I move’

1. (1) Sub-section (1) of Section 22:

   The deletion of the word “and” at the end of paragraph (b) of the proviso; the substitution for the word “martial” in paragraph (c) of the proviso, of the word “martial; and” and the addition to the proviso of the following paragraph:

1. (2) Section 73:

   The addition of the following proviso:

In this connection I want to mention that in terms of the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 104 of the Defence Act, 1957 (Act No.44 of 1957), the State President may, with approval, by resolution of both Houses of Parliament by proclamation in the Gazette, insert any new provision in or amend or repeal any provision of the First Schedule. It will be noticed that this motion contains a proposal to amend sub-section (1) of Section 22 and also Section 37.

As Section 72 (1) reads at present, it provides, inter alia, that a general court martial shall consist of officers of the South African Defence Force, each of whom has held commissioned rank for at least three years.

It is the intention now to insert a further sub-section, as it appears on the Order Paper, in terms of which an officer holding a degree in law of any university in the Republic of South Africa, or who has passed the Public Service Senior Law Examination, or who holds a degree or has passed an examination which in the opinion of the Minister is equivalent to the aforementioned degree or examination, may be appointed as president or as a member of a court martial without having held commissioned rank for three years.

The limitation of three years has a retarding effect on the administration of military law. The expansion of the force will naturally mean that more courts martial will have to be appointed, and unless the proposed amendment is made the result will be that there will be an accumulation of work which will not be in the interests of the Department, particularly when we bear in mind the extended training period. Unless the proposed amendment is made, the position will be extremely difficult if the force suddenly has to be expanded on a very large scale in time of war.

The reason why only officers with more than one year’s service will be eligible for appointment as president or as a member of a court martial is that during the first year of their service they first have to gain experience through the medium of courses. Even a lawyer must have a certain amount of military background before he can serve on a court martial.

The existing Section 73 deals with the composition of an ordinary court martial, and as in the case of Section 72 (1) it also limits the appointment of a president or member of a court martial to those with three or more years’ service.

The object of the amendment which appears on the Order Paper is the same as that in connection with Section 72 which I have just explained.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say this for general information. A general court martial is composed of at least three members or, in the case of a capital crime or culpable homicide, at least five members. The rank of the president of a general court martial must not be lower than that of colonel or some equivalent rank. An ordinary court martial consists of at least three members, and the rank of the president must not be lower than that of captain or some equivalent rank.

I second.

As the hon. the Minister has explained, the motion which he has just moved is a matter which has arisen to some extent as a result of the expansion of the forces and in order to prevent cases of breach of military discipline accumulating due to the lack of officers qualified under existing regulations to form a court martial. One is always a bit chary, Sir, about altering the constitution which governs the appointments to a court martial because under military law that court exercises supreme power over the individuals it has to try. When considered on the plane of our civil law, it is a body which one always approaches with the utmost caution. You must always ensure that those persons who will sit in judgment on their fellow members of the forces for a breach of the military discipline code will be people who are fully experienced and qualified, both from the military point of view with a knowledge of military rules and regulations and the military discipline code as well as from the legal point of view. Under the old system that military qualification was three years. It is now proposed to reduce it to one year. As the hon. the Minister has said this flows from the expansion which the military forces are undergoing to-day. It appears a perfectly sensible and valid reason that you do not want people who have been charged to have to wait too long before they are tried. This provides them with a certain amount of mental worry. At the same time it is a bad thing for these type of cases to pile up. One is therefore prepared to support the motion which the hon. the Minister has introduced but I should like to ask the Minister a couple of questions. Although under certain conditions you have difficulty today in finding the qualified personnel to constitute the court martial in terms of existing regulations and although you will have a wider field to choose from if this amendment is approved, it does mean to some extent that you are sacrificing military experience to obtain legal experience. We are reducing the amount of military experience which in itself is a most important factor when it comes to assessing the extent of the breach of discipline. So one wants to avoid that. I want to ask the Minister whether under the new system, where courts martial have to be appointed, where it is a case of a fairly serious nature, and where the punishment and its effects on the individual may be far-reaching, that despite the relaxation in regard to the rank and service, care will be taken to see that the most senior and the most qualified officers available should constitute the court martial.

The other point is, that we are passing through what might be called a period of reconstruction in the defences of the country and we are agreeing to measures which outside of war conditions one would be very loath to agree to. I want to ask the Minister whether he visualizes that in regard to this new scheme, whether as we come back to normal, he will continue with this amended system as a permanent system, or is it the intention merely to use it during this period of emergency?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member for Simonstown (Mr. Gay) that one must be very careful, and that there should be senior military men on such a court martial. We are now asking for less military experience, but, at the same time, for more legal knowledge—not that means very much, with due apologies to the hon. the Leader of the Opposition. But my idea is that the new scheme should be permanent. I am not thinking of returning to the old system. If we find that this system does not work, we will, of course, amend it, but I think that, with the higher legal qualifications, we will find that it works well.

I move, as an unopposed motion–

I second.

Mr. Speaker, the Bill now before us for its third reading is one which has been before the House in some shape or form for at least seven years. It has taken at least three Ministers of Justice to deal with it, each one of whom has played his part, and it has taken quite a number of members and many officials of the Department concerned in order to arrive at the present stage. Whilst I do not hesitate to criticize when I believe criticism is necessary, I do not think it is fair to criticize unless one is also prepared to give credit where credit is due, and I feel that a lot of credit is due to the present Minister, who has been in office for only a few months, but yet has found time to crystallize all the work which was done before his taking over office and to place this measure before the House in a very practical form. I think it is only fair that the Minister should be given full credit for the effort he has put in, as well as those before him, who assisted in making this Bill possible.

The Bill can be accepted as an agreed measure, although there are little differences of opinion in some cases, and also as an agreed measure between all the societies and the associations who are dedicated to the protection of animal life. There again, I think it is as well to place on record that that, in itself, is no small achievement, because there are conflicting interests, but the Minister has been able to bring them together, and he has introduced a Bill which satisfies almost everybody. The Bill deals with various practical aspects of cruelty to animals, and it consolidates to a large extent legislation which has been accumulated in various other Acts since 1914. It will certainly make the work of those administering the law in this respect much easier, and it should also make it much clearer to the persons concerned, who may be guilty of cruelty to animals, just what constitutes cruelty. In that respect I think the Bill is a distinct advance on the previous legislation, which was somewhat vague.

One of the most important provisions in the Bill is the one contained in the clause in which the Minister has defined, in agreement with the societies, the position of the accredited officials of the Animal Protection Societies, like the S.P.C.A. and others, which work voluntarily for the protection of animals. The Bill has now provided a sound basis on which these trained officials can work in cooperation with the police and with other officials whose duty it is to carry out the law. I believe I am not over-stressing it when I say that their specialized knowledge–some of them have a lifetime of service in this connection–will be most valuable to the State. The Minister himself has paid a very glowing tribute to the work done by these societies, not only in the practical side of preparing the Bill, but in the interest shown by them in this type of work. The Bill not only sets out in clear detail the particulars of the various acts of cruelty, but it also imposes what appear to be adequate and reasonable safeguards to see that its provisions are not either in the one case abused by over-zealous officers, or, in the other case, that the work of genuine institutions which carry out research, in which animal life is concerned, is not interfered with. There has been some fear expressed that universities and research laboratories may be subjected to certain disabilities as the result of the Bill, but I think that when we examine Clause 8 (1) (a)it clearly removes any doubt in that respect and provides a very adequate safeguard. In terms of that clause–and it applies not only to these institutions, but to any individual– first of all it is necessary to have a district proclaimed as a particular district under a magistrate and an inspector authorized for that particular district. Then, if the inspector of a society wants to enter premises to investigate what he suspects is a case of cruelty to animals, the Bill provides that he can do so in two ways. He can either do so with the consent of the owner or occupier, or, if that is not forthcoming, that inspector has to get the authority of the magistrate in writing to enter those premises. I think no magistrate of a district would lightly give such authority unless the inspector satisfies him that it is a genuine case. So I think we can rest assured that the Bill provides adequate safe guards to protect anyone from over-enthusiasm or the abuse of the powers granted. The Bill does not extend the powers of the police to enter premises, because that power is already contained in other legislation. In regard to the clause dealing with the sale of certain types of traps which can inflict pain and suffering on an animal, the amendment which the Minister has accepted at least endeavours to apply a greater sense of responsibility in the actual sale of these things. One knows it is futile to expect that all trapping will be stopped. Most men know how to make a wire noose, even if it is illegal to do so. But it at least canalizes the more commercial type of traps through dealers who have to be authorized by a magistrate to sell them, and, as such, one can expect there to be a certain amount of reasonable control, although some people would like it to go further.

In its final clauses the Bill also clarifies certain of the legal procedures, and provides again what appear to be quite reasonable systems of controlling expenses and recovering damages incurred. It contains provisions which existed in the old laws and which, in general, have worked without much difficulty, but where difficulties have existed they have been overcome now. The Bill which we will now accept is, in a sense, a portion of a pattern of this type of animal protection legislation. Complementary Bills, we understand, will have to come at a later stage to complete the pattern, and we express the hope that it will not be over-long before these complementary measures, which will complete the pattern, will be introduced.

I thank the hon. member for the kind words that head dressed to me. I should like to make use of this opportunity to thank hon. members on both sides of the House for their support and assistance, and once again to convey my thanks to the societies for the unselfish way, accompanied by great sacrifices, in which they are devoting their time and attention to the protection of animals. If you will permit me to do so, Mr. Speaker, it is perhaps not inappropriate to say at this stage that it struck me while the hon. member for Simons town (Mr. Gay) was speaking–and this redounds to the very great credit of our people–that the time may come when we shall be the only country in Africa that protects wild animals in their natural state. That is why it is fitting that we should pass a Bill of this kind in this House. Once again, my sincere thanks to hon. members and in particular to the hon. member for Simons town.

When the debate was adjourned yesterday evening I was trying to set out the general policy of the Department of Water Affairs, as I saw the position. After I had congratulated the Minister on this great idea to launch the Orange River scheme, I advanced the proposition that however rich a country may be, the extent of its development was subject to the quantity of water at its disposal. The entire development of this country is dependent on the quantity of water at our disposal–I do not think anyone will quarrel with me on this point–and that is why we are all perturbed about the general position with regard to water supplies in this country. We are concerned not only about surface supplies of water but also about subterranean water. Here I should like to refer to the latest report of the Secretary of Water Affairs, which gives one cause for concern about the future position with regard to water supplies. The average depth of boreholes drilled by the Government in 1910 and prior to that date was 125 feet, with an average yield of 86 gallons per hour, while in 1960-1 the average depth was 253 feet and the average yield only 28 gallons per hour. These figures show that there is a continual drop in the water level in this country. Looking at South Africa a say whole, one realizes that there are only small areas of the country which a high rainfall and which really constitute our water sponges. In those circumstances we feel that we must make use of the flow of the rivers which have their origin in those parts of the country so that we can make provision for the dry areas, and that we should attempt not only to increase our surface supplies but also to strengthen our subterranean supplies of water. Many of the high rainfall areas are in the Bantu Territories. The White areas are in the drier parts of the country, and it is in those areas that we have to plan in the future for development so that those areas will be able to carry our increased population. That is why one cannot help admiring schemes of the kind now contemplated by the Minister to increase our supplies of water both above ground and underground. Formerly it was only Parliament, on the recommendation of a Select Committee, which could authorize the diversion of water from one water level to another. In the latest Water Act, however, the Minister was given the power to divert water from one level to another. But it is a matter that he must consider very seriously before he diverts water from one level to another. It is unthinkable that the water of Chrissie Lake should be pushed over into Natal, and it is just as unthinkable … [Interjections.] My plea to the Minister, who now has these powers, is that he should act very judiciously when he diverts water to a different level. We are convinced that he will give very serious consideration to it before he does so. This is one aspect of the future development of this country about which we are very concerned, that is to say, the supply of water to the dry areas. We are worried particularly when we think of the very great needs of the North-West Cape, because that is the future development area but there is a very limited amount of water available for that development. Sir, under the previous Vote we discussed fodder banks, but the best way to make provision for fodder banks is by supplementing the water supplies in those dry areas. We would therefore ask the Minister to give his very serious attention to this matter and to try to develop those areas as soon as possible, both as far as surface and underground water supplies are concerned.

I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the dissatisfaction that prevails in so many cases where compensation is paid for land which is used for water schemes, below the dams. I should like also to draw the Minister’s attention to the great disparity in the prices which are paid for land in the same area.

That falls under the Loan Vote.

No, I am raising this under the Minister’s policy. This compensation is paid on a certain scale which is laid down by the Minister’s Department. I understand that it is done on the following basis: The market value of the land is taken into consideration; all improvements are valued, including luxury improvements, and then the farmer is also compensated for any inconveniences that he suffers.

Order’ The hon. member must discuss that under the Loan Vote.

At the moment the Minister is using the Land Boards to make these valuations, and I want to suggest that he should appoint his own valuators, because so many valuations will have to be made now that I cannot see how the Land Board can be used for this purpose. Although these valuations which are made under the Water Act fall under the Minister, the Land Boards do not fall under the Minister; they fall under the Minister of Lands, and that seems to be an anomaly. All complaints which are made in connection with prices paid for land come to the Minister; he has to deal with them. If any farmer is not satisfied, the policy is that he must come to this Minister, who can then pay him an amount which exceeds the valuation. There are very few farmers who are aware of the fact that they can appeal to the Minister. They believe that once the Land Board has valued their land they are faced with an accomplished fact. They believe that their only remedy then is to go to the Water Court, because the two do not fall under the same Minister, and I say that in the years ahead of us, when we tackle these big schemes for which provision is made on the Loan Account, this matter is going to assume such proportions that the hon. the Minister will have to bring about a change in his policy. He will have to appoint his own valuators, valuators over whom he himself will have control, because I say again that he has no control over the present valuators. After all, it is the hon. the Minister who has to lay down the policy and surely he should have people who will carry out his policy; he should have people over whom he can exercise control. I want to mention one case to the hon. the Minister. In this case, which is within my personal knowledge, a portion of a farmer’s land was required for a dam; his farm was cut exactly into two halves. There were no improvement son the piece of land which was going to be placed underwater; it consisted only of the vlei portions of his farm. When a dam walls constructed, as any person who has any knowledge of this matter will know, it is the low-lying land, mostly the vlei portions, which are placed under water. In this case the farmer was made an offer for these portions, after the Land Board had made a valuation, and he was then left with the two hills on either side of the dam. These two hills were full of rocks and were absolutely useless to him. Moreover, he was cut off from the water which stood on his own land; he had no access to that water, and at the moment he has no water in the two camps which were left to him on either side of the dam. When I tell the hon. the Minister what compensation he was paid, he will agree with me that it is wrong to leave the valuation in the hands of the Land Board. I want to say here that it has never been laid down by the Minister’s Department how the value of prairie land is to be determined, and it often happens that the very part of a man’s farm which is worth most to him, namely the prairie land, is expropriated. Here provisions being made on the Loan Estimates for a scheme which hon. members would like to discuss but which in terms of your ruling, Sir, they cannot discuss, a scheme which is going to affect so many thousands of farmers that I cannot see how the present state of affairs can be allowed to continue unchanged. There is great dissatisfaction at the moment. I have been told that in the case of the Vaal River one farmer was paid £3 16s. per acre and another farmer £90 per acre.

The repetition of hearsay leads to many lies.

The hon. member who has made that interjection will perhaps be very grateful to me within a year or two for having brought this subject to the notice of the hon. the Minister to-day. Let us take the four factors which are taken into consideration when farms are valued. The first factor is the market value, the second improvements, luxury improvement sand, fourthly, the damage suffered by the farmer.

You can also add inconvenience as another factor.

Yes, the damage and inconvenience suffered by him. I want to tell the Minister that a great deal depends on the people who do these valuations. Just look at the difference in the prices which are paid for land which is purchased for the Minister’s Department and land which is purchased from farmers for the Department of Bantu Administration and Development. That difference is so enormous that it ought to be an indication to the Minister that he should have valuators over whom he himself will have control. I think that this is a matter of very great importance. It is not necessary for me to tell the hon. the Minister how many complaints there are. The difficulty at the moment is that the right to arbitration, for which the Water Act made provision, no longer exists. Most farmers are not aware of the fact that they can appeal to the Minister for assistance. [Time limit.]

We have just received from the Secretary of Water Affairs 21 reports which have been tabled here. Of these reports, 12 deal with proposed betterment works, eight with proposed schemes, and one is an ordinary report with regard to a particular scheme. In addition to this there is the phenomenal Orange scheme, and then there are still various other works which have already been started. I want to make use of this opportunity to place on record our appreciation of the way in which the Secretary of Water Affairs is serving the interests of South Africa. I want to point out that the enterprise which is so much in evidence in his Department is due to a very large measure to his personality, to the scrupulous care with which he undertakes any task that is entrusted to him. I want to say that here to-day because I think it should be said. I have had the opportunity on various occasions of taking deputations to Departments, and I have seldom received such kindliness, such hearty cooperation and such hearty courtesy as I have received from the Secretary of Water Affairs. I think it is because of that that he gets such excellent cooperation in his Department.

I want to deal for a moment with the Pongolapoort Dam. I do so because a certain amount of doubt was expressed in the previous debate by various members on that side of the House. I want to point out that the construction engineer and the members of his staff only commenced this work in August 1960. They first had to construct a road to be able to reach the site. A fine town ship, with all the necessary amenities, has now been laid out. There is even a school, a library, a sort of town hall as well as sports grounds. This Department has set an example here to all Departments in South Africa; it has demonstrated that if you create the necessary facilities for your workers so that they can be happy and content, they produce the best work. I mention this because on various occasions in previous debates we have talked here about the salary scales of our technicians in South Africa. I just want to point out that, as far as the engineers and the staff of the Department of Water Affairs are concerned, it is not a question of the salary that they receive, because their salaries can never compensate them for the work that they do. Their record lies in the monuments that they are erecting for themselves in South Africa. There are only two districts which will be affected by this dam. The Mkavuma district comprises 1,660 square miles or 514,000 morgen; there are only 104 Whites and 5,501 Natives, according to the 1956 census. The Uvombo district comprises 1,662 square miles or 514,721 morgen. According to this census there are only 157 Whites, 43 Coloureds and 20,028 Natives. According to the report 70,000 morgen will be placed under irrigation initially, and even if we are going to give half of this to the Bantu, we can still place at least 300 White families there under closer settlement. This is a dam which is essential therefore. I pointed out a moment ago that the staff only took over there in August 1960. Any person who goes there to-day, however, will be amazed to see the excellent progress that has been made and the neat way in which that work has been tackled. I also want to place on record the fact that any engineer who does such beautiful work sets an example as to what we can accomplish in South Africa. In other words, if the Department of Water Affairs, under the guidance of the present Secretary, were given the necessary staff, I believe that we have sufficient trained technicians in South Africa for the whole of the Orange River scheme and any other scheme which may be tackled in this country. We have some of the best in the whole world. I do not think that South Africa need take second place to any country in the world as far as the efficiency and enterprise and scientific skill of her technicians are concerned. I am not allowed to discuss the Orange River scheme under this Vote, but I want to mention just one example. Fifty miles of canals are to be built in the Orange River scheme. Mr. Chairman, there are no better canal builders in the whole world than we have in South Africa. Our mines in South Africa bear testimony to that fact. These mines consist of canals. In other words, we can get the necessary technicians in South Africa to undertake that work.

But there is one other plea that I want to put forward here. I want to suggest that hon. the Minister should consider the question of establishing a water planning board in his Department.

There are too many boards already.

No, there are not too many boards. Sir, in this fine booklet, “English Rivers and Canals” I find the following sentence: “Rivers have made England a nation by the facility of access to the sea.” Just as rivers have made Britain a nation, so water will make South Africa a country in the future and place it on the map. Water is the life of this country. Let me mention just one example. Now that the Orange River scheme has been published and is about to be undertaken, we find that a beautiful new scheme such as the Berg River scheme is also being suggested. We also have the Tugela River, one of the biggest rivers in South Africa flowing east; we have the Assegai River, we have the Buffels River near Volksrust, and so there are many other rivers. If we created a water planning board under this Department, then with the necessary coordination we could map the waters in South Africa with a view to developing and harnessing them from time to time according to the prevailing circumstances. I would urge therefore that attention be given to the establishment of a water planning board. Such a board could be composed of ad hoc committees which could take into consideration all the different aspects such as electricity supply, the development of industries and the development of border industries. With those ad hoc committees we could have a thorough planning of the whole of South Africa and we could map all our rivers.

I should like to say a few words in the first place under Head F, “Maintenance of Government Water works”. The Department employs quite a number of Coloureds in connection with the maintenance of Government Waterworks and I was wondering whether the time has not come when we should start promoting those Coloureds who have been doing this sort of work for years so that they can be employed as foremen in the future, particularly at new works on which Coloureds are employed. Perhaps there are not many of these people who have the initiative and the necessary knowledge, but I feel that the time has come when we should give an opportunity to those people who are capable and who have proved that they want to improve their position. If these people are placed in charge of teams of Coloureds we shall be carrying out our policy and giving them the necessary incentive to improve their position. I just want to bring this to the Minister’s notice and I shall be pleased if he will have this matter investigated. I do not say that there are many of these people but there are quite a few Coloureds who will be capable of doing this work.

Then I want to refer to Head J, “Special Flood Relief”. I think the original amount was placed on the Estimates about 2½ years ago when we had these very heavy storms and floods in the Orange River Valley. I am thinking particularly of a comparatively large number of Coloureds who are living on farms in the Upington district. For example, there are two farms there which belong to Coloureds and which are not State-aided farms. The church helped them originally to buy these farms for R140,000. The purchase price has now been paid off. I refer to the farms Currieskamp and Bloemsemond, which are situated not far from Upington. There are large numbers of Coloureds on these irrigation farms. Whenever I visit these farms, these people point out to me damage that was done in the course of the floods. They themselves are simply not in the position to repair the damage. They ask me whether I consider it right that Whites should be assisted by the State to repair damage done to their farms while they themselves receive no assistance. I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether a portion of this money cannot be used to assist these people, even if it is just a token amount to show them that we are not overlooking them.

