Mr. Chairman, the theme of the opening speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana was that a substantial number of Blacks would always reside outside the homelands and that the Government’s refusal to face up to this fact meant disaster as far as he was concerned. I say that this is certainly also a potential source of conflict in South Africa because the young Blacks will certainly not be as patient as their elders have been. A few years ago the hon. the Minister said that it was almost 12 o’clock.

Almost 12 o’clock for what?

That is what the hon. the Minister said.

For what?

For coming to an agreement to try to settle the problem. Sir, I am not going to be distracted by the hon. the Minister. He said it was almost 12 o’clock and we know that since then there has been a change of emphasis in Government policy largely, I think, as a result of the influence of the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education. There has been a more sympathetic administration of the policy.

We have an example of this change in the statement made by the hon. the Minister, the first meaningful act we have seen on the part of this Government towards better consensus, viz. a statement on a reversal of policy with regard to home ownership and the trading rights of the urban Bantu. Quite rightly, every sane person welcomes this. Only a fool would not welcome it. What has the hon. the Minister done? He has merely reversed a mistake made by his Government eight years ago. As one editor has asked: Why must there be so much agony before the Government sees the error of its policy? We are told that this reversal has come about because of dialogue between the hon. the Prime Minister and the leaders of the homelands. Had the hon. the Prime Minister done what we have done, viz. consulted with the leaders of the Africans in the urban areas, it would not have been necessary for him to find out from the homeland leaders what the grievances of the urban Africans were. It would also not have been necessary for him to wait so long to realize that the Government blundered in 1967. It is idle for Government members to deny that section 10 of the Urban Areas Act gives rights to the Bantu in the urban areas. Specious reasoning that the Blacks are here in a temporary permanent capacity or that “hulle is hier vir altyd maar in ’n los hoedanigheid” or casually, as the hon. the Minister himself said, does not alter the fact that the Black man is here. As the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education has said, he will be here for as long as the Opposition likes to state and that we, the Whites, will always be rubbing shoulders with him and attending the same cinemas. I think that we can expect a change in the law again one of these days.

Détente at home is more important than détente abroad. Why not face up to the fact now that the Black man is in the so-called White areas permanently? Why does the Government not implement the whole of the United Party’s urban Bantu policy before it is too late? [Interjections.] It is going to have to do so sooner or later so therefore it is better that it be done as soon as possible.

The change in 1967 was made because of the contention that the Bantu were not in the urban areas permanently and that their families were unnecessary appendages, as one hon. Deputy Minister said. If that is not the reason why the alteration was made, the hon. the Minister must tell us. If it is true, then the reversal now of the policy to what it was in 1967 is an admission of the fact that the Bantu are here permanently.

I want to remind hon. members of the fact that in 1952 Dr. Verwoerd was responsible for giving the urban Blacks rights in terms of section 10. Since then, the provisions of that section have been amended and made more restrictive in their application in an effort by the Government to prevent applicants from qualifying in terms of that section.

In view of this concentration of the position of the urban Bantu I hope that hon. members are not going to be gulled into believing that everything outside the urban garden is lovely. Except for Chief Kaiser and possibly Mr. Sebe no other homeland leader accepts the Bantustan policy as enunciated by this Government. [Interjections.] It is a fact. Even in the Transkei which is a homeland supporting Government policy there is criticism of Government policy. The very aspect which they detest most is the application of the labour policy of this Government—the recruitment of contract labour. This application of the labour policy is once again an effort to prevent Africans qualifying in terms of section 10. Therefore they are allowed to come here only for one year at a time. The Transkei objects to the whole system of labour recruiting which is so open to abuse. In the debate last year in the Transkeian Legislative Assembly all the members who spoke, Government and Opposition alike, condemned the whole policy. They spoke of the tragedy and misery of unemployment.

No matter what the hon. the Minister of Finance may say, there is unemployment.

Where do you find unemployment?

I have seen it. I can speak with authority with regard to what happens in the Transkei and Ciskei because I have been to the labour bureaux and I have seen the people standing there in queues begging for work. [Interjections.] The hon. the Minister must not argue with me; he must go and see for himself. All he need do is read the debates of the Transkeian Legislative Assembly to hear the talk there by their members about unemployment. They also talk of starvation.

Go to Mdantsane.

The other day the hon. the Prime Minister was scathing in his reference to the budget of Lesotho as compared with that of the Transkei. I do not know whether he was trying to prove by this means that the Transkei was more viable because it had a bigger budget. Besides, the budget has nothing at all to do with viability unless, of course the State is paying its own way. What is the position in the Transkei? The last budget of the Transkei showed an expenditure of R87 million and our Government subsidized that amount by R60 million. In addition the Government paid the salaries of the senior officials, the Secretaries of the Government departments, except for the Secretary for Education.

Dealing with expenditure, may I ask the hon. the Minister who is paying for the house that is being built for the judge in Umtata? According to the hon. the Minister the house is going to cost R206 000. [Interjections.]

Maningi kia!

The architect is getting R15 000, the quantity surveyor R5 000, no amount has yet been assessed for landscaping to put the garden in order, no value has as yet been given to the land and we do not know what the cost of curtaining and carpeting is going to be. By the time this house is finished it will probably cost close to a quarter of a million rands. I do not know who is paying for it. I can find no reference to the expenditure in this regard.

I want to remind the hon. the Minister that once the Transkei gets its independence, it will have a president. That president will have to have a better house than a judge. And what about the Prime Minister and the Cabinet Ministers and future judges? Are they all going to be housed on this scale? Sir, two years ago, in the course of a speech in the Assembly, in which he told his people what was meant by independence, the Chief Minister of the Transkei, Chief Kaiser Matanzima, defined independence as follows—

Sir, when this Government set the Transkei on its way to independence, it should then have taken steps to see that there was meaningful economic development in the Transkei. What did it do? It rejected the recommendations of the Tomlinson Commission. Dr. Verwoerd refused to allow White capital into the Transkei. Now at last an effort is being made, because the Development Corporation is certainly doing very well under the circumstances. But, Sir, I would like to point out to the hon. the Minister that even in the agricultural sector there could be no development and the Xhosa Development Corporation is now taking that over as well. Whereas we used to have three agricultural colleges in the Transkei, there is only one now; two were closed down. Is this “progress” by this Government in setting a State on its way to independence? I say it is not. Many years have been wasted and now it is too late. The effort being made now by the Xhosa Development Corporation is not sufficient when one considers the people who have to be catered for. The development which is taking place now cannot even cater for those presently living in the Transkei. What about the natural increase? Where are they going to be accommodated; where are they going to find work? They are going to find work here in White South Africa, and the Government must face up to that fact and apply a policy in the so-called White areas which will satisfy these people and make them true and loyal citizens of the Republic in which we all live. It is no good treating them, as the Government is doing now, as a continual source of embarrassment. [Time expired.]

The hon. member who has just resumed his seat told the same story we have heard ad nauseam, except that he exaggerated somewhat on matters he knows very little about. Sir, I just want to refer to the attitude of the homeland governments towards the Government’s policy. The hon. member said it was only Paramount Chief Matanzima and Mr. Cebe who supported the Government’s policy. Sir, allow me to quote to you from the Transvaler of Saturday, 3 May (translation)—

Sir, that party on the opposite side is doomed and they know it; that is their problem. The hon. member is trying to create the impression here that that party knows what goes on in the minds of the Black people. I want to tell them that the United Party policy, which was rejected by the electorate for the umpteenth time last year, is also being rejected by the Black peoples in this country, and I fail to understand how hon. members on that side can come back stubbornly for more punishment with stories such as these. It is only people who have got into a rut as they have, who can come back to this House so many times with the same nonsensical statements.

Sir, the hon. member complains about a house which is being erected for a judge. He complains about the costs attached to it, and so on. If they do not complain about that, they complain that we do too little, or that what we do is not good enough. We hear these sad tidings and negative statements continually from all the groups on that side of the House. I want to point out to them certain further misconceptions in their approach where they see only a group of Whites on the one hand and a group of Blacks on the other hand and where they do not stress the ethnic concept as this side of the House sees it. In this approach of theirs, they fail to recognize the smaller ethnic groups. What about the Venda, the Shangaan, the South Ndebele and the Swazi and even the Pedi’s under their policy? No, they only see the importance the Black man has for the White man in a global context. But they go even further. They are forever referring to the urban Bantu. The hon. member did so again this afternoon. The fact that article 10 Black people have been granted certain concessions under the Bantu Urban Areas Act is now being regarded by them as an indication of permanency. What would happen if the Government were to repeal article 10? Then those people would no longer have any arguments. But what are they in fact doing here? When referring to the Black man in South Africa, they only stress the urban Black man and they never refer to the 3,5 million Black people on White farms. They do not plead the cause of those people. The hon. members are undermining the smaller groups and the Black people as a whole as far as their cultural heritage and their independence are concerned, those things which this National Government wants to give them and wants to develop and with which we are concerned. But how little appreciation do we get from that side of the House for what is being done? It is their duty to criticize, but we ask that their approach should be a little more positive.

Therefore I want to associate myself with hon. members on that side who referred to the excellent work of the department with its wide ramifications extending into the farthest corners of the homelands where these people are making major sacrifices. But when that side of the House is afforded the least opportunity to criticize, they come along and raise a hue and cry. While reference has also been made to the corporations, I specially want to emphasize the directorates of these corporations, and the enormous task they fulfil for which they are never even thanked. Then I want to refer in particular to the investigation the hon. Minister had to order on account of the suspicions that had been cast on the BIC. The investigation was ordered at the request of the chairman of the directorate of that corporation. How many of those people who are sowing suspicion all the time, like the hon. member for Houghton and the nosey parkers of the liberal Press, came forward and admitted that they were wrong? All they try to do is to nose about and cast suspicion. If one reads the newspaper articles, as has been indicated here by the hon. member for Potgietersrust, of what that hon. member did, one will see that all that hon. member does is to cast suspicion and to nose about only to come and squawk here or wherever she gets the opportunity to cast even more suspicion. A report has just been published. Let her get up here and at least express her appreciation and say she regrets that she has made a mistake. Nothing she or the liberal newspapers suggest is substantiated in that report we had from the magistrate, the one-man commission. Sir, I think this is scandalous attitude which is adopted by people who pretend that they want to help the Black man in this country, because when institutions are established and people sacrifice their time for the sake of the Black man, to uplift the Black nations in particular, they are undermined and suspicion is cast. People ask that investigations should be made and when an investigation has been carried out and a report is published, no one comes forward to say he is sorry that he was wrong. It is this negative attitude we find among all groups on the other side, particularly so on the part of the hon. member for Houghton. All she does is to come along and squawks afterwards, and she only creates problems. I think she should have the courage to get up and say she is sorry for saying what she did. [Interjections.] it is not only she, but also the liberal newspapers. Last year, while this investigation was being conducted, the Sunday Times tried to suggest that serious problems were afoot—and that while the evidence was still being led. The report was published last week and I went through the Sunday Times of yesterday twice to see whether any reference was made to it. But there was not a word about it in the Sunday Times although it was mentioned in other newspapers. This is the one-sided approach of the liberal groups who try to cast suspicion, not only in this country, but overseas as well. That is why we find that a homeland leader like Chief Minister Mangope comes forward and says: “We accept the policy”, together with those who said so before him. But then we only get this negative approach instead of their making a contribution. The Cape Argus at least stated: “BIC inquiry finds no malpractice” Hon. members can read it. They say there was a measure of mismanagement, but what did those hon. members suggest? No, Sir we have reached the stage where we should ignore people such as these who not only push the Black man into the background as far as his national interests are concerned, but also thwart in every way all the attempts on the part of the Government to effect development, and that we should act on our own. I think the time has come that they should realize that it is in the interests of South Africa that they should give support where support is needed, and their support is in fact needed, but then they should have the interests of the Black peoples of this country at heart. We are optimistic about the future—it does not matter what those people and their liberal fellow-travellers have to say.

I should like to refer to the speech of the hon. member for Umhlatuzana in which he mentioned the cities that will develop. I want to tell him that cities will develop in these homelands during the next decade. The Government will continue to help them for the sake of the continued existence of those nations as nations—not only as Black people, Sir, but also as nations. Those cities will develop, not only to promote the economic strength of those people and to provide for them, but also for the maintenance of the cultural rights and the development thereof—as well as for the sake of the self-respect of those nations as nations, and not simply as Black people who that side of the House want to see as an entity and want to treat in this manner. I want to state here that as far as South Africa is concerned our future is one in which we shall have the confidence of Black leaders and in which we shall have the confidence of Africa and the world. The only people who do not have any confidence in themselves, in their country or in the future of Black nations are that side of the House. If they want to continue with this negative attitude, things will be worse for them than they were in the past.

The hon. member for Mooirivier has asked us: “What has been achieved in 27 years time?” If one looks at the performance of that party over 27 years, one can quite rightly ask what they have achieved. They are deteriorating by the day, but then they still want to know what has been achieved in the homelands. They are in such a predicament that they can think of nothing else but their misery. It has actually become a psychosis with them, so that they only see misery and deterioration everywhere around them and in South Africa as well, because it has become part of their existence.

Mr. Chairman, the hon. the Minister took it amiss of the hon. member for Griqualand East because he had criticized the expenditure on a judge’s house. May I just point out to the hon. the Minister that there is a difference between productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure. We are dealing here with unproductive expenditure. The hon. the Minister further occupied himself with the pipe dream policy of the National Party. I do not want to go into that pipe dream any further today, because to me it is only a pipe dream policy. White, Black and Brown will for all times be interwoven in this country’s future. Whatever we say here, will make no difference to the matter.

Therefore I want to deal with another matter today, a local matter, namely the community of Philipstown, a community in which I grew up and in which I am interested. Although it is a local matter, it is nevertheless an important matter for the people living in that area. It concerns a number, six or seven, Bantu in that area. It does not however only affect those six or seven Bantu, but it affects the future of that whole community as such. These six people were practically all born in that area and practically all of them grew up there. These are people who have risen above their community and who are held in high esteem in that community. We have seen these people working as builders, cartage contractors, wire-manufactures, etc. Suddenly those people were told to discontinue their activities this year. With one stroke of the pen their work was taken away from them and now they have to be registered as labourers. To illustrate this matter more clearly, I will mention individual cases. The first Bantu’s name I may just as well mention since it will make no difference. It will in any case place the hon. the Minister in a better position to check the facts.

Where is it?

Philips-town. By the way, I gave the hon. the Deputy Minister the details. The one Bantu is Kleinbooi Jakobs, a person who was born in Philipstown and who have been living there his whole life. He grew up with us. [interjections.] I am sorry the hon. the Minister adopts this attitude. This is a matter which affects the lives of people.

The hon. the Minister is laughing about it.

