. Not one of them, not even the Transkei, which, of all the Bantu homelands, has developed the farthest, can even remotely be called truly self-governing territories. They cannot be called self-governing territories as the term is internationally understood. In our legislation they are referred to as self-governing territories, but they do not approximate to what the term “self-governing” really means internationally.

I should like to ask the hon. member a question.

No, I have a few points which I should like to deal with, and there is not sufficient time for me to reply to questions as well. In a territory such as the Transkei, for example, most of the towns do not fall under the control of the Transkeian Government at all. I have specifically chosen the Transkei because it has developed the farthest. In this land of the Xhosa, which is a land of “separate freedom” for the Xhosa—it is their “own territory”, and I say this in quotation marks—the Xhosa are still bumping themselves as hard against the apartheid measures of the Government, and these include petty apartheid, as in any other place in South Africa. The Prime Minister of the Transkei does not even have the right to walk into any cafe or restaurant or hotel in his own territory to have tea, a meal or a drink. He does not even have the right to do so in the capital of his territory, of this “own territory” of the Xhosa, of this so-called self-governing territory.

But he has his own splendid hotel in Umtata.

There is a Xhosa university, but there is not one single Xhosa on the council of the Xhosa university. There is a Xhosa Development Corporation, but there is not one single Xhosa on the board of directors of this Xhosa Development Corporation. Such is the case in this “self-governing" territory of the Transkei. In a territory such as Swaziland some of the best holiday hotels are being built today. They are bringing in White entrepreneur capital to bring development on a basis of partnership with the Swazi and on conditions which are to the advantage of the Swazi. Development is taking place there in the right way, i.e. by bringing in White entrepreneur capital on an ordinary capitalistic basis. The capital is being brought into the country so that it will be to the advantage of Swaziland and the Swazi as well and so that they will derive considerable benefit from it. Thousands of visitors are drawn from Johannesburg to the Spa and other developments which are taking place there, and these have already become a major source of income to Swaziland. This development is taking place mainly by means of using the capital of Whites from South Africa. Over against that, we have the poor Transkei, which does not even have the right to invite a private entrepreneur to help it to develop its territory. This is the measure of self-government which it has. Everything has to go through Government channels. In other words, everything has to be done on a socialistic basis. It must be done through the channel of the Government or on “agency basis”, as the Government calls it, and that is nothing but a socialistic basis. We know what the reason is for the Government not wanting to allow ordinary capitalistic development to take place there. It is that the Government wants to maintain apartheid and colour discrimination in the Bantu’s own territory, in the territory where they will supposedly be free of apartheid.

I say today that the Bantu heartlands, or the Bantu homelands, will never really develop to a stage where they will be able to make a substantial contribution to the easing of our population problem in this country, until such time as the Government changes its whole attitude to development. It will have to place less emphasis on the development of border industries and pay much more attention to development within the Bantu territories, because the development of border industries sucks the strength out of the territories without leaving anything behind. The development of border industries is in direct conflict with the development of the territories. The more emphasis is placed on the development of border industries, the less the territories will really develop. Until such time as the Government is prepared to realize this and to place the emphasis on development within the Bantu territories, those territories will really not develop into anything great.

Secondly, the Government must get away from the socialistic basis of development and must return to the ordinary capitalistic system, whereby entrepreneur capital, private capital, is allowed to go in if it is invited or wants to. Then measures can be taken to protect local interests, just as South Africa today protects its industries against excessive foreign competition and just as Lesotho and other countries protect their local interests, but nevertheless allow private White capital. It is absurd that our private White South African entrepreneurs, for example a man like Dr. Anton Rupert, a South African, is heading development in Lesotho. They are achieving remarkable results, but that same South African may not help to develop the Transkei on the same basis. He must accept the agency basis, the socialistic basis, of the Government. Our Minister of Foreign Affairs goes to Madagascar and prepares the way for South African private entrepreneurs to go to Madagascar and develop that country, but he cannot do the same in respect of our own Bantu territories.

They can do so here on the agency basis.

In any case, let us differ on that. But I repeat that nothing special will ever come of these Bantu homelands until such time as the Government has the courage to tackle the right development there.

I should like to put two questions to the hon. the Minister. We hear different terms on one occasion the term “independence” is used and on another the term “self-determination”. The hon. the Chief Whip again came up with “self-determination" today.

But it is in the charter.

There is a slight difference between self-determination and independence. Independence, as the Government uses it, places the emphasis on determination by the Government, in other words, “we determine that you shall become independent", but self-determination means determination by the people themselves. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it has been said repeatedly on this side of the House that a healthy relationship among the various peoples of this country is the keystone of our future successful co-existence. The hon. member for Bezuidenhout will definitely not deny that. I now want to declare that in the speech he made this evening he did not make the slightest contribution to that successful development of our relations here. On the contrary, to me it sounded like a speech bordering on nihilism, nihilism in the sense of “all-destructive”.

Inciting.

Inciting.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw the word “inciting”.

I withdraw it. Sir. To me it sounded like a speech one would not have expected from the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, especially in the fight of the fact that very interesting sounds have been coming from his side in recent times. I should very much like to know whether he was speaking on behalf of the United Party, as he has said in the past.

I refer to an article in the Sunday Times a few weeks ago, in which he said the following—

He also said—

But only yesterday evening the hon. member for Turffontein said that he rejected the doctrine of nationalism and particularly the doctrine of multi-nationalism and of total segregation. Furthermore, he said if there was one matter today which was being queried, it was this new approach of multi-nationalism. Are these people in the same party. Sir? May we accept that the hon. member for Bezuidenhout, in saying these things this evening, was also speaking on behalf of the United Party when he propagated the concept of multi-nationalism and was directly contradicted by the hon. member I quoted a moment ago? Sir, I want to put this question to the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: Is there any development in the Republic or in Swaziland which cannot take place in the Transkei or in any other homeland area as well? I ask him to mention a facility enjoyed here which cannot be enjoyed by any Xhosa in the Transkei or in any other homeland.

Private capital cannot enter there.

The reply to that argument is this: The hon. member reminds me of a person on board a ship which must pass between rocks and who is asked by the captain to help and then replies— this is the attitude of the hon. member for Bezuidenhout: “I do not like the colour of your eyes; I do not like your politics; manage on your own.” Say the United Party is backed by 25 per cent of the country’s industrialists, businessmen and capital. If the hon. member has the interests of the Xhosa, the Venda and the other Bantu at heart, why does he not appeal to the industrialists to help navigate this ship between the rocks?

What industrialist is going to give his money to the Government?

Sir, it is given to the Xhosa. Hon. Members opposite have never debated that aspect here. Instead of debating that aspect here, they raise another point, namely the urban Bantu. They are afraid of debating that aspect. Sir, there was another welcome note in this regard. I am referring to the hon. member for Houghton. I wish she were here this evening. Her party has found points of agreement between her policy and the good work of the National Party. Mr. Eglin, her new leader, said, inter alia, the following in Parow a short while ago—

Apart from the stings in his point of view, it is clear that the concept of Bantu homeland development is accepted by the Progressive Party as well. One would expect that a patriot, a South African in the broadest sense of the word, as the United Party sees the matter, would make an appeal to our people to develop the homelands. Why? Because they would be the magnet which would reduce the numbers of Bantu in the White areas.

Sir, this is to despair of the United Party’s arguments, which vary between senility and infantilism, but they are not the only ones who despair of these arguments; a newspaper such as the Sunday Times does too. As far back as December, 1968, the Sunday Times advised the United Party to accept the Bantustan policy of this Government. The hon. member for North Rand then wrote a letter to the Sunday Times in which he said the following—

After last year's election there was once again an appeal from the Sunday Times to the United Party, which read as follows—

Sir, but they still did not want to listen. Then we had the poor performance of the United Party during the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, and what happened then? The Sunday Times of 7th March this year gave the United Party and its Leader a slap in the face as never before. You must note. Sir, that at the time when the hon. member for North Rand lodged an objection, the hon. member for Kensington was in the employ of the Sunday Times; he was writing for them.

When was that?

In December, 1968. At that time the hon. member for Kensington was a correspondent in this House for the Sunday Times. He cannot deny that. The United Party is subjected by the Sunday Times to the greatest humiliation any party has ever been subjected to by a newspaper which ostensibly supports it, their Leader is subjected to the greatest humiliation a leader can be subjected to and one of the correspondents of that newspaper is sitting on that side of this House.

Look at the hon. member for Kensington blushing.

The only honourable course of action one can expect of that hon. member—and then he would to some extent rise in our estimation again—is that he should get up and repudiate the Sunday Times where it told the United Party what policy it should follow, otherwise he should resign from that party. This is the only honourable course of action one could expect of that member.

Sir, I have said to you that in this whole process we are looking for points of agreement between the United Party and us. The hon. member for Pinelands stated here today that they should also like to have the largest number of Bantu in the Bantu homelands, which implies the largest measure of development in the Bantu homelands.

Tomlinson said so long ago.

In that case, why must we devote 9½ hours to a debate on the urban Bantu if the root of the problem lies in the homelands? hon. members opposite did not devote one minute to criticism of the money voted in the Estimates for the development of the homelands. Must we infer from that that they accept it? Sir, there is only one inference we can draw and this is that that party is running away from reality. The hon. member for Houghton, on the other hand, is busying herself with matters not prescribed for her by her Leader outside. Her leader’s prescription, in line with that of the Sunday Times, is that that party should accept the development of the Bantu homelands as its point of departure. [Time expired.]

The speech made by the hon. member for Bloemfontein West was an interesting one, because at the beginning of his speech he asked this side to help that side navigate the ship through the rocks. The hon. member knows that in principle we disagree with that side of this House. Therefore we shall not help to steer their ship through the rocks, but if we come into power, we shall steer the ship of South Africa through the rocks. The second half of his speech was directed against the Sunday Times. I think he is under the impression that the Sunday Times is the Leader of the Opposition. Sir, we have a very good Leader. We stand solidly behind our Leader and the Sunday Times will never lead this party or our Leader. He went on to attack the hon. member for Kensington. He said the hon. member had written for the Sunday Times in 1968. I think he should check on his facts before attacking hon. members on this side, because in 1968 the hon. member for Kensington was a correspondent for the Rand Daily Mail in this House. He did not write for the Sunday Times at that time.

They are stable companions.

It is a question of facts.

While I was listening to the speeches made by that side of this House, especially to the speeches of the triumvirate, the hon. the Minister and his two Deputies. I was reminded of Marie Antoinette in the days preceding the French Revolution. When the hungry mob asked for bread, she said, “Give them cake”. This is precisely what this Government is doing in regard to the franchise, multi-nationalism and sovereign independence. The psychological background of this was reflected in the speech made by the hon. the Chief Whip of the Government when he said that nobody could deny a people constitutional and political development. Sir, we on this side of the House see the human right as preceding that civil right of which there is so much talk overseas. We see it as coming first. It is the right to work, to eat, to be clothed, and to have a roof over one’s head. These are the first principles in any policy, the most important rungs of the ladder. When we speak of the philosophy of multi-nationalism in the sense of sovereign independence, it is unavoidably linked to the borders of the embryo states and to the consolidation of those embryo states. Our party’s standpoint has always been that land would be bought for the Bantu homelands but not for the establishment of independent homelands, and we have not departed from that standpoint up to this day.

The Bloemfontein resolution. It was a foolish resolution.

It was a fine resolution, because with this policy of multi-nationalism, this Government is taking us on the road towards racial suicide. And these two points are linked in turn to the idea of border industrial development and of internal homeland development on the agency basis, which was accepted too late by this Government. It is also linked to the Physical Planning Act and to the Industrial Conciliation Act. I shall explain this. If one’s border industrialist and homeland industrialist operate on the agency basis, what safety and security can this Government offer them under the policy of multi-nationalism and independence?

You received the reply to the same question last year.

No, the reply was completely evaded. What guarantees can you give? I can put the question directly to the hon. member for Potchefstroom. What guarantees can he give to an industrialist who started a business or industry in a state which has attained sovereign independence since that time? [interjections.] He can give no assurance.

The Minister has explained it.

How can any member opposite give any assurance on behalf of a government which does not exist as yet? Secondly, if we take the Physical Planning Act and the Industrial Conciliation Act, what does the Physical Planning Act do? It was said in this House, and in fact in pamphlets used by the Government in the election, that the Physical Planning Act had stopped industrial development on 6 500 morgen of land in the White area of South Africa and that this had stopped the bread and butter of more than one million Bantu, taken on a family basis.

No, Nobody’s bread and butter has been taken away.

I can read it out to the hon. member. This pamphlet was printed in English, oddly enough in a triangular election, and in Prog. colours. It was issued in the Albany election and I can read to the hon. member from this pamphlet. It was also mentioned in this House in reply to a question. Under the chapter “Kept Out”, it reads as follows:

Does the hon. member accept this? [Interjection] It may have been migratory labour. But now we come to the next sentence:

This is not necessarily so; it is wrong:

*It means 1 250 000 Bantu being kept away from the bread they ask for. That is what it means. It does not necessarily mean that they have been kept out of White areas. Everybody on that side of the House knows perfectly well …

That you are talking nonsense.

That is something which the hon. the Deputy Minister so often speaks that he should not be able to recognize it in somebody else. Further, in regard to the question of the homelands and the development of industries, we believe in decentralized industries and we believe in the development of industries wherever the infrastructure is created, but we have heard it repeatedly from that side of the House that their policy is sovereign independence. Now they have created certain border industries in places like Rosslyn, Hammarsdale and Mdantsane. We heard the hon. the Minister of Labour only yesterday afternoon saying that he was now applying the Industrial Conciliation Act to White workers inside the Bantu homelands. But what I want to know is this, and I have asked this question before, as the hon. member for Potchefstroom will remember, and I have not received an answer. When these territories receive independence and the workers in the factories are sleeping and living in their homelands, and the day comes when they go back to their homeland, which is now an independent, sovereign territory, how are you going to apply your Industrial Conciliation Act? In fact, you cannot. The argument has been used by that side of the House that we have migratory labour in this country from other territories surrounding us now, from Botswana, Lesotho, Malawi and various others, but those labourers come in here on a six months’ basis. They live right inside this territory and they stay in this territory. They do not go home. [Time expired.]

Sir, you will pardon me for not responding to the speeches made by the hon. members on that side of the House. I am not going to deal with them at all this afternoon, because even if one had the wisdom of a Solomon one would never be able to teach them anything and even if one had the patience of a Job it would still become exhausted. For that reason and because my time is very limited I would prefer to leave these people at that, and go on to deal with something else.

A great task is awaiting the National Party, a task it has already fulfilled with great success in certain aspects. I am grateful for having heard from the two Deputy Ministers as well as the hon. members for Lichtenburg and Carletonville of the tremendous potential of the homeland areas. To me this task constitutes the major challenge, i.e. to develop the homelands in this sphere with the assistance of our agricultural services. I am not going to bother the House with figures, because we have already had plenty of those across the floor of the House this afternoon. In regard to the potential of those areas. I want to say that we will have to do everything in our power —as we have done up till now—to develop those areas in the agricultural sphere in order to enable them to feed their own people. This is of paramount importance to the Transkei. If an area such as this is able to feed its people, it follows that it is able to clothe its people. Much has been achieved once you are able to provide for those two aspects of life. I believe that with the services being rendered and advice being given we will be able to develop the Transkei to such an extent that it will not only be able to feed and clothe its own population, but that it will also be able to provide in future years housing, food and clothing to its citizens who are at present working in the major cities of the Republic.

The second area I want to deal with is Zululand. Zululand has the same potential the Transkei has. The United Party can no longer dispute the fact that Zululand is situated in the most fertile part of Natal. It is situated in the heart of Natal. Zululand constitutes a challenge for the National Party, which is an honest party with an honest policy, to do everything in its power to develop Zululand to such an extent that the Zulu people, just as the inhabitants of the Transkei, are able to feed and clothe themselves and, if necessary, are able to take care of their citizens who are working in the major cities.

The same applies to the Tswana territory. The Tswana, the Venda, the Shangaan, the North Sotho and the South Sotho territories have to be developed more rapidly in the agricultural sphere. I believe it is our task to establish border industries there in order to provide employment for those people. This is the proper thing to do, and it will be done. At the moment the border industries are being established on a large scale. But I believe that immediate and serious attention should be given specifically to the agricultural industry in those various Bantu homelands. We have to develop those territories to such an extent agriculturally that the Bantu will feel at home there and that this will serve to draw the Bantu to the homelands. By nature the Bantu of Africa are stock farmers or crop farmers. The history of the Bantu in Africa is the history of a stock farmer. In other words, for the Bantu his land and his cattle are his first love. The same applies to many of our own people. As a party and as a people we have to succeed in making conditions attractive for the Bantu in the homelands in this respect.

I want to say that when the various homelands have been developed in this way—something which will probably take many years and will cost millions of rand to achieve—-the Bantu in Soweto will be proud of the fact that he is a citizen of, for example, the Transkei. I now want to deal with the urban Bantu. When the urban Bantu grows old one day, he will also have a desire to go back to his homeland. It is a fact that every person has a national feeling of his own. There is only one kind of person in whom one does not find this feeling, i.e. a United Party man. For example, if one were to meet a Xhosa in Eloff Street in Johannesburg and tell him that he is a Tswana, he would say straight away: “No, I am a Xhosa”. If a Zulu in Soweto is being told that he is a Shangaan, he will immediately point out that he is a Zulu. We will have to help and teach the Bantu to develop a love of his land, to live off his land and to earn his bread in the sweat of his brow. We have to do this in order to prevent them from becoming a materialistic people. He should learn to develop a love of the land of his forefathers in the same way that I have a love of the land of my forefathers. In this way many of our major problems will be solved. In this regard I want to thank the Department of Agricultural Services for what they have done. I know that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Development, who is doing this work there is a practical farmer and that he will do everything in his power to develop the agricultural potential in the Bantu areas so that the Bantu are able to make a livelihood there.

There is one final request I want to put to the hon. the Minister. There are many Bantu of the various Bantu peoples in our cities who have already accepted citizenship of their own Bantu areas. When they are convicted of an offence and have served a prison sentence it does not take long for them to make sure that they are back in gaol again. I now want to ask the Minister whether it is not possible for these Bantu who are deliberately making a home of the prisons, to be transferred to the homelands of which they are citizens. They can be handed over to the chiefs there who can rehabilitate them by making them work on the lands so that there is no need for them to be kept in the prisons of our country. They will soon be rehabilitated under their chiefs, where the treatment that is meted out to them is far more onerous than it is under the Police. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am rising for only two purposes, firstly, to reply to the points raised by a few members opposite and, secondly, to reply to the one refrain of several other members opposite, namely that of the urban Bantu.

I shall therefore begin with the odd points raised on the opposite side. The hon. member for Transkei referred to the agency system and called it a “new thing", as he put it, which had not been advocated by Dr. Verwoerd. This is the very reverse of the true facts. We owe the term “agency system" to Dr. Verwoerd, because he coined this phrase, as it were. The system as such was also introduced by him, and more particularly, as I said yesterday, in respect of mining operations, which became fairly extensive in his time and were also related to industry in a very limited way. In the past eighteen months to two years, more attention has been paid to the industrial aspects in particular.

The hon. member put a few questions about the urban Bantu and I shall return to these in a moment. Then I should just like to reply on one point to the hon. member for Pinelands, who is absent, but who explained to me that he was unable to be present, which explanation I accept. The hon. member also had a few things to say in regard to Bantu in the White areas. The hon. member said, inter alia, that we on this side of this House adopted the attitude that all the Bantu should be removed from the White areas and that they should all be assured of a livelihood in the homelands. The National Party has always said this would be the ideal situation. This is the direction towards which we are tending and in which we are aiming, but we have never suggested that eventually there will be no Bantu in the White area and that all of them will be in the homelands. We accept that, as the hon. member for Rissik indicated briefly here today, they will always have to provide assistance to the Whites in the White areas on the basis of interdependence in respect of labour. We only want the Whites to see to it that they do not make themselves so extremely vulnerably dependent on Bantu labour.

The hon. member for Pinelands also said sneeringly that we on this side of the House boasted that Bantu who lived were settled and, as he expressed it, slept in the Bantu homelands, worked in the White areas. He said this could not be regarded as an achievement in respect of our policy. But it is in fact the core of our border industry system, which was started years ago, that the Bantu of While towns, urban areas and industrial centres situated close to the homelands should all live in the homelands. We all know how hon. members opposite ridiculed that. We are applying this principle not only in respect of areas which have been declared border industry areas, with all the concessions associated with border industry areas, but also to ordinary other towns situated close to homelands. So, for example, there is a place such as Potgietersrus, which has never been a declared border industry area. The location of this town has been cleared away and the Bantu are now living in a homeland a few miles from there. They commute to the town daily to go and work there. This is an ideal situation. If we were able to do this on a large scale, it would be a most ideal situation, because then all the Bantu would be living in their own communities, where all of them would have rights they could exercise without any restrictions. There they would have land ownership rights and political rights in their community life with their tribes and not in the White communities, where unnecessary friction may perhaps arise precisely as a result of living too close together. This is an achievement to us and how hon. members can refer sneeringly to it is beyond one's comprehension.

†Mr. Chairman, I also have to pay some attention to the hon. member four Houghton. In a most provocative speech the hon. member made here this afternoon, the hon. member said that migrant labour means a baby per year in the homelands for the wife of the migrant worker. That is a most unworthy statement and it is untrue. If ever there was a place where social discipline on women is strong, it is in the homeland areas. Their fathers see to it that the baby per year, as the hon. member for Houghton pretends is the case, does not materialize.

You miss the point completely.

No, I did not miss the point at all. Secondly, a very large percentage of the migrant labourers coming into the White areas, are single persons. I have not worked this out, but I am pretty sure that far more than half of them are single.

They have illegitimate babies in the townships.

No, I wrote the words of the hon. member down. She said: ‘'Migrant labour means a baby a year in the homelands”.

Illegitimate.

Yes, illegitimate. I maintain that that is not the case.

I did not say illegitimate.

No, that is what the hon. member for Mooi River says. I know the hon. member for Houghton did not say that.

The next point raised by the hon. member for Houghton was that the Bantu who have been removed from Black spots and wrongly situated small Bantu reserves to new places, compensatory land in the Bantu areas as we call it, are usually taken away from their employment. Then she said that they did not have work in the new places where they had been moved to. I have tried to explain this question many times before. I fear the hon. member refuses to accept the correct position. The hon. member does not differentiate between the breadwinners and the dependants. It is mostly dependants who are removed from the Black spots. They are not the permanent workers and their breadwinners usually work far away in White towns and White cities. Whether you take the dependants away from the Black spot to a place in a new Bantu homeland area or not, they are not the permanent workers and their breadwinners are still working in a far-off place. It is immaterial to them where their dependants are staying, but it is not immaterial to us, and it is better for them to have their dependants living in the homelands and not in these Black spots, where they do not have all the amenities which this hon. member claims for them in the new areas. The hon. member suffers from the fallacy that she takes it for granted that those people who are to be removed are always in employ in the Black spots, but it is not so. Those dependants are staying there and their breadwinners who look after them are working in a far-off place.

Then the hon. member has claimed that houses, schools, clinics, etc., must be built before the people can be moved from the Black spots to those areas. We do provide the necessary amenities for them. What this hon. member does not do, is to investigate to see what the prevailing conditions are in the places from where these people are removed. They do not have houses, clinics, hospitals or businesses in these Black spots from where they are moved. Unusually they do not have them, and that was the position in that Black spot in Natal whence we took the people during the course of last year and the year before to be resettled in Limehill. That was also the position in the Western Transvaal when we had to resettle these people at Madikwe, the township about which the hon. member for Wolmaransstad has spoken. The position is that we do provide these facilities. What this hon. member does not know, as appears from the fact that she referred to the tents which we do provide, is that in many cases the Bantu have asked us to supply them with tents as a temporary measure because they prefer to build their own houses at the places where they are resettled with the material they bring along with them and with the compensation they get from us. They prefer to have temporary accommodation in tents while they are building their own houses. Should we refuse them their request? Why should we not allow them to build their own houses? Those who do not like to build their own houses are provided with the necessary housing facilities. They are also provided with the other services which are necessary. Let us make sure about one thing and that is that we will not be dictated to by that hon. member as to how we should handle these matters. We shall not be dictated to by her because we have the experience, the knowledge and the goodwill to do the right thing.

*I now come to the hon. member for Maitland.

Mr. Chairman, just before the hon. the Minister leaves the hon. member for Houghton, would he perhaps furnish us with some more details in regard to the figures he quoted here yesterday evening? I am referring to the 51 per cent now.

I said I wanted to reply to certain points. The hon. member may question me again at a later stage. The hon. member for Maitland made a bad blunder by saying that the political development effected by the Government had forged ahead of economic development in the Bantu areas. Obviously the hon. member knows too little of the nature of Bantu development in the homelands. No matter how far behind political development in the Bantu homelands may have been in the past, economic development has always lagged further behind. Before there was talk of economic development, the Bantu had their own traditional political institutions, their own system of chiefs, which we have taken further. What was that if not a political structure? Even the former territorial authorities were a step ahead of the internal economic development in the Bantu homelands. But the hon. member evidently forgets that if one wants to develop a people and its homeland, the first responsible body to tackle that development, is the people itself. How is one to tackle it through the agency of a Government? How is it possible for a people to develop itself and its economy if it does not first have a government to do so? In other words, have peoples all over the whole world first seen to the development of their economies, followed by their political institutions? What political science is this hon. member preaching to us here? The fact that we have made good progress as regards political development, is the very thing which promotes, economic, social, educational, agricultural and other development in the Bantu homelands, as I tried to indicate very briefly yesterday in a very limited time.

By implication the hon. members for Mooi River and Zululand both made a very serious admission here in respect of their own policy. Both of them complained that we did not want to understand that the urban Bantu was being united with and thereby absorbed into Western civilization in the urban areas and through the industrialization processes. Our very objection is that the United Party is advocating a policy that seeks to make the Bantu of South Africa equal to the Whites in South Africa, and especially in the White areas, by means of the integration process, so that all of them may be absorbed into a unity which hon. members opposite think will be a Western civilization, while it will not be the case. This is an admission on the part of the hon. members of what we always say, and that is that their policy leads to total integration, especially on the social level. This is what hon. members opposite were saying in their plea that we should also recognize that the Bantu was being westernized.

Now I should just like to deal briefly with the hon. member for Bezuidenhout. It seems to me he was not listening to me while I was speaking yesterday. He raised points here this afternoon to which I had replied in anticipation yesterday. What I am referring to is that he said we did not want to allow White entrepreneurs and White capital to develop the Bantu areas. I said yesterday that there were Whites who are already committed to the tune of more than R20 million of their own capital which they are bringing into the homelands. Only today I again received a list.

What is R20 million?

Sir, one feels inclined to exclaim, “Good Lord!”, this has taken place during the past 18 months. [Interjection.] Good heavens. Sir, surely we do not have just 18 months in which to tackle the task, and we have done this just in the past 18 months. I have here another application with six new names which came in today and which alone will employ approximately 2 000 Bantu. They are coming in like this every week. Does the hon. member want us to start right at the top with everything at the same time? No! The hon. member did what he had said hon. members were not doing, and that is that he, too, like other members, today belittled every positive step of the Government. They do this deliberately, and they will achieve nothing by doing so, because we shall continue the work.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.05 p.m.

Evening Sitting

Mr. Chairman, I have listened attentively to the discussion of the Vote “Bantu Administration” since yesterday afternoon. One thing has become quite clear to me, i.e. that the hon. Opposition from the outset concentrated on emphasizing the position of the urban Bantu in the White area in South Africa by creating a so-called middle-class Bantu group.

The hon. the Minister, in passing, referred to the fact this afternoon that there were surplus Bantu in the locations. As recently as last year a survey was conducted in a certain town in my constituency, namely Jamestown, in regard to the number of Bantu in the location. The Bantu in that location were living under appalling conditions. The survey revealed that there were approximately 1 900 Bantu living in that location. The Department of Bantu Administration and Development then removed the Bantu who were not necessary there. Hon. Members should remember now that the surplus Bantu there were living off those who were in receipt of old-age pensions. Knowing the Bantu as we do, 20 of them live off the old-age pension of one Bantu person. Theft, and so forth, flourished. After the surplus Bantu had been removed from the location, 240 Bantu persons remained for whom it was possible to provide employment in that town.

What happened with the rest?

They were resettled in the reserves. Certain ladies raised objections with me because of the fact that their servants had been removed and resettled in the reserves. When those servants were able to come back eventually they did not want to come back because they were quite satisfied where they had been re-settled. That is the position. This is the first matter I want to deal with. In the second place, the hon. member for Albany mentioned the agency basis and the money invested in the reserves in terms of the agency basis. If the hon. member had listened to the speech made by the hon. the Prime Minister in this House last year, he would have heard the Prime Minister say that the Government provides certain guarantees in regard to those people. If such a reserve were to become independent, their investments would be guaranteed by the Government. That is quite clear and it is the same principle which applies in the Transkei where a White Paper was issued in terms of which the properties of White persons are guaranteed by the Government. What could be more reasonable than that?

But I want to get on with my speech. The hon. member for Houghton referred in passing to the question of farm labourers this afternoon. As a person who grew up on a farm I can tell the hon. member for Houghton that we must not mar the sound relationship between the farm labourers and the White farmers of South Africa. We must never mar this relationship. If anything were to go wrong it would be the individual. But knowing the Bantu as I do, they themselves eliminate the White farmer who does not treat them well. There is no need for this to be done by way of legislation because a very sound relationship exists between the White farmers of South Africa and their Bantu employees. We must not mar that relationship under any circumstances.

Mr. Chairman, I should also like to discuss the Transkei tonight. Much is being said about the reserves, particularly about the Transkei. Much has been said and published in regard to the Transkei as far as its economic backlog is concerned. It is being suggested that the Transkei is not economically viable, and that it is impossible for any economic development to take place there. Many people and, particularly the Opposition, take delight in alleging that nothing will be achieved economically in the Transkei. That is the wrong approach. The Transkei has tremendous potential and I want to refer briefly to it tonight, because this economic backlog has to be wiped out. The hon. member for Lichtenburg this afternoon referred to the extension services which exist in the reserves. In the Transkei there are 231 extension officers in 26 magistrates’ districts who are helping with the rehabilitation of agriculture. This compares favourably with the number of extension officers in White South Africa, because here we have just over 1 500 posts for such officers.

The next aspect I want to deal with is soil conservation and planning. Initially the Xhosa people were very sceptical about planning. They did not want to accept planning. Hence the fact that fences were cut at that time, but they have accepted planning now. Forty-four per cent of the Transkei has been planned. Within the next few years more than 80 per cent of the whole of the Transkei will be planned.

Sir, I want to go even further. The grazing in the Transkei is approximately 2 400 000 morgen in extent. The carrying capacity per large-stock unit is 1:4. Where we are in East Griqualand it is 1:3. The arable surface is 1 446 000 morgen in extent. This is slightly more than 15 per cent of the total arable surface in the White Republic of South Africa. When one assesses the potential of White South Africa, one finds that income derived from agriculture amounts to R1 340 million. If agriculture in the Transkei were to be developed to only 5 per cent of the potential of White South Africa, it would mean an income of R67 million and if it were to be developed to 10 per cent of the potential of White South Africa it would mean an income of R134 million. The present income derived from agriculture there amounts to less than R10 million. I therefore do not think that emphasis should any longer be placed on land, but rather on the better utilization of the available land. When that land is used to better effect, the Xhosa people with an agricultural income of RI34 million or even R67 million will begin to export. They will then be able to provide their own people with a decent living. Even those who are in the White areas at present will be able to return to the reserves to make a decent living there. It is not true that there are too many people in the Transkei. I know the Transkei. Those hon. members may laugh, but their approach is based on hatred and contempt of our policy.

What does Kaiser Matanzima say?

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Transkei is scared stiff of Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima. It seems to me that the Chief Minister of the Transkei has only to look at the hon. member for him to stand to attention. He is afraid of Chief Minister Kaiser Matanzima. We are not afraid of him. We know the Black man. We grew up with him. I am going further. In regard to mining, low-grade coal deposits are to be found at Indwe and Carla and vicinity. I believe that if we were to apply the American system there ultimately, namely by setting alight those low-grade mine deposits and shifting them to the eastern areas by means of a pipeline, the industrial development that would take place there would be far cheaper than we could ever imagine. Sir, there are also other projects to be found there. Unfortunately time does not allow me to elaborate further on this matter, but there are various projects in the Transkei today which will cause much surprise when they are disclosed. Unfortunately I cannot discuss this matter any further, because my time has expired, [Time expired.]

Sir, before getting down to the main point that I want to put to the hon. the Minister this evening, I would like to ask him if he would give us some more information concerning the Bantu town at Gamalakhe, in respect of which I asked him questions the other day. His reply to the questions indicated that work at this town on the Native houses has come to a standstill because of the difficulties in regard to the laying on of water and sewerage. As apparently only about one-seventh of the proposed town has been developed, and the whole thing has come to a standstill. I should be very grateful if the hon. the Minister could give us further information as to what is contemplated; whether they are going to go on and face the difficulties. I hope that they are going to face up to the difficulties and that the Bantu town will be established there. The 600 or so houses which are there have become a centre now to which the Bantu in the area are becoming accustomed. I think the plan was to have 30 000 or 33 000 Bantu there ultimately. The situation is going to be very difficult if we are going to be left there with a small village of about 600 houses.

Sir, this is either the fifth or the sixth township site which has been selected and which has had to be abandoned for some reason or other. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us that information.

Sir, I want this evening to submit to the Minister a matter which I put to him some two years ago and I want to ask him this time not to get so cross and angry as he was last time.

Were you here to judge yourself?

Sir, the trouble is—I know that the hon. the Minister will not mind my saying so—that I think his standard of courtesy and my standard of courtesy are a little different. Let me say to the Minister that I hope he will not become cross. I am putting forward a proposal which I want him to consider. Sir, I come back to this question of the disposal of the scheduled areas and the question of land tenure in the scheduled areas. That land is held today by some form of communal or community tenure, except in certain areas in the Cape where under the Glen Grey Act there was a certain amount of individual title given to certain Bantu landowners. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that although it will take a long time and a lot of patience he should consider taking the first step towards individual land-owning by the Bantu in the scheduled Native areas.

You mean for agricultural purposes?

Yes, not in the planned townships, not in the urban areas. I am referring to the rural areas, the scheduled Native areas. There I suggest that he should consider individual title. When we come to this question of agriculture, we have heard remarks here already in regard to the poor state of agriculture in the Bantu areas. We have heard complaints as regards the erosion that takes place there and that is quite true. Some of the Bantu areas are so eroded today that it will take many years before we will be able to bring them back again to a state where the soil can once more be utilized under normal orthodox farming conditions for the production of crops or for grazing. Some of these areas have to have a complete rest for a long time.

Sir, what do we expect when people have communal tenure for generation after generation and when in the main they are relying on mono-culture to get their food supply? It is true that they do not rely entirely on mealies; they have other crops as well, but by and large they are in small patches—what are called the medumbis, sweet potatoes and so forth. But in the main it is mono-culture and mealies. On our White farms we have had to learn the lesson the hard way that if we go on growing mealies year after year on the same land we get into trouble, particularly if there is not a proper application of fertilizer and so forth.

Under the system of communal tenure of land in the reserves there is no application of manure except in the rarest cases. There is no application of the natural fertilizer produced by the Natives’ own cattle, fertilizer which he simply has to cart and put on to his land. The reason for this is that the disposal of that cultivated land is within the discretion of the local chief or headman. He can say to a man who has a very highly productive field: “Reap your crop this year and then I am handing that field over to so-and-so: I will give you a piece of land over there that you can cultivate and that will be your land in future.” Sir, we must bear in mind the Bantu’s traditional way of cultivation. The Bantu are not cultivators. We all know that they are not agriculturists. They were, if anything almost the Biblical type of pastoralists moving with their flocks and herds and having fights and battles amongst themselves for pasture and water and so forth, but they were not agriculturists.

That is changing now.

That is the whole point of this speech.