We also have the Government scheme at Eksteenskuil; where less damage was done, but there the Department of Coloured Affairs has already repaired the greatest portion of the damage. Just across the river where these people, at their own expense, bought this big farm which they are occupying jointly, the damage has not yet been repaired, and one can understand that they do not feel very happy about it.

I should like to say a few words here this afternoon with regard to the Planning Division of the Department and particularly the technical and general advisory service of the Department. It is a well-known fact that where water schemes are planned, it immediately gives rise to speculation in land. The present Secretary of Water Affairs has compiled a very comprehensive work after a very thorough investigation into water schemes in the United States of America. I refer to this work of his, “Water Control and Utilization in the United States of America”, in which, after a very thorough survey of the first 21 water schemes in America, he proves that the prices of uncultivated land increased by anything from 75 per cent to 5,000 per cent over and above its actual value the moment such a scheme came into operation or even before it came into operation, with the result that settlers went in solvent because they had paid too much for the land. In order to prevent this a system has been devised in the Columbia catchment area scheme to make land speculation altogether impossible. In the limited time at my disposal, however, I do not propose to go into the details, and if Is ought to apply that to the conditions in South Africa you, Sir, might rule me out of order on the ground that I was advocating legislation. But I want to refer those hon. members who are interested in this real problem as to how we can obviate land speculation where such schemes are planned, to Chapter 32 of this important work by Mr. Jordaan. I regard it as of the utmost importance that nobody other than the State should receive the benefit of such increased land values. After all, it is the State and in the last instance the tax payers who are responsible for the appreciation in the value of that land. It is my considered opinion therefore that all increases in the value of land where such water schemes are introduced should accrue to the taxpayer or the State. After all, it is not the land speculator who is responsible for the increased value of the land; it is the State or the taxpayer who finances the scheme who is responsible for the increased value, and my modest opinion therefore is that that increase in value should accrue to the State and in the last instance to the taxpayer. In order to bring that about, I want to advocate here this afternoon that before such a water scheme is tackled in the future, a method should first be devised whereby land speculation will become impossible. But I do not want to elaborate on this, Mr. Chairman, because you would then rule me out of order for advocating legislation. There is another way too, of course, in which this land speculation can be checked and that is by charging such a high fee for the water” or levying such a high water tax as it is incorrectly called” that it will check land speculation. But that is by no means such an effective method as the first one that I have suggested here and which is dealt with in detail in this report. After all, it is a fact which is as clear as a pike staff that cheap water is immediately capitalized by the public in terms of expensive land. According to figures which the Department has placed at my disposal it appears that the average water fee on all the schemes that we have in the Republic of South Africa does not even cover the maintenance costs of those schemes, because the average current expenses per morgen amount to R6.96 while the average fee for the financial year 1962-3 is only R3.45. The average water fee does not even cover the maintenance costs’ and this does not even take into account capital redemption. It is no wonder therefore that so much pressure is brought to bear on successive Ministers of Water Affairs to introduce various schemes. In order to reduce this pressure I respectfully want to suggest a few yardsticks in terms of which such a scheme should be judged. The first yard stick that I want to suggest is whether there will be an economic market for the products which are to be produced under the scheme; secondly, whether the particular product or products can carry such a high water fee that it will be possible to recover a considerable portion of the capital costs; thirdly, whether such a scheme can be the source of a cheap supply of electricity in the particular area, and fourthly, the role that industries can play in order to make the scheme an economic proposition. And here I want to refer again to Mr. Jordaan’s report which I have already mentioned. In the Colorado River scheme it was found that the income derived from the sale of electricity and from the resultant development of industries was sufficient to cover the entire cost of the dam. A fifth yardstick that I want to mention here is the quantity of water that is necessary to produce the particular product. Here I want to point out that a water scheme in a high rainfall area can be utilized much more economically than a scheme in a semi-desert area, because in the former case the water from the dam is only supplementary while in the latter case the dam has to meet the water requirements throughout the whole of the year. I do not want to deal with this matter specifically, but I cannot resist the temptation to point out that if there is one scheme which complies with all these yardsticks, which complies with all the requirements that I have mentioned for an economic scheme, it is the Berg River scheme. I could go on and apply all these yard sticks one by one to their circumstances prevailing in the Berg River scheme, but I want to be careful not to overstep the mark; suffice it to say that if ever there was a scheme which could be an economic scheme for South Africa it is this Berg River scheme, because I have every confidence that it will be so economic that it will cover its full cost.

I wish to raise with the hon. the Minister a matter of policy in respect of one section of his Department for which we are voting money under Item G, namely, Boring Services. I wish to preface all I am going to say now with this statement that I do not intend to cast any reflection whatsoever on the staff of the hon. the Minister’s Department, for whom, from personal experience, I have nothing but the highest regard. But I want to ask the hon. the Minister whether the time has not arrived, in regard to these services for which we vote a very large sum of money in this House, for this particular section of his Department to carry a geological section. In support of the case that I am putting to the Minister, I want to quote the example of the services that his Boring Section rendered to one particular farmer. The farmer, before he made his application to the Department, applied to Geological Survey and got a geological survey of his farm. The geologist sorted out two particular points where here commended that the farmer should bore for water. Well, Mr. Chairman, in due course of time the boring machine arrived at the farm and bored the hole which the geologist had shown. In this particular instance the borehole went down to a depth of 180 feet. Then one day the boring inspector arrived and he said “You can’t go on like this, there is no water in this hole, it is obviously dry; we are moving to another hole”. So the boring inspector walked around and he picked what he thought was a good site, and they started boring again. In this case they went down to about 140 feet. The boring inspector arrived and said “Well, that hole is also dry, it is no good at all”, So he walked around and picked out a third site. There they ran into a bit of difficulty and they had to use the “haelboor”. So they stopped at 100 feet and the inspector says “this hole is also dry”. He took a further walk around the farm, quite a lengthy walk on this occasion, and ultimately he decided on a fourth place. So he instructed the boreman to move the machine and he bored again and on this occasion he went down to about 150 feet. The boring inspector arrived one day and said “No, this hole is also dry and no good”. Then he indicated a fifth site and the performance was repeated. But the farmer on this occasion got annoyed. The Minister may not believe it, but this is a true story. In the meantime five months had gone by. But the farmer on this occasion got annoyed and he went to the Minister’s Department and the Minister’s Department then arranged for the geologist to come round to the farm once more. They sent out extra-special geologists and they tested these holes. They came back to the first hole and they put their instruments down, and they said “This is not a dry hole, this is a wet hole according to our readings”. So they instructed the boreman to take the machine back to the old hole, Number One, and they went down 20 feet and got water. Now, Sir, if you examine the costs involved over a period of six months that the farmer has to pay for a hole delivering something like 300 gallons at the depth of some 203 feet, you will see what a burden that is on the farmer. It took six months to get the one hole, which the geologist had recommended in the first instance, but the machine was moved around without any recommendation from any expert whatsoever. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if this is one particular instance, there must be many instances of this nature where boring inspectors of their own authority decide that a hole is dry and move the machine to another site at cost to the State. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that if there had been a geologist having made the necessary tests and acting as the authority, this particular case would never have happened. I want to suggest to the hon. the Minister that he should go into this question. As far as I understand the position at the moment, if his Department wishes to have the services of the geological survey they have got to apply to the Department of Mines to send them a geologist. I think the time has arrived that this tremendous expenditure of some R2,750,000—which is an enormous amount over a period of years—includes a tremendous wastage. I know of more than one case. I know of one case where the boring inspector arrived at a farm, the farmer having made application, and the boring inspector said “Well, farmer, where am I going to bore?” “You choose the site.” He said “I don’t know where there is water on your farm”. So the farmer chose the site, because 20 years ago a man had come around with the “stokkie”, He was looking for a few pounds and the farmer paid him the few pounds and when he came to the site he fell down in a dead faint. The farmer on this occasion was lucky because the hole registered 10,000 gallons an hour. So there must have been something in the “stokkie”. I may tell the hon. the Minister that I know of these cases personally and if this is the way his Department got to work with these boring machines all over the country, and moving them simply at the behest of anybody, well—let me point out that a man only becomes a boring inspector having been a bore man first, but they have no specialized knowledge except the experience they may have gained in the years they have been on the job, but we have passed that stage, and I would strongly recommend to the hon. the Minister that his Department should at least have one or two full time geologists in order to safeguard this position and that it should not be a haphazard position of walking with a “stokkie” and looking with the eye. Those days are passed and a geologist should first decide if a machine has to be moved to another site if a hole appears to be dry. It should not be done merely on the word of a boring inspector. To my knowledge there is no geologist permanently attached to the Minister’s Department in Pretoria.

The other point I wish to raise is the hon. the Minister’s policy in regard to the development of small dam sites. I raise it because I think the matter is of considerable importance. There is great emphasis being laid on the development of large irrigation schemes, but there are many applications, as the hon. the Minister knows, in the files of his Department from various parts of the country by groups of farmers where at an economic cost dam sites have been selected and applications are waiting for Government assistance. I have in particular in mind the Koster Rivers scheme. The hon. Minister knows that that scheme has been on the books since 1916 and only in 1958 was the decision taken by this Government, after repeated representations, to do something in regard to the development of that scheme. The scheme was then decided upon and was prepared. It is a scheme which can cater for many hundreds of morgen and it can be completed at a cost of some R400,000 to irrigate some 600 morgen, 600 morgen which in any event have an average rainfall over the year of something like 24 inches. Only on occasions are they subject to periodic drought periods. But this scheme has been developed to irrigate 600 morgen to cater for that area in the event of a periodic drought, without any view whatsoever to the extension by furrow or otherwise of the area where the waters of this particular dam can be used and where proper irrigation is possible. I want to ask the hon. the Minister what is his policy in this regard. Are these schemes merely haphazardly drawn up? I think the Minister himself investigated the Lindleypoort Dam in the Western Transvaal where the wall is now being raised. If the wall can be raised now with an extension of the furrows, it indicates clearly that there was no true conception of the actual capacity of that catchment area at the time that that dam was erected. The point I want to raise is this: What is the Minister’s policy? I have personal intimate knowledge of the cost of such a scheme where 600 morgen are served by a dam with a large catchment area which could irrigate more fertile land by furrows than is now being irrigated under the existing scheme. But as far as I can as certain, there have been no further investigations by his Department in spite of representations of farmers who He further away under that scheme. [Time limit.]

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has talked about the objections of the farmers in connection with the valuation of land. I can only say that that is a very general phenomenon that we shall never be able to get rid of entirely. As soon as the State buys land, people are usually inclined to expect the State to pay an excessive price, and because that is the tendency, we will always get complaints. A second difficulty is that people expect to be paid increased prices when the value of the land increases because of the construction of a dam at a particular place. In those circumstances the value of the land rises although the farmer himself has made no contribution to it. In this respect one must be reasonable and take into account the actual value. The hon. member objects to the valuations made by Land Boards or by members of the Land Board. Where land is purchased by the State, the policy has always been that the valuation is made by members of the Land Board. These are people who have had years of experience in valuing land, and they are well qualified to place a reasonable valuation on the land. In addition to that the Act makes provision for a very reasonable period within which to object to the valuation, and where an objection is lodged the services of sworn valuators are sometimes called in to determine the value. I think that land valuations are made in a very fair way, and the Act clearly lays down how they are to be made.

I rise, however, to say that I am a little perturbed about the position with reference to the Komati River. In actual fact the Komati River is an international river which has its origin in the Republic; it then flows for some distance through Swaziland, then winds back again into the Republic and discharges its water in Portuguese territory. It is a very valuable river; it is one of the rivers in the Eastern Transvaal with the most regular flow; it has its origin in an area with a high rainfall; it flows through an area with a good run-off, and it is fed by fountains and mountain streams where it goes through mountainous regions. In addition to that there is very little agricultural activity in the upper reaches of the river, with the result that there is a very low silt deposit in the river. It is a valuable river for irrigation purposes, therefore, because it flows permanently and it has a low silt content. In the area where this river flows out of Swaziland back into the Republic again, there are great irrigation possibilities, but the difficulty is that apparently there is no fixed arrangement with reference to the utilization of the water of this river. At the moment a great deal of water is being used in Swaziland itself. There is a very big irrigation scheme on land which belongs to the Swaziland Development Corporation, which extracts a great deal of water from this river. The trouble, of course, is that in due course there may be a shortage of water in that part of the Transvaal where there are irrigation possibilities. As far as I know there is no international law which affords us any protection, and it is only by way of an agreement with the Swaziland authorities that-an arrangement can be made which in my opinion could be advantageous to both countries. I should like to know what progress has been made in this connection. Negotiations have been proceeding for some years between our Department of Water Affairs and the authorities in Swaziland, but I do not know whether finality has actually been reached. It is very important that an agreement should be entered into between these two countries, because otherwise the Transvaal may be deprived of its legitimate share of this water. As I have said, there are great possibilities there. This river flows for quite some distance through land belonging to the Bantu Trust. It will be possible to construct useful irrigation works in the Bantu areas and thus increase production there. For the rest it also flows through an area where the State owns many thousands of morgen of land which is also suitable for irrigation. But unless some arrangement is made where by that water can be made available, this land will be suitable for cattle-farming only and this country will be deprived of a potential source of food production. We should like an agreement to be arrived at as soon as possible whereby that area will also be safe guarded as far as the supply of water is concerned.

Then just a few words in connection with the latest boring regulations. I think that the new policy in terms of which the owner of the land is required to pay for dry bore holes where he makes use of a Government boring machine hits the farmer rather hard, because there are many cases where these bore holes prove to be dry. We must confess to our regret that the Department is not very successful in selecting borehole sites. It makes use of the services of geologists; who in turn make use of instruments and in spite of that many bore holes still prove to be dry. I do not know what one can do to remedy the situation. It is difficult, of course, to detect underground water. Some people have a natural gift for detecting underground water.

With the divining-rod?

Yes, there are some people who make use of the divining-rod and who achieve very great success. I cannot say that it always works, but I have seen people use the divining-rod; they point out a spot where they think water will be found and they are usually right. On the other hand there are cases where the geologist, with the assistance of his instruments, points out a site and where it turns out to be a dry borehole. I do not want to accuse or condemn anybody, but the fact of the matter is that certain people have an aptitude to detect underground water. I personally believe that one should not only make use of instruments, etc., but that one should also have regard to the situation of reefs, and I believe that vegetation can also be a very useful indication as to likely boring sites. The point I want to make is that it is going a little far to except the farmers to pay for dry bore holes in view of the great number of bore holes which prove to be dry. In the past the Department made no charge for dry bore holes, and we hope that perhaps it will again be possible to give the farmers a certain amount of relief in that respect.

Seeing that we are now discussing boring machines and their operators, I should like to bring one or two matters to the notice of the Minister. I must also say that I have the greatest appreciation for the work the Department is doing as regards the boring of holes for our farming community. I always find them ready to come to the farmers at any time, to institute an investigation and then, if necessary, to send a special boring machine. I think I must bring to the notice of the Minister that in my own area there has been a case where a farmer could not find any water with an ordinary jumper drill; year after year he bored for water, but nevertheless he could not penetrate the hard stone, with the result that he did not even have 100 gallons of water per hour for his stock. The Department eventually sent a shot-drill or a diamond drill from Zululand to Dundee specially to bore a hole for him; where after he had 5,000 gallons of water per hour. That is service and one appreciates it when one receives that service. Although I have a great deal of water, I personally also make extensive use of boring machines, and I want to express my appreciation as well.

Seeing that we wish to express our appreciation to the boring machine operators and also the boring inspectors, who are people with years of experience and who try to do their best for the farming community, I must say that I found that the poor operator with his wife and children lead a very difficult life. They live with one and are practically dependent on one; if one does not look after them they practically have to go hungry because they are often so far from the towns. What I want to urge particularly, Mr. Chairman, is that these people should be given an allowance for the education of their children. For the most part they are far from schools and they find it difficult to send their children to school. I wonder whether the hon. the Minister cannot do something about this to ensure that the children can go to school and whether the State cannot give assistance in this regard.

Now I want to come to the geologists. I have had a great deal to do with geologists. These are excellent people who are only too willing to assist one. But they are also human beings, and I do not think that science has made such great progress that we can say that they are perfect. Of course they make mistakes, and big ones as well. However, I have found that if one listens to what they say one eventually finds water. The great difficulty in the area where I live—I am now referring to the district of Dundee—is that we have iron stone, and if one has iron stone it means that the jumper drill is valueless because one cannot penetrate the iron stone. Although the geologists tells one that one will not find water if one can get through I do not believe it. My experience shows the opposite. And I now come to the stick. I do not accept a hole which a geologist has pointed out before I have not used the stick myself.

Are you good?

Yes, it works on me and the hon. member can summon me at a high price! The plea which I therefore want to submit to the Minister is that the time has now come for South Africa to do away with the jumper drill—not only to do away with the jumper drill and to manufacture the shot drill or the diamond drill, but we should also ensure that they have their own transport. Today the farmer has to take the boring machine from one place to the other with his tractor or his oxen or whatever he has.

You are now referring to the old times?

No, in my area there is no other boring machine except the jumper drill.

But you do not have to transport them.

Of course! Whenever I want one I go and fetch it myself. As recently as two years ago I bored

There was probably discrimination against you.

That may be, but enthusiastic Nationalists have had the same experience! A month ago such a boring machine was on a farm near me—that same jumper drill—and the farmer had to fetch it himself. I am not out of the old times, but the boring machine is. The Minister is a progressive farmer and I think it is necessary that we should get rid of these machines because many farmers find it very difficult to fetch these machines. I have therefore risen to ask that in the area of Dundee in Northern Natal we should be given the new machines which do not only have the shot drill but also their own motors.

Before I sit down I once again want to express my appreciation of the work the Department is doing, particularly in the area where I live.

I wish to say something in connection with the part which our Department of Water Affairs plays in the entire production pattern. As one water scheme after the other comes into being, each one of them widens our perspective more and more and I see in the various water schemes as they come into being and as they develop, a wonderful challenge to our democratic way of life and our way of doing things as against the totalitarian states which set about things in a different manner. When we compare the position of their agriculture and their production with that of our own, in respect of which ourDepartment of Water Affairs plays an exceedingly important role, you must admit, Sir, that democracy is far ahead of the totalitarian states.

I maintain that a Government which periodically announces and completes a water scheme as ours do by way of the Department of Water Affairs, will not find it difficult, will never find it difficult, for example, to wipe out an Opposition with a short-sighted policy and limited outlook, as has already happened in the past.

Our agricultural industry has entered a new era, a totally new era and this new era which we have entered and in which our Department of Waiter Affairs plays a very important role, has four Characteristics, as I see it. The first is that it is characterized by the increasing influence which science and technology has on our entire production process, as we were told in the previous debate. Secondly, it is characterized by an increase in our volume of production as against the volume of consumption. Thirdly, it is characterized by an in balance between that which we produce and our ability to consume that which we produce. Fourthly, it is characterized by increased production as a result of the continual completion of new irrigation schemes, as, for example, the Orange River project and by the greater stability which these new water schemes give to our agricultural industry.

If we look a quarter of a century, 25 years, ahead, and we try to place in perspective what will happen within those 25 years, we have to come to one of the following conclusions: (1) that for years to come our volume of production will exceed our volume of consumption; (2) that the gap between our volume of production and our volume of consumption, as a result of science and technology and as a result of the part which our water schemes play, will continue to increase and to the extent to which our population figures grow and our available irrigable land decreases to that extent will that gap again narrow. But in the meantime we have to bridge the intervening period of at least a quarter of a century. We may in the meantime develop other methods of distribution. We may, as a result of a general increase in the standard of living of our people and an increase in their purchasing power, absorb our surpluses and our production, but in this interim period of at least 25 years, the 25 years which it will take our people to equalize the production because of the factors which I have mentioned, we will be faced with a real problem, and that problem is the gap between our volume of production and our volume of consumption. In South Africa particularly, where our Government is subjected to continual pressure to construct dams and more dams and irrigation schemes, these water schemes of ours will play an ever-increasing important role within the entire process of production. What are the facts, Mr. Chairman? I think our Department of Water Affairs is such an integral part of this process of production and of our entire agricultural industry that it cannot think for one moment of withdrawing from that process.

But that is not necessary.

No, it will not be necessary. It will be necessary in future to continue to have planned coordination; we must not allow the process to continue without planning. It will be necessary for the Government to evolve a formula according to which the relationship between the producer and the State will be the correct one. In spite of the good intentions and in spite of all the benefits which will flow from the development of further water schemes, water, amongst others, is a disturbing factor in-this relationship between the producer and the State. In future the Government will have to concentrate on obtaining greater co-ordination between water affairs and production and the way land is used and the various farming systems; and the various water schemes will have to be given their rightful place within the structure of the agricultural industry in South Africa. It will have to be allocated its rightful place. Although I may not discuss it, I have in mind the Orange River project as a new water scheme. I think of the problems which will arise if the Orange River project as one of our water schemes is not given its rightful place within our agricultural industry. In future there will have to be co-ordination between our Department of Water Affairs and the Natural Resources Development Board; between the Department of Water Affairs and local bodies, between the Department of Water Affairs and Economics and Marketing, the various control boards and Soil Conservation; the S.A. Railways, the Department of Bantu Administration and the Department of Economic Affairs, all of which have a stake in the development of the Orange River project. If that project is developed all these bodies which I have mentioned will demand a say in that project. I am pleading for better coordination to-day. I am not pleading for anew board, but I do think that if there were a board worth pleading for, it would be an agricultural development board on which the Department of Water Affairs, the Department of Agricultural Technical Services, the Department of Agricultural Economics and Marketing would have a say with a view to planning a long-term agricultural policy in terms of which all these various water schemes, and all future schemes, would be coordinated. There will be gigantic schemes in future, Mr. Chairman. I notice that the farmers are advocating a Limpopo scheme, which is quite justified. They are advocating a Berg River scheme, which is quite justified. Think of the total change which the Orange River scheme, the Limpopo scheme and the Berg River scheme will effect to the pattern of our entire agricultural industry in South Africa. Before we take our first steps to develop this gigantic scheme, we will have to think about co-ordination because our production and our consumption do not balance. The continued existence of our producers and the protection they will have to enjoy will depend on the measure of coordination which exists between the various agricultural departments and the other sectors in the country.