We have seen how this Bantu saved his money until he could by himself a three ton truck. He used that lorry to convey Bantu on picnic outings on Saturdays and to transport school children. During the week he transported sand, bricks and sheep for the farming community. At that time when the instruction was put into effect that the Bantu had to register, this man had himself registered. On his labour card it was indicated that he was self-employed. The man had thus been registered all these years as being self-employed and through the years it was accepted as such. Last year the inspector of Bantu Affairs suddenly informed this man that a letter had arrived from Graaff-Reinet, the headquarters of the Bantu Administration Council, to the effect that he had to discontinue his work and move to King William’s Town to conduct his business there. Why these people should be off loaded at King William’s Town, where there is no employment I do not know. This is a very decent man.

What is wrong with King William’s Town?

Nothing, but this man was born in Philipstown and have been living there his whole life. He does not know King William’s Town at all. His grandfather might possibly have lived there, and I am not even sure whether this person can speak a Bantu language. This person is a law-abiding person and then went to King William’s Town. However, he returned and told the inspector that he was unable to make a living there. This inspector was sympathetic and promised to state his case, because he wanted to help him. This inspector also grew up in Philipstown. In February of this year the new inspector, however, told this man to discontinue his activities immediately. This Bantu received his certificate to become a conveyancer in Kimberley. The ordinary Police do not worry him at all. The inspector however now tells him that he is not allowed to continue his work. However, there is no other cartage contractor in the district. He is not competing with any White or Coloured person there. When this man conveys sheep for a farmer, the farmer has to go to town in the morning to register him as a labourer. In the afternoon another farmer has to register him again and the following day still another farmer. The result of this is that this person cannot continue his work.

The second case I want to mention, is that of Lodewyk Bambis, also a Bantu who was born and grew up in that district. He started by building labourers cottages on farms. Later he started building houses. There is no White building contractor in that town. There is not a Coloured builder in that town either. The man therefore does not compete with anyone and simply renders a service. Last year he was told to have himself registered as a labourer. This year he continued his work on the sly, as any normal man would under the circumstances. While he was painting a house, the inspector of Bantu Affairs arrived there and fined him R15 on the spot. The question I now want to put to the hon. the Minister is whether these inspectors have the right simply to fine people without taking them to court.

I now come to the third case, that of Swartland Joseph, the brickmaker of the town. He is the only brickmaker in the town. [Interjections.] It is no joke. I wonder what that hon. member would do if his work is taken away from him. If circumstances were to change one day and he is treated the way these people are treated, I wonder how he is going to feel about it. There have always been a good relationship among White people and the Brown people in Philipstown. These people had confidence in the fairness and the decency of the White man in that area. This is being disturbed now. This man had made the bricks which were used in the district. Also this man was told to discontinue his work immediately. What is happening now? Now one has to get bricks from De Aar, which is between 50 km and 100 km away. One load of 1 000 bricks costs R30. The bricks themselves cost R21. While people could buy the bricks from this person for R17 it now costs them R55 per 1 000 bricks. The people can therefore not continue with their work and this person is not allowed to work.

There is also the case of Kleinbooi. Kleinbooi used to manufacture wire. He did not worry anyone. He has been manufacturing wire for the farmers his whole life. He was told to have himself registered as a farm labourer. Here the same thing happened. I can continue in this vein and mention all these six cases. However, I just want to mention a letter one of the Bantu has received. It reads as follows (translation)—

This man is not a work-seeker. He is a person who renders a major service in that community. I want to state that these people were born in this area. They have established rights. These are not new applications. They do not compete with anybody. They do not compete with a White person and not even with a Coloured person. All they do is render a service and they do not worry anybody. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member must forgive me if I do not join him in his wire manufacturing. I shall leave that to Iscor. Last Friday the hon. member for Umlazi turned out here to be another spokesman on South West Africa, the new “Japie” Von Keyserlingk. The hon. member held up the report of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development here and threw it down with contempt. I wish to suggest to the hon. member that he and I would both gain by studying this report. Accordingly I should like to congratulate the department on a very neat report. The hon. member also referred in a sneering and disparaging way to the recently established tribal police of Owambo and Kavango. The question arises: Why should our homelands-to-be, these peoples-to-be, always be referred to in a disparaging way? The hon. member, who is a former police officer himself, should welcome a step such as this. Since the establishment of such a Police Force is being criticized here by the United Party, it is probably as well to take a look at the recent past as well, at what happened a few months ago, when the United Party raised a hue and cry about actions taken by the Owambo Government in their own area. Clergymen and spiritual associates of the United Party, all of them people of a flamingo-like colour, even went as far as to ask for an interdict against the Owambo Government. Demands were made here in the House—the hon. member for Bezuidenhout took the lead—that the Government should intervene and forbid the Owambo Government to take action to maintain law and order according to their own tribal traditions in their own areas. The hon. member for Umlazi should know that the Ovambos will always try all crimes except capital crimes and will deal with punishments within their own area and their own law—an area delimited by themselves and not by the Whites. The question arises of what the United Party wants. When the Owambo Government takes action within its tribal context it is criticized. When they establish their own Police Force, they find fault with that also and they refer to it in disparaging terms.

Who found fault?

The incidence of crime and violence is extremely low in Owambo as a result of the strong action the Owambo Government takes. The hon. member speaks of agitation which is on the increase, but when action is taken against agitators, that Government is pilloried and their domestic affairs are interfered with. Because hostile and ignorant people level all kinds of reproaches at the Government with regard to South West Africa, I believe that I shall be allowed to refer to the unselfish service which the Government and its officials render to the people of this area. If one takes a look at Owambo and the Kavango, one is struck by the network of schools, hospitals and clinics. We think of the canal scheme of Owambo which runs like golden arteries through the area and opens up a hinterland which has remained virtually unutilized up to now because of the lack of water. A new and modern abattoir, with an adjoining meat canning factory, has been established at Oshakati by the BIC, which is such an unsatisfactory body according to those hon. members, at a cost of R223 000. The capacity of this abattoir is 300 head of cattle a day. Do the hon. members realize what this market means to the farmers of Owambo? We have also heard that considerable progress has been made with the planning of abattoirs at Runtu, Ruacana, Khorixas and Katima Mulilo. Then there is the impressive scheme to which the hon. the Minister referred, where the BIC is establishing cattle farming on an unprecedented scale for the Kavango Government. All one hears from the Opposition side with regard to the BIC is criticism. We have heard no word of approval for what is already being done there. I also want to refer to the medical services. No attention is ever paid to medical services. In the Budget which is before hon. members, provision is made for an amount of R6,46 million rand for medical services in the Northern homelands. The South West Africa Administration has also voted an amount of more than R7 million for medical services in the southern sector. These amounts do not include capital works. As far as the northern sector is concerned, we find on analysis that there are 9,49 beds per 1 000 persons. With regard to the southern sector, 11,96 beds are provided for every 1 000 Whites. The number of beds for all the other population groups is 9,92 beds per 1 000. Compare this with the 0,33 beds per 1 000 persons in Ethiopia, 1,89 per 1 000 in Tanzania, 0,67 per 1 000 in Mali, 1,37 per 1 000 in Liberia, 0,34 per 1 000 in Nigeria and 1,32 per 1 000 in Senegal. These figures were obtained from the statistics of the World Health Organization. In the budget of the South West Africa Administration we find an appropriation for the next five years amounting to R7 million for Owambo, R2 million for Kaokoland, R275 000 for Hereroland, and R4,7 million for Damaraland. The amount appropriated for Damaraland includes an amount of R2 million for a new hospital at Arandis and R1,5 million for a new hospital at Khorixas As far as these two towns, Khorixas and Arandis, are concerned, I want to appeal to the hon. Minister and his department to think carefully before undertaking major development works. It is true that Khorixas is the main centre at the moment, but I believe that Arandis will soon become the main centre. It has everything in its favour. It is the ideal border industry with the mining of uranium next to it. Walvis Bay and Swakopmund are situated close by and railway, road and telephone communications are readily available. Electricity is also available, and money and community development facilities will not be a problem. These will not be lacking, and I believe that they will be the decisive factors which will tip the balance in favour of Arandis. The inhabitants can go to work in Swakopmund and Walvis Bay and own their own homes in their own area. I trust that the hon. Minister will give careful consideration to this. As a further aid to these particular areas, I want to ask that this scheme of border area development and the establishment of industries within the areas should be made applicable to South West Africa as well. I quote from a letter, dated 16 July 1974, which was addressed to the Town Clerk of Omaruru [translation]:

I believe that it is of vital importance and I trust that the hon. the Minister will give attention to that.

To return to medical services. I should like to refer to preventative services.

Who wrote that speech?

It was somebody who weighed less than you. As far as preventative services are concerned, there is, for instance, the combating of malaria, tuberculosis, leprosy, small-pox, polio, etc. It is interesting to take notice that the incidence of malaria in the Kavango and Owambo has decreased from 27,1% and 16,2%, respectively to 3,01% and 0,29%. It is equally important to note that at some of these hospitals and clinics, up to 30 of the patients come from Angola. What other country in the world could improve on this? What other country in the world could boast of such unselfish service? Therefore I should like to pay tribute to the unknown workers who perform this enormous task in difficult circumstances. I want to tell the enemies of the Government that they should take another look at what is being achieved. Imagine what would happen if the White man should withdraw from there. Now the question arises why the United Party is always negative and does not join us in telling the world that a very great •deal is being done there. Why do they not have a change of heart such as Prof. Chris Barnard has just experienced? Do they have no love for their own? Are they not also prepared to emphasize the good aspects of South Africa instead of pointing only to the negative aspects? [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I am sure the hon. member for Omaruru will understand if I do not follow him with his particular theme. As this debate draws to an end, I want to raise a particular subject with the hon. the Minister. It is a subject that is of tremendous concern to a great number of people throughout South Africa. I refer to the expropriation of the Federal Theological Seminary. The hon. the Minister has issued a very long statement in this connection quite recently. Nevertheless, because of its importance and because it touches on the lives of so many people, I want to raise this matter again in this House. Let it be clear that I am naturally in favour of any development which takes place at the University of Fort Hare, whether it be at Alice itself, at Umtata, King William’s Town or anywhere else. Secondly, it is obviously clear that one possibility for the necessary development was the take-over of the Federal Theological Seminary itself. Thirdly it is clear that adequate compensation has been offered and obviously will be paid in due course. There is no question about any of those three points. That the offer made by the department was made as long ago as 1971 is also very clear, as is the fact that this was finally turned down by the federal council itself in April 1973. These are some of the facts of the matter. The major factors are that the University of Fort Hare wanted this land, that the seminary did not want to sell the land or Dart with it and that, as a consequence, the Department of Bantu Administration and Development chose to expropriate in November 1974. At that time it gave the seminary 30 days’ notice. To understand some of the concern in the minds of the leaders of that seminary it must be understood that a theological seminary has a specific responsibility. It has a very large staff; it has well over 100 students coming from many parts of the country and it serves a very large area throughout South Africa. If one wanted to try to equate this, it would be like asking whether the theological school at Stellenbosch would not be directly affected, and very significantly affected, if its college or land were expropriated and they had to go somewhere else. It is not easy to take up, not only the buildings, not only the chapels, not only the colleges, not only the library, but also the community spirit which has been built up there over 15 years. A considerable amount of money has been expended. To begin with, well over R500 000 was spent as far back as 1961. It is a college which has been known throughout the world for its high standards, its excellence and its contribution to theological and philosophical debate in South Africa. It undertakes the training of Black, Coloured and Indian ministers who serve hundreds and thousands of people in the homeland areas, the rural areas and in the great cities of our land. Therefore the federal council, after having weighed it all up, having taken consultation with is member churches, decided that it did not want to sell the land, that it wanted to stay where it was and that it was content with the situation and the work it was trying to do there. The land on which the seminary was based was given to the church more than 100 years ago by Chief Thyali for the work of education and Christian development. As a result there is a feeling in the minds and hearts of many of the people in that area that it is very sacred land because it was specifically given over to the church in order that it could do its work. This was expropriated in terms, I understand, of the Bantu Trust and Land Act.

There are a couple of questions that I would like to put to the hon. the Minister in this connection. First of all, it has been suggested in many parts of South Africa by the council, by the principal, by the president, by many church leaders, by many people from different walks of life, and by the Black students who have been studying there, that the fact that Fort Hare needed extra land on which to develop and that the only possibility was to take over the federal seminary, was not the only reason for the expropriation, but that Fort Hare regarded the seminary as an alien island, if yon like, in that particular area, a source of embarrassment to the Fort Hare authorities, because by the very nature of its life—whether the Government accepts it or not—the federal seminary was and is a Christian community where there was a great deal of multi-racial contact not only amongst the students but also amongst the staff and the families living there. There are people in Alice, in the seminary and people in many parts of South Africa in top leadership in some of the major churches, the Anglican Church, the Methodist Church, the Lutheran Church, the Congregational Church and the Presbyterian Church, who have come out and said that although this would obviously be a desirable part of the land on which to develop, it was not the only part they could develop and that there were other reasons for the expropriation. I would like the assurance from the hon. the Minister that this is not true, that it is unfounded and that there was no other reason involved.

The second question I would like to ask the hon. the Minister is which Black social, political or religious leaders were consulted before this very far-reaching decision was taken. For my own part, I cannot find any such record of any consultation which was taken. Indeed, some Black leaders are on record as having said that they do not want that federal seminary moved.

The third, question I should like to ask is this: Bearing in mind that the federal council of the seminary, the highest body of that seminary, turned down this offer in April 1973, why was it necessary, in November 1974, to give that seminary, a fully-fledged theological training seminary and a major institution, only 30 days’ notice? Why could this major teaching institution not have been given 12 months’ notice, once the final and irrevocable decision had been taken, so that they could plan their move, find some other place to go to, and erect other buildings?

Finally, now that the deed has been done and the people have left the federal seminary and are in temporary quarters in Umtata, I should like to ask the hon. the Minister whether he will allow the seminary to train all its ministers, including Black, Coloured and Indian ministers, together in one situation, as was done in the past, if that is the wish of the seminary, and if not, why not? Would he even go so far as to agree to a new scheme, if it is the wish of these major churches, in terms of which all their ministers, including their White ministers, can be trained together in one institution? Mr. Chairman, these are important questions. They do affect hundreds and thousands of people in many parts of South Africa. They affect the ministry of the Church. They affect the overwhelming majority of the people of South Africa, and therefore I hope that we will get these answers. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to reply briefly to What was said by the hon. member for King William’s Town. I want to thank him for having raised this matter in the way he did. I may just tell him that the matters he referred to were also mentioned to me by the hon. member in whose constituency these particular people live, the hon. member for De Aar, and that there is merit in what he said. In fact, I told the hon. member for De Aar that I think it is only fair, if people have been enjoying a privilege for years, that their case should be considered as sympathetically as possible. Provision is being made in the Act, in terms of which it will be possible to do this in a proper manner, and I think the hon. member may rest assured that the Deputy Minister of Bantu Affairs will deal with these matters in that way.