Sir, this is what I am submitting. When the Bantu became a pastoralist the system was that each wife was given two fields, sometimes three. She cultivated a piece of land for two to three years; then she let that land go fallow to return to fusi, as they call it; she then moved her field to the second area given to her; she cut down the scrub and so forth which had acquired a certain amount of humus; she cultivated that for two or three years; then she let that return to fusi and she came back to the original plot. If there was plenty of land then she got a third plot. If a man had two, three or five or six wives, those wives were each given two plots and very often the chief wife was given three plots. With the restriction on land as the population grew, that system could not continue; it was out of the question. They started to cut down the acreage; they made the plots smaller. Then they got to the stage where a woman was only given one plot and she had to do the best she could. On that one plot she could not even change and change about for one year. Today under the system of mono-culture she plants maize year by year on just that one plot; she ploughs away the top soil. It gets washed away; she gets down to the sub-soil and the value of the plot drops and so on. Sir, that is inevitable under this type of tenure. I am not saying that this is so because they are Bantu. How can any person, who cannot lay claim to the land, be expected to spend money on manure or to put in effort and labour and to make a productive unit out of it, only to be divested of it at the end of the season?

Then, Sir, complaints are made regarding the housing. How can we expect them to go and build decent houses or to collect the money for that purpose? There can be no capital formation as long as the Bantu are not allowed to own the land. That is the basis of our capital formation. We mortgage land. Sir, so as to get money, so as to pay our taxes to the Minister of Finance, but we get the money because we are able to give security. How can the ordinary Native worker with his mealie plot today give security to raise money. Where does capital formation come from —from his wages? No, Sir, nowhere in the world do you get capital formation through savings out of wages. Sir, you have to give the Bantu the security of owning the land on which he lives and then he becomes house-proud: he becomes proud of his capacity to farm his plot.

There is nobody who is more proud of his own ability to look after his piece of ground and to be house-proud than the Bantu. They are just as proud of their capacity in that respect as any other race. I submit that although it will require patience and time, the Minister could take the first steps in that direction. Herein lies the opportunity to get Bantu with a stake in the country, something worth protecting, something worth fighting for if necessary. At the moment they are just as footloose as the Bantu in the White areas. The Bantu in the rural areas have no more roots there in fact as long as they do not own the land, than the Bantu in the White areas. That way lies disaster for us. Give them a stake in the country. Give them the right to own their own piece of land and give them a chance to achieve capital formation and to become members of a capitalist society on the same basis as the rest of us.

This evening we are in the last phase of this very important debate on Bantu administration. The speeches we heard here during the past two days make one feel concerned, and the speeches which came from the Opposition, make one sad. In past years— and I am referring to the past 23 years— the urban Bantu has often been discussed, but who has done more for uplifting the urban Bantu than this very party, the National Party? I may tell you, Sir, that I know what I am speaking of, because for 10 years I was a member of a city council that has been doing a great deal for the Bantu since 1948. We have given the urban Bantu proper housing. Show me any urban Bantu who does not have proper housing. Show me any urban Bantu who does not have full employment. Show me where their transport system is not being subsidized, and consider the excellent health services provided for the urban Bantu in each Bantu township today. Excellent services are provided.

This evening, however, I do not want to discuss the urban Bantu. I am in a position to discuss the urban Bantu, because I know them. But this evening I should like to discuss the agency system in the homelands, and I should like to point out to this House what tremendous progress was made with the agency system in the homelands during the past three years. On 7th March, 1968, it was announced for the first time in this House … [Interjections.]

Shut up!

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

I withdraw them.

That was in a debate on the economic development of the homelands. It was announced for the first time on 7th March. 1968, that we would introduce the agency system in respect of the homelands. On 1st November, 1968. the Minister delivered a speech to the Economic Association of South Africa, and he said the following (translation)—

In the past three years this Government created certain growth points in the homelands on the agency basis. The first was at Babalegi in the Tswana homeland. The next was at Umtata in the Transkei as well as at Butterworth, and at Sithebe in Zululand. But what happened on this agency basis in this period? One year later, in October, 1969, the first negotiations took place with these industrialists, and three years later, on 31st March, 1971, no fewer than 40 contracts had been entered into with industrialists. Fourteen of those industrialists are already established in these homelands and 26 of them have reached the planning and building stage. But what is more, at the moment the committee is considering 58 applications, and I have here three pages of names of companies. If that hon. member wants to do so, he may take a look at this list. I want to tell him this. The first one here is African Gate and Fence; the second is Greenfield Manufacturing; another is Hacks Holdings. There is another large company of Brakpan. Cape Town and Johannesburg. [Interjections.] Yes, I know you are opposed to this, but let us proceed. Let us see what the labour forces are. The already established first 14 alone will employ 5 327 Bantu. [Laughter.] The hon. members may laugh, but their laughter is hollow. These are 5 327 Bantu who will be employed inside the homelands. These have already been employed, and when the other 26 commence operations, 9 289 Bantu will be employed. The capita! already invested in that area by industrialists alone, amount to more than R4 330 000 The B.I.C. invested R5 778 000, and the Xhosa Development Corporation R1 978 000. Together with these other 40 industrialists, the industrialists alone would have invested R18 755 125 in the homelands, the B.I.C. R7 201 500, and the Xhosa Development Corporation R8 982 000. And the Bantu authorities will spend more than R1,5 million on their infrastructure within the homelands for accommodating these industries, and this is something wonderful that has been achieved. Hon. members are laughing, but their laughter is hollow. This evening I want to address an appeal to all the industrialists in the Republic of South Africa to assist this Government in the development of the homelands. Let them come forward, because if we can develop the homelands properly, as this Government intends doing, peace, as we are experiencing at the moment, will continue to prevail in the Republic of South Africa for all times. I want to say, however, that the United Party has had no share in this fine development. The only thing it has done is to put a spoke in the wheel and it has tried to oppose us in every possible way. But this evening I want to say this. We shall proceed with this. [Interjections] I am telling that hon. member that he will be singing a different tune within five years. If he and the hon. member for Transkei would stand up in this Parliament to appeal to the industrialists of the Republic to co-operate with us in the development of the homelands, instead of opposing it at all times, it would be better. But as far as this matter is concerned, you are always in the opposing camp, and, on the contrary, we do not need your assistance, we shall do this alone. We shall develop the homelands just as we have given the Bantu every opportunity for uplifting themselves in the urban areas. The National Party has been uplifting them and the people in the Opposition are the one’s who have been opposing us in every field as far as this matter is concerned.

Mr. Chairman. I do not want to waste a great deal of time on the hon. member who has just spoken, because I did not fully understand him all the time. In the first place, he did not know what he was talking about. [Interjections.] I shall come to that. I gained the impression that the hon. member did not really know what he was talking about. For example, he talked about, inter alia, Sithebe. Now, I do not know where the place is. Is it perhaps in Zululand?

Do you know where Sea Point is?

No, the hon. member does not know. His speech was written out by the hon. the Minister. [Interjections.]

Order! I have been watching the hon. member for Pietermaritzburg District all evening. Please cease the interruptions.

Mr. Chairman, they want to waste my time. This hon. member does not know where Sithebe is, but I shall tell him.

It is in Zululand.

It is in Zululand, yes. Can the hon. member tell me how many houses there are in Sithebe, seeing that he referred to the wonderful development which had taken place there?

We are developing it.

Sithebe is an area situated on the border of Zululand and the White area, and there is one house in the whole of Sithebe. Now this House knows in detail what the hon. member knows about Sithebe. What Sithebe knows about him. I also know, i.e. nothing. The hon. member must not talk nonsense in the House. If there has ever been an unrealistic debate in this Parliament, it is the debate on Bantu Affairs year after year. I have been watching the Nationalist Party throughout the years, and I have gained the impression that their whole policy is based on the two basest emotions of man, i.e. fear at the outset and hatred. The hatred has now disappeared to a certain extent, not because they have started loving the Bantu to such an extent, but because it is more a case of, “I love thee not so much, I hate the other fellow more”. What is happening at the moment? For 23 years we have been pleading for the development of something—it does not matter what—within the Bantu territories. Because they have been too ashamed to do so and have lacked the courage to admit their stupidities of the past, they have now come forward with the agency basis during the past three years. That is three years out of 23 years. Now there is one tin cottage at a place, and the hon. member speaks for 10 minutes about it. What does one do with such a lot! The hon. the Minister reiterated here this evening that their ideal still was complete separation, but that they knew they could not achieve that. What point is there in having an ideal if one knows one cannot achieve it? What kind of madness is this to say one has an ideal, hut one knows one cannot achieve it?

You have no ideal at all.

I shall come to the hon. the Deputy Minister in just a moment. He will be sorry for having interrupted. I shall put a few pertinent questions to him across the floor of this House this evening, and then he must please speak up, because his boss is also sitting here with him. His other boss, Dr. Treurnicht, is still coming.

I have said this is an unrealistic debate. I am sorry the hon. member for Houghton is leaving the Chamber because she is just as unrealistic. On the one hand I continually learn from the Press that the Bantu are without work in the reserves; on the other hand the hon. the Minister tell us there are 740 000 Bantu who come from outside the borders of the Republic of South Africa to seek work here. How does this work? Why are the Bantu of the reserves, who are without work not doing the work of the people who come from outside the borders of the Republic? There are recruiting offices throughout the Bantu areas, but evidently the Bantu do not want to work in the mines, because the salaries are not sufficient. It does not matter whether or not that is the case. I want to tell the hon. member for Houghton that she must not get up in this House and spread a story which besmirches the name of the farmers of South Africa in the eyes of the whole world, by saying that we are not paying our Bantu enough and that our working conditions and housing are not good enough. Then she turns round and says the department has only one inspector of Bantu labour in farming areas. I do not have knowledge of other areas, but I can talk about the Western Province. Our Divisional Councils decide in what kind of buildings the Bantu may be accommodated. I shall give particulars for her information. In houses for Bantu each person must have a surface area of 40 square feet. In the place where they eat there must be 30 cubic feet of space for every Bantu eating there. Toilets and water supplies are prescribed for the buildings. The department forces one, quite rightly, to pay reasonable wages. I can tell the hon. member for Houghton what the wages are. They are between R18 and R20 per month, plus rations for these people. The rations given in the Boland, are good. Now I want to ask the hon. member whether her friends in Johannesburg, the so-called mining magnates, will be prepared to pay half of what the Boland farmers pay their Bantu labourers?

She is hearing you very clearly.

She may just as well hear me, because it is high time for her to hear these things. If the mining magnates are prepared to pay half of the minimum wages which the farmers of the Boland pay their Bantu labour the Bantu will be happier to work on the mines. Then there will not be so many idlers in the Bantu areas. I am mentioning these facts just in passing, because it is not only with her that I want to quarrel, but actually with the Nats. Who has ever heard of any Government doing what this Government is doing at present, deliberately punishing through its own ideology and idealism a farming community, i.e. the wine farmers of the Western Province, who are perhaps making the largest contribution to the country’s revenue? I want to ask the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, who was so clever a while ago, whether he would farm with the aid of his Bantu under the same circumstances as those he is forcing on the fanners of the Boland. It is easy for him to apply to himself the same laws he is applying to us. He is in the unfortunate position of being the only one of all the other Ministers, among all those political agents, who is still farming. The hon. the Minister has never paid a Bantu a day’s wages, except perhaps his kitchen servant. When the other Deputy Minister had to write his thesis, he had never had a Bantu in his service. However, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development does have Bantu in his service and I now want to ask him whether he will be able to work with Bantu under the conditions he is forcing on Boland farmers. Does he know what he is doing to us?

What conditions?

It is a pity that the hon. the Minister does not know, but he will learn in due course. I shall give him a lesson right now.

What was on your menu this evening, Jack?

Unfortunately I may not tell the hon. member now, but I shall do so later. I want to tell the Deputy Minister, who is still farming today, that before farmers here could get Bantu on a contractual basis for two years. Now we get them on a contractual basis for one year. We have to subsidize their train fare, because they have to be sent up once and they have to be sent down once so that ostensibly they may visit their wives and children for 30 days. However, they usually get off the train at Worcester. Not one of the three Ministers knows today how many illegal Bantu there are in the Cape. I shall give them a few figures which have been supplied by their own department.

What was your majority in 1970?

I do not know what that hon. member had for supper this evening; it was definitely not something he had to chew, only to swallow, I just want to tell the hon. the Minister that, according to the estimates, between 12 and 16 per cent of the labour recruited for the Cape have absconded and are no longer with their masters. Then the hon. the Minister frightens people by saying that he will imprison people who have illegal Bantu in their service. I want to tell him that the first ones he may imprison are the Department of Water Affairs. The Department of Water Affairs illegally employed two of the Bantu who had absconded from my farm. Every farmer and every employer do the same thing, because there are no others to employ. The hon. member for Moorreesburg said there was a surplus of Coloureds here, but where are they? He says we are unrealistic and do not know what we are doing. I do not agree with the policy of the Government, but if it is the policy of the Government that these Bantu have to remain migratory labourers for all times, which they will not, why may Bantu not be brought with their wives and children to the Western Province to come to work on our farms on a contractual basis for five years? The Bantu who are here will remain here for ever, because we shall be needing them for ever, as they will be needing us. Coloured women who used to be our fruit pickers and who performed a major share of the work, are working in factories today, because they are able to earn a better income in the factories. Why cannot these people who are subsisting below the breadline in the Transkei come to work here? Let it be the obligation of the farmer to provide decent housing for his Bantu. Let the Bantu bring their families along. Then they can be sent back after five years. If the children born here are not to be citizens of South Africa but of the Transkei surely this will be an easy matter to rectify. The Germans did the same thing. After the war Germany took whole Italian villages to work in Germany, and it was extremely advantageous to Germany and to those poor Italians. This Government is just stubborn, and this is a stubborn Minister. He knows what I am saying here is true. He knows that some of his own colleagues in the Cabinet agree with this, but he thinks he will lose face if he does this. Now he is just stubborn. In the meantime he is destroying the Western Province. Even if the best Bantu in the world are brought here, they still cannot speak one’s language, nor do they understand one’s circumstances. For the first nine months they do not even know where one’s fences are. As soon as they do know something, they ostensibly have to return to their wives for 30 days. And what do they do? They get off the train at Worcester and the hon. the Minister has to look for them. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Sea Point has just referred to this place in Zululand, i.e. Ndebe, but he has just as vague an idea as I have of where this place is and what the position is there. Can hon. members imagine what would become of Sea Point if it were to become a manufacturing town?

What are you talking about?

The hon. member for Sea Point really does not know what he is saying in referring to Ndebe in Zululand, because Ndebe …

Sithebe.

… or whatever the place is called, is a manufacturing town in the making

Where is Ndebe?

The hon. member for Transkei now wants me to pronounce for him the name of this place that was mentioned, but his own colleague could not even pronounce it correctly.

Near what large town is it situated?

It is a town or city, or whatever hon. members want to call it, which, as is being envisaged, will become a manufacturing town later on.

It is a house.

It is not a house. No manufacturing town can construct a housing scheme consisting of only one house. The hon. member for Sea Point is quite at sea in this regard, for he now wants to suggest that it is a housing matter, whereas it is actually a matter of a layout for factories.

It is a pity that the hon. member for Houghton is not present in the House now, for I should like to react to a part of her speech. The hon. member for Aliwal North replied to her statements in regard to farm labour. To my mind the hon. member for Houghton actually sullied the mining industry through her comments on the labour conditions in our mines and especially in regard to our non-White labour in the asbestos mines. On a previous occasion, during the course of the discussion of the Mines Vote, the hon. member passed the same irrelevant comment on the wages of Bantu labourers in the South-West mines. On that occasion I told her that she had indulged in certain misrepresentations. I have her Hansard here with me and I actually wanted to comment on it, but I think it will be sufficient to say that through the comment she passed on the mining industry she actually violated her position in this House. I believe that in no other industry in South Africa and South-West Africa our non-White labourers, who are unskilled in many respects, are being paid, the same wages as they receive in the mines. In reply to an interjection made by the hon. member for Carletonville, the hon. member for Houghton said—

Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Houghton neglected her duty, just as did these mission hospitals to which she referred, in that she did not refer this matter to the authorities concerned. Ever since 1932 I have been in close touch with the mining industry and ought at least to know what I am talking about. The hon. member indulged in one of the grossest misrepresentations in regard to malnutrition, for if there are any labourers who are being fed well, they are in fact the labourers employed in the mining industry. It is known all over the world that the labourers here in South Africa and in South-West Africa are working under circumstances where their health is being cared for and where they are being fed better than is the case anywhere else in the world, She referred to the low wages being paid here in South Africa. She referred specifically to the asbestos mines in the vicinity of Kuruman. As far as I know, the asbestos mines in the vicinity of Kuruman are subsidiary companies of responsible companies, which are members of the Chamber of Mines in Johannesburg. Those companies maintain a high standard towards their White labourers as well as their Bantu labourers. I should like to see the report on which the hon. member for Houghton based her statements. She made the statement that those mines were paying wages of R7, etc., per month. I think it is a downright lie that was told to this hon. House in this respect.

Order! The hon. member must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman, then I think she has been abusing …

Order! The hon. member must withdraw that.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw those words. However, I think she has been abusing the position which she holds in this House by misrepresenting the facts.

Order! The hon. member cannot say that. He must withdraw those words.

Mr. Chairman. I withdraw those words. That hon. member used certain words for example she said that “prostitution had become rife because of the recruited workers …”.

I was quoting a hospital report.

She says that she quoted from a report. I am also quoting from a report namely Hansard. She said that “prostitution has become rife because of the recruited worker” who is working in the mines. I say that there has been a prostitution of a position and of certain facts.

Do you think that the mission doctors have been …

Order! The hon. member has had half an hour already.

What I would like to say is that this hon. member has been abusing her … Well Mr. Chairman you have ruled that I withdraw those words … [Interjections.] Well, I want to say that she has been misrepresenting certain facts.

I do not know how you can say that.

Yes, that hon. member has been misrepresenting certain facts, because she has depended on the report of the mission hospitals. Both the hon. member and the mission hospitals have neglected their duty in not bringing to the notice of the departments concerned this so-called state of malnutrition. In this case the departments concerned are the Department of Bantu Administration and Development, the Department of Labour and the Department of Mines. I would like to stress the fact that nowhere in the world will you find a more efficient department than our Department of Mines when it comes to looking after the health of the labourers in the mines. That hon. member should agree with that because I would also like to include the Anglo-American Corporation …

They are very good.

Yes, they are very good and on that point I agree with the hon. member. I say this because I have had much more practical experience in that regard than the hon. member has had.

Of what?

Of mine labour, but I am labouring too much on this misrepresentation of the hon. member with regard to the situation of malnutrition in our asbestos mines. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I rise again this evening, because so much has been said about a place called Sithebe in Zululand. It was painted initially in glowing colours.

Help Basson.

That is the one person I do not have to help in this regard. It was painted in glowing colours, as having a wonderful future, as a growth point in the Bantu homeland in Zululand, by the hon. member for Brakpan, who has obviously never seen it, and by the hon. member who has just spoken, who, whatever his experience may be, it is not of Sithebe. What is Sithebe,’ Sir?

But your colleague from Sea Point has never seen it.

No, but the hon. member for Sea Point at least knows his facts in this regard, and what he said was absolutely correct. Sithebe is a siding with one small tin hut. It is on a railway line which divides the White farms in that part from the Native Reserve. It is not, as the hon. gentleman says, adjacent to Eshowe; it is miles from Eshowe; it is near the White town of Mandini, which is on a river. As I said earlier, it is on the very periphery of the Bantu area. It is not in a Bantu homeland; it is on the very fringe of the Bantu homeland.

In the White area?

Mr. R. M, CADMAN No, it is just across the railway line from the White area. Any development which takes place there will be as an appendage of the White area. That is the point. But now this emerges from the annual report of the Bantu Investment Corporation. This document is very attractively printed in colour printing. I have never come across a document which has fewer words per page than this one. It has banner headlines, for example “The Establishment of Industries in the Bantu Homelands”. Then it has a small general introduction of one paragraph on one page. It has two headlines and two paragraphs on the second page, “Furniture factories” and “Bakeries”. It has three paragraphs on the third page, “Workshops”, “Bantu beer” and “Other”. That is the extent of the reference to the establishment of industries in the Bantu homelands, and it is a reference, of course, from which this question of Sithebe emerges. But that is not the point that I wish to raise tonight.

I want to raise tonight the question of consolidation. In his speech the hon. the Minister earlier this session in Hansard, column 4649, blamed the Opposition and its press for causing sensation and the depression of market values of land so far as the question of consolidation was concerned. The hon. gentleman said this:

So the question of uncertainty as far as consolidation is concerned, is laid at the door of the Opposition. I believe the fault lies elsewhere. It is inherent in the policy of the Government that there should be consolidation, about which I agree there is the greatest concern, not only in Natal and in the Eastern Province, but in the whole of the Northern Transvaal. Now, where does it come from? One does not look at the Opposition press; one looks at the Government press, and not only at the press, but at the official organs of the Government party. But let me begin with an extract from a leading article in Die Burger of September 9th, 1970. What does that journal say? It is the official organ of the Nationalist Party in the Cape. It says this—

Then it says this—

You are taking the statement out of the Times.

Of course, I am taking it out of the Times. I have yet to read anywhere that this is an invalid translation of what appeared the day before. I quote again—

Largely, I may say, by this side of the House. I proceed with the quotation—

One then goes to an article by a gentleman who is now a member of the Native Affairs Commission. Prof. Lombard. He dealt in the publication Teknikon of March, 1967 with the very question of consolidation. And what did he say? He is not an ordinary professor but a member of a Government commission. He said this—

Then I should like to deal with an article which appeared in Woord en Daad of March, 1971. This is again something coming from a source which supports wholeheartedly the policy of that side of the House. After setting out all the problems that arise in regard to consolidation the authors said—

Nor do we; we do not know either and we have tried hard to find out. This gentleman goes on to say—

Now, what are the sacrifices that these people are talking about? I could go on to quote the bon, the Minister’s own journal, namely baNtu of August 1970, the official journal of his own department, which makes similar references to the absolute necessity of consolidation if this policy is to succeed.

But we all know it and we all say it,

They all know it and they all say it. Let us have it here tonight. What are the sacrifices that we are constantly referred to? What are the sacrifices that have to be made? Let the hon. gentlemen who represent the Government stand up here tonight and tell us what these sacrifices are. Let them follow the request of the editors of the Calvinistiese Beweging and say openheartedly and frankly to the public what these sacrifices are. Let us not have bland words such as we had in one passing phrase from the hon. the Minister last night or yesterday afternoon, namely that the Bantu Affairs Commission will look into the matter of acquisition of land and that it will work with the public. In that way he passed the whole matter off. There is talk of sacrifice. The public ought to know what the policy entails in regard to the question of sacrifice. I believe that if there is an honest and frank approach from the Government, the sacrifices which are involved, when made available and known to the public, will not make this policy worthwhile. I say this particularly as, after all that sacrifice, nothing is solved, as has emerged from this debate of the ultimate problem which is the presence of the Bantu for the foreseeable future in the White areas of South Arica.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member who has just resumed his seat, will forgive me if I do not follow up tonight what he said. I should have liked to have reacted to his arguments, but I want to comment, in the first place, on the speeches made by the hon. member for Mooi River in this House. However, before coming to that, I want to say that I listened to this debate yesterday and today, and I can only feel sorry for the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. The hon. the Leader and other members of the Opposition have now made the same politico-tactical error for the third time this year, i.e. they only want to fight in this House in respect of the urban Bantu. Whenever the hon. the Prime Minister talks about sport, they talk about the urban Bantu. Whenever the hon. the Prime Minister talks about Kaunda, they talk about the urban Bantu. On the Vote of the hon. the Prime Minister, the whole Vote of the Minister of Bantu Administration was discussed.

Yes, but we are not getting any replies.

The Vote of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration is being discussed now, and the only topic which those hon. members can discuss, is the urban Bantu. The second tactical error which the hon. the Leader of the Opposition has been making, is the following: Instead of enlisting the services the few conservative members he has in a debate such as this one, he is saddled tonight with all his liberal members. They are sitting over there: the hon. members for Port Natal, Pietermaritzburg District, Turffontein, Durban Central, Zululand, Von Brandis and Berea. Where is the hon. member for Berea? [Interjections.] No, I am omitting the hon. member for Sea Point. Sir, this debate has now been in progress for almost eight hours. Can you understand now, Sir, why the hon. members on the opposite side of the House are terribly sorry that they asked for 9½ hours for this debate? hon. members opposite are sitting there bored stiff whereas this side of the House does not look like a Government which has already been in office 25 years. [Interjections.]

Where are all your people?

The hon. member knows very well; as behoves any good Government, this side of the House is supporting the fine arts tonight. This Government does at least look like a party which is going to govern for another 25 years, but what about the hon. Opposition? They do not even look any more like a party that feels like being an Opposition.

Sir, before making the error which was made by the hon. member for Etosha, I want to come to my speech. The hon. member for Mooi River has now made a certain statement on several occasions already. I am going to quote from one of his previous speeches (translation)—

That is what the hon. member has repeatedly been asking us over the past three years. Last year, in reply to the hon. member, I referred to certain local bodies, but tonight I want to speak to the hon. member on a rather more general basis. I want to put the following question to the hon. member: What does he mean by “capital development”? He created the impression that to him “capital development” only meant such development as came from within. Then he referred jeeringly to capital brought into these areas for development purposes from outside. In other words, if the Government brings in capital from outside it is a wrong economic approach. Now I want to ask the hon. member this further question: How is an underdeveloped people to develop capital out of nothing? There is no country in the world which is self-supporting. There is no country in the world which originally developed capital out of nothing. That is the case with all countries in the world.

That was his very point.

No, I know what the hon. member’s point is. Allow me to discuss this topic with the hon. member, There is no country in the world which has been able to develop capital without capital aid from outside, not even America. The hon. the Leader of the Opposition is shaking his head, but I can understand why he is doing so. He cannot understand how the hon. member for Mooi River could have been raising here, under his nose, such stupid arguments for three years.

You are too clever.

I just want to tell the hon. member for Mooi River this: Surely capital in the economic context is not money only. Capital in the economic context includes labour, water, power and those forms of capital which represent money or exchange value, enterprise, the imposition of taxes or capital renewal, basic raw materials, development corporations, etc. Production can only result from capital formation. Let us just see how capital was spent in these areas over the past eight to nine years. Sir, I just want to furnish you briefly with the figures. In 1967’68 the gross fixed investment by public authorities amounted to approximately R41 million. The figure for the Transkei in the year 1960-’61 was R1,7 million, and in 1966-'67 it was R8,4 million. The figures for the Ciskei show a twelvefold increase. In 1960-’61 it was R507 000 and in I966-’67 it was R6,2 million. Zululand: R1 million in 1959-’60, R19,8 million in 1965-’66. The figure for the North-Eastern Transvaal homelands, which I do not want to specify here, was R0,7 million in 1959-’60 and R8,8 million in 1967-’68; the figure for Tswanaland showed an increase from R0,6 million to R7,5 million in 1967-’68, Sir, so I could continue to illustrate the total of R41 million.

Capital formation is a very important factor in production, and the successful capital formation in the Bantu homelands becomes very apparent from the growth rate of the gross geographic product in the homelands—I hope the hon. member knows what I am talking about—and the growth rate of the gross domestic product of the Republic. Sir, let us just look at it for a moment. In the year 1961 the gross domestic product of the Republic was R5410 million; in the year 1967 it was R9 007 million—an average, composite annual growth rate of 8,9 per cent. The gross geographic product in the Bantu homelands taken as from the year 1961, when it amounted to R 109,5 million, had increased to R157,1 million in the year 1967, The average composite annual growth rate was 6,4 per cent. How does this compare with other countries, since the hon. member is always asking us, “Where does one find growth in these areas?” Let us just take a brief look at foreign countries. I have the figures here for the years from 1965 to 1968: Mozambique—3,7 per cent; Rhodesia—3,4 per cent; Angola—6,8 per cent; Zambia—5,7 per cent; Malawi—6,7 per cent; Swaziland—1,7 per cent; Lesotho— 20,8 per cent, and Botswana—16,4 per cent. The latter are attributable to inflation and agricultural circumstances, into which I do not want to go now since time does not permit me to do so.

Sir, let us just see how our Bantu areas compare. Economically the Transkei has reached a more advanced stage of development than have 50 member countries of UNO which are in good standing. In 1959-’60 the per capita gross geographic product of the population in the homelands amounted to approximately R25. If the migratory labour earnings are added, it is increased to R53 in the same period, and today that figure is R113 per capita: that is the gross geographic product. How does it compare with other countries? hon. members opposite are always saying, “Show me where there is capital growth in the homelands.” Sir let me quote the figures to you. Burundi—R38, Botswana— R72, Kenya—R74, Lesotho—R63, Malawi —R36, Ethiopia—R49, and so I could go on. But, let us look at the gross domestic product of the same territories, excluding the share of the non-Bantu. I have here the figures for the year 1966-’67: The Transkei, R68.4 million; Zululand, R41.6 million and the North-Eastern Transvaal homelands, R31,8 million. The hon. member wants to know from me where the capital growth is. How do these figures, which I have just mentioned, compare with the following: Botswana—R38.6 million; Lesotho—R47,6 million and Swaziland—R52,4 million? The hon. member is shaking his head; he cannot believe this.

But let us take a look now at the gross national product, i.e. the aggregate income both inside and outside the country. In other words, this includes the earnings of the migratory labourers; if these are included the figure for the Transkei, for instance, amounts to R130 million. This compares with: Somalia—R90 million; Congo— R94 million; Lesotho—R51 million, and Swaziland—R45 million, and all these countries are, amongst other things, member countries of UNO which are in good standing.

Sir I merely looked up these few statistics in order to show the hon. member what capital is, in the first place, and what sound capital growth is taking place in these areas. But one must bring in capital in order that one may, amongst other things, create capital, and now I do not even want to refer to manpower as capital; I do not want to refer to natural resources as capital. I do not wish to point out to hon. members, as I did before, the glittering feats that were accomplished in these areas, resulting from this capital in respect of agriculture, business and education; after all, they are aware of them. The hon. member for Mooi River should not only take a local case in his constituency; I know that he only comes to Cape Town from Natal; for a change he should now enter the Republic from Natal, and then he will see what is going on if he visits the Bantu homeland areas outside Natal. [Time expired.]

Mr. W. M. SUTTON; The hon. member for Potchefstroom has done a great deal of research into the figures. I hope he will allow me to get a close look at those figures—a closer look than I can obviously take right now.

And the sources.

Mr. W. M. SUTTON The hon. member has made a point of the fact that the income of the Transkei has reached a certain figure which is higher than that of Burundi and certain other places. But, Sir, in talking about capital generation I have been talking about money which is made available inside those territories from internal sources, which is available or investment in production.

Where is it going to come from?

Sir, the hon. member says: “'Where is it going to come from?” This is precisely my point. When the United Party first proposed that the White man with his skill and his knowledge and his capital should be allowed to go into the Bantu areas we were told that we were economic colonialists.

Neo-colonialists.

Yes, neo-colonialists or economic colonialists. This was the first reaction from the Nationalist Party. We were told that what we were doing was to go there as blood suckers to suck from the poor unfortunate Bantu every substance that they have. Sir, my point was that in order to generate capital you have to have money pumped in from outside, from the White man, to enable production to take place. The hon. member asks how capital is built up. It is built up by the development of natural resources and in the economic history of the world, in the cast couple of centuries it started primarily in Great Britain from the development of trade, from the development of the natural resources, from the development of iron ore and coal and this kind of thing. It was the development of vast manufacturing enterprises which generated capital and generated wealth from the trade that they created. Sir, the growth of half of the world including this country of ours, was fuelled from capital which came from Great Britain.

You have now turned your argument around.

Sir, the point that I made in that speech was that capital was not being generated in those Bantu areas, because there is simply not the income there that allows the people to save. What they get they spend on food, and anything that they have left they invest in a perishable commodity, that is, cattle. That is the point that the hon. member for South Coast made. Until you have land, until you have immovable property, until you have something in which you can invest, you cannot generate capital and you cannot borrow on it. This is the point that we were trying to make and this is the point that I have made all along. The hon. member for Potchefstroom has come along with all these facts but he has either entirely missed the point of what I was trying to say, or else he has the thing the wrong around altogether. Sir, I am sorry that the other Deputy Minister has left the Chamber.

He is listening around the corner.

Well, I am very pleased. Sir, the hon. the Minister last night dealt very briefly with the question of consolidation. He said that this matter was dealt with by the Bantu Affairs Commission, a commission which investigates all these things locally. Sir, it has been pointed out by the hon. member for Zululand, who has just spoken, that this is a matter of urgency. I want to ask the hon. the Minister now to get a move on with something which is happening in my constituency a matter which was investigated by the Bantu Affairs Commission in 1967, a matter which is still today under investigation, again by the Bantu Affairs Commission, a matter which affects the livelihood and the future existence of a group of people at the village of Mpandie, who have been trying to get a ruling from this Government as to whether the area is going to remain White or whether it is going to go into Black occupation. Mr. Chairman, I raise this in connection with the agreement which the hon. the Minister and his department have with the Natal Agricultural Union. The Minister and the Deputy Ministers know that in the past agreement has been reached—not always but on many occasions—between the Department of Agriculture and the Agricultural Union. Sir, in this particular case negotiations have been going on for a number of years about certain White farms which have been taken over, which have been surrendered into the hands of the department and about certain Bantu ground which has been excised to come into White hands to ensure the future White status of that village.

It is a most strategic area. As I pointed out before in this House, it is an area where Chaka himself stationed an impi to protect his borders. While this negotiation has been going on and while the very talks have been taking place the Bantu Affairs Department have allowed settlement to take place on the ground which was the subject of discussion and negotiation between the department and the local farmers' association. I was concerned with this matter since I first came into politics some 10 years ago. There could have been one or two odd people there who could easily have been moved, but it is only in the last two or three years that intensive settlement has taken place in this area. I absolutely fail to see how this can take place when the agricultural unions are negotiating in good faith. In fact, two years ago, when the Deputy Minister, Mr. Andries Vosloo, was still in this House, I thought I had the matter absolutely buttoned up, because I went to see him in his office and we came to an agreement.

It is buttoned up now.

If the hon. the Deputy Minister has buttoned it up, I can tell him I shall be most surprised and I shall also be most grateful but why has it taken all this lime? It is a very small area and there are very few people involved. But it is the principle of the thing. The department will go there and hold all the discussions, but they will never take a decision. If this is the pattern of what is going to happen to us next year when the Deputy Minister produces the blueprint he was talking about, when he discussed with the agricultural union what is to happen, it will take us 125 years before we get any kind of consolidation done in Natal. A small matter involving three or four farms has taken nearly 10 years to bring to finality. And I have only the Deputy Minister's assurance that this is coming to finality right now.

Here we have the question which the hon. the Deputy Minister and I have discussed before, the question of Loch Sloy at Estcourt, which is tied up with the removal of certain Bantu areas in the catchment area of the Tugela River. The Deputy Minister was kind enough to say the other day that he was prepared in principle to concede that those Bantu areas should be cleared up and every thinking person in the whole of South Africa knows it has to be done because those are the headwaters of a vital river, the Tugela River. But attached to it is a farm which was bought by the department, in agreement with the Natal Agricultural Union, for settlement by Bantu people who were going to work at Estcourt. There was an agreement signed by Minister De Wet Nel and the Natal Agricultural Union to say that they were prepared to negotiate about that farm under certain conditions, that they would take over that farm and that there would be no further land required in that area for settlement.

But now the department comes along and wants three further farms. At the same time they concede, as the Deputy Minister concedes, that the Bantu areas to which it is contiguous, will be cleared up. I would welcome it if the Deputy Minister would tell us just exactly what security we have in Natal when an agreement which was reached after negotiations between the previous Minister and the agricultural union can be disregarded. I can understand it when there is negotiation and the Minister says, as he will have to say on occasion, that he cannot come to an agreement and that he will have to do certain things; but when an agreement has been reached, how are we in Natal to see our future when this kind of agreement can be breached in the way in which it has been breached? I am told that the Minister himself, when he was asked about it at Estcourt, said that times had changed.

I explained it fully to them.

Yes, times have changed. And every year times change.

What about the Upper Tugela?

The hon. the Deputy Minister and I understand each other. We have had discussions on this matter. We were present when he was Chairman of the Bantu Affairs Commission at a meeting at Weenen, when certain things were discussed there which are now becoming interlocked with the question we are now discussing. But I want to say that the future security of the White farmer in Natal is tied up with the good faith of the Department of Bantu Administration, and that is being called into question today by the agreement which has been reached, which in this particular case has not been abided by the department. I would like an assurance. Again I concede that it may not be possible to reach an agreement, but when agreement is reached, that agreement should be stood by regardless, because only in that way can the White farming community know that there is security for them when the time comes that the blueprint is prepared. [Time expired.]