I entirely agree with some of the things which the hon. member who has just sat down, has said. However, I want to remind him that he omitted to say that the Department of Education should also be called in to co-operate in this great scheme he talked about.

Most of the speakers to-day have referred to the great boom which will follow the various schemes introduced and carried out by this Minister. I want to sound a word of warning about the possible harm which may flow from these schemes. I want to point out that once a dam is constructed in a valley, everything below that valley is forever lost. This country is at the present moment probably the spear head of pre-historical research. It is believed by the few investigators we have had that man started in this country; that he became homo sapiens struggling on his two legs and using weapons for the first time probably in this country. You will find, for instance, that there are systems of pre-history like the Stellenbosch system which is well known, the Mossel Bay system. We have done very little research ourselves. The priceless inheritance that we have can be lost unless this Minister makes some effort in association with the Minister of Education to try as far as possible to obtain what information is available from the valleys which he is going to dam. This Orange River scheme is a very long-term scheme and so the Minister has the time. I do not think we have the resources or the scientists in this country available except in very limited numbers and yet we have made some very great discoveries and we have had some great men. In palaeontology we know the discoveries of Dr. Broom and Professor Dart. I want to make a plea to this Minister, if possible, to throw open research in this type of work in the areas which he is going to cover to the older countries of the world. We have only to think of the value to Egypt and Greece of the great past which has been uncovered in their countries: value in the form of tourism, to look at it from a purely monetary point of view. We do not know, and we have made no real effort to find out what has happened in the past in this country. I think that in this rush to make dams we should try to obtain help from outside. There are great universities in America and in Europe who have resources and who have men who are anxious to look into this matter. If we were to make it known to these people that they are welcome and that they will receive every assistance and that they will be shown which are the areas likely to be covered, I think something will be done. But I do think that if, without research we in this country cover this evidence with morgen of water posterity will never forgive us.

In the first place I wish to thank the hon. the Minister of Water Affairs and the Department of Water Affairs very much for the attention which they have given to the Western Cape. I mention the Western Cape not because I want preference to be given to the Western Cape but because the Western Cape has become water conscious during the last few years. And to-day, after the announcement of the Orange River scheme it has become even more water conscious.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan) said in his speech that the Berg River scheme would be economical. I entirely agree with him. When the Berg River scheme was announced I was very scared because Riviersonderend, which provides the Berg River scheme with a large amount of water, runs through the constituency of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland (Mr. de Villiers) and then through my constituency, at the point where Riviersonderend runs into the Bree River. After investigating the matter, however, it became clear to me that the farmers along Riviersonderend who get their water from that river, would not be detrimentally affected by the Berg River scheme.

Hear, hear!

A few years ago surveys were made along Riviersonderend, Mr. Chairman, and it was found that there were thousands of morgen of land which is as good and as deep as that which will fall under the Berg River scheme. A few weeks ago a farm was sold near the town Riviersonderend, in the constituency of the hon. member for Hottentots-Holland. It is not a very big farm. It is a farm of something over 2,000 morgen, and most of that is mountainous, but it was sold for over £300,000. That shows you, Mr. Chairman, how valuable that land is, land on which there are thousands and thousands of Kakamas peach trees. I look forward to the day when the farmers of Riversonderend will get water from that same dam—even from the dam which is to be constructed under the Berg River scheme.

When you travel through the Western Cape—I mention the Western Cape because as far as agriculture is concerned it is the oldest developed area in the Republic—you see small farms many of which are intensively farmed. But there are still many morgen of land which, if water were made available to them would help to double the present production of the Western Cape. When you travel between Robertson and Ashton, for example, you see large tracts of land, thorn bush and Karoo land. If water could be taken there that land would be very productive. I know that Rome was not built in one day but if water could be made available there, I can visualize how those areas will flourish.

I wish to thank the Minister of Water Affairs in particular for what my constituency has received in the form of dams. I have already thanked him but I want to thank him once again on behalf of my constituency. I think of Pietersfontein, for example, I think of the raising of the wall of the Poortjieskloof dam and the Buffeljachts River dam, as hon. members can see from the White paper. But there is nevertheless another place in connection with which I want to raise a plea. I can almost say I am pleading with tears in my eyes, and that is the irrigation works at Lemoenshoek. The Minister of Water Affairs knows where that is; it is on the way to his constituency. Over 1,000 morgen are under clover. It has an annual rainfall of three to four inches. We had someone there from the Department of Water Affairs to survey the area. That happened last October, and he said that it would cost too much to build a dam there. But I think there are other ways, and I want to ask the hon. the Minister to send somebody there again for further discussions and investigation. Something must be done for those people. They have to have water for the future. If they get water they will flourish but if the position were to remain as it is, I am afraid some of them will have to leave. Thank you very much.

I wish to refer to the recent discussion between the hon. the Minister and the Federated Chamber of Industries. As the hon. the Minister will know when the Water Act was originally introduced the Federated Chamber of Industries did not oppose the Act although they were concerned about the question of the disposal of industrial water. They were given the assurance by the hon. Minister’s predecessor in 1956 that before the purification specifications would be introduced in terms of Section 21 of the Act, industry would be consulted. Recently, on 5 April those water specifications were Gazetted and the impression has been gained that these were being rushed through in anticipation of the Minister’s Vote. You see, Mr. Chairman, we criticized this question of industrial water and there were valid reasons for that criticism. I want to make it quite clear, Sir, that industry has no objection to proper control being exercised over industrial effluent. But the submission is made that the present standards are so high that it is virtually impossible for any industry to comply with them. As the Minis-would be dealt with at once. The Federated water from the various rivers and that that water is often not potable. To demand from those industries that they should return that water to the rivers at a higher standard in many cases than the water which they with drew from those rivers, is an unreasonable request. That is the submission of industry as a whole. Industry has had some discussions with the Bureau of Standards. My information is that on 9 November 1961 a draft specification was submitted by the Bureau of Standards to the Federated Chamber of Industry. Even before they were ready, by 13 December, they were told that the matter would be dealt with at once. The Federated Chamber of Industries feel that they did not have an opportunity of going into the matter properly. They asked for further time because they submitted that in terms of the Water Act virtually every industrialist could be prosecuted because the standard of the water being returned to the rivers was not in accordance with the specifications proposed by the Bureau of Standards. The Department’s reply was that it would give exemptions. I submit that that is not a satisfactory way of dealing with the matter and I would suggest that the Minister should consider giving, shall we say, a six months’ moratorium to enable the Bureau of Standards and the Minister’s Department and the Federated Chamber of Industries’ representatives to get together and see if they cannot find some reasonable practical standard. I submit, Sir, that it is only right that there should be adequate control over the waters entering our rivers. We do not want pollution of the rivers and we do not want damage done to the streams below industrial sites. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, we do not want to make the standards so high that they are incapable of fulfilment. Nor do we want a series of exemptions which will virtually make the Act meaningless. I hope that the hon. the Minister will give us some assurance on this matter. I hope he will approach this problem in a practical manner and that while protecting the people lower down the rivers adequately, he will at the same time introduce practical standards which will have the approval of the Minister’s Department, the Bureau of Standards and of the industrialists concerned. We do need to conserve our water for irrigation purposes. It is essential that the various local authorities on these rivers must comply with certain standards. On the other hand, Sir, I do submit that the Minister must have a practical approach to the problem and see that this matter is attended to. Because at the present moment it seems that the assurance previously given have been either over looked or ignored. I think the time has arrived that a moratorium should be granted for a reasonable period so that the respective parties can get together and hammer out a solution. I hope that the Minister will deal with this in the course of his reply.

Mr. Chairman, we have had a very interesting discussion on the Vote Water Affairs, and many important matters have been touched on. I want to start from the beginning. The hon. member for South Coast (Mr. D. E. Mitchell) was prevented by your ruling. Sir, to discuss a matter which lies near to his heart, namely the Hluhluwe dam. I do not want to go into detail about that dam, but the hon. member, in the criticism he voiced, did touch on two matters of policy. The one is the question of consultation. Is the Department prepared to consult with persons who are affected or may be affected by the actions of the Department? He gave the example of one case, viz that in the case of the Parks Board of Natal we gave a written promise that we would consult them before taking certain further steps, and he says that consultation did not take place. According to the information available to me—and I myself went through the files and the documents—it seems to me that he has a real complaint there, and I want to say that in that single instance, if there was no consultation, I think it was my Department‘s fault. I want to give the hon. member the assurance that in general it is our policy to consult everywhere with the people affected, except in the following circumstances: If we want to build a dam at a certain place, surely it will be realized that we cannot consult with the people above the dam, whose land will be submerged, to obtain their consent to the building of the dam, because most people in those circumstances will tell you—we are all human and it is only natural—that they do not want their land to be submerged; that they are in favour of the dam, but please build it just lower down or higher up so that my neighbour’s land will be submerged and not mine. If we were to do that, we would not be able to build dams. But the hon. member has raised a point. Here we are dealing with a statutory body, and I think it would not have been wrong to consult with them. Therefore I admit that it was an over sight on the part of my Department. I shall try to ensure that this does not happen again.

The second thing he said was “I do not know whether I misunderstood him” that “he (the Minister) was not even prepared to meet the deputation”. Now, I do not know whether I misunderstood him. Does he mean by the word “meet” actually to grant the man interview, or grant him the request they made? Does he mean that the Minister was not prepared to talk to them?

You agreed to meet us in person. That I accept.

I did not want to accuse the hon. member of something he did not do. The way the hon. member put it was susceptible to another meaning, or misconception, and I also knew that the hon. member did not want to say something wrong. The fact is that of course I discussed this matter with the hon. member and others who came to see me. I promised to go in to the matter thoroughly, and then to arrive at a decision, and that I would inform them of my decision before my policy motion came to be discussed in the Senate and/or my Vote in this House. I had very little time, because according to the arrangement my Vote would come on that Monday or the next day. I decided that evening, and considered that I should immediately convey my decision to the hon. member through my secretary. Now I can only say that I think my secretary feels a little hurt that the hon. member’s knowledge of human beings left ham in the lurch in this case. I have been Minister for four years already, and I still have the same secretary, who has proved himself to be an efficient private secretary

Hear, hear!

I personally know that several times the hon. member for South Coast was told personally by my secretary either that the Minister could see him or could not see him, or he made other arrangements with the hon. member. Now the hon. member says that he felt insulted, because when my secretary spoke to him he just looked at him and said, “Sonny, who are you?” Now, I do not think that counts in favour of the hon. member. I think it was an over sight on his part. He ought to have known my private secretary by that time. But I do not want to blame him. I want to continue …

You treat me so discourteously and then you say that you do not blame me. I did not tell your private secretary anything.

What else is my private secretary than the man who carries out the instructions I give him? If I send him to any hon. member in this House, does he then regard my private secretary as a messenger?

You turned him into a messenger.

I want to tell you, Sir, that this is the point. If the hon. member wants it that way, I will insist in future that if he wants something from me he must go to my private secretary. I will not do him that favour again. I think this is a case of someone not knowing how to act decently, when he had received decent treatment from somebody else.

I want to continue, Sir, and I come to the hon. member for Umlazi (Mr. Lewis). He put questions to me in respect of the water which will be supplied to Durban from the Midmar Dam. He says that the Durban City Council has calculated that, if they were allowed to build the scheme they wanted to build themselves, they could have provided themselves with water—I take it over the next 50 years, because that is the period for which this price was fixed—at 1.25c per thousand gallons, whilst our price will be 2.5c per thousand gallons. Now he asks why they should pay more as the result of our activities. The fact is that neither I nor my Department accept the figures they submitted to us. Surely we have the right to differ from them. Because to supply them for the next 50 years, they will have to build not only this one dam they now want to build. They will have to build another dam, and I do not know whether they calculated the cost over the whole period of 50 years, or whether they did so accurately enough. We feel that in this case Durban was treated particularly well by the Department, because what did we do for them? We told them: Instead of you building this dam, we would rather build it, because the Umgeni River has a very large catchment area and is an important river, the water resources of which ought to be properly controlled, so that it can be utilized and divided to serve the best interests of the development of Natal. Therefore we said that we as the State would build that dam, because that was the wish generally expressed by a Provincial Commission appointed by Natal itself. It was the Provincial Town and Regional Water Supply Commission, on which an official of the Department of Water Affairs also served. Durban was also invited to serve on that commission. The City of Durban, however, refused to be represented on the Commission. It did not want to co-operate with the rest of Natal. We felt that the report and the recommendations of the Commission would eventually be much more advantageous to Natal. Now we are not only building a dam for Durban. We are building a large State dam at Midmar by means of which we will supply water not only to Durban but also to Pietermaritzburg, Cato Ridge, Howick, Ferro-alloys, and Hammarsdale. The price of the water is calculated to include interest and redemption over a period of 50 years. For the first 50 years the price will be 2.5c. If an adaptation has to be made, more or less … [Interjections.] It will be prorata. We will not charge Hammarsdale more than we charge Cato Ridge. If we establish border industries in Hammarsdale and we feel that their water should be subsidized, special provision will be made for that. Furthermore, we told Durban: We grant you the legitimate use without payment of the water you take into your dam, and therefore we give you 50,000,000 gallons a day free. We do not take into account all the surplus water. We do not calculate the water falling between the two dams until such time as we are compelled to build a dam between the Midmar Dam and Albert Falls, and then of course the water flowing in in between those two dams will no longer be given to Durban free. But then we will measure the water they use at the Albert Falls Dam. Nor do we take into account the losses through evaporation in the river, because we calculate the quantity of water for which they have to pay on the quantity which enters the Midmar Dam. I think Durban has received very generous treatment, and according to my experience the whole of the rest of the area, Natal as a whole, also regards this development as the correct thing to do, viz that the State takes control over the river and the development and use of the water.

Now the hon. member went further, as also the hon. member for Pinetown (Mr. Hope-well), and they raised a very important matter, and that is surely one of the greatest responsibilities resting on the shoulders of the Minister of Water Affairs. If I can evade that responsibility and off-load it on to my Department, I can assure the House that it would give me the greatest joy and that is to be responsible for the prevention of the pollution of our water. In the past, hardly any measures were taken to prevent pollution. The law did not provide for the application of the highest standards, and we were compelled to lay down Union-wide standards. It was almost an impossible task. We only see now how difficult it was. Last year I promised to devote attention to the matter. Seeing that hon. members are so interested in it, I want to give them a brief report in that regard.

Section 21 of the Water Act provides for the laying down of quality standards for industrial and urban effluence. Shortly after promulgation of the Act, it became apparent that the wording of Section 21 did not enable the Department to lay down standards for different regions, and until the necessary amendments were passed in 1961, the Department had to rely largely on the co-operation of industry and local authorities in the exercise of control over pollution. The number of permits issued since proclamation of the Water Act is as follows: Those issued in terms of Section 12 (5) to industries numbered 101, those issued in terms of Section 21 (5) to industries numbered 47, and those issued in terms of Section 21 (5) or Section 22 (2) to municipalities numbered 51, making a total number of permits issued of 199. The total number of concerns, that is either industries or local authorities, to whom permits have been issued, is 174. There have been complaints about unsatisfactory disposal in 11 of these 174 cases. Hence it can be said that in 163 or 94 percent of cases permits have succeeded in their object of preventing pollution. Three of the 11 permit-holders about whom complaints have been received dispose their effluent into the sea, one into a harbour, four into Natal rivers and two into Transvaal rivers, while the eleventh complaint deals with the pollution of the atmosphere Of the 11 cases the problems of six are being dealt with by Steering Committees under the aegis of my Department. A seventh case is being dealt with by a ministerial ad hoc committee formed on the recommendation of the Department of Water Affairs. It must also be remembered that these standards are set in consultation with the C.S.I.R.

*The hon. member for Ceres (Mr. Muller) and other hon. members also had great praise for the Secretary of my Department and his staff. I want to thank them heartily for it. It is very encouraging for a team of workers such as I have in Water Affairs to know that the services they render to the State are appreciated. I trust that it will spur them onto even further efforts, and that it will not have the effect that praise has on some persons, of their sitting back and doing less. Perhaps such a warning was not necessary, but we are all human.

The hon. member for Albany (Mr. Bowker) asked where the money for the development of the Orange River scheme is to be spent. We still have to do a lot of work in regard to the planning of the first phase. Then much work also still has to be done in regard to the next phases. This money put on the Estimates is in regard to those investigations which still have to be made. Then he asked where the floods occurred for which provision is made here. Surely the hon. member was in this House last year. Does he not know of the floods which took place in the Cape Province? There were floods in the North-West and also in the Karoo in regard to which assistance was rendered, but owing to the extent of the flood damage these subsidies could not all be paid out in this financial year. The hon. member for Karoo (Mr. G. S. P. le Roux) is not here now, but I can give him the assurance that the subsidies granted to farmers to restore the damage caused by floods are not given to White farmers only, but can also be given to Coloured farmers, and if he can bring such cases to our notice we will assist them.

The hon. member for Kimberley (North) (Mr. H. T. van G. Bekker) asked for a new survey at Vaal-Hartz in regard to the supply of water. He said one plot gets too much water and the other too little. The water quotas at Vaal-Hartz, as at any other settlement, are very carefully determined in consultation between the Departments of Lands, Agricultural Technical Services and Water Affairs, and nowhere under our schemes, when fixing the water quota, have we ever applied the principle of differential quotas under the same scheme. I make bold to say that if one were to allow A30 inches of water per morgen, and B 26 inches, and C 36 inches, it would lead to serious trouble. I do not know whether the hon. member has considered what this involves in practice right throughout the country. We cannot give Vaal-Hartz preferential treatment above the other settlements, and they must all be treated on an equal footing. I know there are differences in the soil and I am not saying that the water is always exactly enough, but that we cannot do. In regard to supplementary water, the hon. member knows that a committee of inquiry was appointed to investigate and to make recommendations in regard to the position of the dairy farms. Their recommendations have been implemented, and we cannot allot extra water to people to supplement their activities, because unless we treat everybody on an equal basis it will lead to further difficulty. And the water used in this way is not lost, because it runs right into the river and is utilized.

The hon. member for Christiana (Mr. Wentzel) raised an interesting point, and that is that we now have the power of diverting water from one catchment area to another, and he says we must be very cautious in doing that. I want to assure the hon. member that my Department and I realize that the people who have a prior right to the water are those who live in the catchment area of a river, and who will not do it injudiciously, but if national circumstances demand it and one has a river where more water is available than is needed by the people there, and where it is justifiable to incur the cost of taking the water to land which cannot be irrigated otherwise, we have the right to do so. Where we are now dealing with the Orange River scheme, I make bold to say that there is no other place to which the water can be taken more successfully and to greater economic advantage than to the valleys of the Fish and Sunday Rivers, and therefore the State has decided to do so. But it is not something one can just do lightly. However, we are not the only country in the world which does it. In America they have the Thompson River, which I visited in 1956, where I saw the water of the river led underneath a mountain by means of tunnels for miles to another catchment area. Even the water in Boulder Dam is taken much further than its own catchment area. That is what we are doing here also, but we do it judiciously.

The hon. member for Drakensberg (Mrs. S. M. van Niekerk) has mentioned something which I already know, namely that there is a fair amount of dissatisfaction throughout the country with the valuations made by the Department of lands, by their valuators. The law provides that for that purpose we must make use of the machinery of the Department of Lands to determine the values, and appointing my own valuators will not help because they are also only human beings, and they will make the same valuations. The hon. member says they will then be under my control, but that is not so, because they have to make the valuations and not I. I cannot sit in my office and control what they do. [Interjections.] But this is one of the improvements which was made as the result of the better coordination I referred to yesterday. Recently the Minister of Lands sent his Land Board to go and make valuations where we are building a new dam, and they have made no offers to the farmers there yet I have now decided to appoint a panel of two or three people. In this particular case I appointed two sworn valuators to go and value the properties, so that they could, for their own satisfaction and that of the Department, at least get an idea of how wide the gap, if any, was and, if so, why, because the way they have to make their valuations is specified. The effect of all this was that in that particular area nobody’s land was expropriated. As the result of negotiations and the price offered, I do not know of a single case where an adaptation had to be made. It was just a matter of explaining how it was done, and convincing the people, and the whole of the public was satisfied. I may say in general that I feel very strongly that where the State compels a man to sell his land to the State, or where it expropriates land, the State must definitely see to it that the man does not receive less for his land than he would have obtained at a public sale, and at least something more; because at a public auction such things as inconvenience and indirect damages and sentiment do not count, but here they are taken into consideration. I want to give the assurance that the standpoint both of the Departments of Water Affairs, as well as of Lands, has been broadened in this respect and we have come into line with each other more, and the proof of it is these latest provisions to which I have referred. But I want to say this also. Experience has taught us that land is never more expensive than when the State wants to buy it. As soon as people get to know that the State wants land for any particular purpose, they immediately put up the price. Those are human factors which we have to bear in mind.