Sir, perhaps I should say a few words about the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards at this stage, now that the debate is drawing to a close. I say this because the possibility exists, as a result of the machinery created by means of these administration boards, that a very great service may be rendered to all South Africa’s people, and particularly to the Black people served by these boards, if the matter is regarded with the necessary respect and this work is approached with the necessary seriousness. I do not want to bore hon. members with a long account of the introduction of these boards, but I do think that when criticism is expressed, hon. members should be reminded of the fact that the first of these boards was constituted in September 1972. That was not even three years ago, and within that period some of these boards have had to find their feet. In fact, the latest one was only constituted in September 1973.

I want to avail myself of this opportunity to express my thanks to the officials and the members of those boards, who belong to various political parties, for the work they have done. They have laid foundations which will serve as the basis for a great deal of constructive work in the years to come. It will be possible to do this work outside the atmosphere of the party-political arena, where feelings sometimes run high. There are certain qualifications in this regard, and I want to make an appeal this afternoon that these administration boards should be given the necessary assistance, bearing in mind the difficulties they have to contend with. As far as their composition is concerned, you will know that an attempt was made in the first place, apart from the chairman, who I said would be and would remain a political appointment, to compose these boards of representatives of municipalities, on the recommendation of the municipal councils, representatives nominated by commerce and industry and representatives of the organized agricultural sector. Consequently all employers are represented on these councils, and as far as the executive committee is concerned, provision has been made by an amendment to the Act for proper representation there as well.

Now criticism has been expressed about the salaries of the officials, and I want to reply to this again briefly by saying that the officials who were taken over from the municipalities and other bodies were taken over in accordance with the legal provision that no officials who have been employed by local authorities should suffer in respect of their salaries and benefits when they are taken over. This is simply what happened there. Any other additional benefits resulted from the fact that officials who were drawn from the areas of certain boards were sometimes offered greater benefits elsewhere and these had to be adjusted.

But I want to emphasize one important matter in regard to these administration boards this afternoon, because I think it will be necessary next year to consider certain amendments to the Act, which are already under consideration, and because I think it is urgently necessary for us to reflect very seriously on where the administration boards are to go, in the interim period as well, when we shall find it difficult to get the work done. I want to remind you of the fact that the funds of these Bantu Affairs Administration Boards, with which they have to perform their task, are obtained, in the first place, from levy funds for registered labour, in the second place from profits on Bantu beer, and in the third place from house rentals, which, as you know, are simply not a profitable factor. Where local authorities have the benefit of the sale of electricity, property rates, etc., as additional sources of income, the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards do not, and you heard the hue.and cry that was raised, for example, when rentals were increased to bring them into line with rising costs of living and construction.

We should not like to penalize the Bantu, particularly the Bantu who work for our people in the cities and in the rural areas as well, but we shall have to face the fact that the boards cannot succeed in their task if they do not get the necessary funds. I was glad to learn from many people on both sides of the House that consideration would be given to a greater allocation from other sources than those which exist at the moment. But in the meantime the levy funds are there, and I have now learnt to my regret that some municipalities—fortunately these were the exceptions—have adopted the attitude that they now want to try to make a profit from these Bantu residential areas. Where those municipalities have referred to this matter, even in the municipal associations of the provinces, in terms which implied that these boards were leading a kind of parasitic existence, and threatened to suspend health services and other services, I want to appeal to the inhabitants of South Africa, particularly to the White inhabitants, to tell these municipalities that those Black people have been living there all these years because they have been working for the Whites in those particular prescribed areas, and that any such act would be a disservice, not only to the Blacks, but also to the White employers who make use of those services.

But in the second place there have been protests against these levy fees. I know there is a case to be made out for the fact that our agricultural sector, for example, is protesting against these levy fees, which they have never paid before. I have heard the argument, for example, that no services are provided for people in the rural areas for their Bantu. Sir, I just want to make it quite clear that people who provide accommodation as well, the city dwellers and the mines, have to pay a levy fee which is much higher than the fee paid in the rural areas. The lowest fee is 80 cents, as against the 40 cents which the farmers have to pay. Furthermore I want to say that there are many services which have to be provided for the farming community in respect of recruiting, etc., and which have to be regulated in order to organize them properly, which cannot be done without the competent officials to which the hon. member for King William’s Town referred. Satisfaction cannot be created if they are not prepared to pay for those services. For this reason I want to state as a fact that these levy fees were fixed after thorough consultation with the farming community, led by the Minister of Agriculture, the Deputy Minister of Agriculture and the S.A. Agricultural Union. Only then was the 40 cents per labourer in the rural areas, fixed. The S.A. Agricultural Union agreed to this, but now I find that there are protests from every side and that farming communities ask: “What services do we get for this?” I want to tell our farming community, which I consider to be an essential sector, that the services which are not yet being provided properly will be provided properly. I want to tell them, too, that their complaints that the mines, for example, are enticing the labourers away from the farms are receiving attention, since at the behest of the Minister I have personally issued the instruction, which I repeated two weeks ago, that if mines or other groups in non-prescribed areas were to entice labourers away from the farms, all the most stringent methods available to us should be used to nip this in the bud and the mines should be punished for it.

The people on the farms have to be provided with better schools and other facilities. These fees are levied not only to do the usual routine work, but also to make better provision for people in their old age, the elderly Black people in the rural areas. Assistance must also be rendered in regard to school facilities and farmers must be helped to provide other facilities for their labourers. I want to make an urgent appeal to all employers to pay these fees, which are indispensable for the proper organization of our labour pattern, so that we may go about creating a properly organized labour pattern in the country in a calm and reasoned manner and in the best interests of employer and employee, and so that people who are unemployed—such as those to whom the hon, member for King William’s Town referred—may be helped by competent officials to find work, and so that the employers who are unable to obtain employees may be helped to obtain the necessary labour in the interests of the economy of South Africa as a whole. I plead with every one to give the Administration Boards a proper chance and valued assistance in the future for the sake of White and non-White. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I want to return to a few members who spoke prior to today, so that I can reply to certain points which were raised by those hon. members. The hon. member for Yeoville raised a certain matter. He informed me that he could not be here today, something which I can understand very well. In particular the hon. member discussed the statistics which are used in regard to the recalculation of wages, and such matters. In this regard he referred in particular to the consumer price indices. Quite a lot of what the hon. member said, was correct. The Department of Statistics— naturally under the guidance of the Minister of Planning, with whom we are in close contact—are at present engaged in an investigation—according to the information I received—to see to what extent it is possible to make proper surveys and separate calculations in regard to the consumer price indices of the various income groups. It is hoped that these could be used in future. However, I must point out to the hon. member that, according to a wage survey which was carried out, it has been shown that during the period 1971 to 1973 there was an increase of 26,9% in respect of Bantu wages, while the consumer price index over the same period increased by a lower percentage, viz. 21,6%. We realize of course that these matters are very important. Departments other than mine are in fact working with these things, but the hon. member may rest assured that the Government will display the necessary sensitivity and consideration in this regard. As the hon. member for Yeoville knows, there are various economic research bureaux, apart from those which the Government has at its disposal, which are going into these matters. In this way there can always be a kind of comparative interaction between the various bureaux and their findings.

I should like to compliment the hon. member for Johannesburg North on being the only member who referred to the fact that we are for the first time now, in this Budget, applying the new financing formula, in respect of which a Bill was piloted through this House earlier this year. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development dealt with this legislation at the time. I would have thought that the Appropriation Committee would have been the first and most appropriate opportunity to at least draw attention to this fact. I readily understand, and I am not going to take it amiss of the hon. members opposite, if they do not try to discuss the intricacies and complexities and the application of that financing formula, for it is very technical and difficult and one could very easily say the wrong things about it, without in any way wishing to do so. Nevertheless I think that something could have been said about this in general. I want to compliment the hon. member for Johannesburg West on having referred to this, even though it was only by way of a question. Actually it was the duty of the Opposition at least to have raised this matter, even if only by way of a question, but this is simply the kind of Opposition we have. We are struggling to grow accustomed to them, but will simply have to grow accustomed to them as the years go by.

I should like to say a few things with reference to this new formula which has come into operation. I want to express my great appreciation to the Treasury and the Secretary for Finance for the major accommodation and assistance which we received from them in being able to apply the formula so soon after legislation (had been passed, i.e. in the first ensuing Budget, or— let me put it in another way—for their having compiled the Estimates knowing that we would only be able to finalize the legislation so shortly before the time. Thus helps us a great deal, because it is possible in this way to lay the new foundation for the future as quickly as possible. Because it is of such importance, I want to place on record that the new financing formula for the homelands is being applied for the first time in this Budget. The basis of this financing is the legislation which, as I have already said, was piloted through this House earlier this year. Actually this formula affects only the one component of the entire series of components which comprise this financing, viz. the component which is usually called the “statutorily determined components”. In regard to this altered basis for the financing formula, I should like to point out a few important matters, for I think it is fitting that this be placed on record in the discussion of this Vote, so shortly after the legislation came into effect.

The first point I wish to state is that all the Bantu homelands in the four provinces, those which already have their own governments, are being brought on to one and the same base year of calculation, i.e. 1973-’74, the latest finalized financial year before this Act with its new formula could be applied. This, as a base, results in a better balanced, uniform system of comparison among the various Bantu homelands. A second point I should like to mention, is how this statutory appropriation is calculated. Included in this calculation are all moneys given by the Republic of South Africa from Republican sources for the relevant base year 1973-’74, as well as a new element which we are introducing for the first time, i.e. a growth rate for the amount of that base year, a growth rate which has to be determined every time in consultation with the Minister of Finance and in accordance with which the basic amount is then being adjusted, firstly for the ensuing year, 1974-75, which we were unable to use as a base year because we are still too close to the period. Secondly, the growth rate is being applied to the year for which money is now being voted, viz. 1975-’76. The growth rate which we agreed to provisionally, was 7%. How long the figure will remain at 7½% we now have to leave as a matter for consultation, as prescribed by the Act, between the Minister and the Minister of Finance. Another important point is that all calculated, indirect duties, i.e. customs, excise and sales duties, etc., which are realized in the Bantu homelands, are according to this formula calculated to the credit of those Bantu homelands. Of course this will constantly have to be recalculated, for these things fluctuate, as we know, and because one has this fluctuation, one eventually achieves a more precise calculation.

I want to mention another important point in regard to these appropriations. It seems to me that although the hon. member for Jeppe is tremendously interested in these things, he is now sitting there, holding a conversation. He would probably wish to know the following point as well. He should listen when I say this, instead of asking the hon. member for Griqualand East. As the indirect taxation is included in the calculation, so, too, all the taxation realized by, shall I say, White companies and branches of companies operating in those homelands is included. This is the point he wanted to know about, not so?

Yes, that is correct.

I can read minds, Sir. Now I want to mention another important point, one to which the hon. member for Griqualand East referred here this afternoon in another context. He was, however, discussing the previous year. I wonder whether he realizes, as he ought to, that the position is already different now. The staff which are being loaned to the homelands by the Government of the Republic are, as from this year, being loaned to them at the expense of the Republic. This expenditure is no longer being deducted from the grant which they receive.

I said that this afternoon.

Did you say it this afternoon? Perhaps I did not hear it very well then.

I also referred to the Secretary for Bantu Education.

But surely he is not being loaned.

No, I am just saying that I mentioned this.

No, very well. Then I probably did not hear it. Then the hon. member for Griqualand East conforms to what I said here a moment ago, namely that he ought to know it.

He does know it.

Every so often they also know something.

In future this amount, the total remuneration of all these loaned officials, will no longer be deducted from the amounts which were calculated in the past in accordance with the Act. As a result of this adjustment of amounts in this new financing formula—what it really amounts to primarily is an adjustment and an inclusion of certain elements which were previously not there—it so happens that the statutory amount is greater and the additional appropriation—the last element which is included for the homelands—is less than before. The statutory amount has increased now—the amount of which the calculation is statutorily determined— and the additional amount which we have to give according to available funds, is now less than before. The two together are approximately the same as it has always been or perhaps slightly more. The growth rate to which I referred a moment ago, is not included in this. The additional appropriations are therefore less throughout because the indirect taxation and the other revenue from each homeland is now being added to the statutory amount which I mentioned to hon. members a moment ago. I he new formula therefore makes it possible, with all kinds of financial analyses, for a better picture to be obtained than previously of how self-sufficient each Bantu nation is in financing its own homelands, and also for obtaining a better picture of how much additional assistance the Republic of South Africa should allow to accrue to the Bantu homelands in each Budget. This financing formula is, as many of these formulae are, in a certain sense experimental. It has to be determined experimentally how matters are going to develop in future, as we have seen in past years with regard to the old formula. If it becomes necessary from time to time to revise matters, we shall probably have to do so.

The hon. member for Johannesburg West spoke very enthusiastically in favour of a development board, and the interests of the private sector in this. He also mentioned the great economic progress which had been made in the Bantu homelands. One can in fact, on the basis of all kinds of data and criteria, indicate the extent of the economic development of the Bantu homelands. I do not want to tire hon. members with an enormous burden of figures, for I could drown the hon. members in figures from all angles. I simply want to mention a single series of figures from Estimates for the years 1973-’74, 1974-’75 and the present financial year 1975-’76, and refer to the economic development which has been accomplished by the three corporations through which this is being channelled. I shall furnish hon. members with these amounts in a moment. We must realize that the economic development in the Bantu homelands is not being undertaken only by the Bantu Investment Corporation, the Xhosa Development Corporation and the Bantu Mining Corporation. Much additional economic development is being made possible, too, by the South African Bantu Trust, by departments of the various Bantu homelands themselves, and even by certain other departments which are functioning directly and in their own right there. In this way there is, for example, the South African Railways which also operates there in its own right, and the South African Department of Posts and Telecommunications. The three corporations alone have jointly spent R133 700 000 over the three years. To indicate to hon. members how the amounts which were spent rose from year to year, I want to mention the following: In 1973-’74 almost R24½ million was spent; in the next year, 1974-’75, almost R46¾ million was spent, which was almost twice as much as in the previous year; and in the present year of appropriation almost R63 million will be spent. Jointly, therefore the three corporations spent an amount of R133 700 000. There are other criteria as well with which we can measure this. The entire Budget is there, with the phenomenal figures of which we are aware. When we consider the Budget in its entirety, we see that the spending of the Department of Bantu Administration and Development alone indicates an increase from R137 million to an amount of R575 million for the 1975-’76 financial year. Included in this amount is the spending in respect of South West Africa. If we look at Bantu Education, the Vote which will be discussed after this one, we see that the amount in respect of Bantu Education amounts to R72 million. South West Africa is included in that. The total amount for the four provinces and South West Africa is, therefore R647 372 000 for the present financial year, as against R499 590 000, or almost R500 million, for the previous financial year. Therefore, there has been an increase of more than R147 million for the two departments together. These are phenomenal figures.