As it happens I regularly have to follow the hon. member for Mooi River in a debate. Actually this is a privilege, for if one has to follow him, one usually has something to discuss. But when, in a debate of the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration, we have to deal with each other as political parties, we are dealing with the serious matter with which we are faced in South Africa. That is human relations, and specifically, human relations between Whites and Bantu. Now, for the past few hours we have been listening to various speakers on the Opposition side. One thing is very clear, and that is with the greatest respect, Sir, that Opposition speakers who have been trying to say that in essence they know the Bantu, have no idea of what a Bantu is. I think, and I am saying this with good reason, that the hon. member for South Coast may perhaps have an idea of what a Bantu is. Let me also say in passing that as regards the policy of the National Party and this Government in respect of relations amongst peoples, the Opposition is beginning to realize that their policy is running out. To me as a young man in South Africa it is very clear that there is only one alternative to the policy of the National Party, namely the policy of the hon. member for Houghton and her party.

Do you want to join it?

I am not in the least interested in joining that party, but the hon. member for Turffontein, who has just made that remark, would be well advised to take another look at the speech he made in this House yesterday, when, amongst other things, he said in respect of the urban Bantu that the United Party’s policy in regard to the urban Bantu or the urbanized Bantu, as he called them—was exactly the same as the policy of the National Party in regard to the Coloureds. I do not wish to elaborate on that, but I just want to tell that hon. member that he would be well advised to find out what he said. What is important to me at this stage, is to refer to the hon. member for Mooi River and the hon. member for Zululand, and I would be pleased if the hon. member for Houghton would remain here as I should like to devote a great deal of attention to her.

The hon. member for Mooi River told us here that it had always been their policy that White capital be invested in the Bantu homelands in order that the homelands might be uplifted in that way. The hon. member should get his terminology right. He has no right to refer to a Bantu homeland. He may only refer to a Bantu reserve. We as the National Party may refer to a Bantu homeland. Once we straighten out these two concepts, the hon. member for Mooi River will appreciate that it has never been possible for us as the National Party to permit of White capital, be it on the agency basis or whatever, being invested in any reserve, because we cannot give those Whites any security whatsoever if it is simply invested in a reserve, the way this hon. member and his party want to do. But if we as the National Party give a White person the assurance that he can, on an agency basis, invest capital in a country which we intend to grant the right of self-determination, and we are prepared to guarantee him that, it is a totally different matter. Then there is a guarantee attached to it. The hon. member for Turffontein is muttering in his beard, but I do not know he can deny it. It is the truth. We are not prepared to allow White money to be invested on an agency basis in any Bantu homeland for the exclusive purpose that such White money will not be working for the Bantu inhabitants of that particular homeland. That is what the United Party wants to do. They want White money to work there, not for the Bantu as such, but for the White magnate. Hon. members may laugh about it; the world outside is also laughing at them about that. The world outside is no longer listening to them; they are listening to the hon. member for Houghton as far as the alternative to the policy of relations amongst peoples is concerned.

But the hon. members, especially the hon. member for Houghton, also devoted a tremendous deal of attention to the whole question of migratory labour. Should we, in referring to migratory labour in regard to the Bantu, accept that whereas we are in Africa, we should take cognizance of the pattern of labour in Africa? In examining that pattern, we should also accept that institutions such as the United Nations have in regard to this specific aspect also given attention to the whole question of migratory labour in Africa. Let me just read out to the hon. member for Houghton what was said in the United Nations’ “Review of the Economic Condition in Africa” in regard to migratory labour and all the wickedness which is allegedly attendant upon it. The report in question reads as follows—

Mr. J. C. GREYLING; Migratory labour is a universal system.

As far as Africa and the Bantu in Africa are concerned, the position is therefore that migratory labour is not an unknown method of selling labour. On the contrary, it is a well-known method. The hon. member for Houghton read here from a report, to which the hon. member for Etosha also referred, in which she allegedly found so much evidence against this system of migratory labour. Let me just refer the hon. member briefly to a meeting of the Lutheran Church which was held at Umpumulu in Zululand last year, i.e. from 26th August to 3rd September. On this occasion a paper was read by Mr. F. R. Mohlabi, who is undoubtedly the greatest authority, amongst the Bantu themselves, on the question of migratory labour and the problems attendant upon migratory labour. The people of the Institute of Race Relations also formed part of the select audience. Amongst other things Mr. Mohlabi said in his paper that the only sphere of migratory labour in which offences such as prostitution, sexual offences. etc., were to be found, was the group of Bantu in South Africa linked with the mining industry, and not the South African Bantu themselves. Therefore, if we have to contend with this problem, i.e. that these problems are caused by Bantu who are not South African Bantu, the hon. member for Houghton and other hon. members who share her views, must agree that we should start at the source of the problem. In that case we should start in the mining industry, if this problem exists there. In this regard I want to tell the hon. member for Etosha that the mining industry is doing nothing about this matter, but what I want to prove here, is that our traditional South African Bantu have retained their tribal context and have adopted in respect of marriage in the Bantu way of life an attitude which hon. members opposite do not understand. Hon. members opposite will, amongst other things, not understand that in terms of the Bantu traditional marriage there can be no marriage until a Bantu woman has produced a child. Only then will the Bantu male be prepared to marry such a Bantu woman. That does not mean that this is right, but the fact remains that we must take that into consideration. Therefore, in referring to illegitimate children, we should know that it is not merely because the children are illegitimate, but that it forms part of the traditional Bantu way of life. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Christiana directed certain of his remarks to the hon. member for Turffontein, but it is clear that the hon. member for Christiana did not listen very carefully or did not take the trouble to check on the Hansard of the hon. member for Turffontein, If he had, he would have realized the true position. The speech of the hon. member for Turffontein was very clear. When the hon. member for Christiana tried to equate the position of the Coloureds and the position of the urban Bantu and put words into the mouth of the hon. member for Turffontein, he was getting a little confused as he overlooked the fact that the hon. member for Turffontein was referring to property ownership. I leave the matter there because I want to come to a matter which concerns not just the urban Bantu but also the Bantu in the homelands. This is primarily the question of the health plans for the Bantu in the homelands. Under head N of this Vote there is an item “Health Services and Hospitalization in the Bantu Areas of the Republic” for which an amount of R32 500 000 appears on the Estimates. This is an increase of R8 500 000 over the previous year’s estimates. What I want to put to the hon. the Minister is that health services have to be staffed. I have found it very difficult to get any idea of what plans the hon. the Minister has which are concrete, definite and positive as regards the staffing of the health services in the Bantu homelands. As far back as 1963 I directed a question in regard to health services in the Transkei and asked: “What White and non-White medical practitioners, who were in private practice, are serving in part-time or fulltime capacity in State, Provincial or municipal employ in the Transkei?" The reply was that the information was not available and that to obtain such information would require considerable labour, time and cost. In 1966 I again tried to ascertain the number of doctors, dentists, veterinarians, chemists and druggists who were registered and qualified to serve in the homelands. In this case I was referring to Bantu professional men. The reply was that the registers did not differentiate on a racial basis and that to obtain those details was a task of such magnitude that it could not be justified. In 1967 I addressed a similar question and received a similar answer, To this reply was added: “The relatively small number does not yet justify the keeping of separate registers”. It therefore seems obvious to me that the hon. the Minister’s department has no conception of the needs and of the Bantu professional persons required to operate the health services in the homelands.

All those hospitals are staffed.

I will tell you all about how well they are staffed in a minute. In 1968 I addressed a further question and asked how many State hospitals, mission hospitals, privately owned hospitals and nursing homes there were in each province, in the Transkei and in the Bantu homelands. I was then told that particulars were not readily available but that they would be furnished to me as soon as possible. That was in 1968. This is now 1971 and I have still not been furnished with those details, In 1969 I tried again and asked the hon. the Minister if he could give me an estimate of the number of Bantu doctors, dentists, chemists and druggists, veterinarians and nurses who would be required to serve the Bantu homelands. I received the following answer: “Reliable data is not available”. I was referred to an article published in “Geneeskunde” by Prof. Snyman. The answer read further:

“The article indicated clearly what incalculable factors are involved in this issue.”

They certainly seem to be incalculable! In 1969 I tried again. I asked the same question in regard to State hospitals in the Bantu homelands. This time I received an answer that, in so far as the provinces were concerned, there were 28 State hospitals. In the Transkei there were two and there was one State hospital in another homeland in Newcastle. But I was told again that the processing of the information regarding the provinces, the mission hospitals etc. was not justified. Therefore, we were still in the dark in 1969. This year I asked a similar question in regard to the estimated numbers of doctors, dentists, chemists and druggists and veterinarians which were considered to be necessary to operate in the homelands. The answer I received reads as follows:

I think I can be forgiven if I say it is just pie in the sky in the sweet by and by.

Then I should like to raise another question in regard to an editorial in the Transvaler. I may be wrong, but I have an idea that the hon. the Minister of Bantu Administration and Development has a fairly close association with the Transvaler. The paragraph reads as follows:

Mr. Chairman, I was under the impression that the hon. the Minister had told this House in unequivocal terms that there was no “might” about this. Perhaps he should tell that to his own mouthpiece in the Transvaal. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that this is a matter of increasing importance. Furthermore, I want to suggest to him that perhaps the Government is deliberately dragging its feet over this or perhaps it may be due to ineptitude.

Having failed to get the information from the hon. the Minister and other Government departments I have done a little research on my own. I have to pay tribute to this book “Mission Hospitals in Southern Africa”, because at least it has been able to give me some very interesting and enlightening information in regard to mission hospitals. My analysis and survey is confined primarily to the Transkei. I find that in the Transkei, first of all, we have two State hospitals, one at Umtata and one at Butterworth. There are 20 mission hospitals with a total of 2 741 beds. Seven of the mission hospitals were established before 1948. Eight have been established since. One was still in the planning stage in 1969 and in four cases the date of establishment was not disclosed. It appeared to me from a close examination of these details, that all the doctors and medical superintendents were White. But what I found disturbing in my survey was that nine mission hospitals required extra doctors, two required medical superintendents, two hospitals totalling 106 beds shared the services of one doctor, one T.B. hospital with 75 beds was visited by a doctor once a week, one hospital with 46 beds was visited by the district surgeon and 11 of these mission hospitals admitted that they had urgent needs.

I want to refer to some other comments which were made, because I think it is quite enlightening and relevant to this. The one said that kwashiorkor was very common. Another said that T.B. and malnutrition are widespread. One indicated that it was operating a scheme of famine relief and a further hospital said: “Malnutrition and T.B. are rife. The task of curing is insurmountable. T.B. and malnutrition cases usually return in a year’s time in a dying condition”. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, in regard to the questions which have been put by the hon. member for Berea I would like to say that it is not fair to say that the Government is dragging its feet where it concerns health services and hospitalization in the Bantu areas. He should not say this, especially now, because as he should know we have taken over responsibility for the health services including hospitalization in the Bantu areas. When I say we have taken over the health services I mean that my department has taken it over, with the Department of Health as the central department which administers these matters for us and it advises us in regard to health matters. In other words, they are the executive department and they do the necessary work. Any hon. member can ask any department questions with regard to statistical information which cannot be supplied. It is not difficult to put questions with regard to statistics required to a department which the department cannot furnish, because it is not always possible for a department to keep all the statistical information available. If such questions are asked, the department must refer to various districts, schools and hospitals to get all the information. There are nearly a hundred hospitals under our control in the Bantu areas. It is not possible to get all the information. I wish to remind this hon. member of something. As far as I can remember earlier this session, during this year, I have replied to questions which were put by a certain member, I think it was the hon. member for Houghton. I do not have the information here because I did not know that the hon. member would raise this matter.

Was it on mission hospitals?

Yes, and I have given a list of all the hospitals in the Bantu areas. I indicated which of those hospitals are being run by the mission and which are being run by the Government authorities; in other words, the Department of Health. I have given the names of all these hospitals and I also supplied the particulars in regard to them. I do not have it with me right now, but a copy of the reply can be made available to that hon. member by tomorrow or so. However, it is available.

I have been waiting for it since 1968.

The MINISTER; We have replied to a question of another hon. member during this very session. I would now like to reply to the questions which have been put to me earlier this evening by the hon. member for South Coast. First of all I would like to say that I am very glad to see that the hon. member has returned to this House after his absence. We all know this hon. member as a tough fighter and sometimes as a naughty child in this House.

All right, teacher.

We are glad to see him back and I hope that he has overcome the difficulty he has experienced.

You may take that for granted.

The hon. member put some questions to me in regard to that specific township. I can assure the hon. member that we have every intention to go ahead with that township and to have it built. We have had some difficulties over there and perhaps the hon. member knows about it already. If he does not know about it, then I accept it. A limited number of pre-fabricated houses have been erected, as the hon. member probably knows. They have been erected there to cope with the most urgent needs which existed there. But then the consulting engineers were unfortunately delayed as a result of unforeseen difficulties which cropped up with regard to rock which was struck there when they started with the reticulation of water and other services.

You gave me that reply.

Yes. Well, as a result of that, there was a natural delay but the department has made the necessary arrangements with the engineers and the other persons concerned to carry on with the reticulation of the services. As soon as the reticulation of the various services, roads, water, sewerage etc., has progressed to a considerable extent, the erection of the houses will be proceeded with. The hon. member can therefore accept that that township will be built.

Now I come to the other point he raised, namely the question of title ownership for individual Bantu on an agricultural basis in the homelands. I would like to remind the hon. member that in Natal it does occur often that title ownership is granted to individual Bantu as a result of the historical development there. However, especially in other areas, but also in Natal, the land ownership outside the towns is communal, as the hon. member knows. They are tribal communal tenants. I am sure the hon. member will agree with me that to abolish the system of communal tenants would drastically affect the Bantu tribal traditions and systems of government. The hon. member knows that their tribal system, especially their tribal system of government, is based on the concept of land tenure. It is a very important matter, and I think the hon. member should give a second thought to the idea put forward by him.

But the Tomlinson Commission recommended it.

I am now dealing with the hon. member for South Coast. I know what stands in the Tomlinson Report and the hon. member should know that we have replied to that on the same lines as I am replying now to this hon. member. The position is that we must differentiate between two matters, namely the ownership of the land itself and the right to occupy that land for agricultural purposes. We have found a basis on which we hope to make good progress in agricultural development because of the fact that we do differentiate between these two. We would not like to affect the tribal communal land ownership system of the Bantu, but we would like to be in a position to transfer the right to occupy a certain area of land from a Bantu individual to another Bantu person who may be a better farmer than the other one from whom we transferred the right. We have coupled the system with a credit system of farming by Bantu in the Bantu areas, and we are introducing that system gradually now. So we are really not in favour of affecting the traditional communal tribal land ownership by the tribe as such, but we do make a change with regard to the occupation of a piece of land by the individual Bantu person.

What do you do with the man who is removed from the plot?

He can either be kept in the tribal community, with the right to live there, but not with the right to land-ownership for agricultural purposes, or he can be moved to a nearby township,

What do you do about occupation?

Well, then he has not got occupational rights for agricultural purposes but only the right to live there because he has taken up another occupation. If a Bantu individual is an unsuccessful farmer, why should he keep on trying to farm? It is better then to let him live in a house in the same community or in a nearby town, where he can take up another occupation, and for some belter farmer to be given the opportunity to farm in that area.

With regard to the fertilizing technique, which the hon. member also touched upon, the hon. member for Lichtenburg has already explained here what improvements have been brought about in this connection. I can assure the hon. member for South Coast that there is already a very big improvement in this connection because a change is coming about in the minds and attitude of the Bantu people themselves because of the extension and information services that we make available to them with regard to this matter.

*Sir, now I just want to refer briefly to, and express a few general thoughts on, the topic which was touched upon here by many hon. members and to which I referred earlier on tonight but could not deal with owing to the suspension of business. This topic is the question of the Bantu in the white areas or in the urban areas. Sir, what is strange about this matter, when it is discussed by the Opposition, is that they think in terms of their integration policy and expect us to give replies that will satisfy them in terms of their integration policy. [Interjection.] The hon. member should give me a chance to speak now; my time is limited and we want to finish. Sir, hon. members opposite must appreciate that the National Party has its policy. Our policy is that of separate development, recognizing the various existing Bantu peoples as separate peoples, who are separate from and cannot be integrated with the Whites. We recognize—this is our established policy—that there is for every Bantu people a homeland, with which it is linked socially, historically, politically and in every respect, also as far as its national pride as a people and its citizenship are concerned, irrespective of whether its members are living in that homeland or working in the White area. That is our policy, and in terms of that policy we must reply to these questions on the urban Bantu. We must argue about these questions in terms of our policy and not in terms of that of the United Party. It is for that reason that I hasten to give the Opposition the assurance at once that my reply is not going to satisfy them, for they are not going to judge my reply in terms of my policy and my Government's policy of separate development as they want a satisfactory reply on the basis of their policy, and that is inconceivable. In fact, this is the attitude adopted by members of the Opposition in all matters. Sir, the facts are very clear. In terms of our approach to multinational development or separate development we say that the Bantu in the White areas are, as I said yesterday, people within a national context, not labourers who only come here to work, but people within a national context, people who must be labourers but who are also citizens of their homeland, and who also have to develop their national feeling of solidarity with their own people, not with us as Whites. Therefore we say, because they are people within their national context and not within ours, that the Bantu who are here in the White area, irrespective of whether they are on the farmer’s farm or in the city of Cape Town, are here in the White area in a casual capacity. They are not here in a permanent capacity, as we as Whites are. I prefer to refer throughout—and I am saying this very frankly—to a “casual capacity" rather than to say that they are here in a temporary capacity, as this is the correct way of describing them. They are here in a casual capacity, casual as compared with the Whites. The Whites are here permanently. With our citizenship we are anchored here to the White area. We are anchored here with all our rights, to which we have prior and sole claim, whereas this is not the case with the Bantu.

What about those who have rights under section 10?

Sir, the hon. member is side-tracking me, but he will know what my standpoint is in that regard. I have repeatedly staled this here. Section 10 of the Urban Areas Act does not confer rights of citizenship, as they have on occasion been called by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. It does not confer rights of citizenship, but only grants general exemption from influx control. That is what it is. I have said this time and again. It forms a whole subject in itself. I do not wish to deal with it now. I have already done so here. It stands recorded in Hansard. I say that the Bantu are here in a casual capacity, i.e. they do not have here the comparable entrenched claims, rights and privileges which the Whites have in the While area. The Bantu have them in their Bantu homelands. In turn, we as Whites do not have them there.

We could mention a number of categories, in which this system of separation is in progress. In the limited time at my disposal, I shall only mention four of them. The clearest and most fundamental of all is the right of landownership in the White area. We say frankly and openly that in the White area landownership—we are only referring to Whites and Bantu now—is the sole right, not the priority, of the Whites. The Bantu do not have any rights of land-ownership here. It is true that owing to historic developments and mistakes of the past there are places where the Bantu do have such rights. We are regularizing them by law. In the second place, in the White area the Bantu do not have any political say in the White area as the Whites have here. In the White area, in turn, the Whites have the sole right as far as political say is concerned. We say that the Bantu do not have any political say here; that they have, just as it is in the case of landownership, in their Bantu homelands. The third category I want to mention, is that of the sphere of labour. As far as labour is concerned, all the opportunities for work in the White area of South Africa, are the sole right of the Whites. In so far as the Whites are not in a position to exercise that sole right at all times, we have the statutory machinery under which categories of labour are released for occupation by Bantu. This matter is regularized by a set of laws which are administered by my colleague the Minister of Labour, and which he explained very well during the discussion of his Vote the other day. It is not being done in a disorderly manner. It is done in a controlled and statutorily ordered manner. Categories of labour are released for occupation by Bantu in cases where the Whites themselves cannot do those jobs in their own homeland, where they have the prior claim to such categories. This is a very clear reply. There is a fourth category of rights I want to mention, i.e. that of residence. Residential equality does not exist in the sense that the Bantu may live anywhere in the White area, as the Whites may in fact do. Hon. members know what the ordered system is in terms of which this is done. Proper areas are designated, areas in which the Bantu may live in urban Bantu residential areas within the White area. These are controlled so that they may not expand indefinitely. When the United Party discusses these matters, attention should be paid to the tremendous difference that exists, The United Party says; Landownership for the Bantu in the White areas as well.

In specific areas.

Yes, they say land-ownership here as well. But what is strange, is that they discriminate. They discriminate, as the hon. member for Transkei said a moment ago. They say that this will only happen in specific areas. Now, what morality is there in saying that the Bantu should have the right of landownership here, whereas they cannot obtain it in Wynberg? They can only obtain such rights in Langa and Guguletu. If the United Party were to say that the Bantu could own land anywhere, they would have a kind of morality towards the Bantu, but then they would have absolutely no morality towards the Whites. In that case the latter would have no security in respect of their rights of landownership here. At the same time the United Party also says that the Whites may enter the homelands and obtain rights there as well.

In specific areas.

Once again “in specific areas”. The outcome would be that there would be no part in South Africa in regard to which the Bantu peoples could be told that their preferential right, an exclusive right, security and a guarantee are vested there. In the same way the United Party does not have a similar area in regard to which it may tell the Whites that that area is their homeland, where they have the exclusive right and security for all time. The whole of South Africa would become an integrated mixture, whereas we with our policy do indicate to each group its own nursery, which belongs to it, its sanctuary, its first priority, and which is its exclusive right,

What is the tradition?

With these trying, childish interjections, hon. members opposite are making matters quite impossible for one when one tries to inform them. But I shall persist, for the better I put my case, the harder they try to put me off my stroke. That I know, for I have after all been in this House for 18 years.

What I have said here in respect of land ownership, applies mutalis mutandis, as is always said by our friends who are versed in law, in respect of political say, in respect of labour, in respect of residential equality and in respect of the other aspects with which I cannot deal now, since the subject is a very comprehensive one. But I am giving hon. members the assurance that in due course I am still going to create the opportunity for a debate, which will last for days, on the Bantu in the White areas. We are going to do that yet. I am sorry that such an idea has not occurred to me before, i.e. in regard to this debate which has now almost come to an end.

The idea did occur to us, but you ran away.

We did not run away from it. Therefore, in so far as the Bantu are here in the White area in a casual capacity now, we are doing our best in all sorts of ways to maintain their liaison with their peoples and their homelands. My friend the hon. member for Christiana rightly said a moment ago that the lack of ties of the Bantu with their homelands and their peoples was an utter misrepresentation of the facts. I want to suggest tonight that the Bantu peoples of South Africa and, as far as I am concerned, of other parts of Africa as well—but those I do not know as well as I do my own Bantu peoples in South Africa—have proved, not over a decade, but over half a century and more—almost three quarters of a century, if taken as from the beginning of this century—that as peoples they can preserve their identity as effectively as few Western peoples have managed to do so in the same sphere. From the earliest times we have had here the Xhosa who came to the Western Cape. In parts such as the Witwatersrand we have the Zulu, Sotho, Shangaan, Venda, Tswana, etc., who have been going there, but there is not a single one of them, irrespective of the extent to which he may have become dissociated from his chief and his tribe, who has lost his national context. No matter where in South Africa one meets a Bantu in the street, one may ask him what language he speaks, and he will say that he speaks Zulu, Tswana, Shangaan or Xhosa. Under the most disruptive circumstances, circumstances which can disrupt and sever any national context, the Bantu peoples have retained their context in their urbanized, industrialized circumstances in South Africa. Those things we follow up diligently. This afternoon my colleague the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education pointed out most effectively what we had accomplished in a very short time, especially while he was paying attention to the matter, in regard to the establishment to these boards of deputies of the national authorities in our homelands. At the moment he already has 37 boards, which were established in respect of just a few Bantu peoples. They seek to organize the local Bantu in the urban areas. Around the deputies and assistant deputies of the national authorities, the Bantu may then organize their interests in the White areas. Through these boards the Bantu may then keep their ties with the homelands alive.

In the same way the hon. the Deputy Minister also pointed out the very good progress that had been made, also in a short time, in regard to the modernization of the transport systems in order to help the Bantu, on a daily basis, to reach their jobs in White areas, while they were living in (he homelands. He was unable to pursue the matter any further, but I can give hon. members the assurance that in the same way, on a weekly and on a monthly basis, tens of thousands of Natives are already being conveyed between the White urban areas and the homelands.

Then, of course, we also have many other contexts. Apart from the language, the tradition, the pride, the material interests and the family tics which they have, there are, of course, the ties of citizenship, which we created in terms of the Act which was passed by this Parliament last year and which we are implementing at the moment. This Act is being received with open arms by the Bantu everywhere, for they regard it as a brand-new method for uniting the extra-territorial members of their peoples with their homelands through ties of citizenship. Of course, the crown of citizenship, as it is in the case of the Transkei, is the fact that whilst living in the White areas they can exercise their franchise in respect of the legislative councils in their own homelands. Hon. members will see that this will also be established in regard to each of the other legislative councils which will follow on the Transkei. All these forms of liaison, and we shall discover every conceivable new form, are aimed at stimulating and consolidating on the part of the Bantu individual this feeling of being a human being within his national context, Whereas the national context of the Bantu has, as I said a moment ago, been preserved so effectively over many years, even if their tribal ties did become loose, we arc, by means of all this concentrated attention and all these forms of liaison and ties with their homelands, going to show South Africa phenomenal success in the years that lie ahead.

I think this is probably the last occasion on which I shall speak during this debate, and I should like to take this opportunity to give some attention to my very good friends, the members on this side of the House, who spoke during this debate. I have replied to all the important questions raised by hon. members opposite, and I have also replied to many other questions.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? The hon. the Minister made the important statement that 50.1 per cent of the Bantu are living outside the Reserves …

I said last night that I had made calculations so as to arrive at that figure. Those calculations were based on the census of 1970. However, the census of 1970 has not yet been published in its complete form, especially not in respect of one extremely cardinal matter, namely the foreign Bantu. I said last night that if we left out of account the foreign Bantu, in respect of whom we only have approximate figures, the indication was, on the basis of calculations I had made with due regard to other figures, that just about the majority—I used the words “only just”—of the South African Bantu were living in the homelands. That is how I made the calculation.

Not one single Minister is expected to reply personally to all of the 200 or 300 questions which are put in the course of a seven-hour debate. Why should I furnish to scores of questions the same replies as those which were furnished by hon. members on this side of the House and which were correct? For that reason I say that I want to express a special word of thanks to my two Deputy Ministers, who replied most effectively to the questions that were put. I also want to say that hon. members opposite would be well advised to borrow a leaf from the book of hon. members on this side of the House, for the hon. members on this side worked as a team. I said yesterday, and I am repeating it, thank heaven that our shop has a window. I also said this in reply to an interjection made by the hon. member for Durban Point. Our policy has many facets which we can display. Yesterday and today I tried to display some of those facets in the limited time which I wanted to use. In so far as I could not do everything. I was assisted most ably by the two Deputy Ministers and by all those hon. members on this side of the House who took part in this debate. I followed closely every speech that was made both by hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members opposite. The hon. member for Langlaagte spoke very effectively about investigations and planning in the economic sphere. From him right through to the last hon. member on this side of the House who took part in this debate, namely the hon. member for Christiana, who spoke about the very important liaison between the homelands and about economic matters, there was not one single member who did not display a particular facet of the work of our department. [Interjection.] I wish that gramophone opposite would keep quite. As I said yesterday in introducing this Vote, we have a Vote to present to this House and we want to elucidate it. I said that we wanted to point out what was happening in the Bantu homelands and also what was happening outside the Bantu homelands. We on this side of the House have done so in respect of every facet of the matter and have furnished very interesting particulars. I would very much have liked to pause briefly at the speeches made by every hon. member on this side of the House—in fact, I made notes of their content—but time does not permit me to do so. For that reason I shall leave the matter at that. I wanted to express to them my appreciation and tell them that these things proved that here on this side of the House there were at least a number of members who were able to cope effectively with the most difficult questions and the most exasperating provocation that came from that side of the House. I thank them for doing that.

Mr. Chairman, I think, that this debate must have been one of the most tragic which we have had in this House. Since the beginning of this year we have been trying to get answers out of this hon. Minister and members on the other side of the House in respect of their policy as applied to the urban Bantu working in the White areas. What have we had? We have had from this hon. gentleman this evening an explanation of a philosophy which seems to me to be one of the most dangerous and probably one of the most fatal for the future safety and security of South Africa that I have ever listened to. What has the hon. gentleman told us? He told us that he regards the urban Bantu working in South Africa, as “mense binne’n volksverband”, as people belonging to a nation. Of course, but because they happen to belong to a nation in his terms, and accepting his terminology, which I do not normally do, is it necessary for him so to treat them that in all probability he will alienate their goodwill from the White people in South Africa for generations to come? But I want to ask this hon. Minister a question. He says that because they belong to another nation “in wording” or some phrase of that kind, they cannot enjoy the privilege of home ownership in this White area, even in the areas set aside for them in the urban townships. They cannot enjoy secure family life. There is nowhere other than the White area where they cart earn a living. The hon. the Minister knows full well that they cannot earn a living in the Reserves. They cannot enjoy the elementary rights which you would expect a satisfied workman to enjoy in any country in which he works and to which he may have a loyalty in due course. I have no objection to the limiting of areas in which they live and I have no objection even to the Minister saying that they are not allowed to do certain types of work if there are White people to do it, but surely the elementary right of having a home and having a secure family life are vital links in keeping those people’s goodwill for the White population in South Africa. The hon. gentleman is so obsessed with the idea of maintaining this link with the nationality, with the race or the tribe from which they come, that his whole policy is directed towards that object.

And you want to sever it.

The hon. the Minister says that I want to sever it. I want to be sure that when there is trouble in South Africa one day, these people will be standing on the side of the White people in South Africa, and I want to be sure that they will not be standing on the side of the agitator and the communist who is trying to attack South Africa. I want to be sure that they value our way of life and our standards so highly that they will be prepared to fight for them and to sacrifice their lives for them in the interests of maintaining those standards for both the Whites and the non-Whites in South Africa. What is the hon. the Minister doing? When we tackled the hon. the Prime Minister, we were told by him that there were Bantu urban committees which would be given administrative and executive powers by certain municipalities. They did not give us one example of any administrative or executive involvement by those people in their own wellbeing. The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke to us at length about these 37 committees which have been formed. What are they formed for? They are formed to retain the connection between these people and their homelands and not to give them a say in how they run even their local affairs. They have not been formed to make them happy in so-called White South Africa. Oh no, they have been formed to maintain their tribal affiliation and to ensure that they develop a loyalty other than the loyalty to the White people of South Africa.

What did we get when we examined this policy? We found that there were two or three types of people we should look at. First of all, there is the Bantu who to all intents and purposes is living permanently in the Bantu townships in our White areas. What does this policy mean to him? It means insecurity in so far as his job is concerned, because he may be allowed to do a job if a White man cannot do it. However, if a White man turns up for that job, it will be taken away from him. It means no home ownership and no stake in the maintenance of law and order. It means no executive or administrative involvement in respect of the wellbeing of his own people in this area. There is no adequate training for his job, because no training facilities are available here. This Government will not supply those facilities here; it will only supply those facilities in the homelands. There is seldom adequate schooling for his children, because nearly all secondary schooling is reserved for the homelands. What does he find at the end of his working life? Has he got any security that he can remain here in the White areas, in the Bantu township where he was probably born and where he has been living all his life? No, they put every pressure on him to try to send him back to a homeland which he has most probably never seen and which they hope will one day get its independence and which may turn itself against South Africa. What are we offering these people to stand on our side in the present situation in South Africa, in the face of the agitation and in the face of the propaganda of the communists in other parts of the world?

Then there is a second type of labourer. That is the migratory labourer, or the contract labourer, as they call him. He has no security. He comes here on contract for a period. He has no proper training. He never knows whether at the end of that period he can come back again to the same boss. This is supposed to be guaranteed to him but we know how often it fails to work. There are all the evils of the migratory labour system, recognized by every church in South Africa, attaching to him. Historically he has been the focus for all trouble there has ever been in South Africa. There is a lack of mobility; his wages are low because of the necessity of the employers to employ more than they actually need, because they may not be able to get people in times of stress to do the work that is necessary to be done in their firms. There is little or no possibility of advancement.

What does it mean to the employer? It means uncertainty and inefficiency. It means having to employ more labourers than he really wants. It means high cost of living; and it means that it is all being done, not because you could not still maintain the theory of their political ideas by giving these people more security, but because they are so afraid of it that they are trying to push all development in the direction of border industries which they cannot protect by tariffs from overseas competition because of the GATT agreement in South Africa. So, they can only protect those industries by sacrificing the existing industries in South Africa, and by giving those border industries better conditions than they give to the existing industries as regards pay, wage determinations, leave, transport, taxes and half a dozen other matters. They cannot protect them because of the GATT agreement by tariffs; so they have to do it by sacrificing our other industries in South Africa. Because of this policy, our rate of development is being checked, the standard of living of everybody in South Africa is being kept down artificially —all for a theory which is not only going to lead to undermining the safety in South Africa, but is going to prevent that fast economic growth which is vital for our security in the future and for our children in generations to come.

One boggles at the lack of foresight, at the blindness, the lack of imagination of hon. Ministers who can get up in this House and in this year and age talk the sort of nonsense we have heard here this evening, and still think that the future of White South Africa is going to be safe under policies of this kind. This is the most important aspect of Government policy that exists at the present time. This Government has been running away from a discussion of it ever since the session started and we have had another example this evening of a Minister showing us a clean pair of heels, getting out of sight and saying he hopes he will be able to discuss it some other time. I am waiting for that “other time”. It is time this Minister and his policies were put in their place.

Mr. Chairman, three very strange things have happened here in these ten minutes. The first is that the Leader of the Opposition entered this debate at the end of a seven-hour discussion, and attracted attention in the mischievous way in which he acted here this evening. I shall tell you why he did this. Sir. He was forced to do this in order to pull the chestnuts out of the fire for that group of people on the opposite side. The second and most peculiar thing that happened—this is of a very serious nature and I have personally referred to it before—is that the hon. the Leader of the Opposition rose here and tried to make the point “that this Government is alienating the Bantu in the White part of South Africa”. I maintain that the United Party is saddling a very dangerous horse here. This is a new tactic which the United Party is trying to apply to make trouble here in South Africa and in that way to try to get rid of the National Party Government.

Mr. Chairman, I rise only to announce that the hon. the Deputy Minister will take charge of the discussion of this Vote.

Mr. Chairman, allow me to make a few general remarks at the outset of the discussion of this Vote. We must have regard to the fact that the Bantu have become very education conscious. We are in fact having regard to that. When we look at the Department of Bantu Education, we see that it can no longer be described as being just one department. It is much more of a large educational organization consisting of various components in which the Republic as well as South-West Africa and the Caprivi Zipfel are represented. There is one central department which is expertly linked to all these other components. The existing organization includes, in the first place, the head office in Pretoria at which planning and coordination take place. Then there are the five regions providing services in the White areas, and nine departments of Education and Culture in the homelands. This gives us a total of 14 components, to which still more will be added in terms of our policy. The establishment of the departments in the homelands went hand in hand with the introduction of territorial authorities and legislative assemblies for each of the nine population groups, each one with its own administration, consisting of six or more departments.

Furthermore, it is important for us to realize that the Department of Bantu Education as other departments in the Republic u ding with Bantu affairs, is Bantu homeland orientated. This is proved by the fact that, for example, in the Bantu homelands, including those in South-West Africa, there is at present a total of 5 712 Bantu schools while there are only 4 836 Bantu schools in the White area. The number of pupils in the Bantu homelands also exceeds the number of pupils in the White area by far. In the Bantu homelands the number of pupils is 1 696 000, while the number of the pupils in the White area is 1 144 000, The number of teachers in the Bantu homelands is also far more, i.e. 28 330, while the number in the White area is 19 750. Sir, the progress made in Bantu homeland education is evident, inter alia, from the following: At present the Tswana homeland has as many as 650 schools, 250 000 pupils and 4 000 teachers; the Northern Sotho have 712 schools, 260 000 pupils and 4 000 teachers; the Transkei has 1689 schools, 420 000 pupils and 7 400 teachers; the Ciskei has 529 schools, 156 000 pupils and 2 500 teachers; the Zulu have 1 300 schools, 398 000 pupils and 6 500 teachers.