May I ask the Minister whether he is aware of the fact that in many cases the Land Board is far behind with their valuations? In some places the dam walls are already being built and the valuations have not even been made yet.

That is not true.

I do not know of such cases, but what I do know is this, that there have been cases, and more than one, and in more parts of the country than one, where the land has already been submerged for several years and where the Department of Lands or my Department has not yet come to a final agreement with the owners. Because there is a provision in the law that when an offer is made to a person, he has 12 months in which to accept the offer and to make his representations, or to refuse it, and within this period of 12 month she can also go to court. Now it sometimes happens that the negotiations and disputes and revaluations take 11½ months, and do hon. members know what we do then? In order not to deprive him of the opportunity of testing his case in court, because we want him to be convinced that he is receiving fair and just treatment from the State, I make him a new offer of R1 or R2 more. Then that is a new offer and he again has 12 months in which to go to court. I can give the assurance that there are cases, which I inherited, particularly at Vaal Dam, where people have already been offered an extra rand every year for three years merely in order to give them the opportunity to go to court if they like to do so, because one finds cases where agreement just cannot be reached. Reference was made here to the difference in valuations, and that valuations differ from R7 to R180 or R300. You see, there is a difference between the expropriation of land and the purchase of land and the taking of conservation servitudes, and one can have two bits of land lying next to each other, but the one lies a little lower and becomes completely submerged, and it is expropriated; it is taken over completely, whilst in the case of the other we just take a conservation servitude. A certain part of that land will always be under water; another part of it may perhaps be submerged once in 20 years, whilst still another portion may perhaps become submerged once in 30 or 50 or 100 years, and of course we do not expropriate all that land. That is particularly where we take into consideration the high flood mark. In the meantime it remains that man’s land, and the land which he cannot use when it is submerged–for that land we do not pay out the value of the land, but a pro rata value which can be calculated. Say, for instance, the land is worth R40 per morgen and it becomes submerged once in 20 years for a month or two, the State is not going to pay the man R40 per morgen just because it sometimes becomes submerged, because we know he still uses it for the other 19 years. We pay him a pro rata price, and that is what makes the difference. I am sorry I have had to speak at such length, but I felt that I should clear up this matter.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) spoke about a Planning Council. Somebody said, by way of interjection, that there are already too many councils But perhaps his thoughts and those of the hon. member for Ventersdorp (Mr. Greyling), who raised a very interesting matter here, run more or less in the same direction. Perhaps they are thinking of something which I have already considered also. The matter which I have considered I put in writing for my own purposes. I think the time has arrived, or is very close at hand, for us in this country, over and above the Natural Resources Development Council, which is actually more particularly designed to give advice in respect of the establishment of industries and civil matters, to establish something which is really more directly intended to deal with the conservation, utilization and development of our agricultural resources. In other words, I would like it really to be an advisory board for the development, conservation and utilization of agricultural resources. I think its object should first have been the efficient utilization of our agricultural resources, including the position and use of agricultural land, with the object of eliminating malpractices in regard to farm management and the sub-division of land into sub-economic units; and (b) to investigate the factors militating against increased production, and to give advice in that regard; (c) to try to create circumstances which will encourage greater population on the platteland. That is a problem with which we are faced and a matter which we will have to tackle. And (d) to try to remove the obstacles in the way of White immigrant farmers from other African territories. I think this is a matter to which the various Departments should devote their attention when dealing with farmers who want to come to this country, and judging by present circumstances and the present tendency, it seems that we can expect such farmers to come here in reasonable numbers. I think that on this board the Departments of Agricultural Technical Services, Water Affairs, Agricultural Economics and Marketing, Lands, Forestry, Bantu Administration, Economic Affairs and the S.A. Agricultural Union should serve. There could even be a member of the Natural Resources Development Council. That is the direction along which I have already been thinking and to which I think consideration will have to be given, and I will exert myself to see that we move along those lines.

I just want to ask the hon. the Minister whether such a board can be entrusted also with the task of drawing up a map showing all the water and the available ground sub-divided into the various grades, which can be irrigated, as well as the catchment areas.

No, I do not think that will be its function, because this board will not have a lot of engineers and experts to do that work; that can be done by the various Departments. Hon. members will be surprised to know what advanced planning the Department of Water Affairs has already done. We have these plans available, and when such an advisory board has been established and we want to plan in advance, all the various documents the different Departments have available can be submitted to them. But I do not think it is right at this stage to divulge everything in regard to the future possible development. I do not even think it is in the national interest for the public to know what the various possibilities are, for various reasons.

The hon. member for Paarl (Mr. W. C. Malan; referred to land prices, and I still have to reply to him. But I want to ask the hon. member to put up his hand if I perhaps forget to deal with him; I shall reply to the points he raised later, because I want to come to the hon. member for Turffontein (Mr. Durrant), who mentioned a certain dam here which he just mentioned as an example. I just want to tell the hon. member that I inspected that terrain myself before I decided to build a dam there. I realized the need for it and I felt that it was essential, particularly with a view to the Paul Kruger School for backward children.

The Paul Kruger School Farm.

They have a school farm and quite a number of children; I do not know how many, but I imagine there are more than 100. They grow their own vegetables, etc. and something simply had to be done, and done speedily. I felt that something should be done to provide accommodation for those Children and the teachers. Those teachers are dealing with children who mentally are perhaps not as bright as other children in certain directions, whilst possibly in other directions they are perhaps even better equipped than we are. We also wanted to improve their position, and that is why we decided to build that dam. [Interjections.] Bigger dams can of course be built; still morel and can be put under irrigation. The water we conserve there will be used as beneficially as possible to serve agriculture as a whole. I do not want to say that the plan we have already done will be a law of the Medes and the Persians and that we will not go further; I cannot go into the details now, because then I would be disobeying the ruling given from the Chair.

I also raised the question of geologists.

We have no geologists. We utilize the services of the geologists available in the Public Service, and they are mainly in the Department of Mines. The hon. member knows that geologists are scarce. I do not know where we can obtain them, because there are so many private undertakings which employ them. Where we can render geological assistance we do so. In respect of boring in general, I want to say this: I am glad the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) raised the matter of accommodation, etc. for the people who operate our boring machines, and also the question of a possible special allowance to compensate them for the extra expenditure they have to incur, particularly if they have children of school-going age. I just want to say that their conditions of service have been improved tremendously over the past few years. We have now again purchased 45 new caravans which we make available to these people. I will definitely go into the matter to see whether something can be done to comply with the other requirements he mentioned. In regard to boring regulations and the policy in regard to boring in general, I can just say this: The policy has been amended, and the amended policy came into operation in February of this year, and it is mainly that where there were boring areas and non-boring areas, and where we paid certain subsidies only for State boring and none for the use of private boring, we have now evolved a scheme whereby we give equal subsidies for all boring, whether it is done by the State or by private boring machines, with this one difference, that people who do not want only a subsidy but also a loan in regard to the bore-hole will only qualify for the loan if they make use of the State boring machines. In the first place, the reason for this is to reduce the demand for State boring machines, and secondly to try to catch up with the backlog in the country in regard to sinking bore-holes. The subsidy is paid on dry holes as well as holes producing water; it is not paid according to the amount of water produced. No subsidy is paid for very shallow holes—I think holes of under 100 feet in depth—whether water is found or not. The subsidy is paid according to the depth of the hole, in order to make a greater contribution towards State boring in those areas where water is generally found at a very deep level and it is difficult to get to it. That results in an extra annual capital expenditure incurred by the State of R250,000. A few other suggestions were made which have been considered by me, but all these suggestions in regard to changes or improvements which I have received so far since the Act has come into operation and the regulations have been applied, would necessarily result in extra expenditure. The Cabinet felt, in view of all the circumstances and the requirements of so many other Departments, that this additional assistance to farmers given in this form is enough for the moment. I do not say that it will never be reviewed again, but I cannot foresee it being changed to any reasonable extent in the near future. I think the dissatisfaction or concern is due to the fact that the people are not accustomed to it. Not a single complaint has been received from farmers in the declared non-boring areas, because they have never yet received any subsidies, except loans, and those they can still obtain for the erection of a windmill, or for the building of a dam, etc. The position therefore is that a line was drawn through the country, and the farmers who fell on this side of the line obtained all the benefits, and those who fell on the other side of the line did not receive half those benefits, and some of them received none at all. Now it has been put on a Union wide basis. I think it is merely a question of adaptation, and I believe that this scheme will work well.

I want to come back to the hon. members for Ceres (Mr. Muller) and Paarl, who spoke about land speculation. They also referred to the smaller works. I want to tell the hon. member for Ceres that of course we cannot continue working on the luxurious scale on which we built smaller State works in the past. We shall not be able to continue with that on the same scale or at an increased tempo. The undertaking of such a colossal project as the Orange River scheme must necessarily have an effect on the amount of money available every year for smaller schemes. But I want to give hon. members the assurance that the decision taken thus far makes provision for a still bigger amount than the average amount we have spent on State works during the past eight years. I think we can therefore be reasonably satisfied that, perhaps with a few adaptations, the smaller schemes which are necessary will not be dropped.

I think it is necessary, in conclusion, to announce that I have decided to use the powers vested in me by the Act in order to prevent speculation inland. Attempts may perhaps be made by some people to obtain large sums of money from the State for land which is not worth it in the catchment areas of dams which will now have to be expropriated. I have given instructions to my Department to make all the necessary preparations. I am going to declare the areas within the two dam basins of the Orange River—the Van der Kloof Dam, or in any case the area above the Van der Kloof Dam up to the high water mark of the Ruigtevlei Dam—as a State water-controlled area. Immediately after having declared them as such, we shall begin to make surveys and to take aerial photographs to determine what the actual existing development there is. It has come to my notice that there are people who at the present moment are hiring tractors on a large scale and ploughing for all they are worth in order to be able to sell that land to the State as developed, irrigable land at a much higher price than it is worth as grazing. Declaring this area as a State water-controlled area will result in no additional development taking place under irrigation, and in no water being taken from the river without a permit from the Minister of Water Affairs. There may be people who would like to tackle necessary development in the ordinary course of their farming activities, and that need not be restricted. But I want to issue a warning to those people who think that by spending R2,000 or R4,000 or R6,000 they will be able to make R40,000 or R60,000 out of the State It is quite possible that they will not even get back the investment they are now making, much less a profit on it. In regard to the other land, which may become irrigable, I have already made a public statement, and I want to repeat it here. There is nothing contained in the laws of this country to prevent anybody purchasing land where he thinks that these canals can irrigate the land. If the owner of that land wants to sell at a certain price and the purchaser is willing to pay that price, he can buy it. But if people buy land which they think will be put under irrigation, and if, for the sake of argument, they buy 1,000 morgen, all of which can be placed under irrigation, they should not think that they will get the benefit of it when we put the water of the dam into the canals. They are quite wrong if they think that, because the State will determine what it regards to be an economic irrigation farm in an irrigable area. The most that owner will get is just the set quota. If the quota is 25 morgen, he will have 25 morgen scheduled; if it is 30 or 40 morgen he will have 30 or 40 morgen scheduled, and if we need the rest of his land for settlements, we will buy it at a proper valuation which will be made in the same way that other land purchased by the State is valued. If he refuses to sell, we will expropriate the land with the object of settling more farmers there. We cannot allow and will not allow certain individual farmers becoming rich over night as the result of the expenditure of these large capital amounts taken from the tax payer’s pocket and which will be invested in these State water schemes, including the Orange River scheme.

I think I have now replied to most of the points raised.

Vote put and agreed to.

I move—

Agreed to.

On a point of order, has the Minister’s motion been carried?

Yes. I put the motion and there was no objection.

Yes, Sir, two of us stood up.

What is the objection? Is the hon. member raising a point of order?

I wish to debate this motion. I want to find out what the implications of this motion are.

The motion is put without amendment or discussion.

The point I wish to make is this: We have introduced a new system this year; this is not the system that we followed last year, and because it is a new system …

Order! The hon. member cannot discuss it. The motion has to be adopted or rejected without discussion.

On Vote No.30.—“Bantu Education: Ministry and Special Schools”, R208,000,

May I ask whether I or this side of the House can discuss the Minister’s policy on this Vote; or must we discuss it on the Bantu Education Account?

I am glad the hon. member asked this question. I want to ask hon. members to confine themselves on Vote No. 30 to the Minister’s policy as regards special schools. Immediately thereafter the Bantu Education Account, R21,000,000, will be put and hon. members will then have the opportunity to discuss the hon. the Minister’s policy as regards the remainder of Bantu education.

May I raise a point of order here? There has been a material change in the form of the Estimate, which by convention and rule of practice cannot take place without the approval of the Select Committee on Public Accounts. There has been a very material change here because the Minister’s salary is now put under a Vote which comprises some six items totalling R208,000, and by doing that this House and particularly hon. members of the Opposition are deprived of the conventional privilege, when it is opposed to expenditure which runs into something like R21,500,000, as a charge to the Bantu Education Account, to register its protest in the ordinary way.

The position is this. These are Estimates referred to the Committee for consideration, and I have no jurisdiction to go beyond them.

On a point of order, I still want to point out that this change has been made irregularly.

Order! The hon. member had an opportunity to vote against the motion moved by the hon. the Minister.

No, my point has nothing to do with the hon. the Minister’s motion. I am raising this point because of the ruling that you have given, because the only conventional method now of dealing with the matter is under Vote 30, which comprises a few items which total R208,000. The Opposition is being deprived of the conventional method of dealing with the matter by your ruling, Sir.

I am afraid I do not follow the hon. member and he must abide by my ruling.

May I just ask whether it would be right to have the two half-hour son the Ministers Vote?

There is no objection to it.

Or they can be taken on the Bantu Education Account, where it may be more convenient.

That is perfectly correct; there is no objection to that either.

I wish to ask you a question on Vote No. 30. It is a question not on procedure, but I require an explanation. On Vote No. 30 we have items A to E. These items are being defrayed not out of the Bantu Education Account, but they are being defrayed, I presume, out of the Consolidated Revenue Account.

Out of the Revenue Account.

I should like to ask the Minister this question: If these amount shave been paid out of the Bantu Education Fund in previous years, is it the intention of the Minister to refund the Bantu Education Account the amount of money which has been drawn over the last six or seven years? It appears from this that, irregularly, the Bantu Education Account has been paying for Items A to E, salaries and allowances, subsistence and transport, postal, telegraph and telephone services, etc.; in other words, the expenses of the Head Office. My question is simply this: What has happened in the past; has that come from the Bantu Education Account and, if so, is it the intention to refund it to the Bantu Education Account?

The position is that up to last year I was Minister of Bantu Education only, and therefore my salary and the salary of my office staff was met from the Bantu Education Account, because that was the only portfolio I held, but I am now holding two portfolios, Bantu Education and Indian Affairs, and for that reason it was thought advisable to meet my salary and the salary of my office staff out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and not out of the Bantu Education Fund, because it is not correct that the Bantu Education Account should be called upon to pay the salary of the Minister who is also responsible for other Departments such as Indian Affairs. The position only arose therefore after I became Minister of Indian Affairs as well. That is why the alteration was made, and there is no intention of asking for a refund; we are simply budgeting in this way in the future.

What about postal and telegraph services; does that fall in the same category?

Yes, all these items, A to E, are concerned with my office and my staff.

Vote put and agreed to.

The Committee proceeded to consider the Estimates of Expenditure from Bantu Education Account.

On “Bantu Education”, R21,400,000, put.

May I please have the half-hour? I think that it will be helpful if, at the very outset, I indicate that I want to discuss the Ministry and the Minister of Bantu Education, together with the general position of the Minister under the new policy which he and his party have adopted as regards self-governing Bantu states.

In introducing the Bantu Education Bill in 1953 (I must go back a little to sketch the background) the then Minister of Native Affairs (as he was known at that time) enlarged enthusiastically on the benefits of this new system; in other words, the take-over of Bantu education by the Central Government. I refer particularly to col. 3575 of the Hansard for that year. Inter alia the then Minister said that we should not assume that he or his Department wished to proceed to build up an empire or would indulge, as he called it at that time, in “empire building”. What has really happened since then I leave members themselves to judge. The then Minister of Native Affairs went on to say (col. 3576)—

The hon. the then Minister went on to mention further points, reasons, why this education should be taken over by the State and his Department. He then went on to say (col. 3590)—

He therefore warned us that we should not think that this new system would be fully established in a year or two.

And I now come to the hon. member for Newcastle, as he then was, Mr. Maree. He was a little more clever, and, inter alia, he said—

How wrong he was!

Whatever may have been the meaning of these “philosophic” remarks made by the hon. member I leave at that. But I think that my hon. friend referred at that time to educational training for the Bantu which would be in keeping with their own character and separate. But since these statements by the hon. the present Prime Minister, the then Minister of Native Affairs, and by Mr. Maree, the then member for Newcastle, at present Minister of Bantu Education, matters have developed very rapidly in South Africa as regards our political and territorial concepts relating to this whole matter in the Republic of South Africa. Little could we, or the present Minister, the holder of this eminent and important position, ever have thought or dreamt that the Prime Minister’s references to “empire building”, to the “illusions”, to “accord”, to a “long period of development”, or that the references of the Minister of Bantu Education to “liberalism” and to “nationalism” would come home to roost so soon.

The hon. the present Minister became Minister three and a half years ago and occupies this important post in which he deals with millions of people, and with at least 1,500,000 Bantu children. And during recent years the new set-up in Bantu education—I think he will admit—has not yet achieved success, but, as far as the quality of the education is concerned, it has been a failure. I am not referring now to the number of school so the number of children in the schools, but I am referring to the number of failures in those schools and the quality and standard of the education provided in those schools. This change was effected notwithstanding our warnings; this new system was established notwithstanding the fact that church societies were opposed to it, notwithstanding the fact that the provinces were opposed to it, notwithstanding the fact that the Bantu themselves were opposed to it, and that the Bantu were obliged to accept it. The Department of Education, Arts and Science was fragmented as a result, and many of our teachers who at that time were connected to Bantu schools, were also dismissed as professors. In view of what has now happened, the previous Department could have done the work up to now. But, be that as it may, in reality the fragmentation of our country has been preceded by the fragmentation of education in South Africa, as a result of which the hon. member for Newcastle became a Minister. This back-to-front policy which has put the cart before the horse, can, of course, result in very interesting yet, for the White man, serious developments and conditions as regards Bantu education and Bantu administration. But, Mr. Chairman, before we incurred the trouble and the expense of having the separate Department and the separate Minister of Bantu Education, what awaited us should, after all have been clear to anyone who had any idea of what was coming, as should have been true of the hon. the Minister, because he was a member of the Cabinet. As a matter of fact, he said himself in the House of Assembly that this would eventually be the result, and we have the start in the Transkei. He must have known it. And now the question arises, and I want the hon. the Minister to answer this question: Why has this expense been incurred; why have these millions been spent on the establishment of a new Department and a Minister if he knew that in a year of two a complete change would take place in the territorial and constitutional position in South Africa? Why did he not wait until the area concerned (in this case the Transkei) had first been established before proceeding to make such a change and taking the education of the Native from the provinces and from the Department of Education, Arts and Science? Not only has a new Department costing millions been established, but a new Minister was placed at the head of that Department which costs the State annually large sums of money. To do what? Merely what the existing Department of Education, Arts and Science and the provinces had already done for many years, had done since 1910, and I want to maintain had done with greater success than the present Department has achieved hitherto.

A further serious matter is that the Department, in my opinion, will, in the near future, once again disappear completely from the scene. When my hon. friend was appointed Minister of Indian Affairs I wondered what was behind it, because the two Departments differ completely from one another—Native Affairs, Native Education and Indian Affairs and Indian Education. But it is now, of course, becoming clearer by the day.

Just as will happen in the case of all Bantu states which will be established from now on, “education” has been allocated to the Transkeian authority as one of its functions. Their own administration and Ministry of Education will, of course, be established, as has already been promised and also decided, according to the Digest (29/1/62). In their statement our hon. friends go on to say “based on the principles of democracy”. What has now become of the previous policy statements to the effect that quite different education methods would be applied to the Natives, that they would be trained along quite different lines to us? What has become of that? Did hon. members not tell them: You must forget everything about the past 50 or 100 years, because the White man has taught you completely wrongly; you must be given your own education based on your own past? What has become of that? Now they say “it must be based on democracy”. In other words, their own Departments with their own Minister will be established to look after Transkeian education, and what will be the result? That the Minister and his Bantu Affairs Administration in the Republic will, in the near future, be without work, without a portfolio. If the Government is sincere, it cannot be otherwise; it can have no other result. We already have one Minister in this House who is rusticating, and I am afraid if the Government proceeds to give these Bantu areas self-government so rapidly, we shall soon add yet another Minister.

Under the new system, that is to say under this fragmentation process which is taking place under this régime, education will be entrusted to the Bantu administration, and will, of course, fall under their own Minister of Education. I say this, because the Government’s own statements in this regard testify to this, and I quote from the special Digest of 29 January 1962—

He (Dr. Verwoerd) thought of things like agriculture, health services, etc., and education. Other matters, like defence, foreign affairs, etc., the Republic would have to retain for the time being.

This new arrangement can have two results. The present Minister of Bantu Education will gradually disappear from the scene as these new systems of self-government are granted to the states, or/and his present portfolio with his administration will gradually disappear as these new states are established. If I understand correctly the position which will result from this, then the Bantu states themselves will not function as provinces even during this initial stage because these Transkei Bantu are being given their own citizenship. The Transkei therefore has a far higher status than our ordinary provinces. I therefore say that the position is so serious because seeing that they have their own citizenship, not only in their own area, the Transkei, but also outside that area it of course must have dangerous consequences on you and me and particularly on Bantu Education in South Africa. I am supported in this assumption by what the hon. the Prime Minister says on pages six and seven of this special issue of the Digest. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, slowly but surely the White man will disappear from the educational system of the Transkei (let us confine ourselves to that for the moment) which has been built up to the accompaniment of so much discord and without the co-operation of the Bantu, and the Department of the hon. the Minister will have to disappear. That as regards primary and secondary education. As I see the position this is quite logical and objective. You know better than I Mr. Chairman, that there are already 1,500 primary and secondary schools in the Transkei. There are 170,000 Bantu children in those schools.