How can we find all those figures in this Budget?

I shall give the hon. member a copy of the summary I have here. One can summarize it very easily by simply adding the two columns together. Of course, this could also be done with the previous year’s figures. I know that the hon. member does not have the figures for last year and the year before last in front of him, but I will gladly let hon. members opposite have copies of these figures. The hon. member for Edenvale will also want them, for I know he is interested in this matter. I shall gladly furnish these copies after this debate, this evening or tomorrow.

I now want to say something with reference to what was said about the Development Board. Up to now the BIC has been the overall development board for virtually all the territories, the two Xhosa territories excluded, for they are dealt with by the XDC. But we have now decided on a reorganization, as I have already announced. According to the new dispensation the various Bantu homelands will each be given a separate national corporation, with a separate directorate on which, apart from the people nominated by me, people nominated by the governments of the homelands concerned, in other words, citizens from their own ranks, will serve. We will therefore have more concentrated attention on each homeland. I think that it will be conceded that greater concentration by the people of a homeland on their own problems in their own area, in other words, greater decentralization in the approach to the economic task, could be extremely valuable and useful. In addition there will of course still have to be an overall, reorganized Bantu Investment Corporation. We also know that in the private sector— that is why I am citing the idea advanced by (the hon. member for Johannesburg West—there is talk of a general development or financing bank. I am not referring now to the bank which the Black people themselves wish to establish. As far as the Government is concerned, the Government has, as you will know, already expressed itself in favour, quite some time ago, of such a development or financing bank established by the White private sector of South Africa, a bank for which funds could be mobilized and by means of which funds might even be attracted from interested parties beyond the borders of our country.

With reference to what was said here by the hon. member for Potgietersrus, I should like to say a few things in regard to the BIC. Part of my obligations in this regard have already been carried out this afternoon by my hon. friend, the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development, Mr. Raubenheimer. The hon. member for Potgietersrus—and I want to thank him for this—gave attention to the investigation which was instituted at the request of the BIC into the supposed and alleged irregularities or, to use the ugly term which was used so liberally by all irresponsible people, including certain people sitting on the opposite side in the front benches of this House, to the “corruption” of which there was mention. We have received the report of the investigation and, although I have already said this in private, I now want to say this in public, too: I express my greatest appreciation to Mr. Prins, the chief magistrate of Pretoria, who found it possible to publish this report very soon after he had completed his investigation. It was published so quickly that we only have it available in one language. The translation into the other language was not yet ready when this report appeared. I regarded it as being so important that I overexerted myself to get the report into the hands of members on the opposite side and on this side, after it had first, of course, been submitted to the State President. With the appointment of a new President, I had to wait for it a few days. I should like to say here that I endorse every word which the hon. the Deputy Minister said here, that, if necessary, I endorse it twice over. It is extremely regrettable that the hon. member for Houghton did not devote a fraction of the attention to his report which she devoted previously to all kinds of stories she picked up. [Interjections.] The hon. member is cackling again. She should listen now, for she has indulged in enough cackling about this matter, and has in any case not laid any eggs.

In all fairness I should quote the entire page which appears at the beginning of the report, the portion in which the magistrate sums up this entire matter. However, it is not necessary. In his report the magistrate states on page 3 that he invited people by way of notification—I also did so by way of an appeal and in all kinds of other wavs—to come forward and give evidence before him.

By subpoena.

Oh, keep quiet, you! He invited people to come and give evidence, and the hon. member for Houghton did not even react to the invitation.

That is not true.

He had to ask her to come. She did not react to the public invitation. If I am correct, only three people reacted to the public invitation. On page 3 the magistrate states (translation)—

In other words, two people reacted to the public invitation and request that they should come forward with their evidence in regard to irregularities and corruption. The hon. member for Houghton did not react to that, not even after I had, from this very bench, made an appeal to her during last year’s session to go and; give her evidence before that commission. I maintain that it is extremely reprehensible, unexemplary and unsavoury to adopt this approach to one’s obligations as a representative of the people.

I asked you last year…

The report states that a certain Mr. Van Eden, an industrialist, came forward to offer evidence after the commission had been in progress for some time. Do hon. members know what happened? Mr. Van Eden went because the hon. member for Houghton had urged him to do so. The hon. member for Houghton was then called by the commission to give evidence herself. She then went.

With pleasure.

No. It was with anything but pleasure, Sir. Do you know what? The hon. member ought to thank that magistrate, even if she has to do so in secret, for having protected her, because she made a public spectacle of herself before that commission. Anybody who attended those proceedings will tell you this. I did not attend them, but I received my reports. I maintain that the hon. member went there with a collection of stories she had picked up.

That is not true.

Could we have it placed on record now that the hon. member says that this is not true? However, we know which of her assurances can be accepted. I looked at the verbatim evidence of the investigation, when the hon. member was participating. There she was in an even greater state of disorganization than the one she is sometimes in in this House. She arrived there with newspaper clippings only, from which her story was put together. She was not even able to put these into proper order; they had to grant her an extension to furnish some of these things at a later stage. She collected some of these things at a later stage. [Interjection.] Oh yes, Sir. They even had to adjourn for a few minutes to give her a chance to rummage for these things in her handbag. Sir, I repeat: The hon. member comes out of this report in a dilapidated state, if not stark naked, and what a spectacle that is!

She is a streaker.

As my hon. friend here is saying, the hon. member streaked past this commission. We have a term for it in Afrikaans, i.e. “kaalhollery”. Sir, while I am dealing with the hon. member now, I want to finish saying what I have to say to her. The hon. member did not present a single piece of evidence here. She came forward with newspaper cuttings, and fabrications of her own. The hon. member ought to have learnt, for once in her life in this House, what the responsibilities are of such a person as she who is a public representative, and the Press, too, ought to realize that when one is dealing with public matters, when one is dealing with such tremendously delicate and sensitive matters as economic affairs, one should not refer in such an irresponsible manner to officials and personalities who cannot defend themselves here and who cannot always, for business reasons, produce the facts at certain times, and that one should not carry on in such a suggestive and reckless manner with the truth, as the hon. member for Houghton did here.

All the questions that I put were answered by you in this House.

Sir, every person or body involved in public life has to comply with this responsibility. The hon. member should know that there is an enormous difference between real suspicion which one can present in regard to people, and mere gossip, which frequently comes from frustrated, disappointed applicants themselves. The hon. member had a half hour in which to speak. It is true that she did not avail herself of the full half hour, but it is pathetic that she did not, in her entire speech, have a single word to say about the report. She could at least have said: “I have taken cognizance of the report,” but she did not even say that. This is behaviour of a reprehensible kind which is worthy only of a person of her mentality.

Sir, in contrast to what I have said about that hon. member, I should like to express my greatest appreciation here to the board of the Bantu Investment Corporation for having been voluntarily prepared to throw everything open to scrutiny and to ask for a proper investigation into these subversive stories which were being spread. Sir, I should like to express my personal appreciation, not only to the board and the staff in general, but also to the managing director, Dr. Adendorff—my personal appreciation and I hope the appreciation of this House as well. Dr. Adendorff was the founding official of the Bantu Investment Corporation. From the very first day, he has been building the Bantu Investment Corporation. He sacrificed a very certain, Stable career in the Public Service—in one of the control boards, if I remember correctly—and he went to be of assistance in building this organization, from less than nothing to what it is today. He has already been attached to the Bantu Investment Corporation for 15-16 years, and that the commission was able to write what it did write about him in the last four lines of its report, is a wonderful compliment to Dr. Adendorff. The commission wrote as follows (translation)—

Sir, we know that one sometimes finds troublesome people working in such a big organization; we know that one is sometimes confronted by troublesome situations; we know that there will sometimes be losses, and we know that sometimes irregularities may even occur, but the people at the top, the people who have to take the initiative, the people on whom one has to rely—for neither I nor the department can maintain supervision over those things; this is a separate organization—are unimpeachable. I am grateful for this commission’s finding in regard to them, and I can only hope—I know that this will be the case—that this will spur them on to even greater achievements and even greater efforts and good service.

But, Sir, there is also a message in this report. I have already said that in this report there is a message for the hon. member for Houghton, but there is also a message in this report for the Press. The Press ought to know that they, as a responsible public media, cannot simply accept as gospel the views of anyone they encounter. I could entertain you here, Sir, with the enormous banner headlines concerning these matters which appeared in certain English-language newspapers, particularly in two of them, but now, as the hon. the Deputy Minister said, there is not even the briefest of reports on this matter, I do not expect those two English-language Sunday newspapers to say “we beg your pardon”, because they do not have the decency which is harboured in the breast of a person who will apologize. But they could at least have stated that the report had appeared. But they did not even do that. I hope this is because they are utterly ashamed of their behaviour, although I am afraid that it is a kind of sadistic pleasure which they derive from these things, rather than shame, and this applies to the hon. member for Houghton as well. Sir, there is also a message in this for the Bantu, Bantu Affairs officers, Bantu bodies, Bantu Governments and Bantu individuals, viz. that there are business principles which have to be respected and that one’s goal should be honesty, and that self-interest cannot be tolerated. This is an important lesson which still has to be learned in so many cases. With that I have now dealt with the report on the Bantu Investment Corporation.

I come now to the hon. member for Albany. The other day the hon. member for Albany made a speech here, to which I have already replied. Towards the end of my reply the hon. member put a question, and on that point I wanted to quote my Hansard to you, and then say a few things about the doubtful part he played afterwards, in which he was assiduously aided by one of his cohorts, the Eastern Province Herald. The hon. member for Albany asked me whether he might put a question. The Chair allowed him to do so, and so did I. I said: “Please, ask me.” I am now quoting from the Hansard, which I have not yet revised. I only received it this morning—

Then the Minister replies as follows. I am reading every word of the reply. These were the very last words I spoke—

I then resumed my seat, and then the hon. member for Ladybrand spoke. That is what I said. What happened then? Who first contacted whom, I do not know, but a conversation then took place between Mr. Deacon, the hon. member for Albany, and a person whose name I shall, for the sake of fairness, rather not mention now, for I have always had respect for the person, a person who is a representative of that newspaper, the Eastern Province Herald. The next morning, Saturday morning, a tremendous front page report appeared in the Eastern Province Herald, which stated: “New Government concessions on Drift issue.” Then the following was said—

In my entire speech the only words I spoke in regard to Grahamstown are the words I quoted to you a moment ago, and that was with specific reference to the question, apart from the general things I said about the matter. Where did I say these things in that speech? Nowhere. The report continues—

So it continues and quite a number of things are said to give a completely false picture of my statement, and to arouse even falser expectations among many people. The only thing I can credit this journalist with in the entire report is that at I least he did not omit to say from whom he learnt this or where he received his inspiration from, for I do not know who first approached whom. He went on to say—

This is after the debate—

Did you hear me saying these things in my speech, which I quoted to you a moment ago? No.

May I ask a question?

No, I have already replied to one question asked by the hon. member. He does not deserve to have another question replied to on my part for the next year.

You are 100% wrong.

That hon. member on the opposite side is a little fellow who is 100% too big for his boots. Just now he will be lying on his “what-d’you-call-it” again, as happened there in Natal when he slipped and fell. I am asking: Why are such false representations being made? To make representations such as these, is as close to being dishonest as Worcester is to Worcester, according to the old saying. I think it is a great pity that a journalist of status and experience, knowing what I said, should run to a member of the calibre of the hon. member for Albany, with his ignorance in regard to the matter. The hon. member for Albany is completely ignorant in regard to this matter, and why the journalist ran to him, I do not know. I was here, and could have been approached. The three Deputy Ministers were here, and they could have been approached. There my departmental head is seated, he is available to anyone; so, too, are his senior officials. But not one of them were approached and no attempt was made to find out from anyone of them what all this meant. I do not know why the hon. member for Albany should be used. I want to make it clear here that I do not consider the hon. member for Albany in any way competent or able to interpret my words.

[Inaudible.]

I want to repeat very clearly what I said the other day. I think the newspaper owes this House and me an explanation, for it published false reports from this House, and put words into the mouths of people in this House which they never uttered. This newspaper owes it to this House and to its reading public, which read that incorrect report, to state that it had published an incorrect report, and to state what I did in fact say. In the first place, I replied in principle by saying that the Black people who owned land in Fingo Town would, with their removal from Fingo Town, be cared for so that they would be able to receive freehold rights elsewhere. I said “elsewhere”, and did not specify where. As far as I am concerned they will even be able to exercise a choice in regard to the matter. Secondly, I stated explicitly—and I am saying this again now —that we do not want a single person, who has to be removed from Fingo Town and who is legitimately working in Grahams-town, to lose his work through his moving from Fingo Town. I said this here on Friday, and I am saying it again now. I added that we are trying to find the nearest possible place in which to get these people settled, so that a third thing might also happen, viz. that if people are legitimately working in Grahamstown and they are moved, they will not be separated from their families in the new place in which they have to go and live. Even before that I said that there are probably people who are living in Fingo Town who are dependent on people who are working somewhere else altogether. It is not in regard to them that I gave these assurances. I stated it so clearly that a child could understand it, except an ignorant one; an ignorant one would not have understood it in any case. I want to say nothing further about this matter. I want to tell the hon. member for Albany and the journalist that I will reply to nothing further from them before this matter has been rectified.

Are you not yet prepared to reply to a question?

Not before the hon. member has admitted his mistake. If the hon. member admits his mistake, I shall reply to a question.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Under what statutory provisions do these people receive the right to own houses?

The hon. member ought to know that there are laws such as the Urban Areas Act, and as far as the homelands are concerned, the Bantu Trust Act and various other acts, as well as regulations, relating to this. In a certain sense the Group Areas Act is also applicable here. Hon. members opposite are simply trying to wriggle out of their own dilemma now.

Mr. Chairman, I am prepared to admit that I might have made a mistake. May I now ask the hon. the Minister a question?

Delete the word “might”. Or simply put the question.

The MINISTER said that the present housing shortage in Grahamstown would receive the necessary attention as far as the Fingo Town people were concerned who had to be assisted with alternative accommodation, and also in so far as other people who were entitled to housing were concerned. Under what statutory provision will this be done?

This will all be done in terms of the Urban Areas Act, but that does not mean to say that they already qualify under section 10. There could be people who are squatting on the village common, or who are boarding with other people, or all kinds of other persons. I still maintain that the hon. member is too ignorant of these matters, too ignorant to interpret my words, particularly to the Press.

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question? Will the hon. the Minister agree that it does include people who have rights under section 10?

It may include them, but I did not refer to section 10. The hon. member knows that.