I mention these figures simply to illustrate what kind of progress has been made in Bantu education, not only in the homelands, but also in White South Africa, because at present we already have no fewer than 2 841 000 Bantu children at school in South Africa, including the homelands. There are 10 548 Bantu schools, and there are 48 083 teachers. If one compares this with the fact that there are 827 000 White children at school in South Africa, one sees that this figure is only one-third of the number of Bantu children at school. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, there are 500 000 children at school, and this is only one-fifth of the number of Bantu children at school. There are 160 000 Indian children at school. This is only one-seventeenth of the number of Bantu children at school. If one adds up the numbers of White, Indian and Coloured children at school, the total is 1 490 000 as against 2 841 000 Bantu children at school. Therefore the number of White, Coloured and Indian children at school is fewer than half the number of Bantu children at school.

†Sir, it is Government policy that all sections of the propitiation should pay towards the education of their children. I take it that we are all agreed that that should be so. The provincial administrations which are responsible for educational services for Whites only, impose a provincial tax through which they collect a substantial amount from the White population. A considerable portion of the funds thus collected is used for education, and should this prove to be inadequate, the taxes are invariably raised. Education is free for White children, and if a province spends lavishly on education, providing inter alia for high teachers’ salaries, expensive school buildings, free books, etc., it does so because of the fact that the White population is able and prepared to pay for it. I will indicate later on that it is not correct to come to the conclusion that the Whites enjoy free education whereas the Bantu have to pay for their education. The same policy therefore applies to the Bantu population. A separate Bantu Education Account has been established which is credited with a fixed amount from Consolidated Revenue, with all direct taxes paid by the Bantu as well as certain other amounts which have been approved from time to time to meet, amongst other things, overheads, administration, and salaries paid to officials, inspectors and teachers. These demands will decrease as homeland educational services progressively become the sole responsibility of the homeland governments. For the financial year 1971-’72, a total amount of no less than R70 856 000 was made available for educational services in the Republic, including the homelands, South-West Africa, the Eastern Caprivi Zipfel and the Transkei. Special education in all areas as well as university training is included in this amount of R70 856 000. This amount will be augmented, firstly, by capital expenditure on school buildings by the urban local authorities in White areas; secondly, by the South African Bantu Trust in the homelands and, thirdly, by the owners of farm and factory schools. It will be realized that this is a very important fact. All this involves a total expenditure of R75 million and a unit cost, for primary and secondary education, of approximately R25 or more.

The above-mentioned sum provided for in the Budget is derived from various sources, namely a basic contribution from Revenue, R13 million, plus R1500 000 for university education for Bantu, bringing the total from Revenue to R14 500 000; general and income tax payable by the Bantu, estimated to be also R13 million, of which R6 million is expected to come from income tax, a considerable increase; special provision for South-West Africa to the amount of R3 405 000; provision from Revenue for special education and for the Caprivi, R807 000; separate provision for the Transkei. R9 580 000; cost of administration, including White officials R5 965 000. and a special advance to be derived from sales tax, namely R21 835 000.

Sir, it must be understood that each Bantu homeland department budgets for itself but the funds are provided through the Bantu Education Account. These are the facts in a nutshell about our policy with regard to the financing of Bantu education as well as the amount spent on Bantu education. I take it that everybody will agree that this is a very substantial amount. Especially if one looks how this amount was augmented in various ways, then I think it will be appreciated that very excellent headway has been made with regard to Bantu education in the Republic of South Africa, and I think that we can justifiably be very proud indeed of the progress that has been made.

*By way of introduction, I want to bring a further one or two minor matters, but nevertheless very important ones, to the attention of the Committee. The charge is often levelled at us that school books for the White children are free, but that there are no so-called free school books for the Bantu children; that the Bantu children have to pay for them. Sir, this is a charge which is not correct, and the time has arrived now for this matter to be put beyond any doubt and for the facts in this regard to be clearly revealed. What is overlooked when this charge is levelled, is the fact that the White parents pay a provincial tax which, for the higher income group, may amount to more than R600 per year, and this is a contribution towards the education bill which the Bantu need not make at all. Therefore White parents are indirectly paying very heavily for the education facilities their children are supposedly receiving free of charge. If the allegation is made that the White children receive their education free of charge and that the Bantu children have to pay very heavily for theirs, I say this is not correct, because the parents of the White children are paving for the education of their children through the tax such parents have to pay. That is why the White children have the educational facilities they are enjoying. I should very much like us to argue this point properly, because it is not correct to level that charge. If the Government were to decide that the Bantu were to pay a special education levy, the children of the Bantu, too, could allegedly receive their books free, as the Whites allegedly do. However, as the Bantu make a greater contribution towards State revenue by way of, for example, new income tax or sales duty, so privileges in respect of educational facilities for the Bantu increase considerably. Indeed, in this financial year—and it is very important to note this—no less than R1 024 000 will be spent on reading-books in three languages, graded class-books and library books for Bantu schools. Therefore these are books which the Bantu receive free of charge in that way. R495000 of this amount will be spent in White areas, and R529 400 in the Bantu homelands.

Another important point which has to be noted, is that books are provided completely free of charge to the Bantu children in the Caprivi and in South-West Africa, because the system of taxation there was and still is different from that of the Republic of South Africa. Therefore the charge so often levelled, and the comparison made, i.e. that the White children receive free education while the Bantu children have to pay very heavily, in terms of the means of the Bantu, for theirs, is not correct, as I have just proved. But I am quite prepared to have the matter discussed properly. I want to repeat that this year, as the Bantu are now able to make a more generous contribution towards education, we have provided more than R1 million in the Budget for free books, etc., for Bantu children, and in South-West Africa and the Caprivi these things are completely free of charge for all Bantu children.

Then I want to point out another very important aspect, one of which not only this House but also the country should take cognizance, and that is the achievements of the Bantu child in the field of education. Right at the outset I said the Bantu had become very education conscious. I want to give the following facts briefly. The number of Bantu pupils who pass Std. VI, increase progressively each year. In 1948 12 900 passed, and in 1970 the number of children who passed Std. VI increased to 91 000. It is estimated by my department that in the Republic of South Africa today there are already some I million Bantu children who have passed Std. VI. This is a very large number and certainly does this country credit. Now, if one looks at the number who passed expressed as a percentage, one sees that approximately 85 per cent passed Std. VI last year, and 9,1 per cent of them obtained first class passes. If one looks at the number of pupils who passed the junior certificate, the number was 1 887 in 1948, and this increased to 17 198 in 1970, last year. It is estimated that there are some 170 000 Bantu children in South Africa who already possess a Std. VIII certificate. These are facts which have to be taken into account and which the Government duly takes into account. The pass rate for St. VIII among Bantu children last year was 70,1 per cent, and 9,5 per cent obtained first classes. You will see that this is an outstanding achievement. If one looks at the progress made at matriculation level, one sees that in 1948 only 172 candidates passed the matriculation examination whereas this number increased to 1 842 in 1970. It is estimated that approximately 25 000 Bantu are in possession of matriculation certificates at the present time. Their pass rate last year was 66,4 per cent, and 31,3 per cent obtained matriculation exemption.

If one looks at the number of Bantu who obtained degrees, one sees to what extent their numbers have increased. Last year 196 Bantu obtained Baccalaureus degrees, 40 obtained honours degrees, six obtained masters' degrees, three obtained LI.B degrees and two obtained doctors’ degrees— a total of 247 degrees in that one year. In addition to these there are some 160 students who obtained pre-or postgraduate diplomas. I want to say that the services of these people are very urgently required in the Bantu homelands where we are able to absorb them as fast as they become available at the universities. That hon. member may laugh, but this is quite true; we are able to do so.

While I am discussing the achievements of the Bantu child in the field of Bantu education, I now want to draw a really significant fact to the attention of this House. Do you know that last year we had a school in Northern Transvaal, the Setotol wane training school. There was a class with 42 Bantu pupils. All 42 of them took mathematics. Only three of the 42 failed. All 42 of them took chemistry and physics and only one failed. The best pupil in Bantu Education in South Africa last year come from that class and that Bantu pupil had distinctions in mathematics, in chemistry and physics and in biology. He was the top Bantu student in the Republic of South Africa last year. I think this is an exceptional achievement. The pass rate of that class was over 96 per cent.

What class was that?

It was the matriculation class. All 42 of them took mathematics for matriculation, and only three failed. All 42 of them took chemistry and physics, and only one failed. The average of that class of 42 was over 50 per cent. The pass rate of the class was over 96 per cent, and the best student came from that class, a fact indeed worth mentioning, and one wants to congratulate such a teacher—it is a White teacher who is at the head of the school—because this really is a fine achievement.

But there is, for example, the training school at Amanzimtoti in Natal. It entered 68 candidates for matriculation and all of them passed. That was a 100 per cent pass rate.

May I ask a question? Will the hon. the Deputy Minister please indicate how the standard of matriculation in Bantu Education compares with that of the Whites?

Yes. I am very grateful for that question. The Bantu children write the ordinary Matriculation Board examination, or the examination of the Department of National Education. Therefore, the standard is absolutely the same as is the merit determination, because the children all write the Joint Matriculation Board examination or the examination of the Department of National Education. This truly is an achievement, and that is why I say I think the country should take cognizance of this kind of achievement. There were other schools as well. Last year there were eight schools in Bantu Education— and these include the Augustineum school in South-West Africa—who had a 100 per cent pass rate for their matriculation classes. These matters interest me a great deal and these are excellent achievements. I should like to say more about them, but I shall leave the matter at that. I think I have said enough in this regard, except that we should like to draw another interesting fact to the attention of this House.

What I want to draw to the attention of this House is that last year was the first time we were able to show how the Zulu, the Tswana, etc., and the other population groups, compare with one another as regards the results for matriculation and, of course, for the junior certificate and Std. VI as well. In drawing this comparison—and one does not do so with any ulterior motives, but it is important take cognizance of this—we see that the Zulu of Natal did best in that they obtained an 80 per cent pass rate for matriculation.

Of course, what did you expect?

The Northern Sotho had a 77 per cent pass rate, and now it is very interesting to note that, with the exception of the Transkei, the other Bantu peoples all had an average of over 69 per cent. I do not want to elaborate on this now, but in actual fact there are only two differences between the Transkei and the others, the first being that the Transkei has now had its own national government for a long time. The other difference is that the Transkei, after it had obtained its own government abolished mother-tongue education in the lower classes. Those children who did not have the privilege of mother-tongue education in the lower standards wrote matric last year. Now the question arises why it is so that the other peoples had a considerably higher pass rate for matric and did better than the Transkei.

What was the pass rate of the Transkei?

Something like 65-66 per cent. Therefore it is considerably lower than the others.

Before resuming my seat, I want to point out that the Department of Bantu Education, apart from the fact that it is centred on the Bantu people, as I have shown, is literally doing everything in its power in respect of the burning problem of making available as many Bantu teachers as possible. I think it is a major achievement that there are more than 48 000 Bantu teachers already. We are also doing everything in our power to increase the number of Bantu teachers. If hon. members would look at the annual report—and they will agree with me that it is a very fine annual report—they would see what steps had been taken to combat the shortage of Bantu teachers, and particularly the shortage of properly trained Bantu teachers. I do not want to go into this matter now, but I hope that some of the speakers on our side will deal with it.

Also, before resuming my seat, I want to mention that the Bantu Education gazette is regarded by experts as one of the most excellent education gazettes of its kind, not only in the Republic, not only in Africa, but all over the world. One would like to bring that education gazette to the attention of this House, and one would be very pleased if hon. members would take note of it, and particularly of its contents. In breaking a lance for the education gazette, I am doing the same for the Secretary for Bantu Education and all the officials who, with exceptional devotion, are dealing with this great task of Bantu Education in the Republic. May I make special mention of the approximate number of 500 White teachers employed in Bantu Education who are exercising a powerful civilizing influence in that sphere and who, in many case, are doing that work not without sacrifice. One also expresses one's highest appreciation for the excellent work done by that corps of 500 White teachers among the more than 48 600 Bantu teachers, White teachers who are assisting the Bantu so as to enable them to maintain the excellent achievements of which I have mentioned only a few. With this I hope we shall be able to conduct an interesting debate on this important matter.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister started his speech with a brief description of the 14 if I remember correctly—different branches of Bantu education involved in the work of the department. He went on to mention all the regional and territorial authorities, including what had to be done in the Caprivi Zipfel, in South West Africa, etc. He emphasized, in fact, in the opening paragraphs of his speech, the complexity of the set-up with regard to the administration of Bantu education. Of course, the most obvious and extraordinary omission in the Deputy Minister’s statement, which was precisely the same omission made by his senior Minister in his statements during the debate on Bantu Administration throughout the whole of the last two days, was his complete failure to deal with or even mention the education of the urban African children resident in our White areas.

You did not listen.

Yes, I did listen. The 1970 population census figures, of which the hon. the Minister challenges the validity, were issued by the Department of Information in abridged form a long time ago. I have a copy of them in my file. During the enumeration for the 1970 population census, of the 15 000 000 African people who were enumerated 8 000 000 were enumerated in the urban areas.

I want to make another point. The long propaganda statement for public consumption, the making of which has now become a kind of ministerial habit in this House, since this session started at any rate, appears to me to take a very unfair advantage of the Official Opposition. I say that because I have always considered it an accepted part of parliamentary procedure that, with the Estimates before us for consideration, it was the Opposition’s option in the first instance to challenge the allocation of public funds before the Minister gave his reply and his views.

Oh no.

Oh yes. This surely is anticipating the debate in a way which I think conflicts entirely with the whole tradition and Parliamentary procedure of this House. However, the hon. the Deputy Minister then went on to contradict the statement made frequently in the Press that the Whites have free education and that the Bantu pay for their own, He tried to point out how Unfair this type of statement was. Of course it is a totally false equation, as is so much that is put before us in this House, because everybody knows that public taxation is used to pay for education, whatever race group you are dealing with. The hon. the Deputy Minister went into certain details with regard to the general financing of Bantu education, which he said last year was going to be put on a new basis. He gave us certain figures, all of which I could not take down because of the speed at which he was talking, but if I heard him correctly, these showed that the grand total to be spent on Bantu education this year would be R75 million. He was very pleased about this. Certainly, it is a great increase and to that extent we are pleased also, but the hon. the Deputy Minister should look at the amount to be voted for White education. I must point out that he used this comparison himself. The total amount to be spent on White education this year is R96 million. This amount is to be spent on a total population of 3½ million people, whereas the amount voted for Bantu education is to be spent on 15 million people. In other words, R21 million less is being spent on a part of the population which is in fact four times as great as the White population. I mention this merely to put the matter in perspective, I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that when he makes these statements about the contributions which the White taxpayer is making towards Bantu education, he has nothing to crow about. Does he not know that our neighbour across the Limpopo, Rhodesia, with just i million White people, devotes 10 per cent of its national budget to educating its African population every year? I merely mention that in case his head becomes a bit too swollen because of what he considers to be the prestige efforts of his department.

The hon. the Deputy Minister spoke about the new financial scheme this morning, but he was not very specific as to how much money the Government received during the financial year from pay-as-you-earn income tax deductions from the salaries of Bantu who earn R360 or more There cannot be very many of these, and I must say that we should like a few more details in this regard. Then we should like to be told the estimated revenue received from sales tax paid by the Bantu people during the past 18 months.

I said R21 million.

Yes, I know. The hon the Deputy Minister mentioned this, but it is very important that we should know on what basis that was assessed. The whole question of salaries and wages is involved here. We should therefore like to know from the hon. the Deputy Minister how soon he hopes to tell us what the permanent revised basis for the financing of Bantu education in the Republic and elsewhere is going to be.

The improvement in regard to the allocation of money for school books is something we welcome very much indeed, but knowing the average standard of poverty and low wage rates for the vast majority of the African workers in this country one wonders, in spite of what the Deputy Minister has said, how much more they are expected to contribute financially towards their own education. The need to start closing the gap as quickly as we can between the wages paid to skilled and unskilled workers of other races and those paid to Blacks becomes more urgent every year. Nobody suggests that the gap can be filled overnight, but the point is that there must be some deliberate attempt and policy on the part of any administration to see that that gap becomes smaller and not greater, as has been the case during the past decade and more. There are a variety of reasons why this should happen, not least being the establishment of a well-paid and stable African labour force, which means a more contented consumer population. This will in turn enable more people to contribute by means of taxation to public services, of which education is perhaps the most important.

As things stand now, one wonders how much more the Bantu people can be expected to contribute towards their education. In 1961 6,4 per cent of all teachers employed by the department were paid by the parents themselves, but by 1969 that figure had risen to 18 per cent. In other words, the salaries of 6 200 Bantu teachers were being paid by the parents themselves. This means that more Bantu teachers than the total number of Indian teachers employed throughout the Republic were being paid by the parents themselves. The basic anxiety over African education lies in the fact that unless children have been in school for four years up to Std. HI, in other words, unless they have stayed at school long enough to become even functionally literate, which is absolutely vital, whatever the nature of their employment, they are in fact useless as able workers. They must have this basic schooling. Taking this as a yardstick, we find that of the 6,05 million African children who entered school between 1955 and 1968, 3 million, or 50 per cent, did not stay long enough even to enter Std. III. In plain language, they cannot be said to be even functionally literate. What hope is there then of overall wage improvement on any bas s, or for a better working performance by these people, which will lead to an increased contribution by them in terms of taxation?

During the period I have just mentioned, from 1955 to 1968, the Minister is quite correct that the number of Bantu pupils in schools increased by 137 per cent. The number of teachers, of course, has increased by very much less than that. If my figures are correct, the number of teachers has risen by about 87 per cent. The Minister knows very well too that the higher enrolment has been made possible only by the introduction of hundreds of double sessions and the use of bigger classes. Against these figures must be set the fact that more and more unqualified staff are being used, to everybody’s detriment. I admit that the Minister did mention this fact. In 1969 more than 20 per cent of all African teachers employed by the department had neither a matriculation certificate nor even a teacher’s certificate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, at the beginning of her speech the hon. member for Wynberg objected because the Deputy Minister stood up and produced certain facts at the commencement of the discussion of this Vote. Of course, to a large extent that took the wind out of her sails.

Rubbish!

I leave the matter at that. The hon. member for Wynberg again said that too little was being spent on Bantu education. She thereby endorsed the arguments usually raised by the hon. member for Houghton. In that field the United Party Opposition and the Progressive Party feel the same, of course. I can understand why the Progressive Party always advocates it, but what amazes me is the fact that the United Party sings the same tune every year. I remember how the hon. member for Wynberg’s predecessor, who was always first to speak about Bantu Education, i.e. the ex-member for Kensington, regularly raised this matter. In all the years I have sat here, the Government has been attacked because it was stated that too little is being spent on Bantu Education, Very well. Let the Opposition attack us on that score, but then they must not go to the platteland and say that too much is being spent on Bantu Education. In the past recess platteland members of the United Party attacked me and said that the Government is spending too much on this. And they do not even say “Bantu”. They say that too much is being spent on the “Kaffirs”, particularly on their education. Those are the Afrikaans-speaking supporters of the United Party, Every hon. member on this side of the House will agree that this is the case. I regret the fact that they have to sing this tune every year.

The hon. the Deputy Minister has explained to us how the appropriation for Bantu education is spent. We know that the Government wants the Bantu to make a contribution themselves. That is why Parliament decided a few years ago that direct Bantu taxation should be used for Bantu Education. If they evade the payment of this tax, it is Bantu Education that suffers. When the hon. member for Berea introduced the debate last year, he said—

This argument is no longer valid. The Government itself makes a particular contribution, and it cannot contribute more than can be absorbed by the various bodies. The Bantu parents are also prepared to make a contribution themselves. Let us look at the spirit that prevails, in this respect, in the Bantu homelands. There they display, to an increasing extent, a spirit of self-responsibility for their education, and they are doing so with greater understanding and eagerness. They build their own schools and provide their own teachers, and to an increasing extent the inspectors as well. Here I am not only speaking about the territorial authorities and regional authorities, but about all those bodies that are directly or indirectly concerned with education, bodies such as parent committees and school boards. They control the finances and, as in the case of territorial authorities, they finance their own education as such. Before 1954 this responsibility rested completely on the shoulders of the Whites. It is remarkable that the strongest initiative and driving force in the education emanates from the Bantu in the homelands and not from those in the White areas. The attitude of the Bantu in the White areas is that the Whites are responsible for the Bantu in all respects, including his education. This attitude has already entrenched itself among the Bantu in the White areas. On the other hand, the attitude of the Bantu in the homelands, in themselves adopting the initiative and responsibility, is a praiseworthy one.

It is freely remarked that there are many Whites whose services are used for Bantu Education. The hon. the Deputy Minister has also referred to it. Let me just quote certain statistics to disprove this argument. In 1971 there were 48 000 Bantu teachers as against about 500 White teachers in Bantu Education. These Whites are used for expert work, for example in the training of teachers. Only 3 per cent of the staff in Bantu Education are Whites. Therefore 97 per cent are already Bantu. That is the course this Government is steering.

In his opening speech the hon. the Deputy Minister referred to the results that are being achieved, and said that the standard of education among the Bantu compares favourably with the standard of education among White children. I just want to add something to what the hon. the Deputy Minister said, specifically with reference to the matriculation examination. In this connection I want to emphasize that examinations for the Bantu are arranged by the Joint Matriculation Board or by the Department of National Education. In other words, an external examining body conducts the examination. The number of Bantu matriculants who obtain university exemption compares very favourably with what is taking place in some White Departments of Education. Let us now look at the reasons for this progress. In the first place it is thanks to better trained teachers. Here there is a tremendous improvement, although the hon. member for Wynberg still has some criticism. In the second place this progress can be assigned to the system of service training, the organization in the department giving continual help to serving teachers. For example, from time to time refresher courses are arranged. Every one of us who is interested in education knows that there have been big changes in recent times in the curricula and syllabuses, and the result of this is that teachers who received their training years ago must qualify themselves for the new curricula and therefore have to attend those refresher courses. In fact, service training has become indispensable. The idea there is that the teacher actively trains himself by systematically studying his own field.

There is only one school where that is done.

No, not only one school. Facilities have been created for all teachers to attend refresher courses. [Time expired.]

The hon. member for Koedoespoort accused my colleague, the hon. member for Wynberg, of taking a one-sided view. But he is the person who is taking a one-sided view as far as Bantu education is concerned whereas we ort this side adopt a four-sided view towards the subject. We believe it is something which cannot be considered in isolation. It must be considered in relation to the education of the other three racial groups. Thus, we adopt a four-sided view and yet the hon. member accused us of adopting a one-sided view.

I want to refer to a question I put to the hon. the Minister in March with regard to the shortages of schools, classrooms, White and Bantu teachers and of White and Bantu lecturers. I asked him what the earliest date would be when it was expected these shortages would be overcome. The answer was somewhat disappointing, In the first place the reply was—

I am quite prepared to concede that the department is doing its best. However, is the Minister also doing his best to provide the department with the wherewithal that it needs? I think this answer shows a very unsatisfactory position. I addressed a similar question to the Department of Indian Affairs and I received what I believe was a frank answer. Details were given about double classes, etc. The answer was informative, and it stated that it was expected that it would be approximately ten years before the various shortages which I had listed would be overcome. In so far as the Department of Coloured Affairs is concerned, there again the answer was more illuminating than the one provided by the hon. the Minister. It indicated a building programme up to 1976 and it gave details of the problems in regard to the shortages of teachers. That is the subject for another Vote, Mr. Chairman.

Sir, when one considers all these factors and one goes back, to an article which appeared in Bantu in September, 1963, entitled “Progress Report on Bantu Development”, and I wish to quote only one paragraph, one finds that it says—

Sir, let us be realistic about this. To train responsible leaders for all spheres of life, we need more than an adequate supply of lecturers at university level; we need more than an annual enrolment at universities of roughly 1 600 students; we need more than 1 850 matriculation passes in a year out of a total of roughly 2½ million school enrolments. We need more schools; we need more classrooms and, above all, we need more teachers. Sir, the hon. the Deputy Minister gave us certain details here today. It was a little difficult to digest all these figures, but as I understand the position, although in the 1968 report, the report previous to the one which was recently tabled, it was indicated that 60 000 school teachers were needed, we now seem to be approaching the 48 000 mark.

Over 48 000.

But, if we look at the current report we find that between 1962 and 1969, a period of eight years, the total number of teachers added to the overall total is only approximately 8 000. One is therefore entitled to ask, if this is the basis of increase, how long is it going to be before we attain the target of 60 000 teachers. What is wrong with the Minister's planning in this respect?

There is nothing wrong with it.

There may be nothing wrong with it, according to Nationalist standards.

Surely, Sir, teachers are the key to the problem. If we still have 7 195 unqualified teachers representing I believe, 19,4 per cent of the total; if we have 19 400 odd teachers who still have a lower primary certificate or no teacher qualifications; if we still have teachers on a fixed salary of R27 per month and of R34 for men which I hope has been increased; and if we take into consideration the poverty datum line figure of somewhere around R70 per month, is it any wonder that the position is as it is? Sir, I am not pulling these figures out of the air, and I am not basing the ecomments which I wish to make now on anything but the Ministers own report, and this is what the current report says. As far as primary education is concerned, it refers to the work being below standard, and it says that the shortcomings in primary schools are due mostly to over-large classes, crowded accommodation and inexperienced or unqualified teachers. It goes on to say that many teachers have great difficulty in presenting elementary general science as a practical subject In so far as woodwork and metal work is concerned, very few properly qualified teachers are obtainable. When it comes to needlework and homecrafts, the report says that there is a great dearth of qualified teachers.

What is your solution?

We have told the House our solution many times; at the moment though, it is the Government’s problem. In post-primary education we find a similar position. We find that there is a shortage of suitably qualified teachers, particularly in commercial subjects. Then the report says that there are limited Laboratory facilities, and that the lack of adequately qualified teachers has somewhat retarded the teaching of the sciences.

What is your solution?

Sir, I will give our solution if the hon. the Minister will give us details of the amount expended on teacher-training, because if we compare that with the amount spent on teacher-training for Indians and other races, I think we will find that this is probably the cause of the problem, and the solution would follow quite easily as a result of that investigation. Sir, where are the responsible leaders in all spheres of life to come from? Are they to come from this small core that comes from the universities? I want to suggest to this Committee, Sir, that it is not wise to pay too much attention to the icing on top of the cake, if the cake is neglected, then there is no substance on which to put the icing.

But look at the results.

Mr. L. F. WOOD; Sir, I know that most of these problems arise out of the question of finance and expenditure and I want to offer some more comparisons. The total expenditure on Bantu education last year, according to the reply given to me by the Minister in answer to a question, was R50 million for an enrolment of 2,5 million. As far as the Coloureds are concerned, there was an expenditure of R44 million, not including capital works, for an enrolment of half a million. As far as Indians are concerned, there was an expenditure of R25 million for an enrolment of approximately 160 000. We therefore find a total expenditure on non-White education of R119 million. This compares with the total overall expenditure, including the Transkei, as calculated by the Human Sciences Research Council, of R371 million. According to my figures therefore, the percentage expenditure on Bantu education is roughly 13½ per cent. But what are the results from this, Sir? Provision is made in the Estimates for an expenditure of R19 000 on libraries, for an enrolment of 2,7 million this year. This represents half a cent per student enrolled. What is the position in the libraries? Ninety-one were inspected, many of which are not as yet suitably housed. How can people who have not enough school books of their own, be trained if they have not sufficient and adequate libraries of which they can avail themselves? [Time expired.]

I think it was last year that the hon. member for Durban Berea also quoted quite a number of figures here. When someone asked him, by way of interjection, where he got those figures from, he replied that he got the figures from the hon. the Minister, because that is where he gets all his information, by way of answers to questions. Sir, if the hon. member would just go a little further and also make a comparative study for himself from the reports of the period from 1954 to the present day, he would get a totally different picture to the one he is trying to build up for himself in respect of the growth that has taken place in Bantu education.

Sir, one of the most attractive characteristics of our whole policy of Bantu education is that it is not divorced from any other facet of the Bantu’s life. It is not a detached responsibility that the Government is undertaking. It is not a detached unit that is being tackled, but forms a portion of the entire approach in respect of the Bantu’s care, his growth and his development into a people. Sir, another fine characteristic of Bantu education is the fact that education and training go hand in hand. These two elements, education and training, are basic to this national development pattern that this Government is engaged in for the Bantu. Nowhere in the world are these two elements separated, least of all in our policy on Bantu education. That is why I say that it is a fine thing, that it is a good thing and that it is right that we not only teach, but at the same time train individuals for the overall survival of a people. In this connection the hon. the Deputy Minister has already pointed out, by way of introduction, the tremendous expansion there has been, how we no longer merely have a small Department of Education, as in those hon. members’ period of government, but that we are now in reality dealing with a tremendously big organization. Out of this organization has developed the interesting Department of Education and Culture, as we have in the various homelands. That is what I want to emphasize.

It is not, as far as we are concerned, merely a matter of teaching as such, it is also a matter of training, and in particular their cultural training, which is linked to their social and other affairs. These aspects all developed in conjunction with the development of the homeland authorities in general. And as far as the quality of education that was furnished is concerned, there is a paragraph here in the report with respect to which I want to ask the hon. members to prove the contrary. It is not enough for them to say that there is inadequate education. Here the Department is prepared to state before the whole world that there is irrefutable proof that in spite of shortcomings, this education is equipping Bantu youth with certain basic qualifications that any department of education can rightfully be proud of and that compares favourably with similar achievements in any country in the world. If hon. members opposite do not agree with this, they must bring facts to prove the contrary.

In this growth process I should like to mention the three bodies that I think play a tremendous role. Reference was made here to the small percentage of Whites still employed in Bantu education. Even though that percentage is small. I should here like to emphasize the exceptional role these people play. If we look at the annual report of the Department, we have there a list of the names of Whites who are still in the forefront of this whole educational undertaking. One is then struck by the academic qualifications of those people, people who are urgently needed, as Whites, in the overall educational task in respect of the Whites; persons who would have liked to teach their own people, but who are prepared to devote their time and attention to the Bantu, for the sake of a bigger task in this country, so that they can lead them to eventually take over themselves.

This brings me to the second group of people for whom I have a particularly high regard, and these are the Bantu themselves. In the latest annual report we have a fine list of the senior Bantu in the various branches of the education departments. It Is interesting how these people move ever higher at this education level. Now we have here a beautiful testimonial from the editress of the Bantu Education Journal. She writes that on a few occasions she has been able to make the acquaintance of the inspectorate of Bantu education, and then she says the following: In the first place there is discernable among these people a dignity of conduct. She says that this dignity is not a stiff, assumed or artificial attitude; it comes from deep within the hearts of the Bantu. She says that she can very well imagine that the principals and teachers can accept the leadership of such people with pride. She goes further and says that the level at which ideas are exchanged, when it comes to professional matters, was impressively high. Thirdly she says that one is dealing here with practical and responsible people, people with a sound attitude of conservatism, who are nevertheless eager to learn new things and apply them, provided they are convinced that the new elements are in the interests of Bantu education, which is so dear to their hearts. That is said with regard to the inspectorate, people who are prepared to give their full attention and dedication to the training of their own people.

I believe that as long as we progress along this road and use the Bantu themselves to help their own people, we will be equally successful with the implementation of our policy of separate development. Then we will hear more and more of what we heard this morning, and will hear from the hon. member for Houghton again just now, i.e. that we do not do enough. We would like to do more, and that is why we made a start on the universities, to equip these people to do it themselves. We do not say that we are doing enough. The report also states that a great deal more must be done. We are aware of shortcomings.

But I want to mention a third point, and that is the rote that Radio Bantu plays in connection with the education and the training of the Bantu. I am referring in particular to the Bantu School Radio division, which is involved with this matter. From 5 o’clock in the morning to 11 at night, 592 broadcast hours are used weekly in order to reach the Bantu. More than 4 million Bantu listen to those programmes, and more than 700 000 of them are schoolchildren who benefit from this teaching. I have here two interesting publications. The one is School Radio Service, Radio Bantu, an educational guide made available to the teacher for following up these radio lessons; and, secondly, Radio Bantu—Dikolong, an illustrated booklet, 250 000 copies of which are made available annually as a supplement to the 30 000 school radio guides that are made available to the schools and which are a supplement to this extensive service that Radio Bantu makes available to Bantu school children. I am convinced, looking at the report of the S.A.B.C. which gives us a list of the number of lectures, and also what they are about, broadcast to the children over the radio, that Radio Bantu also makes a big contribution to the education and the training of the Bantu child. [Time expired.]

The hon. member has to some extent anticipated what I was going to say. In the course of my short speech I hope to reply to him. I share the difficulty of the hon. member for Koedoespoort in so far as the policy of the official Opposition is concerned. I, too, am not aware of what they propose for Bantu education. We do not know whether compulsory and free education is in fact their official policy, and if so, up to what class. The hon. member for Wynberg last year mentioned up to Std. II, but that has been denied by the hon. the Leader of the Opposition, and it would be nice if we could get a little clarity on this point. My own party’s policy is absolutely clear. We propose free and compulsory education for all children in this country, of all races, as soon as feasible. Sir, when the aim of free compulsory education was first advanced for While children, it had to be introduced gradually as teachers and schools became available. Exactly the same policy will have to be followed, but the aim is set and it is clearly enunciated, namely that as soon as possible that policy would in fact be implemented.

Up to which standard?

Up to Std. VI. It should start there, and then it should be increased up to the ordinary level for school leaving, as goes for every other child.

What I want to say is that the hon. the Minister has given us some very interesting figures today. I for one, am very glad to see that the expenditure on African education has gone up. But I want to point out to him that his figures are fallacious in so far as he keeps using the analogy of the payment by Africans for their own education as similar to the payment by Whites for their education. Everybody pays tax according to his ability to do so. If the Africans are not able to pay enough tax to supply the necessary money for more education for their children, it is the Government’s responsibility, particularly since the laws of this country restrict the earning capacity of the African people in a vast number of ways, such as job reservation, influx control, inability to do skilled work, etc. Those White people, who are poor and who do not pay taxes, nevertheless get free education for their children, which is right and proper. The rich White people of this country, who pay taxes, would not expect the money which they pay to the coffers of the State to be expended only on their own children. But the same principle should be extended to all the other races in this country.

I want to tell the hon. the Minister that the 80 per cent pass figure of the Zulus, I think it was, sounds very prestigious and, in one respect, it is an achievement. However, it is not really a fair reflection on the situation and it certainly does not represent the genera] picture of Bantu education in this country. There is a process of tremendous elimination going on among African children. Only the gifted few reach Std. X in any case. Not only do the majority drop out after Std. II, and a further huge percentage after Std. VI, but then the department itself eliminates about 60 per cent in Std. VI and does not allow those who want to, to go on to secondary education. There is a further examination in Std. VIII, which causes further elimination. This does not happen with White children.

It does happen.

No, they are not eliminated from continuing with secondary education at Std. VI. Indeed, they must continue.

You are rationalizing now.

Mrs. H. SUZMAN I am giving facts. Sir. I am not rationalizing.

Why are you belittling the achievements?

I am not belittling. I always give credit for improvement and there has been improvement. All the same, the hon. the Minister must not go off into the clouds, as if it has been a remarkable achievement.

It is remarkable.

No, one cannot call it a remarkable achievement without giving due consideration to the other factors which I am now mentioning. What he must remember too is that the amount of expenditure per pupil, which has gone up now to R16-97, is an improvement on the previous figure, but it is still less, believe it or not, than the R17 which was expended per pupil in 1953. The point that I am making is that we would need to spend R24 per pupil to equal the amount we were spending per pupil on an African child in 1953, if we take into consideration the change in the value of money. Sir, this amount is absurd.

The unit cost is now R25.

No, it is not. The figures the hon. the Deputy Minister himself gave not so long ago revealed that per pupil the amount was R16-97.

I have over and over again brought forward in this House the usual objections, which one always has during the Bantu Education Vote. There is the poor quality of teachers, generally speaking. I believe that we still have only 717 teachers out of nearly 48 000 who have university degrees, which is a minute amount. Less than 5 000 teachers have matriculated and approximately 33 000 have J.C., or less, or technical or other qualifications. I may say that this is an all-time low. It represents 22 per cent of secondary school teachers who have university degrees. I must remind the hon. the Minister that in 1950, 45 per cent of the secondary school teachers had university degrees. There are only 7 500 teacher-trainees at the present stage. Yet the Eiselen Report, way back in 1949, recommended that there should be 15 000 by 1959. Here we are in 1971 and we only have half the number of teacher-trainees that was recommended by the Eiselen Commission we should have attained by 1959.