But they are being oppressed, not so!

This is a comprehensive and significant fact which I am submitting. In the future these schools must fall under the Minister of Bantu Education of the Transkei. What now of higher education? What of the Xhosa university which we have established at Fort Hare? That university has been established for the Xhosa, the ethnic group consisting of the Xhosa and their related groups. That is why the institution was established at Fort Hare and that is why the Government did not want to allow other ethnic groups to enter that institution. What will now become of this ethnic principle? Because the Minister of Transkeian education, if this system means anything, can change this and also decide that the medium of instruction will be Xhosa or English or Afrikaans. We know that they are already asking and saying that we should withdraw the regulation sat this stage already, before they take over next year and that, so the report says, the Transkeian authorities already want to introduce the medium of instruction which they will introduce next year–

For primary education.

It does not matter–

Then it goes on–

Councillor Potwana: The regulations must be suspended until we get self-government.

And they are being given self-government next year. I therefore ask the hon. the Minister: What now becomes of the mother tongue as a medium of instruction? What now becomes of the study of Afrikaans and of English? The hon. the Minister knows just as well as I that Butalezi, that m’Timkulu, that Prof. Matthews, that all the educated Natives who gave evidence before us, told us: “Do not give us our own language as medium of instruction; give us English or Afrikaans; we do not have the vocabulary or the text books”. What are they now going to do? What control will you have to prevent Fort Hare …

Shame!

What control will the Government have to prevent even a Bekker or the Coloureds or the Asiatics being permitted to enter Fort Hare? Or that the ethnic principle which they have introduced, will not disappear completely? I now want to go further. What of the Transkei Natives outside the Transkei? What of the Pondos, the Galekas, the Xhosas, the Tembus and the other who live in the so-called White areas? What of the one and a half million children who are now attending schools in the so-called White areas? Is the Transkeian Minister of Educational so going to have control next year under self-government over the schools of his people in the White areas? Where are we heading? Does the House see what repercussions this new system entails for South Africa? Does the House see where it can lead? Simply to chaos, to confusion! How can we allow such a position to arise? They will of course demand, as we would have done if we were in their place, that the schools of their subjects who work in the White areas should be under the control of the Transkei and under the Minister of the Transkeian administration. Because the Government says that they will have to vote in the Transkei. They are not going to vote in the White man’s area. They will only be able to vote in the Transkei. Thus the Transkei will demand that it should have control over its subjects who live amongst us.

The only question I can put is: “Quo Vadis?”, where are we going? What are we doing? We are establishing areas and then we tell their subjects that they will not have any rights here amongst us, that they are citizens of their own state. They now have schools in our area. What repercussions will it not have if there should be difficulties between us and them one day. Let us just accept, for the sake of argument, that our Minister will still have control in the White areas, that South Africa will still exercise control—what repercussions will it have if the Minister or the Prime Minister or the Cabinet of the Transkei is not satisfied with the treatment of those Tem bus or Pondos or Xhosas in the schools which we provide them?

I have risen to put these questions to the Minister, so that at this stage already, before self-government is granted next year, before there is a Transkeian Minister of Education, before they can do what they are saying they are going to do, the Minister can tell us what he and his Government are doing to put these matters in the correct light or to try to prevent possible repercussions. What agreement has been entered into with the recess committee or the Transkeian authorities in respect of the control over the Transkeian subjects outside the Transkei or will they only exercise control over the Transkeian children and schools within the Transkei?

What agreement has he entered into with them in respect of university college, or the agricultural college at Tso’o? Or is the Transkeian Minister of Education going to take over the responsibility for all these activities because it seems to me that he is going to do so and it also seems that the Prime Minister has actually promised this to them. I therefore have risen so that the Minister can reply timeously and we can know exactly what awaits us as regards the matters which I have mentioned.

The hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) is known in this House as one of the educationists, but I think if ever he has jeopardized that particular status of his, his actions of to-day have done so. What we expected from him as an educationist was a proper appreciation of the work which the Department of Bantu Education was doing. But what did we get? We got the most peculiar statements and conclusions imaginable, Sir. There is not a single argument in everything which the hon. member said this afternoon to which you can attach any value. What has the granting of independence to the Bantu homelands to do with the deterioration of the educational system? Where we want them to become independent we want them all the more to develop their own proper educational system. That is what we would like to see. That should have happened a long time ago. In the past the Bantu has been too closely linked with the White man and we tried to force a western culture and a western system of education and similar things on to him. We have turned him into a sort of pseudo White man and as a result of this stupid educational system which we have forced on to him, that which lurked in the soul of the Bantu has never unfolded itself.

Everything which the hon. member has said here to-day confirms that he wishes to continue with that system. He distrusts everything that is being done for the Bantu. He attaches no value to the potentialities which lurk in the soul of the Bantu. He does not want to give the Bantu an opportunity of developing his own system of education and setting his own standards of education in his own area. We had proof positive of that to-day, Sir. The Bantu must become White! He must learn English and Afrikaans because his Bantu language is inferior! That should be abolished, it has to take in an inferior place because its vocabulary is too poor! With what did the Afrikaans language start– what was its vocabulary? And where does the Afrikaans language stand to-day? From the very moment Afrikaans was acknowledged the language developed and the same will happen in the case of the Bantu languages if they are acknowledged. If we give the educated Bantu the opportunity of coming forward and writing text books in the Bantu languages, that hon. member will be one of the first, if he is fair, to admit how those languages have grown.

Mr. Chairman, during the few minutes at my disposal I want to draw atention to the wonderful way in which Bantu education has grown. Let us, for example, look at the numbers at school. Do you know, Sir, that during the last six years, I can almost say since Bantu education has become independent, there has been an increase of over 100,000 per annum in the number of students. Do you know that over the past few years the number of secondary schools has increased from 180 to 292? In other words, during the six-year period there has been an increase of 112. When we look at Bantu education we must admit, we cannot deny it, that Bantu education will be faced with peculiar problems and difficulties during its growing years, during the very years in which it should receive the encouragement, protection and inspiration of people like the hon. member for Hillbrow and others, and this is the very time which it is so often criticized by those people. We admit that there are difficulties which will have to be overcome. When we think of it, for example, that it is still necessary to teach the Bantu child through the medium of Afrikaans and English because there are not proper and enough textbooks in the Bantu languages, I am surprised to find that in spite of that, they still produce encouraging results. There is still one great defect, and this is acknowledged by no less a person than the erudite Paul Giniewski, where he says in his book that the one great problem which faces South Africa and the Bantu is precisely the introduction of a Bantu matriculation. He writes–

That is the attitude we want, and an educationist admits it here.

That is nonsense.

When that hon. member is faced with facts which he does not understand, he says it is nonsense. That remark of his reveals nothing else than the friction of a limited spirit trying to comprehend a big idea. It is a scientist who is speaking here. Then the hon. member regards himself as his equal and makes those ridiculous statements. Six years ago those hon. members strenuously opposed the establishment of a Department of Bantu Education. I find that the same writer whom I quoted a few moments ago, having gone into the matter thoroughly, says the following—

Are those his predictions?

No, had the hon. member for Hillbrow been such an educationist, he would probably have agreed with this. But he come she re as a politician who does not want to do anything bar minimizing and belittling everything which is done to get the Bantu to develop self-respect, to get the Bantu to develop a feeling of independence.

When we look at the results which are achieved to-day by Bantu education, we find that they complain in this Bantu journal that one of their biggest problems is the fact that there are so many people who incite the Bantu against their own schools. They say that the Bantu school is an inferior product. They complain that those instigators even go so far as to organize and incite students to adopt an attitude of dis approval towards the Bantu schools. That has been the main stumbling block why that education has not made the progress which it should have made. The attitude of which that hon. member has adopted here to-day is characteristic of what is done outside to make the Bantu believe that there is something wrong with the educational system, that it is an inferior product, and that kind of thing. No, they want us to try to make the Bantu a pseudo White man; he must be Western orientated. Mr. Chairman, I say that it is one of the most scandalous speeches which an educationist has ever made in this House.

I want to appeal to hon. members to start to be realistic. One of the main things which the Bantu child has lacked in the past has been a better incentive. He asks himself why he should obtain those qualifications; whether he must compete with the Whites. To-day, however, his own homelands are being developed for him and to-day there is a strong incentive for him to get trained and to develop that training in his own way because he has his own people to serve in the future. Homelands have been established for him where he can go and live and work. That is what we are doing to-day. Furthermore, we have to think of the greater role which the Bantu play in their education. The parents of the Bantu students are not opposed to this system, as the hon. member for Hillbrow has tried to allege.

What do they themselves say?

Over 50,000 of those parents serve on school boards and school committees to-day. How many of them ever had a share in the education of their children in the past? How many Bantu parents were interested in it in the past? No, Mr. Chairman, I think we have clear proof to-day that a big project was started six years ago, a project which is growing in strength. It is for the very reason that they have to admit that, and do not like doing so, because we are already reaping the fruits of this project, that members opposite are trying to disparage it. If somebody cannot produce sound arguments, Sir, heal ways tries to ridicule the position.

Mr. Chairman, I wish to point out that we can expect a great deal from Bantu education in the future because we also have a division of psychology to-day which is formulating standardized psychological tests which will be applied to Bantu students. We cannot apply to the Bantu child the intelligence tests and aptitude tests which we apply to the White child. There is no correlation between the two. To-day we have a psychologist with 12 full-time Bantu testers operating in the field, making tests and standardizing those tests. In view of this new development we can expect wonderful results in the future. All that is needed is that the world outside should give the educationists here a chance, should give the Bantu educationists a chance, to develop and to develop their own standards. All that is needed is for us to protect and encourage them and in no circumstances to adopt the negative attitude which has been adopted here this afternoon.

I am sorry that the hon. member for Kimberley (South) (Dr. W. L. D. M. Venter) got so excited about the speech made by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp). He is usually a very calm and objective speaker and he contributes to the House in areas on able manner. But I think he got too excited this afternoon and almost without any reason.

Let us just look at the position of education as it affects the Bantu. We do not want to criticize the efforts of the primary school child. They have the opportunity of going to school and some of them do very well. But if we are going to expect a better standard of education at the universities and in secondary schools, we immediately have to set our minds to what is happening in the primary schools. It is no good our getting excited about this matter. Whether we are on this side of the House or on that side of the House we must agree that there are not enough teachers in the primary schools. [Interjections.] Sir, that is a fact and no matter how excited you get, you will not change it. You have first to find ways and means of getting sufficient teachers in the primary school. If you can then produce the incentive for people who are already educated high enough to occupy the posts which are offered in those primary schools, people who will not be led away from the educational field by business and industrial concerns who are looking for educated Bantu and who are prepared to pay them a higher salary for the work that they can do, half your problems will be solved. Unless you are prepared to compete with business and industry you will continually have a shortage of teachers in the primary school.

Now I come to the high schools. What do we find there? We find that instead of having graduate teachers in the high schools, teachers with degrees who are able to impart their knowledge to the scholars, we find a second-grade group of teachers. So we cannot be surprised when we find that out of 800 odd students who sit for the matriculation examination only about 200 pass, or some 26 percent. What is the cause for this very, very high percentage failure? Without matriculants you might just as well close your universities, Mr. Chairman. What are the conditions which we find at the moment? Firstly, the teachers at the high schools are not good enough to teach the subjects which are required for matric. Their standard of Afrikaans and English is too low to expect the Bantu child at high school to pass in grade A either in English or in Afrikaans. I understand that it is the intention of the Department to make both those subjects not compulsory as far as a A-standard pass is concerned for matric. I think that is a step in the right direction as long as the matriculant passes his other subjects. You have to pay the high school teachers more money than you are paying them at the moment, Sir. Otherwise you will not have sufficient teachers to teach in the high schools.

Then we have this question as to the language in which the child should be taught. Whether mother tongue language is suitable in the high school classes is a point which only investigation can clear up– whether it is right or wrong. I think that the Bantu languages are so little used in the universities to-day that it is essential to give these people a thorough grounding in either English or Afrikaans. They have to have that if they want to go in for higher education. Their reading at university will either be in one of those languages. What text books are there in the Bantu languages? Are there any? I do not know of any at all. What is the use of proceeding in the university with a Bantu language if you cannot use it efficiently?

It is only up to Std. VI.

I am just saying, Sir, that there is a tendency to say: “Let the Bantu be taught in his own language.”

Ultimately.

Not ultimately, because education is education. Whether you are going to study in one of the Bantu languages or in English or in Afrikaans depends on the literature which is available to you. And you can only get that literature if there is continual translation. That is the only chance you have. You have to have a reduplication of all your text books into the Bantu languages.

I attended an Afrikaans university and I used German and English text books. Why can’t they do the same?

I do not want to spend the few minutes which I have at my disposal on arguing with the hon. the Minister. It is difficult enough as it is to keep to the theme with the interruptions which are going on. [Interjections.] I am prepared to talk this matter over but we must have time for that. I am not going to be rushed into saying something which I feel basically is not right. We find that the subjects which are being taught to-day in the matriculation class are taught to the pupils in such a poor manner by poor teachers that the pupil is a virtual failure when he comes to matric. Even in the case of our own children who have all the facilities, who get all the help which we can give them such as extra lessons, the electric light, the good food, the pocket money, the lack of fear of having to go to earn a few shillings to buy the textbooks, there is a high percentage of failures. How much more is that not the case in respect of the Bantu who have not the facilities which we have at the moment. We have to take all those things in consideration, Sir. If we want to built up the educational standard in our country to the highest possible degree, whether it is for the White people, the Coloured people, the Indians or the Bantu, we have to start from the bottom, and start building it up as quickly as possible. In our own field of education we find that there is a rapid decline in the number of pupils once it comes to the high school. The loss is terrific. The numbers who reach university are getting smaller and smaller. One of the reasons for that, Mr. Chairman, is that the universities in the larger towns are to-day closed to the Bantu. They have to travel very long distances to attend the university colleges which are provided for them. You would expect a university college to be established in a Bantu area near a large town, such as the south-west complex of Johannesburg. There are 750,000 people living in that complex. That would be an ideal spot for a tribal college. Instead of having their university college near their homes, those Bantu children have to travel hundreds of miles to go to university and they have to be boarders at these colleges. It is impossible financially for the parents of those children to give them that education, an education which the child and the parents wish for. The parents want to give their child that education, but because of financial stringencies it is impossible for them to do so. I do not know what solution the Minister has in mind if he is going to continue to think only in terms of separation. If you continue along those lines, Sir, the whole educational system of the Bantu is going to breakdown. You have to have it as near as possible to the people who are permanently resident in areas. It is no good our hiding from the fact that where you have a large collection of Bantu that is the place to have your college. [Time limit.]

I should just like to reply to what the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) has said” particularly in respect of three points. The hon. member has made vigorous attacks on the Department of Bantu Education and its work and he simply levelled general criticisms at the quality of the work without giving specific examples. We know what the position is as regards matriculation results, and I shall discuss them presently. But he has not referred to any other aspect nor the Std. VIII results as examples to substantiate the attacks and submissions which he has put forward here. Furthermore, the hon. member has referred to the fragmentation of education. I myself have always thought that Bantu education does in fact enjoy the advantage of great uniformity, and I have often wished that this principle could also be applied to our White education so that we would have uniformity throughout the various provinces. But the hon. member has criticized this and he has referred to the fragmentation which has taken place because it has been taken away from the provinces and placed under central control. Mr. Chairman, I find no logic in his argument.

Then the hon. member has referred to the children of the Transkeian Bantu who will be living in the White areas and to the demands which the Transkeian will supposedly make on their behalf, that is to say demands to the Government here to control education along lines of which they approve. I have seldom heard such an illogical argument. By the same token the Basuto will then come and prescribe to us; by the same token the foreign Bantu from the various areas who are living here to-day will prescribe to us how their education should be arranged. But what is more, by the same token the many White children from Rhodesia and other African states who have come here to enjoy education at our schools, particularly in the Transvaal, will now be able to make certain demands. No, Mr. Chairman, it is a long time since I have heard such an illogical argument.

Then I want to say something about the matter raised by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher). He has said that we do not have sufficient teachers to provide Bantu education. I just want to give the House the latest figures which I have available. These show that at the moment there are 25,442 Bantu teachers and 318 White teachers, making a total of 25,850. This was once again a general allegation without any specific examples or proof being submitted to substantiate the argument put forward. Furthermore, the hon. member has referred to the high failure rate at the matriculation examinations, which other hon. members will also discuss. He then referred to the teachers who are not adequately trained. The increase in numbers is so tremendous– and we find the same position in our White schools– that these general complaints could be submitted. Why hold the Department of Bantu Education responsible for the fact that the teachers are not adequately trained?

Then, as regards the standard or level of work, I just want to make the submission as regards the highest bodies, namely the universities, that I challenge hon. members to tell me whether the standard of the new universities which have been created is lower than the standard maintained at the White universities? At the moment the indications are that, although these are new universities, the results are not inferior to those of the White universities.

In various quarters accusations have been levelled at the Department of Bantu Education because of the poor results, namely that these are due to the application of the principle of mother tongue education. I should like to discuss this aspect. This accusation or argument has in my opinion ben initiated by certain politicians, and it has been followed up by educationists and people who are only quasi educationists in various fields. I emphatically deny that the application of the principle of mother tongue education is the reason for the poor achievements at the matriculation and other examinations. The candidates who wrote the matriculation examination during the years 1956 to 1961 were without exception products of the old system when English was in most Bantu schools the medium of instruction. In addition I also want to submit, and I think hon. members opposite know this, that we must take in to account the further fact that the matriculation exemption requirement or the admission requirement to the universities has been increased from 40 per cent or a total of 1,170 points, to 44.4 per cent or 45 per cent, as we put it, with a total number of 1,300 points. The hon. member for Hillbrow has also referred to the fact that certain chiefs in the Transkei have complained to the territorial authorities about mother tongue education and have started to criticize it in that area. We already know that the Government, according to Press reports, has decided to appoint a commission of inquiry to investigate the Transkei’s objections to mother tongue education—a commission which will consist of three Bantu members who will be assisted by two White assessors.

In general, I just want to say that since the Bantu Education Act has come into operation, it has been based on the sound principle which I want to describe as follows: Bantu education by Bantu teachers and to Bantu children. That is to say, education of the Bantu by the Bantu for the Bantu. This is based on the general premise that education should be directed to the children. In this case we shall say that the education should be directed to the Bantu children or be based on the Bantu. In addition the education should be provided in the language of the Bantu. Mr. Chairman, hon. members will surely know that before the Department of Bantu Education took over Bantu education, and it was later placed under the Department of Bantu Education, and when the provinces still controlled this education, they already accepted that mother tongue education should be maintained in the first four standards at school. Even the provinces accepted that as essential. There was in fact doubt in certain quarters whether it was advisable to take it further than the first four years at school. There was the tendency in certain provinces to take mother tongue education further. The Department of Bantu Education introduced uniformity by laying down that the mother tongue should be the medium of instruction in all the primary schools, that is to say throughout primary education up to and including St. VI, and that the Std. VI examination should also be conducted in the mother tongue. The value of mother tongue education surely needs no emphasis to-day. All educationists, and I want to say all educationists of importance and even psychologists, consider that this is the best method of education, even though they differ over other educational matters, they agree with this basic principle which is a sound principle and which is obvious” the educational principle that the child, whoever he may be, should receive his education through his mother tongue.

Business suspended at 6.30 p.m. and resumed at 8.5 p.m.

Because I should like to reply to some very important matters raised by the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp), I have thought fit to state this matter clearly. Hon. members have asked why we have done this thing, knowing that in future we shall have the Bantu states that will control their education themselves, in other words, why start a policy that will have those consequences? He asked why did we have to introduce a policy that will cost the country millions, but Bantu education has brought about a tremendous saving for the country. In 1954-5 there were a total of 900,000 Bantu children at school, at a cost of R17.08 per capita. In 1961-2 there were 1,500,000 Bantu children at school, at a cost of R13.34 per capita. In other words, as a result of the introduction of the system of Bantu education, we were enabled to reduce the per capita cost of Bantu children at school. As a result of the better control, there was a reduction in the cost. With the additional number of Bantu children that would have been at school this year, the cost would have been R6,000,000 if the State had not taken it over. In other words, I contend that the hon. member is basically arguing incorrectly, by saying that the establishment of the new Department for Bantu Education has cost the country millions. My contention is, in the light of data, that if you accept that the number of Bantu children at school were to increase as they have increased—and that is common cause between us—the cost this year would face been R6,000,000 more had it not been taken over by the State. Then he added that in any event it has not been a success. Now, I point out in the first place that, seen in the light of the development of Bantu policy as it is seen by the Government, the system of Bantu education has been a gigantic success, because it has done the fundamental thing that is a prerequisite for self-government for the Bantu, and that is to make the various Bantu communities ripe for control of their own affairs; for, indeed, it has become possible, as a result of the taking over of Bantu education by the State, to transfer control to the Bantu communities as regards their schools. In consequence of that, we have already established more than 500 school boards and more than 5,000 school committees. More than 5,000 school board members have in this way become schooled in the requirements of self government. In other words, the very principle that has been applied by Bantu education has been a precursor for Bantu self-government, and has been a very important and successful schooling period for the Bantu in connection with the management of his own affairs.