I now want to conclude by replying to the questions put to me this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinelands. During November/December I issued a statement when the notification was served on the Seminary. Recently, after a great many distorted things and misrepresentations appeared in the Press, I again issued a long statement, giving the entire history of this case. Today the hon. member for Pinelands put a few questions to me, to which I want to react. The hon. member wants to know why we only gave 30 days’ notice. Why did the hon. member sot say what the notice was for? It was not to vacate the premises within 30 days. The hon. member nods his head. Apparently he knows that this is so. Why did he not mention it then? What does this 30 days’ notice mean? It is a provision of the Expropriation Act that we have to give these people notification of intention to expropriate. We may then, after this period which is prescribed by that Act,—I think 30 days is the shortest period—as expropriater take freehold ownership of that land, or whatever else it may be. However, this does not mean that the people must, at the same time, vacate the land, that they have to get off the land within 30 days. On the contrary. I think that, in point of fact, we waited a little longer than 30 days before we took over the land, for it was over the Christmas/ New Year period, which is an awkward time, what with all the holidays, etc. We assigned the University of Fort Hare, in whose interest the expropriation is being carried out, to take over the place. Before the time I had had extensive discussions with the rector and other people from the university, and had said that they should not require these people to vacate the land immediately. I had asked them to arrange for the commissioning of the building, because we knew very well that the buildings were not being fully occupied or utilized by the Seminary. I have said that they should arrange the commissioning of the buildings so that Fort Hare could utilize part of the buildings and the other people another part of the buildings. Then, in the course of time, new arrangements could be made for the Seminary. This was the case. The rector of Fort Hare told the Seminary that they could remain in the buildings until a given date. He said that after the given date he only wanted two of the hostel buildings of the college. However, that Seminary did not want to comply with this request on that basis and voluntarily vacated the entire premises themselves. We did not compel them to leave the premises. They could still have been there today, or they could still have been there towards the end of this year, or they could still have been there towards the end of this year, or they could in any case have occupied the remainder of the buildings until a later date which had been agreed on. However, they vacated the entire premises voluntarily, and went to Umtata. The hon. member should therefore understand very clearly that we did not give them notice to leave within 30 days. The notification only indicated that after 30 days we would be the people who would be in charge of those premises. That is what the 30-day notification indicated.

In addition the hon. member also asked me whether the reason we gave, viz. that we needed more buildings and more land for the University of Fort Hare, was the only reason for the expropriation or whether there were other reasons as well. The hon. member was not present at a certain interview. A deputation from that institution suggested to me in my office what they thought was another reason. The hon. member, too, virtually stated it this afternoon. I shall come to this in a moment. We gave this as our reason, and this is the real reason why those buildings were required, and the hon. member can go there and he will see that the buildings are in fact being used by the University of Fort Hare. Further development is also going to take place on those grounds. Does the hon. member have easy obscure suspicions that there may be other reasons? Then he must say so.

No, I am simply asking.

I want to tell the hon. member that there is one other additional little reason. Yes, there is another additional little reason. The hon. member must realize that this institution never used the University of Fort Hare for the ostensible purpose they mentioned to us in 1959, 1960 and 1961. They told us they wanted the land so that their people could be close to an academic university, at which their students could study. Over all the years up to the present I do not know whether a total of 12 to 15 different students have ever been enrolled at the same time. Last year there were none, and the year before last was one. A supplementary and a comparatively speaking unimportant reason is therefore that they never used the institution for the purpose for which they requested it. We have no other place to which to extend Fort Hare, and we therefore need those buildings and that land. Now the hon. member comes forward and states that he wants to tell us that there has always been “multi-racial Christian contact” at that university. Yes, I know that, that “multi-racial Christian contact” occurs at other places as well, and has already occurred at other places. At some places it has taken an excesive form, and may perhaps have had to be controlled, but at many places we are satisfied with it. We realize that it can occur. The hon. member asked me what Black leaders had been consulted. I see that the hon. member is laughing now. An old fox does not allow himself to be caught so easily by a young fox! One of the members of the deputation that came here, a clergyman, a serving clergyman and not a former clergyman, also asked me at the conference table to give the names of the Black leaders who were in favour of our actions. I merely laughed and told him that he knew what names he had, and I knew what names I had. I will not make the names public, but we know they are there.

Why not?

It is not done. I receive these things in a confidential position, and I know how to maintain my confidential position in regard to the Black leaders and the Black Governments in South Africa, and I am most certainly not going to reveal those names for the purposes of those hon. members and perhaps other members as well. The hon. member also asked why we had not allowed the bodies concerned a longer time, and why we had decided to expropriate at this juncture. There were protracted negotiations between the University of Fort Hare and them, and then we had a few problems—let me admit it openly—for if the expropriations had taken place earlier, we would have had to find the necessary money immediately. We therefore had to wait a while, and we had to take the academic year into account. We did not want to do this in the middle of an academic year. It would have been better if we could have done this between two academic years. That is why we did so at that juncture. I should also like to reply to another unasked question. It is alleged that in 1971 a solemn agreement was concluded that we would never expropriate that property. Those words are contained in the minutes of talks which were held between my two predecessors, Messrs. De Wet Nel and Willie Maree, and the late Mr. Bruce Young, on the one hand, and the representatives of that institution on the other. In the early sixties they discussed this matter with one another. They asked at the time whether they would perhaps have to leave the premises at a later stage. Mr. Young then replied to that. I am sorry that I did not know that this point would be raised, otherwise I could have had the document in front of me. But I shall nevertheless be able to supply the hon. member with it shortly. Mr. Young stated, with reference to a question, that even though the State had the right to expropriate, it did not like expropriating. This is the policy which we have adopted from as far back as I can remember until the present, and one which we shall also adopt in future. We try in all cases to obtain properties which we require through negotiations between a willing buyer and a willing seller. We like reaching an agreement on the price. If we cannot obtain the land in that way, the law allows us—this has been the case all these years—to expropriate that land. This is precisely what we did in this case. We allowed the University of Fort Hare to negotiate for a long time, but nothing came of it. Since we had to have the land, we then expropriated it. I should like to quote a passage from a statement which I issued recently on this same point, and which I have just received. I think it is worth while placing this on record here. I quote—

I repeated the same words here today. I quote further—

That is the point there. I just want the hon. member, and other hon. members as well, to understand this very clearly. I should also like to tell the churchmen—and I am not referring now to the hon. member on the opposite side—that they, more than any other, should adhere to the true facts. This has not always been done in this case. This brings me to the end of what I wanted to say.

Mr. Chairman, may I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

May I ask the hon. the Minister a question?

I should like to thank the hon. members on both sides for the discussion which we have been able to conduct in a spirit which, as I said at the outset, was better than we have experienced in the past. The hon. member for the Seminary may put his question first, and then you, little brother.

Mr. Chairman, in my short speech I did put one other question which I hoped the hon. the Minister might respond to. I asked him whether, now that the Seminary has been removed from Alice, the hon. the Minister would agree that they be allowed to find a place where they could still operate with African, Coloured, Indian and even perhaps White ministers for their training.

Right from the beginning I gave the assurance to the authorities of the Seminary that I would be quite prepared to offer them other land in a Bantu homeland where they could erect a new institution. I also made that offer to them when they were here earlier this year. I even offered them the assistance of officials to accompany them on trips through Bantu areas to find such land. So far, nothing has materialized but I think they did write to us that they would be prepared to look for such land. What the nature of the new place should be, is not a matter which, in terms of the hon. member’s question, is a matter for me only. I am of course concerned with the Bantu persons and not with the Indians, the Coloureds or the Whites in this connection. In other words, in respect of the other race groups, the question of the hon. member must not be put to me.

Mr. Chairman, I wonder whether the hon. the Minister can tell us whether he is aware that the Seminary, purely for reasons of training, was seriously considering moving from Alice closer to an urban centre before it received this expropriation order?

No, I do not know about that.

If he had been aware of that, would he have been prepared to give them a more reasonable time to vacate the premises after serving them with the expropriation order?

I said here today that I told the rector of Fort Hare, who was excited about this matter because he wanted the buildings, that he should please not cause the people concerned to vacate the premises immediately, but that if need be they should be allowed to remain till the end of the year or, as I said a moment ago, until the new buildings were ready. We were not over-hasty in getting them out there. It was they who were over-hasty about leaving.

Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the hon. the Minister which department is paying for the house that is to be built for the judge in Umtata?

The Bantu Trust—in other words, my department will have to pay for it.

Votes agreed to.

Revenue Vote No. 8 and S.W.A. Vote No. 3.—“Bantu Education”:

Mr. Chairman, I rise to mention that my hon. friend, the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, will take charge of this Vote. While I am on my feet, you must please allow me to make one or two announcements which I think are of importance. In the first place, I want to make an announcement which also arises from the meeting the hon. the Prime Minister and I and others had with the Bantu leaders earlier this year.

†This matter concerns the medium of instruction in the White areas.

Careful consideration was given to the suggestion made during the discussions between the Chief Ministers and the hon. the Prims Minister during January of the current year that the medium of instruction in Bantu schools in the White areas should be the same as that in schools in the corresponding homeland. For educational, practical and general policy reasons we cannot accede to this request. Over and above the sound educational principle of mother tongue instruction which receives universal recognition, including that of Unesco, it must be realized that the heterogeneous composition of the population in White areas will cause utter confusion in the schools if differing systems are to be introduced according to the wishes of the various different homelands. In addition the Government of the Republic of South Africa cannot approve the use of only one of the official languages as medium if this should be the wish of some of the homelands. The Government of the Republic of South Africa holds the view that both official languages must be used as the medium of instruction if the relevant Bantu language is not used for this purpose.

*I also want to make a second statement and then I shall have finished. This concerns medical, dental and veterinary training for Bantu persons in South Africa.

In the past years, the Department of Bantu Education and I have, in co-operation with the Department of Bantu Administration and Development and also with the Department of Health and other experts, investigated the desirability of and the necessity for making provision for the establishment of a university institution for the training of Bantu students as medical practitioners, as dentists and as veterinary surgeons. It is being appreciated that there is a definite need for trained Bantu professional people in these three groups. Now I am pleased to be able to announce that the Government has given its approval to the establishment of a university institution which will provide for these three faculties. It is the intention that such an institution be established near Ga Rankuwa where a reasonably large and new hospital has already been established. The hospital and the academic institution will then form one autonomous unit under the control of a statutory board. I want to emphasize that from our side, the co-operation of the existing three universities of the Bantu, of the Bantu governments of the homelands and of the two universities with similar faculties which are situated nearby, viz. the University of Pretoria and the University of the Witwatersrand, is desired. The Government is of the opinion that at this proposed university institution provision should be made for the training of Bantu students from the ranks of all the Bantu peoples of South Africa, and for that reason we should like all the Bantu governments to participate in this undertaking, so that the institution will really belong equally to all the Bantu peoples. Everything possible will be done to institute the necessary planning without loss of time and to make a start with the training of the students.

I hope it will be understood that it is not possible to give full particulars, at this very early stage, about dates of commencement, for example, and several other matters.

Mr. Chairman, I ask leave to make use of the privilege of the half hour, although I shall not use it fully. I want to say immediately that I took note of the announcements made by the hon. the Minister about the question of the language medium with great interest. In this connection, I just want to say that our criterion should obviously be what the Black people want themselves. Just as one would like to recognize the equality of the two White languages, so the request of the homeland leaders in this connection should also be decisive. Sir, it was with joy that I took note of the decision to establish a separate medical school near Ga Rankuwa. I think it is high time that proper provision be made for the training of Bantu in this direction. I cannot judge the full implications thereof at this stage, but the pattern which we know in South Africa, is that a medical school is usually linked to a particular university institution, with the exception of Onderstepoort, as far as veterinary science is concerned. Therefore, in respect of the South African pattern of medical training, a new system is being introduced which has wide implications …

In what respect?

I am referring to the fact that the medical school is not linked to a particular university institution. It is, therefore, an innovation for South Africa as far as medical training is concerned.

One finds it everywhere in Europe.

Sir, I do not want to indicate that it is necessarily an incorrect development. I am merely drawing attention to the fact that it is an innovation for South Africa, because the location of a medical school is usually determined by the availability of hospital facilities, a sufficiency of cadavers and similar facilities.

Sir, in connection with Bantu education, I want to express my appreciation for the availability of this report at this early stage, and for the great wealth of information which is included in the report. I want to say immediately that this side of the House is appreciative of the dedication of the officials and of the great task which they are doing in this connection. For the edification of the hon. member for Omaruru, whom I do not see in the House at this moment, I just want to say that there is certainly appreciation from our side for the progress being made in the field of Bantu education. In this connection I want to mention especially the increase of 201 000 in the number of children at school; the increase in the number of aspirant teachers from 11 173 in 1973 to 12 793 in 1974; the establishment of new training schools and the planning of a further six which the department envisages; the larger percentage increase of pupils at secondary level, viz. over 28 000; the in-service training of teachers (3 500); the progress with the establishment of the departmental industrial training centres—four of the envisaged eight—and the private industrial training centres of which one has already started functioning in Bloemfontein; and also the establishment of a permanent committee for the financing of the Black universities. Mr. Chairman, other speakers after me will deal with specific aspects, but, at this stage, I just want to say this: While I express my appreciation, on the one hand, for the progress which has been made, it is nevertheless very clear that serious bottlenecks in education do exist— and it must not be held against me if I point out those bottlenecks. On page 4 of this report, it is very clearly and honestly admitted, as one would expect of the type of person who is in the service of Bantu Education, and in fact, as we would also expect of the hon. the Deputy Minister, that there are serious bottlenecks and shortcomings. The Government is not fully responsible for some of those bottlenecks, but it is responsible for others. The hard fact that for many years the allocation for Bantu education from the Treasury was pegged at R13 million, is most certainly a serious factor in this tremendous backlog which we have today in respect of teachers, schools, pupils, etc. We cannot get away from that. Hon. members must not get excited when I say that, as if it is something which I am sucking out of my thumb. In this connection, I just want to point out —I shall be glad if the hon. the Deputy Minister will give this his attention—that I have received complaints from schools here in the Peninsula in connection with the non-delivery or the late delivery of school books. I need not give the details. I shall be grateful if attention is given to that. It is an impossible situation in respect of those books which are delivered that as many as four children have to work from one book. Apart from that, I want to point out that here, as elsewhere, the accommodation problem is really untenable. For 670 children in the primary school at Guguletu, there are only nine classrooms, with the result that they have to hire a church hall especially, for which they have to pay R21 a month from their own funds. I can mention more of these problems. I do not think they are unknown to the department. But I do want to say, none the less, that I think that the school situation here in the Peninsula requires special attention.