There are hopelessly inadequate school facilities and hundreds of children are turned away each year from available secondary and high schools in the urban areas. The policy of building high schools only in the rural areas and homelands is a bad policy. It means that hundreds upon hundreds of the children from urban areas are unable to attend high school, because, first of all, their parents cannot afford to pay the boarding fees which, according to an answer I have just received, can amount to anything between R60 and R68 per year. That sounds little enough until one realizes that two-thirds of the urban Africans live below the poverty datum line. They simply cannot afford this additional expenditure. Apart from that, the parents are also nervous of allowing their children to go to the high schools in the rural areas because they may lose their right of re-entry into the urban areas. All sorts of difficulties are put in their way. There are therefore many basic things which I believe are wrong with the way in which we are conducting Bantu education in this country today. The same complaints come up year after year. There is an improvement and that I grant. But I am sorry, it is still inadequate. We will have to make much greater efforts before anything like a real watershed in Bantu education can be said to have been reached.

I am glad to see, according to a newspaper cutting, that the department is now going to try and do something about the provision of somewhat better education for African farm children. They are going to try and make farm schools go up to Std. VI. I do not know what sort of practical difficulties are going to be encountered. They are going to try and amalgamate two or three small farm schools that usually go up to Std. 11 into one which will teach up to Std. VI. They say that at least two teachers are needed for a school of this sort. I should hope that at least two teachers will be required. At the moment, in the ordinary urban schools the pupil/teacher ratio is 61 to I. Goodness knows what it is in the farm schools. The ratio is 61 to 1 as against 21 to 1 in White schools. They also say glibly that it is easy enough for a child to walk five miles to school and that some White children get to school that way. I do not think very many of them today walk to school. I wonder how many of them start off walking without any food in their stomachs.

In the old days we did!

Yes, in the old days. But we did not like many of the things that happened in the old days. We did our best to change them so that there were no poor-White children who had to walk five miles to school.

I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he is going to give us some information about the disturbances at Healdtown. Is he going to tell us what happened there? We are all in the dark about this. I know that the whole character of that school has been changed. It used to be a school which catered for Std VI to matric. It was a co-ed school with about 400 boys and 400 girls. A few years ago it was changed to accommodate only Std IX and Std. X children. The schools is not designed for this. AH sorts of problems have been encountered, especially in regard to discipline. Normally it is the senior students who enforce discipline way down the line to the junior children. Now you have mature boys and girls in Stds. IX and X, and they are generally a lot older than White children in those classes, all gathered together with little discipline. Most of these children come from day schools in the urban or rural area and are not used to any real discipline outside of the schoolroom. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it is tragic to see how a person can be so blinded by prejudice that the light cannot get through to one at all, and that one can only see the darkness. If there is one matter in respect of which it is very clear that the scales have grown heavily over the eyes of hon. members opposite —I do not even want to speak of the hon. member for Houghton—then it is specifically in respect of Bantu Education. Instead of joining the Bantu in a song of praise for what is being done for Bantu education in this country, they merely point out negative aspects. Without fear of contradiction I want to claim that in no country in the world has so much been achieved in a sphere of education and so comprehensive and revolutionary an educational programme been established as in Bantu Education in South Africa during the past decade.

And she knows it.

Yes, the hon. member knows it, but still tries to tell the story that all available funds for education in this country should be divided equally among Whites and non-Whites. It is an idiotic story that even her own party does not accept.

A mere 12 years ago, when this Department of Bantu Education was established, it inherited a meagre estate of about 900 000 pupils, poor schools, poor equipment and few teachers. In 1970, 12 years later, there were about 10 000 schools for Bantu pupils, more than 46 000 teachers and no fewer than 2 700 000 Bantu pupils at school. This represents about 89 per cent of all Bantu pupils between the ages of 7 and 14. The annual increase in the school population over the past three years was about 150 000 pupils per year. This entails that more than 3 000 additional teachers must be found annually, apart from those who retire, with a view to meeting the increase in the number of pupils. That the Department has at all succeeded in obtaining sufficient prospective Bantu teachers and training them properly to meet this tremendous increase, is an exceptional achievement. However, the figures at our disposal indicate that the Department has, in fact, succeeded in training more and more teachers. In 1968 there were about 41 000 teachers at Bantu schools. In 1969 there were 43 600, and in 1970 the number had increased to 46 041. At present there are more than 48 000. At the end of 1970 the following numbers of candidates obtained certificates: The lower primary certificate, 220; the primary certificate, 3 007; the junior secondary certificate, 131; and at Bantu universities, 130. This comes to a total of 3 488 teachers who qualified at the end of 1970 to teach at Bantu schools. How can the hon. member still continue with that story of hers? In spite of this sensational training programme, in the year 1970 there were still more than 8 000 teachers involved in double sessions.

Now the hon. member for Wynberg, and the hon. member who spoke after she had finished, said this morning that Bantu teachers are not properly qualified. We admit that about 8 000 of the 48 000 Bantu teachers, who are today employed by the Department, are not certified teachers. In other words, they are teachers who are not properly qualified. That is only about 16 per cent. Even in While education there is a certain percentage of unqualified teachers, specifically in the secondary division. As far as Bantu schools are concerned, the majority of unqualified teachers are also in the secondary division because the training is not urgent enough. However, the Department is continuing to do its best to improve the position. At the beginning of 1970 another two new teacher training colleges were opened, so that at present a total of 34 such training colleges exist, apart from the various universities that train teachers. An additional two colleges are being planned, one for the Swazis in the Eastern Transvaal and the other for the Northern Sotho near Pietersburg. By the end of 1975 the Department hopes to be able to train a minimum of 4 500 primary teachers annually, about 300 for junior secondary education, and almost 250 senior secondary teachers who are trained at universities.

But let us not compare this picture with the Whites in South Africa, which is a Western country and has already been engaged in education for 300 years. Let us compare it to Africa, because the people we are talking about are natives of Africa. If one looks at the picture in Africa, as far as the training of teachers is concerned, our picture is very rosy. In the International Year Book of Education of Unesco I read the following about teacher training in Ghana. I quote—

As far as the Ivory Coast is concerned, I read the following—

In respect of Kenya the same report states—

In respect of Liberia the report states—

One could continue in the same vein. In Africa, the picture is altogether different, and a much darker one than that in respect of the Bantu in South Africa. That spectacular progress has been made in South Africa in the field of education is further evidenced by the fact that four out of every five Bantu persons between the age of 7 and 21 can read and write, while only one out of five Bantu persons in this age group in Africa can do the same. Eighty per cent of the persons in South Africa can read and write, while this figure for the rest of Africa is 20 per cent.

In addition, the Department of Bantu Education continually sets itself the task of recruiting the right type of student for training in education. That is why about 500 bursaries are made available annually for prospective teachers. In the 1971-’72 Estimates about R63 000 is being set aside for this purpose. It goes without saying that the foundation of our Bantu education and training must be based on our policy that every Bantu national group has the basic right to develop to full self-determination. That is why the Bantu is primarily being trained for service to his own community, and the entire education system is therefore homeland-orientated, so that the schools can to an increasing extent provide the necessary leaders and professional workers for self-sustaining Bantu communities that can reach the fullest development in the social, cultural, economic and political spheres. Apart from the fact that Western knowledge and Western skills and techniques are being learned, a place of honour in the Bantu programme is also being set aside for traditional Bantu culture and everything of value to the appreciation of a national identity and a particular national character. Hereby the process of denationalization of the Bantu, which took place for years under Imperialistic rule, wanting to sever the Bantu’s ties, is being corrected by our present Bantu educational system. Therefore, apart from its task of transferring knowledge and implanting skills and techniques. Bantu education is also engaged in the enormous task of nation-building. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I was absolutely surprised and amazed to hear from the hon. member for Houghton that the Progressive Party has in fact, abandoned its policy of compulsory and free education up to Std. VIII for all races. The hon. member even introduced in this House a private member’s motion to that effect. However, the hon. member has now adopted the attitude that they will do what is practical and feasible. It is at least, very encouraging to see that the Progressive Party is also prepared to accept that there are certain obstacles in this way.

Stupid!

I am not responsible for that; it is the hon. member that has changed the policy.

*Mr. Chairman, I want to associate myself with what the hon. the Deputy Minister said in the introduction to this debate. He gave us certain figures in respect of Bantu education. In the first place I want to say that I am very grateful to him for having done so. The hon. the Deputy Minister mentioned, inter alia, that at present there are about 19 000 teachers for Bantu Education in the White areas, and that there are 28 330 Bantu teachers in the homelands. Here I see one of the obstacles the hon. the Deputy Minister is faced with. Is it not true that facts have been supplied to us to the effect that about 50 per cent of the Bantu are at present outside the homelands, according to the calculations of that side of the House? That is one of the big problems in this connection. For 50,per cent of the Bantu there are only about 19 000 teachers, while there are about 28 000 teachers for the other 50 per cent. But I want to be reasonable. How this problem is going to be solved, as far as Bantu education is concerned, depends to a large extent on the object we set ourselves. We can simplify matters or we can complicate them.

I want to tell the hon. the Deputy Minister that at the present moment one of the obstacles in respect of Bantu Education is that it is being adapted to fit in with circumstances that have not yet been created. It would be much better if it were adapted to fit in with the present situation. The basic mistake that is being made is that this system is being applied on the basis that independent Black states are already a reality. Another bask mistake that is also being made is that we have apparently already reached the year 1978 and the prediction of an erstwhile Deputy Minister has been realized in that the number of Bantu in the cities have drastically decreased. I do not again want to go into the argument we have already had about percentages. All I want to say is that it should nevertheless be recognized that at present there are more Bantu in the urban areas than there were 10 years ago. If the hon. the Minister would accept this basic fact he would find that it would be easier for him to establish a more realistic quota system as far as the provision of schools in the urban areas is concerned.

It is working very well at present.

The reason why the hon. the Minister clings to this quota system is because it fits in with the Government's policy in respect of the political development of the Bantu homelands. According to the quota system there are 3 200 families for one junior secondary school. I do not find much wrong with the 3 200 families.

Neither do the Bantu.

But I want to point out where the mistake does creep in. The mistake creeps in where the hon. the Minister states, according to this quota system, that the children of 320 families can have only one classroom. That is absolutely ridiculous. According to this system one finds that one can have 16 classrooms per school. I want to try to be positive by telling the hon. the Minister that he must not shy away from big schools. A big school is uncontrollable only when one does not have sufficient classrooms. What does one find in the rest of the world where there are schools for 1 500 and 2 000 children? That is a general state of affairs. However, one must have sufficient classrooms if one wants to do that. If the hon. the Minister would accept this basic fact he would simplify his task and the progress we are making in the field of education, progress that I do not deny, would be so much greater. According to Press reports there were 25 vacant premises for schools in Soweto last year. If the hon. the Minister were now to be lenient, as far as junior secondary schools are concerned, he would find that those 25 premises would eventually all be occupied by small complexes. The big complex is really the answer. Then the hon. the Minister would not have to waste the Department's time, as was the case last year, by refusing to build additional classrooms onto existing schools. We know what happened at the Soweto secondary school. According to reports Anglo-American was prepared to donate R3 000 for the building of additional classrooms, and then the hon. the Minister refused because there would already be l 100 scholars. The 1 100 scholars are not the problem as far as I am concerned.

Another aspect I want to go into is the training of teachers. I admit that it would be wrong to expect too high a standard at this stage. But we must not be guilty of setting our standard, our final goal, too low. In the Bantu Education Journal of September 1970 I find the names of training colleges in South Africa. There are 28 of them. That sounds very nice. However, when we examine the 28 we find that 24 of them are really nothing more than high schools, because at 24 of them only the primary education diploma can be obtained, as indicated here—

In other words, at 24 of the 28 colleges there is training for only two years after Std. VIII. The training there is therefore only equal to matriculation. As far as the other four are concerned, where training for junior secondary education takes place, we find that only 94 individuals passed in 1969. I believe that as far as that is concerned we are really setting very low standards. It is also interesting to note that in spite of the multi-national concept, we find that the Northern Sotho, the Venda and the Tsonga must share educational institutions.

Another aspect is that the hon. the Minister must not be obsessed by his policy as such, but must accept everything that is being done to provide the Bantu with education. There is, for example, something about the issuing of bursaries for the homelands which the hon. the Minister must explain to ns further. Why have restrictions been placed on municipalities and local authorities since 1st January. 1971? He must realize, after all, that local authorities also have a task in respect of the people living within their areas. They also need teachers, doctors, etc., for their people. We accept, of course, that the homelands also need them, but why introduce the restrictions? The hon. the Minister must admit that the homeland bursaries are really not popular. Last year there were 151 fewer applications than the number of bursaries available. Eventually, however, all bursaries, except two, were awarded. But the fact remains that all bursaries were not awarded. The hon. the Minister said that the candidates with merit results automatically qualified. It would be interesting to know how many of the candidates with merit results accepted such bursaries. In any case, it sounds very strange to me that there were so many less applications than the number of bursaries provided. This surely indicates that there is something that the Bantu have against this system.

The approach to this debate of the hon. member who has just resumed his seat was a reasonable one in comparison with the approaches of his colleagues. He at least made a few positive suggestions and asked a few positive questions. We appreciate the fact. Unfortunately I cannot say the same for the other hon. members on the Opposition side. They look at the present situation and then criticize it, comparing it with the position among our Whites. In my view this is an incorrect approach. We must, after all, take note of the Bantu’s level of education and his level of culture and then draw a comparison with what has already been achieved. Let us look at the report and view the position from 1948. Incidentally, I am not taking the year 1948 because of its political implications; I am merely taking it as the date on which the National Party took over the Government. In 1948 there were 5 164 schools as against 10 126 today. The number has therefore doubled in the past 20 years. In 1948 there were 17 275 teachers as against 46 041 today.

The member for Algoa has already mentioned those figures.

It appears to me, however, that the information has not sunk in; it looks to me as if we must hammer this information home to the hon. Opposition. They reveal no understanding of the progress that is being made.

All you do is to read the report.

But if hon. members opposite do not even take the trouble to read the report, then surely we must do it for them. In any case, it looks to me as if there are members of the Opposition here who are too dense to get these figures into their heads. In 1948 there were 733 756 pupils. Today there are 2,7 million Bantu pupils at school. But the most remarkable thing of all is this: In 1948 only 9 per cent of the Bantu population was at school; today this figure stands at more than 17 per cent. Sir, progress has been made in this sphere. After all, we cannot simply take a situation and criticize it on the basis of norms that are not laid down. But, Sir, I want to go further. If we take into account that the number of pupils at school from 1955 has increased from 1,01 million to 2,74 million in 1970, we find the number of pupils to have more than doubled in the past fifteen years. But what is particularly remarkable is the fact that there are at present 3 081 farm schools in comparison with 2 042 in 1962. In other words, 34 per cent of all the schools provided for Bantu are situated on our farms. Sir, this is a remarkable testimonial for the farmers of our country, who also shoulder this guardianship function in such a fine way by giving these people a basic education so that they can at least read and write. We are very grateful for the dedication of these people, Sir, because to have such a school on one’s farm requires a sacrifice, time and also a love for the task one is engaged in. That is why we pay tribute to these people.

The hon. member for Wynberg spoke here of the number of Bantu in our White areas as against the number in the non-White areas. It is a remarkable fact—the hon. the Deputy mentioned it—that the number of pupils in the White areas constitute a mere 40,4 per cent of all the pupils attending Bantu schools. The numbers of pupils in the Bantu areas already represent 59,6 per cent of all pupils—truly a remarkable achievement.

Sir, I have endeavoured to show the phenomenal progress made in the field of Bantu Education. We are, in fact, engaged here in the extension and the establishment of a basic human right which the hon. member for King William’s Town continually has so much to say about. We are making a basic human right available to these people, i.e. the right of every person to be able to read and write. It has been mentioned here that 80 per cent of our Bantu can read and write today. True to this calling for the upliftment and development of these people entrusted to our care, and for the establishment and improvement of facilities at all levels, the Government is doing what is being done in the field of Bantu Education. But, Sir, we must remember that we are dealing here with people who, until very recently, had not had much contact with the academic world worth speaking of. One must therefore expect, as is in fact the case, progress along this road to be a slow and difficult process. It therefore surprises one that so much progress has already been made. Under these specific circumstances one cannot but label the results that have been achieved and the ability of the Bantu to utilize these facilities, as being spectacular.

Sir, as part of the infrastructure of the homelands a well-organized and efficient health service is also very essential, but here too the Government honours its obligations and there are already 76 hospitals in existence, 10 of which are State hospitals in every sense of the word. The remaining 66 are, of course, run by missionary societies under the control of the Department of Bantu Administration. But, Sir, as in the case of the Whites, there is a dire shortage of doctors, particularly Bantu doctors. But this situation is not limited to the non-Whites, We also find this among our Whites.

In terms of our policy, it is therefore our endeavour to eventually have the Bantu be self-reliant in this sphere. It is true that Bantu are being trained at the non-White university at Durban, but on the surface this arrangement does not work very satisfactorily. It appears to us as if the facilities there are insufficient to meet all the needs. Sir, I want to make it very clear: I am not in any way discrediting this medical school; I think that their training is of a very high standard and that their lecturers have very good qualifications, but there are snags, because we find that only 40 to 42 doctors qualify there annually and only 10 or 12 of them are Bantu. At this rate we shall never be able to meet the needs, and it is imperative that a separate medical school be established where Bantu can be trained as doctors. If we take note that in 1970 there were about 2 000 matriculants, 1 000 of whom obtained a matriculation exemption, and that about 300 of the 1 000 had Mathematics and Science as subjects, we see that there is a potential we can tap. As many of these students as possible must be channelled into medicine.

Sir, I am aware of the planning that exists for the establishment, by the University of the North, in co-operation with the University of Pretoria, of a medical faculty at Ga Rankuwa. I believe that this faculty would meet the requirements and the needs of our northern Bantu states in particular. But provision must also be made for the south, specifically for the Transkei and the Ciskei. At present there are 23 hospitals in the Transkei, 18 of which are missionary hospitals and five of which are State hospitals. In the Ciskei there are six missionary hospitals, all under the control of the Department, of course. Sir, I just want to ask that serious attention be given to the establishment of a medical faculty at the University of Fort Hare. [Time expired.]

Sir, I want to come back for a moment to the question of teachers and their training. I would like to make it quite clear that the best pupils, those who manage to get through to matriculation and even achieve a teacher’s training certificate, are unlikely to be attracted to the teaching profession so long as those who have qualified—and I repeat “have qualified”—start at a basic salary of R41 a month for women and R51-50 for men. I must say that to start any teacher on a basic pay scale as low as that, irrespective of whether he is Black or not, is asking for trouble. Sir, as for qualified teachers with university degrees, who ought, after all, to form the corps of high school teachers and the élite of the teaching profession as a whole, I find it quite incredible that such qualified teachers now start on a salary scale of R90 a month for women and R100 a month for men.

I would like to remind this Committee that that R100 a month for men, who presumably have to care for their families at the same time, is roughly equivalent to the lowest wage paid to a ganger on the South African Railways who has virtually no skill of any kind. These are academically qualified people—it does not matter two hoots that they happen to be Black—whose starting salary is R100 a month. On that basis the discrepancy between the pay for qualified graduated African teachers, compared with Coloured and Indian graduated teachers, forgetting all about the Whites, is far too great for anyone to feel happy about it at all.

Then there is the question of technical training and vocational training, which have not yet been mentioned in this debate. In an article in the September, 1968, issue of the Bantu Education Journal, Mr. Lubbe, who normally deals with these facts, informed us of the recent advances in what he described as Bantu vocational training. He said that 1 555 Bantu boys were receiving training in 13 vocational schools, mainly in building, cabinet-making, joinery and motor mechanics, and 368 Bantu girls were receiving training in the domestic arts. Technical training, Mr. Lubbe informed us, was being given to 626 boys and 29 girls, bringing it to a total of 655 who will be technically trained. There are therefore 1 555 Bantu boys and 368 girls on the vocational side, and 655 receiving technical training. One can really only gasp at such figures since these represent the only technical and vocational training for approximately 4 million economically active Bantu workers whose skills will be increasingly needed if our economy is to maintain its present momentum, let alone develop at a rate fast enough to maintain in employment the natural population increase of all groups. Even if you think of these technical training figures and vocational training figures as being applicable only for skilled Bantu workers who might be needed in the homelands, then of course the present number of trainees is hopelessly inadequate even for that purpose.

But now there is the question of schooling in the urban areas. The hon. member for Cradock, who has just left the House, made the point that over 40 per cent of the schoolgoing children amongst the Bantu were in the urban areas. But in fact, as the census figures show, more than 50 per cent of the African population is resident in the urban areas of South Africa. I put a question to the hon. the Minister about their schools and he knows very well that the reply he gave me came as a shock to the public of South Africa. It is as well to remind the House that in the Cape, for instance, in the urban areas, there is one junior secondary school and one senior secondary school to serve more than 107 000 Africans in the magisterial districts of Cape Town, Wynberg and Bellville. That is a shocking disgrace. I want to tell hon. members that there are only II junior secondary and four senior secondary schools to serve the whole of Johannesburg’s more than 803 000 Africans. There are 803 000 of them and there are altogether 15 junior and senior secondary schools in the whole of that area. Then there are some other figures, quite apart from Johannesburg. In Pretoria there are six of these junior and senior secondary high schools for a population of 280 700. In Benoni there are two senior and junior secondary schools to serve an African population of 103 700 people.

Take a district like Alberton. I wonder whether the hon. member for Alberton is here today. He is probably not sufficiently interested. Alberton has 122 000 resident Bantu people, and it has no single junior or senior secondary school in the area whatsoever. Take Vereeniging. There are three junior secondary schools to serve 160 000 people. Look at Klerksdorp. There is one junior secondary school to serve 143 000 people. If you look at Potchefstroom there are two junior secondary schools to serve 82 000 people. Take Kempton Park. There is one junior secondary school to serve 97 000 Bantu people. Take Durban. There are two junior secondary schools to serve 99 400 Bantu people. In Pietermaritzburg there are two junior secondary schools and no senior ones at all to serve 78 000 people. In Port Elizabeth there are four junior secondary schools and one senior secondary school for a resident Bantu population of 181 000 people. At East London there is one junior secondary school and one senior secondary school for a resident Bantu population of 84300 people. If you finally assess these figures, you find that a total number of 34 junior and senior secondary schools have been established in White areas between 1960 and 1970.

Now, we know it is the policy of the department not to establish these schools, but I suggest that the manner in which this is being handled as an educational issue is a disgrace to the Government and to the country, because there must be thousands of African children at the stage of junior and secondary schooling within these and the many other areas I have not had time to quote whose parents qualify for domicile there in terms of section 10 of the Natives Urban Areas Act, which means that either these children are prevented from going up into the senior schools, because they simply do not exist in those areas, or the parents have the only alternative of sending them miles away to some homeland, which they may never have seen in their lives and at very great expense, as has already been pointed out. There are thousands of these children who are forced to go to these junior and secondary schools in the so-called homelands, where they have no relatives and they have no links with those areas whatsoever. I think this is a form of social upheaval which is as bad, if not worse, than the migratory labour system in terms of which parents from the other end of the country have to come and stay in urban areas minus their families for years at a time.

It is one thing to uproot adults. That in itself is bad enough in terms of the working population, but it is even worse when you have a mass exodus of school children away from their families in the urban areas, being sent miles away to a country district at great expense to have their schooling there, where in fact most of them have no parental links or links of any other kind. It seems to me that what these figures prove is that if sufficient African children want to continue their schooling and improve their position in any way, and after all, their whole economic situation depends on this, they can only achieve these things by means of this extraordinary system of having to leave home and go hundreds of miles away from home at very great expense, which is not demanded of anybody else, in order to achieve educational qualifications which, when they achieve them, do not by any means guarantee them the type of reward in terms of wages and salaries which are guaranteed to children of any other population group. [Time expired.]

Allow me, first of all, to express my very sincere appreciation for the high level at which this debate has been conducted on both sides of the House. I am very appreciative of that fact and I wish to express my appreciation to both sides of the House.

The hon. member for Wynberg has again touched upon this question of teachers and their training. Now let me give some background to that question, because as I said in my introductory remarks, we realize the problem in regard to Bantu teachers, and that we need more and more Bantu teachers. But the problem is not all that easy of solution and there are reasons for it. The fundamental reason is that we had to take over education, as hon. members know, from the provinces and from missionaries, etc., and under the old régime the problem was that very little, and in fact precious little, was done in regard to teacher training. One had the situation, for instance, that 40 schools were together producing fewer than 2 000 teacher per annum. We were faced with that situation when Bantu education was taken over and the central Department of Bantu Education was formed.

What the hon. member for Wynberg must realize is that my department has now separated teacher training entirely from other types of education. Teacher training is now concentrated in fewer, but much larger institutions. I want to remind her that, since the beginning of 1970, no fewer than three new teacher training colleges planned to accommodate 1800 students were officially opened. A further two are planned for the Swazi in the South-Eastern Transvaal and for the North Sotho near Pietersburg. That is only over the last 12 months. If these simple facts do not impress the hon. members on that side of the House, even the hon. member for Houghton, nothing in the world will do so. The department's target for 1975 with regard to teacher training is a minimum of 4 500 primary teachers per year. That will go a very long way in supplying the demand for Bantu teachers. The entrance qualification for students will be at least a junior certificate, which is a reasonably high qualification. A junior secondary teacher’s certificate course, for which the entrance qualification is senior certificate or higher, has also been instituted at four training colleges. At the first college where this course was instituted, 100 students qualified at the end of 1969. By 1972 it is hoped to produce at least 200 teachers per year, which is double the number produced at the end of 1969. That is quite an achievement. Our target is to increase this to 300 per year by 1975.

The hon. member for Berea mentioned something about planning. He asked whether anything was wrong with the Minister’s planning. I used a harsh word, which I am not going to use again, but his allegation is nonsense, as proved by these facts. What better planning can there be when, if one has 100 teachers at the end of 1969, that figure is doubled in two years, and it is expected to increase to 300 by 1975?

Why did you not tell me these facts when I asked for them?

Can the hon. member do better?

The Bantu universities are also producing an increasing number of graduate and non-graduate secondary school teachers. In 1968 the relevant numbers were 32 graduate teachers and 66 non-graduate teachers. In 1969 there were 46 graduate and 88 non-graduate teachers. That also almost represents a doubling of the previous figures. Therefore I cannot agree with the hon. members on this question. My department is doing everything it can in an endeavour to solve, firstly, the problem of the shortage of Bantu teachers, and secondly, the problem of the qualifications of Bantu teachers. I think that the facts which I have just produced speak very clearly for themselves.

I wish to make a further point, while dealing with the question of teacher training. The hon. member for Berea asked what the costs with regard to the teacher training colleges were. The position is that we have 34 of such teacher training colleges, which cost more or less R60 000 each. The total figure is thus approximately R2 040 000. We expect that, by 1975, we will be able to train at least 4 500 teachers per year. So, whereas the cost is over R2 million at the moment, by 1975, quite apart from what I have said, the total number of teachers is expected to be 4 500 per year. With these remarks on the question of teacher training, I think I have convinced hon. members opposite that a tremendous amount is being done, because of the realization of the seriousness of this problem.

*Sir, may I add that one of the things I appreciate most about the Department of Bantu Education, is the fact that we face those problems squarely. I want to invite hon. members to read the department’s report, because then they would see that without exception there is no attempt to overstate the solution of problems. This is really very striking. There is a real attempt to put the problems very clearly and without mincing matters. One of the members who spoke in fact referred to this. This is something we should appreciate. In spite of the department’s exceptional achievements, those achievements are not bruited abroad. The problems are emphasized and this is the main reason why this department is achieving success. My department and I intent to continue in this way, because in so doing we apply the whip to ourselves and better results are achieved.

†Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton mentioned that the per capita expenditure was something like R16, but that is not correct. I said it was R25. Hon. members should do some simple arithmetic in this connection. In my introductory remarks I said that the total expenditure on Bantu education was R75 million. I added that there were 2,8 million Bantu children at school. The last I heard was that if you divide 75 million by 2.8 million, the answer is approximately 25, but that is evidently not the case in Houghton.

I am quoting your own figures. Your arithmetic is wrong.

No, these were the figures I mentioned. What is more, in terms of the hon. member’s own argument, she should really get up and explain to this House what a tremendous achievement this department has in fact pulled off by increasing the per capita expenditure to R25. [Interjections.] Sir, when that hon. member is driven into a corner, she really becomes talkative. The hon. member also asked a question about Healdtown school. The position is that the classes at that school go from Form I to Form V. The position there has not changed at all and the hon. member’s explanation is therefore not correct. Even after the disturbances the classes still go from Form I to Form V. There have been no changes. The fact of the matter is that there were disturbances in one church hostel. Disciplinary measures were taken and a number of the pupils were expelled. What the hon. member must appreciate is that the disciplinary measures there were not taken by my department. That school falls under the Ciskeian Territorial Authority and it was that authority which took the disciplinary measures. I personally feel that they acted very admirably. My information is that life at the school is continuing as though nothing had happened, I am certainly not going to interfere with the position there, because it is the duty of the Territorial Authority to see to the question of discipline in that specific school. As I have said, I think they are doing their job rather well.

*The hon. member for Durban Central made a speech today which I appreciated very much. I think he made a good, responsible speech and I want to express my appreciation to him. He showed he is interested in this matter, because he spoke like a man who has knowledge of educational affairs. One appreciates that. I want to say to the hon. member that, since I have been handling these matters, we have increased the number of classrooms from 10 to 16. This, of course, makes a very big difference, as the hon. member will understand.

Do the additional six rooms include classrooms, or are they used for domestic science or as laboratories?

Those six rooms are classrooms. In terms of the formula, provision was made for 10 classrooms, and that number was increased to 16 quite some time ago. While I am replying to the hon member in this regard. I want to say to him we realize that Bantu education in the White area of South Africa is an extremely important matter. We on this side of this House should not like to see Bantu children who should be receiving education, walking around in White South Africa without receiving that education, because this creates all kinds of social and associated problems. For that reason my department and I are doing everything in our power to make the necessary education facilities available in White South Africa as well. Our policy very clearly centres towards the Bantu homelands. I do not want to refer to the census figures again, but it is true that the Bantu are more or less divided in half between the White area and the Bantu homelands. However, what hon. members must understand is that there are many more Bantu children in the Bantu homelands than in White areas. Therefore, when I say that there are so many thousands more Bantu teachers in the Bantu homelands than in the White area, hon. members must not simply draw the conclusion that Bantu education in White areas is being neglected. We have a formula according to which we set to work. As far as practicable, we should like the senior secondary schools, those above the junior secondary level, to be in the homelands and we are trying to achieve that position as far as possible. I said in this debate last year that I would go out of my way, even where there are fewer than 3 200 families, to make such facilities available to Bantu children in the rural areas. According to our formula, there must be 3 200 families before a junior secondary school is provided, because if there are fewer than 3 200 families and I think a junior secondary school is justified, I shall not simply work on the basis of that formula. I shall not apply it strictly according to the letter of the law, but in the spirit of our intention to create facilities for Bantu children in White South Africa as well. Since I gave that assurance during the debate on this Vote last year, I have had various cases of this nature, and although there were sometimes fewer than 3 200 families, I approved such schools up to the junior secondary level throughout the country. For example, in the past three months alone I have approved three junior secondary schools in Soweto. The hon. members for Houghton and Turffontein and the other members who represent Johannesburg should know this. In addition, we are examining the position here in Cape Town very closely. In any case, I have already given my approval here that one of the junior secondary schools which provided education only up to Form IV, may provide education up to Form V.

In Langa?

Yes. I want to repeat that our general policy is very clear. In terms of our policy, senior secondary schools should really be in the homelands, but we do have a need for senior secondary schools in White South Africa as well. But in regard to junior secondary schools we are very careful, on fundamentally sound grounds, not to apply any formula too strictly. I maintain that on the junior secondary level it is very difficult for such a child to be sent many miles away. That is why I adopt this attitude in respect of junior secondary schools, which I think is a very sensible one.

The hon. member for Berea raised the question of salaries for Bantu teachers. The hon. member for Wynberg also mentioned it in her second speech. But the hon. members did not present the full picture; they did not furnish all the facts. A Bantu teacher with a junior certificate and two further years of training is remunerated on the scale of R660 x 60—R1 500. I therefore think the complaint of the hon. member for Berea in this regard is not a fair one.

I asked about unqualified teachers.

Yes, but that is not fair either. After all, there are qualified teachers as well. And there are many more qualified than unqualified teachers. The hon. member for Wynberg did not tell the whole truth either in respect of the salaries of qualified teachers either. I just want to mention these salary scales. The hon. member for Wynberg should also know more about the salary scales for Bantu women, because she herself is a woman and should therefore have more interest in these matters than I. The salary scale for women is R534 x 42—R660 x 60— R1 260. The salary scale for a Bantu male with matric and two years’ probationary teaching is R960 x 60—R1 800 x 90—R2 340. For women with the same qualifications the scale is R840 x 60—R1 800 x 90— R1 980. A Bantu male with a B.A. degree plus the further educational training necessary, is remunerated on the scale of R1 260 x 60—R1 800 x 90—R2 610.

Much too little.

But it is at least a much higher salary than the R34 per month to which that hon. member referred. It is, after all, a tremendous difference. The salary scale of a woman with a B.A. degree and the necessary educational qualifications is R1 140 x 60—R1 800 x 90—R2 160. Of course we want the Bantu to be better paid. What is more, they will be better paid in the future according to the circumstances. But the fact of the matter is that these salaries are not simply to be scorned as hon. members opposite tried to give out.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Deputy Minister a question? Can the hon. the Deputy Minister tell me whether some of the R2 million additional money which has been voted on the estimates for the universities’ staff, will be used to improve the salaries of the Bantu professors and lecturers at the universities?

Yes, of course. Most of those funds to which the hon. member for Houghton has now referred, are in fact earmarked for increases in salaries of professors, lecturers, etc.

Including the Bantu universities?

Yes, including the Bantu universities.

Mr. Chairman, there is one other question which the hon. member for Durban Central put to me and to which I should like to reply, because it sparked off fairly wide general interest. It was in regard to the question of homeland bursaries. In this respect we also adopt a very realistic and sensible attitude. The hon. members will agree with me. The homeland governments have come to me and the hon. the Minister and said that their sons become medical doctors, advocates, etc., and then go and practise in Langa, Guguletu, Soweto and elsewhere. They came to plead with us that we should help them, because they needed their children in their own hospitals in the homelands. They have the hospitals there, but they do not have doctors, while their own sons are practising in Soweto and other places. We then told them that we should of course like to help them. We said it was not right that Bantu should use bursaries to undergo training and then practise in White areas while the proverbial voice crying for help in the wilderness was calling from the homelands. Surely we cannot turn a deaf ear to that. All the homeland governments have approached us in this regard. We then said that when a Bantu received a bursary, stipulations should be attached to it. Unless other factors come into the picture, it is right that the Bantu receiving a bursary should offer his services to his homeland government. Homeland governments are calling out for it, in spite of the hon. member for Hillbrow, who always laughs when one talks about these matters. We then sent out a circular. Two local authorities, those of Johannesburg and Cape Town, then came to see me. They told us that in view of the amount of money they made available for bursaries, it was unfair of us to stipulate that Bantu styding by means of those bursaries should go to the homelands. I told them that I could appreciate their problem and suggested that they made the same amount of money they make available for bursaries for Bantu, available to Bantu who could go and work in the homelands subsequently. They regarded the proposal as being very fair and fell in with it.

Is it a permanent arrangement or does it apply only to this year?

I told them this would be the position for the time being. They can now see how we set to work and we shall see how they set to work. On a later occasion we shall consider the situation again. If they play ball, I shall play ball, and if they do not, I am not going to be forced into saying that this is going to be an arrangement for ever and ever. I am giving them a fair chance now.

I think I have replied now to all the important points raised. In conclusion I just want to add that in spite of criticism which may still be exercised, the training of the Bantu is well under control and that there is nothing wrong with the standards. Hon. members would do well to take up the report of the department again and read especially the introductory remarks contained therein. They would see that this department does not always work under the easiest of circumstances, but is nevertheless achieving very good results.

In regard to the unqualified teachers, are they on a fixed salary scale? What is their scale of salary?

The hon. member is quite correct. The unqualified teacher is on a fixed salary. I do not have the figures of the scale available just now. As I do not want to make any guesses I shall furnish particulars to the hon. member later. The figures I gave him in respect of qualifications like J.C. and others are, however, absolutely correct.

Votes put and agreed to.

Revenue Votes Nos. 26.—“Justice", R21 727 000, and 27. — “Prisons”, R36 590 000, and S.W.A. Votes Nos. 12.— “Justice”, R7I7 000, and 13.—“Prisons”, R550 000:

Mr. Chairman, I ask for the privilege of the half-hour.