The hon. member also said that the taking over of Bantu education has been a failure, for just look at the examination results. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) also referred to that. Because much has been said and written in recent times about the poor examination results by Bantu schools, I should like to quote a number of facts, and test it in the light of certain utterances made by the Press and by persons in public, because I think it is absolutely necessary that we should have a clear picture of the true position in regard to examination results in relation to the achievements of the Bantu at school. The Cape Times, for instance, as recently as 13 February of this year, devoted a leader to this question of the number of passes in the matriculation examination, and it attributes the poor examination results to the following—

The Cape Times attributes the poor matriculation results during the past year or years to this, but this whole argument breaks down completely when regard is had to the fact that the Bantu candidates who participated in the matriculation during the years between 1955and 1961; that is to say, since the taking over of Bantu education by the State until 1961– that all those candidates went through the primary schools before the principle of mother-tongue education had been introduced in to the primary schools. Up to this stage mother-tongue education, as regards examination subjects, had not been applied in the secondary schools. Therefore the application of the principle of mother-tongue education cannot be held responsible for the decline in achievement in the matriculation examination. I should like to put that very clearly, because there apparently are many people among the Bantu who are under a wrong impression as regards these facts. All the candidates who entered for the matriculation examination during the years 1955 to 1961, without a single exception, were products of the old set-up when English was the medium of instruction in most of the schools. [Interjections.] I think Dr. McConkey, in the article he wrote in the Natal Mercury on 13 April, comes closer to the truth when he contended that English has suffered the most spectacular decline. But his submission does not hold water either, because in actual fact there has not been a decline in examination achievement, but an increase in the requirements to obtain matriculation exemption, particularly in the official languages in the higher grade; and subsequently, whereas formerly an average of 40 per cent in the examination was required, the average was increased to 45 percent in 1960. Now it is a well-known fact that Bantu candidates for the matriculation examination, with few exceptions, all had to pass English in the higher grade, and had to achieve at least 40 per cent to comply with the matriculation requirements. Bantu candidates, with a so much poorer cultural background, with poorer general knowledge and poorer facilities for study and poorer library facilities, had to compete in the examination with English-speaking scholars from the best English homes and the finest English medium private schools. Here and there were Bantu candidates that could equal the achievements of the English-speaking candidate from the private school, but the vast majority of them could never in history achieve more than the minimum requirement of 40 per cent. In the earlier years, before that requirement was increased, we checked and found that the vast majority of the candidates that passed the examination passed in a percentage that varied from 40 per cent to 45 per cent, and they have now been eliminated as a result of the higher requirements. So it is clear that the increase in the requirement to pass hit the Bantu candidates hardest by far, and the failure of Bantu candidates in the matriculation examination should be largely attributed to this fact. The additional reasons for the poorer examination results have been referred to already on previous occasions, but I should just like to indicate them briefly.

In the first place, there is a shortage of well qualified teachers in the secondary schools, particularly in languages, mathematics and the natural sciences. The hon. member also referred to the shorage of trained teachers, but now I should like to point out clearly that this shortage of well qualified teachers in languages, mathematics and natural sciences is not a phenomenon of Bantu Educational one. All education departments have problems in that regard. The second general reason I wish to mention is the tremendous increase in the number of secondary schools. In 1949 there were only 94 secondary schools, and in 1960 that had increased to 288. The result was a much greater distribution of the best teachers in an already limited teachers corps. But there is a third reason I wish to mention, and that is the unrest and rebelliousness that has been incited in some of the State schools, particularly during the past five years. According to the evidence given at departmental investigations, it has appeared quite clearly that the unrest is incited and inspired by outsiders, by outside organizations with a particular political object, namely tore present Bantu education in the eyes of the world in an unfavourable light. E.g. last year inciters at Bantu schools even used the slogan “Education is not everything”, and that was spread among the scholars at State schools. Everybody surely knows that our matriculation standard in South Africa is high, and the matric examination the Bantu candidates have to pass, is the same as the standard which the White children have to pass, and it is a full-time task for White children to do their schoolwork and pass the matric examination. If Bantu scholars are used by organizations for political aims, those children do not have the time to do their school work, and then you get a decline in their achievements as a result.

A further general reason I should like to mention is the drop in the number of White teachers in Bantu education. When Bantu education was taken over, and even before, the Bantu insisted on greater employment of Bantu teachers in the Bantu schools. In consequence of that, and also as a result of the shortage of White teaching staff at the present time, even in White schools, Bantu teaching staff had to be employed to a much greater extent than in the past in the high schools also. Of course the state schools and the community schools were those that obviously suffered the most as a result. They had to make much more use of Bantu teaching staff e.g. at Catholic Private Schools and the percentage of White teaching staff at those schools was smaller than at the private schools. Analysis of the statistics in regard to the achievements of candidates who passed the matric and senior certificate examinations during the years 1958 and 1961, shows clearly that the private schools, where the teaching personnel almost without exception are White, or where the White teachers largely remained in service, fared better throughout than particularly the community schools where there were only Bantu teachers. An additional factor, of course, in favour of the private schools, is that their scholars usually are very thoroughly selected, and that the scholars are housed in hostels where they can study under proper supervision and under good circumstances. At community schools all these factors are absent. and at State schools where there are hostels, the one factor is absent, namely that the scholars are not selected to the same degree as at private schools, for State schools usually have to serve a certain neighbourhood, and they draw their scholars from that particular vicinity, from the tribal groups for which they have been established, whereas the private schools select the best scholars from all over the country. That has been so throughout the years. That is why the percentages of passes at private schools have generally been better. Perhaps I could just mention them for the sake of interest. In 1958 the percentage of passes was 20.5 per cent at community schools. 45.9 per cent at State Schools, and 64.7 per cent at private schools. In 1959 it was 94 per cent at community schools. 22.2 per cent at State schools and 41.9 per cent at private schools. In 1960 it was 9.5 per cent at community schools, 19.9 percent at State schools and 26.6 per cent at private schools, and in 1961 it was 16.8 per cent, 24.9 per cent and 34.1 per cent respectively. That shows that the decline has not occurred only at the community schools and the state schools, but also at private schools. Whereas at private schools the number of passes in 1958 was 64.7 per cent, it fell in 1960 to 26.6 per cent. Here it is not a question of the Bantu education syllabus being in question, for they are prepared for the examinations of the Joint Matriculation Board.

If the results in the English higher grade alone over the same year are analysed, we find the same trend. The percentage of passes in English A in 1958 at community schools was 34 per cent, at State schools 53.3 percent and at private schools 67.2 per cent. In 1959 it was at community schools 20.2 percent, at State schools 31 per cent and at private schools 47.7 per cent, a drop of 20 per cent in one year at the private schools, at the Catholic private schools, where the Bantu scholars are taught not by poor teachers, that are not thoroughly conversant with English, as the hon. member for Rosettenville said, but mainly by English-speaking teachers. The next year it dropped from 47.7 per cent in 1959 to 37.4 per cent in 1960, and Bantu education had nothing to do with that, for those were candidates that were still the products of the old system, that went through the primary school under the old system, and which are prepared for the examination of the Joint Matriculation Board, which has not been prescribed by me or my Department, but by the Joint Matriculation Board, schools with teachers that are selected by the Catholic Church itself, and who are mainly Whites, and there we have this tremendous drop in the percentage of passes in English A, but now my Department is blamed for it. But I have to point out that there are hopeful signs that the temporary decline in examination achievement has been halted, and that improvements have already set in, as the results in 1961 show. The results of the junior certificate examination also confirm our good expectations, and I think the figures I am now going to quote are of exceptional interest, particularly for those persons who blame the Bantu education system for the poorer achievements in the official languages. I want hon. members to listen to these figures. The percentage of passes in the junior certificate in languages was, for Afrikaans B, 64.3 per cent in 1959, and in 1960 it was 71.7 percent and in 1961 it was 65.4 percent. Then we come to English A, and now you have to remember that the first candidates that went through the primary school in the mother-tongue medium in 1961 wrote this junior certificate examination. In 1959, when the candidates who still had English as the medium of instruction in the primary school, wrote, their achievements in English A were a percentage of passes for the junior certificate, of 42. 8 per cent, and in 1960 it was 41.1 percent and in 1961, when the first group, who had received instruction in the mother-tongue in the primary school, wrote the junior certificate examination, 53.2 per cent passed English A. In the case of English B, in 1959 the percentage of passes was 80.7 percent, in 1960 it was 91.5 per cent and in 1961 it was 94.8 per cent. In 1961 now we had the first products of Bantu education writing a public examination, the junior certificate, and the achievement in Afrikaans and English is better than it was in previous years, in spite of the introduction of mother-tongue education. Now it can be expected that the Bantu candidates sitting towards the end of 1963, when the amendment in the regulations of the Joint Matriculation Board come into force, will also improve, namely that a Bantu candidate may from that year, present his mother-tongue in the higher grade as a Group I subject, instead of one of the official languages, which usually was English in the higher grade. And thereafter it may be expected that there will be a progressively increasing stream of candidates to the university colleges, for analysis of the examination results over the years indicate very clearly that the requirements called for from a Bantu candidate, to pass an official language in the higher grade in the matriculation examination was and is the greatest stumbling block, and furthermore, that the Bantu candidate said quite well in the other examination subjects. Dr. McConkey said: “The spectacular decline of English” has to be attributed to Bantu education, but I say that the facts he has mentioned to which that spectacular decline of English, if it is there, is to be attributed, are not factors that should be sought in Bantu education. The signs of the decline can be found all over, and not only in Bantu education, but in all education, in primary and post-primary schools of all education departments and also in the universities. I do not know whether hon. members are aware that Prof. Dilke of the Rhodes University recently published his findings in this regard in “The Times Educational Supplement”, in which he said–

The standard of English of many of those who enter the English language universities in South Africa is deplorably low.

At Rhodes University, according to a recent report in the Argus, not so long ago 209students were subjected to a proficiency test in English, and the test was made very easy intentionally, according to the report, and of those 209 only 112 could pass the test. It would appear that people who are expressing their concern about this matter, should not in the first place be concerned over Bantu education, or the progress of the Bantu, but should be concerned about the teaching of English and the standard of English, and of Afrikaans, in education. Dr. McConkey in his article says that the Bantu student who has not passed English in the higher grade, will be effectively excluded from all universities, with the exception of the Bantu university colleges. Except of course that it should be pointed out to him that the Bantu candidates will continue to be permitted to choose English in the higher grade as an examination subject if they so wish, one should point out that in the past thousands of candidates with English lower grade, were admitted to our South African universities, and also to overseas universities, and in spite of the fact that the’ had not passed English in the higher grade, they could continue and complete their studies successfully. We know of instances where professors to-day are teaching English at the universities, who passed matric in English in the lower grade only.

It is necessary also to draw attention to a number of other very important and instructive facts that struck me when the figures of passes were compared. It is alleged by Dr. McConkey and others, in the first place, that the Catholic private schools produce better results. Although that is so as regards the language subjects, for the reasons I have already mentioned, I should nevertheless in fairness also like to quote the following comparative figures. In Latin the pass figures in 1960 were, at community schools 33.3 per cent, at State schools 60.7 per cent and at private schools 67.8 percent. In 1961, at community schools (because we give particular attention to the subjects in which they fare poorly), it was 91.7 per cent, at State schools 56.7 per cent, and at private schools 59.6 per cent. In zoology, 1960, the pass figures were at community schools 43 percent, at State schools 90.6 per cent and at private schools 57.9 per cent. In mathematics, the percentage of passes at community schools in 1961was 39.3 per cent, at State schools 48.8 per cent, and at private schools 48.3 per cent. In biology the pass figure at community schools in 1961 was 56.5 per cent, in State schools 78.4 per cent, and in private schools 54.3 per cent. That was for the matric examination. In botany, in the community schools in 1961 it was 81.3 per cent, in the State schools 93.1 percent and in private schools 83.6 per cent.

Secondly, I should like to make the submission that a thorough analysis of the examination achievements of matric scholars has satisfied me that it is not always the system or the teacher that is responsible for the percentage of passes, but very frequently the examination paper, and I should like to illustrate that in respect of a number of subjects. In the subject of English Higher in 1960at community schools 15.9 per cent passed, at State Bantu schools 26.6 per cent and at private schools 37.4 per cent. In 1961 the percentages for the same subject for the three schools were 29.7 per cent, 34.8 per cent and 48.5 per cent, thus a good deal better than in 1960. But compare this now with Afrikaans lower for the same groups. The same scholars that write English higher write Afrikaans lower. It is at the same schools, and taught by teachers who are teaching under the same conditions. In 1960 the percentage figure of passes in Afrikaans Lower was at community schools 20.5 per cent and in 1961 it dropped to 14.1 per cent. At State schools it was 29.9 per cent in 1960, and in 1961 only 20.5 percent, and at private schools it was 57.7 percent in 1960 and only 37.7 per cent, in 1961. Whereas there was quite an improvement in English Higher in 1961, there was quite a decline in Afrikaans Lower at the same schools and with the same scholars. I do not believe that this difference in respect of two language subjects which are taught under the same conditions and system, can show such different trends if the answer is not to be sought in the examination paper. But look at Agriculture [Interjections.] The hon. member will forgive me when I say that because so many untruths are being spread in this country about this subject, and because so many untruths are being used to poison the mind of the Bantu, it is necessary that I should now for once and for all give a clear exposition of this matter. I take the results in connection with agriculture, and it gives the same picture for all schools, but I am quoting it only for State schools. In 1959 the pass percentage was 77.1 per cent, and in 1960 it dropped to 66.7 percent and in 1961 it is 83.9 per cent. We take history, also at State schools. The percentage of passes in 1959 was 63.8 per cent, in 1960 it was 71.7 per cent and in 1961 it was 55.2 per cent. I do not believe that these differences should not be attributed to the fact that in 1960 there was a particularly difficult examination paper in agriculture, and that in history there was in 1960 a much easier paper than in the other two years. In the case of geography also, the pass percentage in 1960 was about 15 per cent better than in 1959 or 1961, while during those two years it was more or less equal. In the case of geography the pass figures for 1960 were about 15 percent better than in 1959 and also 15 per cent better than in 1961. The pass figure for 1959 and 1961 in respect of geography was virtually the same. But in 1960 it was a good 15 percent better. I trust, Mr. Chairman, that the examining bodies will give special attention to this aspect of the matter, for I do not think that it is fair, particularly where you are dealing with Bantu candidates who have to study under such difficult conditions, to subject the students to such conditions that they are debarred from further study as a result of the variation in the quality of the examination paper from year to year. After a thorough analysis of examination achievements—apart from what I have just had to say about the examination papers—I have come to the following conclusion: firstly: If Bantu teachers wish to replace White teachers in education, they will have to work with greater devotion. Secondly, it is in the interest of education, to limit the matric course so far as possible to hostel institutions where there are the required facilities for study under supervision. Thirdly, the poor results have nothing to do with the principle or the application of mother-tongue education. I have already dealt with this to a certain extent. Because among the Bantu there are many misgivings about mother-tongue education because, I believe, malicious persons go to them with the wrong information, and actually incite them against Bantu education so that they in their ignorance seek the fault at the wrong place, I have decided to order an investigation by Bantu educationists into the problems and the quality of education in the official languages. I hope to nominate such a committee in the Transkei very soon. I shall place two White advisers at their disposal. One, I hope, will be an inspector of my Department, and the other will be an inspector I hope to find in the Provincial Administration. If the investigation in the Transkei is successful, it will be extended to other parts. I believe it will at least afford an opportunity to teachers, sub-inspectors, Bantu educationists and other interested parties to study this matter properly, and to keep themselves occupied with facts and not with purely fictitious arguments.

This brings me to the questions the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) put tome with regard to the effect that our Bantu policy in the Transkei will have on education. Let me put this very clearly: According as the Bantu gets self-government in his own areas, to that extent the work of those Departments of State of the Republic that are concerned with Bantu matters, will become less here. I believe that if I do my work properly, I shall eventually have to work myself out of work.

Hear, hear!

Now I have to point out that it has not yet been settled at what stage exactly Bantu education will be transferred to the Bantu Authorities. It will be a matter for negotiation between the territorial authority of the Transkei and the Government. It is very clear to me that primary education at least will be transferred to them at this stage. Possibly secondary education also. But we have not yet negotiated in detail on the exact responsibility they will assume at this stage. I have to state very clearly that there can be no question, at this stage, of transferring Bantu schools situated in White areas to the control of the Transkeian government, for the simple reason that I cannot conceive of one single school in the Republic outside the Transkei, where there are only children of Transkei citizens. Even herein Nyanga we have many of the Siskei Bantu. There are numerous Bantu from Basutoland here. In other words, you cannot give a self-governing group control over schools in which there are children of other units. If sooner or later we reach a stage where you have ethnic grouping applied in your urban location to such an extent that you have separate schools for the various national groups, it is something that may possibly be considered. But at this stage it just cannot be entertained. I say it could possibly be considered in future.

The hon. member also asked what is to become of higher education, university training. The hon. member surely knows that Fort Hare is situated quite outside the area of the Transkei, and that it is there for the entire Xhosa-speaking national group. It includes the Ciskei which is not a part of the Transkei. For that reason, apart from any other reason, it is impracticable to transfer control of Fort Hare to them at this stage. The hon. member ought also to know that it is our policy, where to-day there is a White council in control of that university with a Bantu advisory council and where the White council in due course will transfer its duties and its responsibilities to the Bantu council, to place that university under the control of a Bantu body eventually. It is quite in line with our policy. We have said so for years. The hon. member for Hillbrow has not suddenly discovered something now that constitutes a great danger to us. It has been our policy for years to train the Bantu so that he can look after his own affairs and can serve his own people. If the self-governing unit of the Transkei takes over education, and they proceed to apply principles there which in my opinion are prejudicial to education, I am not going to interfere. If they ask my advice, I shall advise them. But if they were to takeover education and if they, e.g., were to abolish the principle of mother tongue education, and make it English medium from beginning to end, it is their business. Then they must do so. I should think that they would be making a tremendous mistake if they were to do so. For the very reason that we envisage that the Bantu should show an active interest to a greater extent progressively in various spheres, not only in self-government, but, e.g., as in education, much more than in the past, I have decided to create a Bantu advisory council for Bantu education, an advisory council of which Bantu educationists from the various national groups will be members. I hope that that advisory council, which could advise my Department and could make contact with my Department in regard to matters of education for the Bantu, will also be a body on which the Transkei would like to be represented, because I think it will be in their interests to have contact with what is happening in respect of Bantu education in other parts of the Republic, and so that they will at least ensure that standards are maintained, standards that will be acceptable to all. That is why I propose to establish a Bantu Education advisory council in the very near future, on which Bantu educationists will serve, and which will be able to act as a link between the various Bantu national units. I believe that we shall thereby in course of time be able to succeed in giving the Bantu an opportunity, with proper scientific investigation into education and methods of education, to get away from these various wild tales with which some of the papers and some agitators are trying to scare them at the present time.

The hon. the Minister has given us a great many interesting figures, but he still has not explained why there has been this steady deterioration particularly over the last five or six years in matriculation results, why the number of university exemptions has declined and why there is this general dissatisfaction throughout the Bantu community with the system of education through the medium of the vernacular. Nothing that the hon. the Minister has said to-night does in any way do away with the fact that in 1947 54.8 per cent of pupils writing the senior certificate examination passed and in 1961 only 25 per cent of those pupils passed. Nothing, Sir, can in any way alter the situation that in 1958 there were 182 Bantu pupils who obtained the exemption for university entrance and by 1961 that number had dropped to 77. The hon. the Minister must give us explanations for this. It is no good his resting on his laurels and giving other figures which he thinks in some way excuses these changes.

The hon. the Minister has tried to push a side the whole question of the responsibility of the vernacular for this deterioration. I must say that it is yet too soon to judge whether the use of the vernacular as a medium of teaching is in fact largely responsible for this change or not. We need more time. It is only since 1955 that the Bantu Education Act has actually been in operation. Therefore it is too soon to judge the effect of that on matriculation results. There are other things which are affecting the deterioration of teaching which I will come to in a moment and perhaps the Minister will agree with me there that these are largely responsible for the poor results which are being obtained.

I think the hon. the Minister will find that his commission which is going to consist of three African members and a couple of advisory members from his own Department will find it very difficult to dispose of all the strong evidence against the use of the vernacular as a medium. Resolutions were passed unanimously by the 120 members of the Transkei an Authority against the use of the vernacular and asking for the medium to be changed back to either English or Afrikaans. They will also find that there is a very strong feeling indeed in the urban areas amongst African parents and amongst African teachers, those who are not frightened to speak out against the Government system, against the use of the vernacular as a medium of education. And there are good reasons for that. These people feel that their children should be educated to take their place in a modem industrial society. They feel that the vernacular as such has no place in such a society. It is not only the difficulty of finding terminology– I know the Department is constantly putting out handbooks to assist teachers in the manufacture of new words to suit the modern economy and soon– but the whole idea is to enable those children when they become adults to take their place in a modern industrial society. The vernacular does not qualify them in this respect. I am quite sure that the hon. the Minister is going to find that there is much greater opposition to the use of the vernacular than he ever dreamed of. I hope he does, as he has said he intends to do, extend the powers of this commission which he intends appointing and allow the commission to take wide spread evidence throughout the Republic and get the views of the urbanized Africans as well as the views of the Africans in the Transkei.

As I have said it is still too early to judge whether the use of the vernacular has been the cause of this change but I think we can say at this juncture that the general consensus of opinion of Bantu teachers is that the standard of education of the children coming from the primary schools where there is vernacular education, which is now up to Std. VI, and who thereafter enter the high schools, has dropped considerably.

Where do you get that information from?

This is evidence given by many Bantu pedagogues in this particular field. The whole standard has deteriorated. I will give the hon. the Minister the references. These are people who have made investigations on behalf of various educational bodies. There is one by Dr. Ellen Hellman. I think the hon. the Minister will agree with me that she has some authority to speak on this subject. She has a great deal of knowledge on this subject and I suggest to the Minister that he reads an article which she wrote in a Race Relations Journal headed “Comments on Bantu Education” No. 3, July/September 1961. It is in the library and the hon. the Minister can read it there.