The hard fact is that the total expenditure per capita for Bantu education simply compares so hopelessly with that of White education, that we cannot accept this situation resignedly. It does not get us anywhere to offer the excuse and to make the comparison that so much more is done in respect of Bantu education than in the rest of Africa. It is an argument which we hear time after time in this House, but it is an argument which really does not hold water. It means nothing, because it is only within the framework of this society, in respect of the funds which this society has at its disposal, in respect of the comparison which exists here between Blacks and others, that we can make these comparisons, and not with other societies, where these factors do not apply.

May I ask a question? I want to ask the hon. member whether he thinks that it is possible for us to provide for all these needs, as the hon. member puts it, taking into consideration the amazingly rapid population growth among the Bantu.

Sir, the reply to that is very simple. If we utilize all our manpower to the full in the economic development of this country, it will certainly be possible to provide precisely the same facilities for those people over a period of time—I do not say immediately—as the Whites enjoy. It is not from a lack of appreciation that I say these things, but the per capita expenditure in 1973-’74 for Bantu was approximately R29 as against, for Whites, R387 in the Transvaal, R490 in the Cape Province, R557 in Natal and R495 in the Orange Free State. I actually say this to help the hon. the Deputy Minister and the department to encourage the Treasury to be much more generous in their allocations for Bantu Education than has been the case up to now.

I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister to inform us on a few points which I want to outline in brief. These are matters which were before the Advisory Board for Bantu Education. I refer in particular to the reduction of the admission age of pupils from seven to six years, mentioned on page 94 of the report; the question of apprenticeship—because we have often discussed this—and job opportunities for pupils trained in vocational and technical schools; the training of secondary teachers; and the advisability of the introduction of compulsory education. I must say, Sir, I had hoped that this would have been the sort of announcement which the Minister would have given us here, and that they would have decided in principle to begin with compulsory school education for the Bantu, at least in the urban areas. And, finally, there is the need for a medical school, but we have now been told of this and I have expressed my appreciation for it. We have taken cognizance of the high percentage of unqualified teachers on the staff of primary schools, viz. 17,6%, and the admission on the part of the department that this percentage is far too high. Therefore, it is one of the bottlenecks which must be removed. As long as there are a large number of children who drop out, we cannot have a proper system of Bantu education in South Africa. In this connection, I should like to point out the particulars contained in the report on page 94. The number of candidates for Std. 6 examinations was 178 795. That number decreased, in the case of the Junior Certificate (Form 111) to 39 302, and in the case of the Senior Certificate and matriculation, to a mere 6 420. It is very clear that we in South Africa cannot continue to make provision only to this extent for the training of pupils and of teachers, if proper development is to take place in the Bantu society. In the limited time at my disposal, before I continue with further particulars, I should like to propose that consideration be given—and this can only be done by means of expert inquiry—to what the needs in the South African community for trained Bantu will be in the course of the next ten years. It is totally inconceivable for us to continue on this scale. The training of the Bantu, in terms of the economic development of the country and the necessity for the provision of the necessary professional people, and for the training of the necessary technicians and semi-technical people to cary the economic and social developments, can simply not be done on the basis on which we are continuing here. I want to suggest earnestly—we have had examples of this in other countries—that the time has arrived for planning to be undertaken on a ten-year basis. We must try—and I assume that the HSRC and the CSIR and other bodies will be only too pleased to participate in such an inquiry— to draft a plan, in terms of the needs of this community over the next ten years, of what we must achieve in these ten years in the training of people and in respect of school facilities which have to be provided for Bantu children. It is not enough that we merely add an ad hoc amount each year in respect of the needs which exist. In other words, I feel the necessity for long-term planning in this connection.

I also want to put particular emphasis on the pre-school child for whom, as far as the Bantu are concerned, very little has been done up to now. It is a recognized fact that the intellectual ability of a child develops, for the largest part, within the first seven years of his life. If that intellectual stimulus is lacking in those seven years, it is virtually impossible for a normal child to make up that lost ground properly, in spite of facilities. That is one of the primary reasons why we have such a high percentage of children at the non-White schools—this applies to the Coloured and the Bantu—who cannot progress beyond Std. 2. Experience has taught that many of these children are not even in a position to understand the teacher properly, because their vocabulary is simply not sufficient for them to be able to make full use of the facilities in the school. It is very clear that if we want to bring about proper development and especially if we want to curb the high rate at which children leave school at an early stage, we shall have to give serious attention to the training of the pre-school child. In this connection, I specially want to emphasize that the introduction of television can be a tremendous additional aid. I should like to suggest, as I know some of the officials have already done, that special attention be given to the introduction of a scheme similar to the Sesame Street programme, which has made such a major contribution to the elimination of illiteracy among the American population, especially the American Black population. In the third place, I want to repeat what I said earlier, viz. that the time has now come for us to give really serious consideration to the introduction of compulsory education for children in all our urban areas. When I speak of urban areas, I do not mean only those urban areas which are situated outside the homelands. Places such as Seshego and others certainly have as great a need for compulsory education as other places. The time has also come for this policy of not building more high schools in our cities, to be taken into reconsideration. On an earlier occasion, I already asked the hon. the Deputy Minister earnestly to revise that policy. It is very clear that concentration on the building of hostels in and the shifting of children to the homelands, is a policy which will not succeed and, in fact, in my opinion, puts obstacles in the way of the development of proper Bantu education. Now I must not be told that we are strengthening the people’s identity ties thereby. One hears here every day, in any case, that the urban Bantu does maintain his identity. In that case, surely it is not necessary to say that he must go to his homeland. We can surely not use both arguments. If it is so that we need not fear that the Bantu in the city is going to lose his identity and cut off his ties with his own national context, then we cannot also use the argument that we must take him there to strengthen those ties.

Have you lost your identity?

I have never said that the urban Bantu does lose his identity. Time does not permit, but if one looks at the number of people who qualified at our Black universities, and compare that with the need which exists, it is simply an impossible situation. This is especially true when one looks at the possible future development of the Bantu population. If I am right, there were 442 Bantu students who received degrees at the various Black universities last year. There were 91 at For Hare, 129 at the University of the North, 94 at the University of Zululand, 106 at the University of South Africa, and 22 at the University of Natal. It is calculated that by the end of 1973 there were only about 5 097 Bantu who had received degrees through the years in South Africa. To that one can contrast the 13 904 degrees and diplomas which had been awarded to White students in South Africa in 1973. When one keeps the relative numerical strength of the different population groups in mind, it gives one an indication of the tremendous backlog which we have in this connection and of the necessity that we move much faster than we have up to now. Unfortunately, time does not permit me to go into further details, but I do must want to say that if there is one overwhelming realization, apart from the progress which has been made, then it is that we, when we look at these particulars, are not coming anywhere near doing what we ought to do in this field.

Mr.

Chairman, it is interesting to speak after the hon. member for Edenvale in this House, especially if one not only takes his political career into consideration, but also goes reasonably far back into his public career. Then one cannot but come to the conclusion that the hon. member is suffering from loss of memory. When one reads what the hon. member wrote in the forties and fifties in respect of this same policy, and what logic there was in his arguments, one sees that they are such we would be able to make use of those writings today— even I would be able to do so—in the unfolding of our policy. The problem is, however, that the moment one becomes a United Party supporter, one begins to suffer from loss of memory. Only when a man comes over to this side of the House, and becomes a thinker who bases his thinking on principles, does logic return. The latest thing is that we may not compare circumstances prevailing in South Africa to those prevailing in Africa or in the rest of the world. That is an absurd sort of reasoning.

[Inaudible.]

The hon. member for Bryanston must keep quiet. He received his first hiding in public life from me and he will also get the second one from me. Surely this is absurd reasoning. The liberalists are the very people who say every day how badly things are going in Africa and in South Africa. Then we should compare Africa and South Africa to the rest of the world so as to become enlightened. We must look at what is happening in the rest of the world. We are the people who are always accused of having a laager mentality. We cannot move out nor can we be expansive in our thinking. We on this side of the House, who follow a policy of separate development, however, are the very ones who have the right to compare ourselves to the rest of the world and the rest of Africa. We are specifically accused of not treating people in accordance with human dignity. The hon. member for Bryanston always says that we think these people are not people. If we then make comparative analyses, we are wrong. From the point of view of the liberalists, a Nationalist can simply never be right. He is always on the wrong side.

One cannot really argue the population issues and Bantu education today if one does not see these in an historical light. That hon. member has not been on that side of the House for a very long time. He must go back and look at the origin of Bantu education in South Africa. He must look at what the National Party inherited from the imperialists and the United Party, when it took over Bantu education. We had nothing. We simply stated as our basic premise that there are a variety of peoples in South Africa and that in that variety, there are people who had a pattern of education of their own, whether this was modern or primitive. Our basic premise was that those people have a particular culture and educational system and that we should link up with that. We started on a small scale. When we started at the primary level—the hon. member spoke of the preschool level, the first seven years—there was a standpoint about education on that side of the House in terms of which they only looked at the tertiary level, only at the universities. All they fought about was our taking the Bantu students away from the White universities. They did not concern themselves at all about the broader basis of the pyramid which we had to build. This report is proof of the success of the National Party. If we boast of this today— and we can indeed boast of it—it does not mean that there are no shortcomings. We who began Bantu education, and struggle with it daily, are the very ones who know the problems. Therefore the Secretary for Bantu Education could write the following, on page 2 of the report—

We realize all too well what bottlenecks there are in Bantu education. But I want to deal with a different point today. I want to tell the hon. member for Edenvale that I wish that he and I had a day longer to talk about these matters. As an ex-minister of religion, I would be able to convert that hon. member back to the straight and narrow path.

Is he not an ex-elder?

Perhaps he is an ex-elder; I do not know. There are quite a few other hon. members whom I shall also like to get at. I want to say today in this House that the ingratitude on the part of the liberal world amazes me. Here in South Africa we have a Bantu education policy which is stimulated and planned by the so-called suppressors of the Black people. Prof. Jackson, a well-known academic, made a speech at the University of South Africa on the occasion of a graduation ceremony. He comes from the University of the Witwatersrand and as far as his politics is concerned, I do not want to link him, because in my opinion he gives a completely objective view. His view is not that of this side or that of that side, but one can see that he is a man who has a certain insight in respect of Bantu education and in respect of tertiary education. In his speech he said:

He is speaking here of the separate universities. He proceeded:

Today I should like to pay tribute to those Whites who have continued calmly under the most difficult of circumstances to bring the modern educational principles and ideas home to the Bantu population groups. When they commenced their task, their work was made tremendously more difficult, or as is said in this speech, “Their roles have not always been easy or happy”. This “easy” and “happy” is determined by the fact that we in South Africa have had not only liberalists, but also vandals, people who simply never saw what the realities were and who came forward in a spirit of perversity to change the basic structures in South Africa. The fact that it was neither easy nor happy, had its origin in the fact that we were dealing with people who did not have any conception of cultural identities and in that way made the work of these people more difficult. Therefore the monument for Bantu education is even more worthy because we have achieved so much success against the onslaught of these people. Bantu education has been much belittled by the liberalists. In the book Trends and Challenges in the Education of the South African Bantu, W. M. Kgware wrote several things which I want to quote. The book is somewhat dated—it is about three years old—but he wrote the following in an article under the title, “The present revolution in Bantu education and its implications for the future” on page 65:

or Black Progressive, or whatever we want to call it. I quote further:

Did he say so in the book?

No, he did not refer to the Progressive Party …

[Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Rissik should have been a propaganda stooge. He oozes such self-satisfaction and brag. I am afraid I cannot agree with the extreme praise he loads on the department because, where he sees monumental achievement, I see a monumental vacuum which makes the big hole of Kimberley look like a pinprick in the ground. Almost every section of this department is plagued by shortages. Despite the efforts which are being made to bridge the gap between supply and demand, the gap is not being closed. Shortage is the key word. We have shortages of classrooms, books, teachers, matriculants, and university graduates. Technicians and artisans are in short supply. The amount of money that is voted to this department is also meagre. In fact, there is only one thing that is not in short supply and that is the number of Bantu who want education. In this respect there is a glut. There can be no doubt that the hon. the Deputy Minister is well aware of the difficulties. His departmental report openly admits that there are problems and that it must be accepted that bottlenecks are inevitable. Of course, if the Government continues with its present policy, these bottlenecks will continue as well. When it comes to the stage where we as an Opposition do not have to battle to discover the problems as they are openly admitted in the report, we feel a crisis situation has developed in this department. I hope the hon. the Deputy Minister is going to effect some dynamic changes to meet this crisis. For instance, if one examines the figures for pupil enrolment, one see that the average annual increase in the enrolment of Bantu pupils taken over the past seven years has been approximately 200 000. The Bantu population during the previous seven years, from 1961 to 1967 showed an average yearly net increase of 320 000. The conclusion one must come to is that thousands of Bantu applicants are being turned away from schools. In other words, they do not get a formal education. It is denied them and they have to face the prospect of a life of poverty on the outskirts of society where, as I think the hon. the Deputy Minister knows very well, crime is an easy next step.

If, again looking at this report, one considers the position in regard to teacher training, one sees that the average number of teachers trained over the past four years was approximately 4 000 per year. That makes the average pupil: teacher ratio 50:1. Approximately one-fifth or 11 673 of these teachers are involved in double sessions at which over one million Bantu pupils are taught. Of the total number of teachers of 62 879, 17,6% have no qualifications at all. These figures of pupil involvement and teachers trained show, firstly, a picture of thousands of Bantu children who just cannot be given formal schooling and, secondly, that those children who can get into a classroom often experience crowded conditions of 50 pupils to a class. I ask you, Mr. Chairman, whether this cannot be considered a critical position. I want to ask the hon. member for Rissik if he still thinks it is such a wonderful position.

I should like to go further and refer again to the 11 673 teachers who at double sessions teach over a million Bantu children. In my opinion we have another Victorian treadmill situation here except that the victims are teachers who overworked and under-supplied toil dismally to impart the rudimentary scraps of education to children who are eager for enlightenment. That is the morning shift. In the afternoon there is a fresh batch of 50 or more children eager for knowledge that this poor teacher has to accommodate. I feel that the double session system is a soul-destroying abomination and must be removed. In its report released in 1975 the commission on education appointed by the Transkeian Government commented that very little is achieved except that the drop-out rate increases. Rebelliousness, poor health and lack of incentive among the pupils exist and disillusionment and resignations among the teachers are the unhappy consequences.