In the course of my speech I propose to deal with three matters. The first of these will be the abuse of the powers of interrogation in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, 1967, Secondly, I want to talk about the state of affairs which has developed in our prisons. I shall do this in the light of the latest report. Thirdly, I shall deal with the question of legal aid in view of the fact that the board has at last indicated to whom and on what conditions legal aid is to be given.

So far as what I advisedly call an abuse of the powers of interrogation under section 6 is concerned, you will recall, Mr. Chairman, that in 1966 section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act was passed giving to the Police the power to interrogate in connection with offences relating to sabotage, terrorism and offences under the Suppression of Communism Act, like the formation of unlawful organizations for purposes of training in sabotage, etc. At the time we gave our support to that clause in view of the fact that it provided that after 14 days the detainee had to be brought before a Judge who would then inquire into the matter, hear both sides and then determine the conditions under which the person concerned was to be detained as well as the conditions of his interrogation. The Judge could, of course, also order that the detainee concerned be released forthwith. The very next year the Terrorism Act was introduced. We supported the principle of stamping out terrorism but we were against section 6 and we were against it for the same reason as the reason why we gave our support to the 1966 one, because it was out and out detention for interrogation without a detainee having the right of recourse to anyone and with no conditions whatsoever being laid down. We pointed out at the time that the Government already had a legal provision for interrogation in 1966. But what was the answer? The answer was that the Government liked that clause, that it was going to use it, i.e. the provision in the 1966 Act, but that they needed the additional power to deal with the situation on our borders. I am sorry the hon. the Minister of Police is not here because this concerns him as well. He came into the debate during the Committee Stage because he was the Minister who wanted the power. You will recall, Mr. Chairman, how he waxed eloquent about the necessity for these powers to deal with the situation on the border. And, if I may say so, he made out a very good case for such powers in view of the fact that it was not possible to get to a Judge within 14 days; because that was impossible the powers of the 1966 Act were useless. That then was the reason they gave for wanting additional powers of interrogation. But the reasons given for taking this additional power were obviously not the real reasons. If the explanation of the hon. the Minister means anything at all, these powers have been abused. However, I shall deal with it after the resumption of proceedings.

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

Afternoon Silting

Sir, before the proceedings were interrupted I was dealing with the two sections of the law which deal with interrogation for certain purposes, namely section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act of 1966 which, as I indicated, we supported because there were sufficient safeguards for a court to determine whether a man should be there at all, to determine the conditions of his interrogation and, if necessary, to release him from detention. The following year, as I indicated, we had the Terrorism Act, section 6 of which provided that you could be interrogated and kept indefinitely without any access to any court, without any appeal to anyone whatsoever. We opposed that and we said that it was necessary perhaps in those areas to have this power but that it must be subject to certain safeguards. We said at the time that the Government had taken this power in 1966 and that this was surely not necessary. Sir, when that power was taken in 1966, the hon. the Minister of Justice, in introducing the Bill, said—

In 1967, when we pointed out that this 1966 measure was there for interrogation, what happened? The hon. the Minister of Police was called in in the Committee Stage to deal with the matter because the hon. the Minister of Justice said that the Minister of Police was the person who wanted the power and he would have to administer the measure. But what did we find. Sir? The hon. the Minister said that he needed these powers because you could not, as was required under the 1966 legislation, bring these terrorists on the borders before a Judge within 14 days. He referred to the Otjikango Bantu Affairs Building, and the unfortunate event at Grootfontein with the Breedts. He said that these were a few of the practical problems that we were faced with, that there were skirmishes—we were fighting what he called “oorloggies”; that this was out in the wilds and that the terrain, as he emphasized, was such that a judge was inaccessible. In those circumstances he said it was impossible and that he did not want to make any unnecessary spiritual or physical demands upon the Police on the borders in this difficult, impossible terrain, because you would have a skirmish and if you captured someone, you would have to follow up the other people who had escaped and so on. He made out a case for the borders in respect of this. Then the hon. member for Middelland and the then hon. member for Omaruru, who came from those parts, gave their support and said that it was impossible. That is why section 6 was enacted, not, as it was pointed out, to take the place of the 1966 legislation where you had to come before a Judge who laid down the conditions of interrogation and investigated the matter after hearing both sides.

Sir, what has happened in this case? The hon. the Minister of Justice will not answer any questions in this House. He will not say how many people have been detained under section 6; he will not say where they were detained. In fact, he was asked the question how many people were detained under the 1966 interrogation law since its enactment, and the answer was that in 1968 two were detained, in 1969 one and in 1970 two. In other words, despite the words that were used at the time of the debate on section 6 of the Terrorism Act, where they said that we are using this 1966 power, that just has not happened. Five people in three years were detained under this provision, but when the hon. the Minister is asked how many have been detained in terms of section 6, he will not give any answers. When he is asked where they were detained, he does not give any answers. He says that it is not in the public interest for him to do so, but he is prepared to give the answers in respect of interrogation under the 1966 legislation. That deals with exactly the same thing. One wonders why it is not in the public interest to disclose the one and not the other.

Let me say that the Minister did not have to answer the question. It was evident from every newspaper in the country that the majority of the people detained under section 6 live in urban areas within reach of a Judge. Those are the facts of the matter. If the reason given by the hon. the Minister of Police as to why this provision was needed in addition to the 1966 legislation are correct, then those reasons indicate that there has been an abuse of these powers. There is no reason why these persons should not have been brought before a Judge in terms of the 1966 interrogation provision.

Sir, what is required is an inquiry as to whether a person should be detained. You should hear what he has to say, and you should then lay down the conditions of his detention. I want to ask the hon. the Minister very seriously whether he is not concerned that he, in his capacity as Minister of Justice, is becoming a prisoner of the Police. Is he exercising his mind in this respect at all? He is the Minister of Justice. He is the Minister referred to in section 6 of the Terrorism Act. There it is provided that the Minister must be advised of the name of the detainee and the place where he is being detained. It provides that the detainee may make representations to the Minister and that the Minister may at any time order his release. No person, other than the Minister and certain other persons, has access to the detainee. He is therefore squarely in the picture in respect of the provisions of section 6. Surely this is the fundamental question. As the Minister of Justice, does he not ask why persons are not detained in terms of that provision which he, as Minister of Justice, would surely prefer and which he indicated he was prepared to put on the Statute Book as a result of the objections of the Opposition in this Parliament?

One could ask this question in respect of the Imam Haron. By settlement, his widow was awarded R5 000. You will remember, Sir, that he died while being detained in terms of section 6. At the inquest the magistrate said that he had suffered certain injuries which had contributed to his death, and for which there was no explanation. Needless to say, his widow instituted an action against the Minister of Justice and the Minister of Police. The matter was then settled and she was paid R5 000. There was a person who lived in Cape Town. He was a permanent resident of Cape Town, as I understand the position. He was a religious leader in his community, Why was he not taken to a Judge? I venture to suggest that, had he been detained in terms of section 6, and had those conditions laid down as to his detention been applied, he would probably be alive today. I venture to suggest that there would probably then have been no action against the State, and the State would then not have had to pay R5 000 for the injuries inflicted upon him and his unlawful death after unlawful assault while he was in detention. [Interjection.] Yes, I meant to say “had he been detained under section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, 1966”, Did I say “section 6”?

Yes.

I am sorry. Had he been detained in terms of the 1966 legislation, where certain conditions are laid down and where a Judge can inquire into the matter, instead of under section 6, there might have been a different story today.

Sir, there were recent arrests all over the country. These arrests took place in Johannesburg, Port Elizabeth, Durban and Cape Town. All of them, according to the newspapers and according to the police, were detained in terms of section 6. Why were they not detained in terms of section 22 of the 1966 legislation? Does the hon. the Minister not make any inquiry, and if not what does he think his name was put in that section for? It is not the Minister of Police. We must remember, Sir, that some time ago the Ministries of Police and Justice were separated and a different person has now been appointed to deal with these matters, and quite rightly so. It is a matter for which we pressed for many years. He is there as the Minister of Justice, and it has not been changed to the Minister of Police; it is the job of the Minister of Justice and it is his job to see that justice is done in these matters, and in respect of a matter which he himself introduced. We wonder whether the hon. the Minister will give us some explanation as to what he conceives his duty to be.

We have recently had the report of the Department of Prisons. The figures in this report indicate two very significant and disturbing things. One-fifth of the total prison population, last year, that is 93 000, were under the age of 20 years. Then we have perhaps the most significant figure of all, that 268 000, more than half of those sentenced, and in prison, were sentenced to one month or less. The majority of these were Bantu, convicted of those offences relating to the Government's policy in relation to urban Bantu. We have not got the latest Police reports, but last year’s Police report indicated that in regard to the registration and production of documents by Bantu, there was 352 517 prosecutions. Under the Consolidated Bantu Urban Areas Act and for offences not elsewhere specified there were 142 727 convictions, a total of 495 000, nearly ½ million. These figures are very disturbing, especially the fact that half of our prison population are there for under a month. The number of Bantu who are there because they cannot afford to pay a fine of R15, or whatever it is, is large, from my own experience. They cannot afford to pay a fine and therefore they just go to gaol. I think the lesson one has to learn from the present situation is that imprisonment as a deterrent is in danger of disappearing from the scene in South Africa. I want to quote Bodenstein, who gives us in the journal “Social Work” King Chaka’s classical comment on the merits of imprisonment: “Utterly disgusted. King Chaka rejected the Western concept of imprisonment as mean, disgraceful and cruel; he felt it to be far more honourable and therefore preferable to kill a man outright.” But this situation does not exist among the Bantu any more. What is happening here is that imprisonment is becoming a way of life with the Bantu in the urban areas, and therefore it is no deterrent whatsoever; no stigma attaches to it whatsoever. We are in danger of reaching that position. We are dealing here with a situation which is sui generis. We cannot get help from any penologist anywhere else in the world. Here is a situation which we have created, that was created by this Government’s policy in respect of the urban Bantu.

What do you suggest?

You know what we suggest. We have had a debate here for the last day or so as to what we suggest. We suggest that you should be realistic and face up to the fact that the urban Bantu are a permanent part of our life and a permanent part of our urban areas. Once you do that, the necessity for those 1/2 million prosecutions, or at least the necessity for most of them, will disappear and you will be able to cope with the situation. But half the people in our prisons are people sentenced to one month or less. That is how you deal with it, by taking off your blinkers and just looking at the realities of life. This flows directly from that. One finds a man like Mr. J. W. Bodenstein saying:

One finds him saying of the Bantu:

That is a very important part of the deterrent. Then he says that, under the circumstances:

I can go on like this, but quite obviously this is what has happened and is happening. In the light of all this, what happened nevertheless? The hon. the Minister and his department were asked whether they were aware of the comments by Mr. Justice Steyn, who is the chairman of Nicro, which has been in our lives for many years. He just tosses it off; he is not interested. He says that they have looked at it but are not prepared to do anything about it. What the Judge was concerned with was the very basis of the problem we have, namely that half of our prisoners are in prison for one month or less. He suggested various ways in which they could be dealt with. He quotes the Secretary for Social Welfare and Pensions at the time, Mr. C. J. H. Vorster, in his opening address at the symposium of that society as follows:

Those last words are the words of Mr. Justice Steyn. That is precisely the situation which we have in our urban areas and it is precisely the difficulty we have when so many people are involved. How can one carry on with the normal corrective training as one can with long-term prisoners? How can it be done properly, if half of the prison population is in prison for one month and less? I could read further quotes, but I do not have time. The hon. the Minister is aware that the hon. the Judge suggested various ways in which this situation could be dealt with.

Like what?

He suggested suspended sentences, fines paid over a period, probation and so on. The basic problem is that these social conditions are created and that this lack of reality is created by the policy of the Government. Half a million offences are created unnecessarily. That is at the base of the problem and the problem flows directly from it. How many people are employed, such as officials of the department and, for example, the drivers of vans? What a waste of manpower, which could be put to better use!

Then there is the question of corrective training. In terms of section 334ter of the Code, the persons mentioned there automatically go to gaol for two to four years. That is called corrective training in the Act. When they go to gaol, as one understands the position, they are treated the same way as any other prisoner is, who has been given a sentence of more than two years. One understands that again there is no manpower for the training of the Bantu— and the majority of them are Bantu—when they go in for corrective training. But it is a compulsory sentence in respect of the offenders under section 334ter. We would like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he has anything to add in this regard and whether he can tell us what is in fact happening in these prisons. We would like to know whether he will perhaps tell us why he is not prepared to give consideration to the suggestions which are made by Mr. Justice Steyn in this regard.

The last point I want to deal with at this stage is the question of legal aid. The board, which was established under the Legal Aid Act, has now made its recommendations. Its recommendations are that in respect of certain offences and in respect of civil matters, legal aid may be available under certain conditions. I do not agree with some of the conditions. But I want to say that legal aid, as a principle, should be a social necessity like medical aid. Medical aid is considered to be a necessary social right, because it affects persons’ lives and their health. Indeed, every person should have the right to prosecute his rights, to receive redress for wrongs done to him, and to receive justice according to the law in every court of the land. Usually he cannot get it without the assistance of a lawyer. I do not have to indicate why this is so. There are for instance the myriad laws, the various presumptions, the procedures and the pleading itself in court, which all require that a person should have a lawyer if he wishes to have redress. Up to now there has not been anything. Therefore, the measure is to be welcomed in that regard. But we will not be able to properly exercise the right the legislation is intended to give, unless the Government decides that this system will work in respect of all people. Who pays the piper calls the tune. This is very true. A paltry R50 000 is voted this year in this regard. It is true that there are a few other fifties lying around from the time when nothing was done.

R250 000.

Call it R250000, I do not mind. But does the hon. the Minister think that that amount will get us anywhere in relation to this? It is insufficient. We will need a few millions to make this scheme work. Civil cases are just as important if not more important, as criminal cases, where a person is charged with an offence. In regard to those matters, the attorneys are under this scheme to get paid what they normally would have received. The amount that is involved in normal litigation today is such that an amount of R50000 or R250 000 per year will be hopelessly inadequate if one wants to give this benefit and this right to all the people.

What amount do you suggest?

I am not in a position, like the hon. the Minister, to work the amount out, but I can tell that hon. member that it is a matter of millions rather than a matter of thousands or tens of thousands or hundreds of thousands. As I have said, the attorneys will be paid a reasonable amount as it is laid down, but the General Council of the Bar has gone so far as to offer its services in this respect, at absolutely nominal fees.

I think it is at half the normal fee.

Half! My goodness, can the hon. the Minister tell me where to find an advocate who will go to the Supreme Court or anywhere else, for R40 per day? They will now receive R20. In undefended actions they will receive R10; in drafting pleadings in all cases they will receive R8; in pleadings in matrimonial matters they will receive R5. These are not half of the normal fees. Good heavens, the hon. the Minister is out of touch! It must be a long time since the hon. the Minister practised and briefed an advocate. Yet it is provided in the regulations that an attorney may not brief an advocate, except with the permission of the Director-General. I should have thought that in every case you should try to encourage them to brief advocates, having regard to the scale of fees upon which the advocates have agreed, Let me say that this scale of fees has not been forced onto the advocates; they have agreed to it in order to make this work. Because of the principle at stake, they have agreed to do this. I should like to know from the hon. the Minister whether he feels that the amount that has been voted will be adequate. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Durban North performed a more elaborate egg dance here this afternoon than he did last year. He put questions to the hon. the Minister of Justice in regard to certain detentions in terms of the Terrorism Act. The hon. member for Durban North knows that the detentions to which he refers were detentions which were carried out on the instructions of Police officers. Since this is the case, the correct place to have raised those arguments would have been under the Police Vote. Simply because the hon. the Minister of Justice is mentioned in the Terrorism Act, the hon. member for Durban North conveniently tagged the argument onto this Vote. One may well wonder why. I want to ask the hon. member whether he has seen the Black Sash standing around outside the building these past two days in protest against this same section mentioned by the hon. member for Durban North. If that is so, I want to ask him whether he did not perhaps do what he did because he was afraid that the popularity of his party was waning in favour of the Progressive Party? Did he not link this debate to this Vote to try to make an impression on the Black Sash by giving them to understand that the United Party is in fact looking after their interests? That is quite probably the reason why the hon. member went about it in this incorrect way here this afternoon. What was worse, however, was that the hon. member did not read the Hansard to which he referred properly. If the hon. member had read column 7029 of 1st June, 1967, he would have seen that the hon. the Minister of Justice had stated expressly that the previous Act, the General Law Amendment Act of the previous year, was not sufficient to cope with the “new situation”. Then he also said that although the examples which had been used, were examples of what had happened in South-West Africa … However, I am not going to read it out to the hon. member because I expect the hon. member to do his homework in this debate. In any case, he will find that the hon. the Minister stated very clearly, although he used that example, that these people were infiltrating into South Africa and that it was becoming more and more difficult to get the threads of these organizations together within 14 days. The hon. the Minister even used the example that a judge would expect one to present a prima facie case, and that that was absolutely impossible for the police to do within 14 days.

On the borders.

No, not on the borders. If the hon. member had done his homework, he would have seen that that is not the way the hon. the Minister put it. However, that was not all the hon. the Minister said. At that stage the then Deputy Minister to whom Police had been entrusted, the present Minister of Police, entered the debate and explained the matter by using examples from South-West Africa. He also made it clear, and the hon. member would see this if he read Hansard, that this was an infiltration that was taking place throughout the entire Southern Africa. That is why, he said, it had become necessary to combat those terrorists with a weapon with which we could really come to grips with them. Since the hon. member wants to take up the cudgels for the detainees under this Act today, I want to ask him where the United Party stands in respect of the new wave of terrorism we are experiencing. I am not talking about the terrorism taking place outside South Africa, but of terrorism taking place inside South Africa. Does the hon. member agree with me that section 6 of the Terrorism Act is an essential section with which terrorists can be combated, or does the hon. member still want to adhere to his argument that the matter should in any case be submitted to a judge after 14 days? I want to tell the hon. member that if he is going to adopt that attitude, the voters of South Africa will take thorough cognizance of the fact that the United Party wants to fight the terrorists with kid gloves.

Why do you not reply now?

The hon. member for Durban North told us this afternoon what the statistics of an organization, Nicro, indicated in regard to detentions in prison. Then he tried in a long speech to charge the hon. the Minister of Justice with this, saying that the Department should do something about it. But in the same breath he said that the only remedy which could be offered was a change in social circumstances. Am I correct? Surely that is true. Why did the hon. member for Durban North not discuss that yesterday in the Bantu debate? Why did he, in a Justice debate here, discuss that matter in such a sterile way if he knows that the Department of Prisons is dealing here with the performance of its duties in terms of the Act? They are not dealing here with the social circumstances which cause those people to end up in prisons. That falls under other departments, and the hon. member should have raised it in another debate. That is why I said that the hon. member performed a more elaborate egg dance than he did last year. Then the hon. member came along with his legal aid story. A question was put to the hon. the Minister of Justice, and the hon. member is just as aware as I am that the amount for legal aid in South Africa has been increased considerably. The Minister told him that the Legal Aid Committee was finding its feet and was getting the whole matter organized. It needs more money, and as they need more money, more money can be given to them. The hon. member was actually talking as the champion of the persons who needed legal aid. Sir, I am afraid the hon. member for Durban. North did not make a very good impression this afternoon with his contribution to this debate. But I want to get on with my speech.

I should like to refer to a speech made by an eminent judge, viz. The Judge President of the Cape Division. According to a report in Die Burner of 26th April, 1961, he made a certain statement. I am reading from Die Burger. I do not want to reproduce this from memory. Nor do I know either whether the report is correct; I therefore have to rely on it. I quote (translation)—

I am reading only what is important—

In all fairness to the Department of Prisons I should like to say something to this. I think that in all fairness this should be said. I do not want to criticize the hon. Judge’s opinion. The hon. Judge is quite entitled to voice his opinion, but he will not take it amiss of me if I say to him now that these officials are not able to defend themselves in public. That is why I, in all fairness, want to say that they are not changing the judge’s sentences without reason and without the necessary notification. The primary objective of imprisonment is, firstly, to serve as deterrent to others who have the same criminal tendencies; secondly, to protect society against the presence of the criminal in their midst; and thirdly, but primarily, the most important aspect of imprisonment is the rehabilitation of a prisoner. At the stage at which rehabilitation is applied to a prisoner, the case is completely separate and removed from the bench and nothing that is done in the prison can or should be construed as being a change or a frustrating diminution of a judge’s powers or duties. When the bench has disposed of its task to the best of its ability, according to his views and the evidence which has been submitted to it, the accused is transferred to a prison, i.e. if a term of imprisonment has been imposed. That prison has a certain rehabilitation programme, which has nothing to do with the bench. It is not an attempt to change a legal sentence. There is no intention whatsoever to insult the judge who passed sentence. In the prison an attempt is made to rehabilitate a person, a human being, an estranged person who has committed a crime. There are two important rehabilitation methods in particular. The one is the commutation of a sentence. However, this is done in terms of a law of this Parliament and it is held out to a prisoner as a prize for rehabilitation and good behaviour. The second method is parole. Parole does not mean a commutation of sentence, but is granted to a person whose behaviour in the prison was such that there is reason to believe that his rehabilitation will be continued outside the prison. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I would like to refer to some of the remarks made by the hon. member for Prinshof at the start of his speech. He asked where the United Party stood in respect of the new wave of terrorism. I want to make it quite clear that the United Party stands back for no person in the preservation of law and order internally in South Africa and in warding off any hostile attack from outside. I would have thought that the hon. member would know from our past that while in power ourselves we have had to cope with difficulties both internally and externally and have handled the situation, I believe, to the satisfaction of the people. In many respects—and this is the key to what I want to say—exactly what attitude a party takes in regard to this question of law and order, depends upon the facts of the situation.

I am sure that the whole House are agreed that law and order must be preserved both internally and externally, but the precise measure which one takes can be a matter of opinion. Indeed, one must always bear in mind—and it is this aspect which hon. members opposite sometimes lose sight of—that it does not follow that the most extreme method of attempting to deal with a situation of law and order, will necessarily have the most advantageous result for your country’s security and future. I want to mention only one example. To survive we not only need to maintain internal law and order, but we always need to have friends in the world at large. Indeed, we need to get arms from the world at large. Whether countries will be prepared to supply us with arms, will depend to quite an extent upon the attitude they adopt towards us, what our image in the world is, and how we conduct our affairs and what they consider we are doing. I want to say again that we have supported this Government in difficult times, as at the time of the difficulties in Langa and Sharpeville and elsewhere, by giving the Government additional power. We have differed on other points and have said that the facts of the situation were such …

You never supported us; you fought us tooth and nail.

I said that on some matters we felt that the Government was not doing the country a service and that it would, by some of its actions, he weakening our security on a wider front.

I have made our position quite clear and I immediately want to move the point which I want to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister, a point which ties up with this. Is it not so that our position has developed to such an extent and that the time has come where it is possible for us with complete internal security and safety for the State, to take a step which will. I believe, make it easier for our friends to support us? I want to ask whether it is not now possible for us to take the step of instituting a review tribunal for cases where people are detained. Such a review tribunal is one to which the cases of these people can be referred periodically, perhaps after a period of three months after the institution and thereafter annually, I want to say at once that the details of such a tribunal can naturally give rise to differences of opinion. I would like to suggest that it should certainly be an impartial body and one which is completely independent.

Who must be the members of this tribunal?

That is an interesting point of detail. Rhodesia, which is a country as much in the firing line as we are, and most people would say more so, is a small country with a population of a quarter of a million people. This country has such a review tribunal at the head of which is a Judge. He with two other people, form this tribunal. The hon. the Minister himself has been associated with a Bill introduced in this House this year where a provision was made for a review mechanism. I believe that a review tribunal of this kind is something which we may well be able to introduce with absolute safety to the internal order and external security and yet it will be something which will endear us to our friends in this world and make it easier for them to take decisions which will help us in regard to our security. Sir, let me elaborate upon this as follows: We had this idea incorporated in the 1966 Act and I will say little more in that regard. I have referred to the fact that in recent legislation something akin to that is involved. I point to the fact that in Rhodesia this is operative and that it increases confidence in the department itself and improves the image of the country abroad, I believe.

The Rhodesian experience has been that in all cases the Rhodesian tribunal, headed by a Judge, has confirmed that the action of the department was justified initially and it has made a limited number of recommendations for the release of people from detention, for the release of certain others under permit, and in the majority of cases it has recommended that the detention be continued. I may say that another point of detail is whether in fact the review tribunal has the right itself to order release or further detention, or whether the recommendation should go to the hon. the Minister. Not only in those countries that I have mentioned is this the case, hut it is also the case in Guyana. Interestingly enough, the experience in Guyana was that the detainees very often would not apply to this tribunal. In fact my information is that of some 45 people detained in Guyana in the troubles in 1966, only five of them actually applied to the tribunal to have their cases reviewed, and in fact in all five cases the tribunal did not recommend their release. But none the less this mechanism was available, and I believe that it has served to increase respect for law and order and perhaps to release some pent-up emotions in this regard, I do suggest that the hon. the Minister is in a far better position than we on this side to be in possession of the facts, and I would like to ask him whether perhaps the time has not arrived for such a review tribunal to be introduced, which I believe can only redound to our greater general security, because nobody who would be a threat to our security would be released.

The hon. member for Pinelands made a suggestion to the hon. the Minister in regard to the question of a court of revision, and I leave it to the hon. the Minister to reply. I just want to ask the hon. member for Pinelands whether he is really in earnest when he suggests that if we amend or abolish section 6 of the Terrorism Act we would really have more friends in the outside world. Now, Sir, the position is that even in homogeneous, civilized countries like Canada and Northern Ireland, legislation is being passed under present circumstances for certain purposes which have drastic implications for the personal freedom of the individual. That is why we have every right to say that under our circumstances, where terrorism is again occurring in our heartland, section 6 of the Terrorism Act is necessary and must remain.

I want today to exchange a few ideas on the training of Prisons staff, and specifically the White staff. During the past few years a quiet revolution has taken place in this connection. For this we owe thanks to two persons in particular who are very modest and who are men of few words. However, their actions and ability are in inverse proportion to the few words they utter. I am referring to the hon. the Minister and our Commissioner, Gen. J. C. Steyn, who joined the prisons service as a very modest young man and worked his way to the top through ability, study and hard work. This quiet revolution is closely related to the new approach to prisons. This approach I find stated very aptly in the publication of the Department of Foreign Affairs: Prison administration in South Africa. There inter alia it is stated—

As a result of this approach, positive and progressive steps have during the past few years been taken to train a better equipped staff. Excellent results have been achieved in this connection. In this way Prof. G. Duisterwinkel, professor of criminal law in Leyden, was able in March, 1966 to say inter alia the following about the Leeukop prison—

For the training of White probationary warders the John Vorster training college was established a few years ago in the chief town in my constituency, viz. Kroonstad. Today I want to make an appeal to the hon. the Minister to issue an invitation to all persons interested in justice matters to attend one of the passing-out parades at this college. Such an occasion is definitely a show-window for the Department of Prisons. There we have a building complex which any university would envy us. There training of the highest calibre is being given. There is basic training which includes physical development, sport and shooting. There is parade ground work, and I want to challenge any other division of a military or semi-military nature to give a better display of ceremonial drill than the pupils there. The college has an orchestra which is without equal in this country. Then, too they have courses in departmental policy, while junior and senior certificate in all subjects including Afrikaans, English, criminology and social anthropology is offered. The most important is that this college training is only for basic and initial training. After that, the Department concentrates on continued in service training. Inter alia members are encouraged to take courses relating to their work, such as court procedure, programming, etc. But the most important is that these members are continually being encouraged to improve their scholastic and academic achievements. In particular they are being encouraged to acquire B.A. degrees in social work, criminology, sociology, social anthropology and psychology.

At present there are already 118 graduates on the staff of prisons; virtually all senior officials of the Department are graduates. That is why—and with that I conclude—a certain S. B. Klooster, a journalist from the Netherlands, was able, on 19th January, 1968, to write as follows in regard to the Leeuwkop prison (translation)—

I hope the hon. member for Kroonstad will excuse me if I do not reply to any of the points he made, because I have a number of points to make myself. I want to say one thing only to the hon. member for Durban North, and that is that I was surprised to hear him complaining bitterly that the hon. the Minister is not giving anybody any information about people detained under section 6, because indeed that provision actually allows the hon. the Minister to withhold all information about people who are detained in terms of section 6 of the Terrorism Act. I must also say that it is the second year now that he has complained that the police are abusing their powers under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, I have never been surprised at these powers being abused. The very nature of the law, which gives the police wide and far-reaching powers away from any public scrutiny whatsoever and away from the law courts, invariably leads to abuse. The only thing that surprises me is that, in the light of hindsight, the hon. member and his party should again this year have voted in principle for a Bill which gives further powers of detention without trial.

Now as far as the need for penal reform is concerned, I could not agree more that there is a great necessity for penal reform, and I support everything that Judge Steyn has said in this regard. It is a long time since the Lansdowne Commission reported on penal reform and we badly need a proper investigation again into the causes of crime and what to do about crime. I am afraid it will be very difficult indeed to do anything about the short-term offenders who go to gaol, because they go to gaol under our existing pass laws and it is impossible, as far as I can see, to impose influx control unless one has pass laws. The majority of people who go to gaol go there because they do not have the necessary papers under influx control.

However, Judge Steyn did make certain positive suggestions which I think the hon. the Minister could bear in mind. One of them was that fines should be able to be paid on the instalment system so as to allow people a little time to pay them off rather than go to gaol. [Interjections.] There should be more probation for first offenders. That, I believe, is being done as well, but not to a sufficient degree. And, most important of all, fines should be commensurate with the income of the people concerned. If one goes to a Bantu commissioner’s court and listens to the pass law and influx control cases coming up one after the other, one just hears: “Ten days or RIO,” with almost monotonous regularity. Of course, the result is that our gaols are overcrowded with short-term offenders, who by no stretch of the imagination would be able to pay a fine of R10, since most of them are in the urban areas illegally and are looking for work. These are all suggestions which I put to the hon. the Minister.

But I want to come back to something which I believe is very serious. I say this, that despite the efforts of the hon. the Minister, who I know is interested in improving conditions in our prisons, and despite the efforts of the Commissioner of Prisons, for whom I have great respect and who also does the best he can, it is not possible, I believe, for proper supervision to be kept over our gaols. It may be because of the overcrowded conditions in these gaols, because of the huge prison population, which has now reached an average daily prison population of about 90 000. Over half a million people are gaoled in the course of one year. But I have reason to believe from letters which have reached me within the last few months from all quarters of the country that conditions in prisons throughout South Africa have deteriorated. I regret to say that I think this is largely due to the fact that no public scrutiny of the prisons is possible and that not sufficient outside influence can be brought to bear upon the way in which the prisons are run. This is largely due to the relevant section of the Prisons Act, which does not permit of any publicity being given to conditions in prisons, except under the most difficult circumstances. There has been very little public scrutiny of our gaols over the last two or three years.

Where do you hear that conditions have deteriorated?

I am going to tell the hon. member now. I have had letters from all over the country, which makes me feel that there certainly must be an amount of truth in the allegations. They are all the same sort of allegation and I will tell the hon. member what the allegations are too. I have received letters from the Fort, from Tulbagh, Klein-Drakenstein, Barberton, Kroonstad, Dwarsrivier, Baviaanspoort, New Prison Vereeniging, the Germiston Awaiting trial section, from Durban, Nigel, and perhaps worst of all is a letter I have received from Goedemoed Prison which, I gather, is near Aliwal North. The information I am given is that there are over 1 000 prisoners at Goedemoed and that conditions are pretty terrible. I hope that the hon. the Minister will do something about having these prisons investigated and that he will not lay on visits so that everyone knows that the hon. the Minister is visiting. He must get people to make surprise visits, because the authorities at high level cannot possibly know what is going on in those prisons unless they make such surprise visits and talk privately to the prisoners so that there can be no chance of retribution thereafter. The prisoner is the most helpless of all individuals. When a visitor leaves, he is left behind in charge of the very people against whom he has been complaining. His position is an appallingly defenceless position. That is why it is necessary that surprise visits be paid to these prisons. The very fact that a number of prisoners have been killed by other prisoners in the last few years points to the conditions there. I am now not talking about warders assaulting prisoners, though that is one of the complaints raised in these letters. Another complaint is that the food is under-scaled and there are complaints against the dirty conditions that prevail, and so on.

You are talking nonsense.

I do not talk nonsense!

Yes, you talk a lot of nonsense.

Do not divert me with your ridiculous interjections. According to the hon. the Minister’s figures which surely are not nonsense, 28 prisoners were killed by fellow prisoners in 1970 as against 13 in 1968 and 13 in 1969 whilst 143 were seriously injured by other prisoners as against 72 and 41 in the two previous years. As I say, I believe this is largely due to the fact that our prisons are overcrowded, they are probably understaffed and it is impossible to keep an eye on everything that is happening. Our prison regulations quite clearly state that a person is sent to prison for “safe custody”. He is not sent to prison in order to be injured by other prisoners or killed by other prisoners. Something must be done about this as well. I believe that not sufficient care is taken to isolate the dangerous and violent prisoners from other prisoners. Gangs are operating in the prisons. From cases that have come before courts, I know there are gangs known as “The 28” and “The Big Five” that take the law into their own hands in the prisons and beat up other prisoners. I might say that one of the judges commented on the fact that some of the prisoners found guilty of assault on other prisoners have had several previous convictions for violence. I do not think that people such as those should be allowed free association with other prisoners in a gaol. I take a very serious view of what I believe to be deteriorating conditions in our prisons. As I say, my fears are borne out by letters which I have received from all parts of the country. I hope very much that the hon. the Minister will do something about this matter.

I want to raise with the hon. the Minister the question of amnesty. I want to tell him how very disappointed I was that he has again excluded all political prisoners from amnesty. I never asked that every political prisoner be given amnesty. There are 549 people serving sentences for what are popularly known, anyway, as political crimes. Certainly not all of them should be released or given remission of sentence, but equally certain, there must be some among those who are detained for relatively minor offences, such as painting a slogan or being in possession of a pamphlet, who could be considered for remission of sentence. Could the hon. the Minister just stretch his imagination a little and think what it would indeed do for South Africa if we showed an act of clemency. This has been done in the past by this very Government, soon after it came into power. The remaining two or three political prisoners who had been guilty of acts of considerable violence and, indeed, one of whom was actually found guilty of high treason, were released. Can the hon. the Minister imagine what it could do for South Africa if the same sort of clemency was now extended to people who are serving sentences in jail for political crimes? I should also like to ask the hon. the Minister whether consideration was given to lifting the banning orders that some people have been labouring under for very many years and also whether consideration was given lifting the house arrest under which some people have been labouring for many years, people like Helen Joseph, whose case I particularly want to mention again. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it would be interesting if the hon. member for Houghton would be so kind as to submit a list of names of those persons whom she would like to see being given lime off and whom she would like to see released. Unfortunately, I do not have an opportunity of following up on the hon. member's argument this afternoon, for I should like to discuss another matter.

I am referring here to the debate on the Publications Board and the functions of this Board which has been in progress during the past few months in South Africa and, inter alia, in this House. A vehement political debate has been conducted on this matter and it has lasted for weeks. The position in which one of our hon. judges of the Supreme Court finds himself today, is particularly the result of this entire situation. I am referring here more specifically to Mr. Justice J. F. Marais of the Transvaal Division of the Supreme Court. According to Die Burger of 5th April, 1971, the hon. judge accepted an invitation from the South African Art Association “to become one of the trustees of a national fund to finance the appeals of artists against the arbitrary banning of their work by the Publications Board”. Thus the report. The fund had been established in Pretoria the previous Saturday after the management committee of the Association had met to discuss the Board’s banning of eight paintings by Prof, A. Duckworth, which had been exhibited in Durban. In other words, here we unfortunately find this situation that one of the hon. judges of the Bench is climbing down into the political area. Inter alia, he went on to …

Order! It is the practice in this House that a judge may not be discussed here. Since the hon. member now wants to imply that the judge is climbing down from the Bench into the political arena, he is not observing the practice of this House. It may not be discussed unless special notice is given and it is discussed by way of a substantive motion.

Mr. Chairman, I did not want to discuss the matter to the point where it would affect the judge’s position as a judge. What I wanted to discuss is the situation in which the Bench would be placed if judges commented in public on matters affecting the functions of Parliament.