The first thing to note, Sir, is that the standard of teachers has deteriorated, the teachers themselves have deteriorated for various reasons. Not only are there many teachers who refuse to teach under the Bantu education system because they disapprove of it in principle, but the Department has been going in for economies as far as Bantu teachers are concerned. The first is to try to employ as many teachers as possible who have a lower qualification for primary teaching. This is a very short-sighted policy indeed. Instead of the old system where the teacher was required to have a proper standard of training, namely the Junior Certificate and two years of teacher training, it is now Std. VI plus three years of general training. So the actual source of instruction, the teacher himself, has deteriorated. I might say that 45 per cent of the children of school going age at school in the Bantu schools belong to the sub-standards. The vast majority of them are being taught by teachers with very low qualifications indeed.

The other reason, of course, is that the schools have now doubled up on their teaching sessions. This is an additional strain on the teachers. Instead of teaching a class of children for four hours that is now split into two 2½-hour sessions. The same teacher takes those classes and this, of course, is a considerable strain on the teacher. Then, too, Sir, there have been other economies. The schools themselves are made responsible for financing many of the things which were previously supplied by the Department. This in itself is a strain on the teachers. I am referring to desks and other equipment. The hon. the Minister told me that books, for instance, were provided to the pupils.

Replacement of desks.

In many of the schools the schools themselves are made responsible for the replacement of equipment. How long do desks last in a school? The hon. the Minister should know that. There is a very big wastage. Most important of all, the supply of books is sadly lacking. The Department does not supply the necessary books. A couple of the essential text books are supplied, generally shared between two or three pupils, and they do not last very long. There is a great shortage of books which is another reason why the pupils coming from the primary schools and going on to the secondary schools are of a deteriorating standard compared with the students of a few years ago.

Most important, of course, Sir, are the appalling salaries which are paid to Bantu teachers. The hon. the Minister was kind enough to furnish me with a very long schedule not long ago in this House on teachers’ salaries. It astonished me to find that the starting salary of a teacher in the primary school was something in the nature of R23 per month, the sort of wage which is paid to a domestic servant in Johannesburg who also has board and lodging supplied. How the hon. the Minister can expect efficient people to teach in Bantu schools on a starting salary of that nature is beyond me. When he was asked whether he intended increasing the appallingly low salaries, he said yes, but then he gave what to me was the most surprising answer of all. I asked him about increasing the salaries and the cost-of-living allowances. He said that his Department had framed new improved salary scales for Bantu teachers, but as there had been a considerable increase in the expenditure and due to the fact that the Bantu Education Account could not afford it at present, mainly as a result of the disappointing way in which the Bantu population paid its taxes, consideration of those proposals would have to stand over until such time as the arrear taxes had been collected. Well, Sir, I think that was a shocking thing for the hon. the Minister to have said. I wonder what would happen if White parents in South Africa were told that their children were to be taught by teachers of an inferior standard, who could not be improved upon because the salary scales were so appalling, because the Whites had been lax in paying their taxes. [Time limit.]

I think the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) requires a little information. She mentioned certain figures to show that the standard had dropped as a result of which there were more failures at the matriculation stage. Let me tell her this: It depends on what you compare, whether you compare Native child with Native child or whether you compare Native child with White child. The figures she quoted refer to the period before Native education was taken over by the Department of Bantu Affairs. My personal opinion has been that you find a selected group in the matriculation class; those children who reach matriculation were the best scholars in the primary school; not the average, but the best. That is not the position to-day. I know that children were deliberately kept back at examination time in the primary schools because the school wanted to show results at the end of the year. That was done on a large scale. It was very usual to find four sub-standard classes in a Native school, a vernacular A, a vernacular B and once he passes vernacular B he goes into English A and then English B. It went on like that up to Std. VI. He was sometimes kept in Std. VI for three years before he was passed into Std. VII. He was simply not allowed to write if they were not sure that he would pass his matriculation examination. I am giving these facts to the hon. member which are facts she can control.

This plea that the medium should be Afrikaans or English is an old story in this country, a very old story. There are members in this House who allege that you can teach a child in a foreign language just as easily as through the medium of his own language. I am not surprised when the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) mentions certain Natives who state that they wish to have English as medium. That does not surprise me. We find White people who tell Afrikaans-speaking parents that English medium is the real thing for the education of their children, not that English-speaking children should be taught through the medium of Afrikaans but vice versa. There was a time, Mr. Chairman, when even in Britain the Britishers showed off with French just as many of our people in South Africa to-day still want to show off with English in that way. It is a fact that the standard of education which the Native child achieves should be higher. Nobody denies that. But it has always been low. It was low under the Provincial Administrations, just as it is low to-day. The reasons are obvious. The hon. the Minister has mentioned a number of them. I said a moment ago that it depended on what comparison you made, whether you compared Native child with Native child or whether you compared Native child with White child. You have to comply with three requirements before you can compare the achievements of the Native child with those of the White child. The first requirement is that he should be allowed to offer his own language as main language in that examination. Is there any moral reason, educational or otherwise, why a Native child should be forced to take either English A or Afrikaans A for his examination? Those examinations have been introduced for the children whose language it is, not to teach the language to the child but to give the child access to the literature and the arts of the group to which he belongs. It is totally wrong to expect the child who does not know the language at all to have an appreciation for Shakespeare, or Wordsworth, or Coleridge or Tennyson or whoever it may be. That is something which comes at a later stage. The second requirement is that he should be entitled to use his own language as medium. Once you have that you will be able to make a comparison. Furthermore when they reach the Std. IX and Std. X stage those children should be together in a hostel where they have better opportunities to study. The experience has been that in those institutions where there are hostels the children do better than the children outside, for the simple reason that those children do not have the same facilities to study. Before you comply with those three requirements you cannot expect to have better results.

But Mr. Chairman, the trouble with the United Party is, of course that they have predicted that Native education would be doomed if it were taken over by the Department of Bantu Affairs. That is why we get these foolish and childish arguments in this House year after year, arguments which have been refuted ad nauseam. It is generally known that progress has been made in Native education. It is well known, for example, that during the short time that Native education has been handled by the Department of Bantu Affairs seven recognized Native languages have acquired technical terms. The hon. member for Hillbrow will admit that. That has made it possible to use that medium for all the subjects in the primary schools. That achievement in itself has justified the transference of their education to the Department of Bantu Affairs.

Furthermore the Department has created order out of the chaos which it has inherited from the Provincial Administrations by drawing up a primary school syllabus which, as far as its contents, set-up and general planning are concerned, is far superior to anything which we ever had under the Provincial Administrations. That is a fact. Reference has been made to the growth in numbers. Primary school enrolments have risen from 970,000 to 1,500,000. Secondary school enrolments have risen from 35,500 to 73,300. That means it has more than doubled. In spite of the fact that the hon. member for Houghton thinks that we cannot get them, the teaching staff has more or less trebled. The number of secondary schools have trebled. The total number of students has increased from 1,000,000 to 1,626,000. But the United Party alleges that no progress has been made. And that is not all, Mr. Chairman. We have an outstanding syllabus which is already in operation. Anyone can ask to see it at the Department of Bantu Education and he will convince himself that that syllabus is in all respects equal to that which we have in European education. [Time limit.]

Listening to the hon. member for Prieska (Mr. Stander) I find that I can find in the explanations that he was giving, no good reason yet for the failures of matriculants in Bantu education. Listening to the hon. the Minister earlier, may I say that I would like to raise a matter with him with it seems to me has appeared in a large figure in 1956 and which has slowly diminished a long the years. I refer to the abolishment of school feeding. These figures appear in the Estimates which are before the House, in subsection H “School Feeding”. The figure for this year is R70,000. Last year it was R80,000. It has been cut by R10,000. This figure has been slowly dropping over the years. In 1954 it started off as R1,252,286. The next year it dropped to R893,500. Then it dropped to R200,000, R118,000, R93,000, R83,000, R73,000, R64,000 and this year it is R70,000. This one of the criticisms which I would like to launch to-night against the Bantu education policy and that is the abolition of school feeding in 1956. To-day thousands of primary school children do not benefit from the education which was outlined by the hon. the Minister to-night, because they are suffering from malnutrition. One could well ask whether this was not a contributory factor to those failures that were mentioned earlier on by the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) and answered by the hon. the Minister to-night. Malnutrition in lower primary schools affected the children who were taking their matric this year. I feel that the abolition of school feeding is one of the most short-sighted policies of the hon. the Minister and his Government. It started off in 1948. The sum was 2d. just under 2c. per child. In 1949 that 2d. was reduced to 1½d. nearly 1c.

That was not all, because the number of children receiving school feeding in 1949 was frozen. There were 739,000 Bantu children. When they increased to 1,000,000 slowly over the years in 1955 274,000 of those children were not receiving school feeding at all. At that time it was justified by the argument that it was not good for Bantu children to receive school feeding at the schools. The problem of school feeding was put forward last year by the hon. member for Kensington (Mr. Moore), according to the Hansard report. Now the proposal was made to the Bantu school boards: Make your choice, either school feeding, or more education, more schools, and the school boards which should never to my mind have been given this choice at all between essential nutrition and the possibility of more education or more school buildings, or more money to be spent on teachers’ salaries, chose as far as the majority are concerned more schools, more schooling. Because of the hunger for education, the hunger of the Bantu children in those primary schools had to be measured against the extension of education, and so the school boards made that choice. I wish to ask the hon. the Minister to-night if he can show us that the abolition of school feeding has resulted in more school buildings. How much of the money saved has provided extra educational facilities that were promised to the Bantu? The amount saved on the school feeding, as it has diminished over the years since 1956, is not shown in these Estimates. The number of new schools built do not show whether the saving on school feeding has been a contributory factor in the building of new schools or in the raising of teachers’ salaries. I would like to say here that I cannot follow the hon. the Minister’s reasoning that the underprivileged section of our population on whom we depend to a very large degree for labour in this country and whose wages are low and whose work makes us better off, should be deprived of this very small sum needed for Bantu children’s school feeding. I would like to quote from the Hansard for 1961, the hon. the Minister’s reply (Hansard Vol. 107, Col. 5552)—

I would like to say here that the School Feeding Association in the Cape Peninsula and the African School Feeding Association in Johannesburg—there are several school feeding associations throughout the Cape Province and throughout the other provinces—find that they could purchase to-day skimmed milk at 8½c per gallon. A gallon provides 32 cups of milk for Bantu children, and that would workout at approximately a quarter of a cent per head. I would like the hon. the Minister to consider very seriously a pilot project of purchasing skimmed milk and distributing it among Bantu children in the lower primary schools. There are to-day more than 1,000,000 Bantu children who are in the lower primary schools, sub-A, sub-B and Std. I and II, out of 1,750,000 children at school altogether, and at a quarter of a cent per head, I do not think this is going to cost the hon. Minister’s department a great sum of money. There is malnutrition among the Bantu. The Baragwanath non-European hospital in Johannesburg recently issued a statement to the effect that 1,200 non-European children, the large majority of whom were Bantu—the statement was issued by a leading child specialist—are admitted to Baragwanath Hospital each year suffering from malnutrition plus some other disease also, and of these figures which were given, the main cause of this malnutrition, the doctors said, was proverty.

We believe to-day that the education of the Bantu must move forward and if the Bantu is to absorb this education at all stages, malnutrition must be eliminated. You cannot educate through malnutrition. For these reasons I would ask the hon. the Minister very seriously to consider an adequate grant each year so that not just those school boards or schools which ask for it (which are very few as we see from this figure of R70,000), but the children in all primary Bantu schools would receive at least one cup of skimmed milk every day. I realize from the hon. the Minister’s answers last year that the distribution is another problem, but I feel that the distribution could be handled both in the rural and urban areas, although this distribution would be easier in the urban areas. [Time limit.]

The tune which the hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss), the hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) and the hon. member for Hillbrow (Dr. Steenkamp) and the hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) have hummed throughout their speeches has been concentrated on the fact, or alleged fact, that there has been an increase in the percentage of matriculation failures amongst the Bantu children. I think the basic fact which the hon. members did not take into consideration was the fact that a much larger number of students was being taught at Bantu schools than in the past. They maintain that it is not only a numerical but a percentage increase. But the moment you teach an increased number, the moment the broader masses of the population enter the schools, you naturally have people who are scholastically and academically less equipped and less inclined to study and you must expect to have an increase in your number of failures. The reason has been sought in all sorts of possible and impossible things, from school feeding to too few teachers, from the allegation that the teachers are not capable enough to the syllabus and to mother-tongue education. All these factors have been brought together to try to find an explanation for it. But it is very easy to explain it. The increased percentage of matriculation failures is not a phenomenon which is limited to the Bantu schools. We have the same phenomenon in the White schools. As a matter of fact, we have the same phenomenon throughout the world. We find it in America and we find it in England. Throughout the world there has been an increase in the number of failures. The figures mentioned by the hon. the Minister prove that since the State has taken Bantu education over the percentage of passes has increased and not decreased. But I maintain that there is a decrease throughout the world to-day in the academic and scholastic standards and the one important reason for that has been the advent of the beatniks and duck-tails in our schools throughout the world. Those people simply do not have any academic or scholastic inclinations. That is the material which you find in the schools. It is not because of the syllabus, not because of school feeding, not because of mother-tongue education, nor is it because of the shortage of teachers. It is because the material which our youth offers to-day is not the material which you can mould into educated and highly educated people. The advent of the beatniks and the duck-tails in the world has caused a decline in the percentage of matriculation passes.

There have been disparaging references to the use of the Bantu languages as a medium of education. We have been told that the Bantu languages are not rich enough that they are too primitive, that they do not have the vocabulary, that you could not use them for the purpose of educating children, that they are not sufficiently technical, all those factors have been mentioned. The hon. member for Rosettenville (Dr. Fisher) was the person who laid most emphasis on that. I want to tell him that this father, his generation and the generation before him, used those very arguments against Afrikaans as medium in the schools. For years and years they walked around saying that Afrikaans did not have the vocabulary, that Afrikaans was a kitchen language, that Afrikaans could not be used to teach technical subjects, that Afrikaans was not rich enough, and for that reason Afrikaans should not be used in our schools and universities as medium, nor should it be used from the pulpits. I think those hon. members who pretend to be the champions of the Bantu are insulting the Bantu in the same way in which the Afrikaner was insulted in the earlier generations. Imagine saying that their language is insufficient! Let me say this for the information of the hon. member for Houghton who is continually trying to interrupt me, that the argument was used in Palestine when Hebrew was introduced as the medium of education in the universities. They said that Hebrew was out-of-date, a dead, rigid language, that you could not use it for technical training. Sir, they added new words to the Hebrew which I studied as a theological student at university, they coined words, just as they did in Afrikaans; they manufactured words and to-day Hebrew is the medium used in one of the greatest universities in the world in Jerusalem—an out-of-date, rigid language of centuries ago. We have a modern language or languages in the Bantu languages which can easily be expanded and strengthened.

Not a written language.

I say that hon. members are doing the Bantu an injustice and that they are insulting the Bantu by saying that their languages cannot be used for teaching. It has been proved by the figures quoted by the hon. the Minister that since the introduction of mother-tongue education in the Bantu schools in South Africa, the position has improved and those who have received their initial training in their mother-tongue are achieving better results to-day. When we talk about failures and of training and of the Bantu in South Africa you must remember, Mr. Chairman, that we are training 200 percent, 400 per cent, 500 per cent more Bantu in our schools in South Africa than any other state in Africa. If you were to ask me how many passed their matriculation examination in the Congo over the past four years, I do not think I will be able to say one. How many have passed in Kenya, how many in Uganda, or Tanganyika? The fact of the matter is that we are training the Bantu in South Africa for the whole of the Continent of Africa. We produce more educated Bantu in the Republic of South Africa than the rest of Africa produce together.

What about Nigeria?

Fewer graduates are trained in Nigeria than in South Africa. Reference has been made to the standard of training. It is true that when the State took Bantu education over there were doubts as to whether it would not be an inferior instead of a high system of education. But shortly afterwards when the Department announced the curriculum nobody less than the Institute of Race Relations said that it was as good as that which applied in Britain.

P. A. Moore said that.

They said that the curriculum which had been announced was of the same standard as that which applied in Britain. Reference has been made to the University College at Fort Hare. As a member of the Executive Committee and as member of the Board of Fort Hare I wish to say this and I say this without fear of contradiction, that the teaching staff of the University College of Fort Hare is better to-day, bigger and of a better quality and standard than it has ever been in the whole history of that institution. [Time limit.]

I cannot understand how the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) can say that the defects in Bantu education are due to the beatniks and the “twist” craze and the duck-tails amongst the young Natives. Many of the modern dances which the young Native dance to-day are national dances which the Whites have learnt from them.

The greatest objection which the Natives in the Native areas have against the Government to-day is unquestionably the way in which Bantu education is administered. This system of compulsory mother-tongue education in unquestionably unpopular amongst the majority of Bantu in the Bantu areas, unpopular even amongst members of the Transkeian Authority. Furthermore it is unquestionably true that the Bantustan policy is going to make a farce of Bantu education, of the hon. the Minister and of the entire Government. We had the spectacle to-night that the hon. the Minister had to admit that his career would probably come to an end under his régime. Where have you ever had such an admission from a Minister in the past, Sir? The hon. the Minister also admitted that Bantu education in the White areas would eventually be taken over. What will happen if the Bantustans become independent and they have to control Bantu Education from there, say, in Bantu schools in Johannesburg? It is also unquestionably true that it is urgently necessary that salary scales be revised seriously and fourthly it is unquestionably true that the results attained at these schools leave much to be desired.

I want to deal with another matter, and this is something which gets worse every year, something which we have to bring to the notice of the Minister and of the country. I refer to the sale and distribution of the reading matter which consists of Nationalist Party and Government propaganda and which is being distributed to-day amongst the Bantu on a large scale with the money of the tax payers themselves. I refer to the monthly journal Bona. Twenty thousand one hundred and fifty copies of Bona are purchase very month for free distribution amongst the Natives of the Bantu areas—250,000 per annum! That distribution of Bona is costing the White and non-White taxpayers of South Africa no less than R14,555 per annum. It is distributed, forced on to the Bantu in those areas. What objections do I have to the distribution of that journal? The first objection is that propaganda, political propaganda, is being made amongst the Bantu children in Bantu schools by means of that journal Bona. My second objection is that that is being done with State money, something unheard of. What would we say about it if State money were used to distribute 20,000 copies of the Transvaler, for instance, free of charge amongst the White children in the Transvaal? My third objection is that the standard of that journal is hardly suitable for Bantu children. There is an article in the last issue of Bona which I have here about a Black Folies Bergére, an article about a hangman, and an article about chief Luthuli. What has this to do with the interests and education of the Bantu children? My third objection is that the schools do not have a free choice as far as reading matter is concerned. Surely there are many other publications. You have the journal Zonk in which the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs has such a big interest, and there is the journal Bantu World. My next objection is that the whole process is being used to subsidize a particular journal. When the circulation of a journal is artifically increased by 20,000 in this way, that journal can approach the advertisers and obtain many more advertisements. That journal is competing on an unfair basis with other journals, journals which want to compete on their own under a system of free enterprise. It is a scandalous state of affairs. What is worse, Sir, is the fact that the Government also have an interest in this journal. Let me tell you exactly what is behind Bona, Sir, Bona is published by a company known as “Bona Press”.

Has the Government shares in that?

“Bona Press” and “Dagbreek Press” are both sister companies of the “Dagbreek Trust”. Among the directors of the “Dagbreek Press”, the sister company, you find, for instance, men like Mr. Tom Naude, Mr. F. S. Steyn, Mr. J. H. Steyl, chief secretary of the Nationalist Party, and Mr. W. H. Faurie, the hon. member for Barberton. He is not as innocent as he looks, Mr. Chairman. And this journal Bona together with Dagbreek are under the Dagbreek Trust. I leave it to you to guess who is at the head, who is chairman of the Dagbreek Trust? None other than the hon. the Prime Minister! Last year the hon. the Prime Minister made his presidential speech—it was published in Dagbreek—in which he said this—

It is not surprising that the hon. the Prime Minister saw fit to add that he was not afraid of a small drop in the circulation. He knew that the Government bought 20,000 copies of Bona every month for distribution. It is a untenable state of affairs, Sir.

Let us admit that a problem exists and that an answer has to be found. We have the problem that we want to supply reading matter to the Bantu children and we have the further problem that we cannot expect them to spend a great deal of money on it. But what is the solution? I maintain that the solution is this: good reading matter can be bought and provided to those schools in the form of library books, children’s journals, etc., but in that case the choice as to what to buy should be left to the school committees. They should not be tied to the Prime Minister’s journal Bona. That is where the fault lies.

Mention one good journal for the Bantu.

This is possibly not a good one, but I can tell the hon. member that the hon. the Minister of Posts and Telegraphs controls Zonk. Is that a good journal? And there are others. There is Bantu World and similar publications which can he used. Basically it is a very unsound state of affairs when a quarter of a million copies are bought with your money and my money and the Bantu’s money for free distribution and when it contains political propaganda inter alia which promotes the Government’s own interests. That has never been known to have happened in South Africa. Where will it end? Once we give this Government the right to use State money for the distribution of political propaganda amongst the Natives, it will eventually also happen in the case of the Coloureds and in the case of the Whites on a very big scale. Our distrust of any information distributed by this Government will grow year after year in accordance with the extent to which this scandalous thing is happening. I think it is the duty of the hon. the Prime Minister– I take it he is an honourable man– to disassociate himself completely …

Order, order!