It seems to me that Bantu education is in need of massive reorientation. There was some indication on the part of the hon. the Deputy Minister this afternoon that there might be some news for us in this connection. It would seem that a reexamination of policy, of approach and of finance is an urgent necessity. The hon. the Deputy Minister made an impassioned plea to the House last week. He said that Nationalist policy was not one of the suppression of people. We accept the fact that the hon. the Deputy Minister is a man of sincerity. I hope that he was referring in his statement to a re-direction of policy in Bantu education. Progress is undoubtedly being made. Schools are being built. This year five new teacher training colleges are to be opened and I should like the hon. the Deputy Minister in his reply to tell us how many teachers it is envisaged will be trained in these five new institutions. Audiovisual aids are being introduced where there is electricity and the new central library scheme is in operation. However these to us are incidentals. What in our opinion is required is free and compulsory schooling, equal salary scales and merit promotion. The hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Development also said last week that it was time the Bantu got on to helping themselves. This is a laudable comment except that I want to say that one has to give them the tools with which to help themselves. I should like to refer to an article which appeared in The Star headlined “No books so no education”. This report states—

I am sure they want to get on and do the job and they must be assisted to do this in the same way as Whites are. So much for policy changes.

I want to refer in the second instance to revised methods. It is no longer acceptable that the Government openly confesses to the fact that there is a shortage of teachers, that there is a backlog in the training of teachers and that 11 000 plus are unqualified while at the same time it continues with a system which obviously generates this problem. In this next year we will have the advent of television, and I want to say to the hon. the Deputy Minister that here is an opportunity where, in conjunction with the hon. the Minister of Health, he could benefit. Not only will communal TV sets in every village decrease the birth rate; TV can also act as a teaching aid to supplement the teacher shortage. If programmes like Sesame Street in the United States are televised, the word-power of the pre-school-going child will be developed. Such progress will help considerably towards avoiding the communications gap which stunts the pupil’s later advance and contributes largely to the dropout rate in primary schools.

Finally, I should like to deal with the question of finance. It seems to me that if the Government is to avoid the danger of this deteriorating situation—the lack of education for the Bantu—the Department of Bantu Education must be given a higher rating in Cabinet priorities when the Budget is prepared. What can be achieved with an increase in expenditure of only R9 million? I submit that the figure should be more like R90 million. To a large extent the Government is reaping the fruits of the dark ages of the sixties. During the period 1960 to 1969 the expenditure on Bantu Education crawled up to only R23 million. The hon. the Deputy Minister is aware of the financial demands in this regard. He himself said last week that we must bend the economy to prevent people turning into rapists and murderers. These are powerful words. He does get support from the private sector in his comments, but I feel that he has left out an acknowledgment to the English Press for its outstanding contribution towards Bantu education. To date the figure is R1½ million. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, the hon. members for Edenvale and Pietermaritzburg Central accused the Government of something of which it is entirely innocent. They took it amiss of the Government that the education of the Bantu was not equal to that of the Whites. They also stated that the per capita expenditure on Bantu education compared poorly with that of the Whites. We must go back to see where this comes from. There are two problems in particular. The first was the backlog which the National Party inherited from the United Party. There was an enormous backlog in this connection. In the second place there is the tremendous population increase among the Bantu. They do not refer to that. According to the mid-year estimate by the Department of Statistics based on the censusses of 1960 and 1970, the population increase among the Blacks for 1971-’72, for example, was calculated at 2,83%, and that of the Whites at 1,45%. That makes all the difference. However, they do not look at that. The hon. member for Pietermaritzburg Central also said that we should give the Bantu the tools and let them undertake their education themselves. Surely they have the tools. They can make a major contribution to their own education by improving the per capita expenditure by means of controlled population increase. That they will never discuss.

When discussing family planning and control of the increase in the population, we must bear two basic principles in mind, principles which do not concern statistics as such. The first is the economic welfare of the family and the second is the personal welfare of the family. There is nothing wrong with taking these two basic principles into account when dealing with family planning and a population explosion.

I now want to deal with a matter of which this hon. House must take cognizance. I should like to pay tribute to private bodies. In the first place I want to say that as regards the farming community, which has been much criticized here by the Opposition, that community is responsible for 3 800 farm schools which are established at the moment and which accommodate about 400 000 Black pupils. On a basis R1 500 per class-room, the farming community in our country has already spent R7½ million on education for its Black farm workers. This is a praiseworthy achievement. The hon. Opposition would do very well to follow this example.

I now come to the study trust fund. This is a fund established last year from the heart of the Afrikaans-speaking section, a section which experienced the same problems in regard to its education in the past. At the beginning of this year this study trust fund had already made 60 bursaries available to students to the value of R7 000. Hon. members who are interested in contributing to the study trust fund may contact the hon. member for Johannesburg West or me. Then, too, Sir, there is The Star fund. The Star established its fund with a contribution of R2 920 out of its own pocket. Two months later this fund had been boosted to R15 000. Work has now started on the first school of 12 class-rooms at a cost of R18 600. Momentum was imparted to this fund when a prominent Johannesburg businessman donated R1 500 to the fund—the cost of one class-room— and others asked to do the same. In its first one and a half years, this fund has paid for the construction” of 13 primary schools and the completion of one secondary school in Soweto. In 1973 The Star donated R25 000 to this fund to provide for a 12-classroom primary school. To date, 13 companies and one anonymous businessman have donated R25 000 for schools on the East and West Rand. Over the past 3½ years, since the inception of the fund, at least 50 primary and junior secondary schools have been constructed in co-operation with the local authorities. In this way school facilities have been provided for more than 18 000 pupils on the West Rand. One can only convey one’s appreciation to the donors. White, Brown, Black and Asian businessmen have contributed, and English-and Afrikaans-speaking individuals as well. Others, too, Sir, have been inspired by The Star’s action and today this fund amounts to R1 138 000. Apart from The Star’s fund, there is The Argus Teach Fund, the Daily News Learn Fund and the Pretoria News Learn Fund. Altogether, these four Teach and Learn Funds have collected almost R2 million. This is an achievement of which we must take cognizance. In three years, The Argus has collected R245 882 for the establishment of five schools, accommodating 5 000 pupils. The Pretoria News Learn Fund was established in May 1974 and has already collected more than R60 000. The biggest donor was the South African Citrus Fund. It would perhaps interest hon. members to know that the hon. the Deputy Minister of Bantu Administration and Education, Mr. Janson, has also contributed to this fund. Sir, the school for the Zulu community in Mamelodi is to be completed within a few weeks’ time and will accommodate 600 pupils. This school is being financed by the Pretoria News Learn Fund. Sir, when we consider these achievements on the part of private initiative, then we want to invite the Opposition, too, to consider what they can do. We know what the Department of Bantu Education has achieved in this regard. [Interjection.] Sir, the attitude of hon. members of the Opposition is that more and more services must be provided, but they are not prepared to pay the higher tax that must be lcvied if those services are to be provided. That is the mentality of the Opposition. I want to urge them to take more a positive interest in matters of this nature; to be more helpful to the Government and to level less criticism—undeserved criticism—at this National Party Government, which has done more for Bantu education than any of its predecessors, and more than the party on that side would do if they were ever to come to power. Sir, the Department of Bantu Education has succeeded in effecting phenomenal growth in the sphere of Bantu education, and we owe them a debt of gratitude in that regard.

Mr. Chairman. I want to begin by congratulating the hon. the Minister and the Government on the important announcement the hon. the Minister made here this afternoon in respect of the establishment of a special medical, veterinary and dental school at Ga Rankuwa. Sir, this is a very long felt need of all Black universities, and I am speaking here as a member of the council of one of those universities. I think the Government is to be congratulated on the method it is using to supplement the appalling shortage of doctors among our Blacks. In this way considerable duplication of staff and facilities, which is naturally expensive, is eliminated, and I believe that we shall give our Blacks the best service in respect of this particular training too.

†Sir, I wish to refer, however, to a speech made earlier here this afternoon by the hon. member for Pinelands. I daresay that he was more responsible in his approach here this afternoon than he was when he reacted in the Press to the expropriation of the federal theological seminary at Alice, because this is what the hon. member said on that occasion—

The report goes on to say—

Sir, why did the hon. member for Pinelands have to resort to this type of comment? Either he was intentionally objectionable, or he was not aware of the true facts. Sir, this statement was issued on 25 April of this year. The Minister issued at least two statements before that date, one on 27 November and one again on 3 February, which set out the full circumstances surrounding this take-over. I quote further—

He looks like a pirate.

Sir, I want to object most strongly to this type of statement being mads in the public Press by people who are supposed to hold responsible positions. But, Sir, one does of course have this problem with the hon. member that one does not know whether he is posing as a minister of religion in this House or whether he is posing as a politician outside. Not for a long time, Sir, has such a climate been created around an event as has been created in this case by ecclesiastical bodies and people in the service of churches. Sir, I want to make it very clear that I have the highest regard for churches. I am not attacking any church, but when bodies such as these make derogatory remarks and misrepresentations and spread half-truths under the cloak of churches, I revolt against it, and I do not want this to be interpreted as a revolt against the churches. Sir, what did the Bishop of Johannesburg have to say about this event? I quote from the Cape Times of 26 April—

Sir, I reject this man’s opinion on our Christianity in this country with the contempt it deserves. Obviously he does not know what is happening in this country. But this type of remark is made because there are hon. members sitting here in this House instigating and helping these people to make this type of remark. In this connection I want to refer to another little publication, Outlook, which says the following about itself—

But then the publication goes and devotes an entire edition to this expropriation of the seminary at Alice. Sir, let us have it placed on record. The hon. the Minister pointed out this afternoon that this expropriation was done purely for educational purposes for the benefit of the Fort Hare University, and that there were no other motives for this expropriation. I think hon. members feel guilty, because it is strange that this seminary had just left Alice en bloc, bag and baggage, and moved to Umtata, when the Chief Minister of the Transkei found it necessary to react in his Legislative Assembly in the following way. This report comes from the Daily Despatch of 9 April—

Sir, this is not what was said by us and this is not what was said by the hon. the Minister. These words about the seminary were used by Chief Minister Matanzima after they had been in the Transkei for only a month. Let us understand one another. In this case, too, a climate was created. Then it was said, in the same newspaper—

Sir, it really is strange that there are always threats, that the aid of foreign countries always has to be called in when it is suspected that action is going to be taken against the church. But I want to come back to the so-called truth propagated by this publication Outlook in respect of this matter. It is ridiculous to see the reaction. Their final paragraph in the introductory article reads as follows—

Sir, is this expropriation being done in the interests of a White university, or is it being done for the benefit of the Blacks, for the benefit of the Xhosa people? And allow me to say that Fort Hare University is a source of great pride to the Xhosa people. Training of the highest quality is given there, and to allege that this land is being stolen, as has been alleged here, for the benefit of the White man, is a devillish lie. This publication then goes further. This rumour was spread all over South Africa, and was also repeated by the hon, member for Pinelands, who said at one stage that there was more than enough land the University of Fort Hare could use for expansions. Now other things are being dragged in. The University has an experimental farm of 500 morgen four to five miles from there, which is actively used for its agricultural students. It is being suggested that they should have used that land for their expansions. Then certain land under irrigation is also referred to and it is said that they could have gone there. Another piece of land on the other side of the river is referred to, but it happens to be the same piece of land on the other side of the river which is now being used for the provision of badly needed sports fields. In 1961 the same piece of land was offered to the seminary for them to settle there, but then it was not regarded as suitable. For Fort Hare, however, it is suitable for expansion. Sir, I have raised this matter because I felt that the arrogance of certain bodies in this country who allegedly act on behalf of churches should come to an end and be exposed in this House.

The hon. member for Cradock will pardon me if I do not follow up on him. I am quite sure the hon. member for Pinelands will reply to his accusations. I just want to come back briefly to the hon. member for Hercules. I must say the hon. member for Hercules is a level-headed member. He made a very positive speech here at the beginning. He spoke mainly on organizations making financial contributions for the advancement of Bantu education. Sir, this is something we all support. He spoke about Learn and Teach and other similar organizations. I hope I misunderstood him, but I must say I found it regrettable when he tried to imply the following towards the end in connection with Teach and Learn: “Just look at what the Government and the people are doing, but what are you in the Opposition doing?” Sir, many of the contributions to Learn and Teach come from the ranks of the Opposition, and I do not think the hon. member meant it that way.

†Last year I made a plea for the greater use of White teachers in Bantu education and I asked the Minister and the department to launch an appropriate scheme. Unfortunately nothing has happened about this and I only want to express my disappointment, because I still believe it has tremendous merit. But what I want to raise today with the hon. the Minister is the apparent prohibition on White teachers to help on a part-time or even a fulltime basis in farm schools and community schools. I have a particular case in mind, which has been referred to the department. This is the case of a teacher, the wife of a farmer. She lives on a farm and has had eight and a half years of teaching experience. She is a qualified teacher, and when she wrote to the department offering her services on a part-time or a full-time basis, this was the reply she received—

Now this, I believe, is an extremely shortsighted policy on the part of the department, and in fact I believe it is acting irresponsibly if one takes the circumstances into consideration. There must be many qualified female teachers, farmers’ wives, who would be prepared to assist on a part-time basis, and I would appeal to the Minister that in respect of Bantu farm schools or community schools, a more sensible approach should be adopted.