I am sorry, but the name of the judge is being associated with that. The hon. member himself has already mentioned the name of the judge. I think the hon. member is venturing onto very dangerous ground. I should prefer not to allow it.

Mr. Chairman, if that is your ruling, then I shall not proceed with what I wanted to say. I therefore submit to your ruling and leave the matter at that.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Houghton referred to some of the remarks which have been made by the hon. member for Durban North. She said that she was not surprised that some of the security legislation which we have been discussing, had been abused, that is to say, that there had been the abuse which the hon. member for Durban North had referred to. This is something which I cannot understand. I do not believe that any member in this House should adopt the point of view that legislation is to be abused, that is to say, when a Minister advances a case in the House that legislation is designed to meet, and will be used to meet, certain circumstances, we should dismiss the statements which have been made by the Minister and pay no regard to them, which is apparently what the hon. member for Houghton does, and assume that there will be an abuse of these powers by the police. I do not go along with that road, because were we to proceed on that road we would have anarchy and chaos in South Africa. I think that the hon. member for Durban North has made out a valid case in a moderate manner, and we look forward to the reply of the hon. the Minister in due course. The hon. member for Houghton then went on to say in passing, as she has said before, that the United Party supported the clause in the legislation relating to drugs which deals with detention by the police. Perhaps I can proceed when the hon. member for Houghton and the hon. member for Middelburg have finished their conversation. That, of course, was untrue as well. We did not support that clause. We spoke against it and we voted against it at the Committee Stage. What I cannot understand about the hon. member for Houghton is that when she adopts the attitude that we do, that is of taking a different point of view at the Committee Stage from what she does in the Second Reading, she is being perfectly consistent. However, when the same attitude is being adopted by the United Party, it is to be condemned in every manner it can be condemned. This is an approach which is utterly illogical and without any foundation. In fact, in that legislation dealing with drugs, most of the improvements, and there were many, were brought about by the United Party.

Let me come to the point which I want to raise with the hon. the Minister, and that is in regard to a case which was reported as having taken place in the Southern Cape, in Knysna, It was an assault case. This assault case was heard before the magistrate’s court at Knysna. In that case a visiting member of the South African Navy had whilst in his cups, assaulted a policeman. It was said that the visiting sailor was a small person and that the policeman was a big person. The story was that the little man had hit the big man, with the result that a case ensued. I realize that size is not necessarily a criterion of who comes out best in a fight. If we were to imagine a bout of fisticuffs between the hon. member for Brakpan and the hon. member for Potchefstroom. It does not necessarily follow that the hon. member for Potchefstroom would win. The result was a case in the magistrate’s court. The sailor was found guilty of assault and corporal punishment, I think five strokes, was to be administered. The complainant, the sergeant or the constable of police, who had lodged the complaint as the result of which the sailor was charged and convicted, was authorized to administer the corporal punishment. This seems to be against everything I have ever read and learnt in regard to the administration of justice by an impartial person or body. One likes to think of the reverse case, in other words of the policeman having been found guilty of the assault. Are we then to expect that the complainant, the little sailor, is to be authorized to administer the corporal punishment to the policeman who was his assailant? If we are …

Why not?

That hon. gentleman says “Why not?”. This really opens an interesting field. But I believe strongly that this is a most regrettable episode. The whole growth of our judicial system has been to take the administration of justice and the imposition of punishment away from those who are involved in the events which led to that prosecution. I hope that the hon. the Minister, when he gets up, will indicate to this House the manner with which he has dealt with this particular case and the instructions he has given to see that this does not happen again.

Another fact I would like to deal with is the question which causes me some concern and that is the inclination one finds amongst ordinary, decent people and the aversion they have to becoming involved in any way in a court case. People are reluctant to be involved to the extent of laying information with the Police, or even informing an investigating officer that they have witnessed the events which gave rise to that action, be it a criminal prosecution or a civil action. This reluctance arises principally out of the delay in the proceedings when once they are in court and the lack of consideration which is given to witnesses in both civil and criminal matters. This, too, goes to the very foundation of our judicial system. Our judicial system is based upon trial in open court and the ability and preparedness of people to come forward and to give evidence as to what they have seen. If that preparedness to come forward falls away or is hindered in any way, you strike a blow at the very root of our judicial system.

You find balanced people today who will not stop at a motor accident, because they know if they do stop and render assistance they are liable to be called as witnesses with the ensuing endless delays and lack of consideration which attend upon having to go to a court. There are delays where you have to come back again and again, because the case is not concluded. Very often you have to stand outside in all weathers because there are no waiting rooms for witnesses. You are treated generally with lack of consideration in that regard. I believe that this is assuming alarming proportions, and steps should be taken soon to have the matter rectified. Now, I know it is to a certain extent dependent upon the lack of staff, but it can be put right in many ways. I am no longer in legal practice, and one can speak about these matters with perhaps greater objectivity; but how often has one attended upon a magistrate's court which should begin at nine when, in fact, the proceedings began at 9.30.

Instead of a quarter of an hour being taken for the short adjournment during the middle of the morning, it could be half an hour or 40 minutes. Instead of the luncheon adjournment lasting an hour or an hour and a quarter at the most, it lasts an hour and a half or an hour and three-quarters. Instead of the proceedings concluding at 4 o’clock in the afternoon, so that a full day of the court's sitting has taken place, proceedings terminate at 3 o’clock. This adds to expense. It adds to the lengthening of the hearing. It means having to call back witnesses two or three times before they give their evidence. One finds that it means so often, too, that instead of being told by the prosecutor or the judicial officer: “Look, we are not going to hear you today, because we have sufficient other witnesses,” a witness stands outside the magistrate’s court all day, not to be called and is told to come back in ten days’ time. I believe this goes to the root, as I said, of our judicial system, and I think it is time we stopped it, otherwise the system breaks down.

There is one other aspect that I would like to touch on, and that is the part that the hon. the Minister’s department plays in the siting of prisons. I know prisons are not built by the hon. the Minister’s department, but he must play a large role in advising the Public Works Department where they are to be built or rebuilt, when a prison becomes old. One can think immediately of three places. There is, for example, Tokai here on the Cape Flats. There is a suggestion that a prison be built in one of the better suburbs of Durban, Westville. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, it seems to me that we will have quite a lot more to say about prisons in this debate than in the past. I should also like to express a few ideas on this matter. The instructions to the Department of Prisons are, if I may sum them up, in the first place to keep any person who has been sentenced to imprisonment in custody. The emphasis falls on “keep in custody”. Secondly, a prisoner must during his period of detention be looked after in such a way that it may lead to his rehabilitation; in other words, so that he will not resume a life of crime when he returns to society. To carry out the first task, i.e. detention and care, and to protect such a person, I believe that in the first instance the necessary buildings should be there. In the second place there should be the necessary staff, able to do that work. I should now like to refer to a person who was also quoted by the hon. member for Kroonstad, viz. Prof. Duisterwinkel, professor of criminal and criminal procedure law at the Rijksuniversiteit of Leyden. Prof. Duisterwinkel tells how he was afforded an opportunity of visiting numerous prisons here in South Africa. He tells how he had a free hand to go in and speak to prisoners and to find out for himself what was going on there. He said inter alia (translation)—

He then said that a place like the Central Prison in Pretoria was rather outdated and did not have all the facilities the newer buildings had. He said that he visited the Leeuwkop prison and that it was so modern and so well-adjusted to the modern rehabilitation principles that it would compare more than favourably with the very best in the Netherlands.

One hears this kind of statement from people who, owing to their knowledge of prisons, the penal system and so on, are recognized authorities, and it is for that reason that I am eager to quote them here. That, then, as far as the buildings aspect is concerned. He also referred to the staff and said that the example set by warders was something which made a lasting impression on him. He then recounted how he had often seen the warder take off his jacket in the process of instructing the prisoners, roll up his sleeves and tackle a job himself in order to teach the prisoner in the most effective way. Against this background of what we have already been privileged to see at our prisons, I am convinced that this person was not merely repeating the opinions of someone else.

We on whom the eyes of the world are constantly focussed and who have to endure much criticism, know that this aspect of the care of prisoners should be dealt with great caution and with very careful judgment. The Department also realizes that, I had the experience once of a person thrusting this wonderfully illustrated brochure of the Department into my hand with the words: “But you are not punishing people; they are going to hotels or holiday resorts”. People who say things like that, do not really understand what is happening inside the prisons. The greatest and most onerous punishment which can be imposed on any person, is to eliminate him from society and deprive him of his freedom. It is because the person who is being deprived of his freedom broke the law, and not in order to satisfy anyone, that such a person is detained in a prison.

He is not as innocent as the hon. member for Houghton wants to pretend. She tried to create the impression here that a person could find himself in prison simply because of a pass offence. There are a great many of them who end up in prison as a result of personality problems, owing to factors around them, and owing to social and other problems, which entail that they inevitably need treatment. Sir, while we are discussing this, I want to refer to the organization known as NICRO, the National Institute for Crime Prevention and Rehabilitation of Offenders, which is making a tremendously strong plea for penal reform. The chairman of the organization, as well as members of the staff, have on occasion had interviews with the Press, and it would seem to me that what they are advocating, and what appears inter alia in the Sunday Times of 20th December, 1970, is precisely the same as what was mentioned by the hon. member for Houghton here this afternoon. I read through that interview which the chairman of this national body had with the Press very carefully and repeatedly. He gave direct replies to questions, and then at one stage he made the following statement himself—

That association then proceeded to give the Press certain ideas. These were nothing new. but were precisely the same ideas mentioned here by the hon. member for Houghton this afternoon, viz. an opportunity to pay their fines in installments, etc. These are all things which, as far as my scant knowledge of the prisons system extends, have already to a large extent been acceded to by the department.

Sir, I just want to mention a single example which these people keep harping cm. They say there are so many Coloured inebriates or liquor offenders who are being detained. They have made all kinds of suggestions, including a kind of drying out clinic, to which those Coloureds should be sent instead of being sentenced to prison. Sir, that is not the task of a prison. It can in fact play an important role, as I shall indicate in a moment if time allows; it can play a role but society outside, the people who have liquor licences, are the people who should give a little thought to the drinking pattern of the Coloureds. Of course I cannot elaborate on that now, but I maintain that society has a far greater responsibility in ensuring that these so-called petty offenders do not end up in prison.

Society in general—education the church, the social worker and everyone for that matter—has a tremendous task to perform in order to prevent these people from being detained. But what is the Department of Prisons doing? The Department has recently, according to the rules of the U.N. which were accepted by the Government and are being applied by our Department, given tremendous attention to rehabilitation services. Sir, I would be particularly appreciative if the hon. the Minister—for my lime does not allow me to elaborate on this—were to tell us, when he speaks again, what progress has recently been made with these services. There is a special division for social care, a division for religious care, and educational division, and then there are the psychological services which have been developed. I should like to hear to what extent the department has succeeded in finding suitable staff, academically-trained people, who are prepared to give their attention to this matter, not only to looking after the so-called bandits, but to devoting their lives and time to educating these people, caring for them and helping them to become rehabilitated and eventually to make an independent return to the community, [Time expired.]

I want firstly to refer briefly again to two of the matters raised by the hon. member for Durban North, and then I want to refer to an entirely new matter. I start with the question of what we suggest is an abuse of the powers of interrogation under section 6 of the Terrorism Act, Sir, I would like to preface my remarks by saying that I believe that when an hon. Minister introduces a Bill and explains why he needs certain powers, he obviously expects the House and particularly the official Opposition to accept his bona fides and to accept that the reasons given by him for a particular measure are the true and the only reasons for that measure. I believe that it is essential that this House and particularly the official Opposition should be able to rely implicitly on statements made by hon. Ministers as their justification for measures introduced by them, particularly measures which have the effect of restricting individual liberty, measures to do with detention.

Sir, the hon. member for Prinshof, in justifying the case for the use of section 6 Instead of section 22, has suggested that the hon. the Minister and the Deputy Minister did not rely only on the difficulties which arise in regard to terrorism on the borders to justify the section 6 provision. The hon. member for Prinshof suggested that the Minister made the case that terrorists were now beginning to infiltrate into even the heart of South Africa, as he put it, and that therefore the use of section 6 was justified in respect of those people as well as terrorists detained on the borders.

Sir, I have had a look at the reference given by the hon. member for Prinshof. He referred specifically to the Minister’s speech at column 7273 in the Afrikaans Hansard. I have had a look at that and I have also had a look through the entire speech made by the hon. the Minister in justifying section 6. There is no doubt whatsoever that he quoted as justification and as the only justification for section 6, the problems which arise in detaining terrorists on the borders and the fact that once you arrest persons on the border, it is not possible to document the case fully within 14 days and, above all it is not possible to bring them before a Judge within that time. That was the only justification which he claimed for differentiating between the provisions of section 6 of the Terrorism Act, and section 22 of the General Laws Amendment Act, which provides for the detainee to be brought before a Judge within 14 days. [Interjection.]

Have a look at column 7273. The hon. member for Prinshof referred to column 7273 in the Afrikaans version, and if he looks at that column and the following column, which set out the hon. the Minister’s justification for section 6, he will see that what I am telling the Committee is correct and that what the hon. member for Prinshof says is not correct. The hon. member for Prinshof is confusing what the Minister and the Deputy Minister said in justifying the provision to deal with persons who train for sabotage and terrorism out of the country and are then arrested within the country—the section 9 provision. The hon. the Minister differentiated between these two provisions, and in respect of section 6 he gave as the reason simply the difficulties arising out of the arrest of terrorists on the borders.

Sir, the hon. the Minister must explain to the Committee why it is that section 6 seems now to be used extensively for the detention of other persons as well and particularly persons within South Africa, who on the face of it could be brought before a judge within a period of fourteen days.

Within hours.

Within hours, the hon. member for Durban North points out. If not within hours, then certainly within a reasonable time. But I go further. If the case made by the Government now is the time factor, then surely they must come back to this House and say that the 14 day period provided for by section 22 of the General Law Amendment Act does not give them sufficient time in certain cases and that they would like an amendment of that section. But surely the fact that they cannot bring certain persons before a judge within 14 days, if that is the case, does not justify not bringing them before a judge at all. The hon. the Minister must explain this to the House because on the face of it we are not satisfied that there is not an abuse of the powers given to the hon. the Minister under section 6.

Seeing that I have only four minutes left, I should like to deal with a new matter that I should like to bring to the attention of the hon. the Minister. If I have time I will come back to the matter of prisons. Much is being said at the moment about reforming prisons and the rehabilitation of prisoners. Naturally I go along with this as it is something in the right direction. But I believe that the time is also ripe to review the possibility of providing some Government-sponsored social measure which will help the innocent victims of criminals. This is a matter which has been raised by this side of the House over the years and it is a matter to which the Government has not yet given proper attention. With an increasing population one obviously gets an increase in the total volume of crime with the result that there is an increasing number of innocent victims of crimes who suffer damage to a greater or lesser extent and in many cases cannot afford to bear the consequences of the injury or the damage that has been caused to them, whether it be physical injury or material damage to property. I believe that the time has come for the Government to appoint a properly constituted commission to go thoroughly into this matter. I would point out to the hon. the Minister that we have in this country a number of social security measures to safeguard persons in different categories against harm or injury which they cannot afford to bear themselves. We have measures such as workmen’s compensation, unemployment insurance, motor vehicle assurance and medical aid, all of which I would class as social security measures of one sort or another. What I am suggesting is a properly based commission of inquiry which would consider a further type of social security measure to give help and protection to the innocent victims of crime, [Time expired.]

I am not going to follow up on what the hon. member for Musgrave said in his argument. Nor do I really want to refer to the Opposition, except that I do want to say that when the hon. member for Pinelands spoke of the support they have given this Government for the maintenance of law and order and the measures which have been introduced during the difficult times we have been through in South Africa during the past decade, I almost fell off my chair and laughed out loud.

You were not here then.

I was not here, but I did at least learn from the newspapers that every measure, such as the 90 day detention clause and the 180 detention clause and the Sabotage Act was fought tooth and nail by that side of the House. I was in this House when they opposed certain other measures. I was in this House when the hon. member for Durban North took the lead in opposing the detention of Sobukwe. This will stand recorded in the annals of this House against that side of the House as long as this House remains.

That was a shocking thing.

And now you have released him.

They must not say to the Government now that they tried to maintain law and order and that they supported the Government in safeguarding the country.

What about the hon. member for Houghton?

She can speak for herself. She is capable of holding her own against the entire Opposition. I shall deal with the hon. member for Houghton presently, but I now have something else to say, and ten minutes is very little time.

During the past year or two we have heard a great deal in South Africa about the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty which is prescribed for certain offences in South Africa. It all began with interesting symposiums which were held to discuss the advantages and disadvantages of the death penalty. I myself participated in such a symposium a year or two ago. Personally I have no objection to the discussion of matters of this nature on a high level. I can picture to myself very successfully the position where academics, sociologists, criminologists, lawyers and other representing the theoretical and the practical side of society could conduct fruitful discussions on a matter such as the death penalty. But this matter has now begun to take a different course in South Africa, and it is no longer simply a debate which is being conducted. On the contrary, it would seem that certain people have started a crusade against the death penalty in South Africa. I do not want to occupy the time of the House today with arguments for the retention of the death penalty on the one hand and against the retention of the death penalty on the other. A debate on this matter was in fact conducted in 1969 in this House when the hon. member for Houghton moved a private member’s motion in this regard. I think that debate indicated one thing, and that was that this side of the House, as well as the other side of the House, with the exception of the hon. member for Houghton, agreed in general that the death sentence as such should be retained for certain crimes in South Africa. But now, as I have said, a Society for the Abolition of the Death Penalty has been established in South Africa. The first I heard of this was in a report in Rapport of 16th May, which mentioned that a campaign would begin the next day, that is on Monday, organized by the branch of the Society here in Cape Town, when a meeting would be held in a lecture hall of the University of Cape Town. The speakers were also mentioned in that report. The next I heard of it was when I received an “open letter to all jurists”, signed by Prof. Ellisson Kahn of the University of the Witwatersrand. The third occasion I heard about it was when I read the leader in the Cape Timex of 20th May, 1971, under the headline “Death Penalty”, in which this first meeting held at the University of Cape Town was lauded. I think South Africa must take note of this Society in time, I think the academics of South Africa and the jurists and all persons dealing with the administration of justice in South Africa, and the entire lay public, should be warned in time against this Society, and particularly against the sweet words and soothing arguments which this Society is using in its propaganda campaign, in its conditioning campaign, in favour of the abolition of the death penalty. I say this for a number of reasons. The first reason I want to mention is the irresponsible way in which this Society launched its onslaught, i.e. by making a veiled attack on the South African Bench, as is apparent inter alia from the following reports which appeared on 13th February, 1971 in Hoofstad under the title “Lecturer says judges are being taught to kill.” I think the headline goes a little too far, but I still want to read the following (translation)—

This veiled attack on the Bench was taken further by Prof. Ellisson Kahn, where he had the following to say quite early on in his letter:

One sentence later he has this to say—

I shall leave it at that. This is, to my mind, a veiled attack on the integrity of the South African Bench.

Then they go further and this is another reason why South Africa should be warned against this society. We must take note of who the founders and patrons of this Society are. Prof. Ellisson Kahn states in his letter—

This almost makes one laugh, for I just want to read out to the House a few names, without further comment—

These are the people involved in this matter. I think we must consider who they are and where they come from. Then we see that one half are associated with the University of the Witwatersrand and the other half with the University of Cape Town. Then no further comment in this regard is necessary. We must also take note of the fact that two years ago the hon. member for Houghton was in fact in the forefront of this movement, when she moved a private motion against the death penalty here in this House. When one takes all these things into account, it is not necessary to make any further comment except simply to focus attention on the fact that these voices began to be raised against the death penalty a few years ago after sabotage and terrorism also became crimes which may be punished with the death penalty, and now again, when we perhaps found ourselves on the eve of a new wave of terrorism and sabotage. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I do not intend to become involved in the argument on which the speaker who has just sat down based his speech because I want to direct the discussion from the Side Bar and the Bar and matters pertaining thereto to another type of bar which fails under the hon. the Minister’s jurisdiction.

I make no apology for reverting to a subject which we have discussed on other occasions in this debate but which, I believe, has now reached the stage where it can be discussed from a different angle. I am referring to the question of dual control over the hotel industry, control divided between this hon. Minister and his colleague, the hon. the Minister of Tourism. The hon. the Minister of Justice has stated that he is sympathetic towards a change in the situation but he wanted to wait until the Hotel Board was ready to take over some of his powers. I want to submit to the hon. the Minister that that stage has now been reached. The Hotel Board, in fact, has now registered a large proportion of all hotels, including most licensed hotels. In the debate on the Vote of the hon. the Minister of Tourism, we heard lyrical reports on the progress that has been made. But apart from what has been said, the factual position is that the Hotel Board, itself, has indicated that it is ready, able and willing to take over those duties of the National Liquor Board which pertain to the keeping of hotels as such, as opposed to the question of control of liquor.

The Hotel Board is willing and able to take this responsibility. The hotel industry, itself, is anxious and on every possible occasion pleads for such a change. The Rieckert Commission appointed by the hon. the Prime Minister made strong recommendations. I do not intend to deal with them in detail in the time which I have available, but the hon. the Minister knows that the Rieckert Commission went much further in its recommendations. It recommended doing away with the police inspectors of the National Liquor Board. It even recommended that the Hotel Board should determine hotel liquor licences and not the National Liquor Board. This recommendation goes far beyond anything that I or even the hotels have previously asked. From the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Commission we have strong recommendations for this change. Therefore, we have the people able to lake over the responsibility. The industry itself is anxious to be taken over and the Prime Minister’s Economic Advisory Committee recommends a change. As far as I can see there is only one objection, that of the Liquor Board itself.

I want to point out that the chairman of the National Liquor Board which in fact means the National Liquor Board itself is himself a member of the Hotel Board Therefore, there is direct representation of the hon. the Minister’s department and of the National Liquor Board on the board to which I am suggesting that the hotel powers of the National Liquor Board be transferred. I can see so many reasons in favour of this that I cannot understand why this is delayed any further. I submit that the Hotel Board is better qualified to take over these responsibilities. It has amongst its members practising qualified hoteliers. Its staff are in many cases trained hoteliers concerned with the hotel industry. It is responsible for the standards which it, by granting stars, advertises to the public who use the hotels, It is responsible to the hon. the Minister of Tourism, who is responsible for tourism, including the housings of tourists in this country. It will eliminate duplication, streamline administration. It will release policemen for the fighting of crime instead of inspecting toilets, bedrooms and bathrooms and looking under kitchen tables to see whether there is any dust, policemen who are trained as policemen and who have a task to play in the field of crime rather than in looking after hotels. Finally, it would conform to Government policy that liquor should not be the main part of a hotel but that it should be an adjunct, a service which should be provided by an hotel which goes with accommodation and meals. All these reasons, I submit, make it logical and reasonable that my suggestion that the matter should now be reconsidered, is justified. If the hon. the Minister does not accept it, I hope he will give equally cogent reasons why he is not prepared to do so. Above all, it would then leave the National Liquor Board free to attend to its real job, which is the control of liquor licenses as its name implies. The hon. the Minister will know that he, through the Liquor Board, apparently has a considerable amount of time available to deal with minor matters affecting hotels. I want to remind the hon. the Minister of some of the things with which he as Minister of Justice is concerned. As an example I want to refer to the proposals which had been published in draft form and additions thereto which will amend the conditions for classified hotels. Let me start with the question of metrication. We find that the tiles in certain rooms have to be 1,8288 metres. The bedrooms have to be 9,29 square metres. Surely, when one deals with metrication, you do not just put it on a computer to calculate the fourth decimal point of a metre. Hon. members will notice that I do not use the word “comma”, because I believe it is totally incorrect. I refer to the word “point” which I believe is correct. I believe that the use of the word “comma" in place of a decimal “point” is one of these funny little things which this Government has thought up all on its own. Apart from the sizes, let us look at some of the conditions which the National Liquor Board now wants to impose on hotels. They want double rooms to have towels of two colours. How on earth can we expect all the hotels in South Africa which have their white towels with their names printed on them, to now go and replace them with coloured towels. One colour will be pink, I assume for “her” and the other will be blue for “him" or visa versa. What happens if two ladies share that room? Do they then have to put two pink towels in the rooms? When two men share a room, will they then have to put two blue towels in the room? The Minister of Justice has time to go fiddling around with the colour the towels have to be. Surely, what we are interested in is the quality of the towel and not its colour. This Minister lays down that serviettes in the dining rooms will have to be of linen. Here in this very Parliament, at the tables where we entertain out guests, we have paper serviettes. That is good enough for the Parliament of South Africa, but the hon. the Minister of Justice has time to draw up regulations and to circulate them all over South Africa whereby it is said that hotels have to have linen serviettes. They cannot even be cotton, not even a Sea Island cotton serviette, hut it has to be a linen serviette.

Irish linen.

He does not say

“Irish”. What about the Wool Board? We shall probably be having a restriction just now that all waiters’ jackets have to be made out of pure wool. He goes down to all this sort of detail. He goes down to such detail as to require that laundry lists which are put in hotels by private commercial laundries, now have to be translated, and they write reams of letters, even if one of the words has been incorrectly translated. That is what the Minister of Justice has got down to now when dealing with hotels. (Time expired.]

The hon. member for Durban Point made a special request to the Minister in regard to this type of “bar”, and I do not want to follow up on what he said in that regard. I should prefer to return to the subject under discussion this afternoon, namely prisons. In discussing that, I immediately want to deal with a few allegations made here this afternoon by the hon. member for Houghton, which she has now sent out into the world. I do think we must give our public a little more food for thought in regard to this matter, so that they can realize more clearly what is going on.

The hon. member for Houghton mentioned here that she received quite a number of letters from ex-prisoners throughout the country, and that these people said that conditions in the prisons were becoming worse or were deteriorating. But it is significant that these people should write specially to the hon. member for Houghton about these alleged conditions in the gaols, that she should be specially singled out for this object. It is a pity that she is not present here at the moment but I would like to ask the hon. member whether she would be prepared to hand all those letters over to the hon. the Minister so that he can go into them and see who the people are and where the complaints come from. I have no doubt that the hon. member did in fact receive such letters, but I have doubts regarding the credibility of the people who wrote those letters. They are frustrated people—that you must remember-and they are looking for something. Perhaps they are ex-criminals who are now looking for a stick to beat the Government with. That is why they wrote to the hon. member.

But I come now to the second point. A year or two ago a group of us, the Justice Group—the hon. member for Houghton was also included—visited Robben Island. I found what happened the day the prisoners all gathered round her very significant. She cross-questioned them: “Are you getting enough food? Are you getting a variety of food? Are you getting salt in your food?" The hon. member for Houghton harps on all these trivial] ties and sends them out into the world. The people must sympathize with these prisoners as if they were living in hotels in Houghton and Sea Point. To return to prisons—in terms of section 2 of the Prisons Act, Act No. 8 of 1959, the prisoners must receive such treatment which will lead to their rehabilitation. In addition to that they must also learn skill and diligence in those prisons. Apart from that it is of course a place of safe custody—also the opposite of what the hon. member for Houghton alleged. She said that those people were not safe there because they were often attacked. But proportionately how many attacks are not made outside the prisons on those same people who are being detained? It is they who are the trouble-makers and who cause the attacks. She must consider that aspect too.

She also mentioned our very large prison population, but one must bear in mind that we have a White prison population in the Republic of South Africa which compares with the best in the world. It is because we have another national pattern in this country, i.e. that of the non-Whites, that we have such a large prison population. These non-White people are a different kind of people to the White people; they cannot be labelled with the same tag as the White people who have a higher level of civilization. On 30th June, 1968, for example, there 80 902 prisoners in custody; but of these only 67 385 were convicted persons. This is another aspect where the people do not view the picture in the correct perspective. Not all these detainees are convicted persons. Some of them still have to appear and may perhaps be released too. The hon. member for Durban North mentioned that more than half the total number of prisoners in the year were there for less than a month. That may be correct, but one should also think of the fact that all these people are not there only for pass offences. They are there for assaults, creating disturbances, incitement, brewing beer and similar offences in the large cities. Surely it is only right that these people should be brought to a place of safe custody where they can be taught to act correctly. But it is also significant that 31 per cent of the prisoners in our prisons today are subject to minimum security measures about 57,6 per cent are being held under medium security and in respect of the other 11,4 per cent the strictest security measures are being adopted. I should like to dwell on this for a while Punishment and penal reform is apparently a popular subject for discussion today. Everyone who discusses the matter of prisons today talks about punishment and penal reform. What people forget, however, is that in 1959, with the Prisons Act, an inter-departmental committee was appointed which in fact went into these aspects. They introduced considerable improvements, inter alia, corrective training, week-end imprisonment and so on. Subsequent to that improvements were made by the Government itself. Today we still hear many people saying that there should be penal reform. However, the Government itself has already made improvements, for example, the prisoner’s friend who does in fact work among prisoners, the postponement for the repayment of fines which was also mentioned this afternoon suspended sentences, in other words, conditional punishment and so on.

Before my time expires, I should like to raise a matter with the hon. the Minister which affects our prison farms. The purpose is still to make useful citizens of prisoners. One must train them exactly as one would train children, to make useful citizens of them. Most of our prisoners today are under the age of 40 years, and one would like to see these prisoners being able to receive the necessary training at prison farms to become useful citizens of the country, that they should be able to learn to become artisans, how to work with cattle and on farms, how to work in nurseries, and many other things. This is in fact being done today at Leeuwkop. In the report of the department for the 1968-’69 financial year I also note that a farm was purchased in that year in the vicinity of Umtata. I think that that is a very good idea and I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether it is not possible to expand this idea of prison farms. These people may be trained to help cope with the manpower shortage in South Africa. I think we will be able to derive much benefit from such assistance. Particularly with our population structure the number of prisoners who are serving short-term sentences and the fact that 31 per cent of the prison population is being detained in a situation of minimum security, I think that we should expand and develop this aspect more. It could only be to the benefit of our prisoners themselves and to the population of our country as a whole. Manpower trained in this way could do useful work in our industries and elsewhere.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to continue and complete some of the points which I said appear to be unnecessary and to create difficulties for hotels. I want to refer, for example, to the proposed amended regulations as they apply to alterations to buildings.

They are only proposals and have not been considered yet.

But this is an example of what the hon. the Minister is spending his time on. If he had a hotelier on his National Liquor Board he would have been aware of the practical problems that arise from this sort of proposal. Although he says these are only proposals, our experience in the past has been that once something is proposed that is what goes through 99 times out of 100. I raise it here in the hope that some of these things will not go through as they are proposed. Who can say today, for example, when a building or an alteration is going to be started and on what day it is going to be finished? It is impossible to plan like that. It is impossible for the builder, the plumber, the electrician or any of the other people concerned to give an undertaking.

In connection with what do you mention that?

The proposed provision that any alterations have got to be notified; that they have to be started on a fixed date and finished on a fixed date, and that if they are not finished then you have to apply in quadruplicate and so on and so forth. Sir, it goes on for page after page. This Government Gazette alone runs into 54 pages of proposed conditions or restrictions in respect of various classes of liquor licences. Then there are the other amendments in respect of hotel licences. In that regard I know of over seven foolscap pages of objections which have been put in, most of which should be obvious to anyone who knows the problems of the industry. I hope they will be accepted by the National Liquor Board, which does not have that practical experience, which does not realize the problems which are created by some of their proposals. These objections put in by the industry itself are well-founded and justified and notice should be taken of them. There is the provision, for instance, that there must be a separate store for empties. In many cases it is just not possible physically but it is proposed that it should be a fixed condition, a sine qua non. for the retention of a licence. Some off-sales, for instance, will find it quite impossible to have separate entrances, as laid down in the draft regulations, but it is a condition laid down and they will have to abide by it. Then, Sir, one comes to so many of the things which have always been accepted practice, but which are now laid down in the Gazette as a condition and tend to make us look ridiculous. I refer, for instance, to the condition that there must be separate washups and separate drying cloths for the cutlery, crockery and glassware used by different races. Most hotels have modern washing machines today; they do not use drying cloths, but solemnly now they are going to put up a separate sink and a separate drying cloth while the plates and the glasses go through washing machines. They use dish washers, but they have to have separate cloths. What happens, Sir, when a visiting dignitary comes here—say the President of a friendly neighbouring State—and he dines in the White dining room? According to these regulations he is not going to be allowed to use the crockery and cutlery used there, because this is mandatory; it does not mention any exception; it makes no provision for exemption.

Why do you not wait for the final product?

Sir, I am raising these issues now because this is what the Minister says he is going to insist upon.

You are altogether wrong.

Well, I hope he will tell me where I am wrong, but according to the proposed conditions, only a bona fide employee of a guest at a White hotel will be entitled to have a meal or to be accommodated there. I hope the hon. the Minister will tell us that in fact he is not going to insist on that condition, because if he does, his Government’s whole outward-looking policy goes up in smoke because he then by regulation is going to make it impossible to entertain visiting dignitaries or diplomats, and if they do entertain them, then they have to have separate plates, and when they have finished they have to go through a separate dish-washing machine and then they have to be dried up with a separate dish cloth. Sir, this is the practice where sinks are used, but are you really going to apply this sort of thing now? Every time a waiter finishes off a bit of food in the kitchen, the plate has to be taken out to a different scullery, a different sink, and washed up differently. Does the hon. the Minister insist on that in his own home? If his servants cat food left over from a meal, do they not wash their dishes in his sink? No. Sir, we publish for the world to see and for the Press to mock us with this sort of proposal, and then the Minister says, “but it is not final yet”.

It is not.

But he publishes for the world to laugh at. Why publish it, Mr. Chairman?

Those are proposals made to me and I am to consider them.

But why did you publish them?

I did not publish them.

Who published them in the Gazette?

They are published by the National Liquor Board which falls under the hon. the Minister. Sir, the Minister is responsible for what goes on in his department. If the hon. the Minister agrees with me that this makes a mockery of our country, that this gives people something to laugh at, he should deal with his own department and not criticize me. I did not draw up these proposals. I did not publish them. The Minister’s department published them in the Government Gazette. So one can continue discussing all the proposals made here.

I believe that the Government is going to extremes in regard to bilingualism. All of us want to see bilingualism maintained and respected, but one must remember that the hotel industry employs many foreign people from all over Europe. They come out here because they are hoteliers, and it is just as important that we should have these hoteliers as that they should be able to speak Afrikaans. In many restaurants and hotels those foreigners who are qualified hoteliers and who come out here can hardly speak English. We want their experience and we want them behind us, but the Government is making …

Who experts them to be bilingual?

The Government lays down that there shall be, for 24 hours a day, a bilingual person on duty.

One.

Yes, Sir, but when one of their Commissioners-General came across an immigrant who could not serve him, he did not ask for the one person who by law, had to be there, and who happened to be sitting in an inside office. He blew his top and created an incident. Then the Minister thinks this is a jolly good thing. That Commissioner-General had the right to say, in terms of the regulations: “There must be somebody to serve me in Afrikaans.” But he did not do that. He attacked the immigrant who was unable to serve him. This is one of the Government's own appointees. Let us by all means have bilingualism, but let us appreciate and respect the problems of an industry which in so many cases is dependent on foreign immigrants to help it carry out its work.