I know he is. I am not accusing him of not being honourable, but to preserve the pretence of total impartiality… [Time limit.]

I feel that this debate should not end on this note. Seeing that reference has been made to the distribution of literature in Bantu schools, I want to raise a very important matter. We know that amongst the subsidies provided for here a certain amount is utilized for Bible distribution. The South African Bible Society has made enquiries and it was ascertained that one out of every 100 Bantu children possessed a Bible. That Society felt that something should be done about it and they approached the Department of Bantu Education and the Department agreed that Bantu Bibles should not be sold for more than 15 cents per copy to children just as in the case of all other school books. The Department agreed, however, to purchase Bibles at 30 cents and to sell them at 15 cents to the Bantu children. That meant a loss to the Bible Society and they had to find the additional 35 cents. They made an appeal to the people who are usually interested in the distribution of the Bible and also to the White children in White schools. They asked those White children to contribute that 35 cents per Bible voluntarily. So that it would be possible for the Bantu child to purchase Bible. The response was wonderful, so much so that the White scholars contributed an amount of over R11,000 in 1960 which made it possible to distribute 66,000 Bibles. I mention this because I should like to have this on record. It was a wonderful gesture on the part of the Department of Bantu Education to agree to subsidize the Bible, a gesture which made it possible for the White child to present the Bantu child with a Bible. The Bible is the most authoritative book on race relations and human relations which you can find, Sir, and I felt that in the dying hours of this debate I should tell the House of this wonderful gesture on the part of the Department of Bantu Education to subsidize the Bible to the tune of 15 cents.

I would just like to finish what I was saying. I am sorry that the hon. member for Fort Beaufort (Dr. Jonker) has gone out, but I do want to say that I think he will find that if he compares South Africa’s figures of Bantu graduates with that of Nigeria that they are well ahead of us. My information is that there are something like 25,000 university trained people in Nigeria as against something like 2,000 among the Bantu people here.

They have a population of 50,000,000.

The hon. member did not make that comparison. He said that South Africa had far more Bantu graduates than all the other countries in Africa together. He also said that we spent far more money per capita on the education of Bantu children than is the case anywhere in Africa. That may be so, but I say so we should. Our country has a very much higher national income than any other part of Africa, and even the hon. member for Vereeniging (Mr. B. Coetzee) will agree that our growing national income is to a large extent growing because of the contributions of non-European labour, and I think it is only right that they should get a percentage of that to be expended on them.

I agree.

I want to point out to the hon. member also that we spend R114 on education per White child per annum in this country and something like R15 or R16 per African child.

I was discussing the shortage of teachers and I agree that there is a shortage of teachers. I mentioned the poor pay which of course is one of the obvious reasons for the shortage of teachers. Another reason is that the teachers have additional duties which really should not be performed by teachers and which are not performed by teachers in other schools. There are all sorts of book-keeping jobs that they have to perform which take up hours of time over and above the double sessions and so on. I think that the Minister’s commission of enquiry should go into the utilization of the available manpower in his department, because I feel that teachers are being wasted in this way.

I mentioned that it had been the policy to reduce the qualifications of teachers, and I want to say too that it has been the policy of this department to reduce the supply of White teachers in the Bantu schools and replace them by Bantu teachers, as fast as he possibly could. But unfortunately the supply of qualified teachers is not keeping up with the demand. Having closed the open universities for the training of Bantu teachers, it has become impossible for Bantu living in the urban areas and who would be going to the local universities like Cape Town and Johannesburg where they can live at home and perhaps even do part-time jobs to solve their financial problems whilst they are being trained, to enter the teaching profession. Now they have to go far away to be trained, and this is another reason why there is this ever-growing shortage of teachers.

I hope that the rumours we have heard that the hon. the Minister is considering introducing a special matric are not true, a special Bantu matric. We have already quite enough different matrics in this country without introducing a new Bantu matric. We have already got our different junior certificate exams, I believe, for the Bantu, and a special matric, Sir, would make it impossible for any African to do post-graduate studies at the open universities where they are still admitted in some measure where the tribal university colleges don’t provide for that particular faculty. This will mean that the open universities will not accept students who have written the special Bantu matric as qualifying them for admission to the open universities, and certainly they would not be admitted to any overseas universities for post-graduate studies. I think it would be disastrous.

The hon. member must not forget that they will still have to get exemption for admission to the universities, even if they were examined by my own department.

The hon. Minister knows that the White universities demand that students have got to have an A-level in either English or Afrikaans before they can be admitted, and I understand that the idea is to make the vernacular one of the Bantu languages, the A-grade subject and then to lower the grade for English or Afrikaans.

The Joint Matriculation Board would have to decide on that.

Yes, but I want to assure the hon. the Minister that under such circumstances they would never be admitted to an English university or any other overseas university. They have very stringent requirements for admission, while the hon. the Minister is now going to lower the matric standard.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member can deny it, Mr. Chairman, but I happen to know that that is the position and I know because I have made inquiries about the overseas universities.

No, universities in South Africa.

In South Africa you must have an A in either English or Afrikaans before you can be admitted to one of our universities. Hon. members know that that is the position. I think that it is an ominous suggestion and I hope that the hon. the Minister will not consider doing this. As a matter of fact, I hope the hon. the Minister will decide to revise his whole policy in so far as Bantu education is concerned. At the moment three-quarters of the Bantu children are in the lower standards, and we seem to produce a semi-literate class and that despite the fact that there are many more children at school than before. Most of them have a working knowledge of the two official languages by the time they leave the primary schools—a bare semi-literate knowledge which will not even suffice to see them through life within a modern industrial country let alone going on to any high school education. Long ago the Social and Economic Planning Council warned us against going in for inferior systems of education for our non-White peoples. The Council in its report No. 2 of 1944 warned us that we would be losing “a highly competitive struggle against the immensely developed labour of the Western nations, the awakening Eastern nations and even of other parts of Africa”. It must be noted that this report was issued long before independent states have began to emerge in Africa. We would be losing this struggle, the report said, by with-holding adequate educational facilities from the non-White child population. They warned us against that and against the effects therefore our long-term economy and the general utilization of our population. I hope, therefore, that the hon. the Minister will reconsider his whole policy in view of this.

The hon. member for Wakkerstroom (Mr. Martins) said earlier this afternoon, when speaking in another debate, something about water being the life of South Africa. He went on to refer to England and said that it was the rivers which made England what it was. Well, I want to quote what Disraeli said of England, namely–

Upon the education of this country, the fate of this country depends.

That is what we should be worrying about in South Africa to-day.

The hon. member for Houghton (Mrs. Suzman) made a few remarks in respect of which I briefly want to give her the true facts. In the first instance she said that since the Department of Bantu Education bad taken Bantu education ever the standard of education had dropped, because, she said we could only use teachers who had a Std. VI certificate and three years’ subsequent training. But that is not a policy which was introduced by the Department when it took Bantu education over. That was the system followed in at least two of the provinces prior to that. In the Cape Province, for instance, the position was that they accepted a person with a Std. VI certificate plus three years’ training. It is therefore not I or this Government who have introduced this policy; we inherited it and tried to improve it.

You are only applying it more intensively.

I agree with the hon. member that it is a very low standard but there is unfortunately a very serious shortage of properly trained teachers. Coupled with the fact that the masses have to be educated in order to make them literate, it is inevitable that we have to make use of services of people of this standard. We simply cannot do otherwise. I wish to point out that when we took over 25 per cent of the teachers were totally unqualified. Most of them had attained Std. IV and then went out to teach. We have already succeeded in eliminating this unqualified person. It can actually be said, therefore, that we have raised the standard of the teachers. I agree that the present-day standard leaves much to be desired. But surely you have to start at the bottom. Surely you first lay the foundations of a house before you put on the roof. Only when we have succeeded in producing people with the necessary qualifications can we start effecting improvements.

The hon. member for Houghton also referred to salaries. Other hon. members have also referred to it. I agree that the salaries which Bantu teachers receive to-day particularly primary schools teachers, are totally insufficient. As far as this is concerned, however, it must be remembered that over the past two or three years approximately 40 percent Bantu taxpayers have failed to pay their taxes. In these circumstances I cannot be expected to have the necessary funds at my disposal to pay higher salaries to the teachers. Had the taxes to which I have referred been paid, I would have had the funds to pay higher salaries. I am not prepared, however, to ask the White tax payer who pays his taxes, to pay increased taxes so as to enable me to pay higher salaries to Bantu teachers, particularly in view of the fact that these teachers serve the Bantu.

The hon. member also made the statement that English A or Afrikaans A was a requirement for admission to a university in South Africa. She is wrong there, however. What is required for admission to a university is a matriculation exemption certificate. This exemption is determined and granted by the Joint Matriculation Board. This Board has decided that from the beginning of 1963 a Bantu candidate who has passed his own language in the higher grade with English or Afrikaans in the lower grade, will receive exemption for admission to a university.

The hon. member for Johannesburg (North) (Mrs. Weiss) spoke about school feeding. I agree with her that had it been possible to give every school child a cup of skimmed milk every day, it would have been a very praise worthy act. I wish to repeat what I have already said, however, namely that it is not the duty of a department of education to see to the feeding of a nation. Apart from this there are also practical difficulties, such as for example, the fact that schools which are near and conveniently situated can be drawn into such a scheme whereas that is not possible in the case of those which are situated in distant parts of the country. It will mean that the schools in the urban areas will be best served. But those are the areas where the highest percentage of children is already at school. In the urban areas 90 per cent of the Bantu children of school going age are already at school. They are, therefore, receiving education and school feeding whereas in the Bantu areas where you do not even have 80 percent of the children at school, no schools or school feeding can be provided because we do not have the funds to do so. That is why I have to use the funds at my disposal for educational purposes alone. The Department of Health is, however, conducting experiments at the moment in order to ascertain how skimmed milk and powdered milk can best be used to combat malnutrition amongst children of all racial groups. The Department of Health will then, along those lines, do what can be done. For the rest we will have to leave it to voluntary organizations. The reason for the decrease in this amount over the years lies in our observance of the choice of school boards.

Do you not think that if other departments were dealing with this question with in the Education Department that would cause dissatisfaction as was indeed the case in 1944 when the Department of Social Welfare handled school feeding? There was a clash between those two Departments at the time as a result of that arrangement. Do you not think that if the Department of Health were to handle this matter, there would be a similar clash?

The difference is this of course, that we had a United Party Government in those days; that was why it was difficult to get cooperation. I do think, however, that it will be possible, if another Department provides the means and the funds, to evolve a method which will ensure proper cooperation without creating a difficult position. I do see my way clear, when the Department of Health or the Department of Social Welfare provides the means and the funds, to use my school organizations to bring those means to the children. I see my way clear to do that. But I cannot use funds which are earmarked for educational purposes for this purpose. I do believe that school feeding belongs to another Department.

The hon. the Minister has not been in charge of this portfolio for very long. It is a new portfolio, and I should like, therefore, to take this opportunity only to put a few questions to him. Firstly, I should like to ask him to give us in broad outline a statement of his policy in so far as this new Department is concerned. I want to be quite frank in this regard. We should like him to give a brief and concise statement of his policy in order that we might for the years to come have a basis on which to set our criticisms. As the hon. the Minister has not yet had an opportunity of making such a policy statement, there is really nothing in the Estimates on which he or his Department can be criticized. A second question which I should like to put to the Minister is related to the scheme for assisted emigration of Indians, and for which an amount of R5,000 is provided for on these Estimates. Can he tell the House whether this scheme of assisted emigration is still in operation? If that is still in operation can he inform us of the number of Indians making use of this scheme? A further question I should like to ask the hon. the Minister is what his attitude is in regard to institutions which are entirely devoted to the service of the Asiatic population. I have in mind institutions such as schools, and perhaps hospitals although I cannot recollect that there is an entirely Indian hospital which is owned by the Government at the same time. There is a purely Indian hospital but that is net owned by the Government although it is assisted by the Government. In regard to institutions of this nature, I should like to know how the Minister views them for the future, i.e. their location and so forth. If the hon. the Minister has found it to be beneficial, in. one context, to subsidize a newspaper for the purpose of one race, is it by chance being contemplated that a newspaper to be published perhaps in Hindi or Gujerati, or some other of the Indian languages will also receive the Minister’s benign countenance in the form of a few rands in order to speed it on its way?

On one condition: that you will be its editor.

Mr. Chairman, may I say to the hon. member who made this interjection that he has more knowledge of editorships than I have and, Sir, they have paid him very abundantly. He was not nearly as successful when he sat on this side of the House, but since he changed sides, it paid him large dividends. I am quite sure that if he wants to give any advice to the Minister, the Minister might be prepared to accept it. That, however, depends upon the kind of Minister we have. But I want to return to the question of subsidizing an Indian newspaper. The hon. Minister might think this is a bit of a joke; but it is not. There is at the moment a paper which is published entirely for the benefit of Indians. This paper is in the English medium. We know that as far as the Asiatic population is concerned, there is a large number of dialects. That is the case even amongst those here in South Africa. The language which can be understood by the different castes and groups of Asiatics, is English. The paper concerned is, accordingly, published in English because as such it can reach a much wider public. I have sometimes wondered whether this aspect of the matter is passing unheeded. I, therefore, put this forward to the hon. the Minister in all seriousness.

I want to say immediately that I have not prepared myself to make a full statement of policy in respect of this portfolio in this House at this stage. I hope hon. members will not hold that against me. I have not prepared myself for that because I recently gave a full explanation in this connection in the Other Place and I had hoped that hon. members would have acquainted themselves with that and would have conducted the debate this afternoon in the light of that statement. I gave a full exposition in the Other Place as to what our objects were with this portfolio of Indian Affairs. The Hansard of the Other Place is available to hon. members and they can easily read what I have said there.

That is not quite fair. We are entitled to a statement in this House instead of having to depend on a statement which you made in the Other Place.

I am, quite prepared, of course, to make a similar statement here but I thought that if hon. members knew what I had said in the Other Place in this connection, it would have saved time. I am quite prepared, however, to repeat the statement in this House although at this stage it will no.t be possible for me to go into such detail as I did in the Other Place. The details can, however, be obtained from the debates which took place in the Other Place on this portfolio.

I wonder whether the hon. the Minister will give us an opportunity of putting those questions to him to which we should like to have replies. For example, I should like to ask certain questions in connection with the position of the Indians in the Transvaal.

Yes, certainly. As a matter of fact, I expected more hon. members to rise after the hon. member for South Coast to take part in the debate. Because it appeared that nobody else had anything to say, I simply got up. I am sorry if, in having done that, I have anticipated anybody who still wanted to say something. I did understand from the hon. member for South Coast, however, that hon. members first wanted a statement from me so that they could use that as a basis for further discussion under this Vote.

I should like to point out that I expected that other hon. members on the other side of the House would rise after the hon. member for South Coast to take part in the debate. I am, however, grateful to the hon. the Minister for giving us this further opportunity of putting certain questions to him. Sir, this hon. Minister has been appointed to take care of a very important portfolio. It is important because it relates to a section of our permanent population, which has no representation in this House. As I indicated earlier, I should like particularly to raise with the hon. the Minister the position of Indians in the Transvaal. It will be of great help, not only to this House, but also to the persons concerned, if the hon. the Minister is prepared to take the country fully into his confidence in regard to the intentions of the Government with this particular group of people. I think we owe it to them to take cognisance of the difficulties which face them at the present time. I have with me a copy of a telegram which was sent by the Transvaal Indian Congress to the Prime Minister and the Minister of Community Development some time ago. It was also published. This telegram reads—

I am not, for a moment, defending the terms of this telegram. The position, however, is that there is a tremendous air of uncertainty in the Transvaal among the Indian community. This does not only apply to the Indians of the large centres but also of the major towns in the country areas. The position in Johannesburg is one which merits the hon. the Minister’s attention now that he has been appointed to be responsible for Indian Affairs. The hon. the Minister knows that the first Indians came to the Transvaal on the invitation of President Kruger. He gave them certain rights in certain parts, including in many of our country towns. The Group Areas Act has now, however, affected this position. In the City of Johannesburg there is a substantial Indian population—something like 20,000. These are, for the most part traders and it is from trade that they derive their means of livelihood. As a matter of fact, they are not trained to pursue any other line. They have, in any event, served an important purpose and all will agree that they have served the public well over a long period of time.

But now there are businesses in Johannesburg belonging to them, whose future is insecure. In reply to certain questions put by the hon. member for Yeoville on another occasion, it was pointed out that there was no intention of proclaiming residential areas in Johannesburg. The only residential area which was referred to was Lenasia and this is a considerable distance away from Johannesburg proper.

Group areas are not the responsibility of my Department.

I realize that, Sir; but that is precisely the reason why I feel I can talk to the Minister. He is the Minister who has been appointed to take charge of the welfare of the Indian people and in this regard a very grave responsibility rests upon him. The Indian population is entitled to look to the hon. the Minister for attention to problems which do not perhaps fall directly within his purview but under the control of other members of the Cabinet. I welcome the fact that there is a Minister who while not directly responsible for group areas, is responsible for the interests of the Indian people. He is able to take a much broader view of his responsibilities in this regard.

I say that what is absolutely essential for the interests of the Indian community is, firstly, that they should toe enabled to maintain a reasonable standard of living, and secondly, to advance further as we hope all sections of our population will be enabled to advance. Thirdly, their children should have opportunities for education without having to travel great distances in order to attend school. One of the great responsiblities which rests upon the hon. the Minister, is to seek to eliminate the uncertainties and doubts which exist in the minds of the entire Indian population of the Transvaal in regard to their future. These uncertainties arise from the Group Areas Act. The nearest residential area to Johannesburg and which is proposed to develop for the Indian people is Lenasia. This, let me say at once, is a very fine area and a place where, I believe, many Indians will be much happier than under the conditions in which they lived previously. At the same time, however, this area is far removed from the areas where they have to earn their livelihood and to which they have become accustomed. I think it will be a very great help to this House if the hon. the Minister can tell us what exactly is intended in this respect. There is the area of Pageview which has traditionally been an Indian area. It is not a question on which I should like to express an opinion, but I would say this that where a people have established themselves in an area in accordance with the provisions of a law which was placed on the Statute Book not by them but by the Government of the state, then one is entitled to ask whether it is right that existing rights should be swept away. In any event, where such rights have to be taken away, other rights must be put in their place. There is the question of these properties which, according to the finding of the Feetham Commission, were reserved for the Indians of the Transvaal, as well as those rights which were established in the course of a long period of time. These people are to-day living in a state of uncertainty as regards their future and these uncertainties is something which should be eliminated at the earliest possible time. In this connection, I should like to draw the attention of the hon. the Minister to the fact that in regard to trading rights generally, many of these persons are trading with the sword of Damocles hanging over their heads in that their permits may toe withdrawn under the Group Areas Act at any time, thus preventing them from carrying on their businesses. As they are unable to speak for themselves, Sir, I am putting these points to the hon. the Minister and I can only express the hope that his appointment is going to bring about a change in the policy of the Government in this regard. I believe that we, the Europeans of this country, are under a very heavy debt to these persons who, it must be remembered, did not initially come here of their own volition, but were invited into the country toy the European. Thus we have a very special responsibility to do what we can to ensure that these persons have the opportunity of earning a reasonable livelihood and that there will toe certainty in regard to their future. We should also ensure that their children have opportunities for education so that they will have opportunities in the future. [Time limit.]

Unfortunately I cannot follow the hon. member for Germiston (District) (Mr. Tucker) far along the road which he has chosen because he raised a matter, namely, group areas, which does not fall under this Vote. I agree with the hon. member that it is the duty of this Minister to see to the interests of the Indians. He will certainly do that. The difficulties to which the hon. member has referred, are actually matters which fall under group areas exclusively, and as such they cannot toe discussed under this Vote. As far as the hon. member for South Coast is concerned, I must say that he has adopted a very reasonable attitude. He adopted the attitude that this was a new Minister and a new Department and that they could not be subjected to criticism until such time as the hon. the Minister had made a statement of policy. That is a very reasonable attitude. To be honest, coming from the hon. member for South Coast, it was quite a surprising attitude. I have seldom known him to adopt such an attitude. Let me add that I think this calm attitude suits him very well, much better than the attitude which he adopts when he wants to “damn” the whole world. An attitude which I welcome very much as one which can be conducive to good race relations in this country, is the attitude which I notice on the part of the Opposition towards this matter, namely, that they heartily welcome the establishment of a Department of Indian Affairs, or at least so it seems to me. If that is so, it is, of course, totally different from the attitude they adopted in the Other Place. Nevertheless the attitude which they are adopting in this House is the more responsible attitude.

If they do support the idea of establishing a Department of Indian Affairs it will be possible for us to discuss Indian affairs as something outside party politics. It will be very beneficial and it will be a step in the right direction. I think that I interpret the hon. member for South Coast correctly when I say that he has no objection whatsoever to the establishment of a Department of Indian Affairs. I hope I am right in my interpretation of his attitude, and if I am, we can discuss this matter quite objectively. The hon. member for Houghton laughs. I do not know why. Nor do I know whether she welcomes this Department.

No, I do not welcome it.

In that case the United Party and the National Party are solidly against her! Mr. Chairman, we cannot expect too much from the hon. the Minister at this stage. I think he is confronted with the most difficult task a Minister has ever been confronted with. The Indians are here as part of our nation and as a permanent part of it. Let us admit that.

We are making progress!

No, that has long since been accepted. I remember the days when Gen. Smuts, Mr. Hofmeyr and all those people, toyed with the idea of solving our Indian problem by means of repatriation. We had the Cape Town agreement of 1927, an agreement which I think was signed by Dr. Malan and subsequently renewed by Mr. Hofmeyr. It is not an attitude, therefore, which was only adopted by the National Party, but one which all the parties adopted. The idea was to come to an agreement with the Government of India with a view to repatriating Indians from South Africa.