Whether we regard ourselves as living in a multi-national or a multi-racial country, or whether we regard ourselves as citizens of one country or as the citizens of many countries, the fact remains that in South Africa there should at all times be equality in educational standards. The people of South Africa, Black, Brown and White, will progressively compete with each other more and more on the same labour market, and this will happen in spite of the fact that a facade is being created that job reservation is strictly adhere to, because we all know that it is being circumvented to an ever-increasing extent by exemptions. From time to time in the past we have heard rumours that the educational standards are not the same. I want to put the hon. the Minister’s mind at rest. I believe, as far as my knowledge goes, and up to the present time, that these accusations are completely unfounded. At the present moment Bantu education is organized on a 13-year school structure, with eight years in the primary school and five years in the high school, as compared with the 12-year school structure you have in White education. Prior to differentiated education, a child had seven years in primary school and five years in the high school. Admission to form I, in other words to Std. 6 in the high schools, is subject, first of all, to obtaining a Std. 6 continuation certificate which comes at the end of primary school. This certificate, obtainable after eight years of schooling, is a prerequisite, not only for formal secondary education but also for formal artisan training, for instance, in the building, carpentry, bricklaying, and plumbing trades. A four year post-Std. VI course has been introduced. The very fact that Std. VI was repeated twice, so to say, and the fact that it came at the end of a particular phase of schooling, was a sufficient safeguard for the compatibility and comparability of standards of education. One can also look upon this present arrangement as being an admission, on the part of Bantu education, that the Std. V of the Bantu primary school cannot really be compared with the Std. V of the White primary school. As from next year the department will change over completely to a 12-year school structure to bring it into line with the other education departments. I have nothing against this as I believe it is necessary. It is also commendable that the department is prepared to accept this challenge. The department is also abolishing the Std. VI certificate. I have nothing against that as such because in terms of the new syllabi and curricula Std. VI indicates the middle year of a phase, a junior secondary school phase, which commences in Std. V and ends in Std. VII. This means that there is no end point in Std. VI as far as educational advancement is concerned. Now, however, the Std. VI certificate is to be replaced by a higher primary school certificate which will be awarded at the end of Std. V; in other words, after seven years of formal schooling and after the completion of one year of junior secondary schooling. By doing this, I believe that the department is making a very serious mistake which could possibly re-activate accusations of inequality in standards, and more important, that this decision will lead to an earlier drop-out from school. The moment a certificate is obtained it unfortunately acts as an incentive to many students to leave school. At present this happens after eight years of formal schooling; in other words, after the Std. VI continuation certificate has been obtained. In future this will happen after seven years of schooling. At present there is a negligible drop-out between the seventh and eighth years of schooling; in other words, between Std. V and Std. VI. There is, however, a dramatic drop-out between the eighth and ninth year of schooling; in other words, at the end of Std. VI and the beginning of form I or Std. VII. In 1966 there were 104 000 pupils in Std. V. In 1967 that 104 000 became 99 000 in Std. VI. This means a negligible drop-out of 5 000. The following year, 1968, only 42 000 of these pupils were in form I or Std. VII; in other words, after they had obtained a certificate. This means that there was a drastic drop-out of 57 000. I would like to quote more recent figures. In 1972 there were 176 000 pupils in Std. V. In 1973 the figure went up to 181 000 in Std. VI. After having obtained a certificate, however, there was a drop-out of 101 000. This means that there were only 80 000 the next year. With this new arrangement you will in future find that many more Bantu in South Africa will have some kind of education certificate, but in real educational terms this certificate will not have the same value as was the case in the past when the Std. VI continuation certificate could be obtained. The problem is that it has no counterpart in the educational system of either the Whites, Coloureds or Indians. Confusion will be created. Another point I want to make is that Std. V no longer comes at the end of the primary school phase. Std. IV is the end in terms of the new syllabi. Naturally the department did not want a certificate to be awarded at the end of Std. IV because that would have meant a drop-out after six years. Therefore it decided to come to some kind of compromise, namely to have a dropout after the seventh year. It is, however, a meaningless one as it comes in the middle of an orientation phase in the form of the new syllabus and curriculum starting in Std. VI. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, I find it amazing that the hon. member who has just been chatting—I cannot express it in any other way—and who does, after all, have practical experience of education, can come along this afternoon with the proposal, which to me is a ridiculous one, that we should use White teaching staff in Bantu schools. It is very clear that in practice, when, one is dealing with young school-children, one can certainly not use the services of White teachers because the practical implications are simply too far-reaching. I do not have the time to go into this but I am quite sure that the hon. member knows this himself. Why he should come here this afternoon with such a lot of rubbish is beyond me.

I want to refer to what the hon. members for Edenvale and Pietermaritzburg North had to say. I find it striking that these two hon. members should have adopted such an absolutely negative viewpoint in regard to the report of the Department of Bantu Education. Admittedly, the hon. member for Edenvale mentioned a few cases of progress which he emphasized. I should have been able to quote a great many more cases of progress from the report. Immediately afterwards the same hon. member advocated free education, on the one hand, and on the other hand he referred to the shortcomings. It is very clear to me that the hon. member does not, in fact, realize what he is advocating when he advocates free education or compulsory education.

It is very clear to me that when compulsory education is advocated, there are certain implications that we shall immediately have to bear in mind. The first is that there is undoubtedly a legal implication in the sense that as soon as we have compulsory education, the onus will be transferred to the parent and the parent will therefore have to see to it that he delivers his child to the school, irrespective of the distance between the parent’s home and the school. The other important point is the fact that the child himself will, to a large extent, have to have the sense of responsibility to realize that he has to attend school. I now want to ask the hon. member for Edenvale and Pietermaritzburg North whether they believe, in all honesty and fairness, that the Bantu parent and the Bantu child are capable of grasping that responsibility today. After all, it is pointless to establish something with which these people are simply unable to cope.

But there is another aspect too, Sir. If we want to introduce compulsory education, then a responsibility rests on the Government, too, to put the necessary educational facilities at the disposal of the Bantu. Surely that is very clear. The Opposition complains that at present there are insufficient facilities. I refer again to the hon. member for Edenvale who referred to sufficient schools and classrooms. His argument is that there is an insufficient number of schools. The fact is that last year there were 57 592 classrooms for 3½ million Black pupils, which works out to about 66 pupils per classroom. However, there is another very important aspect, too, which we must bear in mind. About 20% of the total Bantu population viz. 3½ million, attends school at present. But the fact to be borne in mind is that about 27% of the Bantu fall into the age group that should really be attending school. This means that there are about one million Bantu children who are not at school at present. If there is already a shortage of classrooms and we were to compel another million children to attend school under a system of compulsory education, then surely it is very clear that this acute shortage of classrooms would become more acute. This is something which I shall come back to shortly. The other matter that we must bear in mind is that there must definitely be schools for Blacks that compare very well with the White schools, otherwise the criticism will be levelled at us by the Opposition that we are fobbing these people off with penurious little schools. Educational aids must also be provided in respect of free education. This means that if we want to implement fully a system of free education, we should also have to provide text books entirely free. The present system, in terms of which the class readers are provided free to all pupils in primary schools, and most textbooks are provided free from Std. 3 onwards, already costs R1½ million per annum. It is calculated—this is with reference to a question which the hon. member for Houghton asked the hon. the Minister—that if free education were to be implemented in full, it would cost an estimated R5 million per annum.

For free books?

Yes, for free books and stationery. Surely it is very clear that at present those funds simply do not exist. The hon. member must not fall over there. He must take care, because before long he is going to fall over.

When we have compulsory education, then we shall have even more of a problem as far as teachers are concerned. At present, according to the criticism levelled by the Opposition, we have too few Bantu teachers. If we were to introduce compulsory education, and there were to be an additional one million children, this short-age would become so much the more acute. At the moment the teacher/pupil ratio at the Bantu schools is about 53:1, and in the homelands it is even somewhat worse than that. Taking all these things into account, and bearing in mind the financial implications, it is calculated that if compulsory education were to be introduced, an additional 67 000 teachers would be required. This would therefore mean 67 000 extra classrooms as well. That being so, an estimated R376 million per annum would be required for primary education alone, as against the R150 million that is at present being spent on all Bantu education. Surely it is unthinkable that this could be brought into effect immediately. It is no secret that it is definitely Government policy to introduce compulsory education in the long term. The Government is not flinching from that and the hon. member for Edenvale said that too, but immediately after saying so, he came up with these claims of the day. In my opinion, Sir, this was really stated too negatively.

I want to refer to another aspect. In my opinion there are other priorities in Black education to which we must give attention. At present the education of the Black child starts at age 7, whereas for the Whites it starts at age 6. According to all educational research, it would have a beneficial effect if these pupils could start attending school at the age of 6. That aspect could be rectified first. Secondly, it is calculated that about 10% of the schoolgoing population of all pupils requires special education. As far as the Bantu are concerned, this means 400 000 pupils. Nothing is as yet being done about this, but now the Opposition comes along and advocates compulsory education. Double sessions, to which reference has been made here, are undoubtedly not the ideal situation at the present moment, but the Government is aware of this and is doing everything in its power to solve this problem as well. The same goes for platoon education. However, there is insufficient time to go into that in detail now. There is the matter of adult education. As yet, nothing is being done about that, either —although it is an extremely important aspect of education.

I should like to bring another matter to the attention of the hon. the Minister. Would it not be possible to give consideration to the establishment of certain institutes to train technicians for use in the Bantu homelands.—perhaps along exactly the same lines as the envisaged medical school under the auspices of the Bantu universities? I believe that technicians too, are a presssing need in the Bantu homelands. [Time expired.]

Mr. Chairman, as this debate progresses, and the more we have to listen to the same arguments raised by the Opposition every year, the more we realize that the United Party with its satellites on the other side of the House is finding itself in a more and more unrealistic situation. As far as the education of the Bantu is concerned, all three parties on the other side of the House have the same problem, viz. they do not want separate development to succeed. We have said this before. If separate development fails, the only alternative, in the view of those three parties, is integrated education and integrated schools. However, I have yet to hear one of those parties advocate this because they do not have an alternative that lies between those two educational directions. What, then, do those people advocate? They advocate better education under the present administration. In other words, they do not see their way clear to advocating the alternative, which forms part of their educational policy, viz. integration. They are now in the strange situation of having to advocate an improved system within a system that we stand for. I want to tell the hon. Opposition that I do not believe that the National Party Government will be ploughed under as a result of its education policy, its Bantu education policy in particular. Consequently, anything said by the Opposition in this House or said or written outside this House can only harm them. One of the things the Opposition must not do is try and create the impression among people outside that this Government is unsympathetic towards the Bantu, his education and his children because in fact, the opposite is true. In contrast to this Government, which has succeeded for the past 27 years in providing education for the Bantu, by the Bantu, through the Bantu, we have the tragic history—we can prove it with facts and statistics—that when the United Party was still in power, it really neglected the Bantu child. It is really atrocious history if one were to go into the merits of the matter. [Interjections.] I accuse all three parties of this because we are not aware that the parties split on the issue of their Bantu education policy. Although two of the parties must still take part in this debate, the three parties talk the same language.

One of the priorities the Government set itself in 1948 in regard to Bantu education was to bring the school within reach of the Bantu child and the Bantu child within reach of his school. In this regard there were a number of problems of which I could mention five. We admit today that we experienced a number of problems. One of the first and biggest problems we were faced with, was to establish a sound education policy and sound educational legislation. What we have on the Statute Book today was only passed in the face of the greatest resistance from that side of the House. At a time when we could have been engaged in this for five years, this House had to sit right through to the small hours to put something on the Statute Book with which we could continue. There was an acute shortage of adequate buildings and adequate Bantu schools to which these children could go. Worst of all—hon. members opposite are continually referring to this— is the shortage of teachers. We shall discuss this matter shortly on the basis of statistics. Probably the biggest problem was the tremendous population explosion which occurred to a greater extent among the Bantu than among the other population groups. In spite of the most bitter resistance which the Government had to face in 1953 in its efforts to uplift the Bantu from their inferior position, in which respect we have had no assistance, from the Opposition, progress has nevertheless been made, and today we can reveal some interesting statistics. I have before me the statistics for 1950 and I want to compare them with those for 1974. In the first instance there has been an increase of 127% in the number of schools, but perhaps this coincides with the increase in population. The increase in the number of teachers has been 242%, which is entirely out of proportion to the increase in the number of schools. In other words, this Government has done its duty.

[Inaudible.]

I come back to the teachers. The number of pupils for whom provision had to be made rose by more than 400%, whereas during the same period, from 1950 to 1974, the Bantu population increased by only 91%. In other words, the backlog inherited by the National Party in 1948 had to be eliminated in the face of a population increase among the Bantu of almost 100%. What is more, over this period the National Party increased its expenditure on Bantu education by more than 600%. In the past year alone it was increased by almost R10 million. That is the factual position.

[Inaudible.]

That hon. member is constantly interrupting. If he were to make a study of the statistics instead of interrupting, I could perhaps assist him. The fact is that 71% of the Bantu teachers who taught in 1974 were not even 14 years old in 1948. That is how young those teachers still are. Seventy-one per cent of them are undoubtedly the product of this Government’s teacher-training. At present we have 63 000 teachers teaching the Bantu. About 860 of them are Whites. The Whites need those 860 teachers themselves. Therefore I cannot see how the hon. member for Durban Central can make the plea here that still more people should be drawn from the White community to teach the Bantu. If that party had done its duty before 1948, we should have had the necessary Bantu teachers today, even though the hon. member for Durban Central were to say “no”, a hundred times over. It must be borne in mind that if people are trained for a specific type of work, that work must be provided. That is why we should not be obsessed solely by Bantu education in the way that the Opposition parties are. They only see one facet, viz. that which corresponds with their federal viewpoint. My question to the Opposition parties is: “Can one have education developing in isolation, without all the other things?” They will probably tell me: “No, these things must go together.” That is why we had to make a start with resettlement here. The first major task we had to perform was the task of resettlement, viz. of first creating order in respect of the Bantu residential areas. The provision of accommodation and the whole process of community development coincided with resettlement. This could only take place concurrently with the development of the economy of the country for which the Government has made very thorough provision, and all this within the framework of the population increase. If the United Party wants to make us believe that they are not to blame for the difficulties we are faced with today, then I say that they do not know their own history, and then I say to the other two parties sitting beside them that it is high time they asked the United Party where they stand in regard to a Bantu education policy. [Time expired.]

In the first place, Mr. Chairman, in the few minutes at my disposal I should just like to express my thanks for the calm manner in which this matter, a vital one for our fatherland, is being discussed. I just want to say a few words this evening concerning two minor matters. I hope to elaborate on them further tomorrow and in addition, to reply to the matters that have been raised. In the first place, I just want to say that what has been said by both sides concerning the acute shortages of classroom space are, quite simply, true. I can inform you that we have funds available, funds offered voluntarily and other funds, too, which we have been unable to utilize recently. The reason is that over the past few years, since about 1967, a fixed amount of only R1 500 per classroom has been allowed by the Department of Community Development for the construction of school buildings. This often resulted in our having tenders submitted to us, only to be warned that the tenders exceeded the fixed amount, and we were simply unable to come out on that figure. This caused excessive delays. I can now inform you of the good news that after long negotiations with the National Housing Commission, the Department of Community Development has increased that unit cost per classroom from R1 500 to R3 400. This makes it possible for the available funds to be utilized shortly in order to provide the necessary space which is so essential in the residential areas. It will remain the responsibility of the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards to find funds.

I want to repeat the appeal I made this afternoon under another Vote, viz. that we should really give the Bantu Affairs Administration Boards our co-operation so that they may have the funds to construct these buildings. The approval of a larger amount is pointless if funds enabling them to make use of this are not available. A 16-classroom building for a junior primary school, for example, will cost approximately R28 000; a senior primary school and its accompaniments will cost R98 000; a 16-classroom building for a junior secondary school—because it includes laboratories and other things will cost R124 000.

Hon. members will therefore be able to grasp the enormous expense involved. I just want to mention that in the Cape Peninsula, for example, where a large amount is available owing to the voluntary fund of a local newspaper, the Argus group, it is now possible to start eliminating the backlog immediately. In the second place, I just want to announce—I think it is necessary for me to do so—that the hon. the Minister has conducted negotiations at the highest level with the officials of other departments, too, and that a review is taking place at the moment of ways in which all the funds in the homelands and elsewhere can be channelled in such a way as to bring about the greatest possible utilization of available funds, to avoid wastage or duplication and ensure proper utilization of the funds that will be made available to us. These matters are being considered and discussed at the highest level at the moment. I can say, too, that even while they are being discussed they are being implemented, too, as is being announced.

Business interrupted in accordance with Standing Order No. 23.

House Resumed:

Progress reported and leave granted to sit again.