The regulations are that any document, invoice or paper in a hotel under the control of the management should be bilingual. Fair enough; nobody is going to argue about that, but when an outside laundry does contract work for a hotel, surely it is taking things a bit far to say that that laundry must have its laundry lists published bilingually because it is used in a hotel in which guests stay. This is a commercial laundry. It has nothing at all to do with the hotel; it does contract work for the hotel. But, Sir, that Minister’s department has time to argue about whether “pyjamas” should be translated as “pajamas” or “nagrokke”, or whatever the things are and I might point out that in the Afrikaans translation the word “please” has been omitted. Whether that is intentional or not, I do not know, but I mention this as just one of the examples of what I believe is carrying a sound principle to ridiculous extremes. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, while the hon. member for Durban Point is busying himself there in the kitchen section, and while I am looking for words to congratulate the hon. the Minister and his department on the policy which is being applied in respect of our hotels and which is a credit to our country, I hasten to return to a subject which is of importance to us. A few days ago the Department of Justice invited us to attend a demonstration, on which occasion the possible use of electronic equipment in the Deeds Office was demonstrated to us. We saw there what possibilities the computer, microfilm and tape recording apparatus held for the future in particular for large organizations such as the Deeds Office, and I want to make so bold as to say in the Master’s Office as well and in the office of the Registrar of Companies. Let us take specific examples. The shortage of clerical staff in the deeds offices may possibly be alleviated. The registration of deeds may consequently be disposed of with greater expedition. Entries of relevant particulars in the registers of the deeds offices can be done in a fraction of a second. To illustrate this, I am mentioning to you that it is calculated that 90 per cent of the time which it at present takes to make entries by hand will be saved by replacing that system with this system of electronic entries made by the computer. It would also seem to me that there is a possibility that all the deeds offices in the country could be centralized at one point. In addition, information in regard to persons, their mortgage bonds, properties and possible insolvencies, can also be acquired with the minimum of trouble and again in a fraction of a second. Information such as copies of deeds to which several pages of servitudes have been attached can be recovered within 30 seconds and a copy of this document can be made within six seconds. As far as the security and the storage of these documents in massive safe rooms is concerned, we note that documentary information can be recorded on strips of microfilm the size of one’s thumbnail. The implication of this is that it may be possible to save almost 96 per cent of the space as far as the storage of these highly important documents is concerned. Then there is the somewhat negative implication for the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs, viz. that postal articles which are normally of quite a size and earn quite a high postal tariff may consequently be sent in very small envelopes and at a fair rate. Last but not least the human element which could lead to errors may be eliminated by means of these entries. And what is to my mind perhaps the most far-reaching benefit this may constitute is that it will be possible to introduce the sectional title registration, which will result from the legislation now upon the Table, throughout the Republic at an earlier stage.

Seen from the point of view of the practitioner, there are the following advantages: A practitioner will be able to give his clients faster service. The result of this will be that it will be possible to register a deed much faster. It will also entail that interest which sometimes has to be paid because deeds are delayed for a long time in the Deeds Office before they are registered may be saved. Now I definitely do not want to generalize, but I merely want to refer in passing to a statement made by the hon. Senator Getz, viz. that the delay in the Deeds Offices were costing the public almost R5 million per year. This is a criterion that I cannot apply because I do not think it can be done before making intensive research. But we know that here and there such delays do occur, and we are also aware that the Department is doing its utmost to cope with this situation, hence this demonstration we saw.

Now my question to the hon. the Minister is whether he intends having an investigation made into the possible use of electronic apparatus in the Deeds Office and, let me add, the Master’s Office, But the use of electronic equipment, and specifically the automatic computer and the microfilm technique, constitutes considerable implications for the entire legal profession. The question I therefore want to put to the hon. the Minister is this: If it is possible to centralize and to store everything in one computer, will it not have the result that the conveyancers throughout the entire country will be threatened as a result? It is already being speculated by practitioners that the employment of computers leading to centralization at one point could have this result. In addition, we should like to know whether the hon. the Minister foresees such a development possibly entailing that the smaller deeds offices, say at King William’s Town and Vryburg may disappear. In conclusion we should like guidance from the hon. the Minister in regard to the general prospects which this new revolution holds for the legal profession, particularly in the light of the following information. That is, assuming that this development has implications equal to the industrial revolution in the former century. We can expect that commercialization of the benefits of the computer and microfilm techniques will be offered on a tremendous scale. We can expect that competing distributors of these techniques will force down the price of computer services considerably. Consequently it will also be possible to place this at the disposal of the smaller entrepreneur and even at the disposal of the individual attorney who will subsequently be able to record all his files on microfilm with the consequent benefits resulting from that. A microfilm manufacturer in, for example, Cape Town alone expects that his turnover will annually amount to R20 million. Now we can realize what sales pressure we will find on the market once this matter has been developed. In America there are already bodies which are acting on behalf of the law societies as a kind of watchdog committee. Their intention is not to counteract this development, but to develop with it and become conversant with it. I want to suggest that that should also be the attitude here in the Republic, that this new scientific development should be used to the benefit of the legal profession in general. [Time expired.]

I do not want to react to anything the hon. member for Bloemfontein West has said, except to his plea for an improvement to be made in the staff shortage in the deeds offices so as to relieve the present shortage. In that I want to associate myself with him. In fact, I want to go further and say I think this is a problem which should be solved throughout the entire Public Service.

This afternoon I should again like to raise a matter which I raised last session and to which the hon. the Minister has in fact not reacted as yet, I hope he will be able to react to it this afternoon. I am referring to the question of staff. I think it is a very serious and urgent matter. I realize that these problems are not peculiar to the Department of Justice, but that in actual fact the entire Public Service is saddled with staff shortages and staff problems. I feel, however, that the Department of Justice is an extremely important department. The department determines the weal and woe of thousands of South African citizens. It is an immense and extremely important and far-reaching task which demands a great deal of time, training and knowledge. Each session, the Government loads more and mere work on the shoulders of the department. Most of the new legislation passed here, must be administered by this department. For example, there is the legislation concerning drugs which was piloted through this House a short while ago. It will give rise to more and more judicial and administrative work for the Department of Justice. It is a tremendous load the department has to carry. That is why it is imperative that something should be done about this situation and that it should be done as soon as possible.

Year after year we have to see a deterioration in the staff position of the Department of Justice. I should like to know what steps the hon. the Minister is going to take in order to improve this state of affairs. Last session I indicated how the position had deteriorated since 1960. The latest annual report of this department again reflects a further loss. The shortage of permanent units increased to 1 345 as against the shortage of 1 253 in the previous year. Therefore, that shortage increased by another 92. I do realize that 512 new permanent posts were created in the course of the year. From the statistics given in this report, it would appear to me that only 420 of the 512 new posts could be filled. I must say I am pleased to hear that so many new permanent units did join the department and that it was possible to fill so many of these posts. But I still find it rather strange why it was necessary to create new posts if there were no staff to fill those posts. I understand the practice in the past was to abolish posts which could not be filled, rather than to create additional new posts. I cannot see what purpose it serves to create those new posts.

On the other hand, one must also realize that the Department of Justice must grow along with South Africa. The department has to meet an ever more rapidly growing need. For that reason it is logical for the Department of Justice to be extended so that it may be able to meet this greater need.

What leaves one with some fear in one’s mind is that the Department of Justice not only has to make up the leeway of the past, but also has to keep pace with the growth of South Africa. It is an extremely difficult task. Therefore the department has to grow dynamically. From all the reports of this department which I have seen and indeed, from my own experience in this department as well, it would appear to me that we are not bringing about this growth in the Department of Justice.

We know that the staff of this department is working under tremendous pressure. I know that they are performing a gigantic task and that they are coping very well with this task, under the circumstances. But I have already said that there is no room for errors in the important work of this department. Under the circumstances, this is something which cannot be afforded. People who are constantly working under pressure, do make mistakes.

I now want to mention my experience of one type of circumstance in this connection. This is the case of a prosecutor in a magistrate’s court. In many cases that official works under tremendous nervous tension and a tremendous pressure of work, so much so that in many courts he does not receive his dockets before the morning when the case is to be heard. This is because of a shortage of staff. A court starts punctually at 9 a.m. and that prosecutor has to do court work until 4 o’clock in the afternoon. In many of the smaller places, for example, there is no process clerk. In such cases the prosecutor is his own process clerk. Consequently, when he has completed the court’s work in the afternoon, he has an enormous number of summonses to issue and dockets to read. Many of the dockets he is to use the next morning, are not summons dockets, but in fact dockets which the Police take to him directly. He does not have sufficient chance to study these dockets so as to acquaint himself with the evidence of a case in order to handle those cases perfectly. Hon. members may think for themselves that sometimes—and I am specifically mentioning the example of B Court in Roodepoort. the senior court which hears the more serious cases—there are as many as 30 cases to be heard. It cannot be any different because the roll is that full. Then one has the case which the hon. member for Zululand mentioned, namely that after people have sat waiting the whole day long they are told by the prosecutor that they should come again in 10 days’ time because the case has been postponed.

This is the situation we should try to avoid. Not only is it irritating to the witnesses themselves, as the hon. member for Zululand said, but it is a tremendous strain on both the prosecutor and magistrate if they have to work under such pressure. I can assure hon. members it is no pleasure to appear in court in connection with a case of which one oneself is not even 100 per cent sure, because you have not had a chance to study the case in detail. How often is it not expected of one to appear in court against some of the best advocates and attorneys in the country. Therefore, as much is expected of one as of those people who are in fact paid much more than one. One must be able to give the same performance in all respects and this is an extremely difficult task. In addition there is the “petty” court work, as it is known. There one has all the cases of trespassing and the cases of rowdy behaviour in the streets. These, however, are important, too, because here one is once again determining the destiny of people. They bring the cases to one in the morning and often there is not enough time to draw up the charge-sheets properly. The result is that the court commences only at half-past nine or perhaps at 10 o’clock. This is an extremely difficult task. One gets on everybody’s nerves, including one’s own. The result is that justice is simply not done.

The only solution to this is an improvement in the staff position. I want to ask the hon. the Minister to re-examine the entire structure of posts in the Department of Justice. I think it should be clear at this stage that an increase in salaries does not offer the solution to the staff problem, as this was done in the past, and done often. But this is obviously not the answer to the staff problem. It would appear to me—and I must say this is an idea I have had from staff members on various occasions-that the structure of posts should be revised. However, I do not have time to deal with a few ideas I wanted to exchange in that regard. In fact, I do not want to deal with that because I think it is something which should be the subject of a very thorough investigation. An investigation should be conducted into ways in which the structure of posts can be changed so that such changes may have the desired effect. I do feel it is something to which we should pay attention, as it has become very clear that mere salary increases cannot give the department the necessary new life. I want to say that the Department of Justice is sui generis to a very large extent. The professional people it employs, are in a somewhat different position than in the case of some of the higher posts in other Government departments which have similar posts which are not occupied by professional people. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am glad that the hon. member for Florida also expressed his concern about certain matters concerning the shortage of staff in the department. I think one may perhaps act somewhat more positively. If I may, I want to associate myself with what he said. Instead of giving hints to the Minister and the Secretary of the Department as to how they should act, I rather want to ask hon. members on this side of the House and hon. members on that side of the House to bring the functions of the department very positively to the attention of our youth. This department truly is one of the departments with the most interesting jobs one can do. The work is not only interesting, but also extremely important because it concerns the administration of justice. When one is concerned with the administration of justice, one should always be on one‘s toes and not on one’s nerves. This is how I have found the officials of the Department of Justice to be. I find that the people of this department are always on their toes. I think it is a feather in the cap of the department that a public prosecutor obtains dockets an hour and a half or two hours before the court sits, but still can nevertheless be ready because he is quick on the uptake and able to find judgments in a very short time so as to prepare himself to appear in court, to present his case to the magistrate. It is also an achievement that in these circumstances he is able to make his contribution along with the other officials of the court so that justice may be done and the correct judgments given to the best of their ability. This testifies to diligence, efficiency and ability. I think the Department of Justice deserves the support of us all. I am glad that a great deal of criticism has not been levelled at the department today. I think the criticism we have had has been expressed rather to promote the activities of the department than to disparage it with regard to petty things.

The department has close on 350 to 400 offices it has to provide staff for. These offices vary from large ones to small ones. There is a series of criminal courts and a series of civil courts in cities such as Johannesburg and other cities, as well as offices at numerous towns and small villages to cope with these activities, and this requires manpower. There are more than 5 200 posts in the department. Very well, a considerable number of them are vacant at present, but I think one is grateful if, in one’s everyday activities, one finds that many of the posts which are vacant are filled by retired persons who come back to serve for as long as their health and strength allow them, not only to keep the work of the Department of Justice up to standard, but to keep it of a very high standard. However, this standard which has been achieved did not come about of its own accord. For that the department has its training officers, who are highly qualified as far as legal, administrative and training techniques are concerned, and who are imbued with the proper spirit and attitude so as to be able to inspire into their students that same spirit and attitude. They are equipped to such an extent for the task of training people that they not only impart great knowledge to their pupils, but are also able to teach them so many qualities of leadership that in the ranks of the Department of Justice leaders are being trained who are consequently able to apply the techniques of leadership in practice in the various offices where they work.

If one looks at the report of the Department, one is very grateful that so many courses are being offered to prosecutors and other sections. There are also judicial courses, interpreters’ courses and other courses. These people are not only being afforded an opportunity to study at home, but also study full-time at any university in order to equip themselves for the future, and in order to provide the department with the right calibre of employees for its task in the future. The department deserves our congratulations for this major task which it is performing and so, I think, do the State law advisors, who deserve a special compliment from both sides of this House for the high standard of work they do in formulating and drafting laws which this House so often has to deal with. The other sections, the Master’s Office, the Deed’s Office, the section of the Registrar of the Court, the offices of the Attorney-General, and all magisterial offices deserve a compliment from this House for their having performed their task so boldly and efficiently. There are a few qualities which stand out when one meets these people. One is the sound, wonderful interpersonal relationships one notices among the officials of the Department of Justice. Then there is the judgment they display and that extraordinary sense of responsibility, which leaves us all secure in the knowledge that these people know what they are doing and how they must set about doing it. These qualities are additional to all the other qualities which are indicated in them, such as zeal, productivity and a good many other qualities, which I do not have the time to elaborate on in such a short debate as this one.

I think we can also thank the department for its willingness, in the midst of all its routine tasks, to undertake additional tasks and even to satisfy both sides of this House at election times. Last year there were, for example, two elections and most of the officials of the Department of Justice had to do their judicial work during the day and election work at night in order to see to it that the machinery of State ran smoothly at election times as well. We as Parliamentarians want to thank them for that, and we want to convey our appreciation to them.

As far as the Department of Prisons is concerned, I just want to say a few brief words, i.e. that I am of the opinion that when one visits prisons or visits the exhibitions at Goodwood where one may see the wonderful arts and crafts exhibits of prisoners, one is very grateful to the department for being able to teach prisoners how to make things like these, which they are able to take home with them one day and perhaps sell to the public. Instead of criticizing, we should rather appreciate. Instead of coming with pinpricks, we should rather focus attention more closely on the wonderful things which are being accomplished so that our public and the world outside will know that in the Department of Justice and the Department of Prisons one finds only the best, something for which this country is very grateful and of which it will be eternally proud.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Innesdal, who is an ex-magistrate, must have been reading my thoughts because he seems to have taken the words out of my mouth. All serious thinking South Africans are justly proud of the administration of justice in this country. In paying tribute to it, I would like to associate myself with the hon. members for Zululand and Florida in trying to help it over its difficulties. It is a fact that the administration of justice is becoming clogged nowadays. Whether it is due to a shortage of staff or to the manifold laws which have been passed resulting in more and more cases coming before the courts, that is the position, I want to make a plea to the hon. the Minister and ask him if the time is not now ripe to appoint a commission of inquiry to go into the whole question of speeding up the administration of justice. Whether it should be led by a judge is something which he can decide. In this way the administration of justice can be streamlined. South Africa has been very proud of its streamlined administration of justice and quite rightly so. It might well be that we can streamline this system further in order to eliminate these inordinate delays which are taking place particularly in regard to motor vehicle ordinance cases. It can be suggested that cases should be heard at night. I am not going to say that it must be so, but this suggestion can be gone into, because it does not only affect the Bench or the Police but also the Side Bar and all sorts of other bodies who would be interested therein. I think the appointment of a full arid impartial commission is justified in this regard.

Coming to the matter of prisons, one must congratulate the Department of Prisons for the work of rehabilitation it is doing. I was, however, very grieved when I read the paper the other day that a certain minister of the cloth had his bag searched and it was found to contain communion wine which did not conform to regulations. I would like to make a plea to the hon. the Minister that communion wine can certainly not be classified as liquor. We know that it is liquor but, after all, there are certain denominations to whom the elements of bread and wine are very meaningful and true symbols and are part of their religion. It is not only confined to the Christian religion or to certain denominations of the Christian religion but also applies to the Jewish faith. Wine is an integral part of your faith. I am not going into a theological polemic about whether it should be “communion” wine or true fermented wine. I would ask the Minister whether he could not amend the prison regulations to provide that where a man of a certain denomination is used to taking fermented wine, the true full-blooded wine, as part of communion, he will be permitted to do so because it no doubt has some effect in rehabilitating that person and it is a great source of comfort and strength to a person who is so religiously-minded.

Sir, the South African prisons system is often subjected to numerous attacks. As part of the international political vendetta which is being waged against South Africa in the United Nations and elsewhere, the South African prison system has been and is being depicted as a penal system riddled with an abuse of power amounting to senseless brutality. The Human Rights Commission of the United Nations is at the spearhead of this campaign, which has been going on for quite a number of years. The Human Rights Commission in 1967 established an ad hoc working group “to investigate charges of torture and ill-treatment” of prisoners in South Africa. Since then that so-called ad hoc working group of experts has compiled a number of reports based on so-called evidence from witnesses in various countries. Some of these witnesses were, on their own admission, members of an underground communist movement in South Africa and South-West Africa, whose aim it was to overthrow the Government of this country by violent means. Some had been charged with sabotage; some were members of, or were associated with, militantly anti-South African organizations and movements abroad. Others had no personal experience whatsoever of prison conditions in South Africa and they simply repeated rumours.

An important part of the general strategy —and this I want to emphasize—of this propaganda campaign is for individuals found guilty in the ordinary courts of crimes like murder, arson and sabotage, to be portrayed as political prisoners detained or imprisoned for their opposition to the South African Government for political reasons. To evoke maximum emotion and public sympathy for the individuals concerned, South Africa’s prisons are then pictured as places of horror where atrocities, mass terror and ill-treatment of prisoners are daily occurrences. Mr. Chairman, I could give quite a number of examples of this, but one will suffice. In one of the working group’s reports a witness is reported, on his own statement, to have said—

This is on his own admission.

As far as the establishment of this United Nations group itself is concerned, four of the six members participated in the decision to establish the group. South Africa was first condemned for violations and thereafter the group was established to investigate the violations. This, I think, is a rather extraordinary procedure to follow. As for the composition of the group, most of them were at the time and still are full-time representatives of their governments, in other words political representatives. Apparently it did not matter that such persons could be appointed to what was intended to be a body of non-governmental independent experts. What is worse, they actively campaigned to be paid fifty dollars a day in fees—a practice which the UN had adopted in earlier years to compensate genuine non-governmental experts for loss of earnings while in the service of the United Nations. And since fees were payable only for days that the group actually met, it is not surprising that the group met as often as possible and produced as much as possible. When in 1969 the payment of fees to the group was terminated, the members for a time even refused to meet at all. United Press International termed this “an unusual form of strike at the diplomatic level”—certainly an understatement! The attitude of the group prior to this incident enabled the Chicago Tribune to comment as follows in its edition of 12th June. 1968-

In strong contrast to the evidence produced by the United Nations group of so-called experts, are the views of many eminent persons who have visited South Africa's prisons personally. I can quote them at length, but time does not permit. I merely wish to refer to a few of them. For instance, Mr. Bernard Newman, a British writer and lecturer, visited Robben Island, which he described as “as good a prison of its kind as I ever saw”. He commented on the helpfulness of the prison authorities in allowing him complete freedom to inspect all sections and parts of the buildings and to have private interviews with the prisoners of his selection. He expressed his appreciation in the following words—

Mr. Newman categorically refuted allegations of torture, assaults and atrocious conditions of Robben Island. The reactions of other visitors who have visited other institutions are of a similar nature. Their reactions bear testimony to the high standards prevailing in our prison system. Views to this effect were expressed by Mrs. E. F. Dacre of the United Kingdom, a sister of Lord Fraser of Lonsdale …

On a point of order, Sir, is the hon. member entitled to read his speech?

The hon. member is quoting from certain documents.

Mrs. Dacre is the sister of Lord Fraser of Lonsdale. In another instance Mr. A. J. Brayshaw, Secretary of the Magistrates’ Association of Great Britain conveyed the Association’s thanks and appreciation for the opportunity afforded to one of its leading members, Mr. L. W. McClane. to visit courts and penal institutions in South Africa. Mr. McClane visited Leeuwkop and other institutions. He subsequently wrote to the South African Ambassador in London—

Then there is Mr. Charles Fahy, a judge from the United States of America. This is how he described a visit to one of our institutions—

There are many more examples of views to the same effect; some of them have been mentioned today. It is quite clear that standards of health, hygiene, vocational training, accommodation and recreation compare favourably with those applicable in any advanced country of the world.

The UN Group of Prisons is therefore nothing but a kangaroo court acting simultaneously as prosecutor, witness and judge in a mocking caricature of judicial process. In keeping with their pseudo-judicial role, the members of that group insist on swearing in those petitioners which appear before them, but then they so manipulate these “witnesses'’ by means of leading questions, that their “testimony” is devoid of all legal relevance. And it is by this group that South Africa stands accused. And yet. Mr. Chairman, the Secretary-General of the United Nations included in the dossier of documentation which he submitted to the World Court recently no less than four reports from this ad hoc group, which, in his words, were likely to throw light on the issues concerning South-West Africa before the court. We had looked forward to an exhaustive examination of those reports before the court. We would have wished to demonstrate in detail to what extent the South African prison system and legislation conformed to the standard minimum rules for the treatment of prisoners adopted at the first UN conference on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders dated 30th August. 1955. We would also have wished to present a global picture of prison conditions in order to evaluate the standards applied in the South African prison system. It is a pity that this opportunity did not materialize. Unfortunately it also did not materialize on a previous occasion, when the South African Foreign Minister wrote to U Thant as follows-

Needless to say, Mr. Chairman, this challenge has never been taken up.

Sir, may I suggest to the hon. member who has just sat down that, if he hands down a written report to the House, he might save us the time of listening to the entire story, because we could then study it at leisure.

Order! Is that a reflection on the Chair?

No, Sir. It is just a suggestion to the hon. member to guide him when it comes to putting his views to this House in future. I may add that, if the hon. member had read this story during the Foreign Affairs debate, it might perhaps have been a little more interesting. I must say seriously to the hon. member that, having commended the Charter of Human Rights so highly some time ago in this House, the ideas he expressed today could well have been the subject of comment during the Foreign Affairs debate. He should have brought all this information from the United Nations to the notice of the hon. the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who, I am sure, would have been very interested.

Sir, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister of Justice to an incident which took place in October, 1970. when two private detectives, who had planted a “bugging" device in someone's home, were charged with crimen injuria and convicted in the magistrate’s court. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether he was made aware of this particular incident, because I think it brings to light the whole question of the “private eye”, as he is known. I am speaking of the private detective who sets himself up in practice, not only in the big cities, hut throughout the country. I may say that the conviction was confirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court. As I have said, this conviction brings into focus the whole question of the private detective. I wonder whether the time has not come for the Department of Justice to take cognizance of this type of profession and to regulate it in sortie way or another. Perhaps the department could ensure, firstly, before the public has to come to grips with this new inroad into the field of advice and attention to the affairs of our community, that some standard should be laid down. Perhaps a licence could be issued, just as it is in the case of other professions, or perhaps some code of ethics could be established in order to ensure that this incision into the detecting profession is properly regulated. This is not unusual in other countries of the world. In fact, it can play a very useful and important part in our whole social system. But on the other hand I think the public must be protected from persons who have no right at all to foist themselves on the public and do this type of work. As it does correlate with the work of the Minister’s own department, I do think that some notice should be taken of this matter. I am quite prepared to hand to the Minister the information I have, together with the necessary cuttings and a little story which [ found in another newspaper, which also deals with this issue and which, I think, is very important from the point of view of the Department of Justice.

Having dealt with that matter, I want to deal also with the question of legal aid. Some hon. member opposite was very inquisitive as to how much money should be set aside. I am told authoritatively that this system will require the expenditure of at least R1 million to R1½ million per annum throughout the country if it is to be put into operation properly. The suggestion was made that an assurance had been given by the hon. the Minister that with time he would catch up and officers would be appointed and, if further money was required from time to time, that money Would be provided. I am perfectly happy with that thought, except in this respect. Legal aid has been carried on a voluntary basis in the big cities of this country for some time. It has been very helpful to the community, and I think it has played a very important part. A number of people under the multifarious laws of today, which guide our destiny, have had to seek some form of advice and assistance when facing the courts. If it were not for legal aid, I think many unfortunate persons might not have been able to present their cases as satisfactorily as they could do with proper legal advisers. I think in the practice of law in the various courts of our country, this whole principle of legal aid is not only well known, but has been accepted as an avenue through which persons have been able to seek voluntary assistance, where they have not been able to pay for such assistance, of the profession, both of the Bar and the Side Bar. But I do not think it needs all the time that seems to be inferred for the department to establish this system properly and satisfactorily. It has had a couple of years now in which to proceed with the administration of this particular department under the Act, and I think that the Minister errs, if I may say so, in providing such a niggardly sum for this particular purpose. If it is a question of staff, one can well understand it, and one should then have made use of the present organizations which have been established. Quite recently I read that at the annual general meeting of the Legal Aid Organization in Johannesburg the chairman, who I think is a member of the Johannesburg Bar, made it perfectly dear that, despite the fact that the Act has now been passed and is in the course of being applied, it will still be necessary for this particular voluntary body to continue operations in order to fill the gaps until the system is properly established throughout the rest of the country. It is my disappointment, and that of this side of the House, and it is the disappointment of the legal profession generally throughout the country, firstly that it has taken so long, and secondly that the provision in the Budget seems to indicate that there is not an enthusiastic approach. I think the Minister owes an explanation to the House and to the country and perhaps he should give us some much more concrete information which will satisfy us that the operation of the Act will continue on a much more accelerated basis. This is not said in any sense of carping spirit. It is said because of a sense or urgency, because I fully believe, and the members of the profession fully believe, that it is important that the sooner the full scope of this Act is operating in the country, the better. I think it will be, from the social point of view, a very important contribution to the social welfare life of our country. Therefore I suggest to the hon. the Minister that in giving us some idea of what he intends to do, perhaps he might further indicate whether he does intend to ensure that very much more money will be supplied than is provided for. I am not sure whether the provision of this money falls under column 2. I regret that I did not check that, but if it does, of course, the hon. the Minister’s hands are bound. If it does not, the hon. the Minister is in a position where he can, with the assistance of Treasury, accelerate the operation of this Act. I hope that the hon. the Minister will do that.

Finally I would like to support those who have pleaded with the hon. the Minister for an acceleration of the processes of justice in our courts. One finds that in the bigger courts particularly the question of delay is costing endless thousands of rand to the public of the country. When I say “endless thousands of rand”, I am not exaggerating. Any practising attorney will know that. I had an opportunity during my forced recess from the House of some few years to see a little more of the life of the courts than I had done for some years before. Of course, I learnt much. I observed what takes place there. I saw the endless postponements and the difficulties with which the Bench is faced. It may possibly again be a question of staff. [Time expired.]

I find it a great pleasure to follow on the hon. member for Jeppes after he has made one of his less frequent constructive speeches. His observations in connection with private detectives were very interesting. At present the only protection which the citizen has is that which is incorporated in the private law of South Africa. This matter should perhaps be examined in some more detail in the future.

His remarks in connection with legal aid were interesting as well. In this regard I think we can on this occasion pay tribute to and thank all the advocates and attorneys who, over the years, have provided free legal aid services to deserving cases. I know that in the case of the Johannesburg Bar and the Pretoria Bar, of which I am a member, it is done on a roster basis. From time to time every advocate gets the opportunity of acting free of charge, and does so as well. It is also true to the traditions of the Bar that he is not paid for all his services. In the past it has always been the case that certain services have been rendered to the public free of charge. Now that we have a legal aid system, which is highly necessary, we are looking forward to the extension of this system.

I do not want to contradict the hon. member for Jeppes in what he said with reference to delays occurring in the courts. However, it has been the experience that the delays which do occur in the courts are very often exaggerated and are not really so bad. But when a practitioner has to deal with this matter in practice, we do find that in serious cases delays very often run to several months. The department is most definitely trying to make these delays as short as possible. Everything is being done to deal with court cases as quickly and as efficiently as possible. However, it is not wrong for us to request the department to intensify these attempts which are being made to endeavour to deal with court cases more and more expeditiously.

I also want to react to an aspect of the speech made by the hon. member for Houghton, who referred to the release of prisoners and particularly asked for the release of certain political prisoners. In passing, we must immediately take exception to the use of the term “political prisoners”. There is no such thing as political prisoners. No person in South Africa is sent to gaol because of his political convictions. No person is at present serving a prison sentence as a result of his political convictions. But they are serving a prison sentence and have been convicted because they acted in a way which was directed against the State and its security. In some or other context the persons she calls “political prisoners” are persons who, in their actions and in their organizations, tried to overthrow the State and thus jeopardized the security of the State. In other words, therefore, these persons are not political prisoners, but prisoners who have been convicted of crimes against the State. In regard to the release of prisoners convicted of crimes against the State, two important principles stand out. We must put those two principles to this House for a moment. The first principle is that it is the duty of the Government and of the National Party— this is also how the National Party views the matter—to maintain the rights of the citizen in South Africa. Because of their history, the National Party and the Afrikaner have dedicated and directed themselves to the personal freedom of the citizen of South Africa. Through the history of the National Party and of the Afrikaner runs the one single golden thread of freedom and justice. The National Party wants to maintain freedom in South Africa; personal freedom, freedom of speech and freedom of the Press. It is the party which stands for freedom, the party which wants to see the self-realization of every citizen in South Africa and which wants to place its citizens on that road. In addition, the National Party has a second principle which it regards as important. It also has a second principle to which it adheres and which it must maintain. This principle is that it wants to protect the security of the State. It is true that very often a clash may occur between the freedom of the individual on the one hand and the security of the State on the other. The National Party, being a balanced party, and the Government, being a balanced Government, aim at finding a balance between the security of the State on the one hand, and the freedom of the individual on the other. Because this is so, the Government must act with the greatest care and must consider whether its actions may not perhaps jeopardize the security of the State We have in our gaols certain prisoners who were convicted of crimes against the State. The hon. member for Houghton mentioned a highly irrelevant example and said that in 1948 this Government had released certain political prisoners, as she calls them, such as Van Blerk, Visser and Robey Leibbrandt. I take it I am quoting the hon. member for Houghton correctly. What is the difference between the situation at that time and the present situation? The difference is a very simple one. Those persons participated in a war and committed sabotage in war-time. But in 1948, when they were released, that war was over. South Africa was no longer in a dangerous situation. The war had come to an end and the danger was over. Those persons had been properly rehabilitated. Their conduct after their release proved this. Their subsequent actions were never again a danger to the security of the State. One cannot say this for one moment. But what is the position today? Does the hon. member for Houghton want to insinuate for one moment that the danger for South Africa and for this people has now passed? Does the hon. member for Houghton for one moment want to say in this House that the organizations to which those members belonged, no longer exist at all? Does the hon. member for Houghton want to insinuate that those persons’ aim of overthrowing the Government in South Africa, is over and done with? Surely this is not the case. Those people participated in a cold war against the State and against South Africa, against the entire Government administration and against the entire set-up in South Africa. That cold war is still being waged; it has not come to an end. This Government has the duty of protecting the security of the State. In this regard it must act like a father protecting his family, It must act like a diligens paler familias. If it acts in that way, it cannot for a moment consider releasing people who may still link up with a movement, a group or an organization whose aims are to overthrow the Republic of South Africa and to replace this Government with a Black, communist government.

I have here a paper that was read by one Mêra Ramgobin. This person made a few absurd statements in the paper he read. He also asked that the so-called political prisoners in South Africa be released. He did so on the analogy of the fact that “political prisoners”, as he called them, had been released in 1948. The basic mistake in his point of departure is that he does not realize that South Africa is still in a state of war, in other words, that it is still in the same situation as that in which these people were imprisoned. Today it is the duty of this Government and of any government in the world to realize that the period of the hot wars which used to occur in the world is over and that we have to define wars in different terms today. We must define them in such a way today that it indicates that we are involved in a serious cold war. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am surprised to hear the hon. member say that he thinks it worse to commit sabotage and subversion in lime of peace than in time of war. I myself would have said that if a country is in a state of declared war, it is a far more serious crime to attempt to commit subversion or to undermine the efforts of the Government.

You are missing the point.

No, I have not missed the point. This is the implication of what the hon. member has said. I do not share his opinion of our Police Force and our Army, I think that all these threats of terrorism are vastly exaggerated because I have the utmost confidence in our Army, on which we are spending many hundreds of millions of rand, and I think that they are perfectly able to cope with any threat of subversion or terrorism from outside. I have also no doubt that our very efficient and well trained Police Force is able to cope with any threat from inside. I think that releasing some of these prisoners who are “political prisoners”, by popular acceptance, whether the hon. member likes it or not, is not in any way going to endanger the safety of the State.

I want to refer to two matters which I have not yet raised with the hon. the Minister during this Vote. I hope that he will be able to give me a reply. One matter which I want to raise is the case of “trigger happy” Mr. Sam. I have raised this case before in this House and I raised it again this year by way of a question because Mr. Sam has been found guilty of shooting his ninth intruder. Mr. Sam has decided that stealing a packet of cigarettes should be a capital offence. He has already shot nine people; in fact he has already shot five people dead for breaking into his shop. Now he has been charged in a court of law and he has been found guilty of assaulting an Indian, I believe. He was declared to be psychiatrically unsound. I asked the hon. the Minister whether he would not find out from the presiding magistrate whether he should not take the powers which he possesses in terms of the Arms and Ammunitions Act, to declare this man a person who is not fit to possess a firearm. At that time the magistrate was on sick leave and I imagine that by now he has recovered sufficiently. I hope that the hon. the Minister will be able to give me an answer to this question, because I believe that this is really quite an important point.

The other matter I want to raise is a matter which I know is very delicate and which is probably going to infuriate many members in this House. This matter, however, is one which I feel ought to be raised. That is to get the Minister’s reaction to the suggestions which have been made recently for a modernization and overhaul of our laws as far as abortion is concerned.

Or brothels.

No. There have been three rather important sources as far as this is concerned. The first is that the commission of inquiry into the Mental Disorders Act has decided the following. I quote from a newspaper cutting from the Star from the 14th April, 1971. The chairman, Mr. Justice T. van Wyk said:

That is what Mr. Justice van Wyk has said and he recommended that these changes should be inquired into. Furthermore, he recommended that the law should be amended accordingly. Another source is the secretary of the Council of Gynaecologists and of Obstetricians of South Africa, who has also recommended that certain changes be introduced in order to allow abortions if the mother-to-be has contracted German measles. All the doctors in this House will know that if a woman becomes pregnant when she has German measles or contracts German measles after she has fallen pregnant, there is very serious danger that a child will be born who is retarded and physically seriously affected. Deafness is one of these side effects. He suggested that an investigation should be made into the legalizing of abortions in cases where a pregnant woman has contracted German measles. Then the executive of the Medical Council of South Africa has unanimously adopted a resolution asking for ways to be considered in which the abortion laws should be relaxed in general. The reason for this is that medical men very often perform abortions, knowing that they are doing an illegal act, but knowing also that they are not likely to be prosecuted. They do this, for instance, in cases of rape. They do it in other cases. They hope that they will not be prosecuted and mostly they are not. But it is very uncomfortable for a doctor to know that he is performing an illegal act, and I think it is high time that our abortion laws, which, as one Pretoria gynaecologist has said, are about a hundred years out of date, were overhauled. I hope the hon. the Minister will consider it during the recess and perhaps come next session with some sort of amending legislation which this House can consider.

Last year, according to figures that I have, 1 796 women, 277 of whom were White, were treated for incomplete abortions at the H. F. Verwoerd Hospital. Six of these women died. Three hundred and two deaths from illegal abortions occurred in one year in Johannesburg alone, and 1 500 women were treated for incomplete abortions in the Johannesburg hospitals. One thousand four hundred and thirty-six women were treated for incomplete abortions in Cape Town. Now, Sir, just forbidding abortions does not in fact meet the case because women go to illegal abortionists. They have what are known as back-street abortions. These are often incomplete abortions and the mother-to-be is put in danger of her life.

How do you know these were all induced abortions?

Well, I do not say they were all induced abortions, but the majority of them surely are the result of incomplete abortions which have been attempted by back street abortionists, by women.

That is mere guess-work.

No, I am quoting from reports by a Pretoria gynaecologist. I am not making these figures up. The hon. member ought to know me better than that. I never come to this House unless I use figures which are authoritative. If the Medical Council considers it a serious enough matter—and I do not think that is a flighty body which is likely to consider steps which are going to increase immorality and permissiveness in South Africa—and also the Council of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians, to suggest changes in the law and if the Commission of Inquiry set up under Mr. Justice Van Wyk, to inquire into Mental Disorders also considers it to be serious enough for the hon. the Minister to reconsider it all, I think this House should encourage the hon. the Minister to do so. I, for one, would like to do just that.

Chairman directed to report progress.